Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The problem with Johnson is that he doesn't seem to believe in anything much - he simply wants to be top of the heap and getting lots of publicity and money. And to do that he will go along with whatever policies he thinks are going to put him there - see Brexit. So no, he isn't "far right" - but if he thought the far right would support a successful return to power he would adopt their policies.
The problem with Johnson is that he doesn't seem to believe in anything much - he simply wants to be top of the heap and getting lots of publicity and money. And to do that he will go along with whatever policies he thinks are going to put him there - see Brexit. So no, he isn't "far right" - but if he thought the far right would support a successful return to power he would adopt their policies.
I think it's become abundantly clear that the *only* thing Johnson is interested in is himself - no-one else and nothing else matters to him. Hence "cakeism", "partygate", etc. - in his mind he must always be allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the damage to others.
I really hope we've seen the last of him in any position of responsibility, and I can't see him buckling down to working as a back bench MP. But he seems to have some powerful and equally self-interested backers, and he may yet try to push his way back in, especially if the Tories are badly damaged at the next election.
To get back on topic, much of the last paragraph could apply also to Bolsonaro!
The problem with Johnson is that he doesn't seem to believe in anything much - he simply wants to be top of the heap and getting lots of publicity and money. And to do that he will go along with whatever policies he thinks are going to put him there - see Brexit. So no, he isn't "far right" - but if he thought the far right would support a successful return to power he would adopt their policies.
I would say it's a sign of the weakness of the country's democracy if he gets the highest judges in the country to give him a get out of jail card and walk away from any consequences for his crimes.
Perhaps so, but at the same time, we don't know the specifics of the meeting. It's very possible that they met him to explain that they would overrule any attempt at enacting emergency decrees to stay in power, and that it was better for him to accept defeat quietly rather than face being removed by force.
The problem with Johnson is that he doesn't seem to believe in anything much - he simply wants to be top of the heap and getting lots of publicity and money. And to do that he will go along with whatever policies he thinks are going to put him there - see Brexit. So no, he isn't "far right" - but if he thought the far right would support a successful return to power he would adopt their policies.
I agree with this. Johnson is not far-right at all, he's probably centre-right, however he is, as you say, quite prepared to do and say more or less anything (within reason) to keep himself in power.
Hence his pushing of jingoistic nonsense like Brexit. Not because he believed in it, he probably didn't care one way or another. However, he saw it as a route to becoming PM. And it worked, for a while at least.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If Trump or another like-minded President assumes power, prepare for a US-backed military coup to get Bolsonaro back in. The US have a history in meddling in South America in such a way, the most prominent perhaps being Pinochet in Chile.
So the US were involved in putting Pinochet in too? (I was well aware of Thatcher's unsavoury support of him). (EDIT: I see Wikipedia says this too, "On 11 September 1973, Pinochet seized power in Chile in a coup d'état, with the support of the US". Thank you, Nixon, you moronic, right-wing imbecile).
At school, aged about 16, we were shown a video by our RE teacher (RE at that age was more about social issues) of the horrors going on in Chile under that evil monster Pinochet.
Thatcher and Nixon's fawning adulation of him is symptomatic of a general problem: the West is quite prepared to support some truly nasty people, just as long as they are economically right-wing. Says it all that the US government sent vast numbers of its own young men to die on the other side of the world in Vietnam due to an irrational fear of communism, while it was quite prepared to put in power the mass murderer Pinochet. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Thatcher and Nixon's fawning adulation of him is symptomatic of a general problem: the West is quite prepared to support some truly nasty people, just as long as they are economically right-wing. Says it all that the US government sent vast numbers of its own young men to die on the other side of the world in Vietnam due to an irrational fear of communism, while it was quite prepared to put in power the mass murderer Pinochet. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
*Is* symptomatic? Has it escaped your attention that you're describing stuff that happened 40-50 years ago? To my mind, the US's role in helping put Pinochet in power was awful and wrong, and the US's actions in Vietnam were particularly atrocious. But it doesn't make sense to use stuff that the USA did on a few occasions 50 years ago as evidence of what the 'West' would do today.
I also think you're misrepresenting stuff somewhat in that paragraph: The fear of Communism was not at the time irrational: The then USSR was militarily powerful, controlled much of Western Europe by force, and made no secret of its desire to spread Communism to the rest of the World. It was also clearly very happy to interfere in other countries in order to spread Communism and subvert democracy. It really did represent a serious threat to Western countries. Morally, I don't think that justified the support the West gave to a number of pretty awful right wing dictatorships at the time, but it does explain the reasons for that support: It wasn't just about supporting anyone who was economically right wing in the way you claim: It was more about, protecting the way of life in the West from the threat of the USSR. I'd also point out that what you describe as 'fawning adulation' was more likely nothing like that: More of a pragmatic, 'We'd better support this guy because the alternative is Communism and the USSR becoming more influential' (That may or may not have been correct, but it's what many at the time believed).
*Is* symptomatic? Has it escaped your attention that you're describing stuff that happened 40-50 years ago? To my mind, the US's role in helping put Pinochet in power was awful and wrong, and the US's actions in Vietnam were particularly atrocious. But it doesn't make sense to use stuff that the USA did on a few occasions 50 years ago as evidence of what the 'West' would do today.
One of the individuals believed to have been involved is still alive (Henry Kissinger, although he is 99) and earlier this year suggested appeasing Russia to try and end the war, which older parts of history suggest doesn't work. Also while it's plausible that the US would struggle to get away with a repeat now, there are other ways countries can undermine others, we've seen Russia in particular take on cyber warfare/involvement to meddle in other countries' democratic systems. It's important to recall history to make sure its worst attributes are not repeated.
*Is* symptomatic? Has it escaped your attention that you're describing stuff that happened 40-50 years ago? To my mind, the US's role in helping put Pinochet in power was awful and wrong, and the US's actions in Vietnam were particularly atrocious. But it doesn't make sense to use stuff that the USA did on a few occasions 50 years ago as evidence of what the 'West' would do today.
I also think you're misrepresenting stuff somewhat in that paragraph: The fear of Communism was not at the time irrational: The then USSR was militarily powerful, controlled much of Western Europe by force, and made no secret of its desire to spread Communism to the rest of the World. It was also clearly very happy to interfere in other countries in order to spread Communism and subvert democracy. It really did represent a serious threat to Western countries. Morally, I don't think that justified the support the West gave to a number of pretty awful right wing dictatorships at the time, but it does explain the reasons for that support: It wasn't just about supporting anyone who was economically right wing in the way you claim: It was more about, protecting the way of life in the West from the threat of the USSR. I'd also point out that what you describe as 'fawning adulation' was more likely nothing like that: More of a pragmatic, 'We'd better support this guy because the alternative is Communism and the USSR becoming more influential' (That may or may not have been correct, but it's what many at the time believed).
Except Vietnam maintained its communist government, despite the US Government sending its 19 year olds to die there, and the world hasn't ended as a result.
I'd actually say communism wasn't the problem. It was Russian and Chinese nationalism and imperialism that was the problem in the Cold War, and in particular, Russia's desire to dominate its neighbours by force and coercion. Remember the USSR was essentially the Russian Empire and arose due to Russia conquering other countries. I have little doubt that something similar would have happened had there been a right-wing Russian dictator in the early part of the 20th century. And of course Russia is still a problematic state (to state the blindingly obvious) even though it is no longer communist.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Are we not allowed to make such casual speculative remarks? People might say this sort of thing in the pub all the time. I didn't say "he did", I said "it wouldn't surprise me if he did", based on my understanding of Bolsonaro's character. It wasn't even intended to be entirely serious: it was a casual throwaway comment. Are we not allowed to do that?
Well obviously in a democracy you're legally allowed to do that. The question is... should you? You seem to be saying that it's OK to randomly speculate on stuff for which you have no evidence. So let's see where that leads to: Shall we perhaps speculate that Donald Trump really won the 2020 presidential election and Joe Biden stole the election. Or maybe we could speculate that Ukraine is full of Nazis and that's why Russia had to invade.
I'm sure you can see where that is leading. Hopefully it's obvious that both of those speculations in my previous paragraph are utter rubbish - and indeed dangerous if people start repeating them. And sadly, in both cases, many people believing those outright falsehoods is what has happened.
Democracy is precious - and it relies crucially on people having reasonably accurate information and on people and politicians behaving responsibly and not seeking to spread lies and misinformation. You suggested a few posts ago that maybe the Brazilian election was rigged, and you did that without having any evidence at all that that is the case. Can you really not see how damaging, and how - frankly - dishonest doing that kind of thing is? Don't you think it would be better if we all try to base our discussions on facts and on what is actually going on in the World, rather than just making stuff up out of the blue and then dressing it up as a speculation or as a 'casual throwaway comment'?
(By the way, in case anyone misunderstands me: I am very happy that Lula won the election, although I'm somewhat dismayed that it was so close. I have no desire to defend Bolsonaro, whose policies I would say have caused huge harm to the Brazilian people and to the Amazon, and whose own commitment to democracy does look pretty suspect. But no matter how much you're opposed to someone, that doesn't justify making stuff up - which is the thing I'm taking issue with here).
I'm sure you can see where that is leading. Hopefully it's obvious that both of those speculations in my previous paragraph are utter rubbish - and indeed dangerous if people start repeating them. And sadly, in both cases, many people believing those outright falsehoods is what has happened.
Nice try. But the issue isn't that Trump speculated that he won the 2020 election or that Putin speculated that there are Nazis in Ukraine. Trump didn't just speculate, he stated, repeatedly, that he did win the election. Putin didn't just speculate, he ordered the invasion of a sovereign neighbouring country.
Suppressing speculation is right out of the authoritarian playbook.
Standard practice among dodgy right wing parties. Poland is struggling with exactly the same issue: a huge slush fund that is entirely outside the control of the Sejm/Senate, which is essentially a state-owned bank taking on a tremendous amount of debt without being subject to parliamentary oversight.
What is absolutely frightening is that this has now caused a load of copycats doing exactly the same thing. If they win, then the election was fair. If they lose, then the election was rigged.
Democracy is precious - and it relies crucially on people having reasonably accurate information and on people and politicians behaving responsibly and not seeking to spread lies and misinformation.
This is what concerns me. While the Brazilian democracy has held up here, part of the reason is that they have electronic voting which people generally trust. It's going to be a hugely different story in the next US Presidential election, especially as the Republicans intend to pack 'their' vote counters with people who are partisan.
Bolsonaro losing and (quietly, but still) agreeing to the transition of power is hugely important for the world, not just Brazil.
Standard practice among dodgy right wing parties. Poland is struggling with exactly the same issue: a huge slush fund that is entirely outside the control of the Sejm/Senate, which is essentially a state-owned bank taking on a tremendous amount of debt without being subject to parliamentary oversight.
That's very unfair - given the Sejm rubber-stamp everything and the Senate have limited blocking powers it's really only the very-slightly-less-unhinged president who actually stands in the way of crazy spending. Besides, they sometimes use one of the state-owned oil companies instead of the bank.
Good riddance. Trump - gone. Johnson - gone. Le Pen - kept out of power. Bolsonaro - gone. It's a huge relief to see the hard right no longer doing so well in elections across the globe.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.theguardian.com
