Jump to content

International Events IX: I feel like a mushroom


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Because media concentration and influence definitely isn't a thing, eh?  :rolleyes:

My numbers are from 2020, but in Chile, concentration for the press is 75% to 80 (Copesa and El Mecurio), and around 90% for television. Apparently just 4 companies control 90% of the media advertisement market.
When you have such numbers in a country (any country), you can bet that it's not about "left versus right" but about "the people versus the oligarchy."  What one should wonder is what stupid controversies/debates/lies the oligarchy used this time. Because of course, the oligarchy doesn't have the habit of going quietly, especially not in Chile of all places.

Oh, I don't deny for a second there's media concentration and influence of oligarchs, same as everywhere, and that certainly factors in. And certainly there's a fake news problem worldwide.

At the same time, even with all that, the population overwhelmingly approved the need for a new Constitution (about 80%), overwhelmingly voted in left wing candidates in the 2020 election (more than 2/3 of the Constitutional Assembly), and elected comfortably a 35 year old socialist less than 9 months ago, the same population in which more than 60% of the voters rejected that Constitution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

I don't know about Lagos, but that still doesn't answer the other problems I mentioned though.

Also, again, without being any sort of specialist, I've seen too much this "we only lost because of fake news and crooked capitalists destroying us" stuff from the left to really buy that.

Reminds me of the left here blaming Bolsonaro's election in fake news and conspiracies about the US wanting Brazil's oil rather than admitting it was because their policies left to economic disaster, tens of billions of dollars stolen by corruption, and that Lula stimulated political polarization, but didn't expect someone from the right rising with a similar attitude. 

Of course, apples and oranges and all that, but this kind of "is everyone's fault but our own" mentality is far too common around these parts, which explains why so many countries change administrations radically, but seemingly learn nothing.

Umm, i did say that on our " side"  we comited a lot of mistakes during the creatiom of the new constitution and during the campaing leading up to the vote. 

And you can buy belive whatever you want, im not here to convince you of anything.

The fake news campaing on the right is an objective fact, you can look it up.

I have no doubt that fake news played a part in brasil, a big part,but nothing , speciaññy on this things, like elections, the factors are many and varied. But you also cant deny the reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Well, far from me to argue with someone who probably knows far more from the political situation and society than me, but it's clear most voters disagree with you (and even Ricardo Lagos called it very partisan).

While it seems nice to add 100 rights to the Constitution (more than any other country) and change radically the country's structures, it's not cheap, and it's not clear where the money would come from at all from what I gather.

Also, living in Brazil, I can tell you Constitutions that are too extensive result in far more problems than they are worth (and Chile's would be even bigger).

What is it that you gather? What DO you know about the process on chile, what are your notions about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Oh, I don't deny for a second there's media concentration and influence of oligarchs, same as everywhere, and that certainly factors in. And certainly there's a fake news problem worldwide.

At the same time, even with all that, the population overwhelmingly approved the need for a new Constitution (about 80%), overwhelmingly voted in left wing candidates in the 2020 election (more than 2/3 of the Constitutional Assembly), and elected comfortably a 35 year old socialist less than 9 months ago, the same population in which more than 60% of the voters rejected that Constitution.

 

Boric is not a socialist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, not trying to make an argument about what are the political realities or specific issues of Chile, since I'm not the most qualified person by any means.       

But I've heard this "fake news/ right-wing media is the only reason we lost" argument many times, in many places from left wingers- Brazil, US with Hillary, UK with Corbyn, etc because it's an easy one that doesn't require a real examination or changes.

Also, should be said here at least, in the 2018 election, the left did use fake news, and a lot- from conspiracies that all the crimes discovered during their administrations were part of a US plot (even the people that confessed were in on it somehow) and then during the campaign Haddad helped spread the news that Bolsonaro's VP candidate had participated in the (real) torture of a singer during the military dictatorship, when a quick Google search would indicate that when that happened, his VP was a 15 year old high school student living in another state, and then refused to apologize when found out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Winterfell is Burning said:

Like I said, not trying to make an argument about what are the political realities or specific issues of Chile, since I'm not the most qualified person by any means.       

But I've heard this "fake news/ right-wing media is the only reason we lost" argument many times, in many places from left wingers- Brazil, US with Hillary, UK with Corbyn, etc because it's an easy one that doesn't require a real examination or changes.

Also, should be said here at least, in the 2018 election, the left did use fake news, and a lot- from conspiracies that all the crimes discovered during their administrations were part of a US plot (even the people that confessed were in on it somehow) and then during the campaign Haddad helped spread the news that Bolsonaro's VP candidate had participated in the (real) torture of a singer during the military dictatorship, when a quick Google search would indicate that when that happened, his VP was a 15 year old high school student living in another state, and then refused to apologize when found out. 

In this discussion i havent said that fake news where the only factor, it was a factor and a very important one, but not the only one. And its undeniable that fake news and desinformation was a major, major part of the rights campaing.

Maybe if we had focus our effort on combating fake news with fake news we would have had a chance of winning. But we waisted our time trying to correct the fake thing they where saying, and we lost. Because truth doesnt matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Perhaps constitutions are over-rated. There are a lot of countries that do not have a document called a constitution, and we seem to manage ourselves without collapsing into chaos and disorder.

*glances at UK and nods approvingly*

 

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

When you have such numbers in a country (any country), you can bet that it's not about "left versus right" but about "the people versus the oligarchy."

Come on, oligarchs are only found in shady countries we don't like, say Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 2:42 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Perhaps constitutions are over-rated. There are a lot of countries that do not have a document called a constitution, and we seem to manage ourselves without collapsing into chaos and disorder.

*cough UK cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elections were held in Sweden yesterday. I worked in the election and came home at 03:30 after counting all the votes in our district and bringing the ballots to the city hall for final count on Wednesday.

Preliminary results indicate the right wing parties take over, but it’s super tight and neither coalition admitted defeat on election night. At the time of writing there’s one mandate difference, so post votes may affect the final outcome.

The nationalist party “Sweden Democrats” are now the second largest party after the social democrats, but it’s very unclear what the government will look like because the other right wing parties have said they don’t want them in the government. The same situation applies on the left side where the liberal center party doesn’t want the former communist left party in the government. It’s all rather messy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

...Preliminary results indicate the right wing parties take over, but it’s super tight and neither coalition admitted defeat on election night...

Erik of Hazelfield -- was just reading about this, and found it shocking. I'm still unsure how to interpret the implications. Even if the right wing doesn't take lead, however, it's a strong indicator on the direction of the country, which had a reputation for being very progressive. Increasing anti-immigration, anti-crime, and pro-nuclear (energy) positions seem to have fueled the right wing's efforts. I'm not on the ground, so I can only speculate.

France. "While French President Emmanuel Macron’s alliance remained the largest bloc in the April legislative election, the far-right National Rally fared much better than expected."

Italy. The "right-wing Brothers of Italy party, whose roots stretch back to Italy’s post-fascist movement, leads the right-wing coalition that looks poised for a landslide win in the Sept. 25 elections, according to the latest opinion polls."

@Ran -- if I recall correctly, you are, or were, in one of the Nordic countries. What's going on over there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE SVERIGE -- in this article, the center-right bloc may take 176 of 349 seats (i.e., a majority). Again, was shocked when reading this possibility a day or two ago; but apparently, the Sweden Democrats (far right) party has seen significant growth over the past decade, probably in response to the European migrant crisis.

“We really are a big party today. From a small…party that everyone laughed at to really challenging.”

"Mr. Åkesson has worked to move the party, which has its roots in neo-Nazism, away from past perceptions and more into the mainstream while remaining steadfast in his belief that mass immigration threatened both the welfare system and national security."

1988: 1,118 votes, or 0 seats.

2010: 339,610, or 20 seats.

2018: 1,135,627 votes, or 62 seats.

***

Incidentally, I supported a small Swedish element (i.e., the Särskilda Operationsgruppen, or SOG) in AFG vic MeS during 2013. One of the senior Swedish leaders I associated with was a really good guy, great sense of humor. And their mess hall provided the best deployment food I've ever eaten -- a luxury for us Americans who had the chance to dine there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

Erik of Hazelfield -- was just reading about this, and found it shocking. I'm still unsure how to interpret the implications. Even if the right wing doesn't take lead, however, it's a strong indicator on the direction of the country, which had a reputation for being very progressive. Increasing anti-immigration, anti-crime, and pro-nuclear (energy) positions seem to have fueled the right wing's efforts. I'm not on the ground, so I can only speculate.

France. "While French President Emmanuel Macron’s alliance remained the largest bloc in the April legislative election, the far-right National Rally fared much better than expected."

Italy. The "right-wing Brothers of Italy party, whose roots stretch back to Italy’s post-fascist movement, leads the right-wing coalition that looks poised for a landslide win in the Sept. 25 elections, according to the latest opinion polls."

@Ran -- if I recall correctly, you are, or were, in one of the Nordic countries. What's going on over there?

So far as I can tell, Sweden is moving into line with other Western countries.  The Right is losing professional voters and gaining working class voters.  Increasingly, right wing voters are opting for tradition and sovereignty, rather than prioritising big business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if the bloc remains together once it actually comes time to form a government. It's one thing to agree to work with SD when you think it might get you over the goal line, quite another to actually have to do it. In particularl, in my mind the Moderates (center-right party) are basically shooting themselves in the foot because they are now the junior partner to SD, and SD will be calling the shots even if it's been agreed in principle that the prime minister will come from the Moderates.

In any case, why this result? Mostly because of increasing crime and social problems connected to, yes, the migrant crisis. Sweden was among the most open and welcoming countries towards the influx of refugees... but that meant that we took in way more than we could actually successfully integrate in a reasonable way. Segregation has only increased, educational and employment incomes have worsened, crime has gone up -- especially violent crime in economically depressed areas, where immigrant criminals are openly gunning one another down. Hell, there's even been grenades used in their conflicts.

The response from politicians towards these problems has been slow and not sufficient, and came after a lot of attempts to deny the problem were rooted in the refugee influx. It will take a couple of decades to untangle the problems that have been created.  I have very little expectation that SD will do anything particularly useful except try the "tough on crime" right-wing approach which has done soooo much good in other countries (looking at you, USA), but really whatever government ends up forming is largely going to be status quo except on the margins.

I am told SD are borderline climate change deniers, but some of their coalition aren't on board with that, so that will constrain what they can do. OTOH, they are as I understand it pro-nuclear, so maybe something good will come of that part of things at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ran said:

...In any case, why this result?...

...I have very little expectation that SD will do anything particularly useful except try the "tough on crime" right-wing approach which has done soooo much good in other countries (looking at you, USA), but really whatever government ends up forming is largely going to be status quo except on the margins...

Ran -- thank you, value-added; and especially informative coming from a local progressive's perspective! I vaguely recall writing off Sweden as a lost cause back in 2016 / 17, and stopped paying attention, so it was surprising to see the Swedish population attempt to address the immigrant and associated issues.

You confirmed my thoughts on why the situation developed in this way, but I also agree the SD party won't be able to resolve it any better (and probably worse; e.g., the US tough on crime strategy) than before. I suppose current conditions are just the new normal.

***

Why does a country start assisting outsiders? Various reasons including goodwill and faith in humanity, but it really originates out of a location operating under good conditions, which was how I perceived Sweden before the influx of mass immigration from broken countries. As conditions degraded, socialy and economically, the far-left and -right wings gained power -- government failure. Why does a country stop assisting outsiders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to exaggerate things and make it look like Sweden is some sort of disaster area. The right in the US thought it convenient to its own Islamaphobic/anti-immigrant stance to present Sweden as an apocalyptic place, but that was greatly exaggerated.

It's all relative. There are other places that have worse problems with immigrants and refugees, there are places with worse issues with law and order, places with worse issues with violence and drugs. That said, by Swedish standards, the current situation is just shocking to a lot of people, it feels so different than how things were 15, 20 years ago. There's regular articles about the gang networks in various suburbs of Gothenburg and Stockholm and Malmö, Sweden has the second highest level of gun violence in Europe with gun crime being several times higher than its neighbors, etc. It's troubling. It can be fixed, but it'll take time because it's all about integration.

@Denvek

So they do seem agreed that the Moderates will provide the PM. But it will likely be a minority government, formed out of the Moderates and the Christian Democrats with the Swedish Democrats and the Liberal party voting in support. But... SD is bigger than the Moderates, and may be emboldened to demand ministerial posts, which will lead the Liberals to refuse to support the minority government (as they've said they will refuse to  support an actual government that includes SD). 

It's not much better on the left side, with the  Left Party (intially it was Left Communist Party, then became Left Party (Communist) -- or, as the comedy sketch show of the day Helt apropå said it, Linda reminds me: Left Party (*stage whisper* communist!)) being rejected as a potential ministerial holding member of government by the Center party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Denvek said:

What happens if the parties in whichever bloc comes out larger can’t agree on a PM? Does the other bloc get a chance to try and form a government?

Yes. The speaker of the Riksdag (parliament) appoints a prime minister candidate that will try to form a government. If this government can get accepted by the Riksdag then the candidate will become prime minister. If it fails, a new prime minister candidate will be appointed by the speaker. After four failed attempts, a re-election is triggered automatically.
 

Accepted means that a majority of the chamber does not oppose the government, which means there can be more no votes than yes votes and the government will still be chosen. It will run into problems later though because in order to pass a budget you need a majority yes votes. This past term has been quite messy with several votes of no confidence, governments resigning and coming back, and even governing on the opposition’s budget. This situation has probably not helped dealing with the very real problems Sweden are facing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What proportion of the vote in Sweden did the left lose because of inflexibility on the nuclear power issue?

It seems that being open to nuclear power in theory, but not supporting actively pursuing it because practical considerations make it not feasible and investment is more effectively directed to other non-GHG emitting solutions is a more defensible position than simply opposing it because anything nuclear is evil.

Policy makers should really be of the mindset that no energy options for dealing with climate change are automatically off the table, except for maintaining or increasing the use of fossil fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About that - the social democrats don’t mind nuclear so much. The greens (Miljöpartiet) on the other hand were founded in the 80s after Chernobyl. Anti-nuclear was their main reason to exist back then, and it’s still very much in their DNA. 
 

Did this contribute to a loss of left votes? Probably, since nuclear is now popular again. Until recently this was no big issue in Sweden as nuclear has been steadily replaced by wind power which is cheaper and faster to build, even though it has the drawback of being weather dependent. (Fossil electricity generation hasn’t been a thing in Sweden since forever thanks to hydro and nuclear power. No one heats their homes with oil or gas, it’s all electricity and heat pumps).

So there was an agreement in place since 2016 between the established parties about the energy issue, saying new nuclear can be built but it has to bear its own costs, and until 2022 no one has been interested because of the long build time, huge investments needed and low electricity prices. To be honest I don’t think a new government can pull off a build start during this 4-year term either. Neither am I sure they should. The current high prices on electricity has nothing to do with lack of power in Sweden - it’s due to a combination of a weird price-setting model and a lot of export to Europe. Some power companies are getting very rich at the moment, selling their cheap-to-make energy for fantasy prices. 

The greens have performed abysmally for the past decade. In a time where climate is on everyone’s lips, they are narrowly hanging on to their place in parliament, saved by tactical voters who want a leftist government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...