There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.

Being "on the right" is about policy. Someone on the right believes in democracy, freedom, capitalism, human rights, etc. They hold policy positions such as lower taxes, controlled immigration, and greater punishment for criminals. These policy positions put them in opposition to those on the left.

Someone "on the right" is not a fascist, and is not nearer being a fascist than someone "on the left". Fascism means the abolition of human rights, democracy, free capitalism, and everything "the right" believes in.

It's common to cherry pick little policy points from previous facsict states and use that as evidence that the right is facsict. "Hitler limited immigration, the Tories want to limit immigration, the Tories are fascist!!!!". That makes no sense. "Mao raised taxes, Biden wants to raise taxes, Biden is literally a communist!!!".

Facsism is not about policy. It is a fundamentally different, totalitarian, way to structure a society.

How about: leaders <- government <- owners <-> workers -> government -> leaders. Which I can’t format in a circle. And the presence or absence of “for all” can be a tell about where on the political spectrum people or groups sit.

It’s generally accepted that the red states sit to the right vs. the blue states and the us sits to the right of Western Europe. There’s a spectrum of countries as there’s a spectrum of states (or provinces in Canada). The “political middle ground” can be constructed from this set and then decorated with secular or religions states from elsewhere throughout.

In what world? :-))

I made no such argument. Fasicm isn't associated with the actual, modern day right wing of politics.

This is why "far right" is such a slippery and nefarious term. It allows you to conflate right wing politics and facsism.

If you think the Tories are fascist, then make that argument. Don't hide behind this newspeak.

There are many possible axes to divide politics, in many (but not necessarily all) conservative politics and fascism tends to be projected to similar spaces and Soviet-style communism and socially-progressive politics to the same.

Once you start looking at multiple of these at the same time, things do tend to look quite different.

The Chinese Communist Party has all the stuff you listed here.

This has indeed happened.

1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...

If you look at various media outlets, their own definition of far-left or far-right varies so much that you can end up being labeled as both very easily.

Another issue would be cultural aspects and you will find what is far-left or far-right will vary country to country and with that. Subjective labels have and always will be a can-of-worms.

The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.

> By any reasonable definition England is currently governed by the far right.

These can both be true, IMHO you're talking about different things - 1) the position of the electorate and 2) the position of the government.

And the growing gap between them.

Rwanda is a country with a recent successful history of rehabilitating refugees, and the president reached out to offer a home to those who need it.

For geography alone, the UK would be a better destination for the flood of Ukrainian refugees coming in, where as African asylum seekers would be better served by a country close to home.

As a member of an ECOWAS county, I’m happy to see that once again counties on the African continent are handling their own refugee situation. Immediately post WW2, this was more common practice and it lead to deeper economic and social ties between the counties of my region.

Our stepping to perform a social good is in no way a support of right wing sentiment.

Not sure how well there success is measured after recently finding out about this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people...

My suspicion is this is just a short term attempt to boost the PMs popularity among the segment of his support base who think mistreatment of refugees and immigrants is a good thing. It's not a serious attempt to change substantive policy.

Real solution is alas one that eludes us today. The real issue is the blur in lines between economic migrant and refugee, with one used to bismish the other and anything to address the former being classed as an attack upon the later. Hence the whole subject is just a can or worms that just does not get dealt with.

As for the UK, when the majority of the economic and refugee's arrive via safe countries like France then it kinda adds a whole layer of debate that you just don't get with other countries migrant/refugee problems.

Honestly should be that people who need to escape a country for fear of their life should be able to walk into any other countries embasy and apply for asylum. That though is still not a thing, which only helps fuel illegal smugglers who will take refugees and economic migrants equally if they have the money. Which is the bigger sadness of all with how things are working currently as how many true refugee's in fear of their life have died as they had no means to pay for a way out! That whole aspect of thought is just sadening and yet, overlooked as the focus is all about those who had the means or morals to pay smugglers and can imagine there are those who probably had the means but equally ethics and morals that meant they were unwilling to pay in effect crimininals.

So I guess changing how people apply for Ayslum and the ability to walk into the nearest forign embassy would certainly be a start in solving things.

Then distibution equally needs to be fair around the Globe, so no one country becomes burgened, though that would be a whole area of debate the UN could work out. Certainly the ability to apply at embassys would be huge improvment.

I think a country which in the last 3 years had a melt down because they couldn't buy toilet paper; Crashed the supply chains for petrol and diesel by sheer panic; and thought it was a national crisis when KFC ran out of chicken should perhaps wind it's fucking neck in.

It is only natural that people fleeing persecution or not attempt to find a place which gives them the greatest opportunity to have a decent life. There are many contributing factors here everything from prior knowledge of English, family connections and reunification laws.

I'm reminded of a quote though darned if I can find a source, but it's something like "Don't judge a place by the idiots it keeps".

It's interesting times when protecting borders from illegal immigration is seen as „far right“. It's not „far right“ rising, it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...

Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration.

Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. And pretending that all the people who make the attempt to gain Asylum in the UK are legitimate non-economic migrants is absurd.

Correct. As is murder, theft, etc. I don't think anything in my comment suggested they're not?

Everyone that learns about the Overton window is immediately convinced the other side has been pulling it in their direction for years.

But you're talking about Denmark and I know nothing about Danish domestic policies - which is why I was intentionally broad in my wording.

The Overton window is poorly named. It's an irregularly shaped blob rather than a rectangular frame. Some things can move in different directions at different times.

I can only imagine that if not for horrible optics, UK would send them to Australia.

But oh well, I guess if your dream is to resurrect the British Empire, having a foreign penal colony is one of the requirements.

From the point of view of Africans, we see this as a Rwanda led initiative to take care of refugees in a country that is safe, and in an environment that is closer to their homelands. Although in the past Rwanda has had is troubles but … so did Ireland and the UK on different scale. Rwanda of today is a different place, and the current president has long experience in handling refugee situations and defusing the natural tensions of people in a refugee crises.

Is it absolutely necessary for refugees to leave to go to a different continent, to live on an island where they will forever look like an “other” and have a culture and weather that is totally alien to them?

There should be more to this equation than the thought of sending people to the most prosperous country that they can.