With 92% of polling locations reporting late on Sunday night, Milei had about 30% of the total vote, a majority.
No, that’s a plurality.
This sounds fun though:
The far-right populist Javier Milei rocked Argentina’s political establishment on Sunday by emerging as the leader in primary elections to choose presidential candidates for the October general election.
Milei, an admirer of the former US president Donald Trump, says Argentina’s central bank should be abolished, thinks the climate crisis is a lie, characterises sex education as a ploy to destroy the family, believes the sale of human organs should be legal and wants to make it easier to own handguns.
Argentina could do with some good government for a change.
So long as he has no desires on The Falklands.
Nothing wrong with sex education, you do want to keep those teen pregnancies at a manageable level by informing the tykes that there are some real consequences to having that particular bit of fun..
Promotion of and “education” in gender theory…. That’s what we have Lions for..
He wants the Falklands to be given to Argentina on a similar basis to the way Hong Kong was given to China. And for similar reasons, in his view, i.e., ‘handed back’.
If I remember my history, I thought the Argentine was owned by Spain?
And Brazil owned by Portugal?
They should be “handed back”!
I think there’s a bit of Argentina Paraguay might want back.
Quality barnet. Seems to be something of an emerging trend.
Anyway, OGH is up for abolishing the BoE?
Javier Milei took 30% of the vote on Sunday with his Liberty Advances party, outpacing the hard-right candidate Patricia Bullrich of United for Change, who came second with 28%.
Think we can discount the far-right hyperbole but the right does seem to be making serious ground everywhere except the perpetually moribund UK. Wonder if the ringpieces at the Guardian are fluttering yet, at the prospect of future helicopter rides?
So “far-right” and “hard-right” – excluding “right” and “Centre-right” – make up 58% of voters.
I wonder who is defiining “right” “centre” and “left” such that “centre-right” is to the left of the centre of real voters?
Oh, it’s the Grauniad …
If we’re talking “handing back”, Patagonia should be handed back to Wales.
He wants the Falklands to be given to Argentina on a similar basis to the way Hong Kong was given to China.
The ‘New Territories” were held on a 99 year lease that expired in 1997. Hong Kong island, without them, is unviable. And the Chinese army could have walked through the border fence and taken the whole lot back at any time in the past 50 years.
So nothing like the Falklands.
Oh, I agree. I’m just quoting the way the Donald of the Andes sees it.
“Mr Milei, who wants his country to gain a Hong Kong-style gradual transfer of sovereignty over the Falklands from Britain …”
I think we need to move away from the far right in politics.
The far right persecute the minority groups, the poor and working class.
Hitler and Mussolini Were Right Wing leaders.-
I am centre-left,
I am against the far-right.
I support democracy, peace, equality, order, tolerance, freedom, the working class, the poor, the middle class, luxury for all, and the best of capitalism and socialism.
I would like to point out Hitler and Mussolini admitted themselves they were right wing.
This is a taken from a speech by Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1921
‘There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.’
So that shows that Hitler saw himself and his ideology as right wing.
Mussolini wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism, ‘doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the right, a Fascist century’.
Back to my views
I find that the far-right often see the working class as criminals and parasites.- The right often see the idea of redistribution, free health and free education as wrong.
Talking about far flung British islands. I was looking at St Helena. Seems an excellent place to park all these asylum seekers. It has an airport. The Helens are not known for torturing people (although I s’pose they could learn). Plenty of uninhabited areas. Population is only four & half thou. If the bearded 14 y/o’s want to try rubber boating themselves somewhere they prefer it’s 2500 miles or 4000. Take their pick. And it was good enough for Napoleon Emperor of France. What’s not to like?
As far as the Helens are concerned, their big problem is unemployment. Half of them work somewhere else to send money home. Just the place for a large if Spartan holiday complex. With high, razor wire fences, of course, to keep the guests safe from marauding Helens.
I find that the far-right often see the working class as criminals and parasites.-
No, the far-right often see the criminals & parasites as criminals & parasites.
The right often see the idea of redistribution, free health and free education as wrong.
Maybe correctly. Since they currently don’t deliver what they promise.
As for Uncle Dolfo’s utterings, you seem to ignore that he was a politician. If we believed what politicians said in speeches, where would that get us? If you actually read the guy rather than selected passages or speeches intended to traduce, he was if anything, a revolutionary. Just a different revolution from the one the Bolsheviks were engaged in. Far-right was what we had here in Spain with Franco. Ultra-conservative. AH was never a conservative. But primarily he was a politician on the rise. Much of what he said was what people wanted to hear, at the time.
Re Joey
DNFTT
Not feeding the troll, but just for the record:
Q. What do you call someone who wants more private sector and less public sector?
A. Far Right.
You know, that AH bloke just didn’t see the value of diversity.
The Falklands were empty when Brits occupied them. HK was full of Chinese people.
Hong Kong Island, and the unleased bits of Kowloon south of Boundary Street (guess where it got its name), are nonviable without supplies of stuff like food and water, from somewhere else. The New Territories, being mostly mountains and parkland, contribute only marginally to that supply. Hong Kong has never been, in that sense, any more independent of China than Singapore is independent of Malaysia.
Hong Kong also is notable for the large number of Chinese people who moved there, specifically to get out of China, after British colonisation.
Hong Kong was handed back to the wrong China. Perhaps the best of all worlds would have been Hong Kong taking over the PRC, rather than the other way around.
Perhaps the Falklands would be a fair trade for Mr Millei agreeing to be British prime minister for a minimum of 10 years?
As I understand it, even the most charitable interpretation of the history towards the Argentinians is that the Falklands seceded. The Governor appointed by the Argentine government (who, like his predecessors, had never set foot on the islands) asked Britain to take over because his superiors refused to defend them against piracy. Even if the islanders were entirely Spanish speakers of Argentine descent I can’t imagine them having much love for their neighbour on the mainland.
Anyway, that aside, this bloke sounds like a good chap.
Steve: I’d say it’s “What do you call someone who wants less public sector than you?” But is it even that? I mean, even the current soaking-wet apology for a Conservative party gets accused of it. It’s really more like, “What do you call someone who isn’t in your gang?”
I mentioned Paraguay’s possible beef with the Argies over the return of territory. Let’s put that in context with the Falkland’s War. Paraguay’s war against The Argies, Brazil & Uruguay ran from 1864-70. Population of Paraguay at the commencement was around 450,000. Total Paraguayan casualties in the war are unknown but estimated at between 175,000 & 300,000. This was a time of concentration camps & wholesale starving & murdering of Paraguayans. The end of the war saw Paraguay ceding considerable territory to both Brasil & Argentina.
All it means nowadays to be denounced as “far right”, is that the sort of cunt that reads the grauniad disagrees with you. And who cares about that?
True BiW. About all you can do is point out that the ‘far right’ is far, far, far, far too much to the left for you to agree with his arguments.
A quick glance at Falklands history suggests that, if the place is to be handed back, it should go to the Frogs or the Spaniards. One could suggest that the Argies hand back Argentina at the same time.
@bloke in spain – “Talking about far flung British islands. I was looking at St Helena. Seems an excellent place to park all these asylum seekers…. What’s not to like?”
It’s far away, so expensive to send them there, It’s bad enough that we squander lots of money on a group of people that would easily pay for themselves if they were allowed to work without spending even more on making the problem worse.
Why would one want asylum seekers to work & pay for themselves? It hasn’t been decided whether they should be allowed in the country, yet. They’re lawbreakers. until it can be proved they’re not.
@charles
I can’t work out if you’re just trolling or if that’s the kind of idea that’s so stupid only a clever person could say it. As soon as you say anyone who arrives here can work, regardless of how they arrived (or as is far more common, despite the dramatic pictures from the Channel, overstayed their visa), then you’re going to end up with a lot more people arriving/staying, only making the backlog in the system worse.
The big problem is the backlog and the difficulty removing people whose claim fails (quite often it’s deemed they aren’t eligible for asylum but can’t be obliged to return home either, which is another pain in the ass and a good reason to focus on processing refugees abroad before they get to UK soil). Those people who are granted asylum are allowed to work, but we need to get those decisions made faster. Your “solution” both makes the backlog worse and undermines the legal routes for migration.
I’ll grant you that it may theoretically be marginally cheaper for the government not to have pay so much in benefits for asylum seekers if they could work, though that has to be counterbalanced against the extra cost of the system getting jammed up and people (including those out of work and still getting full whack from the government) waiting years extra – and realistically even most of those who did find registered legal employment would be doing the kind of jobs where they receive in-work benefits anyway. Moreover I find it hard to imagine any government we’re likely to get in the next 20 years cutting “benefits for refugees” below their current level (think of the Grauniad headlines and the court cases and the performative outrage at dinner parties) on the grounds that they could have worked instead. So those savings look very theoretical to me.
@ bis
Not all asylum seekers have entered the country illegally. I have actually met some who arrived (on a commercial aircraft, with passports) directly from the country where their lives were in danger.
The Grauniad wants to lump in all illegal immigrants with genuine refugees so as to create unjustified sympathy for illegal economic migrants. Don’t fall for their “Bait and Switch”.
@ Anon
I remember Gordon Brown ordering that refugees and other “asylum seekers” – many of whom arrived with just the clothes they were wearing – should receive *half* the benefit income of UK citizens, despite the need to buy a second set of clothes while washing the first. The government does NOT need to cut benefits any further
@ Tim the Coder
Les Malouines could only be handed back to France. Since the islands were first discovered by a British sailor, even that would be disputable. Should Edinburgh be handed back to the Picts and London to the Welsh?
I might as well add that only Libya has a really sensible policy towards asylum seekers.
They enslave them.
We could always send the bill for the flight, board and lodging on St Helena or South Georgia to the illegal immigrant.
Regarding the troll posts we get, they are usually a single one by a name that hasn’t appeared before, and never engages in discourse. The thing that strikes me though is the style is quite distinctive, rather pedantic. For some reason it makes me think of the rote garbage you get from the odd Christians that are semi or even full-on cults.
“It’s far away, so expensive to send them there, It’s bad enough that we squander lots of money on a group of people”
The intention is to make the inevitability of sending them, every one before assessment or proceedings, persuade them to go somewhere else. Oh, and all legal representations by dodgy law firms to be made locally in St. Helena.
You have to bust the racket. Won’t happen, because HMG is one of the racketeers.
@bloke in spain – “They’re lawbreakers. until it can be proved they’re not.”
What happened to the principle of being innocent until proven guilty?
@Anon – “undermines the legal routes”
The “legal” routes for refugees consistye of a few special cases (such as Ukraine). In general, a refugee has no legal route to the UK. If they apply for a visa saying that travel is for the purpose of claiming asylum, their visa will be denied regardless of the merits of their claim. If they get a visa by lying about their intention, that’s illegal.
The solution is to abandon the left-wing, central planning approach to migration and abandon the attempt to regulate who can live where. Having governments regulate big chunks of the economy like that has proven to be a bad idea.
@Boganboy – “enslave them”
I think that speaks for itself.
@charles
But aside from Ukraine the thing that’s driving the surge in migration to Europe (it’s not UK-specific and in fact proportionate to our population, some EU states have it much worse) is economic migration. People who twenty or forty years ago wouldn’t have had the ability to get from a poor African or Asian country to Europe now have the ability to do so – ironically, in large part because those countries have got richer. Rich enough that your family can now borrow enough money to pay the smuggling fees.
There are legal routes for economic migration, and even for low skill economic migration. Those routes are already being undermined by people who are not refugees, in the originally intended legal sense, claiming asylum in the hope of working here, either legally (if their claim succeeds) or illegally. It would be undermined further if even those with obviously dubious claims had the automatic right to work while their claim was processed. What would be the point of the legal routes then if anyone can just turn up and work from day one, no questions asked?
Obviously your intention is that those legal routes should be replaced by that general right for anyone to turn up and work. But that doesn’t seem likely to gain democratic consent, and also raises a fundamental question of who the “demos” even is – is the idea that anyone who turns up can also declare themselves British now and get the vote, or do you want a Gulf state style two-tier system of natives with citizenship and more precarious foreigners here to work with fewer rights? You managed to reverse-ferret impressively fast from claiming you wanted to let refugees work while claims are processed without in any way undermining the legal routes for migrating to the UK, to declaring that all the current schemes for work visas etc should be scrapped and replaced by a universal right to come to the UK and work. How you think this doesn’t undermine work visa schemes is a mystery but it’s clear you don’t like them (and in fairness governments do make some bizarre or plainly political decisions about who should be eligible and how many) and you would have done better to admit that from the start rather than claim letting refugees work was no more than a cunning wheeze to cut government benefits spend, rather than a wholesale abandonment of anti-libertarian border control.
@Anon – “There are legal routes for economic migration, and even for low skill economic migration. Those routes are already being undermined by people who are not refugees,”
You seem to be confusing economic migrants with refugees. Of course that’s understandable as there’s no practical difference between someone whose life is shortened or made miserable by oppressive government and one whose life is shortened or made miserable by economic conditions (especially when the conditions are as a result of government policy).
– “What would be the point of the legal routes then if anyone can just turn up and work from day one, no questions asked?”
Turning up and working from day one would be the legal route.
– “Obviously your intention is that those legal routes should be replaced by that general right for anyone to turn up and work. But that doesn’t seem likely to gain democratic consent,”
So what? If the people vote for capital controls, high imports tariffs, super-taxes, windfall taxes, and all the other stupid ideas that have been popular at one time or another, that doesn’t mean those things magically become good. Democracy means we have to put up with stupidity if it is endorsed by the majority – it doesn’t mean we have to agree with it.
– “How you think this doesn’t undermine work visa schemes is a mystery”
I can see why that would be a mystery, because the whole point is it would undermine such schemes, which are stupid and should be abandoned. We don’t let the government tell businesses where they should invest money, nor what location they should use for offices or factories, or in general dictate how they run their business. Governments should not have any influence on who gets to be employed either.
@Charles
You keep saying “we” a lot. Well who is “we”? In the sense of “British people”, the meaning of “we” would change very dramatically and very quickly the moment you allowed unlimited migration to the UK. Like I said there’s a choice, Gulf state style two-tier system where migrants – even with well-paid jobs – form an underclass without voting rights or path to citizenship, or a very radical transformation of the demos. It’s not just a matter of “who does the government grant us the right to hire” but “who do we, the people, grant the right to be taken into our bosom and become one of us”.
The confusion about it economic migrants vs refugees is entirely on your part not my own. An Albanian man who turns up on a boat to try getting rich quick by selling drugs (bizarrely the BBC managed to find a lot who were prepare to be interviewed and freely admitted this!) is an economic migrant. Yes they’ll claim asylum to make it harder to remove them while they “work” but they’re not the kind of people the refugee conventions were ever designed to protect. You seem to be under the misapprehension that if an economic migrant turns up on a boat and claims asylum, they must be a “refugee”. It doesn’t, it makes them an asylum seeker – nothing more, nothing less. Whether they’re a refugee is yet to be determined. And you’d have to be extraordinarily gullible to believe that every migrant claiming asylum is a genuine refugee.
Anyway, aside from the important voting/citizenship issue, how do you figure unlimited low-skilled (for it would mainly be that – libertarian types sometimes argue anyone earning over £40k or whatever is likely a fiscal breakeven and should have the right to come, but in practice for skilled work the doors are pretty wide open already) migration would work? Life for a lot of the Bulgarian and Romanian low-wage workers pre-Brexit was only tolerable as they were eligible for government in-work benefits. But I know you hate benefits, so would you be scrapping that? Would they all have the right to free healthcare and education for the kids, or would there be a charge for that? What about the ones who don’t find work – would they get the dole? Would we let them starve on the streets? You don’t seem to be a fan of government with fangs, but would you support at least giving them enough teeth to deport the unemployed? I also presume you’ll take a big enough bazooka to the planning laws to ensure enough slums can be built to house them all.
@Anon – “the meaning of “we” would change very dramatically”
It’s going to change anyway. British people today have little in common with those in the time of Victoria, and even compared to fairly recent times there have been radical changes – e.g. married women are allowed to work, marriage is optional, gay rights have advanced to the point of being totally mainstream, racism is considered very bad, etc.
You seem to have a very elitist view. In reality, anyone who is prepared to travel a long way from home to make their fortune is likely to be an asset, regardless of their level of education of apparent skills. By coincidence, the Telegraph gives the story of one man who left school at 16 with no GCSEs: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/jamie-waller-millionaire-debt-collector-philanthropy/ Under your central planning regime, he would have been written off as useless.