Cycling Related

It appears that some ardent Brexshiteers have been telling all their mates to join the Tory party so that they can vote in someone who will "deliver Brexshit". I don't think they've spotted that you have to have been a party member for three months at the time the election is called in order to vote....

A few months ago there was a recruitment drive in order to prevent a Muslim becoming PM.

Heated debate in our house. Being a household of doctors and teachers (well, one of each), Hunt and Gove are held in especial hatred and contempt. But if either of those turns out to have the best chance of stopping Boris, should we not promote them?

Would the outcome be any different? They are all intent on crashing the country.

JohnToo wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Heated debate in our house. Being a household of doctors and teachers (well, one of each), Hunt and Gove are held in especial hatred and contempt. But if either of those turns out to have the best chance of stopping Boris, should we not promote them?

Unless you happen to have close friends among the 300-odd who will decide which candidates to put forward to the 100,000 electors in this Rotten Borough election I don't suppose it really matters.

Dunckel wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Would the outcome be any different? They are all intent on crashing the country.

I think it could matter. They are all odious and evil but Boris is further along the road to naked unscrupulous popularism. All of them are likely to deeply damage the country. Boris could also destroy democracy.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Unless you happen to have close friends among the 300-odd who will decide which candidates to put forward to the 100,000 electors in this Rotten Borough election I don't suppose it really matters.

True at one literal level but defeatist. When my grandchildren ask me what i did when the fascists took over [Germany in the 1930s][Britain in the 2020s], I don't want to say "nothing, because I didn't have a vote".

JohnToo wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Boris could also destroy democracy.

For what it's worth I think we're a very long way from that - not least because he wouldn't have the balls to completely suspend democracy, and doesn't have the numbers in parliament to do it via a democratic coup. As Hong Kong is proving, in the era of instant communications even extremely authoritarian governments in modern open economies struggle to impose their will.

None of the current crop of authoritarian leaders are remotely close to the sort of true militaristic fascism we saw in the 20th century, nor do I think any of them are likely to end up there. They and their friends have more to lose than to win - it's more likely we'll bimble along in a semi-repressive state until a decent leader emerges who can effectively build a proper opposition coalition.

Dunckel wrote: ↑

5 years ago

They are all intent on crashing the country.

And I think this is wrong too. We know that that's the likeliest outcome of some of the insane rhetoric we're hearing, but I don't for a moment believe that any of them accept that fact. They genuinely believe that they are doing the best for the country - yes, even the appalling Johnson.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

They genuinely believe that they are doing the best for the country - yes, even the appalling Johnson.

I think Johnson genuinely believes he is and will do his best for some in the country, I do not for a moment believe that best will extend to people that actually need the best doing for them. It is feasible that Johnson (et al) is so out of touch that he views his circle as being the country, in which case his believing he is doing his best for the country could I suppose be fairly argued.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

For what it's worth I think we're a very long way from that - not least because he wouldn't have the balls to completely suspend democracy, and doesn't have the numbers in parliament to do it via a democratic coup. As Hong Kong is proving, in the era of instant communications even extremely authoritarian governments in modern open economies struggle to impose their will.

None of the current crop of authoritarian leaders are remotely close to the sort of true militaristic fascism we saw in the 20th century, nor do I think any of them are likely to end up there. They and their friends have more to lose than to win - it's more likely we'll bimble along in a semi-repressive state until a decent leader emerges who can effectively build a proper opposition coalition.

I don't think you've taken on board how insidiously and gradually these things happen. I don't think Boris would hold a vote to abolish democracy*, I think he will gradually change the culture such that democracy ceases to function in a meaningful way and ceases to be seen by enough of the population as important anymore. Time will tell which of us is right. I desperately hope it is you.

* "democracy" in the literal sense probably isn't the issue - it's the sense of living in a "liberal democracy" that is at stake.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

None of the current crop of authoritarian leaders are remotely close to the sort of true militaristic fascism we saw in the 20th century, nor do I think any of them are likely to end up there

I hope you are right. I can't share your confidence. Bolsonaro, Modi, Orban? ... And Mussolini looked at least as ridiculous as Trump a decade before the war.



The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all

Edit: and where are our Churchill/Chamberlain, de Gaulle, Roosevelt etc?

This could get interesting.

I do hope so.....

Happy to see the back of Raab, I will miss the debate tonight as I am out, but I predict that everyone will round on Boris and he will get very slippery and slightly flustered.