A few more years of this and we'll be a failed state.

It is hard to imagine a radically different future for the country in which you live. But plenty of nations have flipped from prosperity into political and economic collapse, often through gross misrule.
Gross misrule is the UK's other pandemic.
And there's currently no vaccine.
The usual treatment is effective opposition. But, given the scale of the crises we now face, Labour is being remarkably quiet and passive. It should be mobilising its base in protest, while articulating a fresh and exciting political vision.
A crucial aspect of this vision is political reform:
Proportional representation, so the many can never again be dominated by the few.
Get the money out of politics.
Cut Murdoch and the other media barons down to size.
Build a new, more participatory democracy.
The crisis makes a much bolder and more radical Opposition response necessary.
It also provides an opportunity for a new politics, that wasn't there before.
Why isn't Labour grasping it?
If Labour doesn't articulate a new vision, if it doesn't signal a clear break from Boris Johnson's corrupt, incestuous, chaotic, authoritarian politics, if it doesn't first frighten Johnson into changing course, then evict him at election, state failure becomes a likelihood.
I'm told that Starmer is playing a long game.
In my view, playing a long game in a national emergency represents the triumph of strategy over success.
In the meantime, it is surely now clear that the best protection against ongoing disaster for the people of Wales and Scotland is independence, and for the people of Northern Ireland, reunification.
I know that would leave England in an even bigger mess. But we have to sort out our deep problems, rather than relying on princes over the border to rescue us.

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like