Should we be worried about right-wing populism?

That was the title of the link, Elegran.

Strangely, there are currently no powerful left-wing populist parties in Northern Europe, although there are in Southern Europe (Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece).

I'm somewhat cynical about democracy, because political systems are often not so democratic as people would like to think they are and 'people power' can be manipulated and people can easily lose control. One of the reasons the UK has been so successful is that there has been some sense of a social contract for hundreds of years, even if red lines are sometimes crossed. Postwar Germany has been successful partly because there have been long-term centrist strategies. Coalition governments have worked in Germany and have kept the strategies on track with input from a much wider range of political views than we have in the UK. I don't think that populist parties always have the best solutions, although I think the article is correct in claiming that populist opinion has been ignored.

"Does calling far right parties populist legitimise them?" What legitimises any party? The number of prople who subscribe to it? There are "populist parties" to the far left and to the far right. If they are get enough supporters, they become the government of the day. You can't get much more legitimate than a democratically elected government.

Back in the day, when I was at school in the Sixth Form, we had to do General Studies. Part of the course was to analyse how different newspapers covered the same story and to be aware of bias. In those days (1971-1973) the newspapers were far less 'sensational' than they are now and journalists did their own work rather than relying on feeds.

I'd love to do a course on the same subject today (maybe keep an eye on FutureLearn offerings), because the birth of the internet and mobile technology has changed the way the public receives its media. Before the internet, groups with an agenda had to rely on physical leaflets, but these days it's so easy to get into everybody's living room across most of the world.

I think everybody should be aware of bias and, of course, it's in every piece of writing - even what I'm writing now. I see so many ideas being 'recycled', often word for word. It's so easy for an effective writer to get a message across. There is loads of research on the vocabulary needed to understand various newpapers (and internet articles) and the kind of techniques used to persuade. I think it should be part of English Language in schools and is much more useful than teaching about subordinating conjunctions.

opendemocracy.net/westminster/andrea-mammone/european-democracies-and-far-right

Does calling far right parties populist legitimise them?

"range of sources". Spot on. Prejudices are prejudices whatever they're about or caused by and we all have them. Encouraging open-mindedness is never a bad idea. And, as my dad used to say: Question everything.

You are probably right roses, but the problem is that 80% of our national press is controlled by right wing billionaires like ,Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who lives in New York and thd Barclay brothers who live in the tax havens of Guernsey and Monaco.

The i is probably the least biased paper but if you want to form an independant opinion you should get your information from a range of sources and most people won't bother.

There is much talk on the EU thread about newspapers ( plenty of snobbery there, never mind inverted snobbery) and I would like to point out, that there are no unbiased newspapers.

You mean you DON'T get it delivered?

It was a joke, roses.

Quite possibly djen.....does anyone have a sense of humour on here?

Daphne, does this need a decent debate?

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/06/06/the-future-of-blogging/

From a reader of the i, Guardian, and a Waitrose shopper because their organic food is reliable. I also get it delivered. Does that make it worse?

For the second time in a couple of minutes....Good grief! Talk about inverted snobbery!

Is there any chance of having a decent debate on GN?

Granny2016 I think that quite a lot of posters are paid up Guardian readers[and possible Waitrose shoppers.]

I hope,like me,you refuse to shop with businesses that do not pay full taxes and pay cheap overseas wages.All of our newspapers have a political bias,and I find a jibe at the Telegraph quite trite.I am no newspaper snob and read anything ,the Times ,Guardian,Daily Mail.....does Private Eye count?

Reality check verdict: Over a seven year period, £1.2bn of the UK's contributions to the EU Budget will go to seven candidate states. The UK committed another £250m towards helping Turkey support Syrian refugees for two years and might commit more in the future.

Do you expect Turkey to pick up the tab for the Syrian refugees on its own? We are in the EU and that was Cameron's price for sending them back to Turkey.
The money to the EU budget for those countries comes out of the international development money. It's not extra, and we would pay it anyway through the UN. 0.6% of GDP, I think.
As someone else said, what else would you expect from the Telegraph? If the owners paid their taxes properly perhaps we'd have more money to spend on the people struggling here, although I wouldn't bet on the Tory government doing that.

You,re right durhamjen....£1.84 billion. Telegraph on line stated ALMOST £2 billion.
An obscene amount when we have people here struggling.

Where did you get your figures from Granny2016? The BBC reality check above does not say that.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36153200

Apparently ,Cameron has agreed £2 billion to aid Turkey ,Serbia and Albania,in their bids to join the EU.
Nice one David.

fullfact.org/europe/governments-eu-leaflet-criminal-justice/

This is what happens now with illegal migrants. It might not happen if we leave. It depends on how magnanimous the EU feels after we abandon it - if we do.

Perhaps singling out one nationality is xenophobic, but it wasn't anyone on GN who singled them out. Petra told us what was said to her by the proprietors of a shop local to her.

How will investing in our police and border controls keep out criminals ,when their records do not need to be divulged by their country at source?
I am not sure,but think that offences after 2012 in the EU are divulged,but not territories beyond.
My reference to EU immigrants was in response to GandTea,at no point did I say that Albania was in the EU.

But...but...but Albania isn't in the EU. The UK needs to invest in police and border control to keep them out rather than cutting both services to the bone. This is nothing at all to do with EU law.

I do think singling out Albanians is xenophobic. I've never seen any mention of the home-grown criminal networks which operate in the UK, of which there are plenty.

I do not think every EU immigrant is a crook.I have lovely neighbours and friends who are EU immigrants,as was my own partner!!
I posted because I felt that certain responses that Petra received re.Albanians were unwarranted,particularly that singling out one nationality was verging on rascism.
EU law does not require EU states to divulge their nationals criminal records,unless they are escaping justice in their own country.
Those from outside the EU of course,have to divulge any criminal misdemeanour on their visa application,even relating to taxation.