undergroundoverground

Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?

Theres probably a lot more to it than that. I certain you could even answer your own question. It might be along the lines of "not deported there or not like that etc."

Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn't a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.

I don’t understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.

There dont need to be many of them. Their source of power is their wealth, not their number. If it was about numbers, you and I would have that power.

The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what’s the alternative ?

Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won't deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I'm a post structuralist and I don't think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.

Probably not.

I'm just saying, I think you and I are past rhetoric, by now.

However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I'm at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that's been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.

Again, fair enough. They can think that it is a made up problem. But what should be the correct answer ? Because if I say “look, there is too many illegal immigrants around in this area of Milano (Stazione Centrale) and it is not safe because of the petty crimes”, the answer could not be “you are too ignorant to understand why it is not a problem”, you should explain to my how having thousands of illegal immigrant around living by petty crimes is not a problem, if you can (just an example btw).

"The left" aren't pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I'm also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.

Or if I ask for more kindergartens so I can have children you cannot answer to me that we are already too many and the next week say that we need to welcome more immigrants because the population is declining.

How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.

Ok, assuming you are right, where is the benefit of a housing crisis where young people could not buy an house

The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers. Very few groups support the right wing more than they do. They'll have to switch to topping it up with public money going into their pockets soon enough, for a longer term solution, like they do in the UK.

Given that the left was in power (in one way or another) for more than 20 years of the last 30 years,

Youre saying they haven't been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.

Continuing to call me “part of the problem”

I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don't do. But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.

I can do that too you know. I just choose not to.

Mid twenties teenagers with 30 year old parents.

Some right wingers. Many not

To me, you described a cowardly act that we agreed is carried out by most right wingers.

Oh well, the one about Trump was

Fair enough "never" was too far.

No, the reason people in Italy vote right wing is because the left wing has nothing to offer.

Thats just an overly sweeping, thought terminating, cliché thats only ever said by people who would never vote left of Reagan anyway. You'll excuse me if I don't bother arguing that "da left" policies =/= zero, I'm sure.

agree. But you are missing the point, which is that they voted for the only side that at least acknowledges there are problems.

I think you would struggle to show me anything with "the left" saying there are no problems. They might not agree with made up problems that don't contribute to the difficulties people face but that's not the same thing.

Wrong, the choice is between a side (the left) that consider you as part of the problem and a side (the right) that promise you to solve the problem. What do you think a person will vote ?

Of course, I must be wrong. Its not wealthy business interests who benefit from the housing crisis or falling wages. No, clearly its the left! Sorry, I'm not going to fall for the "considers you part of the problem" rhetoric. Youre either lying to push some "you can't even be white these days" trope or are genuinely part of the problem and deserve it.

It is really simple: the left had its chance, they failed and so people vote for the alternative. To continue to vote for the same people that create the problem is not that intelligent either.

The right have been in power in Italy and the UK and have been for years. When will you lot grow up and admit your own mistakes and abject failure to do anything other than make already very rich people far richer? The right wing are the ones who had their chance and their time is over, for now, and much deserved. They only ever have one goal which is why they only ever achieve one thing: that.

Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?

Admittedly, it doesn't have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under "the difference is the passage of time." I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.

The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.

Its true, most right wingers are selfish cowards. Although, lets be real, the polls are never that wrong.

The reason people will vote right wing is because Italy has a problem with fascism? Well, thats an interesting take.

I mean, if anyone is upset at their purchase power dropping, having to live with their parents or lines at the food kitchen and chooses to vote right wing because of it, they're beyond stupid. Nothing anyone could say to them would work, as you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

"I know, I'll vote for the people who are directly funded by the groups who directly profit from those problems! I'm so smart!"

What do you even say to that kind of "thinking"?

"No, its not that you're stupid, its just that, actually, when your house is on fire, its generally considered more sensible to reach for the fire extinguisher instead of the flame thrower. I know, I know, I've heard the term fight fire with fire before too. However, I'll tell you what I told my friend, shortly after they lost their job. No, you can't always fight fire with fire. Especially when you're a firefighter, you doughnut."

"Wage slave master"?

As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I've asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.

It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it's either that or that they're not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.

This thread is about the UK, not Italy.

However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.

Thats because things like congress or a parliament are made, specifically to shield power from democracy, through the pretence of democracy. Its aristocratic rule. Although the same net result as the US, the UK is clearer showing how it works. We had a barrons revolution in 1215 and they've been in charge ever since. We just changed who the barrons are and what makes someone a barron.

Even the ancient greeks had that one figured out centuries ago.

The system is working exaxtly as intended.

Hard agree. They gutted the electoral commission while gerrymandering like crazy. They have an army of right wing boomers brow beating anyone they come across into the ground with their "the two parties are identical in every single way" BS (all claiming to be left wingers while doing so, of course). If labour had been betting on things, using insider knowledge, there would be arrests already. The Met police went to the most secure and videoed place in the country (10 downing street) and lied, telling the whole nation that there was no evidence of the parties they were having during lockdown. Etc etc etc.

The very wealthy people and powerful people they represent won't go quietly, if at all, and they have no morals.

On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.

If only there was a third option. Somewhere between "a doctor and a kitchen hand earning the same money" and human greed, expressed in economic form. Oh well, never mind I guess.

True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).

Its not so much that. Its that their power is power over other people. Its the power to charge a levy (exactly like a tax) on the money people earn for using their things etc. The idea that one can be lifted while the other is retained is a contraction in terms.

but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.

Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic.