Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jhe90 wrote: ...Win win is pretty damn impossible in global political environment.
That's how Trump thinks, and it's not true. Trade can be win win, if you're not a complete asrehole.
He wants good deals for America and he doesnt care about the participating ones.
This is the usual thinking in business deals I guess, but in politics he is absolutely wrong.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
jhe90 wrote: ...Win win is pretty damn impossible in global political environment.
That's how Trump thinks, and it's not true. Trade can be win win, if you're not a complete asrehole.
He wants good deals for America and he doesnt care about the participating ones.
This is the usual thinking in business deals I guess, but in politics he is absolutely wrong.
Trade is a 2 way process, everyone is much happier if they aim for a win win scenario, mature pragmatic deal makers know this.
You may lose a little on the price of baked beans, but you're making a killing on brake shoes, so win win.
Bullies and conmen think otherwise.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
IMO part of Trumps problem is that he has spent his entire "business" life protected by the laws of the various nations he has operated in(mostly the USA). The personal consequences of his actions have only ever amounted to legal fees and the odd unflattering comedy routine. He's gotten away with it for so long he doesn't get that if you act like that with country's, sooner or later there's going to be blood on the floor.
jhe90 wrote: ...Win win is pretty damn impossible in global political environment.
That's how Trump thinks, and it's not true. Trade can be win win, if you're not a complete asrehole.
He wants good deals for America and he doesnt care about the participating ones.
This is the usual thinking in business deals I guess, but in politics he is absolutely wrong.
Trade is a 2 way process, everyone is much happier if they aim for a win win scenario, mature pragmatic deal makers know this.
You may lose a little on the price of baked beans, but you're making a killing on brake shoes, so win win.
Bullies and conmen think otherwise.
Problem is, both Trump and May have won their seats on unattainable goals for themselves (I win - you lose, because feth you, we're America/Britain)
It will be an interesting clash of public positions, and post-fact media spin.
Months ago, when May 'won' the Tory leadership after that sham of a contest, I warned that May was an enemy of liberty. I was shot down in flames over that claim.
And yet, here is more evidence to back me up.
I take no satisfaction in being vindicated...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
An official at the Chinese embassy in London warned a student debating society against allowing a critic of the Beijing government to speak at Durham University, saying they had “serious concerns” about the event and that it could damage relations between the UK and China.
Anastasia Lin, a former Miss World Canada who was born in China, is due to take part in a debate at the Durham Union Society on Friday night. However, officials at the Chinese embassy in London phoned the student organisation to raise concerns about her invite, according to a transcript of the call passed to BuzzFeed News.
Chinese students on the campus have also complained that the invite is a “violation of the belief and feelings of Chinese students”, as Lin has been banned from China for her human rights advocacy.
Lin moved to Canada while still a child. She was selected as her adoptive country’s candidate for the 2015 Miss World beauty pageant, which was held in the Chinese resort city of Sanya, only to be repeatedly refused a visa. She travelled to Hong Kong regardless and attracted media attention as she repeatedly attempted to cross the border in mainland China.
“For Lin coming here we put [sic] some serious concerns about this debate,” the official told the students on the telephone call, warning it could affect UK–China relations.
“Especially after the UK leaves the European Union, the prime minister has visited China and reconfirmed that China and the UK are seeking globally strategic collaborations. We don’t think that this kind of debating would make any contribution to these kind of relationship.
“So we thought that we would just let you know that. Take a second and think between this debating and the more grand background of UK–China relations.”
The diplomatic official said Chinese students at Durham had raised concerns about the event with the embassy, which then decided to intervene.
“The Chinese students are not comfortable about Lin because she’s not friendly to the Chinese government,” the official said.
When asked by BuzzFeed News why officials were attempting to influence who was allowed to speak on British university campuses, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy defended the intervention.
“Anastasia Lin is known to be a Falun Gong supporter,” they said. “Falun Gong is a cult which has been fabricating and spreading the rumour of so-called ‘organ harvesting’ in China. China has strict laws and regulations on transplants. We hope that the British public will not be misled by Falun Gong’s lies nor provide platform for its deceptive tricks.”
Other speakers at the event, who will debate the topic “This House sees China as a threat to the West”, include former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Chinese analyst Jonathan Fenby, and Ben Harris-Quinney of the conservative Bow Group think tank.
Tom Harwood, the president of the Durham Union debating society, which is run independently from the university and the students’ union, said it had received several complaints from Chinese students on campus: “There were some quite curious messages from a couple of students making propaganda-laden accusations at Lin, accusing her of being the equivalent of an IS terrorist.”
In one email, sent by a representative of the Durham University Chinese Students and Scholars Association and copied to university officials, several Chinese students registered their complaints about the talk.
“This debate invites a guest, Anastasia Lin, a lady who has been banned by the Chinese government for her human rights advocacy,” the student representative wrote. “Our members find both the topic and the guest they invited a violation of the belief and feelings of Chinese students. Anastasia Lin has been banned by the Chinese government and she is obviously not an appropriate person to be invited to debate in a topic like this, which put China in a position to be discriminated.”
“Hereby we sincerely ask you to cancel this debate on behalf of the majority of Chinese students in Durham university.”
Lin said the embassy’s actions show the Chinese government would not tolerate free speech: “The Chinese government have shown through their actions that they are ‘a threat’ to our freedom of expression. It’s not enough that for them to stifle their own citizens’ voices, they are reaching beyond borders to try to silence us here in the West.”
A spokesperson for the University of Durham said it enforced a code of practice relating to freedom of expression in relation to meetings or other activities: “Under the circumstances, we have raised no objection to Anastasia Lin taking part in a public debate although this does not, of course, mean that the university takes any particular view on the debate topic.”
uh huh.
.. best of luck there
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
This nation is going to the dogs, and I don't say that as some angry man shouting at a cloud, and looking back to the 'good' old days, we really are in a period of decline.
I say this because I made the mistake of reading Tim Shipman's 'all out war,' his account of last year's referendum.
When I say mistake, that is not a slur against the book, which is excellent, rather it was the mistake of having my blood pressure hit the roof, in full knowledge of the fact that reading this book would prompt that.
Our political leaders really are a shower of courrupt, incompetent
Gove is a weasel of the highest order, but we knew that already
and Boris Johnson should not be allowed to run a car boot sale, never mind head up the FO.
But we already knew this, but the questions is: why do we allow it?
Why do people keep voting for these parties?
I would advise my fellow dakka members to avoid this book and Private Eye, because then you really will fear for the future of this nation...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Because relatively few people actually care and even fewer take the time to understand what is going on in the world.
Political apathy is one of the biggest problems facing the west at the moment because we get a selection of gak politicians and because populists that are big on rhetoric yet short on workable policies gain power.
At least the utter shambles that was 2016 has at least partially reengaged some people with politics.
One of the problems, is a genuine lack of political education. Like sound financial management, and chosing a football team, politics is one of those things left to families to muddle through.
There is very little engagement in schools to discuss and debate these things, hence why we bumble along, reading the paper of our preference and tutting at how terrible everything is.
Politics is so opaque and impenetrable and actually quite boring to the overwhelming majority of people that the absolute bare minimum effort is put into engaging politically, until retirement, when you suddenly have plenty of time on your hands, and feel the need to stick your oar in and tell people what to do.
Look at all the members on here, and the engagement with the politics threads, for example. We've had some of the most momentous political upheaval of the a generation, and generally the conversation has been rattled around here by the same group of posters. There was an uptick as things got really heated closer to the crunch times, but it soon settled down again. Obviously that maybe because we're primarily here to talk about Warhammer, but it might give you an idea of the amount of people who are actively engaged in, and interested by politics.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Months ago, when May 'won' the Tory leadership after that sham of a contest, I warned that May was an enemy of liberty. I was shot down in flames over that claim.
I think I did agree with you on this! May is an Authoritarian, we've seen this again and again and has surrounded herself with very right leaning Tories. If she thinks it is right she will put it into practice regardless of the arguments against it (for example Grammar schools and her quote that she just listens to god to make a decision - or more commonly known as listening to herself). Sometimes I wonder whether she has surrounded herself by clowns and fools for this very reason. She can control them and tell them what to do with few rational arguments to challenge her own opinions. Her stance on whistleblowing is not really a surprise therefore (just take her stance on the leaked Brexit emails) - there's a big difference between someone spying for another country and another releasing information to the public to expose governments/civil servants actions which may not necessarily be in their best interest.
As for what's going wrong with politics, I also think that a lot of, especially entrenched (i.e. those in areas where they are effectively uncontested because of the majority in that area), politicians have forgotten the true reason for why they are in power in that they are there to manage the country on the behalf of what is best for the country (i.e. "By the people, for the people"). Instead many seem to see it as their 'right' to be an MP and that a challenging public are just an inconvenience (I especially think this is the case for the Eton group) because they will get in regardless. Until there is some 'real' challenge of these positions then things aren't likely to change, and as pointed out there are not enough people really engaged in politics to implement change. Of course with people completely ignored that generates anger and frustration and opens them up to populists. In addition the pandering to those that are retired (for example today May has confirmed continuation of the triple lock system - how many here can say they are going to get a guaranteed 2.5% rise on their wages, and likely to be more given inflation) and a lack of engagement generally by under 30's really doesn't help. Although anecdotal I know family members that will carry on voting Tory because they think they are 'best for them' which when pressed comes down to "because the papers they read say so" which also highlights the potential influence a small group of individuals have on these sort of events.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 19:41:15
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Some Thoughts on Mr Speaker Bercow Some contributors have asked me why I did not write about the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, on Sunday. I had sort of meant to, but in the end I wrote so much on other things that I had no room. I did feel the subject had been very much written about, and wasn’t sure I had anything especially new to say.
I take the widespread view that it is ridiculous for Mr Speaker to have got so worked up about Donald Trump once he had happily entertained the President of the Chinese despotism. Now that visit, by the leader of the world's biggest prison state, would have been a moment to make a fuss (the Prince of Wales, often mistaken, has to his credit done much to reveal his misgivings about Britain’s glutinous dalliance with the Chinese despotism).
Mr Bercow says he's against 'racism' and 'sexism'. These are often quite broad terms. You will have to tell me whether the decades during which Chinese baby girls were selectively massacred in the womb under the one-child policy was 'sexist', or whether China's treatment of Tibetans and Uighurs in their Chinese-occupied homelands is 'racist'. But they are certainly not very creditable.
I yield to no-one in my disdain for Mr Trump (and assure those who seem to hope otherwise that this is a genuine, profound feeling). But he is in the end the constitutionally and lawfully chosen leader of a free country, a country which makes a reasonable stab at the rule of law (though it’s by no means above criticism). He runs no secret police force, nor rigged courts nor an empire of labour camps. China does.
To object to a Parliamentary visit by President Trump, having smilingly accepted one by President Xi, is to strain at a gnat having swallowed a camel.
In penance, Mr Bercow should immediately abandon his braid-trimmed Euro-robe, in which he looks like the Burgomeister of some Rhineland dorp, and return to the proper attire of a British Speaker, knee-breeches, buckled shoes and a full-bottomed wig, worn (like a Judge's robes and wig) to emphasise that he is the holder of a great office, rather than an individual. Had he abandoned any ceremonial dress at all, his position would be stronger. The braided robe leaves him with no real defence. It was time for someone to reverse Betty Boothroyd’s mistaken decision to abandon the long horsehair headpiece, and Bercow, oddly enough, was the man to do it.
Because, you see, he is actually rather a good thing. Full disclosure: In the late spring of last year Mr Bercow invited me to take part in a debate on the EU issue in his constituency. He drove me to the location in his own car (thus saving me the train fare to Milton Keynes and the bus fare on to Buckingham). We conversed in a friendly fashion the whole way. He is an interesting person who has lived an interesting life. I think I got a cup of tea and a biscuit as well.
I think he has done several very good things as Speaker, especially by forcing ministers to come to the Commons to answer urgent questions, a practice which really ought to have been in existence anyway, and which has brought back life to Parliament. When one considers that one past speaker was the unfortunate Selwyn Lloyd, who had actually lied to the House about Suez while Foreign Secretary in 1956, surely a disqualification from the job, Mr Bercow's annoying independence of Downing Street is a good thing in itself. I think he has given backbenchers more opportunities to speak, and I think his efforts to ensure that MPs are heard rather than shouted down by whip-organised claques have been creditable and partly successful.
More important, many of the media attacks on him seem to me to serve the interests of Downing Street and the Executive. In any conflict between Speaker, Parliament and executive, I never have to ask which side I am on. Nor should you
Nobody can really be in much doubt of Mr Bercow’s present politics, which are (as far as I am concerned) almost entirely mistaken and horribly politically correct. I don’t see it as much of a revelation to be told that he voted to stay in the EU. So what? The question is whether he chairs debates in Parliament in a way which is politically partial. I have seen no claims that he does so, and he has supporters and enemies, as far as I can gather, on both sides of the House. What he certainly shouldn’t be is a humble servant of the government, as some speakers, shamefully, have been.
Sometimes I wonder whether she has surrounded herself by clowns and fools for this very reason.
David Davis and Phillip Hammond are fools...? Sajid Javid and Justine Greening are clowns...?
Statements like that do not reflect reality, I think. Bojo is a clown, and Grayling, Hunt, and Fox are real Tory gits. But there are other people in the cabinet as well.
She can control them and tell them what to do with few rational arguments to challenge her own opinions.
She's returned more to a cabinet style of government than any other Prime Minister since pre-Thatcher. I know you don't like the woman, but you keep trying to paint this picture of her as some sort of autocrat, and it really isn't accurate. I've read multiple reports of arguments in cabinet and compromises being made (I know Hammond and her have had words several times). Christ knows there's enough egos and sufficient experience in there that them all being yes-men is distinctly unlikely. She's nowhere near the pseudo-presidential wannabe Blair and Cameron were, and she's far better at compromise and mediation than Thatcher could ever be.
She's a micro-manager, a workaholic, and a control freak. Sure. But that doesn't mean she's dictatorial or unwilling to give way when necessary. It's an important distinction to make, I feel. People like Davis and Fallon wouldn't stomach it if she was Thatcher MK2.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/14 00:34:11
Politics in 2017 -- TBf they deleted it pretty sharpish.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/14 12:40:58
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Sometimes I wonder whether she has surrounded herself by clowns and fools for this very reason.
David Davis and Phillip Hammond are fools...? Sajid Javid and Justine Greening are clowns...?
It's all a matter of perspective.
David Davis argued before the vote that the UK would be able to negotiate individual deals with EU countries - now he's in charge of Brexit showing a lack of understanding of how such things works. This makes him a fool in my eyes
Phillip Hammond introduced an autumn statement saying it would improve the lives of the poorest that did exactly the opposite - that makes him a fool (but a Tory) in my eyes
Sajid Javid was clueless at BIS (other than wanting to cut staff). Introduced increased strike requirements (well in excess of what a government needs to get in); completely failed over Tata steel and so on. I think I recall reading that the civil servants were dismayed when he took over after Vince Cable (who did know what he was doing apparently) - hence SJ is a fool in my eyes
Justine Greening failed to protect the Judiciary from unprecedented attacks by far right media despite the fact they were only upholding current legal frameworks - a fool in my eyes.
Though from my perspective any MP that supports leaving the common market to pander to bigots and the anti-immigration crowd or supports Trump are fools too.
She's returned more to a cabinet style of government than any other Prime Minister since pre-Thatcher. I know you don't like the woman, but you keep trying to paint this picture of her as some sort of autocrat, and it really isn't accurate. I've read multiple reports of arguments in cabinet and compromises being made (I know Hammond and her have had words several times). Christ knows there's enough egos and sufficient experience in there that them all being yes-men is distinctly unlikely. She's nowhere near the pseudo-presidential wannabe Blair and Cameron were, and she's far better at compromise and mediation than Thatcher could ever be.
It's not about ego's or arguments. It's about being able to persuade and have the ability to challenge her on the views. By surrounding herself with nodding dogs and people that can't win over arguments and discussion then she effectively gets what she wants all the time. It's manipulation of the situation to allow you to meet your goals without challenge without outright ignoring other people. There's one thing that always stuck in my head for those wanting to be a CEO. You surround yourself with people better than yourself because it challenges your own believes and together you can find a better way. By surrounding yourself with people that you believe are worse than you are or only agree with you, then you only entrench your own views and that generally ends in driving yourself off a cliff edge.
But that doesn't mean she's dictatorial or unwilling to give way when necessary.
I didn't say dictatorial, but rather Authoritarian; there is a difference and there are different and more subtle ways of implementing control than just saying "you do wot I sayz"
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I suspect if you judged everyone as quickly and simplistically as you appear to Tory politicians, you'd wander through life thinking yourself the smartest man on the planet.
David Davis for example, is a highly intelligent man who just happens to have a different opinion to you on something (which is a possibility without making you a fool). He's got postgraduate business degrees from LBS and Harvard University (the two top places globally for such studies). I would wager he knows more about international commerce than you and I combined. He's not just some 'political career only' scrub, he worked his way up to being a senior executive at Tate and Lyle long before he entered politics.
He resigned from the shadow cabinet a decade ago in protest at erosion of civil liberties, has supported several groups/campaigns for them over the years, opposed tuition fee rises under Cameron/Clegg, and completely nailed the Labour lot to the mast over ID cards.
If that's the calibre of man you're calling a fool, I suspect it reflects more upon your own beliefs than the man himself.
I suspect if you judged everyone as quickly and simplistically as you appear to Tory politicians, you'd wander through life thinking yourself the smartest man on the planet.
David Davis for example, is a highly intelligent man who just happens to have a different opinion to you on something (which is a possibility without making you a fool). He's got postgraduate business degrees from LBS and Harvard University (the two top places globally for such studies). I would wager he knows more about international commerce than you and I combined. He's not just some 'political career only' scrub, he worked his way up to being a senior executive at Tate and Lyle long before he entered politics.
He resigned from the shadow cabinet a decade ago in protest at erosion of civil liberties, has supported several groups/campaigns for them over the years, opposed tuition fee rises under Cameron/Clegg, and completely nailed the Labour lot to the mast over ID cards.
If that's the calibre of man you're calling a fool, I suspect it reflects more upon your own beliefs than the man himself.
So how do explain Davis' U-turn on civil liberties?
I don't doubt his past record, but it's what he's doing now that counts...or rather what he's not doing...
As for PM May, her record on civil liberty as the Home Sec. and PM speaks for itself: she is no friend to anybody who values liberty in the UK.
As for the Tories in general, well, I lived through the Major years and it ended in sleaze and corruption.
Reading Private Eye certainly taught me a thing or two about Dave's years and Craig Murray's blog (Murray is a former UK ambassador) is interesting reading if you want to know the links between Liam Fox, Israel, the Tory party, and the influence of Israel on UK policy, which I believe is not in the UK's interests.
That's not to overlook Blair and his years, but I look at the Tory party, weigh up the facts, and concluded that the Tories are corrupt and incompetent
If the facts change I will change my opinion, but I won't hold my breathe.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I suspect if you judged everyone as quickly and simplistically as you appear to Tory politicians, you'd wander through life thinking yourself the smartest man on the planet.
Now, now...Isn't this a personal attack? I thought such things were to be discouraged...would you like a hob-nob and a cup of tea?
On the other hand maybe you haven't considered that I obtain my opinions over their actions at the current time and that filling pages worth of reasoning is really beyond the remit of this forum. I am under no illusions though that this is my opinion of the person. And some Tory MPs seem to be better than others John Bercow current actions suggest better motives as well as Ann Soubry but that can change with time as well.
David Davis for example, is a highly intelligent man who just happens to have a different opinion to you on something (which is a possibility without making you a fool). He's got postgraduate business degrees from LBS and Harvard University (the two top places globally for such studies). I would wager he knows more about international commerce than you and I combined. He's not just some 'political career only' scrub, he worked his way up to being a senior executive at Tate and Lyle long before he entered politics.
Well educated does not mean you can't be a fool - you yourself have little time for David Cameron but he is also well educated (I'm not saying you are a fool just to clarify the intent of the statement here). And what someone did ten/twenty/thirty years ago doesn't really interest me. It's what they are currently doing that is important. A career politician is not necessarily a bad politician, nor is the person that worked in business necessarily working for the best interest of the populace generally. It's current/recent actions that are important; that they did OK in the past is largely irrelevant if they do not continue into recent actions.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Now, now...Isn't this a personal attack? I thought such things were to be discouraged...would you like a hob-nob and a cup of tea?
Hardly. We'd have to assume at first that you did indeed, judge everyone in that manner (which I never said you did). And even then, it would just be an observation upon what effect that would likely have upon one's personal psychology, not an insult.
On the other hand maybe you haven't considered that I obtain my opinions over their actions at the current time and that filling pages worth of reasoning is really beyond the remit of this forum. I am under no illusions though that this is my opinion of the person. And some Tory MPs seem to be better than others John Bercow current actions suggest better motives as well as Ann Soubry but that can change with time as well.
I was asking for clarifying detail as to what basis you're lobbing insults at them and making general statements. Do you regard that as unreasonable? I mean, it is about politicians in a thread on politics.
Well educated does not mean you can't be a fool - you yourself have little time for David Cameron but he is also well educated (I'm not saying you are a fool just to clarify the intent of the statement here).
I would be inclined to agree with the initial premise, but I wouldn't call even Bojo a fool. A fool is someone is acting idiotically out of a lack of wisdom. Since your basis for dubbing Davis a fool is his stance on a matter of international economics and relations, I think raising Davis' actual level of knowledge of education and experience in these things is highly relevant. Why? Because I would argue that it raises the bar on the level of evidence required to dub someone a fool.
I would state that on the balance of probability and examining the evidence both ways, it is far more likely that your assessment of him is inaccurate. I would personally posit that if you approach the question of his 'fool-hood' in a similar manner as you did your dislike for May (from our previous discussion), you are most likely making (in my mind) very general conclusions based off of your own personal political ideology and distaste for the Tories.
Note that I say 'if' there. I am merely working off of the evidence presented by you thus far to substantiate your assertion of Davis' 'fool-dom', which is quite sketchy. If you have more, I am willing to re-assess that conclusion.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/15 00:38:11
[/spoiler]
Politics in 2017 -- TBf they deleted it pretty sharpish.
Spoiler:
The Liberal Democrats still exist? With wishy washy memes and messages like that they will remain a skeleton party with a ghost following. Its an unfortunate case of coming third in every race. Nick Clegg finished off their chances to be a big player. I doubt they will be any sort of political force, unless their is a massive political upheaval.
As for PM May, her record on civil liberty as the Home Sec. and PM speaks for itself: she is no friend to anybody who values liberty in the UK.
As for the Tories in general, well, I lived through the Major years and it ended in sleaze and corruption.
That's not to overlook Blair and his years, but I look at the Tory party, weigh up the facts, and concluded that the Tories are corrupt and incompetent
If the facts change I will change my opinion, but I won't hold my breathe.
I must admit I am surprised with PM May, I didn't think she had it in her to be a strong leader, but so far I think she is doing alright over Brexit, I think you need a strong leader at a time like this. You really need to lead the Bull by the horn or else nothing would get done. I think she was a strict but fair minister as Home Secretary too, you can't have a weak-trying-to-always-be-correct type in these roles, as they would be decimated in the House of Commons all the time. I can't comprehend what would happen if Corbyn was Home Secretary and then Prime Minister overseeing Brexit!
Well educated does not mean you can't be a fool - you yourself have little time for David Cameron but he is also well educated (I'm not saying you are a fool just to clarify the intent of the statement here). And what someone did ten/twenty/thirty years ago doesn't really interest me. It's what they are currently doing that is important. A career politician is not necessarily a bad politician, nor is the person that worked in business necessarily working for the best interest of the populace generally. It's current/recent actions that are important; that they did OK in the past is largely irrelevant if they do not continue into recent actions.
That is true, but with the gift or hindsight we can see people do, do actions that are deemed foolish. Camerons downfall was his arrogance of victory perhaps swelled by the Scott's Referendum. I think career politicians must be taken with a pinch of salt. Vetted and groomed to do populist things for a certain party may give them a chance to run as P.M but outside of advisers and spin-doctors they would probably be making a lot of bad decisions without real-life experience. Going back to foolish decisions, I would class Bercow's recent statements as ill-advised. The Speaker should be impartial, he should never have tipped the balance about how he voted or what he thinks on certain matters. He deserved the chastising he got from ministers.
In other news, recent polls suggest Labour will do poorly in the next set of by-elections. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219580/Labour-falls-new-poll.html They do have a plan: to claw back success by targeting strong UKIP voting areas, probably being lead by Diane Abbot and Mr McDonnel. Whether this will make any impact I don't know, but I sense Corbyn is after some good propaganda news should he lose Stoke and Copeland.
So how do explain Davis' U-turn on civil liberties?
There are several options, and it could be any of them or a mix. For example:-
1) He has access to information we do not and has rationally changed his mind accordingly
2) He still disagrees but is preserving cabinet unity, an extremely common occurrence in government.
3) He believes his best place to mitigate its effects/May's excesses is in Cabinet, as opposed to on the outside where he has little influence.
4) He traded compromise on this for a free hand/his own opinion carrying through on something of more importance to him/something he deems of more importance the country.
It's quite easily the case that there are rational options for his behaviour, ones which involve no compromise of integrity. It's extremely easy to judge from the outside, but I find it far more realistic to believe that well educated, experienced, and generally principled people have good reasons for their behavioural changes when they occur.
Sex offender keeps taxpayer-funded job with Scots Ukip MEP
An aide to Ukip MEP David Coburn is still employed in his taxpayer-funded job despite being convicted of sexual offences, STV News has learned.
Arthur 'Misty' Thackeray was placed on the sex offenders register on Monday after being convicted of ten sexual offences between October 2007 and December 2015.
Mr Thackeray made a string of vulgar phone calls to women from his home, Ukip's Edinburgh offices and elsewhere.
Despite the conviction, Mr Thackeray remains in post as an assistant to Coburn.
A Ukip spokesman said: "The process is ongoing at this stage. All legal requirements must be adhered to with regards to Mr Thackeray's employment."
The spokesman pointed to European employment protections as one of the reasons the sex offender remains in his job.
This was contradicted by the European Parliament when contacted by STV News.
A spokesman for the parliament said: "I can confirm that Mr Coburn has informed the European parliamentary services about the matter and the services will be following developments.
"It is worth noting that, in the case of local assistants, as is the case here, the European Parliament is not a party to the employment contract."
The age of Mr Thackery's victims ranged from 25 to 66 years old when the offences took place.
Some of the women fell victim to him after posting their phone numbers advertising slimming classes.
Mr Thackeray resigned from his position as Ukip's Scottish chairman in January 2016 after first appearing in court in relation to the case.
On Monday, he was handed a community payback order with the conditions he will be supervised for three years, will carry out 270 hours of unpaid work within nine months and will be on the sex offenders register for three years.
our taxes at work, apparently.
... You'd think that something like being placed on the sex offenders register would preclude one from maybe working in politics no ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I was asking for clarifying detail as to what basis you're lobbing insults at them and making general statements. Do you regard that as unreasonable? I mean, it is about politicians in a thread on politics.
Not really; more that we are talking opinions and I don't really think it adds anything for us to have compare quotes which is where this is likely to go. Because it is opinions it will be biased by our view of the world and what individually we stand for. As such it is just a list. But as you seem you want more items than the list previously provided, how about:-
Insulting Diane Abbott about how she looks (not something any of us are really in control of)
Comparing Guy Verhofstadt to the Devil (given that he is one of the lead negotiators for the EU).
Supporting leaving the common market and pandering to bigotry and the anti-immigration crowd.
Supporting the visit by Trump (even though 'apparently' he is a supporter of human rights).
I would state that on the balance of probability and examining the evidence both ways, it is far more likely that your assessment of him is inaccurate. I would personally posit that if you approach the question of his 'fool-hood' in a similar manner as you did your dislike for May (from our previous discussion), you are most likely making (in my mind) very general conclusions based off of your own personal political ideology and distaste for the Tories.
Well, erm, yes I started from the beginning that this was subjective opinion. I'm not sure I ever said otherwise. But from my perspective he is making foolish decisions and that makes him a fool.
The Liberal Democrats still exist? With wishy washy memes and messages like that they will remain a skeleton party with a ghost following. Its an unfortunate case of coming third in every race. Nick Clegg finished off their chances to be a big player. I doubt they will be any sort of political force, unless their is a massive political upheaval.
This isn't really backed up by recent by elections results though.
Richmond +30.4% (Tories/Independent -13.0%, Labour, 8.7%) - Won
Witney +23.4% (Tories -15.2%, Labour -2.2%) - Second
Sleaford +5.3% (Tories, -2.7%, UKIP -2.2%, Labour -7.1%) - Third
Membership of LDs is actually hugely up since 2015 (at least 30%) compared to Tories that have halved in the same period (basically most of them are old and are dying). To note Labour members vastly outnumber both Tories and LDs combined. You've got to wonder what will happen to the Tories in 20-30 years if they keep venting supporters and rely more and more on wealthy donors.
What is being missed is that all the Brexit vote has done has flipped the coin. Instead of an angry anti-EU crowd there is now an angry pro-EU crowd. The only party in England that is pro-EU is LDs. Labour are nowhere (and fail to recognise that 65% of their voters are pro-EU) and Tories are continually alienating any more centre right supporters with far right and anti immigration wording (and 35 - 40% of their voters are pro-EU). LDs are in possibly a very strong position if these voters that are pretty peeved over the whole situation (especially considering there is no interest in actually listening to the other half of the populace that voted) all switch to LDs which the by election results might indicate. It will be interesting to see what happens in the Copeland/Stoke elections as I have a suspicion that the overall result might be decided on which party manages to hold off LD gains better compared to the other (rather than losing votes between Tory/Labour).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/15 19:43:58
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
With there recent Hillsborough screw ups I guess UKIP have given up on getting any votes in Liverpool
On a slightly brighter note, if the Trump administration carries on its current course. I wouldn't be surprised if the state visit problem resolves itself
This isn't really backed up by recent by elections results though.
Richmond +30.4% (Tories/Independent -13.0%, Labour, 8.7%) - Won
Witney +23.4% (Tories -15.2%, Labour -2.2%) - Second
Sleaford +5.3% (Tories, -2.7%, UKIP -2.2%, Labour -7.1%) - Third
Membership of LDs is actually hugely up since 2015 (at least 30%) compared to Tories that have halved in the same period (basically most of them are old and are dying). To note Labour members vastly outnumber both Tories and LDs combined. You've got to wonder what will happen to the Tories in 20-30 years if they keep venting supporters and rely more and more on wealthy donors.
What is being missed is that all the Brexit vote has done has flipped the coin. Instead of an angry anti-EU crowd there is now an angry pro-EU crowd. The only party in England that is pro-EU is LDs. Labour are nowhere (and fail to recognise that 65% of their voters are pro-EU) and Tories are continually alienating any more centre right supporters with far right and anti immigration wording (and 35 - 40% of their voters are pro-EU). LDs are in possibly a very strong position if these voters that are pretty peeved over the whole situation (especially considering there is no interest in actually listening to the other half of the populace that voted) all switch to LDs which the by election results might indicate. It will be interesting to see what happens in the Copeland/Stoke elections as I have a suspicion that the overall result might be decided on which party manages to hold off LD gains better compared to the other (rather than losing votes between Tory/Labour).
I was speaking figuratively in general compared to the other mainstream parties. Your statistics show out of three results only one win for Lib Dems, that's only a 33.33333333333333333....% success rate. The Conservatives won the other two. In Sleaford's case the Tories got 17,570 seats compared to just 3,606 for Lib Dems. That's 820 less than UKIP got, so it was a third place victory for a minority, that is hardly surprising in Sleaford's case. History has shown non-Conservative votes in South Lincs have nil chance of success. I still believe the Liberal Democrats outside of their island hotspots don't account for a majority vote and currently have no political sway to be effective.
An angry pro-EU crowd? Its just sower grapes against change, if they considered losing they should have campaigned a bit harder, there is no evidence to prove it but I recon the people who wanted to Leave had more incentive to vote for change and were more proactive than the people who wanted to stay. I imagine that there is a greater proportion of the population that was pro-EU (compared to those against), who did not have the incentive to vote on the day i.e couldn't be bothered, but after waking up the next wished they had. The Liberal Democrats may be the pro-EU party for England but I don't reckon that would get them far, no offence but being pro-EU in politics at the minute isn't fashionable and to be honest the focus should be on making Brexit work rather than trying to stop the divorce proceedings.
I am interested to see which party will win Copeland/Stoke. It would be a miracle for Labour to hold both by any large majority. If The Lib Dems skim it good for them and the supporters, but in reality its only a superficial show of power as they would need to do the same thing tenfold at the next election to be considered a fighting force again.
On the right is the bottom of the Robotics Class. Again born in the EU. In fact unless they were born outside of a European country, chances are the whole class is from the EU block.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 20:48:39
I was speaking figuratively in general compared to the other mainstream parties. Your statistics show out of three results only one win for Lib Dems, that's only a 33.33333333333333333....% success rate. The Conservatives won the other two. In Sleaford's case the Tories got 17,570 seats compared to just 3,606 for Lib Dems. That's 820 less than UKIP got, so it was a third place victory for a minority, that is hardly surprising in Sleaford's case. History has shown non-Conservative votes in South Lincs have nil chance of success. I still believe the Liberal Democrats outside of their island hotspots don't account for a majority vote and currently have no political sway to be effective.
And no wins for Labour which would be a 0% success rate. That doesn't mean they aren't going to win anything at all. You basically stated that LDs were a ghost party but if that was true then there would not be a significant swing towards them at the by-elections. That is not the status of a ghost party....If they continue to gain +20% of the vote share then that will make a lot of Tories and Labour MPs take note. Although they won't get enough to become the dominant party (more's the pity) but they are likely to gain enough seats with such swings to ensure that parliament almost certainly will be become hung at the next GE and that will boost both SNP and LDs influence massively. They are only a ghost party in the number of seats they have, but that is because of the travesty of the FPTP system we currently have. LDs ground support is massively swelling as well. As pointed out earlier they now have over 70,000 members and rapidly rising whilst Tories have somewhere between 130k - 150k and rapidly decreasing (noting Labour's is on the order of 500k). Its' going to be interesting over the next few decades because with more university educated students that implies stronger support for the LDs in the future if they retain current voting preferences.
An angry pro-EU crowd? Its just sower grapes against change,
Erm, newsflash, Brexit won. You are now in the "don't want to change crowd". It's pro-EU voters that now want change....
If they considered losing they should have campaigned a bit harder, there is no evidence to prove it but I recon the people who wanted to Leave had more incentive to vote for change and were more proactive than the people who wanted to stay. I imagine that there is a greater proportion of the population that was pro-EU (compared to those against), who did not have the incentive to vote on the day i.e couldn't be bothered, but after waking up the next wished they had.
So just to clarify what you are saying here - that given that 48% did actually vote to remain, you are saying that the approx. 28% or so that didn't vote are actually in the majority pro-EU people? Would that not effectively make the country pro-EU by quite some margin? And yet A lot of Brexiters argue that because the vast majority of MPs support the EU that this isn't representative? What you are saying is that the UK *is* being taken out of the EU against the majority of people in the country. Does that not make the support for Brexit being in the minority and hence we should not really be driving through the hardest Brexit possible? Would you mind going on question time and saying this?
The Liberal Democrats may be the pro-EU party for England but I don't reckon that would get them far, no offence but being pro-EU in politics at the minute isn't fashionable and to be honest the focus should be on making Brexit work rather than trying to stop the divorce proceedings.
You've just pointed out that you think the majority of possible voters are pro-EU, surely that would indeed get them far because they are the only voice arguing for the majority? And just to clarify which part of the population are you expecting to making Brexit work?
On the right is the bottom of the Robotics Class. Again born in the EU. In fact unless they were born outside of a European country, chances are the whole class is from the EU block.
Now that's just lazy, you are just copying what has already been done, as for being the bottom; I don't know that submarine looks pretty good... Also I assume you have evidence of the actual chances that the class is all from the EU given your sweeping statement (or is this just more "alternative facts")
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
