Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

December 17 2019

mr-absentia

December 16 2019

U.S. Lobbyists Prepare to Seize “Historic Opportunity” in Tory-Led Brexit to Shred Consumer…

U.S. Lobbyists Prepare to Seize “Historic Opportunity” in Tory-Led Brexit to Shred Consumer Safeguards, Raise Drug Prices
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/09/brexit-american-trade-deal-boris-johnson

Boris Johnson’s election on December 12 hinges on the British prime minister’s promise to leave the European Union. Johnson has remade the Conservative Party, pushing out longtime party members wary of a firm break from the EU, to cast the election as a chance to build a parliamentary majority focused on finalizing Brexit. The original Brexit referendum that passed in June 2016 pitted populists against the establishment, with banks funneling huge amounts of money to oppose the referendum, (...)

#MPAA #Ford #Salesforce.com #élections #législation #bénéfices #BigData #BigPharma #consommation #data #lobbying #santé (...)

##santé ##BiotechnologyInnovationOrganization-BIO

https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2019/12/boris-illustration-1575673737.jpg
Reposted fromcheg00 cheg00 via02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

The Failure of the Left to Grasp Brexit

Thursday’s General Election was a bad day for the Labour Party, it spelled the end of Remainism and signalled a historic defeat for the Left. There needs to be serious reflection on all of this because the repercussions are severe and wide-ranging, and broader lessons must be learned, not just for the UK but elsewhere. It turned out, contrary to much expert assessment, that the 2016 referendum was, in fact, binding. The failure of the Left to grasp this, or to take seriously the underlying disconnect it signified.

Two initial responses have been predominant, some blaming Corbyn’s leadership, others focusing on Brexit itself. The truth is that both are to blame – they cannot be disaggregated, since Corbyn ultimately has to take responsibility for capitulating to the promise of a second referendum. If any further evidence were needed in Labour heartlands that its leadership represented just another version of a metropolitan elite that has become so utterly distrusted, this was it. John Macdonell’s rapprochement with New Labour’s Alistair Campbell and his explicit embrace of Remain was a moment that will live long in the memory.

The disconnect between the Labour Party and working class voters of course reflects a decline taking place not over months, or years, but decades. It has no easy fix. But the irony is that within the Labour Party, Corbyn was almost uniquely placed to put his weight behind a ‘Lexit’ agenda, his life-long Euro-scepticism giving him a credibility that was simply never utilised, undermined when he decided to campaign for Remain in 2016 and effectively abandoned through further concessions to the Remainers both inside and outside the Party. The tragedy, in short, is that Corbyn, and many of those around him, have gone down fighting for a cause they didn’t believe in. 

The result was clearly bad for the Labour Party, which, after doing unexpectedly well in 2017, attaining 40% of the electorate on a socialist platform and with the promise to respect the outcome of the referendum, fell to around 32% of the vote, with a similar programme but revoking its Brexit promise. Although the scale of defeat has been grossly exaggerated (Labour got more votes than under Miliband in 2015, Brown in 2010 and Blair in 2005), it can only be described as a failure. If this spells the official end of Corbyn, in truth, ‘Corbynism’ was already over once Labour capitulated to its Remain wing on Brexit, effectively giving Labour Leave voters little option but to defect to the Tories or the Brexit Party or to simply abstain. In the end, Labour lost a quarter of its Leave voters to Conservatives and 52 out of the 54 seats it lost in England were in leave-voting constituencies. 

The concessions to Remain were presumably made in part due to internal pressures and in part on the basis of some electoral calculation, the fear of losing votes to the LibDems eclipsing concern over defection to the Tories or the Brexit Party. The apparent preponderance of Remainers amongst Corbynistas themselves, along with the influence of groups such as Another Europe is Possible, meant Corbyn essentially fighting with one hand tied behind his back. From this angle, Corbyn’s position might have been justified as an attempt to perform an increasingly precarious balancing act. 

But a balancing act was not what was required. The scales had already been weighed; Remain had lost in 2016. This is such a simple point it seems extraordinary that it could have been lost from sight. No doubt, the fear of losing seats to the LibDems was real. But the real shock from this election is the complete failure of Remain as an electoral strategy, not only for Labour but for LibDems, which had turned itself into a single issue stop Brexit party but reaped scant reward. 

If the decisive victory of Johnson spells the end of Remainism, it does not, however, present an obvious path forward. Johnson’s victory was not based on a surge of enthusiasm, the Tories achieving only one percentage point more than under Teresa May. The apparent success of Johnson’s slogan of ‘Get Brexit Done’ is matched only by its emptiness. It is unclear that Johnson’s Tories has a plan of any political substance, which is not to doubt the substantial damage they may do. And if the path to leaving the EU is now open as a matter of Parliamentary arithmetic, obstacles lie ahead, not least the issue of Scottish Independence. 

The historic defeat of the Left is a more difficult proposition to outline because it requires a deeper excavation of the underlying materials. The first and most straightforward point is that there was a near-total failure of leadership on the Left either to prepare for Brexit, or less excusably, after the referendum, to take advantage of the opportunity that it provided. By 2019, a Left programme that took exit seriously had three years to mature – not on a speculative terrain, but on a terrain primed by the electorate against political and economic elites, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a rupture from the status quo. The failure is all the more extraordinary given that over the last decade since the financial crisis, across Europe, and further afield, the conjuncture has delivered up the slow-motion collapse of social democratic parties attached to EU-style centrism. It is astonishing that the same Left that witnessed the total capitulation and then defeat of Syriza could, with some notable exceptions, have evaded this historic task. 

The Labour Party has avoided Pasokification, no doubt partly due to the UK’s electoral system, but also due to the robust social movements that have grown inside it. But there is the temptation now by some on the Left to double down on the disconnect from working class communities, dismissing the electorate as ignorant, stupid or simply racist. Apart from the folly of that position in terms of constructing a viable opposition moving forward, it overlooks the fact that this dismissal had already occurred, sealed with the promise of a second referendum, writing off half the electorate at a stroke – and possibly many more when adding in Remain voters who think the outcome of the first should have been respected. 

There is a counter-argument, which points out that class is now more complex, and that a Lexit position would alienate a new core of the young, urban, cosmopolitan Labour support. There are a number of problems with this argument, even assuming it is based on accurate assumptions. Most concrete is the electoral arithmetic, which suggests that a position to respect the referendum could have cost some seats to the LibDems, but would have saved far more from the Tories. More fundamentally, this appeal to identity politics is a dead-end for the Left, not least with the problematic conflation of a Remain identity, however real that may be, with a simplistic desire to overturn a referendum. Most basic of all, however, is that Remaining in the EU should be understood for what it is – remaining in a neoliberal straightjacket, a regressive polity that not only suffers from all the defects of its various Member States but aggravates them through structural democratic deficits.

The condensed diagnosis of this conjuncture is that Labour appear to have forgotten the democratic part of democratic socialism. Not only in the trivial sense, of failing to respect a democratic mandate. But in the more complex sense of assuming that the electorate, and particularly its working class constituency, understood in all its complexity, could simply be bought off by a top-down socialism rather than advancing through their own political empowerment. 

mr-absentia

Resolution - Craig Murray

«The disillusionment will be on the same scale as Johnson’s bombastic promises. The Establishment are not stupid and realise there will be an anti-Tory reaction. Their major effort will therefore be to change Labour back into a party supporting neo-liberal economic policy and neo-conservative foreign (or rather war) policy. They will want to be quite certain that, having seen off the Labour Party’s popular European style social democratic programme with Brexit anti-immigrant fervour, the electorate have no effective non-right wing choice at the next election, just like in the Blair years.

To that end, every Blairite horror has been resurrected already by the BBC to tell us that the Labour Party must now move right – McNicol, McTernan, Campbell, Hazarayika and many more, not to mention the platforms given to Caroline Flint, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann. The most important immediate fight for radicals in England is to maintain Labour as a mainstream European social democratic party and resist its reversion to a Clinton style right wing ultra capitalist party. Whether that is possible depends how many of the Momentum generation lose heart and quit.

Northern Ireland is perhaps the most important story of this election, with a seismic shift in a net gain of two seats in Belfast from the Unionists, plus the replacement of a unionist independent by the Alliance Party. Irish reunification is now very much on the agenda. The largesse to the DUP will be cut off now Boris does not need them.

For me personally, Scotland is the most important development of all. A stunning result for the SNP. The SNP result gave them a bigger voter share in Scotland than the Tories got in the UK. So if Johnson got a “stonking mandate for Brexit”, as he just claimed in his private school idiom, the SNP got a “stonking mandate” for Independence.

I hope the SNP learnt the lesson that by being much more upfront about Independence than in the disastrous “don’t mention Independence” election of 2017, the SNP got spectacularly better results.»

July 22 2019

mr-absentia

Japan - ALS patient Yasuhiko Funago (舩後靖彦) won a seat on the Upper House in yesterday’s elections. He answered reporters’ questions with a character keyboard.

Reposted bymolotovcupcake molotovcupcake

May 30 2018

mr-absentia

December 25 2017

mr-absentia

“In the Catalan election, pro-independence parties, spearheaded by the exiled Carles Puigdemont (pictured), secure a majority.” — In the news - en.wikipedia.org

November 07 2017

mr-absentia
  • @thespainreport: National poll in @elespanolcom: if a general election were held today: PP -20 PSOE +10 Podemos -26 Ciudadanos +38 Vox would get first seat.

  • @JulianAssange: Between corruption scandals and polarization over Catalonia, Spain's ruling party PP continues to fall in polls.

  • @lluisgerard: And yet they are the most voted party. Pro-155 parties gain votes and Podemos loses a lot. So, Spain will never accept a Catalan referendum

October 18 2017

mr-absentia
無党派層が最大である以上、どういう投票率予想の下で計算しているか書かないと記事にはなんの意味もない。つまり、そもそもああいうのは意図はどうあれ印象操作である以外ない。だって実際の投票率がわからないんだから
— @seikoito on Twitter
mr-absentia

@kininaru2014111: 安倍晋三の得票数は選挙をやるごとに下がっている。

mr-absentia

安倍陣営は万単位で票減らすか 首相お膝元の選挙区情勢分析 | 長周新聞

“今回の総選挙では…保守王国の牙城がかつてなく揺らいでいる。私物化政治への批判が強すぎるのもあって、安倍後援会の必死さがこれまでにないと各所で話題になっている。公示前に安倍事務所の私設秘書が戸別訪問していたが、モリカケ疑惑について「信用ならない」と随分叱られたそうだ。それが正直な選挙区の空気だ。後援会幹部たちのなかでも「2万は減る…」「7万8000くらいになったら代議士としても終わりだ…」などと嘆いている人人がいる。表向きの目標は前回得票の10万800票の維持だが、とてもではないが無理だと誰もが見なしている。傘下の企業を引き締めたり後援会名簿をもとに電話作戦を展開しているが、「余りにも評判が悪い…」「人気が落ちている…」とこぼしている。安倍晋三は選挙区には一度も戻らないというが、企業経営者や支援者にせっせと電話をかけてきている。本人も10万票維持に必死だ。現役の首相が7万票台にでもなれば格好がつかないからだ”

“陣営を引き締めるために徹底的に危機感を煽るのも選挙では常套手段だが、今回ばかりは本気で危機感を持っているのが特徴だ。医療機関に安倍昭恵が訪れた際も、これまでは挨拶だけ済ませてお見送りされて終わりだったのが、今回は各病棟に足を運んで手当たり次第に職員と握手して回るなど必死だ。その分、職員が集められて時間をとられ「私たちが集められている間、患者さんを誰が見るのか」という反発にもなっていた。さすがKYの異名をとるだけのことはある。前回選挙でも前前回選挙から1万8000票を減らした。今回さらに万単位で減らすとなると、「音を立てて4 区は崩壊している」と見なければならない。選挙の度に得票を減らしてきたが、地盤としては安倍晋太郎の置き土産のうえに胡座をかいてきて、金庫番だった奥田とか武田みたいな老秘書が去ってからは得票を減らしっぱなしだ。これは安倍事務所の実力が落ちていることを正直に反映している”

“筆頭秘書として奥田がいた頃は、いわゆる左とか労働組合をとり込むのも得意で、後ろで手を回しながら市長候補を市民派としてプロモーションしたり、陰謀じみた手口が得意だった。これは世間の裏表を知り抜いた県警上がり特有のものだ。利害の異なる安倍派A組やB組、C組、D組から市民派、労組、宗教までふくめてコントロールする様を「奥田マジック」などと呼ぶ人もいた。総翼賛体制の源流がここにある。そのような絶対的支配のもとで選挙の苦労を知らないから、安倍晋三のような政治家ができあがる。選挙区としての責任を問わなければならないのは、世襲政治家を甘ったれた状態で送り出し、岸・佐藤の中央での権力に寄りかかって何がしかをしてやろうという体質が染みついていることだ。そのような中央依存型というか、先生、先生といっておこぼれに預かろうというような性根がはびこったことが、今日のような下関、長門の衰退をつくりだしている原因ともいえる”

October 15 2017

mr-absentia

【永田町徒然草】 赤色クーデターとの闘いをしなければならない,この国の現実は…!

“事の現状は、私が懸念していたように、どうしようもなく酷い右翼反動の安倍首相を巧みに擁護すべく、これまた酷い右翼反動が、全マスコミを使ってクーデター的に、行動を起こしたのだ”

October 13 2017

mr-absentia

Japan general elections 2017 - too fishy polls.

DLn6fhxUEAAW7ka
@ShingetsuNews: Yomiuri poll is all good news for PM Abe: threat from Party of Hope fading and CDPJ gains only marginal support.

DLxn0IZVAAITp2A
@ShingetsuNews: If NHK has it right, the Party of Hope has collapsed to former Democratic Party levels of support, and PM Abe's LDP heading for landslide.

DMADJwJUEAAxMgX
@ShingetsuNews: Opposition parties all receive miserable support ratings in latest Jiji poll, with CDPJ (leader) more-or-less in line with Hope & Communists

Too fishy - yes I think so - given people’s criticism against PM Abe prevalent in social media. Former LDP politician Katsuhiko Shirakawa (白川勝彦) also raises doubt, in his latest blog post, about Japanese MSM’s extraordinary election coverage that strongly suggests LDP’s landslide victory. He says we may see surprising results in the upcoming Oct. 22 elections. Don’t be fooled by manipulation!

mr-absentia

こうなったら全部チャラにしてしまえ!

from liberal-shirakawa.net (2017年10月13日):

ひょっとすると、トンデモナイ選挙結果が出てくるぞ。世論調査を専門的に論じているあちこちのサイトに、そういう記事があるのだ。そらそうだろう。今回の選挙は、最初からおかしかった。そして、今日もまたNHKがおかしなことを大々的に言っている。「小池さん、大連列はあるんですか?」例によって、小池さんは意味不明の言葉を羅列していた。

ただでさえ、今回の選挙の候補者の確定は遅かった。自分の県の各選挙区の候補者が誰になったのか、明確に知らない人がいてもそんなにおかしくない。それがどうだ。候補者の決定と同時に、自民党・公明党の大勝利の連呼だ。今回選挙は、最初からどうも変だった。それにしても、いくら何でも調子にのり過ぎだ。

今回の解散総選挙は、最初から安倍首相に身勝手な理由で始まった。だから、次々と起こることがどこかおかしい。だから、私は、あまり小さい事に口を入れなかったのだ。ここで、最後に本気で言おう。大卓袱台ちゃぶだいがえしで、全部をチャラにしてしまおうではないか。

今日は、このくらいにしておこう。それでは、また。

October 12 2017

「今回の選挙、くだらなすぎる」 投票棄権の賛同署名を集める東浩紀さんの真意とは?

“『一般意志 2.0』を読んで、思想家としてこの人はダメだ、と思ったが、ここまでダメだとは思わなかった(ほかにもダメだ、と思った理由は幾つかあるが、ここでは省略)。

Brexitは、それがくだらないと言ってイギリスは選挙をやめたか?Trumpが大統領になってしまったが、それがくだらないと言って米国は大統領選をやめたか?結果を予見できなかった、という言い訳は通用しない。そして、選挙とはそもそも何なのか、この人は分かって話をしているのだろうか。”

【インタビュー後篇】 「今の政党には選択肢がないと思っている人たちを可視化する必要がある」東浩紀さん

Reposted frompdl2h pdl2h

October 11 2017

mr-absentia

“政府債務が1000兆円を超えて財政危機だと叫ぶが、日本政府の資産は2015年末で約63兆円、負債を上回っており、財政危機というのは完全なフィクションである。枝野幸男氏もこの事実を認識し、財政問題についての考え方を抜本的に修正するべきだ”

— 植草一秀の『知られざる真実』: 安倍自公は消費税大増税公約で確実に大敗する (2017年10月11日)

September 26 2017

mr-absentia
mr-absentia
8016_a8cf

Why snap elections?

Analysts see the early vote as his way to seize the resurgent support and exploit the current weakness of the opposition.

For months, Mr Abe's popular support has been badly hit by a string of scandals and unpopular policies.

In July, his ratings had dropped to less than 30% but then recovered to above 50% in September.

He denies allegations of cronyism and on Monday said dissolving the lower house was not an attempt at avoiding those allegations.

Mr Abe is also is trying to push through a controversial shift in Japan's post-war pacifist defence policy, calling for formal recognition of the military in the constitution.

Who will he be running against?

While Mr Abe's tough stance on North Korea has helped him regain support, his Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) campaign is also expected to focus on social policies at home.

The main opposition Democratic Party went through a tumultuous leadership resignation in July and is currently struggling with single-digit poll ratings.

But Mr Abe faces a new challenge from a former LDP cabinet member, current Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike, who earlier on Monday announced she was forming a new national political party.

If current opinion polls are confirmed at the ballot box in October, Mr Abe will remain prime minister but his current coalition with the smaller Komeito party might fail to secure the two-thirds majority needed for his plan to revise the constitution.

If he wins another term, it would put Mr Abe on track to becoming the country's longest-serving political leader in Japan's post-war history.”

— BBC News: Japan's PM Shinzo Abe calls snap election (Sep. 25 2017)

mr-absentia
mr-absentia
現状で三分の二の議席を占有している政権与党が、選挙の勝敗ラインを「過半数」というあまりにも低いところに設定している理由は、つまるところ、選挙後に「有権者の信任を得たので、これをもって森友・加計問題は終了」と言いたいからなのだろうな
— @tako_ashi on Twitter
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
Get rid of the ads (sfw)

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl