[wat0n]

The Tories self-imploded when David Cameron announced that they would hold a referendum on either staying in the EU or not, in case they won the next general election. This was in 2013 and 3 years later the unthinkable happened - the voters actually went for it. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things except for one minor detail. The Tories never wanted it to happen and could not imagine it ever would. They were dogs chasing a car and accidently caught a stick of dynamite dipped in superglue.

Since then, they have had to successively bring forward one greater clown than the one before to fullfill all the empty promises of yesteryear. Because anyone with a functioning brain knew that nothing could be done and no one wanted to be blamed for it when it all blew up in their faces.

David Cameron Is Sorry. Really, Really Sorry. (New York Times, 21 September 2019)

Bingo. I agree with you here, but how come they haven't gotten their act together still?

[noemon]

Bingo. I agree with you here, but how come they haven't gotten their act together still?

Because they did not implode after the vote and not only lingered on but were given an even greater majority in 2019.

That closed the lid on Brexit pragmatically for everybody.

So no point in getting an act together when the shit politically works, now that the economy bit, hopefully the narrative will change.

[Istanbuller]

Rishi Sunak is popular with MPs. Therefore, he might be behind this. But he is not popular with voters because of his race. He is stupid enough if he thinks he can win a general election.

[Potemkin]

Rishi Sunak is popular with MPs. Therefore, he might be behind this. But he is not popular with voters because of his race. He is stupid enough if he thinks he can win a general election.

Rishi Sunak is indeed unpopular with voters, but not because of his race. It's because of the fact that his wife is a tax-dodging billionaire, and Rishi Sunak himself is a bet-hedging opportunist. For example, he kept his American green card even after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. Because, you know, a better opportunity might come along in the US of A if this British thing doesn't pan out. Lol. It makes one question where his loyalties lie, or if he even has any. As I keep saying, the basic problem with the Tories is the fact that they tend to be unprincipled opportunists. Even more seriously, they seem incapable of hiding the fact.

[Istanbuller]

Rishi Sunak is indeed unpopular with voters, but not because of his race. It's because of the fact that his wife is a tax-dodging billionaire, and Rishi Sunak himself is a bet-hedging opportunist. For example, he kept his American green card even after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. Because, you know, a better opportunity might come along in the US of A if this British thing doesn't pan out. Lol. It makes one question where his loyalties lie, or if he even has any. As I keep saying, the basic problem with the Tories is the fact that they tend to be unprincipled opportunists. Even more seriously, they seem incapable of hiding the fact.

But MPs love bribery and expensive gifts from billonaries.

[Rich]

OK time for a quiz. As of late Thursday evening who's leading the race for the nominations according to the Guido Fawkes website?

And here's a clue.

[Tainari88]

@Potemkin @Tainari88 but even if you're right, that has always been the case. Yet it never ended like this.

So what is different now? Do they need an internal purge like the Labor Party did?

In my opinion, there is serious trouble in Europe. They need strong leadership. But? They won't be getting it.

The best they can hope for is renegotiating with the EU and trying to find some centrist politician with a real sense of destiny.

It is funny, but they don't have what it takes Wat0n because of what you really need to be a good politician. Dedication, tenacity, preserverance, and intelligence, and again PRINCIPLES.

Not all politicians are sellouts Wat0n. The best ones never are.

But if you are a thief you tend to judge others as if they are all thieves. They don't realize that the hallmark of a great politician is again, consistency.

Tories have evil policies. They always have had them. It is not surprising they attract evil and weak-willed people in general.

They say they have this or that for the nation. But the reality is they never push through anything of substance. It all is smokescreen stuff. Especially for the working class.

Nothing but lies for working class improvement. Tories are not good at again, consistency.

Los vendidos are there in full force.

[wat0n]

In my opinion, there is serious trouble in Europe. They need strong leadership. But? They won't be getting it.

The best they can hope for is renegotiating with the EU and trying to find some centrist politician with a real sense of destiny.

I agree with this. Indeed, the UK will need to go back into the EU, and Europe in general is under some serious trouble. More than the US I think.

It is funny, but they don't have what it takes Wat0n because of what you really need to be a good politician. Dedication, tenacity, preserverance, and intelligence, and again PRINCIPLES.

Not all politicians are sellouts Wat0n. The best ones never are.

But if you are a thief you tend to judge others as if they are all thieves. They don't realize that the hallmark of a great politician is again, consistency.

Tories have evil policies. They always have had them. It is not surprising they attract evil and weak-willed people in general.

Plenty of disastrous politicians have also been very consistent and principled, obvious examples would include fanatics who go on to ruin their countries upon reaching power. And some great ones have shown to be capable of changing their minds and learning from their mistakes, to then go on and make a difference, best examples being hardline wartime leaders who go on to end wars and sign peace treaties.

Now, intelligence and dedication on the other hand - those are indeed important. Judging from what @Potemkin said, this current Tory breed is a lot dumber than those from the Thatcher era.

[Tainari88]

I agree with this. Indeed, the UK will need to go back into the EU, and Europe in general is under some serious trouble. More than the US I think.



Plenty of disastrous politicians have also been very consistent and principled, obvious examples would include fanatics who go on to ruin their countries upon reaching power. And some great ones have shown to be capable of changing their minds and learning from their mistakes, to then go on and make a difference, best examples being hardline wartime leaders who go on to end wars and sign peace treaties.

Now, intelligence and dedication on the other hand - those are indeed important. Judging from what @Potemkin said, this current Tory breed is a lot dumber than those from the Thatcher era.

Wat0n, very rarely do you get a disastrous politician who is consistent and principled. In fact, the ones who are the best types of politicians and the most effective and who are a real threat for change always wind up in the hot seat, and either jailed, or shot or killed.

Again, the ones who make really great historically meaningful speeches are not about kissing ass or being sellouts. No. There are plenty of sellouts and asskissers in this world. Pence is one. So is Ted Cruz. Trump insulted him as little Lying Ted Cruz, insulted his wife. Marco Rubio said that Trump was a fraud, a conman, a liar, etc. Yet they went on to hang about selling their dignity and their self-respect for mundane power.

They are consistent in their lack of ethics, and their naked opportunism. They are not there for the people, the voters or for those they identify with as a class. They lack morals, they lack principles and they are not people to be admired. Ever.

Worse than that...when war comes they can be bribed out of office and allow millions of people to go to gas chambers, and burn or die. They are the Capos of history. You remember the Capos from the Concentration Camps? They would do the dirty work of the SS Germans, and the higher command...but they themselves were Jews. Why? Because what counts is survival. They are cynics. Individualists and only cling to those who hold power at the time. Since they don't know who will be victorious down the line? They only pay attention to what is immediate and pressing, and about their own concerns. Money, privileges, luxuries, freedoms not afforded to the people they wind up betraying. Why? Because people in stress conditions, (and wartime conditions are very stressful) actually SHOW YOU, who they are inside.

You don't really know who people are in good times and in prosperous moments, or in times of peace and safety. You only truly get to know people and who they are in consciousness level and in principles? IN times of stress, war and strife. Pressure is like that. Political pressure Wat0n. Most sellout low level consciousness people who are into politics crack and give out....under the pressure....of having to be something beyond themselves. Be part of a cause or an ideal or a goal that demands you lead not for your own benefit but for the entire group. That group that is more important for you than your own small life.

Only the ones who are of higher political consciousness wind up dealing with that pressure and they show their real faces. Their true natures. The great politicians are wonderful. They will come up with great policy, good strategies and will execute and produce fine results. By their fruit you shall know them. Says the Bible. That goes for politicians too. By their fruit (their results and the quality of their policies) you shall know them.

People respect struggle and they respect dedication.

But above all, they respect those politicians who are not what the Capos are. The ones who do not change or assimilate or try to adopt a new identity because their old identity was a liability. instead, they learn and become better, but at the same time, they accept their past mistakes. They grow from that. They don't run from it. There is a big difference Wat0n, between growing from honestly made mistakes, and running from mistakes because you are prideful, petty, and small in character. Unable to accept real responsibility for failure.

The best politicians accept responsibility for their own personal failures. They should be soft on others and harsh on their own mistakes. Not harsh on their subordinates and easy on their own shortcomings.

It shows who they are when they do that. Believe them the first time they show you their bad character. Don't be loyal to a politician who does not do what I described is the hallmark of a great politico.

[Godstud]

Rishi Sunak is popular with MPs. Therefore, he might be behind this. But he is not popular with voters because of his race. He is stupid enough if he thinks he can win a general election.

Nice racist sentiment. Stay the fuck in Turkey! HIs unpopularity has nothing to do with his skin colour.

[ckaihatsu]

None of this Machiavellian scheming would be possible without the ongoing suppression of the class struggle by the trade union bureaucracy and the Labour Party.

On Wednesday, the Independent newspaper reported that two million workers are set to strike or ballot in the next months—a movement that could bring down any government, let alone that which is presently rotting alive in Westminster.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/1 ... f-o20.html

[wat0n]

Wat0n, very rarely do you get a disastrous politician who is consistent and principled. In fact, the ones who are the best types of politicians and the most effective and who are a real threat for change always wind up in the hot seat, and either jailed, or shot or killed.

But it does happen. I'm thinking about those fanatical ideological politicians who don't compromise and often end up ruining their societies and/or massacring their own population. Or who end up being a threat to other countries and are eventually toppled by a military intervention.

These guys are, in fact, principled. Not necessarily smart, but most certainly principled and stick to their guns to the bitter end.

Again, the ones who make really great historically meaningful speeches are not about kissing ass or being sellouts. No. There are plenty of sellouts and asskissers in this world. Pence is one. So is Ted Cruz. Trump insulted him as little Lying Ted Cruz, insulted his wife. Marco Rubio said that Trump was a fraud, a conman, a liar, etc. Yet they went on to hang about selling their dignity and their self-respect for mundane power.

They are consistent in their lack of ethics, and their naked opportunism. They are not there for the people, the voters or for those they identify with as a class. They lack morals, they lack principles and they are not people to be admired. Ever.

Worse than that...when war comes they can be bribed out of office and allow millions of people to go to gas chambers, and burn or die. They are the Capos of history. You remember the Capos from the Concentration Camps? They would do the dirty work of the SS Germans, and the higher command...but they themselves were Jews. Why? Because what counts is survival. They are cynics. Individualists and only cling to those who hold power at the time. Since they don't know who will be victorious down the line? They only pay attention to what is immediate and pressing, and about their own concerns. Money, privileges, luxuries, freedoms not afforded to the people they wind up betraying. Why? Because people in stress conditions, (and wartime conditions are very stressful) actually SHOW YOU, who they are inside.

You don't really know who people are in good times and in prosperous moments, or in times of peace and safety. You only truly get to know people and who they are in consciousness level and in principles? IN times of stress, war and strife. Pressure is like that. Political pressure Wat0n. Most sellout low level consciousness people who are into politics crack and give out....under the pressure....of having to be something beyond themselves. Be part of a cause or an ideal or a goal that demands you lead not for your own benefit but for the entire group. That group that is more important for you than your own small life.

Indeed. You can also tell how they are in how they treat those who are below them in the pecking order, although that is often kept out of public view.

Only the ones who are of higher political consciousness wind up dealing with that pressure and they show their real faces. Their true natures. The great politicians are wonderful. They will come up with great policy, good strategies and will execute and produce fine results. By their fruit you shall know them. Says the Bible. That goes for politicians too. By their fruit (their results and the quality of their policies) you shall know them.

People respect struggle and they respect dedication.

But above all, they respect those politicians who are not what the Capos are. The ones who do not change or assimilate or try to adopt a new identity because their old identity was a liability. instead, they learn and become better, but at the same time, they accept their past mistakes. They grow from that. They don't run from it. There is a big difference Wat0n, between growing from honestly made mistakes, and running from mistakes because you are prideful, petty, and small in character. Unable to accept real responsibility for failure.

The best politicians accept responsibility for their own personal failures. They should be soft on others and harsh on their own mistakes. Not harsh on their subordinates and easy on their own shortcomings.

It shows who they are when they do that. Believe them the first time they show you their bad character. Don't be loyal to a politician who does not do what I described is the hallmark of a great politico.

Right, but I'd say that's because they are smart above all, and are not rigid. They can adapt to changes in the situation, and they have the self awareness to criticize and revise their ideas and, yes, their principles too.

A great leader can perfectly decide that e.g. a hardline nationalism is not a good idea after all, change his mind, and soften his positions on the matter.

Good leaders will be clear about why they are changing their minds, unlike the capos you mention who won't be able to provide any explanation for changing their minds because they often are just opportunist yes men, not smart. In the above case, he'll say publicly and clearly why is he changing his mind, and possibly even apologize.

Of course, an evil yet smart politician can also provide you a very convincing explanation for a change of mind, so doing so is not by itself a guarantee of anything. But a sudden change of mind, especially in principles he used to stand for publicly and even tout them as some sort of "fundamental" principles to live by, for no reason at all? That's clear proof of a shitty politician, isn't it?

Liz Truss used to be a Lib-Dem while in Oxford (but not Labor, though, so she wasn't all that lefty), and then jumped to the Tories. I'm willing to bet she never explained why did she move to the Conservative Party and particularly what changes in her principles made her so. She's not a Thatcher, who as @Potemkin mentioned had her own principles, was anything but mediocre (indeed, she resented the political elites of her time and regarded them as incompetent) and stuck to her guns to the point of losing the premiership in the process (personally, I'd have been more realistic about the stupidity of insisting in a poll tax - but then, I'd never support something like that, even though I understand why she wanted to impose one). She's like a Thatcher wannabe, a farcical one at that as I doubt Thatcher would have ever proposed big tax cuts without any corresponding big government spending cuts, because it's just populism (of the right wing kind) and a very short sighted way to manage government.

[Rich]

I have to say rarely has a politician fulfilled their mandate, so decisively, so skilfully and effectively as Liz Truss. I'm reminded of Gene Hackman's words in "Enemy of the State.", "You're either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid." Liz Truss's mandate was to keep Rishi out of number 10 and to enable the return of the Boris at the earliest opportunity.

Personally I don't rate Thatcher that much, at least she wasn't on the level of Winston Churchill, one of the greatest politicians of all time. What was so incredible about Churchill was not any great ability to maintain widespread love or respect, even at his funeral the dockers had to be paid extra to come in and lower the cranes. No it was his ability to come back from the political grave, again and again and again. i don't know whether Boris will win, but just to be one of the front runners is an amazing achievement.

[ingliz]

an amazing achievement

Not really.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[Tainari88]

Not really.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

This is very true. A lot of brainwashed and not deep thinkers making the vote happen with ignorant thoughts. But? People can be realists. If they see they can't make a living and nothing that used to work is no longer working, they usually can figure out who is responsible.

The USA is unique in moronic politics though. I have never seen that level of moronic behavior.

But Yuval in his book said the same thing. Never underestimate the power of stupid in humans throughout history. The stupid factor is a big factor at different times.

[Tainari88]

I have to say rarely has a politician fulfilled their mandate, so decisively, so skilfully and effectively as Liz Truss. I'm reminded of Gene Hackman's words in "Enemy of the State.", "You're either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid." Liz Truss's mandate was to keep Rishi out of number 10 and to enable the return of the Boris at the earliest opportunity.

Personally I don't rate Thatcher that much, at least she wasn't on the level of Winston Churchill, one of the greatest politicians of all time. What was so incredible about Churchill was not any great ability to maintain widespread love or respect, even at his funeral the dockers had to be paid extra to come in and lower the cranes. No it was his ability to come back from the political grave, again and again and again. i don't know whether Boris will win, but just to be one of the front runners is an amazing achievement.

@Rich so that was the secret plot she was involved in all this time? Did she whisper in Queen Elizabeth's ear before her demise--Boris is coming back soon your Royal Highness, or whatever those noble protocols require, I will be vacating soon. I did my bit for becoming another woman conservative politician like Maggy. I did my bit for women's liberation in England. Just like you told me to...Haha.

Rich, you know I find you very amusing.

[Rich]

so that was the secret plot she was involved in all this time?

I don't think there was anything secret about it. No doubt Truss intended to stay in number 10. In a way i was responding to the sentiment of "Is Liz Truss really the best that the Tories can find sentiment?". To which the answer is yes she really was the best choice for Boris and his supporters purposes.

Look my view is that who ever we get is going to be bad. If it was up to me we'd have proportional representation and yearly fixed term elections, but with no election campaigns. We could do away with a lot of the nonsense. Note under such a system with no separately elected Presidents, mayors or Governors, Trump would have had no chance of ever becoming President. But the people like or a least tolerate the present system. So lets at least have some laughs with Boris. Boris may screw the bottom 80% over, but all the candidates will do that, at least Boris will wind up the Liberal elite at the same time.

If you support First Past the Post, like Keir Starmer, then as far as I'm concerned you've asked for this. Boris gives the people what they asked for and he gives it to them hard.

[Tainari88]

But it does happen. I'm thinking about those fanatical ideological politicians who don't compromise and often end up ruining their societies and/or massacring their own population. Or who end up being a threat to other countries and are eventually toppled by a military intervention.

These guys are, in fact, principled. Not necessarily smart, but most certainly principled and stick to their guns to the bitter end.

Who said political situations are easy and that the way to cope is to massacre people or do it violently? One of my most admired politicians was Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. studied his tactics for the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. Both were highly religious men. And both were socialists Wat0n.
Many politicians resort to violence because they feel that is the only choice. It usually is not Wat0n. But the nonviolence thing is HARD to accomplish because it requires really well-prepared members of that movement and complete commitment, time, effort, dedication, consistency, and money, and it is a long process. The UK had to demonstrate its violence and its unethical tactics, its despicable behavior in keeping India in colonialism. The only way to do that was to not strike back. Take the lumps and the clubbing, the shootings, the racist behavior, and not react. Absorb it all. Show it to the world. It created enormous pressure. Also no cooperation economically with Britain. Just don't buy anything, stop trading, and stop helping them in exploiting the weaknesses of the Indian divisions. It is very hard work. But he demonstrated it could be done. If all unify. It is interesting he was killed violently by someone of a different religion. Usually the most intolerant are the religious divisions. Politics is a bit more secular and it is about something less emotionally based. But there are nonviolent ways to get something done in this world. It just is HARDER. The easier road is violence and bloodshed, chaos and power grabs.



Indeed. You can also tell how they are in how they treat those who are below them in the pecking order, although that is often kept out of public view.

Yes, you can tell a lot about a leader by the way they treat their subordinates. Most conservatives like Truss or Boris are used to believing in class status as the natural order. They grow up with that shit in their brain. So they all expect the lower classes to show them deferential behavior. Another sign of a sellout politician or a class-conscious one too. I never liked that. First, I grew up being taught equality is essential. Respecting others is essential and building trust is about treating others with justice. Not thinking they are not as wealthy as I am or they are not as good as I am, so why give a shit about them. For me, that is a big flaw of Right-wing conservative thinking. Thinking social and class status is written in stone in human life. It is not.



Right, but I'd say that's because they are smart above all, and are not rigid. They can adapt to changes in the situation, and they have the self awareness to criticize and revise their ideas and, yes, their principles too.

In your youth you have the right to revise and change and do and edit. But once you reach a state of maturity in thinking and in principles? The sign of the flip floppers never is a good omen @wat0n it is usually a sign of someone who is without real principles. What good are principles if you won't sacrifice something important for them to remain intact? Principles don't exist when they are convenient. They exist because without them your entire purpose for having principles is no longer valued. I have been confronted with people who say to me the same that you say to me? But you are a US citizen. Be grateful. Be on the side of the USA. Who cares about Puerto Rico. It is a poor little island. Leave that culture behind. They won't have power. Only the power of the EMPIRE is important. Many fall for that shit. I don't. My principles say, Tainari, Puerto Ricans are wonderful people. The culture is wonderful. I am not ashamed of speaking Spanish, I am not ashamed of coming from people who are not the elite of the USA. I don't think that is what makes human beings great human beings. Principles do. Being proud of the people who struggled in the past to get you to be here in time, in history. My mother said to me, [Those who change their ethnic identity like it was a banana peel to be thrown in the garbage when it becomes inconvenient because of the racists or the people with power who try all the time to instill shame in your background? And you give in? You don't. It might cost you something like money, position, or a raise, but you don't give in. ] Instead, you EXCEL and you serve your ethnic group with love and with service. Not with ego and with ambitions of grandeur. That is a sellout. Too many of those out there Wat0n.

A great leader can perfectly decide that e.g. a hardline nationalism is not a good idea after all, change his mind, and soften his positions on the matter.
No, true nationalists are nationalists till the end. Look at Hitler. The guy never softened his mind on a damn thing. Neither is Putin going to do so. Or Mussolini, or any real fascist like Francisco Franco, or Pinochet. Straussner and many others. They are that way for a reason. It is not about compromising with them. It never has been. The people back them because the political column they are from is a political philosophy that is about NATIONALISM. My country first, last, and always. America First. Not the rest of the world. If taken to extremes? They are the ones who destroy other nations easily and kill en masse every other race, class, or group that is deemed the enemy. Why? Ego shit. I hate that. Any nation who thinks they are the exception and better than all the rest? Can easily fall into fascism. Invasions of other nations is a characteristic of fascists. They believe in imperialism. 100%.

Good leaders will be clear about why they are changing their minds, unlike the capos you mention who won't be able to provide any explanation for changing their minds because they often are just opportunist yes men, not smart. In the above case, he'll say publicly and clearly why is he changing his mind, and possibly even apologize.

The capos are under duress in war and become what they had always been. The politicians who change their mind and are not under duress to do so? Are usually because they made a mistake. If they are good politicians they will take responsibility and come up with a plan to right the mistake. But apologies from politicians are not often done. They would rather blame the subordinates and fire them. Bad behavior. One you should look for. Lol.

Of course, an evil yet smart politician can also provide you a very convincing explanation for a change of mind, so doing so is not by itself a guarantee of anything. But a sudden change of mind, especially in principles he used to stand for publicly and even tout them as some sort of "fundamental" principles to live by, for no reason at all? That's clear proof of a shitty politician, isn't it?

Evil and smart is far more dangerous in politics than stupid and evil. Lol. I do agree. But if a person in politics has not thought out well their fundamental principles well enough and then for political expediency they give up on them? Because they just want to hold on to power? No, give up power before giving up on your fundamental principles. That is how you also know you got a good politician. Better to give up on power than to remain in that position knowing your fundamental principles have to be dumped in order to stay. It is much better to cede power and let the unprincipled crappy politicians go and take power...and your get organized much better and come back and get back...because people remember good politicians. The ones that never are selling out for retention of power only. They are like the ones who would rather bow out and regroup and come back. Lol. Then hold on to power and to hell with the reasons why I wanted the job in the first place.

Liz Truss used to be a Lib-Dem while in Oxford (but not Labor, though, so she wasn't all that lefty), and then jumped to the Tories. I'm willing to bet she never explained why did she move to the Conservative Party and particularly what changes in her principles made her so. She's not a Thatcher, who as @Potemkin mentioned had her own principles, was anything but mediocre (indeed, she resented the political elites of her time and regarded them as incompetent) and stuck to her guns to the point of losing the premiership in the process (personally, I'd have been more realistic about the stupidity of insisting in a poll tax - but then, I'd never support something like that, even though I understand why she wanted to impose one). She's like a Thatcher wannabe, a farcical one at that as I doubt Thatcher would have ever proposed big tax cuts without any corresponding big government spending cuts, because it's just populism (of the right wing kind) and a very short sighted way to manage government.

I am clear as day. I really think only two sentences are needed to filter a political policy through my sort of socialism.

1. Is it life affirming? If the answer is yes. Then work hard to perfect it so it functions well.

2. Does it help the working class, middle class and underclass (the majority of the people in a human society not the elites) yes or no?

If the answer is yes to both questions. It is a policy worth implementing. If it is about killing the planet, killing the economy for the majority. Killing off innocent people in dumb ass wars, helping super rich parts of the society get even richer? No, it is not going to survive that filter.

The reality is bad politics is about bad VALUES. And unless there is a value shift soon? The death cult spiral we are on now will win. That is certain.

The power of stupid needs to be replaced by the power of forethought and compassion.

[Tainari88]

I don't think there was anything secret about it. No doubt Truss intended to stay in number 10. In a way i was responding to the sentiment of "Is Liz Truss really the best that the Tories can find sentiment?". To which the answer is yes she really was the best choice for Boris and his supporters purposes.

Look my view is that who ever we get is going to be bad. If it was up to me we'd have proportional representation and yearly fixed term elections, but with no election campaigns. We could do away with a lot of the nonsense. Note under such a system with no separately elected Presidents, mayors or Governors, Trump would have had no chance of ever becoming President. But the people like or a least tolerate the present system. So lets at least have some laughs with Boris.Boris may screw the bottom 80% over, but all the candidates will do that, at least Boris will wind up the Liberal elite at the same time.
If you support First Past the Post, like Keir Starmer, then as far as I'm concerned you've asked for this. Boris gives the people what they asked for and he gives it to them hard.

This is a key thing you mentioned there Rich. People are sick of the Liberal Elite. This is why many of these Right wing populists are doing so well right now. The Liberal Elite has been playing the bottom 80% with a lot of platitudes about the brown hordes and the nice multiculturalism and all that. But they themselves are very much not willing to live in the conditions the working class in the UK live in and WITH.

They are two-faced. And untrustworthy. What @Potemkin mentioned about Thatcher's dedication to her view of where the UK needed to go? Is something that is lacking in this present Tory group.

I happen to think Labour abandoned what it was founded on. They should never have settled for Tony Blair. Or any of those type of politicians. They should never purge the far Left in the UK. The UK needs a very strong far Left that is like Thatcher. Living and breathing politics and can make the Labour party a real working people party. But the UK is still holding on to monarchies and shit from many centuries ago. It still is a fossil of nation in terms of politics. It wants to believe it can go back to the days of dominating the globe through colonialism.

It should commit to the EU, be open in accepting new nationalities in its borders and being inclusive, but also strengthen what is British and traditional and strong. I am not Anglo or British. In fact, I think my culture is about as opposite to the British as can be.

But I think an old nationality learns a lot from being old. Lol. Suffering a lot of problems for many centuries. But there comes a time when they need to try something different.

Ignoring the needs of the many to favor only the selfish shenanigans of the few is asking for trouble Rich. Now and in the past.

You make me laugh a lot. I always loved British humor. It is the best! Probably in the world. And you have that quality of an English nationality with their great sense of humor. You make me laugh!

Richard, Ricardo? Me haces reír mucho.

[wat0n]

Who said political situations are easy and that the way to cope is to massacre people or do it violently? One of my most admired politicians was Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. studied his tactics for the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. Both were highly religious men. And both were socialists Wat0n.
Many politicians resort to violence because they feel that is the only choice. It usually is not Wat0n. But the nonviolence thing is HARD to accomplish because it requires really well-prepared members of that movement and complete commitment, time, effort, dedication, consistency, and money, and it is a long process. The UK had to demonstrate its violence and its unethical tactics, its despicable behavior in keeping India in colonialism. The only way to do that was to not strike back. Take the lumps and the clubbing, the shootings, the racist behavior, and not react. Absorb it all. Show it to the world. It created enormous pressure. Also no cooperation economically with Britain. Just don't buy anything, stop trading, and stop helping them in exploiting the weaknesses of the Indian divisions. It is very hard work. But he demonstrated it could be done. If all unify. It is interesting he was killed violently by someone of a different religion. Usually the most intolerant are the religious divisions. Politics is a bit more secular and it is about something less emotionally based. But there are nonviolent ways to get something done in this world. It just is HARDER. The easier road is violence and bloodshed, chaos and power grabs.

Violence is not the only option, I agree, but you can't deny there are those who glorify violence (e.g. war). And yes, they do so out of principle, their principles.

Yes, you can tell a lot about a leader by the way they treat their subordinates. Most conservatives like Truss or Boris are used to believing in class status as the natural order. They grow up with that shit in their brain. So they all expect the lower classes to show them deferential behavior. Another sign of a sellout politician or a class-conscious one too. I never liked that. First, I grew up being taught equality is essential. Respecting others is essential and building trust is about treating others with justice. Not thinking they are not as wealthy as I am or they are not as good as I am, so why give a shit about them. For me, that is a big flaw of Right-wing conservative thinking. Thinking social and class status is written in stone in human life. It is not.

Indeed, I agree status is not immutable. And even if it were, it would actually be an even stronger reason for treating your subordinates well - after all, they can't do anything about their status. It's not their fault.

In your youth you have the right to revise and change and do and edit. But once you reach a state of maturity in thinking and in principles? The sign of the flip floppers never is a good omen @wat0n it is usually a sign of someone who is without real principles. What good are principles if you won't sacrifice something important for them to remain intact? Principles don't exist when they are convenient. They exist because without them your entire purpose for having principles is no longer valued. I have been confronted with people who say to me the same that you say to me? But you are a US citizen. Be grateful. Be on the side of the USA. Who cares about Puerto Rico. It is a poor little island. Leave that culture behind. They won't have power. Only the power of the EMPIRE is important. Many fall for that shit. I don't. My principles say, Tainari, Puerto Ricans are wonderful people. The culture is wonderful. I am not ashamed of speaking Spanish, I am not ashamed of coming from people who are not the elite of the USA. I don't think that is what makes human beings great human beings. Principles do. Being proud of the people who struggled in the past to get you to be here in time, in history. My mother said to me, [Those who change their ethnic identity like it was a banana peel to be thrown in the garbage when it becomes inconvenient because of the racists or the people with power who try all the time to instill shame in your background? And you give in? You don't. It might cost you something like money, position, or a raise, but you don't give in. ] Instead, you EXCEL and you serve your ethnic group with love and with service. Not with ego and with ambitions of grandeur. That is a sellout. Too many of those out there Wat0n.

So you don't think people can change their minds? Even old people can.

That's why I think a change in position needs to be justified. A politician won't admit to changing his ideas out of convenience (if he did, I'd place him above those who don't even admit to - it's at least honest), and I don't see anything evil in saying "well, I was wrong". An admission of a mistake, IMO, is a good thing and as humans we all make mistakes. Another thing most politicians hate is admitting they were wrong.

No, true nationalists are nationalists till the end. Look at Hitler. The guy never softened his mind on a damn thing. Neither is Putin going to do so. Or Mussolini, or any real fascist like Francisco Franco, or Pinochet. Straussner and many others. They are that way for a reason. It is not about compromising with them. It never has been. The people back them because the political column they are from is a political philosophy that is about NATIONALISM. My country first, last, and always. America First. Not the rest of the world. If taken to extremes? They are the ones who destroy other nations easily and kill en masse every other race, class, or group that is deemed the enemy. Why? Ego shit. I hate that. Any nation who thinks they are the exception and better than all the rest? Can easily fall into fascism. Invasions of other nations is a characteristic of fascists. They believe in imperialism. 100%.

Wasn't Hitler in fact willing to stick to his principles to the end, and didn't that bring disaster to Germany (let alone many others)?

BTW, Pinochet wasn't as principled or rigid as Hitler was. Neither was Franco, actually. Both did often change their tune depending on where the winds blew, even if they never admitted their mistakes. Pinochet, for example, adopted an old Keynesian tune after the 1982 crisis, and did away with a good chunk of the Chicago Boys ideas until 1986, when the winds blew in another direction again. Franco? At the beginning, he followed a very statist policy, in the 1960s he liberalized the Spanish economy and IIRC towards the end he went back to something closer to where he was in the 1940s-1950s. He never admitted being wrong or anything either. Franco also refused to join the war with the other fascists because he was afraid of an Allied invasion at some point (and got to survive the war as a result).

The capos are under duress in war and become what they had always been. The politicians who change their mind and are not under duress to do so? Are usually because they made a mistake. If they are good politicians they will take responsibility and come up with a plan to right the mistake. But apologies from politicians are not often done. They would rather blame the subordinates and fire them. Bad behavior. One you should look for. Lol.

Exactly. That's why I expect admission of wrongdoing. I'm willing to be more flexible in my assessment when politicians do so.

Evil and smart is far more dangerous in politics than stupid and evil. Lol. I do agree. But if a person in politics has not thought out well their fundamental principles well enough and then for political expediency they give up on them? Because they just want to hold on to power? No, give up power before giving up on your fundamental principles. That is how you also know you got a good politician. Better to give up on power than to remain in that position knowing your fundamental principles have to be dumped in order to stay. It is much better to cede power and let the unprincipled crappy politicians go and take power...and your get organized much better and come back and get back...because people remember good politicians. The ones that never are selling out for retention of power only. They are like the ones who would rather bow out and regroup and come back. Lol. Then hold on to power and to hell with the reasons why I wanted the job in the first place.

I'd say evil and stupid can often be more dangerous than the evil and smart, because the evil and smart guy understands what he can and cannot do, and won't push where he shouldn't while the stupid one doesn't.

It depends on how evil they are, and if the political systems of the countries they lead can keep them in check.

I am clear as day. I really think only two sentences are needed to filter a political policy through my sort of socialism.

1. Is it life affirming? If the answer is yes. Then work hard to perfect it so it functions well.

2. Does it help the working class, middle class and underclass (the majority of the people in a human society not the elites) yes or no?

If the answer is yes to both questions. It is a policy worth implementing. If it is about killing the planet, killing the economy for the majority. Killing off innocent people in dumb ass wars, helping super rich parts of the society get even richer? No, it is not going to survive that filter.

The reality is bad politics is about bad VALUES. And unless there is a value shift soon? The death cult spiral we are on now will win. That is certain.

The power of stupid needs to be replaced by the power of forethought and compassion.

Politics is not just about bad values. There is most definitely a dimension related to competence, an incompetent government will not be regarded well even if it's managed by good people.

In Liz Truss' case, her plan was a disaster. Even libertarians and neoliberals didn't like it despite allegedly being for economic freedom and all that stuff.