c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 8, 2024 13:58:21 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Maybe we can offer to house some of the ten million people the fascists want to deport. They appear to be overwhelmingly hard working and law abiding and we could get a bonus out of America's very own national shoot yourself in the head day. Have you thought about putting that in your manifesto next time you stand for election? I’m not sure we have enough room between us Steve. ( oldnat has talked of inheriting several extra properties, and has numerous sheds, if he doesn’t mind living in the sheds to free up some space in the houses). |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 8, 2024 14:16:00 GMT
My thoughts are that primarily it was the economy and there were plenty of quotes in the focus groups about voting for Trump because they felt their (economic) lives had been better under him. Some were voting that way even despite reservations about Trump personally. I suppose one question we should be asking is whether actually the "average" voter was better off under Trump. This would not entirely be a surprise with the Dems dealing with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine and inflation but going further we do have to consider whether Trump policies were actually better for the working class swing voters. All very well looking at GDP figures (even job figures) and saying that means the economy is great but that's only one indicator and trickle down from GDP isn't very strong I feel. This is not about Trump. Trump has his equivalent in many developed countries. Farage here. Le Pen, and so on. There is the miserable percentage of people voting for lab and con combined, or likewise rep and dem in the US, I counted only about half those eligible voted for either of them. Here Farage campaigned about Brexit attacking the EU, but its really all about dissatisfaction with the established parties. Trump stole the republican nomination. Whether he did any good for those who voted for him or will this time, that isnt altogether the point. To vote Trump is to vote against traditional republicans, as well as democrats. But actually Trump does have some key policies which are gaining world traction. Get rid of immigrants, very popular that one in many many counties. End globalisation, bring jobs back to the US (and you could say the same for the Uk with less credibility). The US loved globalisation because it was making the goods and selling them to everyone. To repeat a tale from Churchill's history of the Sudan wars, the british were forced to buy US built railway engines to transport their troops, but found they were more reliable and efficient than british made ones, so already in the end of the 1800s the US had a clear manufacturing lead. That tide has now turned and China is manufacturing everything for the world, with the result all the world's money has been piling up in China (instead of the USA). Hence globalisation no longer benefits the US and it has begun to dismantle the system it created. This pre dates covid, though that too demonstrated a number of problems with relying on China for everything. Harris would not have been candidate. Biden kept the nomination by still being alive and saying he wanted it, had he let it go someone else would have been chosen. Vice president is a peculiar non-job, which can make you successor but really people are chosen for reasons of supporting the current campaign not doing well in a future one.
I think the US was perfectly happy with the unwritten settlement made with the USSR, that several buffer states were created some of which migrated to the west, but others would likely return to Russia. The US had no interest fighting for the freedom of Ukraine. It has been dragged into giving more and more support each time Ukraine looks on the point of failing, through embarassment at allowing Ukraine to lose. But never with conviction it wants Ukraine to win. European countries, yes, have a vested interest in Ukraine winning, but they have for decades relied upon the US for most of their armed forces. A situation the US originally engineered because it wanted to dominate the world militarily. But now likely would prefer europe to take over part of that role, and then a European force might be availabe of real power should the US ever actually need suport. And its very very expensive for the US currently, without that big return from a global economic empire it has been losing to China.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 8, 2024 14:22:55 GMT
Yes the question is how much is it a more accidental abandonment, or neglect… Globalisation logic is that you get the goods made in a country where labour is cheap. Maybe safety laws are weak. No one forces you to clean up pollution. Foreign children making them, thats fine. The stuff is made abroad and the profits are repatriated to the owners of the companies living in the home nation. Snag is....those well paid jobs in your country have been replaced with poorly paid jobs abroad. The people who used to have well paid jobs, in the US rustbelt, are not happy. Even while the people funding the republican and democrat parties, pushing for these globalised policies which allow them to make vast sums, are getting the politicians to make laws and an international system whih will continue to favour them. So surprise.. those rustbelt voters turn against the established parties. Enter Trump. I think it's a classic case of metropolitan American class completely misunderstanding the reality of the political life as you travel outwards to the more rural areas. . Or maybe understanding it perfectly. Sure there is a class of people enjoying the new regime, but there are an awful lot of losers. An obvious and intensifying divide between the two. Just look at how labour turned its back on Corbyn. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 8, 2024 14:52:40 GMT
Little surprised thar some think a Democrat politician can't stand up for the millions who voted for them
In overall terms 47.7% voted for Harris, 50.7% for Trump
Surely the 47.7% deserve a voice
With women a significant majority voted for Harris, 54% compared to 44% for Trump
Surely women deserve a voice
The difference is even more pronounced with black women, where Harris won 92 percent of the votes of Black women, compared with Trump’s 8 percent.
Surely black women deserve a voice
Harris won 80% of black people, compared to 20% for Trump
Surely black people deserve a voice
It's an election, the idea that the losing party can't continue to stand up for people and their values is not only silly, it's a little worrying
It's a Democracy, not a one party state
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 8, 2024 14:59:41 GMT
I went away on the morning Trump was declared the winner. Read all the comments but I think it is very hard to judge when we don't live there. Even someone like turk who does live there can only feel the mood in his area of one state that has always gone Republican anyway. My thoughts are that primarily it was the economy and there were plenty of quotes in the focus groups about voting for Trump because they felt their (economic) lives had been better under him. Some were voting that way even despite reservations about Trump personally. I suppose one question we should be asking is whether actually the "average" voter was better off under Trump. This would not entirely be a surprise with the Dems dealing with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine and inflation but going further we do have to consider whether Trump policies were actually better for the working class swing voters. All very well looking at GDP figures (even job figures) and saying that means the economy is great but that's only one indicator and trickle down from GDP isn't very strong I feel. It would also not be a surprise that, as with the Tories in the 1980's, you can create a strong temporary economy while neglecting the long term effect of those policies. If you neglect the investment needed to combat global warming for example then it saves you money in the short term with drastic issues in the long term. I also think we need to consider that Trump going protectionist may not be such a bad thing for the ordinary American. America is a wealthy country with large natural resources still (I think anyway) so the value added from world trade for them might be quite limited beyond benefits for the corporations. Larry Elliott wrote what I thought was an incredibly good article about the shifting balance on world trade and dynamics: www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/03/trump-or-harris-whoever-wins-will-face-a-shift-in-power-in-the-global-economy"But things quickly started to go wrong and the neoliberal utopia never materialised. Free movement of capital coupled with only the scantiest of regulation led to a series of localised meltdowns that eventually went global in the banking crisis of 2008. China became a much bigger and powerful economy than the US had envisaged. The WTO proved incapable of negotiating new trade deals. Voters expressed anger at slow growth, deindustrialisation and mass migration. The Covid pandemic exposed the fragility of global supply chains. The nation state made a comeback, along with activist industrial policies and protectionism. Bush’s vision of the world marching in step to the US’s tune lasted no more than a decade." From a distance I also felt that the Dems campaign was very poor with two very poor challengers, Biden seriously past his prime and then Harris who didn't seem to do very much at all to offer anything to the American people. Trump comes from a very priveleged background and yet, just like Farage and despite the hatred in his eyes, he came across as more "working class" than his opponents. Harder for a woman to get the balance right (as Rayner well knows) but maybe Harris should have done more on her image with a bit of cosplaying in hard hats, hoodies and pints in pubs rather than the glitzy rallies. But no idea what really pushes the American electorate's buttons. I didn't feel quite as upset as I expected to. A friend of my said that a class his daughter goes to had to deal with the Ukrainian kids in tears that morning. When I look at the obvious issues that's one of the big fears but as lens was saying the other day this war seemed to be going nowhere and I can't help but dive down into conspiracy theory territory thinking that really maybe the West (America) never wanted to end the war the way that they were capable of doing had they risked escalating things. No sign of Cuban missile politics for sure. So I think this definitely emboldens Putin and allows him to negotiate better terms but hard for me to envisage two and a half years of war in the UK without resolution. On Palestine the damage has already been done and Trump will be a disaster probably but difficult to see how that would have made any difference to their outcome without a change in policy from the Dems. Global warming probably the biggie but again the Dems may have been going in the right direction but were still far from sufficient to a crisis that has already reached a tipping point I feel. A Trump presidency is desperately sad on so many levels but I think the Dems not only fought a poor campaign but didn't have the answers- populist or genuine economic ones. Interesting post shevii I think your last para is spot on. May I add a couple of observations from tv coverage seen. CNN have this amazing display which drills down to voting demographics in every county. The ( Dem leaning) analysts there were literally gobsmacked by the breadth of the coalition which Trump has created. Latino & Afro-caribbean voters across the country leaving Dems for Trump alongside the White Working Class which Dems have lost. Sky had an ongoing interview after the vote with the owner and customers of a diner. They were all from non-white backgrounds. Every one of them said food prices-things like a chicken or eggs -had doubled in the last few years. They thought the Trump 1 period was better for them financially. The owner,a Central American ,who crossed the border illegally ,years ago, complained about the numbers now coming across ( !) He said people from across the Atlantic were now using that route in. The Times this morning reports on a Labour MP "Growth Group" which is pushing Reeves to change the economic objective from GDP growth to Standard of Living improvement. Given what happened to Biden/Harris that seems a pretty canny idea. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 15:27:16 GMT
"In overall terms 47.7% voted for Harris, 50.7% for Trump
Surely the 47.7% deserve a voice"
I think you have to remember for the brexitanian lunatics that's an " overwhelming majority ".
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 15:28:09 GMT
"It's a Democracy, not a one party state"
Not after the end of January.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 8, 2024 15:44:13 GMT
"In overall terms 47.7% voted for Harris, 50.7% for Trump Surely the 47.7% deserve a voice" I think you have to remember for the brexitanian lunatics that's an " overwhelming majority ". Absolutely. The winning line. Deal with. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 8, 2024 15:58:52 GMT
Little surprised thar some think a Democrat politician can't stand up for the millions who voted for them In overall terms 47.7% voted for Harris, 50.7% for Trump Surely the 47.7% deserve a voice With women a significant majority voted for Harris, 54% compared to 44% for Trump Surely women deserve a voice The difference is even more pronounced with black women, where Harris won 92 percent of the votes of Black women, compared with Trump’s 8 percent. Surely black women deserve a voice Harris won 80% of black people, compared to 20% for Trump Surely black people deserve a voice It's an election, the idea that the losing party can't continue to stand up for people and their values is not only silly, it's a little worrying It's a Democracy, not a one party state It is looking probable the Republicans - largely purged of moderates - will control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, which means the minority won't have much power and it will be close to a one party state for the next two years. The only Democrats with any real power will be State Governors and, to a much lesser extent, City Mayors. The Republicans may well introduce laws designed to make it much harder for Democrat leaning groups to vote - its a good old US tradition after all. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 8, 2024 16:11:12 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I don't know if you are simply not bothering to try to take in what I'm saying, or simply trolling, but I really object to being misrepresented. Let's just take your comment highlighted above. The claim re batteries was in relation to the paper I linked to. Have you read that paper? Have you even read the (brief) abstract? (I grant you the whole thing is 98 pages long, and yes - I have read the full report.) Somehow I don't think you can have? Because if you had even read the abstract you would be well aware that the detail is very far from assuming "use the hydrogen as an energy store" - and goes into depth about the most economic routes. As you don't seem to have bothered even to read the abstract, a quick quote: "The results suggest that supplying hydrogen into the transport sector is the most economically feasible solution. The results also consider the economic feasibility of wholesale and gas grid supply."I suggest you might at least like to read the conclusions (page 93 onwards) before making any further comment. At the time of writing, it concluded that the example site just **might** be economic under certain circumstances for hydrogen production from curtailed generation - but it's far from a clear cut scenario. It also makes some assumptions that haven't proven to be the case - eg "It was suggested that while it is feasible to produce hydrogen for the transport sector there is not currently the road transport demand although this would be closer to realization by 2024 and will develop from there." In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the road transport demand (for hydrogen) seems farther away than ever. In 2024, we can now look to see how the project at the heart of that paper has progressed, looking 4-5 years into the future. What is now proposed in reality? And does it follow the lines the paper suggested? What was being looked at was the Alwen Forest windfarm project. It's now reached an advanced planning stage, and the last I heard is awaiting final approval, with a decision due next year. So - have the final plans indeed gone for hydrogen and electrolysis to abate any curtailment? And the answer is a resounding ** NO**. You can see the final detailed proposal at alwenforestwindfarm.co.uk/ No electrolysis. No hydrogen. But integral to the plans is a BESS together with the grid connection. I'm informed that the choice between a BESS and hydrogen production wasn't even close. Surprise, surprise. Batteries don't "destroy the use case for hydrogen" in any global way - but they DO largely help destroy the case for it as an alternative to curtailment. Alwen Forest is just a single example of a wider truism. Regarding your last paragraph above, then again, you seem to simply disregard my previous closing comments. Try reading them again. As should be totally obvious, I'm certainly not arguing against green hydrogen per se, and yes, am totally aware of the government investments. But such are NOT the same as any argument about production (cheaply) from otherwise curtailed electricity. Would have replied sooner, but for all the excitement of the election. And it was quite something for you to suggest someone else might be trolling when you: - Only want to compare with hydrogen, not the other possibilities besides hydrogen I have been talking about - The paper you point to doesn’t even consider the hydrogen derivatives I was talking about - even with just basic hydrogen though, they agree on page 75 that it “is economically feasible today with a sale price of hydrogen of £1.71 per kg.” and that is despite the fact that in their calculations, they are including the “opportunity cost” of keeping the payments to just chuck the leccy away. - in other words, in their analysis, hydrogen doesn’t just have to be profitable, it has to be more profitable than getting paid to chuck the leccy away!! - Obviously if we consider the situation where we get rid of those payments, hydrogen may be preferred at a lower sale price. - The obvious answer is for you to come up to Alwen Forest, and give the team the benefit of your engineering knowledge. I'll try to be present at the meeting. Should be fun. After you give your presentation - "did you know you could make hydrogen instead of throwing Leccy away?", then if you are lucky they may run through a more detailed analysis with you? That may consist of the paper from 5 years ago, which is in the public domain, and if you are really lucky other more recent analysis as well? Firstly, the paper I referred to was written from a perspective of trying to put the case for hydrogen. It took account of "known knowns" - average windspeed distributions, turbine options, cost of varying network connections, etc etc, but had to make assumptions regarding "unknown unknowns" into the future, and had to present varying scenarios for such as no of turbines on site, etc. As it went, at the time it was written, it was pretty thorough. But key is that most of the scenarios **did not** present a viable case for hydrogen {from otherwise curtailed electricity}. And even the case that did was to an extent reliant on a few assumptions which turned out not to be (such as that hydrogen for road transport would be more prevalent by 2024 - in fact it's the opposite). As for "doesn’t even consider the hydrogen derivatives I was talking about", then if you are referring to ammonia, e-fuels, "green methanol" etc then just think about it. From a planning point of view, just getting permissions for the turbines, support roads, and basic infrastructure is bad enough. If you're then making the case for hydrogen, then electrolysis and water supply is inevitable. But seriously, what do you think in this scenario the planning authorities are going to make of adding such as ammonia production facilities or whatever? That's not to say any hydrogen produced by such a scheme couldn't then be used to supply such plants or factories - but we'd still be talking about producing, compressing and shipping hydrogen itself from Alwen Forest. And the initial paper was looking at a **best case** scenario, envisaged at the time as selling to the road transport market. It's also worth saying that such would have meant a lot of extra tanker movements in a very rural area - hydrogen is notoriously bad for physical transportation, requiring many more loads like for like than such as diesel. Another big negative from a planning point of view. But you in your last two paragraphs are neglecting the key problem with the initial report. The latter has the excuse of time and changing circumstance - you don't. You make the error of thinking it's a two way choice ("hydrogen doesn’t just have to be profitable, it has to be more profitable than getting paid to chuck the leccy away!!") Wrong. Whatever the calculations between curtailment or electrolysis, nowadays a large scale battery (BESS) will pretty well always be a far better answer than either of the other two. Which is exactly why the final proposals for Alwen Forest are what they are. Turbines together with a BESS. No hydrogen, no electrolysis - no longer theoretical. There was no scenario once battery storage came a possibility where electrolysis was remotely competitive, even without allowing for the physical transportation issues and increased heavy road transport. That's not just my opinion, it's what a great deal of money is being based on, and not just at Alwen Forest. But please, if you think you know better, then stop just posting on here and give all the engineers and planners actually responsible the benefit of your knowledge? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 16:22:21 GMT
So it transpires that Project 25 the core maga proposal for transferring money from the poor to the mega rich is actually what the trump regime intends to do.
" I never thought the leopard would eat my face" says the man who voted for
The leopards eat your face party!
It's national shoot yourself in the foot day all over again.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 8, 2024 16:25:35 GMT
Would have replied sooner, but for all the excitement of the election. And it was quite something for you to suggest someone else might be trolling when you: - Only want to compare with hydrogen, not the other possibilities besides hydrogen I have been talking about - The paper you point to doesn’t even consider the hydrogen derivatives I was talking about - even with just basic hydrogen though, they agree on page 75 that it “is economically feasible today with a sale price of hydrogen of £1.71 per kg.” and that is despite the fact that in their calculations, they are including the “opportunity cost” of keeping the payments to just chuck the leccy away. - in other words, in their analysis, hydrogen doesn’t just have to be profitable, it has to be more profitable than getting paid to chuck the leccy away!! - Obviously if we consider the situation where we get rid of those payments, hydrogen may be preferred at a lower sale price. - The obvious answer is for you to come up to Alwen Forest, and give the team the benefit of your engineering knowledge. I'll try to be present at the meeting. Should be fun. After you give your presentation - "did you know you could make hydrogen instead of throwing Leccy away?", then if you are lucky they may run through a more detailed analysis with you? That may consist of the paper from 5 years ago, which is in the public domain, and if you are really lucky other more recent analysis as well? Firstly, the paper I referred to was written from a perspective of trying to put the case for hydrogen. It took account of "known knowns" - average windspeed distributions, turbine options, cost of varying network connections, etc etc, but had to make assumptions regarding "unknown unknowns" into the future, and had to present varying scenarios for such as no of turbines on site, etc. As it went, at the time it was written, it was pretty thorough. But key is that most of the scenarios **did not** present a viable case for hydrogen {from otherwise curtailed electricity}. And even the case that did was to an extent reliant on a few assumptions which turned out not to be (such as that hydrogen for road transport would be more prevalent by 2024 - in fact it's the opposite). As for "doesn’t even consider the hydrogen derivatives I was talking about", then if you are referring to ammonia, e-fuels, "green methanol" etc then just think about it. From a planning point of view, just getting permissions for the turbines, support roads, and basic infrastructure is bad enough. If you're then making the case for hydrogen, then electrolysis and water supply is inevitable. But seriously, what do you think in this scenario the planning authorities are going to make of adding such as ammonia production facilities or whatever? That's not to say any hydrogen produced by such a scheme couldn't then be used to supply such plants or factories - but we'd still be talking about producing, compressing and shipping hydrogen itself from Alwen Forest. And the initial paper was looking at a **best case** scenario, envisaged at the time as selling to the road transport market. It's also worth saying that such would have meant a lot of extra tanker movements in a very rural area - hydrogen is notoriously bad for physical transportation, requiring many more loads like for like than such as diesel. Another big negative from a planning point of view. But you in your last two paragraphs are neglecting the key problem with the initial report. The latter has the excuse of time and changing circumstance - you don't. You make the error of thinking it's a two way choice ("hydrogen doesn’t just have to be profitable, it has to be more profitable than getting paid to chuck the leccy away!!") Wrong. Whatever the calculations between curtailment or electrolysis, nowadays a large scale battery (BESS) will pretty well always be a far better answer than either of the other two. Which is exactly why the final proposals for Alwen Forest are what they are. Turbines together with a BESS. No hydrogen, no electrolysis - no longer theoretical. There was no scenario once battery storage came a possibility where electrolysis was remotely competitive, even without allowing for the physical transportation issues and increased heavy road transport. That's not just my opinion, it's what a great deal of money is being based on, and not just at Alwen Forest. But please, if you think you know better, then stop just posting on here and give all the engineers and planners actually responsible the benefit of your knowledge? Most of that ignores the key points. - yes they took various things into account, and despite all that they still said it would be viable above a price of £1.70 - and that was comparing it with the case of being paid to throw the leccy away. If we stop paying them to do that, then it becomes a rational economic decision at a lower price. - Yes it might cost extra to make ammonia, but you have to set that against reduced storage costs. They are planning a trial, and in the end if it is profitable they may do it. – As we have discussed in the past, they don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it. They might produce ammonia on the coast, or even offshore, which would be quite convenient because the ammonia might be used for shipping - in other words, once again yes, there are costs, but if they can sell something for significantly more than it costs, they may do it. Unless there is something else even more profitable. It’s no good, just considering costs without also considering the revenues. - Once again, comparing with batteries misses the point. I’m not talking about storing leccy here, but producing something with it that you can sell. If you store the leccy in a battery, then put it into the grid, you will get a certain price. If you can make more from the leccy making something else - after taking costs into account - other than putting it in the grid, they may choose that. - once again, it doesn’t have to be hydrogen or ammonia. For example, they might make methane, which isn’t that problematic to store. There is even a possibility of making high-value items like graphene, which could yield a lot more money than just sticking it in a battery and then into the grid. And would also have the benefit of pulling carbon out the atmosphere. (the govt might even incentivise uses that help pull carbon out of the air. There are projects now to both make hydrogen from wind and they are also exploring carbon capture). |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 8, 2024 17:28:07 GMT
NeilJ
Your 47.7% deserve a voice.
Labour was elected by 33.7% of the vote by your reckoning the 66.3% who didn’t vote for them should not only be able to have a voice but actually be running the country.
And if we take the percentage of people who could have voted but couldn’t be bothered only 20% voted Labour. Now that really is democracy at its finest said nobody but Labour supporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt126 on Nov 8, 2024 17:31:21 GMT
Most the modern day populist candidates in my view generally have common traites. They will produce policies that will appeal to less wealthy in society with immigration, cost of living etc by providing simplistic solutions to their concerns, but there real aims are to protect the ultra wealthy, and big business profits. In the USA it seems they think they can become so powerful as to think they can create a some multi-billionaires club that think they can control the whole world. The best way more mainstream parties can combat this is to focus more on the every day needs of the average person, they often can get diverted by other issues which are important but if they lose focus on the every day issues like cost of living, Health Care they lose engagement with voters
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 8, 2024 17:33:02 GMT
NeilJ Your 47.7% deserve a voice. Labour was elected by 33.7% of the vote by your reckoning the 66.3% who didn’t vote for them should not only be able to have a voice but actually be running the country. And if we take the percentage of people who could have voted but couldn’t be bothered only 20% voted Labour. Now that really is democracy at its finest said nobody but Labour supporters. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote, as it's pretty much the opposite My whole point was even the losers in an election still have the right to put their views across, even the tories on 13% should be allowed to express their views and criticise the Government Yes Trump is the new President, but people should be free to criticise him Surely you agree with that |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 8, 2024 17:33:40 GMT
NeilJ Your 47.7% deserve a voice. Labour was elected by 33.7% of the vote by your reckoning the 66.3% who didn’t vote for them should not only be able to have a voice but actually be running the country. And if we take the percentage of people who could have voted but couldn’t be bothered only 20% voted Labour. Now that really is democracy at its finest said nobody but Labour supporters. Do you support the First Past the Post electoral system or, like the majority of Labour Party members including me, a system of proportional representation? If the former then all I can say is 'suck it up' like we had to when the Tories won time after time on a minority of the vote. If the latter, then perhaps you might like to prevail on your old party to change its attitude on the question, as I seek to do mine. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 17:37:12 GMT
"Absolutely.
The winning line. Deal with."
so there you go 51% is an overwhelming majority according to jib.
If trump wants to be an American carnage dictator for life the 47% can just deal with it.
Democracy as sponsored by Benito Mussolini!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 8, 2024 17:38:57 GMT
The elements that support Trump are undoubtedly very dangerous, but they can also come over as more than a little deranged. Here is Kevin Roberts, part author of Project 2025, identifying a list of enemies of the US in his new book: “Every Ivy League college, the FBI, the New York Times, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Department of Education, 80% of ‘Catholic’ higher education, BlackRock, the Loudoun County Public School System, the Boy Scouts of America, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the Chinese Communist Party, and the National Endowment for Democracy.” I'm confident that is the first time BlackRock, the Boy Scouts and the Chinese Communist Party have ever found themselves seen as soul mates. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/project-2025-kevin-roberts-book-burning-fbi-new-york-times |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 17:41:57 GMT
So Turk when was the last time your beloved Tories were elected by a majority of the electorate? If you've picked any date in the last 88 years you're wrong.
Fptp much like the electoral college isn't even on nodding terms with representative democracy.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 8, 2024 17:50:38 GMT
British voters do not like Trump 'because they don't really know him', Farage claims
Well he got half right...
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 8, 2024 18:10:16 GMT
lens So to summarise, for all that you write you are still avoiding doing what’s necessary to fairly compare. You ignore costs for your favoured scenario, and only consider costs for the others, not revenues. (Except in one case that is comically skewed because they only consider the case of maintaining the subsidy to chuck the electricity away! Even then they say it’s still viable above £1.70) To prove alternatives to batteries-plus-grid unviable, you have to consider the potential costs and revenues in all cases to compare. I don’t really expect you to do that, it would be rather burdensome, and you are clearly quite keen to avoid it! But unless you can do that, it’s not so easy to dismiss all the alternatives… Would have replied sooner, but for all the excitement of the election… - The obvious answer is for you to come up to Alwen Forest, and give the team the benefit of your engineering knowledge. I'll try to be present at the meeting. Should be fun. After you give your presentation - "did you know you could make hydrogen instead of throwing Leccy away?", then if you are lucky they may run through a more detailed analysis with you? That may consist of the paper from 5 years ago, which is in the public domain, and if you are really lucky other more recent analysis as well? Ah, the ad hom argument. Someone did some analysis, and we must treat it as gospel? In fact I didn’t actually dispute the analysis, I just pointed out that it was a limited scenario, that didn’t consider the rather important case that we don’t continue to subsidise chucking leccy away. you were quite quick to poor scorn on someone’s analysis when we were discussing particulates though, and that was despite the fact, that the analysis wasn’t wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 8, 2024 18:19:19 GMT
So Turk when was the last time your beloved Tories were elected by a majority of the electorate? If you've picked any date in the last 88 years you're wrong. Fptp much like the electoral college isn't even on nodding terms with representative democracy. Ironic comment from a Lib Dem. PR died along with your credibility in 2010-15. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 8, 2024 18:46:17 GMT
Interesting attacks on Israelis in Netherlands. Though its not clear whether the Israelis might have attacked first against palestinian supporters, they seem to have been videoed at least responding in kind. Israel condemning this as antisemitism, but nothing which has been caused by Israel's invasion of neighbouring states should be classed as antisemitism. Thats simply reacting against an invader. According to mail online started by Israeli football "hooligans" and then like for like retaliation, so Millwall v West Ham with political undertones and would be hard placed to describe as antisemitism. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-14053391/Israeli-football-hooligans-Palestine-flags-Ajax-Maccabi-Tel-Aviv.htmlActually we find out, eventually, that it is worse than this in the behaviour of the Tel Aviv "fans". People really have to stop taking the side of Israeli supporting outlets and fact check these things first: Video includes scenes of them disrespecting the minute's silence for the Valencia flood victims. x.com/leylahamed/status/1854856314679111778 |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 8, 2024 19:30:35 GMT
One of the remarkable things about Trump's win is the breadth of the voter coalition he put together, not necessarily because he ran a good campaign, arguably he was better, and more focused in 2016, but the Democrats decided that piling up Celebrity endorsements was more important than a Coherent Policy offer to American Working people.
This could be seen as the end of the road for that progressive strand of Politics best characterised by Blair/Obama with the advance of the Technocracy who pursue a globalist outlook abandoning the old Right/Left dichotomy preferring to talk in terms of making Capitalism work better, a giving in almost to the idea of Trickle down economics, the fallacy that the left behind would be compensated for by the tide of rising GDP, well that didn't last long did it? Blair with his being Comfortable with the Mega Rich, Obama choosing to justify any slightly redistributive measure repeatedly 'It is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do' Obama used the word Smart in his speeches no less than 900 times, presumably because it has a neutral tone it glides over morals, values or Politics, thus accepting Parameters that nothing shall challenge the bottom line of corporate America.
This is quite a departure from previous Political discourse which recognised to some degree a conflict or tension between the haves and the have nots, the progressive parties moved away from this and joined in celebrating the global elites at a time when living standards and opportunities for Working people began to stagnate or go backwards A belief that investment in Education could level the playing field was popular amongst progressive parties but has had the unintended consequence of a growth in Credentialism which has increased the divide by ring fencing certain jobs that were previously available to non credentialled, where previously the entry level may have been GCSE's it now may require a Degree (my Ex wife is a brilliant Nurse, she now trains Nurses and doesn't need a degree to do so)
We also have the issue of the Credentialled overwhelmingly ruling over the non credentialled In the US 95% of the House have College Degrees and 100% of the Senate, On this board recently Mercian commented that regards working class representation in Parliament he could only think of Lee Anderson, to which others chipped in with Angela Raynor (apologies Angela for linking you to Anderson!) ,you may say it has always been so, but not to this degree. This is obviously a Problem for Parties of the left who no longer look and sound like the people they came into being to represent, maybe that they wish to form a new voter coalition which focuses on the socially Liberal, but that in my view is a fragile coalition
The challenge for Progressive Parties is not to be underestimated, Governments are not as Powerful as they used to be, The haves are less inclined than ever to share any of their Wealth, they have a long reach. The Electorate are disengaged and there is not much adherence to the idea of a standard verifiable truth.
Whilst recently I have Posted that This Labour Govt will be judged deservedly so whether it improves the living Standards of Working People, but I think after the last few days they need to raise their sights to ask the question how to we organise Society not to achieve equality of outcomes, or the false Prophet of equality of Opportunity but allows for a quality of living condition than enables the majority who do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to enjoy lives of dignity and decency developing their abilities in work that confers Social and self esteem even though not significant financial reward, and those who can't work are also valued, it is after all a lottery whether your talent is rewarded by the Epoch in which you live.
P.S. Apologies if this is unintelligible I have Covid, and I have just noticed how long it has taken me to write this!
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 8, 2024 20:37:48 GMT
Actually we find out, eventually, that it is worse than this in the behaviour of the Tel Aviv "fans". People really have to stop taking the side of Israeli supporting outlets and fact check these things first: Video includes scenes of them disrespecting the minute's silence for the Valencia flood victims. x.com/leylahamed/status/1854856314679111778 The world is moving inexorably (it seems) towards exceptionalism. It was probably ever thus. At some points in history groups fall on one side of the ledger, and other points the reverse is true. One thing is true though. Racism has become so wanton and mainstream that it is going to take many years to reverse the trend. Dutch foorball fans have a long history of hooliganism. Israeli football fans don't have the same reputation, but just as Israeli society has become more and more extreme ethno nationalist (in the majority- there is a huge anti-racist minority), this is spreading to its sports fans. Was this hooliganism, racism anf glorifying genocide by Maccabi fans followed by hooliganism and antisemitism by Ajax fans? The videos suggest this but we don't yet know. Also,it needs to be borne in mind that Ajax has a Jewish history, so I find it hard to believe that the bulk of their fans would be antisemitic. |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 8, 2024 21:07:26 GMT
That is to fall into the fashionable Labour trap of confusing anti Israeli-ism with anti Semitism. They arent the same. You can attack the Israeli fans who in turn burnt Palestinian flags without being anti semitic.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Nov 8, 2024 22:00:25 GMT
Actually we find out, eventually, that it is worse than this in the behaviour of the Tel Aviv "fans". People really have to stop taking the side of Israeli supporting outlets and fact check these things first: Video includes scenes of them disrespecting the minute's silence for the Valencia flood victims. x.com/leylahamed/status/1854856314679111778 The world is moving inexorably (it seems) towards exceptionalism. It was probably ever thus. At some points in history groups fall on one side of the ledger, and other points the reverse is true. One thing is true though. Racism has become so wanton and mainstream that it is going to take many years to reverse the trend. Dutch foorball fans have a long history of hooliganism. Israeli football fans don't have the same reputation, but just as Israeli society has become more and more extreme ethno nationalist (in the majority- there is a huge anti-racist minority), this is spreading to its sports fans. Was this hooliganism, racism anf glorifying genocide by Maccabi fans followed by hooliganism and antisemitism by Ajax fans? The videos suggest this but we don't yet know. Also,it needs to be borne in mind that Ajax has a Jewish history, so I find it hard to believe that the bulk of their fans would be antisemitic. Not convinced it had much to do with Ajax fans, very few of whom are Jewish, given the destruction of that part of their original fan base by the nazis. I think the burning of Palestinian flags in Amsterdam by Israeli football fans was always likely to provoke a violent reaction. I can only say I'd expect exactly the same reaction in Dublin or certain areas of Belfast if events had played out the same way. Neither city is known for it's anti-semitism! Israel's supporters have done their best to conflate anti-semitism with people being angry at the actions of the state of Israel. If Israel wasn't bombing Gaza back into the stone age, I think it's highly unlikely the events of last night would have happened. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2024 22:35:42 GMT
The rapist lunatic president elect is already taking to his social media pages to shout vitriol and attack the Governor of California and undermine State rights. This could get very ugly very quickly. youtu.be/gwvf8_gBOXs?si=a8PKgU65g-7E6CTX |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 8, 2024 23:15:29 GMT
The rapist lunatic president elect is already taking to his social media pages to shout vitriol and attack the Governor of California and undermine State rights. This could get very ugly very quickly. youtu.be/gwvf8_gBOXs?si=a8PKgU65g-7E6CTXState rights are very important over there I believe. The American Civil War was over State rights. It might have been their right to own slaves, but even so It's a dangerous path for trump to tread. ----------------------------- On a different matter, and arguably on the wrong thread but this seems to be the live one at the moment, I have been looking up some of the laws passed during the Interregnum so that I can have an idea of what to expect from po-faced Starmer. Some of the things they banned or tried to ban were: horse racing, theatre, gambling, alehouses, music, dancing, fairs, Christmas, Easter and growing tobacco. Starmer would have no chance of getting most of those through but I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of restriction on gambling, alehouses and of course tobacco. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 8, 2024 23:49:54 GMT
So it transpires that Project 25 the core maga proposal for transferring money from the poor to the mega rich is actually what the trump regime intends to do. " I never thought the leopard would eat my face" says the man who voted for The leopards eat your face party! It's national shoot yourself in the foot day all over again. ? |
|
