For not understanding why "populism" is seen as such a bad thing

[TemporaryPosition]

Is the point of democracy not to have popular support?

Globalism has also improved many peoples lives as well. Indonesia, India, China, Thailand are all unrecognisable from 30-40 years ago.

What to do? Eh - get out there and try and make a difference rather than wring your hands that 'some one else ought to do something' It is called having a civic sense of duty. Pick up litter, volunteer at an old peoples' home, teach refugees English, volunteer at the CAB, campaign for a cause you believe in, join a club and help organise meet ups. Whatever, but if you don't like the state the country is in, try and make it better in small ways, as they will add up.

Plus, from experience when you do this, you end up meeting other positive, helpful people that makes you feel better about the world.

My sister is one of the happiest people I know. Part of that, is aged 60, she still volunteers to teach/ assist severely handicapped people swim. They love it, she loves it. Everyone wins.

Or vote Reform I guess.

SerendipityJane
A supreme UK parliament can do whatever it wants

I doubt that a UK parliament can do what it wants without scrutiny of the courts if so challenged.

I actually don't think we disagree as much as you think. For example, I agree that outsourcing manufacturing capabilities and destroying whole communities in the process was not a good thing. On other threads I have said many times that I am politically homeless. However, even if I can agree on parts of the diagnosis, I am convinced that populists are snake oil salesmen who really work against those communities who've already suffered (and want to drag more downwards for their own gains). Populists are ALL either billionaires themselves or bankrolled by them. The fat cats watching the sparrows fighting over crumbs.

It comes from the law. Otherwise you're talking about burning witches, heretics or any other targeted group.

Populism is the art of making people view the world through a very narrow lens, be it race, religion, animal rights, climate change denial, trans fuckwittery etc. and manipulating the populace to vote your way. It doesn't offer a meaningful plan. It is the opposite of holistic. It's not practical. It doesn't lead to good outcomes.

This is just another thread trying to whip up support for reform. Starts off ok , then true colours show

Is it ok if a politics thread is pro Labour?

It's a good question tbf, I'd get students to discuss populism in a debate

I'm perfectly happy with politics thread promoting whichever party the OP supports.

I would also support discussing politics, including populism, in schools. When schools are teaching WW1 and 2 they really should be touching on that in any case, but wider education in politics and current affair is badly needed.

I absolutely agree with you. And I've already said, I voted Reform confident that there was no chance they would win the seat. Because they are anti establishment, yes they represent the finance elite and their interests, but the current establishment elite (political, civil service, media, academic) absolutely fear and loathe them. How else do I signal I want something other than the uniparty?

I'm not sure that's a good idea! I was a normal default liberal until I studied politics and sociology at uni and was unintentionally radicalised by them 😂 they're so so biased they do more harm than gold

It comes from the law? I'm confused. I thought law came from parliament? Which was voted for by the electorate..

I'm hearing contradictory things in this thread. One moment populists are pretending to go along with what they think people want, but have no intention of delivering. And now you're saying that they're manipulating people into believing what they want them to believe. So, are they manipulating them into believing in something they have no intention of delivering? It is getting very confusing

Who is offering a meaningful plan at the moment? A practical one? And how do we know it has lead to good outcomes?

I always think of that quote, in 1972 the Chinese Premier was asked if he felt the French Revolution had has a positive outcome - he replied it was too early to say. So, what is a "good" outcome, and when can we call it?

And who elected these judges? Do we even know the names of these unelected and remote judges who get to override parliament. Why not skip the silly votey bit and just put these kings in charge. Would save a lot of money.

It's not about that, predictable response

They are just getting repetitive

I wish it was a debate. Few posters definitely with distinct agenda, from the start

It's not about that, predictable response

I found your post predictable tbf. Anything not Labour usually has similar

The law does come from parliament. Parliament voted for by the electorate to govern for the next 4-5 years.

Parliament make the law, they are also bound by it and can be tested in a Court. Our laws are not and should not be a kneejerk reaction or made on the result of a poll that day. Politics is not XFactor.

If people want a different thread that is a debate, when this one isn't for some reason, I don't see why it can't be elsewhere

I've found it fairly interesting as threads go. I could see both sides to the op's question debated fairly robustly

Well, we can all see what having politicised judges brings across the pond. Freedom and happiness it ain't, especially if you're female and unlucky enough to get pregnant when you don't want to be. Andc then there's the little problem that elected judges and police chiefs spend more time getting reelected than actually upholding the law.

Also by your logic, everyone in positions of power should be elected - company execs, coffee shop managers, ward managers in the NHS - absolutely everybody, because we can't have people in power being unelected, can we?

So the OP studied politics but votes without reading manifestos, is in favour of children not being taught about politics so that they are not radicalised, believes that politicians should not make any long term plans and thinks that there should be elections for judges. Interesting set of opinions.

One moment populists are pretending to go along with what they think people want, but have no intention of delivering. And now you're saying that they're manipulating people into believing what they want them to believe. So, are they manipulating them into believing in something they have no intention of delivering? It is getting very confusing

That's exactly it. Pretense, manipulation and lies, for self profit, nothing else. Especially not the benefit of the majority. What are you confused about?

Didn't vote Labour
Enjoy the opposite of debate

@sleepwouldbenice

Yep will do. Ditto to you with the other threads.

And it would have been higher if people like farage had turned up to vote - things like fishing

Interesting case on fishing here:

Landmarks in law: the 90s fishing case that stoked UK Euroscepticism.

Before Factortame, some UK politicians hadn’t fully grasped the power of EU law over parliament.

In 1988, the Eurosceptic Conservative government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act to negate the impact of the EU’s common fisheries policy. It restricted access to British waters and prevented foreign-owned vessels from re-registering as British ships in order to sell their catches in Europe, but count them against the British fishing quota (a practice known as “quota-hopping”).

However, the European Court of Justice ruled that this legislation broke European law. It said that the act, which provided that only British-owned boats were entitled to a share of the national fishing quota, was inconsistent with the most basic principles of European law: the freedom of movement and capital, and the right of establishment...

^https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism^

pointythings
then there's the little problem that elected judges and police chiefs spend more time getting reelected than actually upholding the law

Police and crime commissioners in England and Wales are elected.

Yes, and I thought when that was brought in that it was a bad idea. But at least the actual Chief Constables and the like aren't politicised.

Goodness me. Reality really is beyond your capacity to grasp isn't it?

"Populist" is just a name for politicians you don't like isn't it? It has no real meaning