Saturday, 2 April 2016

Old, dead Parties can't cope with new political axis

Der Spiegel places itself proudly on the liberal left, but unlike many other MSM print outlets from the same spectrum, also maintains rigidly high standards of journalistic integrity. Its latest interview with Frauke Petry, head of Germany's AfD, is well worth reading; it's illustrated with a flattering (or perhaps not unflattering) photo and is honest about the interviewer's utter confusion round the new axis or axes that have formed in European politics;
Petry: The AfD is a liberal-conservative party. Furthermore, I think it's wrong to see the political battle between left and right as a fight between good and evil. In Germany, the right is associated with xenophobia and the politics of the Nazi regime. In America, the liberal economic policy of Milton Friedman is seen as right-wing. So it depends on the definition.
SPIEGEL: Ok, then please help us out: How do you define right-wing?
Petry: I don't think in those kinds of categories. With our critique of the banks or our criticisms of the European currency system, we are very close to Sahra Wagenknecht (eds. note: the deputy chairperson of the far-left Left Party). Does that mean, by extension, that we are actually ultra-left?
SPIEGEL: Are you trying to say that the AfD is not a right-wing party?
Petry: I can clearly see that you need labels.
Both here in my new home and back in the UK a new cohort is emerging around shared notions of cultural congruence, maintaining national identity, 'bio' or clean living (but not pro-windmill ..), anti-corporatistism and regaining democratic control from cabals of global corporatists and unelected officials. As the interview extract above makes clear, the agenda is neither left or right, and this is something the old, dying parties can't adjust to.  

Frauke Petry quite correctly makes the point that Muslim values are profoundly at variance with European values, and rather than Muslim immigrants changing to adopt our values, their stubborn adherence to their pre-mediaeval gods may force Europe to change to accommodate them instead.

The old, dying parties are drinking in the last chance salon. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson and May are yesterday's people, all of them utterly out of touch with the new political Zeitgeist. It's the Zac Goldsmiths and Otis Ferrys of this world who now know the score. And Nigel? A charming old-skool buffer replete with booze and bonhomie with all the right instincts but increasingly trapped in the political framework of the dying parties.   

 

14 comments:

DeeDee99 said...

We have an ossified Establishment, whether in the Royal hangers-on; the Civil Service or Parliament.

Parliament's managed to change some of the faces (more female, more ethnics, younger) but the vast majority come from the same backgrounds, so it's only the exterior that's changed. They have very little in common with ordinary people when they enter Parliament, and even less when they've been there for a few years.

And yes, I agree that Nigel is a member of that old system: albeit the ultimate maverick. I suspect he will step down after the EU Referendum, win or lose - that's what he fought for for 20 years and he DID deliver. If the British people choose to stay in the EU (God help us) it won't be his fault.

If he does and UKIP keeps going, I will vote for Steven Woolfe to become Leader. He, in my opinion, is a representative of "new politics."

right_writes said...

Look this is really simple Raedwald...

As "Nigel" says, it isn't a matter of "left and right"...

"It is a matter of right and wrong".

It is wrong to put banking, international business, and big politics before "people and their lives".

I realised this when I woke up one morning to see on the wall of the hospital opposite my house....

"Royal Bethlem Hospital... Caring for people for 750 years"...

Or words to that effect.

In my book...

In a discussion about "people vs institutions"...

People always win!

Hitler, Stalin, Franco, The Pope, David Cameron, Stuart Rose, Will Straw and all of the other remainians are either wrong, or stupid, they place more regard on the institutions than on people, whether they represent the so-called right... or the so-called left.

We must vote to leave the biggest and nastiest institution yet devised.

How the f**K did we even get here in the first place?


backofanenvelope said...

How did we get here in the first place? Easy - starting with Heath, politicians have lied to us. They are like the insurance company that refuses to pay out because of something in VERY small print at the bottom of the page.

Dave_G said...

BoaE

No, it's because we became complacent, took our eyes off the ball and ALLOWED people like Heath et al to progress their evil plans.

Even now, with the evidence almost slapping us in the face, there still appears to be a significant number of the public who 'couldn't care less' and will allow the status quo to prevail.

People need to get INTERESTED, involved and concerned in what is happening to them, to their society, to their surroundings and to their futures instead of placing blind trust on others to take care of things.

WE allowed this to happen and WE are the ones who can make it right. But somehow I reckon we'll end up with what we deserve.



Demetrius said...

The insistence on keeping the Right Left labels is both damaging and dangerous. The world is a lot more complicated than that and becoming more so. I would go so far as to say these labels may have had some reference, but that was decades ago. The earth goes round the sun.

David Balfour said...

There is no such thing as left and right. There are only globalizers and nationalists...

anon 2, said...

Yup. The terms Right and Left are used by those who don't recognise which of their hands is doing what. Except for the totalitarian Commies - useful idiots and their masters - who have various levels of understanding what they're up to.

More and more people seem to be opening their eyes, though. Let's hope the process accelerates, with help from this blog et al . . .

Anonymous said...

Oooh dear and FFS, now there's irony! Verily, where the UK nad its consensus politics kept the people riven, hating each other - divided, split between left and right! Hell indeed and honestly, when you think about it, it is a political finessing only a Machiavelli could envision and then to foment.

Left right, that's the game they (UK establishment) wanted us to play.

A charade of UK politics; where "extreme left" UKuncut, SWP, MOMENTUM, UAF is somehow 'cool' and groovy. But where, "far right" means racist/Fascist...all of it, is infantilization and what children love, to hang labels on something you understand only darkly...and always was, is, very convenient but very simplistic bollocks.
It has worked a treat and has kept the British people so divided that some Labour voters would rather cut off their hands than vote Tory and vice versa, AND is, ridiculous because, they (tory, scum party): are two shit covered cheeks of the same fat arse of the UK establishment!

Fucking unbelievable, more so, when you well understand that, the team with the yellow, red or blue rosette are, and always were one and the bloody same.
During the late 60, early 70s the media cognoscenti - they used to talk about "consensus politics", Maggie supposedly broke this mould but, actually did she? Evidently no, they had 'dethroned' Margaret well before she could sink the Maastricht Treaty and Britain carried on into oblivion, made worse, accelerated oblivion - by appointees - Bliar and CaMORON.

Consensus politics is, the politics of cultural Marxism and societal dystopia, the left, whether they be red, yellow or blue. Or, someone tell me, what is the fucking difference?

Anonymous said...

David Balfour said @ 14:30

'There is no such thing as left and right. There are only globalizers and nationalists'

Left and Right have become notional. What we have in reality are nationalists and internationalists. Politicians at the lever pulling level detach themselves from matters human with disgraceful ease, take Blair and Iraq for example. Couldn't give a fuck how many were killed just to get rid a man who stood in their way. Cameron and Libya? Shocking. Syria? Utter disaster. Both creatures are internationalists. What they want is the opposite of what a nationalist wants. The two cannot be reconciled:

Government of the People, by the People, for the People. That's patriotic nationalism.

Government of the Elite, by the Elite, for the Elite. That's you-not-knowing-what-the-fuck-is-going-on internationalism.

One is democratic the other is anti-democratic.

Steve

lilith said...


Government of the People, by the People, for the People. That's patriotic nationalism.

Government of the Elite, by the Elite, for the Elite. That's you-not-knowing-what-the-fuck-is-going-on internationalism.

One is democratic the other is anti-democratic.

Steve





Love it Steve. Very succinct.

Anonymous said...

Quiz
How many times at North London dinner parties this evening will you be able to hear the phrase:
"I'm on the left, but..."

Anonymous said...

Steve, 2 April 2016 at 15:16

Amen.

Thud said...

Otis ferry...don't be so fuckin daft.

Cascadian said...

I believe the very real hate of all stripes of politicians of the last seventy years relates to something quite tangible-money.
More precisely, how taxes have been pissed away frivolously on pet projects-windmills, phony universities, phony legislative buildings (scottish parliament) jobs-for-the-feminazis, donations to fake charities, but most egregiously universal social programmes.
Everybody, no matter how dim can understand how social programmes funded by forced donation should ONLY be available to those donors, NO OTHERS.
The theft has to stop, a more pragmatic politician willing to say that is becoming evident.