Potus ???

[sime42]

3 hours ago, Big J said:

 

There is nothing wrong with having intelligent discourse.

 

Just because a significant proportion of the population is too stupid or too selfish to comprehend the consequences of voting for fascism, doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for what it is.

 

I'll hold my hand up and say that I'm not a great believer in democracy, and that simply because I don't believe that the majority of the voting public is qualified to make such important decisions. 

 

In your case Gareth, I profoundly disagree with pretty much everything you say, but at least you have a strongly held opinion that has been researched. We're never going to agree and we'd always vote against each other, but that's your right and even if you get on my tits sometimes, I respect the fact that you're here discussing things.

 

So, so many people vote based on spurious nonsense, misinformation and tradition. Knowing that the electorate is so easily maleable, politicians focus on short termism, soundbites and populist rhetoric (on both sides).

Very little gets done for the greater good now, and next to nothing with a long term outlook. The political news cycle is far too short, and as such, real progress never happens.

 

 

 

The bit about not being a great believer in democracy. Are you just accepting of the fact that it's flawed but the best we can hope to achieve? If there is no viable alternative, then all we can do is try to improve the current system.

 

Taking the US cesspit as an example of worst practice, surely the first thing to do is take the money out of the whole process, as far as possible. On Question Time a couple of weeks ago Dale Vince suggested that all electoral campaigns should be state funded, (in response to a question about Musk trying to pump money into Farage). On the face of it, it sounds like a ludicrous idea, but when you stop and think about it, it might actually make some sense. Level the playing field up a bit. Otherwise those who already have money/fame/power are always going to have the advantage. Especially in the age of mass social media, run by the same kinds of people, intent on stoking Populism. Quite how such a system would work wasn't elaborated on, but it's got to be considered at least, along with the concept of degrowth economics.

 

 

[GarethM]

So in that prat Vince going to stop funding the labour party or was that just to make his divorce cheaper ?

[sime42]

4 hours ago, GarethM said:

 

If you want to really depress yourself about the stupidity of people, look at why IQ tests were invented and why its illegal for a USA citizen with an IQ below 83 to join the army.

 

Discourse and discussion is fine, it's just the constant oh he's a bad man from some sides that gets irritating, the world can't operate on a he without sin casts the first stone.

 

I've used the analogy before, it's always a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich.

 

Appreciating your cynical pragmatism and analogy, but it doesn't have to be a choice between a douch and a turd sandwich. Not claiming that it could be smoked salmon and caviar, but it could at least be an honest ham and mustard sarny. I'm sure there have been, are, and could be decent, honest politicians in the game. Those who are motivated at least in large part by good for the whole rather than just good for the self.

 

 

[GarethM]

We've argued this before, politics became these shades of grey around the time of tony.

 

Before tony, politicians generally worked their way through business or in the labour party up through the unions stooges.

 

Which gave them more a hard nosed reality of life, now most politicians college/uni/advisor so no real experience of say 3 jobs and studying etc.

 

Trump and co, are yes dirty but earned their business spurs, you can argue the morals but you get the idea.

 

Give him a chance, as our reality is depressing in the UK.

[sime42]

Shame it has to be post Blair, I was going to cite Thatcher and Kinnock as examples. I'd still say that May isn't/wasn't greatly motivated by fame or fortune. Or Corbyn, (a moot point perhaps). .

 

[GarethM]

Blair was pretty much the sea change moment politically speaking, thatcher & Kinnock were much like Reagan.

 

Of their time, more old school if you will and all three remembered the war.

 

Blair was the start of new wave politics and ushered in the whole sofa meeting bs.

[Johnsond]

10 hours ago, Big J said:

He sounds roughly as qualified for his job as Hegseth does for Sec Def. Or Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence

That will be two you quoted J who have served in the armed forces on active service.

Compare that to John Healey ?? What makes him any more qualified??

Edited February 2 by Johnsond

[Johnsond]

4 hours ago, Big J said:

 

Hegseth might have military experience, but he has no experience of running any organisation other than a small non-profit, which by all accounts, he did very badly. He also has a drinking problem and has been accused of sexual assault on several occasions. Trump essentially saw him on weekend Fox and though "oooh, he's telegenic, lets have him".

Gabbard is considered a security risk within Five Eyes and western governments more broadly. She took an unauthorised trip to see Bashar al Assad and has publically supported Russia.

Healey on the other hand has had decades of political experience, serving as minister running departments and has been the shadow defense secretary since 2020. A government well run is one by a minister who is well briefed on their department and well experienced in management and decision making. In the UK at least, the civil servants that run any given department aren't political appointees and it's crucial that anyone leading said department can listen to, analyse and use advice whilst having enough political and department-specific relevant experience to make the right call.

Decades of political experience 🤷‍♂️I don’t think that’s a great thing to be putting in the CV , he’s a true labour union puppet. Nothing compared imo in regards a poor appointment than that of dodgy “ how many times sacked” deviant Mandleson. 

[Johnsond]

3 hours ago, Big J said:

 

I don't disagree, but after the last ten years of domestic and global politics, it's hard not to be a bit apathetic. 

 

Take Brexit as an example. It's universally accepted now that it was an act of national self harm, and in a recent YouGov poll, only 11% of the UK electorate felt that it had been a net positive for the country.

 

Additionally (and please forgive the lack of the source) but a recent economic report stated that some of the econonic damage of Brexit had been mitigated by increased immigration. Brexit was sold as a means of making the UK richer whilst reducing immigration, but it's done the exact opposite.

 

I know that things are a little better on this side of the pond, but I think that the moral highground is fast disappearing. The Tories seem to be trying to out-Reform Reform, whilst Labour are stuck in a kind of paralysis that's indicative of a inheriting a political and economic situation so ghastly that they have no idea how to fix it.

 

The UK could do a lot worse than having proportional representation, mandatory voting, public funding for elections and a ban on politicians serving in any private sector role relating to their governmental position for a set period of time. And no second job whilst an MP. 

 

But it'll never happen. Each opposition party bangs on about electoral reform until they get into power and remember that the messed up system is what put them there.

J who do you think actually runs the country ?. 

[sime42]

Purely for profit Corporations and multinationals. Right wing social and traditional media barons. Russia, China. Money, (for the elites, not for the hardworking people just trying to get on in life). Take your pick. It's certainly not the government running the country.