*doublepromote

Mark's been on the money since about the time he wrote "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea", but there have been two significant developments in Europe that he seemingly didn't see coming: Portugal and the UK.

The Left Alliance in Portugal has basically been giving Schäuble the finger for two years now, with their unilateral end to austerity. How dare they defy the master of coin?! If Schäuble says you need another round of austerity, by God, you better tighten your belts, even if they are already around your neck.

Unsurprisingly, everyone going along with austerity without having a completely export-dependent economy is in deep doo-doo. Meanwhile, those pesky Portuguese actually managed to massively reduce unemployment, despite running a deficit that is entirely too small for their current situation. But that's a different story.

And then there's the UK. There's Corbyn. Tribune of the Plebs. Managed to get the youth voting by offering actual left-wing policies (the "radical youth", as the NYT likes to call them, while claiming that the warmongering, Constitution-shredding, wage-depressing, ecosphere-destroying "centrists" are not the real radicals). Managed to turn quite a lot of UKIP voters around as well. Within striking distance of the Tories, despite the media running 24h a day of drivel like "Jezza's Jihadi Comrades" -- Goebbels would be ashamed of the crudeness of the propaganda campaign by the Sun/Daily Mirror/etc.

The populist left is back, bitches. Corbyn and Sanders are the first steps past the neoliberal warmongers of the Third Way. The Obama experience of a corporatist disguised as a left populist may have given us The Orange One, but it also put another nail into the coffin of neoliberalism.

Antonio Gramsci, founding member of the Italian communist party, who was killed by the fascist regime of Mussolini, gave us the appropriate description of our time:
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

That's your Trump. That's your opioid epidemic. That's the EU's austerity program in Greece, doing twice as much damage as the German occupation in WW2.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

A fascinating look at the factors leading up to the Brexit. "Race-baiting, Nationalism, and Fear" Sounds familiar. Seems to be a common theme in semi-successful election campaigns. We in Canada voted against that kind of nonsense in our latest federal election, thankfully.

I wonder, though, if the Brexit will actually happen? Will UKIP win the election for leadership of the UK? Are the other parties interested in stewarding Britain through the exit? I ask partly because I don't really know and don't have much perspective on the whole matter and am interested in your opinions of it.

*quality stuff from the NerdWriter.

I wonder how that guy at 5:40 feels now, given that the UKIP supporters are probably telling him he should get out of "their" country?

As someone on the other side of the world, it doesn't really bother me. If Ireland was to have a similar poll, I would certainly vote in favour of staying in the EU, if only so that I still have the option of working in Europe at some point (unlikely as that might be).

But I have recently discovered a fool-proof way of deciding any issue. Basically if UKIP are for it, I'm agin it!

It doesn't matter how any of us feels about UKIP, it flat out was not democratic. Take a look at the number of votes per seat of the significant players in the 2015 election.

First past the post is a great way for 2 parties to maintain a stranglehold on power, which is a great way for politics to stagnate. What the video also neglects to mention - i think - is that these boundaries and seats regularly change according to what suits the party in power. My constituency used to be Labour, but recently they redefined the boundaries of my constituency so that the Labour seat i used to live in became Tory due to poor people being sectioned off into another constituency that was already strongly Labour. We are now associated with the richer more privileged parts of the area.

Blame the popularity of UKIP on the fact that none of the main parties have gained the trust of the average person, none of them have represented the interests of the average person, and none of them have spoken about the issues affecting the average person. In how long now? I don't know, but certainly for as long as i have known, so at least 25 years.

While I agree with you about UKIP, even though I don't like them, it's still not really democratic, is it? Yes, 13% might be ignorant bigotted morons, but as much as it pains me, they still have a right to representation.

The other aspect that Grey doesn't mention is that changing to STV or MMP would affect the vote, not just the results. You vote differently under those systems (especially MMP), because you know that you can affect the outcome in different ways.

So if the UK re-ran the election under MMP, we'd see a change in result, but it wouldn't be exactly how the votes played out now.

It's a tricky one. On one hand it could be improved, but on the other hand I'm happy with a system that converted UKIP's (Team Purple) 13% into 0%.

Well happy with that part, less happy about being stuck with the bloody Tories for another five years.

Nothing is good about this situation and there is no reason to think this will end in anything but Greek default.

Greece's government, elected by its citizens ran up a large and unsustainable debt which was masked by easy credit before the GFC and fraudulent accounting.

There were many contributors. Corruption, hugely wasteful state owned enterprises, joining the euro zone before they were ready to lose the ability to devalue their currency and lower interest rates, and flagrant tax evasion.

But as a country they're collectively responsible for not demanding the necessary reforms of their politicians to ensure they were not vulnerable to a credit crisis when the GFC hit and lenders began to look more scrupulously at individual European countries rather than Europe as a whole. Equally, Italy is responsible for voting Berlusconi into power for every year their economy recorded negative growth under his government. Spain is responsible for not providing sufficient oversight to bad bank lending leading a huge indebting bailout package.

Some of Syriza's reforms are reasonable. Tackling corruption and trying to break up oligopolies are worthy ideas, but they are unlikely to be easy and yield any immediate benefit. Raising the minimum wage and planning to hire back state workers as they have already promised will almost guarantee they will cease to receive EU funding/ECB assistance and later IMF funding.

The simple truth from the point of view of Germany and other austerity backing Nordic countries is if they buy their loans (and in effect transfer money to Greece) without austerity stipulations, there will be no pressure or guarantee that structural reforms that allow Greece to function independently will ever be implemented. These lender government and by extension its people have no interest in transferring wealth to Greece if it stalls its reforms.

Yes fire sales of state owned enterprises suck but the likely alternative at this point if the Troika lending is stopped is that all other lending stops and Greece defaults. At that point there would be mass loss of state sector jobs and sky-rocketing unemployment relative to what is now being experienced. It would take years of reform for the Greek government to be lend-worthy again. There is simply no trust for any alternative to austerity on the part of north Europe.

Currently Greece has reported positive growth in the past quarter and excluding debt repayments is running a budget surplus. Realistically, yes they cannot pay back the 180% of GDP. The likely way forward is after several more years of real reform they (+ Spain & Portugal) would get better terms from the EU as politically, leaders in Germany and elsewhere will be able to make the case that their objective has been achieved.

The ECB's QE package is in some ways already part of this. What I guarantee won't happen is electing Syriza to oppose bailout terms helping to secure that. Germany et al will quite rightly see that if they acquiesce to Greece they will encourage other populist parties in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France and stall reforms.

Could Germany and others in theory provide a huge cash infusion to Greece, Spain and Portugal now? Sure. And those parties would be voted out in the next election and the terms reversed. Even with the relative stinginess of current loan terms, the likes of UKIP and the National Front with their anti-EU stance, have gained political standing in the EU parliament and will likely see huge boosts in upcoming domestic elections.

Taxing has no negative effects on the economy. Proven. Same with minimum wages increases.
Yes the UK needs to tax the shit out of London and the city.
The UKs problem with UKIP is due to an ageing population of racist tabloid reading dumbfucks who cry about 'their' Britain changing whilst quite enjoying cuts on hospitals, schools and jobs so long as it doesn't effect them or their lifelong pensions.

@speechless

UKIP's support from what I've read, comes significantly from smaller country towns with jobs like manufacturing which are disappearing largely due to continued global trade and outsourcing trends. UKIP's popularity comes from being able to scapegoat these global trends on immigration. I was more arguing from the point of view that countering Farage's demagoguery is best done by explaining why it is incorrect rather than necessary pointing to alternative solutions, although that should certainly be part of it. But citing taxing finance as your one and only solution is demagoguery in itself.

I'm not too familiar with the level of tax avoidance and cronyism in UK politics, at least relative to other rich countries. Would a higher personal or corporate tax rate, particularly in finance help? Maybe. As it is, the UK is a finance hub for Europe disproportionate to its economic size and contributes some 16% of GDP and significantly to the trade balance (boosting the pound to improve international buying power).

Finance is very globalized and business could shift very easily to Hong Kong or New York if taxes were raised to a sufficient extent. I would be not be surprised if a higher tax take could be generated from higher tax levels though, however a political overreaction to tax and regulate finance could be just as damaging as focussing on immigration in the greater scale of things.

It turns out the big guy with the walking stick wasn't just some random guy, he is the brother of a UKIP MEP. I knew there was something fishy about him when I first saw it.

I thought this was another 4chan mass-troll when i first heard of it. Perhaps it will be this year's "Kony 2012." I've never heard anyone called bossy that wasn't striding around demanding things, telling people what they should be doing without consideration for the situation, etc. I've never heard anyone called a leader that wasn't a problem-solver with a good ability to express themselves. Part of me wants to believe this is some sort of inter-Atlantic difference because i've been so isolated from any evidence of it being a problem.

I've got three points and i'll try to make them succinct. If anyone wants to pull me up on them, i'll go further.

1. The word bossy is not inherently sexist. Sometimes people are bossy. Calling a girl bossy doesn't make you sexist. This campaign can make villains out of people in the same way that a girl getting called bossy can unfairly stereotype a strong willed woman. At best it trades one form of unfairness for another.

2. Human beings come in two flavours. One of them is man, another is woman. Man and woman are different. They will never in the foreseeable future be equal in all things, and it is not sexist a) to say that or b) for that to be the norm. This is the way of the animal kingdom - we see it in animals, and we are animals. Because of our different chemical composition, we will have a natural role diversity that is is absolutely unavoidable and has nothing to do with fairness. In lieu of this, any study that says "gender A is less represented in field B because sexism," has a hell of a lot of factors to take into account, some of which i'm not even sure can be accounted for. I am in no way stating that all of one particular gender are better than all of the other gender at any given thing; i am saying that on average, testosterone and oestrogen will soften or harden the heart in different ways (to simplify the argument) which will lead on average to gender weighting. It is going to take a lot more than a few poems and forceful statements to convince me. Where are the sources and the studies, and what authority do they have? Furthermore where are the studies about word-prohibition in the grand scheme of solving problems? i.e. How do we know this is a good idea even if there is a problem?

3. "Banning" a word empowers that word for those who would use it for harm. Or people will find a new way of expressing the same idea. In Britain people thought that UKIP (*spit*) should be kept off TV because giving them political air-time legitimised them. In actual fact, the better idea (and eventual decision) was to put them on TV and allow them to make idiots of themselves with their inherent stupidity. I suggest a similar thing is true of banning the word bossy. Let it be said, and make it abundantly clear how wrong it is when it gets said.

This was a really bad idea that stems from a great intention. And for the record, i love bossy girls - it would benefit me to see more empowered woman in the world. It's not easy finding them.

As an observer to the American state, living for most of my life in England and for the last several years in Australia, I am deeply confused about the sort of mass hysteria that seems to be endemic to the conservative collective.

Australian politics confuse the hell out of me, but England certainly has conservatives and politicians on the right - some sensible and others depraved - but the United Kingdom Independence Party and the British National Party are on the Goddamned fringe. BNP are oftentimes called fascists, UKIP are singled out for their purely nationalistic desire for European secession.

In the recent elections, the mid-right Conservative party formed a coalition with the leftist Liberal Democrats, with a good deal of compromise in both parties' manifestos and policies.

From what I've seen, this could never happen in modern America; genuine co-operation between differing parties, combining their efforts for the good of the nation. The "tea party" movement is an example of an American-conservative lunacy that has somehow spread itself through the country like a Goddamned plague. Why the vitriol? Why the pointless rage? Why the lies and deception, and why is it necessary for Republicans to act like the little bitch party? Here's a bill! Oh, the democrats like it? Fuck that bill! Democrats hate America!

Surely everyone who regards themself as a nationalist, as these people obviously do, should commit themselves to the benefit of the nation, not the inconvenience and demonization of the "other side".

Glenn Beck, among others, invokes Godwin's Law at every opportunity, drawing direct and deliberate comparisons between Obama and Hitler, the ruling administration and Nazi Germany, and then continue to accuse the government of propagandism, fascism and socialism.

The only faction I can see Goebbels patting on the back is Fox News and the Republican right. Facts and reality do not conform to your notion of what the world should be, regardless of how hard you try to warp the truth. Fuck Iran and fuck North Korea, the Republicans are the ones I'm REALLY scared of having nukes.

Seriously though, if I'm allowed one more paragraph, could someone explain why the conservatives and their groupies are so oftentimes retarded? Did the Civil War never end, with a psychological/social continuation of that greatest of rifts creeping its way into the modern day? Why are Liberals bad, why is the truth never enough, and exactly why are they so fanatical that America is the greatest country in the world?

The relevance is that fundamental islamic followers are moving to great britain and setting up here. I've heard a few rumblings in the past about certain areas in certain cities where nutjob muslims (yes, like there are nutjob christians too) refuse to speak any language other than their own, virtually ostracise themself from great britain from anything other than selecting which benefits of our country they want to live with. Such as jobseeker's allowance, child maintenance, free health care, housing payments, free schooling, free speech (especially this one), etc. etc.

There are many english speaking fuckbags who do it too. There are many people whose family history you could trace back hundreds of years to these islands, they're doing it as well.

I've also heard rumblings that some of these people want to bring elements of sharia (spell check) law into british law, allowing them to deal with 'their own' people in 'their own' way (not my words). I won't pretend that this is some major agenda being pushed by credible muslim groups in this country, it could easily be a bunch of isolated nutcases like the christian families in america protesting army funerals.

What i can say for certain is that in these certain areas of certain cities sharia law IS being practised. These little communities within a community set themselves up as being apart from everyone else and the people in there live how they like. I wish i could cite the documentary i watched on this subject but i can't, so i'm reduced to looking like an idle speculator.

Segregation of communities is CLEARLY a problem. I think it's been a problem for a while here in britain, we haven't worked hard enough to make sure immigrants grow to become part of britain. As a result, we are left with places like that in this country, and left with people voting for the BNP/UKIP because they feel like that's their only option left to resolve tensions in certain areas. It's why we're left with people arguing over schools, what's taught there and what isn't, whether it's fair for things to be included or excluded from schools, what you can wear to work, and so on.

The relevance of this question to me is establishing that there are elements of muslim life and religion from muslim countries that simply cannot be taken to other countries, and not just the death penalty for leaving the faith. That's what it meant to me.

The relevance could also very easily be showing that certain aspects of the muslim faith can't be visited upon other countries because it would be tantamount to a war crime. Replicating images of their god, leaving their faith. These things should only apply to their country, not internationally. Yet we've seen events where they ARE applied internationally by lunatics.