Can everyone in the West finally admit that moderate politics has been a failure?

@Convivial it's marketed as center, it's supposed to be between the left - anti war, pro socialism, and the right - capitalist and pro war. The results are actually very, very right wing. In Europe, the UK, the USA - far right wing policies are all we have. No plans for peace or prosperity, just more killing!

@GerOttman actually, politics would help discredit a very harmful ideology we can't address.

@Burnley123 Oh I'm aware yes, it's also the reason why you saw me joking about you being the new us when Truss lasted less than our avg govt 😜

This is an extremely difficult concept to explain to people abroad, especially to the Americans, but also Brits, especially nationalists (Republicans and Tories alike). You're maybe the first foreigner I've talked to who acknowledged it first without me mentioning it.

I think the reason why they're visible here is that we don't have a single, united ruling class, but multiple competing ones (religious establishment vs. the mafia vs. capitalist/industrialist establishment vs. an independent judiciary branch), , and therefore a coverup is practically impossible, as soon as anyone powerful enough is pìssed they'll happily rat the others out. It's the exact opposite of the billionaire class in America funding or having plants in both parties.

I don't know honestly what's the British greens position on the matter, but assuming they're more like the European greens than the American ones or the 5 stars, I'd say it's unfair comparing them.

And no, my opinion about Stein is from observation, not the media, let alone American media. Same identical talking points of the "pacifists" in the movement, and same pattern of her going into hibernation as soon as every election cycle is over; I didn't need to see the pic of that dinner to guess who paid for her campaigns. Literally, Giuseppe Conte right now would have more credibility as a "leftist" to me, after leading a 5S-Lega majority coalition for over one year, than her.

Absolutely, but money doesn't vote (at least thus far), people do. What money can buy is essentially the advertisement, and if people are smart enough not to get swayed by it, remain compact and not lose the goal, that money would be nothing more than money burnt in advertising that didn't work. Similarly, the composition of the democratic party would be fundamentally different, or the democratic party would be just one of the many third parties we wouldn't be concerned about.

The DNC was correct in predicting leftwingers would've split (easy guess, as that's a pattern you can see occurring literally all over the world), that's the one reason why they've tried to embrace the Cheneys and alike, half of their base was (correctly) deemed unrealiable and in an election that seemed certain to be a tie, you try everything, even something that could give you at best a 0.1% margin.

The American greens are exactly the same: a party that exists only to erode the main two parties, counting on the enraged voters and actively working on getting them enraged

@Elessar
Our ruling class is pretty united. More so even than its American equivalent because it's based in one city. London has our Parliament, our media, our stock market, our everything. Any foreign company wanting to break into the UK opens up in London first. Our journalists go to the sam parties as our business leaders and politicians. It's all based on the old-boy networks of our elite schools too. So when you get a politician (like Corbyn) you get a very powerful united front against it.


They are not. It's not even about intelligence, its just that most people don't have time to do deep-level research to see which claims are true and which are not. I do but I'm a politics nut. It's obviously still possible for outright leftists to win but if you go against powerful interest, the difficulty setting is a LOT higher. The radical right have a much lower difficulty setting because so parts of the ruling class will support them.

If you are going against powerful interests, its not a fair-fight. They could attack you on policy but a lot of people are going to agree with your policies so you attack them personally. Corbyn is pro-terrorist, Corbyn is an anti-semite, Corbyn is a Russian agent.

I'm sceptical of the criticism of Jill Stein because I have seen this playbook before.


However, Harris was winning in the early days of the campaign, The polling dipped after the campaign pivoted to the centre-right. You have to mobilise your base, as well as get people in the middle. Only about half of Americans vote so the couch is the biggest party!

Let me be honest and say that the Democrats having a different position on Gaza would not have won them the election. The US media is very pro-Israel and they would have lost more than they gained from reigning in Netanyahu. It would have been morally right to do so but I don't think that would have worked electoral.

A centre-left economic program would have done. They hinted at that early on but then pulled out. Popular policies with the public are less popular with the PACs.


I don't think you have ever met a Green Party member. They do not think like this. They are pro-environment progressives. You can have tactical criticisms of them but again - that is not about their ethics. In terms of policy support, I imagine that you would be closer to the British Greens than the Labour Party, for example.

@Burnley123 Yeah, I mean, we've probably had something like that during the Roman era too, all the elites and power focused in the city, but definitely not modern Italy: until not even 200 years ago we were microstates at war with each other; even if the geographic disputes are (mostly) resolved, the unification of the multiple, competing ruling classes doesn't happen overnight it seems. I bet there'll probably be consolidation in the long run, but with all probability not during my lifetime. I think your situation is the natural evolution in a long-standing country/empire.

I know, that's the fundamental issue.. Yet somehow the right manages to unite even "distracted" people under a single banner.

In the USA, yeah, that's by funnelling a lot of money in propaganda that turned it into a religious cult, but for instance over here the coalition is multi-partitical, has fundamentally contrasting ideas in different topics (e.g. Salvini being the typical pro-Putin kind of far-right even calling to end the sanctions, Meloni and Tajani being both strongly pro-NATO and in favor of arming Ukraine and even raising the defense spending for it), and even at the EU level they belong to competing parties (respectively ID, ECR and EPP) and somehow they still manage to achieve a majority, be stable and not stab each other like leftwing and centrist parties typically do. 🤷🏻‍♂

If the left and center were as anti-right as the right is anti-whatever-they-deem-left it would work better than the status quo, without requiring billions in campaigning and the favor of the billion dollars club..

Yeah but bear in mind the polling was unrealiable all the time. Essentially a 50-50 tie with wide error margins, it's basically the statistical way of saying "idk lol". But yeah, toning down Walz to then go for the endorsement of the Cheneys definitely wasn't good optics (even though by then a lot of people had already made their decision, idk how much it mattered in terms of actual votes honestly).

Agreed, that's why I was critical of Biden's positioning on the matter and lack of incisivity, but I could see from an electoral standpoint why he would've gone from a milquetoast attempt to convince Netanyahu to a ceasefire as opposed to a halt of military supplies. Maybe if Harris won, and didn't have to tiptoe around not to lose risking the election anymore, we could've seen more determination at pressuring Israel.

I don't know if you know any IRL, but all the ones I've met online at least pose themselves as the OP...