EU immigration row / time to get out

[UndercoverElephant]

If there has been electoral fraud in the US then I strongly suspect it has been the other way around: the republicans depriving democrat-supporting black people from voting in crucial areas of the South.

[vtsnowedin]

If there has been electoral fraud in the US then I strongly suspect it has been the other way around: the republicans depriving democrat-supporting black people from voting in crucial areas of the South.

Voter fraud in the USA is much more complicated then that. You have the now age old process of gerrymandering to set the field as far away from fair as can be gotten past the Supreme Court. Then you have ballot counting machines in the control of one party that count votes for their party much more reliably then they count the votes for the opposition, to the point of counting votes cast by dead people. Then you have motor voter rules where a person who has never been seen in a voter precinct can register and vote there on election day and in as many precincts as they can drive to and claim their "rights" on the same day.
The Republicans waste a lot of time fighting college students voting where they are studying and residing at the time not realizing that as long as the students don't vote at college and absentee back at their parents home on the same election day it will come to a wash.
Imagine if you will if we went back to only counting votes from property owners and tax payers.

[RenewableCandy]

We had a few dead people voting Tory a while back. They also go 'round old folks' homes getting people there to fill in "vote by proxy" forms which then all go/went to the local Tory club.

Of course, that was in the old days when Labour were the Opposition. Now I suppose the gerrymanderers needn't bothr

[biffvernon]

Now here's an interesting article:
http://clumpjack.wordpress.com/2013/09/ ... al-issues/
It's by a young man whose parents I have known for a long time and he is now of the age when he is stringing words together in the right order.

It just dawned on me that when a certain PS member told me to be a realist he may not have been meaning that I should be a realist at all but rather a Realist*. Which is something quite different, as becomes apparent when one reads the second half of the paper. I have no intention of being a Realist in this sense as I am really rather against Realism.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(i ... relations)

[3rdRock]

Oh dear, I see the xenophukip's have just coughed up another poisonous furball.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... grants-ban

Ukip wants a five-year ban on new migrants, says Nigel Farage

[UndercoverElephant]

I was accusing you of lacking realism in all areas, not just this one. Although this is a perfectly good example. I could easily have meant this.

Now here's an interesting article:

I've only skimmed it, but it is badly written and bordering on making no sense at all. It starts (and is called):

This paper will seek to find whether theorists of international relations have been successful at addressing environmental issues.

Theorists of international relations aren't supposed to address environmental issues. They are supposed to address questions like "how do international relations function now?" and "how could they function in the future?"

Not a good start, and I'm skeptical that this is a genuine academic paper. Rather, it looks more like something called a "paper", but written by an undergraduate.

The extent to which Realism can cooperate with international organisations will be detailed looking at how states seeking to maintain their sovereignty and increase power reduces the effectiveness of international institutions at dealing with environmental issues.

Erm...that's linguistically on the same level as declaring war on terror. Realism is a theory of international relations. As such it can be true, false, out of date, etc..., but if my understanding of the English language is accurate, then theories don't ever co-operate with anything. They just aren't the sort of entities that co-operate.

Although the environmental challenge is a global issue, any kind of effective response is determined by the cooperation between over 190 sovereign states. Different theorists of international relations, including Realists, Liberals and Marxists all have different ideas about how to go about addressing issues of the environment.

This gets sillier. OK...what is Realism, in this context?

From your wikipedia link:

Realism is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions.[2]

The international system is anarchic. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism

States are the most important actors. All states within the system are unitary, rational actors States tend to pursue self-interest. Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible (see relative gain).

The primary concern of all states is survival. States build up military to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma

The above theory is about what is true, not what ought to be. I am indeed a "Realist" in this sense, by which I mean that I believe the above to be an essentially accurate account of the way international relations work. Your author has contrasted Realism with Marxism and Liberalism.

So what is liberalism? Again from wikipedia:

"Liberalism is one of the main schools of international relations theory. Its roots lie in the broader liberal thought originating in the Enlightenment. The central issues that it seeks to address are the problems of achieving lasting peace and cooperation in international relations, and the various methods that could contribute to their achievement."

So Liberalism and Realism are not theories that can be compared and contrasted. Realism is a theory about how the world actually works. Liberalism (and Marxism for that matter) are theories about it might work in some world that isn't the one we live in right now.

Let's go back to the quote from the "paper":

Different theorists of international relations, including Realists, Liberals and Marxists all have different ideas about how to go about addressing issues of the environment.

Hmmm. I'm a Realist and a Marxist (or pretty close, so let's say I am). Realism describes the world as it actually is; Marxism as a global system (which it would have to be if it described international relations) is a utopian dream. The environmental issues we're talking about are indisputably real, rather than having something to do with a utopian dream. Therefore, "going about addressing environmental issues from a Marxist perspective" is, quite literally, applying a theory about some theoretical world that does not exist to real world problems that actually do exist. Anyone who doesn't think this is a show-stopping problem is a total idiot.

I'm sorry, but at this point I have to stop reading it, because I have better things to do. If you think there is something worth reading/discussing deeper into the article then please point it out. As things stand I have to dismiss it as incomprehensible.

It's by a young man whose parents I have known for a long time and he is now of the age when he is stringing words together in the right order.

About 14/15, I am guessing?

[biffvernon]

About 14/15, I am guessing?

Wrong guess, double it.

[UndercoverElephant]

About 14/15, I am guessing?

Wrong guess, double it.

In that case the author has no excuse for producing this sort of twaddle.

[emordnilap]

The environmental issues we're talking about are indisputably real, rather than having something to do with a utopian dream. Therefore, "going about addressing environmental issues" from a Marxist perspective" is, quite literally, applying a theory about some theoretical world that does not exist to real world problems that actually do exist. Anyone who doesn't think this is a show-stopping problem is a total idiot.

Well put UE - but not just 'marxist'. Indeed, as every political party I know of is inextricably wedded to climate change as a matter of policy. Oh, the greens talk a good policy (sometimes) but I would bet my life on them being totally ineffective in government. To quote Paul Kingsnorth: "The political left is technological society’s first line of defence against revolution."

I can neither support nor vote for anyone.

[UndercoverElephant]

The environmental issues we're talking about are indisputably real, rather than having something to do with a utopian dream. Therefore, "going about addressing environmental issues" from a Marxist perspective" is, quite literally, applying a theory about some theoretical world that does not exist to real world problems that actually do exist. Anyone who doesn't think this is a show-stopping problem is a total idiot.

Well put UE - but not just 'marxist'. Indeed, as every political party I know of is inextricably wedded to climate change as a matter of policy. Oh, the greens talk a good policy (sometimes) but I would bet my life on them being totally ineffective in government.

Of course they would be totally ineffective, for a whole bunch of reasons.

I think the problem is best illustrated by the rapidity and completeness of the LibDem U-turn on university tuition fees. It wasn't just because they were in coalition with the Tories. The truth is that their declared policy before the election was unimplementable anyway - they would have had to perform a U-turn on it even if they'd won an (impossible) overall majority, which is why they bargained it away so thoroughly when it came to negotiating the coalition's joint policy. And that was their flagship policy at an election where they knew they had a chance of sharing power. The Greens, in power, would face this sort of problem multiplied a hundred times, because they are both green and ultra-left. When faced with the real decisions required of a governing power, the UK green party would tear itself apart about as quickly as a political party made up of the twenty most-prolific non-troll contributors to this forum would. Regardless of the fact that we all pretty much agree on the facts about peak oil (and glossing over the presence of a couple of climate change denialists), when it comes to taking the tough decisions we are left with something like BiffVernon vs UE/SteveCook.

The only way it would work was if some benevolent dictator was in charge, who could get away with doing whatever he/she felt was right, regardless of how unpopular the policy was or how much collateral damage was done in order to sort out the most serious underlying ecological and economic problems.

To quote Paul Kingsnorth: "The political left is technological society’s first line of defence against revolution."

Absolutely.

I can neither support nor vote for anyone.

I still haven't decided what I am actually going to do at the next general election. I've never not voted before.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh dear, I see the xenophukip's have just coughed up another poisonous furball.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... grants-ban

Ukip wants a five-year ban on new migrants, says Nigel Farage

All I can say is that in a poll last week, 53% of the respondents said they wanted a "major crackdown" on immigration. You can call him a xenophobe, I can call him an idiot, but at the end of the day he is offering a policy that a clear, overall majority of the British population want implemented, and none of the three main Westminster parties are offering anything of the sort.

I disagree with almost everything else UKIP stand for, but I would support this policy, and I resent the accusation that this has anything to do with xenophobia in my own case. It is about overpopulation and sustainability, and nothing else. If you respond to this by calling me a xenophobe, I'll accuse you of erecting straw men.

[emordnilap]

I've never not voted before.

Neither have I (never not, that is ). We have a slight advantage in Ireland in being able to vote for people in order of desirability (so of, say ten candidates, you can give the least desirable tenth preference and work your way up to the least worst. )

Note 'slight'. Everyone in or aspiring to power is a climate change supporter.

I still haven't decided what I am actually going to do at the next general election.

It's worth challenging doorsteppers when they come looking for the vote. Do they still do this in England? It's very common over here. I usually get written off as a utopian hippy for actually wanting a better planet. Funny, eh?*

Take a particularly obnoxious piece of legislation (have a read at this as a single instance) and say you'll vote for them if they promise to repeal it.

Thinking about that, you'll still end up with no-one to vote for.

* Like that cartoon that said, "What if we go to the trouble of creating a better world for everyone and climate change turns out to be a hoax?"

[UndercoverElephant]

Unless I am very busy, I will usually engage both political and religious doorsteppers and tell them precisely what I think of their ideas/policies. I'm usually (relatively) polite, because I want them to actually think about what I'm saying, which is invariably designed to be something they don't hear very often.

[emordnilap]

which is invariably designed to be something they don't hear very often.

Good man.

You're another nutter, then.

[3rdRock]

I disagree with almost everything else UKIP stand for, but I would support this policy, and I resent the accusation that this has anything to do with xenophobia in my own case. It is about overpopulation and sustainability, and nothing else. If you respond to this by calling me a xenophobe, I'll accuse you of erecting straw men.

UE, I wouldn't dream of calling you a xenophobe.

You've obviously considered your views and I note with interest that you disagree with UKIP on most other issues.