Skip to content

An interesting comment about this election

Argentina’s leftist economy minister Sergio Massa defied polls and placed first in the country’s historic election on Sunday evening, meaning he will now face far-right Javier Milei in November’s run-offs.

Mr Massa earned 36 per cent compared to Mr Milei’s 30 per cent with most votes counted, though he did not reach the 45 per cent threshold needed to win outright.

The third frontrunner and former security minister, Patricia Bullrich, has been knocked out of the race, and trailing behind all three candidates were politicians Juan Schiaretti and Myriam Bregman.

Dunno, he might still do it.

But elsewhere, someone has pointed out. Massa has actually paused the income tax and is paying for everything by printing even yet more money. Milei is described as the populist.

See?

Far-right populist Javier Milei

27 thoughts on “An interesting comment about this election”

  1. Despite 138% inflation and 40% poverty levels young people still vote for free stuff and abortions

    Fixed it for you.

  2. So if you’re popular, you’re a far-left leftist. But if you’re a populist, you’re a far-right fascist.

    Have I finally figured it out??

  3. Almost.

    There is a special “Argentina rule” which states that a Peronist can be either left or right wing depending on the viewpoint and messaging of the writer.

    Peronists can therefore be popular, populist, both or neither as required.

  4. Thank you John, Esteban and BiS.

    Perhaps I’ll be able to cope with it if I count on my fingers.

    However I do like that Argie approach that a Peronist can be left or right wing as the whim takes you. They seem to argue like me!!

  5. I am totally surprised that the leftist described by the Guardian as centrist, who came third in the first poll, suddenly shoots to the top against the libertarian free marketeer described by the Guardian as far-right.

    I did not see this coming.

    My cynicism may be allayed by the final vote, but somehow I doubt it.

  6. But elsewhere, someone has pointed out. Massa has actually paused the income tax and is paying for everything by printing even yet more money. Milei is described as the populist.

    It might be best if Massa wins so he can be held responsible for that policy. If Milei wins he’ll be held responsible and that will be the end of Argentina’s chances of getting an anywhere near serious politician for a generation. It will also have knock-on effects throughout the region.

  7. Assuming we want to keep the Falklands, what is best for us? A financially responsible Argentine government that can eventually restore its military (but may make a sensible agreement regarding the islands), or a basketcase government (and country) that demands sovereignty but can’t do anything about it?

    Given that we are still in a frozen conflict with them, I would prefer that Argentina remains useless. This may seem cruel and heartless, but to counter that I would say fuck them.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    Good point, PJF, especially as China and Russia are interested in creating tensions and have sided with Argentina.

  9. PJF – Argentina is a problem because it’s a basket case. It’s basket case economics that leads the Dago to try for a crap reenactment of his noble conquistador fathers, in order to impress the ladies.

    Are we really in a frozen conflict with Argentina tho? Seems like we get along alright with the Argies, apart from their government pretending to still want Las Malvinas (note they still show no signs of actually wanting to have their balls kicked by RN pilots and Army squaddies again, it’s been nothing but verbals for over 40 years now).

    Tho as BiND notes, we are in a state of emnity with Russia and China, and they’re building a coalition. Fuck knows what murderous insanity we can expect to see next, but it’s all looking a bit pre-WW1 out there in Foreign.

  10. If they vote the leftist then they are as foolish as a room full of Glasgow socialists and all I can say is Hell mend them and let them have what they want good and hard…

  11. Steve,

    “PJF – Argentina is a problem because it’s a basket case. It’s basket case economics that leads the Dago to try for a crap reenactment of his noble conquistador fathers, in order to impress the ladies.

    Are we really in a frozen conflict with Argentina tho? Seems like we get along alright with the Argies, apart from their government pretending to still want Las Malvinas (note they still show no signs of actually wanting to have their balls kicked by RN pilots and Army squaddies again, it’s been nothing but verbals for over 40 years now).”

    Spot on analysis. I think that this stuff plays well with a small section of their public, like the Tories pretending to be serious about crime and immigration. There’s still plenty of reasonably priced Malbec on the shelves of Tesco.

  12. What the hell happened down there? At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the most prosperous countries in the world, now it’s a basket case.

  13. It’s basket case economics that leads the Dago to try for a crap reenactment of his noble conquistador fathers . . .

    Is this a uniquely Dago thing? The US is the richest country in the world and throws its military around. We used to be incredibly rich and the sun never set on our pink bits. I’m not convinced by the poverty-distraction causality argument.

    Are we really in a frozen conflict with Argentina tho?

    No idea technically (is there a UN definition of “frozen conflict” or summat?). The fighting just stopped and the Argentine military were expelled. There has been no resolution of the disputed claims (both still claim legal sovereignty). I think an Argentine president has said that they will pursue their claim diplomatically but I’m not aware of a formal settlement or peace treaty as such. We have (strained) diplomatic relations, but then so do India and Pakistan – and their Kashmir dispute isn’t settled at all. The UK gov is sufficiently concerned about further Argentine military adventurism that it still actively prevents the supply of new or used fighter aircraft that contain British technology. The Argies just don’t have a modern fighter fleet.

  14. jgh

    The reason is the same as usual.
    We used to run the place.

    Argieland was an excellent example of ” indirect colonialism” where one country’s economic strength gave it informal political power over another.

    It was part of the great global economy pre1914 and supplied meat to Britain in huge quantities.

    It was badly hit by the Great Depression and a series of (literal) Fascist dictators ran the place from 1930 of which Peron in 1946 was the apogee.

    It is one of those what-ifs, that had Capt Langsdorf sailed the Graf Spee into Buenos Aires instead of Montevideo, the Argies might have joined the war on the Axis side.

  15. Also

    Given the state if UK forces at rhe moment and that our two ACs HMS NoPlanes and HMS BrokenPropellor will break down before getting to the S Atlantic, any conflict will probably go to cruise missikes very quickly.

  16. our two ACs HMS NoPlanes and HMS BrokenPropellor will break down before getting to the S Atlantic, any conflict will probably go to cruise missikes very quickly

    There’s always that last Vulcan, might squeeze a few more flying hours out of the airframe.

  17. WB – Tottenham lads made a sign that said “YOU KEEP THE FALKLANDS, WE’LL KEEP OSSIE”.

    But it was the 80’s, so we kept both.

    PJF – Hegemons are usually in a state of low level border wars or policing actions, but rarely start wars as a “distraction” (they were going to bomb Serbia anyway, Bill Clinton’s penis was just getting in the way).

    Cringe tier countries may start a war as a distraction, and sometimes do. As we know, war is just politics with explosions, it’s the Quixotic political goals (and drunk LATAM junta aesthetic) that are characteristically Dago.

    Otto – any conflict will probably go to cruise missikes very quickly.

    And then what? Argentina could spunk its entire arsenal of missiles at the Falklands, wouldn’t do them any good, and then it would be our turn.

    Pearl Harbor type surprises shouldn’t be possible anymore, we know too much about each other’s capabilities and intentions. A glaring exception is of course the current Hamas war against Israel, but that’s more like a Bronze Age Sea Peoples war of extermination than a limited territorial dispute over some remote islands.

    All those comfortable Westerners calling for Israel to show “restraint” (while their daughters are raped and tortured to death by people who just want to kill Jews) – what are they like?

  18. Sorry Steve, you misunderstood me.

    Because HMS Targetpractice had broken down at Ascension Island the UK would be forced to cruise missile Argentina using submsrines right from the beginning of any conflict.

  19. No aircraft carriers needed, there’s now a long, reinforced runway at Mount Pleasant and a permanent RAF presence of a flight of Typhoons. Any attempted Argentinian invasion fleet would soon find themselves enjoying a closeup inspection of what remains of the Belgrano. The Argies are well aware of this and can bluster as much as they like (which is quite a lot, normally).

  20. Cringe tier countries may start a war as a distraction, and sometimes do.

    That was suggested as the chief motivator for the Argies in the Falklands War. Back then they were capable of invading and occupying the distant islands, no mean feat. They couldn’t hold them but it was a close run thing, again no mean feat. Now it seems they are nowhere near capable of such deeds; their forces are much smaller and are undermanned and underequipped (some to the point of inoperability).

    Our current local combat deterence is an offshore patrol boat, four Typhoon fighters and a small army garrison (with support for all). Costly to maintain but not disproportionate to the asset. If Argentina builds up its forces then we’ll need to increase the deterent, even if they look diplomatically reasonable. Substantially more cost for us. It seems the logical answer to my earlier question is that a basket case Argentina incapable of building better forces is best for us regarding the Falklands.

    Viva Massa!

  21. @PJF

    The problem in 1982 was that the only airstrip on the Falklands was incapable of taking heavy transport aircraft, so significant reinforcements had to come by boat, by which time the Argies had landed and overwhelmed the token Marine presence. We can now get additional troops and materiel there in a few days (assuming we still have an army and air force!)

    Even if we couldn’t manage to do this, our existing presence is more than enough to inflict completely unacceptable damage on any putative invasion force the Argentinians could mount.

  22. @ Chris Miller

    My point is that at the moment Argentina is incapable of mounting any invasion. If they become economically sensible (like Chile did for a while) then they’ll be able to afford to improve their armed forces (like Chile did). That means we’ll have to improve our local deterence at considerable cost. So from a Falklands defence angle, it’s in our interests that Argentina remains stupid and poor.

    It’s not an entirely serious point as there is more at stake in the world for us than the Falklands.

  23. @Chris Miller

    Correct. Current Falklands RAF Typhoons, if all combat ready, can easily destroy entire Argie air force if they attack

    In war 1 Harriers killed most Argie aircraft with zero Harriers killed by them

  24. Yes, the operationally capable Argentine air force is primarily a handful of old A4 Skyhawk derivatives. Even if we only have two of the four Typhoons flight capable at any one time, that’s enough deterent.

    If the Argies update to, say, two active squadrons of F-16s then that will be a viable threat. If their naval aviation can complete the Super Etendard upgrades there’s another level of danger. We’ll have to spend a lot more to be ready to meet the any potential challenge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *