It's a tiny pittance of what would have been owed had they been taxed appropriately, and seems conveniently timed to bury the news of Dell (via Dell Federal Systems) funding ICE (it's completely erased it from the first page search results for "dell funds ice" in less than 24 hours).
This isn't badass, it's a disgrace. They've hoarded an incredible amount of wealth generated by others and returned a sliver of it. You've been so conditioned to accept this system that you're even grateful for the scraps.
If they gave $100 billion, they'd still have over $51 billion in the bank. That's roughly $7 million a day for every day he's been alive, or enough to feed every child in America for over a decade. Imagine the regional economic stimulus if instead of being hoarded for nearly half a century that money was paid out in salaries to those actually earning that money. _And_ they'd still have billions.
Can you explain what part of that is "communist nonsense"? Appropriate taxation (and leaving them with billions still even after that)? Or was it feeding hungry children you're against?
America had a tax rate of 91% on the obscenely wealthy for decades and around 70% until the 80s. Reducing this to historical lows has universally, by both bipartisan and nonpartisan[2] parties, been found to have been the primary driver of inequality[1].
At even an absurd 99% tax rate, applied equally instead of tiered, Michael Dell would have $1.5 billion dollars.
> Or society could decide that people shouldn't have to pay for [healthcare]
Society has already basically decided that: it's called health insurance. Having a "single" "government" payer where claimants actually pay nothing at PoS can be thought of like a very low deductible health insurance plan, can it not? Everyone still pays their premium in taxes, unless we mean to enslave doctors and nurses.
Trivial for a lot of people, sure, but imagine the difference between not knowing what an investment account is and knowing that you've got $250 in one that you can contribute more to.
So..a 401k
At least the 401k is pre-tax. This on the other hand is taxed on both ends. Maybe I am missing something, but I really don’t see the upside.
To give you a bit of insight, around the same timeframe (late October/early November) I directly observed two high-accuracy RTK GPS receivers reporting high accuracy (2cm), full 3D DGPS lock with carrier phase, and positions wandering within about a 5m circle horizontally. The altitude was staying pretty consistent (within about 1m, which was outside of the reported accuracy but not bad) until there was a sudden 60m altitude shift. This was all while they were sitting static on the ground, verified both by the crew and the accelerometer, gyro, and RADAR data.
There wasn’t a software fix per se, but we were able to quickly add a check to verify that the Kalman Filter’s position variance estimate was on the same order of magnitude as the accuracy level that the receivers were reporting and put a big red warning up. This wasn’t a flight-critical system, but it is the first time we’d ever seen that behaviour from those receivers and we’ve used them for 5 years.
I don’t know what airbus uses I only looked into the schematics of commercial avionics like Garmin.
I doubted though IMU drift and calibration introduce more error than they can provide in useful signal, old school pressure sensors + gps adjusted manually or automatically for regional pressure settings (pilots get these numbers through radio when they enter a new pressure area) is accurate enough (~1m). I’ll let a real avionics engineer correct me here, I’d be curious if that signal is worth the hassle + I can imagine such tiny SMD sensors ARE the biggest victims of radiation hallucination.
i would expect a huge shift like that to violate the gaussian assumption of the kalman filter? (which i guess is what you're checking, sort of?). regardless i would expect the kalman filter to smooth the shift over some substantial time at least?
In our case I don’t believe it was solar bitflips but rather wildly changing ionospheric conditions. I was primarily pointing out how you can have a software-only fix for problems like this.
Without going too far into the weeds, the fact that the receivers in question were reporting high accuracy under uncertainty is definitely a software bug in the receivers from my perspective. There was a different receiver with a completely different chipset in it on-site too that was experiencing similar issues but was reporting low accuracy. Without going into too much detail, I’ve got pretty good reasons to believe it wasn’t spoofing.
If flying were invented today, I bet it wouldn't be allowed due to the radiation. It's more than many medical procedures which guidelines say to only do when the medical benefits outweigh the radiation risk.
Even living nearby in the UK it blows my mind how quickly the EU proposes, kills and then revives and passes controversial legislation in such a short timeframe.
Well, the impression of speed is mainly in the head of the headline writers.
What has actually happened is that after about three years of faffing about the Council finally decided on it negotiation position begore the Coreper 2 meeting last week, thought it seems they ran put of time at actual the meeting and had to have the formal approval this week.
The Council is only one of three parties that draft new laws, so now there's are still several rounds of negotiations left.
Nothing substantial has happened to the three texts since last week, it's just that "chat control is back" drives traffic and "Council preparatory body formally approves draft position that got consensus previously but didn't formally get passed because people were fighting over Ukraine stuff for too long" doesn't.
> Nothing substantial has happened to the three texts since last week, it's just that "chat control is back" drives traffic and "Council preparatory body formally approves draft position that got consensus previously but didn't formally get passed because people were fighting over Ukraine stuff for too long" doesn't.
While I agree with your point, it's still crucial to raise awareness of Europe's actions. It may be a small step, but it is not insignificant.
This type of legislation should never ever be proposed in a democratic system, so had disagree.
This is an extremely totalitarian-style move from EU - governing bodies are exempt from the law, meanwhile peasants have to be watched 24/7 for wrongthink, all under guise of protecting the children.
While I agree with the sentiment, you need to think like a state to stop this kind of thing.
Even without any argument about personal rights and what's totalitarian, I can't even square the circle of the unstoppable force of "the economy is dependent on encryption that can't be hacked" with the immovable object of "hostile governments and organised criminals undermine ${insert any nation here} and communicate with local agents via encryption that can't be hacked".
>While I agree with the sentiment, you need to think like a state to stop this kind of thing.
I'm thinking like state already, i would never trust ANY state with such powers, even the one that was perfectly aligned with my political views.
It's not issue of state, but dilution of responsibility and the way the votes are counted.
It is also an issue of unelected officials deciding things - the whole system is broken.
Before you say that heads of state were elected - this is highly contentious issue, no one ran on this in internal campaigns, and votes on this issue are counted country-wide(all for or all against), without any regards to distribution of populace's opinion on this subject.
>Even without any argument about personal rights and what's totalitarian, I can't even square the circle of the unstoppable force of "the economy is dependent on encryption that can't be hacked" with the immovable object of "hostile governments and organised criminals undermine ${insert any nation here} and communicate with local agents via encryption that can't be hacked".
You're enacting legislation that will actually empower those entities this way!
Criminals - surprise surprise - can just break the law, and use devices/software that just.. does not do content scanning, and uses true E2E encryption. Even over insecure channel by using steganography and key exchange over it.
Espionage can be handled the same way, probably even easier as they can easily use one-time pads and key phrases established beforehand in their country of origin!
Meanwhile only group affected by it are just normal citizens.
I keep seeing this fallacy argument about some bad actors and criminals etc. etc. Every government have structures and laws to prevent such activities, in absolutely no shape or form it does not need to read every single message of it citizens. I don't understand how someone can be apologetic for totalitarian state.
> Every government have structures and laws to prevent such activities, in absolutely no shape or form it does not need to read every single message of it citizens.
Indeed, the state doesn't need all of them.
That it's all-or-nothing is due to how the tech works, in that you can't break it *only* for the targets — a point I make when I'm trying to explain the dichotomy to the politicians who want to spy, that this absolutely will be abused to reveal *their own* secrets, too.
The way politicians talk about this stuff, suggests they think computer code is like law, that words may have precise meanings but there's still an element of human judgement and common sense, and at human speed, not cold logic operating on bits faster than us by the degree we are faster than geology, where the potential harm from errors can be irreversable total loss of an entire business due to one single error made one time by one person, nor where mistakes from 20 years ago might be discovered and exploited at any time.
That's why I said "I can't even square the circle". If I thought the government position here was just absolutely fine, it wouldn't be difficult to square the metaphorical circle.
The difficulty is that despite their wrongheadedness about the consequences of what they're trying to do, what they're trying to do is actually necessary.
And that's just the crypto parts of this.
I left the UK for two reasons: The Investigatory Powers Act, and Brexit. Kinda related cause I thought Brexit would make it harder to fight the IP Act. Went to Westminster to talk to my MP to try and convince them to vote against the IP Act. I remain convinced that the British government was straight up lying about its reasons for having that Act.
Organized criminals (especially state actors) will find ways to communicate in the dark regardless, including just continuing to use illegal encryption.
> including just continuing to use illegal encryption.
First, this can be made a crime by itself, and detected automatically because the mandatory back-doors fail.
Second, what gets talked about in public (the only thing any of us knows for sure, but also definitely not the whole picture) includes foreign governments recruiting locals via normal messenger apps.
More of a problem is that the back-doors can be exploited by both criminals and hostile powers.
The issue is that EU does not control the internet, nor all means of communication. Nor perfect form of monitoring exists so question is moot in itself. Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise.
and the answer is no but yes - by encrypting everything E2E you can massively reduce harm done, and treat espionage/crime as policy/economic problem instead.
The EU delegates stuff to the member states, those states
enforce laws, that could in principal include requiring everything up from the physical link layer to scan for watever they say so.
> Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise.
Irrelevant. If powers can't decrypt it, powers deem it a crime to have or send.
"white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time.
> policy/economic problem instead
Instead? Everything about this is about groups wanting to act in secret for their best interests, and other people wanting to ensure that only the interests they share get to do that. This is true when it's me logging into my bank and criminals trying to get access to the same, when it's the Russian government sponsoring arson attacks in Europe and local police trying to stop them, and when it's the CIA promoting Tor for democracy activists in dictatorships and those dictatorships trying to stop them.
We must have unbreakable encryption, and yet also we cannot have it.
It is possible for unauthorized hardware to exist. People who want to do illegal things to begin with won't mind so much if their methods of communication happen to be illegal.
2) Someone doing this on the public Internet would only get away with it if their encrypted packets *never ever* went through a government licensed router. The moment they go through a public router: instantly detected.
> "white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time.
It's a photo I took yesterday. Now what? It may or may not have a secret message that only the target knows how to decrypt. Or maybe it's just more "traditional" text encryption with code names, but real human-legible text.
If that seed doesn't generate that particular white noise sequence, or if you can't supply that photo, then you go to jail.
> It's technically unfeasible to ban encryption.
It's also economically unfeasible.
Am I using moonspeak without realising it when I say "I can't square this circle"? Is this a phrase that people are unfamiliar with and I just haven't realised?
>"white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time.
Guilty until proven innocent, the burden is on you to prove it.
you are hung up on your pre-made assumption that the EU(state) in this case can have perfect control - which is fallacious in itself - and therefore are just arguing in bad faith. When they have such perfect control this is already a totalitarian state, that requires no such thing as due process.
all of that to push forward your point:
>We must have unbreakable encryption, and yet also we cannot have it.
Chat messages are tiny. You can easily put the encrypted signal into e.g. the residual portion (i.e. high entropy/looks like noise part) of lossless images/sound that you send unencrypted. "That was just a FLAC of me singing". Or innocuous cat pictures. Or whatever.
And while all this is happening, there are cases were peoples homes get search for comments on twitter. These are often in bad taste, but what tastes even worse is that the judiciary doesn't seem to understand proportionality anymore. Mean tweets carry higher sentences than raping someone, stern look at Germany here.
A judiciary in such a sorry state, that has not adapted to a changed reality, cannot be permitted to read private communications.
'Mean tweets' is such an empty meaning. Come with examples. It is on paper very easy to break the law via speech. If I post something here about how I want to reward a murder on a certain politician (or want to do it myself), I can guarantee you the police would be involved. And rightfully so.
Freedom of speech is about pre-moderation. It doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences. If you yell fire in a theatre while there is none, you should be held liable. See also the case of Gennaro P. (the Damschreeuwer) who at May 4 of 2010 yelled during two minutes of silence of Rememberance of the Dead.
This is an example from UK about a dead military officer: “The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn,”
Now the rest of Europe has much more freedom of speech than UK, but that is an example of a mean tweet about a government official that got sentenced. We don't want that in the EU.
Note that the guy was convicted even though he almost immediately deleted the tweet and apologized, the law is that bad, you aren't allowed to slip up even a little bit.
>doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences
YES IT DOES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT
You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. You are conflating extremely narrow exceptions with broad politically motivated violations of freedom of political speech
> You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law.
Neither do you. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held in numerous rulings that freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression is not absolute and you can be sanctioned, prosecuted and/or imprisoned for some forms of speech and/or expression -- i.e. you do have consequences.
- Schenck v. United States (1919) -- Speech that has intent and a clear and present danger of resulting in a crime is not protected under the First Amendment
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) -- The First Amendment does not protect fighting words, which are those that inherently cause harm or are likely to result in an immediate disturbance
- Feiner v. New York (1951) -- The police are permitted to take action against those exercising speech that is likely to disturb the peace
- United States v. O'Brien (1968) -- You can be prosecuted for destroying certain property as an act of political speech; the law forbidding this was not unconstitutional
- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) -- It is permissible to restrict speech that advocates for imminent unlawful violence and is likely to incite people to perform such
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) -- Restrictions on the dissemination of obscene material are not by themselves unconstitutional (see also the ruling immediately below)
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc (1991) -- Public indecency laws banning dancing nude are not unconstitutional
- Virginia v. Black (2003) -- Partial reversal: While a broad ban on cross-burning is unconstitutional, banning cross-burning for the express intent to intimidate is not
- Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) -- As a public official, you can be sanctioned by your government employer for speech contrary to employment policy
- Morse v. Frederick (2007) -- Schools can ban students from sharing speech about illegal drug use at school
- Counterman v. Colorado (2023) -- True threats of violence are outside the bounds of the First Amendment, and laws covering stalking and making threats in this manner are not unconstitutional
The US Constitution. What a beautiful piece of paper, such a nice theory. Yet your current president is circumventing Congress. Your president is bullying states. You don't even have a functional popular vote. Your SCOTUS is dysfunctional. And, this 1st amendment, is that why peaceful protestors got shot by rubber bullets when they were protesting against the war in Iraq? Which, as it turned out, was started for dishonest reasons. You folks also were first with DMCA. Yet we don't have BS like filibuster and gerrymandering.
There's a good reason why on every half-serious index about freedom of speech or freedom of press, the best countries are Scandinavian and Switzerland, followed by West-Europe. And that data is from before the current orangutan is in office.
'Being proud that he say' [sic]. You're not even a native English speaker, are you, 'greg'?
First you say freedom of speech is about after the speech (it is about before the speech, as after that the law is applied pragmatic).
Then you come with this KJU joke. North Korea doesn't make these indices. [1] [2] [3]. In each of these, USA is decidedly below the vast majority of the free West, including the very countries I mentioned before, each of which couldn't be further from North Korea. It is also Trump during Trump 1 who was positive about KJU (IIRC before the Rocket Man rhetoric, but still), and who is being a shill for one of North Koreans partners (China by proxy / Russia). Mind you, all of these sources are post-Trump 1 yet pre-Trump 2 (ie. from Biden 1 era).
Yep, in fafs in 2021. Pew 2015: 8th. gsod 2023: 28th.
On all of the freedoms, USA tends to do best on freedom of speech. But how can you say such, when the press has less freedom than in other rich West countries? Isn't that counter interactive?
> There's a good reason why on every half-serious index about freedom of speech or freedom of press, the best countries are Scandinavian and Switzerland, followed by West-Europe. And that data is from before the current orangutan is in office.
The Democracy Index is by The Economist [1]. The USA was #28 there (2024), well below Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and well below Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and various others. That's from 2024, before Trump's attack on the US democracy.
World Press Freedom Index by Reports Without Borders [2]. The USA is #57 in this list (2025), in the yellow color ('problematic').
Also, take note that both of these values are world-wide under threat, and the USA is part of being under this threat.
You also wrote in your previous post:
> By one of your own references USA is in the top 3 for freedom of speech.
But that one has incomplete data. It lacks data from like half the world. Finland, Iceland, The Netherlands, Switzerland (each countries doing well on every other index) aren't included.
> I didn't say it, your sources did.
Yeah, they couldn't know your country would be nearing a constitutional crisis by end of 2025.
You don't know what you are talking about. Read up on freedom of speech, the threat of consequences violates the principle directly.
In my example the mean tweet was a insult towards the attacker, which netted her a higher sentence than the rapist got. These laws are neither desirable, nor sensible, nor just. What is actually empty is a definition about how speech gets prosecuted. It stems from older times and is abused for newer vanity, stupidity and autocratic ambitions.
An angry, divided population is a lot easier to push to the extremes, enabling such legislation because people are so angry and divided and can't come to a reasonable compromise or solution.
These things shouldn't move forward, indeed. But being angry about it for years at a time when things aren't even remotely set in stone doesn't seem healthy for an individual or society at large.
Anyone can and does say this about their pet favorite bit of legislation. And so journalists are more than happy to pull this shit with every other topic, too.
Nah the first reaction of anyone who cherishes democracy which by necessity should be skeptical of entrenched and liberty abusing policies in the name of "safety" should be "what? are you crazy? what a stupid idea" for any of these encryption banning scams.
That's a bad faith argument, in effect an outright lie, because you're conflating individual instances of bad actors with what would now be a universal policy meant to neuter encryption and 100% of net privacy.
While I disagree with your position for the reasons already given by others, it's quite ironic that in this thread about government censorship that your opinion is in the process of being censored by other HN users.
unless someone tells you to "shutup and get off hackernews or I'll see what I can do about getting <insert name here> to ban you" then they aren't being censored.
It makes the opinion hidden from the vast majority of visitors, except those who go out of their way to both have an account and showdead.
It is in every appreciable way censorship via unaccountable mob. It's censorship in a way that Reddit's downvote isn't, because Reddit allows anonymous users to read downvoted posts - or at least did the last time I checked.
That was an illuminating question. Thank you. I see my parent's point now because no, I don't think that disagreement requires what amounts to censure if it makes it harder for something to be seen.
At the point where tensions rise beyond polite disagreement, HN ceases to be a functional social space and turns into a game of "who can make the other's opinions disappear first."
Doing so is technically against the rules, but either the moderators don't care, aren't doing it on a large enough scale to be an effective deterrent, or are knowingly complicit.
1. this wasn't fast, it took ~5 years and most (but not all) of the problematic parts have been removed
2. It also wasn't "fully rejected" or anything in the decision which gained some awareness of hacker news, just one specific draft was rejected, not the proposal as a whole (but IMHO it should have been).
3. it's not passed just approved by the council, which consists of the various head of states elected in their respective countries (i.e. is the easiest part to pass something controversial), but still needs to pass the European parliament (elected through the EU elections)
4. and then it must not be shot down by the ECJ or ECHR, both might shot it down, the ECJ for it being excessive/disproportional, and the ECHR because privacy is accepted as a human right by it (in general, there are exceptions so not 100% guaranteed). Or shut down by the German supreme court (same reason as ECJ and ECHR) which has somewhat of a veto right (or else Germany wouldn't have been able to legally join the EU), idk. if any other countries supreme courts have similar veto rights, but idk. why they shouldn't have)
EU law has supremacy over national laws. National courts need to disapply local laws in conflict with EU law, so typically any subsequent local disputes in court will just be ruled based on a new EU law/ruling. EU laws in conflict with a local constitution pose more of a challenge: from the EU point of view, EU law is supreme and they might apply infringement procedures for failing to recognize it, but for a country, the constitution is probably more important than a treaty.
Yes however EU has very limited capabilities to enforce that. They can bully smaller countries a bit more but Germany can do more or less whatever it wants
This only applies where countries ceded sovereignty to the EU.
Technically in Germany non of the sovereignty was ceded but transferred based on two different articles in the German Constitution. But that transfer is neither absolute, nor automatic. Practically it means that in most situations it is "as if" it was cede, but just in most situations.
This leads to a situation where if the supreme court rules that some EU regulations or similar are against the German constitution you have a conflict between the constitutional articles which transfer authority and the ones the court ruled to have been infringed one.
But in the German constitution not all articles are equally, the first few have special protections and extra hurdles to amend. And the article which transfers powers to the EU _is not one of them_. This means that for any of the more protected clauses Germany has not at all ceded the authority of their supreme court to do a final judgement on.
In such cases if the German supreme court says no, it's means no for any application of law in German no matter what the EU courts say. And there are only 3 ways to fix that, 1. the EU amends their regulation, 2. Germany amends their constitution (practically impossible in such cases), 3. the rule informally applies to everyone but Germany, 4. Germany leaves the EU which would likely mean it's end.
So while everyone pretends there is no issue (3rd option) can in some situations be viable and given that 2 is non-viable it pretty much always ends with a compromise of amending things just far enough to not longer cause an issue with the German constitution.
Systematic breaches of privacy through mass surveillance fall under that especially protected articles in the German constitution. And option 3 doesn't really work here. So it's one of the rare cases where German Supreme court actually matters on EU level.
Through practically it hardly ever matters outside of very very few cases:
- because of Article 1 (the most protected one you could say), the ECHR has more or less implicitly the same amount of power as the supreme court, only if the ECHR does rulings in conflict with human rights would that not be the case (so in practice never)
- as one of the core founding members and the country with the largest population (and seats in the EU parliament are distributed based on population) Germany can normally make sure such a situation doesn't arise
- and the breach must really be of a constitutional article standing above the one which transfers power to the EU (which most are not)
- you have to propagate things up to the supreme court, while all other courts will rule based on EU law/ECJ decisions
but it doesn't mean that it never happened,
e.g. there had been one case where the German supreme court ruled that a) something is against the constitution and b) that the EU organ which caused this acted unreasonable in a way which isn't covered by the transfer of authority. That case go resolved with compromises, but was neither the first nor will it be the last where "in practice" the German Supreme court overruled EU decisions, even if it on paper doesn't (because it only overrules what happens with law in Germany and overruling an EU decision would affect other countries, too).
One thing to add is that there is no guarantee this is even against the German constitution.
Local devices only scanning which only if there is an issue sends any information to anywhere outside of the device might actually be compatible with the German constitution by the argument that the privacy is only violated if the local validator phones home and that it only does so if there is a reasonable suspicion at which case it isn't baseless mass surveillance anymore... on a technicality iff the local scanner have close to now false positives. It's anyway a bad idea and a lot of the things it claims it's meant to help with have a lot of neglected other solutions which would improve things a lot.
Saying "forced" about this is like if someone offered me a job, me reading the offer and saying "can I do a 4-day week?", the company's response being "yes, here's a new contract for you to sign", and describing that second contract as "forced" on me.
I think you misunderstood his post. It's generally un-British to suggest the UK is better in any regard whatsoever. I've no doubt he thinks the UK is just as bad if not worse but in different ways.
I genuinely think the public sector being a bit hopeless is a major check on tyranny in the UK.
Ofcom (the communications regulator charged with imposing the censorship laws) literally maintains a public list of non-compliant websites that anyone who doesn't want to give their ID to a shady offshore firm can browse for example.
In the UK we've had an authoritarian Conservative government for 14 years, followed by an even more authoritarian Labour government, which we'll have until 2029.
In 2029 it's likely we'll have a more libertarian government:
Reform will repeal some of the awful legislation that's been passed over the last few years (e.g. Online Safety Act). They've been loud critics of government overreach.
America also has a party that always runs on the idea of small government and restoring rights to the people. Every time they get power, they do the exact opposite.
>America also has a party that always runs on the idea of small government and restoring rights to the people. Every time they get power, they do the exact opposite.
You seem to be confused. The Libertarian Party never gets any power. The closest we get is representatives like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie, who run as Republicans (which are NOT the party of small government, despite what you may have been told) while acting much more like Libertarians.
Thomas Massie in particular is famous for frequently and routinely standing up against Trump, much to Trump's chagrin.
I wonder if your statement was ironic, as the article you posted does not describe Reform as far-right?
From the article:
> In March 2024, the BBC called the party far-right but soon retracted its statement and apologised to Reform UK, writing that describing the party as far-right "fell short of our usual editorial standards".[219] Commenting on the incident, the professor of politics Tim Bale wrote that labelling Reform UK as far-right is unhelpful, and that it "causes too visceral a reaction and at the same time is too broad to be meaningful". Bale noted the importance of distinguishing between the "extreme right" and "populist radical right", and stated that parties described as far right should instead be "more precisely labelled".[220] Reform UK itself rejects the descriptor, and has threatened legal action against media using it.[221] In May 2025, Ross Clark, writing in The Spectator, argued Reform is "now a left-wing party", by attracting disillusioned Labour voters with stances on restoring welfare benefits, nationalising the steel industry with 50% of utilities and increasing government spending (including the NHS).[222]
> Reform will repeal some of the awful legislation that's been passed over the last few years (e.g. Online Safety Act). They've been loud critics of government overreach.
A lot of politicians change when they get in power.
I think it’s plausible that the UK electorate are sick of switching between Tories and Labour for the last hundred years, especially as they have become indistinguishable in many respects. They were held back because there wasn’t a plausible alternative that had a hope of being elected. Reform has been leading the polls for nearly all this year, so let’s check in a year to see where they stand. But Labour (especially) and the Tories are not going to see an upswing any time soon. The problems in the country (mostly economic due to policy) continue, and their supporters are doomed to the madness of doing the same thing but expecting different results.
While I'm sure you know much more than I do about UK politics, it seems like some systemic factor pushes both Tories and Labour and whoever else comes close to power, well to the right of their respective voters. In the US, that factor would be campaign contributions and an extremely well-funded conservative propaganda/patronage machine on a war footing.
In the UK, is it all about media ownership or something?
The media plays a big role in election outcomes. The Murdoch empire used to have an oversized influence, but since Murdoch exited Sky UK, that's been on the wane. The Sun (which helped Labour's Tony Blair win his landslide) is still a Murdoch enterprise, but it hasn't really moved with the times, and newer media-savvy outlets are starting to get mindshare.
GBNews launched in 2021 with a strong anti-establishment mandate. The growth in its audience surprised everyone, surpassing both BBC News and Sky in viewership. For four consecutive months (July-October 2025) GBNews has been Britain's number one news channel (Source: BARB).
Crucially it also has 2.5bn views on YouTube since launch.
The establishment try to write off and condescend GBNews, but in doing so they condescend the large and growing section of the UK public that GBNews represents (e.g. for example - people on both the Left and Right who are frustrated with 110,000 undocumented migrants entering the UK over the last three years, many of whom have been put up in hotels at taxpayer expense).
As the elite condescend and push away large swathes of the population, they are creating increasing loyalty toward GBNews, and by extension, the Reform Party.
> But the Greens have chosen to embrace their own form of populist lunacy.
Well, populist lunacy is how Reform got so popular, so I can see why it would be tempting for the Green party.
Main thing that's weird right now with the UK is that because it's first-past-the-post and the current polling is Reform:~29%, Lib/Lab/Con/Green:~16%, I would not be surprised by any of these parties forming a minority government nor any one of them getting a massive parliamentary majority.
That said I will find it very very funny if the Conservative party ends up last from that list.
The numbers don't add up. I think "Removing the 2 child benefit cap" and "Increasing NHS spending" are good things, but they're not free, and the supposed cost-saving measures they're talking about mostly serve to demonstrate they don't know what the government is paying for anyway.
Immigration is always a funny one for the UK especially, given how people tend to look at gross numbers instead of which sectors the immigrants work in, and the discourse about why locals demonstrably do not fill those roles is mostly just insisting that locals can no matter what current unemployment levels actually are. Before I left the UK, the stereotype was all the Poles moving to the UK and building houses: UK should have invited over more builders, then there wouldn't be a shortage of houses.
Immigration is a shared bit of populist lunacy Reform have in common with the Conservatives and Labour: promises to be tough on immigration, then they get power and look at what the consequences would be of doing that, and put all the blame on asylum seekers* that are banned from working and therefore safe to kick out no matter how at risk they are in their countries of origin.
The below are conservative estimates of the money raised by Reform policies:
* £10bn+ per year - Adjusting how the Bank of England (BoE) treats reserves — e.g. stopping interest payments to commercial banks that receive money under quantitative easing (QE)
* £11bn+ per year - Rolling back expensive "net zero" policies
* £9bn+ per year - Alter eligibility for welfare
* £25bn - Scrap HS2
* multiple billions - Reducing foreign aid budget and cost of housing illegal migrants.
It's likely that pro-growth Reform policies such as lowering corporation tax to make the UK more competitive will significantly increase the corporation tax take - as was shown when the Tories entered power in 2010, lowered the corp tax rate and corp tax revenue increased significantly. In general, Reform's tax cuts are aimed at increasing the tax base.
> * £11bn+ per year - Rolling back expensive "net zero" policies
These in particular are fictional. That's an obsolete (due to tech improvements) estimate of the private sector costs.
At this point, with the tech now available, almost everyone gets rich by doing net zero, almost nobody saves money by abandoning it.
> * £9bn+ per year - Alter eligibility for welfare
"Welfare" includes e.g. the child benefit cap. You can save a lot by spending less. Do you want to spend less? OK, fine. But that's the cost: a majority have to agree who gets to be the next scapegoat, and the child benefit cap was itself introduced back when parents with too many kids were the scapegoat.
> * £25bn - Scrap HS2
Scrapping a one off payment to save money in the short term, at the cost of worsening long-term economic benefits by failing to improve national logistics.
> housing illegal migrants.
Do you mean asylum seekers? Reason I ask is that people who are actually in the UK illegally (which is different), don't cost "billions". Asylum seekers are housed because they're banned from working, theory is that if they work they might stay, IMO this is BS and everyone would benefit if they were allowed to get jobs and look after themselves.
Even without that there absolutely are savings to be made on the cost of asylum seekers (who are not "illegal migrants"). They're looked after at a total cost of about £100/person/day, and obviously (even without changing the "banned by law from working" thing) they could be looked after at about half that (or less) given what UK incomes are. But that's a whole one billion per year you might save from not letting UK hotels rip you off, or two if you let these people work and support themselves.
> It's likely that pro-growth Reform policies such as lowering corporation tax to make the UK more competitive will significantly increase the corporation tax take - as was shown when the Tories entered power in 2010, lowered the corp tax rate and corp tax revenue increased significantly. In general, Reform's tax cuts are aimed at increasing the tax base.
Even with the best will in the world, this kind of thing is unlikely to make a dent in comparison to the core Reform policy of hating their nearest and biggest market. Brexit (and consider who owns Reform) has cost the economy an estimated 6-8% GDP by this point, per year, in lost growth opportunities — around £200bn/year.
The biggest thing any government could do to increase the tax base is to get a bigger workforce to tax. Which means more immigrants, which is why Lab and Con don't ever do anything about immigrant workers despite saying so. This was also one of the benefits of the UK being in the EU, in that all of labour, capital, and goods could move around more freely to meet business opportunities, help with growth.
> At this point, with the tech now available, almost everyone gets rich by doing net zero
The likes of Dale Vince (Ecotricity), certainly get rich by doing net zero. Significant levies have been placed on taxpayers and consumers for years, with the money flowing into the companies of politically-connected individuals like Vince.
> the child benefit cap was itself introduced back when parents with too many kids were the scapegoat.
Parents that choose to have more children than they can afford are not "scapegoats." They are breaking the social contract.
The benefit cap was not retro-actively applied. It didn't put any existing children in poverty. It only applied to future births, to parents who were choosing to have children at the expense of taxpayers.
> Scrapping a one off payment to save money in the short term, at the cost of worsening long-term economic benefits by failing to improve national logistics [HS2].
The project cost has ballooned to the point where it will exceed the long term projected economic benefit (benefit-cost ratio of 0.9, as per a 2022 review). It is a white elephant.
> Do you mean asylum seekers?
No, I mean illegal migrants, as I said. Genuine Asylum seekers don't throw their documents overboard and illegally enter the country on a dinghy from France.
Take the war in Ukraine and and the post-war threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan for example - in both cases, the UK government made advance provision for documented, background-checked individuals, including the elderly, women and children (as you'd expect from genuine refugees). And the UK made safe routes available for those people. That's how the system should work.
Those who illegally enter the country via the Channel are 88-90% male, most of whom are fighting-age, and most of whom originate from countries that are not currently at war.
> that's a whole one billion per year you might save from not letting UK hotels rip you off, or two if you let these people work and support themselves.
If these people are allowed to economically benefit from illegally entering our country, it will send completely the wrong message to the third world countries they came from.
I don't want low-skilled/unskilled unvetted immigration that lowers our country's productivity, makes women and girls less safe, impacts public services and housing, divides our finite welfare spend and causes ghettoisation and (eventually) Balkanisation of my own country. Why would I want that?
> Brexit (and consider who owns Reform) has cost the economy an estimated 6-8% GDP by this point, per year, in lost growth opportunities — around £200bn/year.
I've heard various figures bandied around by continuity Remainers. They vary wildly, because at this point, nearly ten years later, it's impossible to scientifically compare a Brexit/non-Brexit scenario.
All we can know are the facts - Brexit gave us a huge opportunity to align our regulation with the precise nature of our economy, and an opportunity to avoid burdensome EU regulation (this is already happening in terms of the EU's hapless AI regulation). It's also an opportunity to avoid paying tens of billions of pounds annually into the EU's black hole unaccounted budget every year (consider the lifetime cost of that expense!)
The fact that the Europhillic Tory and Labour establishment failed to capitalise fully on Brexit is their fault - not the fault of the majority of voters who voted to leave the EU.
Luckily we have a party in 2029 who is unaligned with the Brussels and Strasbourg establishment, and who can make the bold decisions required to capitalise on our new freedoms and sovereignty. I relish this prospect.
> The likes of Dale Vince (Ecotricity), certainly get rich by doing net zero. Significant levies have been placed on taxpayers and consumers for years, with the money flowing into the companies of politically-connected individuals like Vince.
Unlike others in the environment and green energy sector, some of whom were highly critical of Labour’s roll-back, Vince was unperturbed. “We can get 100 per cent of renewable energy with no public money,”
Vince explained that the real barriers to the green transition are not necessarily financial ones. Rather, the biggest hurdle to a fast, ubiquitous roll-out of green power is the UK’s tricky and long-winded planning system. One example he pointed to was the de facto ban on onshore wind, put in place by the former Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, in 2015.
The cheapest sources of electricity are now the renewables.
This has been true without any subsidies for some time, including in the UK.
But there are still good reasons for government subsidies, specifically to get private homes insulated:
Another crucial national project for Labour will be their warm homes plan. Backed by £6.6bn over the next parliament, the party has said it will “upgrade five million homes to cut bills for families”. It has not yet provided details on how it plans to do so.
Which *drumroll* saves the occupants money while also keeping them warmer.
> Parents that choose to have more children than they can afford are not "scapegoats." They are breaking the social contract.
So, you're not in favour of ending the child benefit cap? Funny, I thought you were, from how you said it before. Guess that means you must regard the Reform-supported (but also actually implemented by Labour already) policy of "Removing the 2 child benefit cap" as an example of "lunacy".
After all, if someone "needs" any child benefit payments, even for the first child, then this by definition means they could not afford the child(ren); and if they don't "need" it then surely this is wasted money.
No, I think the demographic crisis in the west is because most people look at their finances and think "I cannot afford to have children". When children are below replacement rates and you restrict immigration, you have a ticking time bomb on your pension system, no matter how it's supposed to be funded.
> The project cost has ballooned to the point where it will exceed the long term projected economic benefit (benefit-cost ratio of 0.9, as per a 2022 review). It is a white elephant.
2/3rds of the cost has already been spent; cancelling it at this point only makes sense if the remaining cost exceeds the lifetime benefits, not if the total cost exceeds the lifetime benefits. That is why only bits of it have been cancelled so far, not the whole thing. If some future review ends up saying that the remaining cost isn't worth it, the government of the day will cancel it all by themselves, Reform wouldn't be special in this regard, just as they're not special for listing a bunch of things they don't really understand the details about in an un-audited campaign promise for an election they didn't win.
Also extra bonus irony points: HS2 received funding from the European Union's Connecting Europe Facility.
> No, I mean illegal migrants, as I said.
Then they don't cost anything. At least, not directly. Un-registered migrants working illegally could be said to "cost" the taxes they ought to be paying.
> Take the war in Ukraine and and the post-war threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan for example - in both cases, the UK government made advance provision for documented, background-checked individuals, including the elderly, women and children (as you'd expect from genuine refugees). And the UK made safe routes available for those people. That's how the system should work.
As per your own link, January to 21 April 2024, second biggest group on the small boats crossing the channel was Afghans, at 19.4%. Iran (lots of reasons to flee that place besides the occasional "it's not a war honest" exchange of fire with Israel), 11.3%. Sudan, in a civil war, 6.5%.
> most of whom are fighting-age,
A term so vague it encompasses basically anyone physically capable of making the trip.
Like, consider how many 12 year olds and 55 year olds could actually do this kind of journey in the first place, it's not going to be a high fraction of them.
Though to be blunt, it's also the case that very few of the total refugees get as far as the UK anyway. Back when the Syrian crisis was at it's peak, UK was losing its collective mind over a few thousand refugees from there when something like 4 million went to countries adjacent to Syria and a million went to Germany.
> most of whom originate from countries that are not currently at war.
And how many are gay fleeing homophobia, and how many are christians (or irreligious, or the wrong kind of muslim) fleeing from theocracy? Turkey's on the small boats list too: also not at war, but the authoritarian turn of the government put people at risk.
> If these people are allowed to economically benefit from illegally entering our country, it will send completely the wrong message to the third world countries they came from.
If these people are allowed to *pay taxes* and *cover their own rent*.
Look, if you don't want their money, fine. But what kind of message do you think you're sending with the current rule of "if you make it to the UK, they'll put a roof over your head, feed you, and not only do you not need to do any work to pay for this, they won't even allow you to do any work!"
(The other thing is that these people are in many cases being ripped off by people-traffickers; the "illegal" part of their entry is crossing the very busy channel on very inadequate vessels, which is illegal because it's so incredibly dangerous, a fact which kills many of these people who spent their life savings to do it).
> I've heard various figures bandied around by continuity Remainers. They vary wildly, because at this point, nearly ten years later, it's impossible to scientifically compare a Brexit/non-Brexit scenario.
If you don't want to believe financial experts' modelling, that's your call. You don't get to then claim the financial optimism of whoever you fancy instead, which is what you were doing.
> It's also an opportunity to avoid paying tens of billions of pounds annually into the EU's black hole unaccounted budget every year (consider the lifetime cost of that expense!)
Calling it "unaccounted" shows you don't understand accounting.
But then, I already knew that because of everything you've tried to claim in response to "The numbers don't add up […] the supposed cost-saving measures they're talking about mostly serve to demonstrate they don't know what the government is paying for anyway."
> The fact that the Europhillic Tory and Labour establishment failed to capitalise fully on Brexit is their fault - not the fault of the majority of voters who voted to leave the EU.
There's no kind way to say this, but you'll be better for taking it on-board: The fact you think the Tories, especially under Johnson, were "Europhillic", says you're so out of touch with reality that you don't understand how out of touch you are. Johnson literally got in trouble with his fellow journalists for making up lies about the EU, and never showed any sign of changing his ways, he and Farage are basically the reason the UK came to believe so many myths about the EU over the years.
I know that Leavers like to think that, e.g. May was a Remainer, but the fact is that nobody liked her Brexit, no matter if they voted leave or remain. Her failure was followed by the indicative votes where all possible 8 "solutions" were opposed by a majority of MPs; this was fairly representative of the country as a whole, because while a strict majority of voters wanted "a" Brexit, your preferred Brexit is one that other people who voted leave hated more than staying in the EU, and vice-versa.
(This is also why Reform are "only" on 28%, instead of getting the 52%-less-deaths who voted Leave: even your fellow travellers don't all agree on which Brexit, not even now).
You mean replacing it with renewable five year visas that have reasonable salary thresholds and English language criteria, and which still allow the holder to apply for citizenship?
Why is that lunacy?
ILR is the immigration equivalent of "squatters' rights" - completely immoral IMO.
> the small possibility of being a Russian asset of course
The Left tried that with Trump too. It didn't work out for them, and I doubt this tactic will damage Farage either. It smacks of desperation IMO, just like all the silly childhood racism heresay.
> In 2029 it's likely we'll have a more libertarian government
Haha you're so funny.
If Reform get from, what is it right now, five -- or four, or six, depending on how the wind blows — MPs to 326 MPs, which is enough to secure the majority they think they are getting, then libertarian is not what that government will be.
It will be populist, white and significantly authoritarian, because pure tabloid authoritarian thuggery is the only possible strategy that could cause a swing larger than any in history, against two parties (labour and liberal democrat) who currently hold 472 seats and represent a sort of centrist blob between them.
And this is to say nothing of the challenge they will face finding 326 non-crazy, credible candidates for 326 very different parliamentary elections. And to say nothing of the foreign influence scandal that currently engulfs senior Reform figures or the catastrophic issues already affecting Reform councils like Kent. Do you think Reform could succeed without Farage? And do you think Farage's reputation is going to somehow be improved by the Nathan Gill situation?
I accept they will be the largest minority. But the parliamentary maths to get to an outright majority is really extreme; the system does not support such things easily.
Maybe they will get to largest minority and then campaign for PR/AV/STV, and maybe finally people will understand something like it is needed. But Farage will be a lot older in that election.
(It surprises me to see people who are so keen to believe that a council election wave is necessarily predictive of a national election wave because, what, somehow everything is different now? Why is it different?)
How can you be so sure? Why do you assume that everything that the Reform chairman, Zia Yusuf (head of policy) is lies? What, from his history, suggests that he is a liar?
> catastrophic issues already affecting Reform councils like Kent.
A small number of councillors left, but KCC is still a strong Reform majority. Councillors come and go throughout the year (just look at the constant stream of council by-elections), so to call Kent a "catastrophe" is hyperbole.
> It will be populist, white and significantly authoritarian
Populist yes. But I've never understood why popular polices get such a bad rep in a supposed democracy?
White? So what? Although it's rapidly changing thanks to Tory/Labour policies, the UK remains a majority white country. Why is politicians' skin colour an issue in your mind?
"Significantly authoritarian" how? Can you name an "authoritarian" policy in Reform's last manifesto?
> Do you think Reform could succeed without Farage?
Yes. Zia Yusuf is an extraordinary man, and my money would be on him becoming the leader when Farage inevitably steps down. And your concerns about white politicians will hopefully be soothed when a second-generation Sri Lankan is our Reform prime minister.
> the parliamentary maths to get to an outright majority is really extreme; the system does not support such things easily.
For that to happen, you need a strong i.e. 30%+ share, and you need numerous opposing parties with similar policies, and all polling at similar levels. That's EXACTLY what's happening, and the electoral calculus puts Reform on a strong majority (low = 325, high = 426)
Nye Bevan was not a populist, and the NHS was not a populist development.
In the context of its time it was a fairly pragmatic, top-down central-government post-war-socialism project. It appears more radical in retrospect, but viewed in the light of decisions in the war effort and the post-war effort, and in a country that still had mandatory rationing for example, the NHS was a solid decision that was actually pretty evidence-based.
There are few people alive now who can tell you what the foundation of the NHS was like in terms of their professional career, but my dad did tell me about that.
In no way would that have been considered "populist"; the UK was severely negative about populists at that time, for one thing. It actually made solid logical/technocratic sense. It definitely came as a huge relief, but in many ways it formalised the resource-sharing schemes in place in various regions, especially London.
I am not sure you understand what populism is, along with not understanding that securing a number of seats is not something that logically follows from projections of numbers of seats, particularly in the context of an entirely new party with divisive leadership. We don't have PR, so aggregate data like that is not easily interpreted, and council election data is not that strongly indicative.
Also pretty interesting to hear someone who is so pro-Reform so confidently talking up the NHS, considering the long-standing positions of many UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform people that it should be privatised. Free at the point of use healthcare is under threat from Reform in a way that no other political party in the UK would risk, as a consequence of that. Presumably you think we should still have an NHS but the state shouldn't own it. Given the international figures who gather around Reform and the hard right in this country, there is no way the NHS would survive Reform intact.
Populism and popular policies is not exactly the same. I would say NHS is a socialist/left policy but not populism.
I don't know an exact definition of a populism but for me it's when political messages are designed to trigger strong emotions, ignore complexity, promise simple solutions to hard problems. All politicians to some extent lie, over-promise and under-deliver but populists tent to take this on a next level.
Right populists tend to promise tax cuts (which unsurprisingly benefit their sponsors the most) and to balance budget they either increase debt or undermine public services (which is bad in a long term). Left populists promise to tax the rich ignoring that it's can be bad for economic growth and taxing alone would not give enough revenue to significantly benefit poor/middle classes.
As long as you are white British. If you're anything else you're probably going to be worse off under Farage.
It's a shame that if you want to vote for someone with different policies to the two main parties, you have to accept that you are also voting for an outspoken racist.
There are plenty of instances of Reform politicians saying things that are just outright racist (e.g. Sarah Pochin) and receiving no real reprimand from the party leadership. The only people not seeing the racism are the people who don’t want to.
Reform is also headed by a guy who regularly used phrases like "Hitler was right", "gas them all", and "go home, Paki" as an 18 year old (confirmed by 20+ former classmates).
Ordinarily we might give him the benefit of the doubt: maybe he's matured and grown up since then. But the fact that he's called all of those classmates liars says that either they are all liars, or he is dishonest about his racism.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for the Jewish community, but I would expect that they feel less threatened by something a child said in a playground during the 1970s, but rather the rampant antisemitism that has risen in our society, spearheaded by the toxic alliance of the hard left and the Islamists. Those are the ones who are assaulting Jewish people on the streets and hanging around Synagogues to “demonstrate”, or rather to intimidate them.
This is because politicians who fill the country with immigrants do so because they don't care in the slightest about the population and it shows in all facets of governance.
IMO, statistical fluke, more likely a few years of delayed migrations post-pandemic got squeezed together and it's now back to the previous trend: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c246ndy63j9o
Net migration is only falling because of record high numbers of British and European people emigrating, against a backdrop of huge (800K+) levels of gross immigration.
Firstly, why do you lump British and European together? Because they are the same "race" in your eyes?
Non-EU net migration has fallen sharply too.
It proves what was always obvious to anyone who looked at it, that high net immigration was temporary, especially the peak post covid and the special scheme for Ukrainians.
Levels of EU vs non-EU immigration has been a particular subject of interest for the UK before and after Brexit.
And note also that the UK and EU share high-quality education systems, Western Judeo-Christian culture and Western-aligned geopolitics.
Recent waves of immigration from countries in the Middle East and North Africa are importing wholly different culture, geopolitics, and crucially, we are importing from countries with measurably lower standard of literacy and numeracy.
These are objective facts, and they are not criticisms or judgements on the character of those who are migrating.
I would make exactly the same choices as our Pakistani, Somali and Eritrean friends, if I were in their position.
Half of Europe's cultural development was initiated by Muslims and the Renaissance started with Muslim scholars in Islamic Spain, which was Islamic for the lion's share of a millennium, leading to the hilarious fact that a state in the New World settled by Spanish-speaking settlers gets the "Calif" in its name from the muslim term for a leader due to it being so totally embedded in culture. But OK, yeah. Judeo-Christian.
The roots of the renaissance were established much, much earlier in Islamic Spain. It is essentially forgotten history (and largely systematically erased history, at that)
Track down a copy of Bettany Hughes’ “When The Moors Ruled In Europe”. I think it is on Youtube. It is long but exceptionally clearly presented.
Put simply, were it not for the Reconquista, what we understand as the renaissance would be very clearly perceived as Islamic in origin.
And maybe don’t trust ChatGPT to do anything but regurgitate the prevailing interpretation of history, which was, in fact, reshaped radically by Catholic propaganda.
Seems you've found a leftwing historian who chooses to endorse the violent Islamic conquest of Southern Europe, re-imagining it as a vibrant exchange of cultures, predicated on extreme timeline distortion.
The Renaissance is defined as follows:
> The Renaissance was a European cultural movement from the 14th to 17th centuries, marking a "rebirth" of classical Greek and Roman learning after the Middle Ages. It was a period of significant innovation in art, literature, science, and philosophy, with key developments like humanism. Notable figures include Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael, and the movement began in Italy before spreading across Europe.
Islam did not even exist in the time of the Classical Greek and Roman periods.
Neither Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael ever met Muslims directly, travelled to the Islamic world, or interacted with Islamic institutions.
Hard disagree on this. Immigration was the only realistic option to shield against demographic collapse and stabilize unskilled labor supply for decades, and it is no suprise that politicians took it.
I honestly think that if politicians had blocked this (reform style) in 2000, the resulting economic slowdown and increasing cost for labor intensive products would've seen them voted out in short order.
I do agree that negative consequences of the approach were played down/underestimated/neglected, but painting it as pure uncaring negative is just disingenuous.
"stabilising unskilled labour" in this context means dumping the salaries of the natives, making it so unskilled sectors no longer provide a living wage.
Sure, but local supply of labor was looking even worse than now back then, and cost of labor intensive stuff like daycare, nursing homes/residential care have gone through the roof, still.
Just look at how Brexit alone affected lorry driver wages; if you cut immigration 25 years ago, you'd have seen the same effect across multiple sectors magnifying each other (because labor supply is simply insufficient), and there is a lot of people that would have suffered from higher costs in all those sectors without getting any compensation.
As a "sanity check" for this: If the UK economy did not "need" immigrant labor, you would expect significant unemployment and very high difficulty in finding unskilled labor jobs. Neither is the case.
If you are not really subject to public control and re-election, it makes it much easier.
EU politics don't play much of a role in the media. The older and more cynical I become, the more. I am convinced: that's by design. That way, national politicians can move politically wanted, but publicly unpopular things to Brussels and blame the EU. We are just exposed to that much EU lawmaking news because we are directly affected as a subculture.
During the Brexit referendum days, I learned that British friends of mine did not even know they had EU parliamentary elections - I had to prove to them via Wikipedia AND had to read them the name of their representative (who just so happened to live just down the roar), nor did they care. Made many things more clear to me.
For democracy and government [1] to work it has to remain small and localised. The US had the right idea by expressly limiting the reach of the federal government to very explicit narrow things mentioned in the constitution (of course this was expanded by unconstitutional means over many governments over many years now but that is getting off topic).
The EU seems to be taking the opposite approach - countries push any unpopular law into the growing EU layer to prevent local backlash affecting them. As comments around this call it - "political laundering". A great term that I shall be borrowing.
[1] Relatedly, the philosopher Jimmy Carr has a great line about the failing of communism is about scale. It works locally at the family level but it can't scale to the level of a country.
Because it doesn't, people are just embarrassingly ignorant of how the EU legislative process works so when a vote to give first approval to a text is cancelled before it takes place journalists and reddit all over pull out the mission accomplished banners and when a negotiating position is approved everyone has a surprised pikachu face
The "proposal" was made something like 3 years ago, the killing never happened and the passing, if it passes, will happen in at least one year from now because this will definitely take a long time to get through parliament and even longer to get through the trilogue.
This is of course a process, that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span. People don't manage to remember things that happened in politics 4 years ago in their own country. Now they are required to follow up on dozens of shitty proposals, all probably illegal in their own country, and those don't even happen in their own country? That divides the number of people, who even start looking into this stuff by a factor of 1000 or so.
There is the Parliament's legislative train website [1]. However, it only tracks actual legislative steps, not the intra-Council negotiations, so the proposal's page appears to be have been largely inactive since 2024 [2].
Which ones are unelected - the democratically elected heads of the member state governments? Or the democratically elected members of the EU parliament?
Or the commissioners that are appointed by the democratically elected heads of the member state governments?
I tried the same questions on multiple different threads, to multiple different imbeciles posting the same bullshit.
You will never get an answer from them. But we should keep asking it anyway.
I always wondered if they live on the EU and are genuinely too stupid to understand how the bloc their country joined works or, most likely, live outside of it and the idea of the EU as a political entity offends their sensibilities or heighten their anxiety.
Take Magnus Brunner, responsible for Internal Affairs and Migration. The Austrian Government, headed by Karl Nehammer at the time I believe, provided him.
The head of the EU, who was nominated by the Austrian Government (and the other 26 governments) and elected by the MEPs in parliament (who were directly elected) decided on his portfolio.
Compare this to the US system, where the head of the US executive is elected by electors who themselves are directly elected. That head then appoints whoever they want.
If you were to make the US reflect the EU, you would have
1) Senate nominates the president (one vote per state)
2) Congress votes for the president
3) Senate provides the people to be secretaries
4) President selects from that list and chooses which person gets head of State, head of Treasury, etc
This would give more power to the states and less to the federal level, which itself is something many in the US want. Doesn't make it undemocratic.
I wouldn't be so sure of that assertion regarding attention span. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance granted, it's about opinion rather than capability but the same bias would explain such a reflexive judgment, and such a judgment will have negative consequences if it is false. (Consensus can be shaped, as can the perception of consensus be.)
Tell me more about that, while here in Germany people again and again vote against their own interest (AfD, CDU, SPD, and all the other corrupt and inept politicians and parties) and the mainstream parties have not managed to improve our situation for some 4-5 election cycles. Tell me more about that, while looking at the US. I am quite sure many other countries can be added to this list.
It's easy to reach for the "people are stupid" argument.
It's harder to ask, "Why are people still voting for this despite it seemingly being against their interests"
But once you do start asking that question, you'll find "they're just stupid" isn't really the only answer. At least 1 other answer would be they're responding to politics of other parties failing them too.
Is it the most rational decision for those people? No, probably not, but ignoring their motivations and chalking it up to stupidity or whatnot is really not going to solve anything - and, in fact, is only going to push those people further into what they believe. You should consider whether that's what you want.
Depends on how you define "stupid". In many cases you could say "unaware" or "forgetful" instead of "stupid". And mind, I did not say "stupid". That's a word you threw into this.
As to why they still vote like they do:
(1) Because every 4 years the mainstream party promise to solve some problems, netting votes of the young, gullible, or inexperienced voters.
(2) Promise pension increase, netting votes of the ever increasing amount of old people, most who don't care about who or what comes after them.
(3) People are too busy, burned out, or lazy (we still have it too good here, it seems), and cannot be arsed to inform themselves before elections. We also have tons of people, who are truly learning-resistant, right out of school or "university".
(4) People think, that SPD, CDU, Greens, etc. are the only way to stop AfD.
I think we are not very high on the democratic-ability scale. Yes, we vote every 4 years, but it is more like collectively we don't really care enough to inform ourselves properly and just check a few boxes, because we want to tell ourselves, that at least we did vote and that we are fine democratic citizen.
And look, I myself am not frequently reading all parties' positions. And I myself inform myself more shortly before an election, rather than all the time. But I do have a feeling for corruption and I don't always forget scandals that happen, when the next engagement-optimized news headline comes in. I still remember Rezo's "Zerstoerung der CDU" video. I remember reading those abgeordnetenwatch newsletters about the lobby register. Or the foodwatch newsletters about Kloeckner and the Lebensmittelampel. That's why I will not vote for mainstream-promise-a-lot-but-no-delivery parties and retired people clubs. And what more I do, is to use the Wahlomat, and actually check which party's position aligns most with my own.
I don't do too much either, but most people do way less to inform themselves. They just check a box out of habit. Why they vote for CDU/SPD? Because that's what they always did. It's real friggin dumb.
I'm not sure what factual basis you have for your optimism. I have plenty for my pessimism about human nature and our ability to competently govern ourselves as well as our general moral fortitude. We've gotten this far because we've been playing life on easy mode with a ridiculously nurturing planet and practically unlimited energy available under the ground, but we aren't smart enough or forward thinking enough to take on the minor pain necessary to avoid the catastrophe we are lumbering towards. We are short-sighted, selfish, self-important, and we haven't earned the regard in which we hold ourselves.
Regarding your specific point about using recent context to inform political opinions, if you spend any amount of time listening to the opinions of people online you'll find that not only do they fail to accurately recall past events, but they don't bother to research what actually happened, and when they do they fail at anything but the most superficial political analysis.
> We've gotten this far because we've been playing life on easy mode with a ridiculously nurturing planet and practically unlimited energy available under the ground, but we aren't smart enough or forward thinking enough to take on the minor pain necessary to avoid the catastrophe we are lumbering towards. We are short-sighted, selfish, self-important, and we haven't earned the regard in which we hold ourselves.
Where's your "factual basis" for such assertions?
> Regarding your specific point about using recent context to inform political opinions, if you spend any amount of time listening to the opinions of people online you'll find that not only do they fail to accurately recall past events, but they don't bother to research what actually happened, and when they do they fail at anything but the most superficial political analysis.
1) People regularly online are a rather specific group
2) People sharing their opinions online are a very specific group
3) Basing your views on society at large on opinions of those groups is a risky strategy, especially given how easy it has become to spread propaganda online
Anyway as for my optimism, it's based on actually interacting with people directly. Having discussions with them. Talking to them about what they believe, and why. They're usually a lot more complex and intelligent than those various descriptors used above.
Now one could counter equally, that people you interact with directly are:
(a) limited in number due to the nature of your interaction with them
(b) will express themselves differently, due to the nature of interaction. (Just like people expressing themselves online act differently.)
(c) are probably also a very specific group or bubble, which is simply the people you get to interact with. Which _might_ be more varied than the other person online, but might also be less varied. Really depends on how you pick the people you interact with.
(d) Anecdote of one person N=1 is not really a good factual basis for other people.
So if you want to show how your view is more based on evidence, then you will have to do better than anecdote and no links to statistics or cases we can peruse.
Maybe so. But between "people are stupid and that's why all these bad things are happening" and "people have complex motivations and rationals for doing what they do", I'm going to lean toward the latter, anecdote or not.
That could still be democratic in principle if it weren’t for lobbyists
If legislative processes are so drawn out and complex that no more than a handful of ordinary citizens could keep track of them, the advantage that paid lobbyists have over the public is enormous
> The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.
It would work if we could elect politicians who were both competent and trustworthy.
Of course that would require successfully electing people who are competent about a broad range of issues, able to see through well funded and clever lobbying, unblinded by ideology, and able to resist pressure.
Complicated, sure, but opaque? EU is incredibly transparent – the amount of information on the European Council website [1] is daunting. There are vote results, meeting schedules, agendas, background briefs, lists of participants, reports, recordings of public council sessions, and so on and so on. All publicly available in each of the 24 EU official languages for whoever cares enough to look. And it's not just the council! The EU Treaties and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU gives any EU citizen the right to access documents possessed by EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (with a few exceptions for eg. public security and military matters) [2].
The problem is mostly the sheer amount of things going on, you couldn't possibly keep up with it all.
Identical in every respect other than those with the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure. The Commission have no direct link to the electorate and the your country's (sorry, “state”) Council representatives can hide behind collective consensus.
> the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure
Completely immune is overstating it, and the power to initiate legislation is not that meaningful given that the EC initiates what the council tells it to initiate and can't actually turn it into law without parliament and council
Your link to the Commission and Council is homeopathic democracy, right?
In the UK with a Parliamentary democracy, unpopular policy ideas can be abandoned. Manifestos are not always adhered to, but they typically include ideas that their canvassers can sell on the doorstep and there is robust media criticism when they abandon their promises. We have a strong history of U turns because our politicians are wary of unpopularity. The most recent big backlash was the Winter Fuel Allowance cut which was proposed by the two parties (with the Treasury pushing for it behind the scenes) and abandoned by both due to deep unpopularity in the Country. Even the budget this week had a run-up where various fiscal changes were unofficially floated through the media, to see which ones had the smallest backlash.
This is completely different to the EU, where the Commission and Council arguably get what they want even if it takes several attempts.
Interesting you say that, after the UK already passed the equivalent of Chat Control with cross party support, without the law being part of the mandate of either party.
But my point elsewhere in this thread is that we have the ability for future governments to overturn unpopular legislation, something that is not unusual at all in the UK.
Consider it read/write versus write-only in the EU, which doesn’t give a damn about unpopularity.
You speak as if the Commission and Council are somehow divorced from ne national governments of the member states.
Those are not Lovecraftian entities that came from undersea. Their members are appointed from the national governments. If you dislike how your country position itself on those organs, this should change your view on how the ruling parties in your country took decisions at the EU level.
"The plans for scanning your chats were on display for fifty Earth years at the local planning department in Alpha Centauri"?
Nobody's attention span is infinite. I don't doubt I could understand all details of the EU legislative process and keep track of what sort of terrible proposals are underway if I put in the time, but I have a day job, hobbies that are frankly more interesting, and enough national legislation to keep track of.
If you then also say that the outcome is still my responsibility as a voter, then it seems like the logical solution is that I should vote for whatever leave/obstruct-the-EU option is on the menu. I don't understand why I am obliged to surrender either a large and ever-growing slice of my attention or my one-over-400something-million share of sovereignty.
> I don't understand why I am obliged to surrender either a large and ever-growing slice of my attention or my one-over-400something-million share of sovereignty.
Because your puny state is no match for the US, China or soon enough, India. Heck, even Russia in its current incarnation outmatches 80% of the EU countries.
That's it, it's that simple, conceptually.
It's basically the Articles of Confederation vs the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, it's not a pretty process, but the alternative is worse.
We can all live in La-La-Land and pretend we're hobbits living in the Shire ("Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you") until reality comes crashing down.
If the end result is going to be that the EU turns into Russia or China under the pretext of standing up to them (because apparently building an opaque process that civil society can't keep up with to ram through authoritarian laws is what it takes to be competitive?), then I'd rather they cut out the extra steps and let the Russians/Chinese take over. At least then nobody would be telling me that what I got is the outcome of some sacred democratic process I am obliged to respect.
Why, then, is the supposed anti-US/China/India/Russia power bloc trying to pass laws to mandate absolute surveillance of all private communications? If the EU is going to continue attempting to legislate away people's freedoms for purposes that are completely out of scope for the reason it exists, then the natural result is that people will turn on the EU. There is little purpose in staving off the surrendering of independence to US/China if the process entails surrendering even more freedom than they would demand to the EU, all the more so when the EU already rolls over to the US/China on almost everything anyways. I am supportive of a pan-European unification in theory, but if the result looks anything like this, no wonder people are disillusioned with the European project. With friends like the EU, who needs enemies?
I understand that it is not currently law. I also understand that the EU has been dedicated to this road of eroding citizen privacy for decades, constantly trying to pass more and more egregious legislation. For example, the Data Retention Directive of 2006 was abhorrent law. After 8 years in force, it was struck down by the ECJ, which would be somewhat reassuring if not for the fact that the EU appears to consider the ECJ a thorn in its side that it seeks to undermine at every turn. I have very little faith that this will not eventually become abhorrent law given the persistence with which the EU pursues becoming a surveillance state.
> Hmm, now whose fault is it that the EU institutions are so complicated and opaque? The citizens? The journalists? Or maybe...?
They are not. People just don't bother themselves to spend half a calory in brain power to read even the Wikipedia page about it, and just repeat shit they read in forum posts.
I mean, here on HN, a website where people are supposedly slightly above average in terms of being able to read shit, the amount of times I read how EU is "bureacrats in Brussels" "pushing hard for changes" is weird.
The issue is not with the lack of understanding of "process". But sheer frustration because there's nothing you can do as just a citizen. An unelected council of !notAyatollah has decided, and this thing is being pushed at glacier slow pace.
If EU is a trade union this is a severe overreach, if EU wants to be a federation, there's not enough checks and balances. This is the crux of the problem.
The issue is that this is a legislation that only ones in power want(censorship on communications channel where they themselves are exempt from it), that has been pushed over and over again under different names(it goes so far back - it started with ACTA talks and extreme surveillance proposals to fight copyright violations) and details in implementation and/or excuse(this time we get classic "think of the children")
The Council is a meeting of the heads of state, all of which are elected in their respective countries.
Your problem is with the leadership of countries, not with the EU as an institution. I agree that it is a problem btw, but I think you got the wrong culprit. This isn't pushed on the states by the EU, this is the states using the EU to push it and launder the bad publicity.
My problem is that i as a citizen can vote for my heads of state, but if other parts of EU decided something my vote is null and void, EVEN if majority of EU citizens are against such issue.
Imagine is those issues were campaign promises and part of internal(country's) elections - they aren't in reality but we can set that aside for now. as it was extremely well said by sibling post.
My country is 80% against 20% in favor(in practice it is even more skewed towards 'no' for chat control!), other EU countries are 51% for, 49% against.
Yet such 'vote' by heads of state counts whole countries in,if you were to count individual votes majority of EU citizens would be against it.
This allows you to pass undesirable or extremely contentious legislation, that would most likely prevent you from being elected in the future in your local elections but you can easily shift the blame too!
This is as far form democracy as possible, it is pure bureaucracy that serves it's own goals.
The irony is that this is all because the EU was specifically designed to not supercede its member states. In other words, they repeated the same mistake[0] the US did. Fixing it - i.e. ditching all the appointed positions that are responsive to nation states only - would amount to federalizing the EU.
"But why can't we just leave the EU to stop this" - too late. Most EU countries have enough intra-EU migration and trade to make leaving unthinkable. The UK was a special case - and, ironically enough, actually responsible for some of the EU's worst decisions.
Furthermore, this isn't exactly an EU exclusive problem. Every supranational organization that is responsive to member states and not individual voters is a policy laundering mechanism. Ask yourself: where's your representation in the WTO, and when did you vote for them? The sum of democracy and democracy is dictatorship. Any governing body that does not respect all of its voters equally is ripe for subsumption by people who do not respect them at all.
[0] Originally, US senators were appointed by state governors. This eventually resulted in everyone voting for whatever governor promised to appoint the senator the voter wanted. Which is sort of like throwing away your gubernatorial vote for a senatorial one. This is why we amended the constitution to allow direct election of senators, and I hold that any sovereign nation that makes the mistake of appointed politicians will inevitably have to either abandon it or fail.
The issue is that EU is stuck in-between federation(which requires more checks and balances), and a trade union - which should concern themselves with just trade regulations.
In the UK all I can do is vote for my member of parliament. The victorious member may or may not get in with a majority of votes (about half get under 50%)
They then in effect elect a Prime Minister, who appoints an executive, who create laws and then put them to parliament
In the US you can vote for the leader of the executive directly. 64% of Vermont voted for Harris, yet they still got Trump.
> in practice it is even more skewed towards 'no' for chat control
My understanding is that the public as a whole do not want chat control, yet the democratically elected heads of each member government do want it. The problem here is the democratically elected heads of each member government.
Doesn't take many council members to be against it to stop it in its tracks.
The culprit is correct. If the EU exists for political laundering, then it is the organisation which is harmful to the people's interests. Nobody voted for any of these heads of states on a platform of enacting Chat Control. That was not on the ballot or the platform of any party in any individual EU country. If it was, they would not have voted for it. If an individual party tried to initiate a chat control bill in its own country, it would surely face a massive reckoning at the next election[1]. Therefore, an individual party would likely not undertake to enact chat control. It is the existence of the EU which is enabling politicians to force undesirable legislation on their populace. In that environment, it is entirely correct to call the EU an un-democratic process. If it exists to pass legislation nobody would vote for and take the blame, then it will in fact be rightfully at blame and provide a strong motivation for people to exit the EU.
[1] In fact, we have helpfully seen this play out with our friendly early exiter. The remarkably self-destructive Labour party has passed their own absolute nonsense "online safety" bill, and are likely to be utterly destroyed in the next election with repealing the bill being part of the platform of the party that is polling at ~twice the share of the next largest party. With the EU providing blame-as-a-service, though, it is unlikely that anybody will be able to repeal Chat Control once rammed through, without exiting the EU entirely.
You provide your own counterexample. The UK left the EU and all it got for it was a quicker passing of it's "online safety" nonsense with none of the checks and balances (EU parliament, ECHR) that would stop it in the EU.
TFA mentions "european governments" but this legislation is proposed by a bunch of european members of parliament who in no way represent any governments and much less the commission or the union. In short it tries to depict a group of old farts as an overreaching snooping authority.
I wonder who could have a vested interest in depicting the EU as a repressive regime...
> this legislation is proposed by a bunch of european members of parliament who in no way represent any governments and much less the commission
Well, here is the guy from where that comes from, the minister of justice of Denmark. He certainly represents a good part of Denmark, even though he may be irrelevant to any other EU country.
That could be a result of the Parliamentary style system. With multiple parties - each sharing a part of the government - proposals and alliances can shift rapidly. It all depends on how big the pie becomes for each to get a slice
Not usual, but two out of the last 20 governments is not what I would call very rare.
its more likely than it has been in a very long time with multiple smaller parties gaining seats. Nationalists in Scotland and Wales have been around a whole, and NI always had its own parties, but on top of that we now have Reform and the Greens making gains.
"European Council has no legislative power, it is a strategic (and crisis-solving) body that provides the union with general political directions and priorities, and acts as a collective presidency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
Similar to the Political Bureau in former communist countries, but still an autocracy.
> But I wouldn't call it an autocracy.
It has most certainly started to walk and quack a lot like an autocratic duck, it wasn't the case 10 to 15 years ago, or not as visible, to say the least, but the pandemic and this recent war in Ukraine have changed that.
The EU Parliament, that has to vote to pass the law. Let's be better at commenting than Libertatea, circa 2010 (or The Daily Mail, for international readers).
The EU Parliament is a lame-duck thing, we both know that, let’s not pretend that this won’t pass at some point. It’s also not a parliament by definition, as it cannot propose any legislative measure, it can only propose “resolutions”, this is as lame-duck as it gets.
But it can block laws. Which matters. Just like in this case.
And guess what, national governments are the ones blocking the European Parliament from proposing laws, the EP has proposed multiple times that it be allowed to laws.
So EU member states themselves are the ones that don't want the EP to become a full blown parliament.
The UK keeps a register of non-crime hate incidents and invests its scarce police resources into harassing, arresting and punishing people for twitter posts.
And also: silently praying in public near an abortion center. The lady in question should have asked the policeman (as he was) "How would you define praying?". At least he'd maybe have paused for an interesting short discussion on semantics and more before for arresting her - as he did.
https://youtu.be/wXURFRSUS9U
Two years ago and she has received damages however similar attitudes still abound with marked police disapproval of attempts to display the English National flag - in England.
All good, and sorry I'm used to making posts like this on Reddit where people are less aware.
I just did what I always do, edit out the AMP part and check that it still works. Sometimes the URL will go elsewhere or need more fiddling, this time it just worked.
Seems like he’s Lex without the Rogan association so hardcore liberal folks can listen without having to buy morality offsets. He’s good, and he’s filling a void in an established underserved genre is my take.
I stopped listening to Lex Fridman after he tried to arbiter a "peace agreement" between Russia and Ukraine and claimed he just wanted to make the world "love" each other more.
Then I found out he was a fraud that had no academic connection to MIT other than working there as an IC.
> I stopped listening to Lex Fridman after he tried to arbiter a "peace agreement" between Russia and Ukraine...
Same here. I lost all respect for Lex after seeing him interview Zelensky of Ukraine. Lex grew up in Moscow. He sometimes shows a soft spot for Russia perhaps because of it.
I think its important to include that Lex is laundromat for whatever the guest is trying to sell. Dwarkesh does an impressive amount of background and speaks with experts about their expertise.
His recent conversation with Sutton suggests otherwise. Friedman is a vapid charlatan par excellence. Dwarkesh suffers from a different problem, where, by rubbing shoulders with experts, he has come to the mistaken belief that he possesses expertise, absent the humility and actual work that would entail.
Yup, Dwarkesh needs to broaden his intellectual scope, and the Sutton interview completely exposed the echo chamber he's been inhabiting. There is no certainty in science, and I don't think building 'AGI' will be any exception.
Tell me more about these morality offsets I can buy! I got a bunch of friends that listen to Joe Rogan, so I listen to him to know what they're talking about, but I've been doing so without these offsets, so my morality's been taking hits. Please help me before I make a human trafficking app for Andrew Tate!
It amuses me to no end that there are groups in the US that would probably consider both Terence McKenna and Michel Foucault as "far right" conservatives if they were alive and had podcasts in 2025.
Absolutely no way Timothy Leary would be considered a liberal in 2025.
Those three I think represent a pretty good mirror of the present situation.
Fridman is a morally broken grifter, who just built a persona and a brand on proven lies, claiming an association with MIT that was de facto non-existent. Not wanting to give the guy recognition is not a matter of being liberal or conservative, but just interested in truthfulness.
> Lex does not teach any for-credit class at MIT, is not listed in the teaching faculty, and his last published research paper was published in 2018. For community outreach, Lex Fridman HAS taught classes in MIT’s IAP program, which are non-credit bearing.
> The most recent documented instance of Lex Fridman teaching an IAP class was in January 2022, when he co-instructed a series of lectures on deep learning, robotics, and AI-specialized computing hardware as part of MIT’s Independent Activities Period, scheduled from January 10 to January 14.
His profile photo btw is in front of an actual lecturer’s chalk board from a class he wasn’t involved with. The chalkboard writing is just an aesthetic. In that picture he was teaching an introductory level powerpoint about AI trends in a one-time, unpaid IAP session. That’s as authentic as it gets
Patel takes anticommunism to such an extreme that he repeatedly brings up and speculates (despite being met with repudiation by even the staunchest anticommunist of guests) whether naziism is preferable, that Hitler should have the war against Soviets, that the US should have collaborated with Hitler to defeat communism, and that the enduring spread of naziism would have been a good tradeoff to make.
I don't remember all of the details so I can't remember if that came up in the episode I listened to. But I did listen to an episode where he talked to a (Chinese) guest about China. I discussed it with a Chinese friend at the time, and we both thought the guest was very interesting and well-informed, but the interviewer's questions were sometimes fantastical in a paranoid way, naively ideological, and often even a bit stupid.
It being the first (and so far only) interview of his I'd seen, between that and the AI boosterism, I was left thinking he was just some overblown hack. Is this a blind spot for him so that he's sometimes worth listening to on other topics? Or is he in fact an overblown hack?
No, he’s an overblown hack who is pandering to the elements of his audience that would share those views about Nazism and China. Should many someday see through the veil of his bullshit or simply grow tired of his pablum, he can then pivot to being a far right influencer and continue raking in the dough, having previously demonstrated the proper bona fides.
The episode with Zelensky exposed him as a complete idiot. I can maybe tolerate grifters but fuck the whole 'love and peace bro' act while implying Ukraine should make peace with invaders who have ruthlessly killed civilian men, women, and children.
I wish we stopped giving airtime to grifters. Maybe then things would start looking up in the world.
> The problems described in OPs post are exactly the kind of thing China is good at tackling because their democratic system is actually built for this.
China does a lot of stuff right, and your points may be entirely valid, but calling that system “democratic” nullifies everything else said. It’s a one party state.
By this logic US is two-halves-party state. You are no less dictatorial than China, just better at hiding it at the cost of how performant it is. Democracy is an European thing that rarely ever got successfully exported.
The US is a one-party state because of elite capture.
The interests of the mainstream political parties in the US are disconnected from the material conditions of the people. And what passes for debate is the narcissism of small differences that leaves the super-structure untouched.
China found a system that works for them after a century of trying every system.
> The US is a one-party state because of elite capture.
This is demonstrably false given the election result in 2016. Donald Trump was absolutely the anti-elite candidate with all of the establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle denouncing him as a candidate and calling his supporters fascists. His election was a national shock.
> China found a system that works for them after a century of trying every system.
Fine, and we'll see how that system works over the next century. This thread isn't about the efficacy of the Chinese system. It's about protecting the concept of democracy from propaganda.
> This is demonstrably false given the election result in 2016. Donald Trump was absolutely the anti-elite candidate with all of the establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle denouncing him as a candidate and calling his supporters fascists. His election was a national shock.
And then he governed in a reactionary way that favored the elites with whom he transacted. One man cannot change the superstructure through electoral means, as Lenin pointed out. All the undemocratic, unilateral powers that Trump has taken advantage of didn't start with him; they began with his predecessors and the larger national security state, who expanded executive power without oversight.
>Fine, and we'll see how that system works over the next century. This thread isn't about the efficacy of the Chinese system. It's about protecting the concept of democracy from propaganda.
Propaganda is how you control public opinion and sentiment in a democracy. See the work of Edward Bernays and Chomsky. Propaganda is an integral part of modern liberal democracies to arrive at a consensus that is largely disconnected from the needs or will of the electorate.
China doesn't need us to tell them how to run their country or their provinces.
This is incorrect. There are 9 parties. You are likely saying "well it's functionally a singe party system" yet you can't even read Chinese to understand what the policy positions of the different factions within the committees are.
I'm not sure why you think I can't read Chinese, but Xi has been in power for 12 years and as far as I am aware cannot be removed by anyone other than the CCP. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the people whom he governs can remove him by some kind of democratic process, then perhaps your points are valid. My understanding is that they cannot.
> Socialist democracy must, therefore, be seen as a historic, multi-generational and dialectical process by which conditions that enable increasing parts of society to play an active role in governance are created, nurtured, and defended. China has advanced on this path further than most societies in modern history. From early experiments in village-level organization to building a nationwide process for 1.4 billion people from 56 ethnic groups across a country spanning over nine million square kilometers, this process has come to be contained in a concept called “whole-process people’s democracy” — a practice of democratic governance built on over a century of organizational experience.
This (and the rest of this article) is nonsense propaganda if the above is correct.
There are 100 million members of the party, and these people vote directly for their local representatives, who then go onto vote for the village, town, city, province, etc representatives, all the way up to the Standing Committee which includes Xi. There are 3000 members of the National People's Congress that directly selects the Standing Committee. In rural areas or special administrative provinces, often anyone can vote, including union members who aren't officially party members. Comparatively, in the 2024 US election, 150 million people voted. So there's roughly the same amount of votes happening.
Maybe you don't agree that not being able to pick the head of state is not a valid definition of democracy. In that case I'd argue that having a twice-indicted convicted felon is not valid democracy either. In any case, feel free to keep your version.
This is the main issue with tankies, not that they go bizarrely out of their way to defend the PRC (and weirdly sometimes the Soviet Union or even North Korea), but, as Westerners, every geopolitical analysis they have is Americentric. Every news article for them is framed as, "How does this affect, or, is influenced by, American hegemony?"
It often results in them completely disregarding the opinions, motivations, and agency of anyone that isn't American or a citizen of the PRC.
The argument you will hear from Americans and Europeans is that in order for it to be a "democracy" that anybody has to be able to vote. This is, of course, hypocritical because not a single one of those countries allows everyone to vote. And, just like China, every one of those countries has powerful government officials that are appointed by other government officials rather than elected by the public. And in many of them there is a parliamentary system where the public does not get to vote on the head of state, but rather the head of state is elected by the parliament.
In fact, the US republic at its beginning was more similar to China. The president and Senate were elected by the state legislatures, not the public.
There are other things that are critical to democracy to actually function in the spirit of democracy - universal suffrage obviously, and the USA fails in this insomuch as it removed the right to vote from felons and engages in gerrymandering and disenchantment.
However other countries don't suffer the issue to quite the same degree, and the PRC is happy to restrict the right of some people to representation such as the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. You might say they don't deserve it, I say that's just a justification for disenfranchisement, and a bad one.
You also need to let citizens have the ability to converse and discuss and try to influence each other and who they vote for, and to learn facts about politicians outside of channels that are supportive of the politician. By that I of course mean that mostly free speech and free press are a requirement for a functional democracy, else you could call North Korea a democracy which is of course absurd.
The PRC may get many things right, and hell maybe we are entering The Chinese Century, but regardless it's not immune to criticism, and pretending otherwise just to oppose American hegemony simply hurts one's ability to do so as everyone will just accuse you of being a Little Pink.
Yes, democracy includes the right for the people to elect a convicted felon. We do not agree on a definition of the democracy. Your usage continues to undermine your original valid point.
These statements about numbers are meaningless to make the case that democracy exists in the PRC. There's 1 billion people there, comparison of vote counts to smaller countries doesn't make sense.
Party membership comes with 關係. It's not really about having the right to vote. Some people just join during school.
The PRC gets many things right but we should be honest about its flaws. The truth is the CPC, and especially now Xi (you HAVE seen the updated textbooks about father/brother xi, right?), are single points of failure and unchallengeable authority. What happened to the left communists in the PRC? What happened to the smaller unions that didn't toe the party line, and not in the direction of capitalism but deeper into leftism? Where are the Chinese anarchists? Hell, where are the Chinese communists?
The only path forward to a communist PRC is a split into province level states or better yet smaller entities. It's only a matter of time before Xi goes senile or has a big birthday he wants to celebrate by escalating imperialism into military intervention and tanks the entire PRC economy in doing so, or simply dies and kicks off a shitstorm power struggle that cripples the CPC and the country along with it.
Imagine how productive we'll be now!
reply