Snap General Election called

[Stom]

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

There are more Sunak backers than Truss backers left in the cpp.

Doesn't matter if it goes to a members' vote...and that seems to be stacked with the loonies these days. Might as well merge with Reform and get it done with.

[Mellsblue]

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

There are more Sunak backers than Truss backers left in the cpp.

Doesn't matter if it goes to a members' vote...and that seems to be stacked with the loonies these days. Might as well merge with Reform and get it done with.

Unless they can engineer two moderate candidates. Not sure they have sufficient numbers to do that, though.

[Which Tyler]

Moving on, I see the racists are unhappy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... government

[morepork]

I can see it too and am not trying to play the man over the ball. I mean the man not the ball. I just cannot get my head around assuming "moderates" will ride in on a white horse, on either side of the political spectrum, and that a push to the assumed centre is the way to go. There needs to be a sea change here, one that serves people and not corporate doublespeak. There has been 40 years of this supposed centre catering to Mammon. It hasn't worked. The data is in.

Two things here.

1) It's FPTP: Mells literally had a choice for an individual, and chose that individual based on his views.

2) Unfortunately, for us to have a complete sea change would need buy-in worldwide, and we're not likely to see that, especially from 'Murica. We cannot switch economic system today, so we need to simply make the best job of what we have available to us.

Starmer has come in and appeased centrists. I totally (naively) expect him to do some pretty left leaning things, but the total change in tack over shareholder profits is not going to come on the back of one country.

3) Even though it should carry that much weight, my vote won’t change any seas.

Any port in a storm. And yes, FPTP acknowledged. Why the global buy in?

[Puja]

Two things here.

1) It's FPTP: Mells literally had a choice for an individual, and chose that individual based on his views.

2) Unfortunately, for us to have a complete sea change would need buy-in worldwide, and we're not likely to see that, especially from 'Murica. We cannot switch economic system today, so we need to simply make the best job of what we have available to us.

Starmer has come in and appeased centrists. I totally (naively) expect him to do some pretty left leaning things, but the total change in tack over shareholder profits is not going to come on the back of one country.

3) Even though it should carry that much weight, my vote won’t change any seas.

Any port in a storm. And yes, FPTP acknowledged. Why the global buy in?

Well, we'd need the USA, at least. Change our economic system from unregulated capitalism and it's just asking for a CIA-backed coup.

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

And the polls have Braverman ahead

Won't matter - she's unpopular enough with MPs that she'll lose out in the initial rounds. It'll be Badenoch who wins.

Puja

[Stom]

3) Even though it should carry that much weight, my vote won’t change any seas.

Any port in a storm. And yes, FPTP acknowledged. Why the global buy in?

Well, we'd need the USA, at least. Change our economic system from unregulated capitalism and it's just asking for a CIA-backed coup.

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

And the polls have Braverman ahead

Won't matter - she's unpopular enough with MPs that she'll lose out in the initial rounds. It'll be Badenoch who wins.

Puja

I’m not sure they’d vote for her… They seem very against her…

Either way, neither are electable.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Re fascism, this article and video gives a helpful list of 10 traits or tactics of fascism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/fascism-d ... n-stanley/

The Mythic Past: The creation of a mythical, idealized past to look to as a moment of national glory to which the country should return. While often based on some easily exaggerated moment in history, it needn’t be based on much at all. Leaders in fascist Italy placed a higher value on the myth itself than its historical veracity, for example.

Propaganda: While many political philosophies use propaganda, fascists lean on it to establish a sense of “us and them,” and to frame “them” as an existential threat to the nation.

Anti-Intellectualism: The “them” typically include intellectuals or sources of expertise that might disagree with the leadership of the government or the fascist movement. Beyond intellectuals in the humanities, leading figures in the hard sciences can also be targeted if they go against what the leader needs to be true.

Unreality: Fascists tend to ignore details that might trouble them and define truth as whatever the leader declares it to be. This can make propaganda more effective because it allows for a leader to get their followers to ignore problems that might derail a more reality-based movement. It can also lead to things like the Nazis trying to find Atlantis.

Hierarchy: Pretty much any fascist movement will establish a hierarchy of humanity with a particular group — be it a race, religion, sex, gender, or nation — on top and everybody else below. Equality is denied and the value of the alleged dominant group will be parroted for all to hear.

Victimhood: Despite the claims of superiority, the fascist tends to also claim this group has been victimized by others — say, stabbed in the back while they were about to win World War I — and that bold action is needed to right this “wrong” and restore the hierarchy. This also tends to make equality look like discrimination against a group that isn’t being discriminated against.

Law and Order: Fascists often promise to bring law and order to a nation, though they often end up more corrupt than anybody else.

Sexual Anxiety: Like other right-wing movements, fascism tends to play on fears of and prejudices against homosexuality. Fascist politicians often frame themselves as protectors of women and children in the face of fanatic homosexuals out to harm them.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Many authoritarian, right-wing regimes gather support from the countryside by painting the urban parts of the country as the source of decadence, cosmopolitanism, sin, crime, and moral decay. Urban elites are contrasted with the “real” citizens living a wholesome, traditional life in the country.

Arbeit Macht Frei: “Work makes you free” was written above the gates at Auschwitz. Not only a dark warning, it expresses the fascist notion that only by working for the nation does a person have value or deserve to be treated as a person. Hard physical labor is often highly valued, while those working in academia or other less physical professions are often looked down on.

This is quite helpful in recognising fascism and movements which are developing in that direction.
eg Trump hits pretty much all of them (it's actually pretty scary to watch the video and think about Trump and presidential immunity), but there are a few hits with the Tories and Reform - the Mythic Past (British Empire, the World Wars), propaganda about immigrants, anti intellectualism, unreality and victimhood re Brexit, Law and Order, Sexual Anxiety, Work Makes You Free, Hierarchy. The Tories lack the 'Strong Man'. Even Boris, the closest they had, was far too much of a joker. Farage is a bit of a joker too but given him time . . .

[Donny osmond]

Moving on, I see the racists are unhappy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... government

People are weird aren't they? This group or that group can be celebrated but this group of that group can't?

[Donny osmond]

Re fascism, this article and video gives a helpful list of 10 traits or tactics of fascism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/fascism-d ... n-stanley/

The Mythic Past: The creation of a mythical, idealized past to look to as a moment of national glory to which the country should return. While often based on some easily exaggerated moment in history, it needn’t be based on much at all. Leaders in fascist Italy placed a higher value on the myth itself than its historical veracity, for example.

Propaganda: While many political philosophies use propaganda, fascists lean on it to establish a sense of “us and them,” and to frame “them” as an existential threat to the nation.

Anti-Intellectualism: The “them” typically include intellectuals or sources of expertise that might disagree with the leadership of the government or the fascist movement. Beyond intellectuals in the humanities, leading figures in the hard sciences can also be targeted if they go against what the leader needs to be true.

Unreality: Fascists tend to ignore details that might trouble them and define truth as whatever the leader declares it to be. This can make propaganda more effective because it allows for a leader to get their followers to ignore problems that might derail a more reality-based movement. It can also lead to things like the Nazis trying to find Atlantis.

Hierarchy: Pretty much any fascist movement will establish a hierarchy of humanity with a particular group — be it a race, religion, sex, gender, or nation — on top and everybody else below. Equality is denied and the value of the alleged dominant group will be parroted for all to hear.

Victimhood: Despite the claims of superiority, the fascist tends to also claim this group has been victimized by others — say, stabbed in the back while they were about to win World War I — and that bold action is needed to right this “wrong” and restore the hierarchy. This also tends to make equality look like discrimination against a group that isn’t being discriminated against.

Law and Order: Fascists often promise to bring law and order to a nation, though they often end up more corrupt than anybody else.

Sexual Anxiety: Like other right-wing movements, fascism tends to play on fears of and prejudices against homosexuality. Fascist politicians often frame themselves as protectors of women and children in the face of fanatic homosexuals out to harm them.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Many authoritarian, right-wing regimes gather support from the countryside by painting the urban parts of the country as the source of decadence, cosmopolitanism, sin, crime, and moral decay. Urban elites are contrasted with the “real” citizens living a wholesome, traditional life in the country.

Arbeit Macht Frei: “Work makes you free” was written above the gates at Auschwitz. Not only a dark warning, it expresses the fascist notion that only by working for the nation does a person have value or deserve to be treated as a person. Hard physical labor is often highly valued, while those working in academia or other less physical professions are often looked down on.

This is quite helpful in recognising fascism and movements which are developing in that direction.
eg Trump hits pretty much all of them (it's actually pretty scary to watch the video and think about Trump and presidential immunity), but there are a few hits with the Tories and Reform - the Mythic Past (British Empire, the World Wars), propaganda about immigrants, anti intellectualism, unreality and victimhood re Brexit, Law and Order, Sexual Anxiety, Work Makes You Free, Hierarchy. The Tories lack the 'Strong Man'. Even Boris, the closest they had, was far too much of a joker. Farage is a bit of a joker too but given him time . . .

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Re fascism, this article and video gives a helpful list of 10 traits or tactics of fascism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/fascism-d ... n-stanley/

The Mythic Past:
Propaganda:
Anti-Intellectualism:
Unreality:
Hierarchy:
Victimhood:
Law and Order:
Sexual Anxiety:
Sodom and Gomorrah:
Arbeit Macht Frei: “Work makes you free”

This is quite helpful in recognising fascism and movements which are developing in that direction.
eg Trump hits pretty much all of them (it's actually pretty scary to watch the video and think about Trump and presidential immunity), but there are a few hits with the Tories and Reform - the Mythic Past (British Empire, the World Wars), propaganda about immigrants, anti intellectualism, unreality and victimhood re Brexit, Law and Order, Sexual Anxiety, Work Makes You Free, Hierarchy. The Tories lack the 'Strong Man'. Even Boris, the closest they had, was far too much of a joker. Farage is a bit of a joker too but given him time . . .

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

[Puja]

Moving on, I see the racists are unhappy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... government

People are weird aren't they? This group or that group can be celebrated but this group of that group can't?

I feel like context, both historical and social, probably gives clues as to why.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Re fascism, this article and video gives a helpful list of 10 traits or tactics of fascism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/fascism-d ... n-stanley/



This is quite helpful in recognising fascism and movements which are developing in that direction.
eg Trump hits pretty much all of them (it's actually pretty scary to watch the video and think about Trump and presidential immunity), but there are a few hits with the Tories and Reform - the Mythic Past (British Empire, the World Wars), propaganda about immigrants, anti intellectualism, unreality and victimhood re Brexit, Law and Order, Sexual Anxiety, Work Makes You Free, Hierarchy. The Tories lack the 'Strong Man'. Even Boris, the closest they had, was far too much of a joker. Farage is a bit of a joker too but given him time . . .

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

[Which Tyler]

Just seen this, Russ in Cheshire has been going beyond the week in tory, to do the 14 years in tory; with a thread (sometimes 2) for each year.
Starting June 27th, currently up to 2018, and I think the brown smelly stuff is about to his the air-circulating bladed thing:

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/RussInCheshire

[Stom]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is a balance to be struck between striving for communication and finding common ground...and calling out behaviors that do not belong in our society. I don't think it's unfair to say that Suella Braverman says and does a lot of things that are fascist in nature. And so calling out the Tory party as lurching toward fascism is fair, in my opinion.

Likewise, Johnson's rhetoric was extremely dangerous and took the party close to fascism. Which, again, I believe should be called out.

When an individual or party do not act in good faith, it is no good engaging them in debate.

And I'd suggest that the Labour Party are a lot further away from Communism than the Tories are from Fascism. Why? Well, because this Labour party is all about devolution, all about giving power back. And at their hearts, both communism and fascism are about control. So, considering the horseshoe of politics, you can definitely argue that this conservative party is closer to communism than Labour...

[Mellsblue]

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

a) There is a balance to be struck between striving for communication and finding common ground...and calling out behaviors that do not belong in our society.

b) Why? …devolution, all about giving power back. And at their hearts, both communism and fascism are about control.

a) Agreed, which is why the hyperbole is so dangerous. The boy who cried wolf and all that.

b) The Conservatives have created almost all the ‘metro mayors’, approx 10 (I think) despite it being a politically poor decision - only one is a Conservative. Bloody Gove up to his Machiavellian tricks again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

Yes but, 1) we're discussing fascism here. If you want to make a list of the characteristics of totalitarian communism and see how close Labour is to that, go ahead. I'm not convinced it's very close but it might be a useful exercise - we should be forewarned of such a risk.
2) there is not a single dimension to this - being right wing might just mean that you are in favour of a more pure form of capitalism - that does not imply fascism or totalitarianism. In fact fascism often includes a fair amount of government intervention in the market. So simply being right of centre should not necessarily mean that you are closer to fascism. Using many fascist tactics would.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

The question of the ethics of right and left is a huge one, so for the purposes of discussion I certainly wouldn't start with an assumption that right of centre views are inherently less ethical than those on the left.

It's obviously not helpful to call the Tories (or anyone else) fascists unless there's very good evidence. Which is why I made a point of listing fascist characteristics so some kind of evidence can be gathered. I certainly don't think Tories are fascists in general, although under Johnson they drifted the closest they have been (to my knowledge anyway).

On one particular point, do you think Trump is a fascist, or close to it?

[Sandydragon]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

[morepork]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

[Donny osmond]

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

[Stom]

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

[Sandydragon]

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

[Son of Mathonwy]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

We struggle to learn from history if we think that certain things are only in the past. Like fascists need to have jackboots and swastikas to be fascists. That's why a list of characteristics is helpful - it allows us to be dispassionate (well, a bit more anyway) about our judgements. We can spot would-be fascists before they attain ultimate power.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

To repeat my previous response:

1) we're discussing fascism here. If you want to make a list of the characteristics of totalitarian communism and see how close Labour is to that, go ahead. I'm not convinced it's very close but it might be a useful exercise - we should be forewarned of such a risk.

2) there is not a single dimension to this - being right wing might just mean that you are in favour of a more pure form of capitalism - that does not imply fascism or totalitarianism. In fact fascism often includes a fair amount of government intervention in the market. So simply being right of centre should not necessarily mean that you are closer to fascism. Using many fascist tactics would.

[Stom]

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

[Sandydragon]

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.