Potus ???

[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 Sunday at 02:28 by Johnsond

[Big J]

2 hours ago, Johnsond said:

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??

 

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.

[Big J]

8 hours ago, sime42 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[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.

 

 

 

[Johnsond]

6 hours ago, Big J said:

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

?? J there are options for working in a foreign country that dont require the whole family to rock up. Immigration and prosperity??  Based upon GDP or per head figures, the latter is the true definition not the former, if anything the former if you look at long term is often described as a negative. If I go to Holland to work on a temporary basis, as they often don’t have enough of a particular diving discipline etc I don’t expect to bring in all my dependents for the state to house and care for. 

[GarethM]

One has to wonder the logic, so Brexit =more migrants.

 

So if that is true why isn't Italy, France, Spain and all the other EU countries deporting them back home once they are within their borders?.

 

Logically if you find a migrants you arrest and deport, not let them head to Dover and spend 10k on a dingy to the land of milk and honey.

 

Or closer to your home, go have a walk around Malmö and ask yourself if you felt safe.

[GarethM]

Why not also end that birthright like Donald.

 

Unless you're a citizen no passport, the old dog born in a stable doesn't make it a horse argument.