UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Will wrote: "Meanwhile, in Cameron's Britain...http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/..."
Hold on a minute, Will, Newport is a Labour controlled council. It's not the British government's fault that the local council can't get a grip on the problem.
Funny - I saw it as the reason why Corbyn won't win. Yes, he gave a straight answer, but it was a silly answer. No credible politician makes up policies on the hoof and announces appointments to a shadow cabinet before he has won the leadership contest.He is inexperienced. He will be superficially attractive, but will keep on making mistakes like this.
you think any of the other 3 are any more competent Will?
Certainly. Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper (or a dream team ticket with one as deputy and one as leader) would be far more competent. And more electable.
I think Burnhan is all surface, one of those career politicians, slick & fundamentally unprincipled
Marc wrote: "I think Burnhan is all surface, one of those career politicians, slick & fundamentally unprincipled"Exactly. In all honesty, none of them look or act PM material to me. For that matter, neither does Dave or Osborne.
Everything is relative. Labour doesn't have a strong candidate for the leadership. Burnham and Cooper are the most capable, Liz Kendall is a lightweight and Corbyn is the political suicide option.
To be fair, I'm not sure if any of the parties have anybody around their top table who will be regarded as a statesman or woman in a century's time
Jim wrote: "To be fair, I'm not sure if any of the parties have anybody around their top table who will be regarded as a statesman or woman in a century's time"To be honest Jim, that's been true for 25 years now. I'm also not sure that will change whilst we elect politicians who are scared to stand by their beliefs.
Some of it is the problem of rolling 24hr media and the need to constantly have a story to tell.Some is probably an unexpected consequence of politicians own policies. Because they always claim to be in charge and to always be on the ball, and to always be able to do something about it, people not unreasonably always expect 'them' to fix stuff. And they cannot
Some is the fact that the balance of power between party and politician has swung to much towards the party.
Some is the fact that there are far more interesting options for intelligent people who want to serve the public. (partially due to the last point)
We also have an unreasonable expectation of what politicians can do. We expect them to be able to wave a magic wand and make problems disappear. But in the real world it's not so simple. Most choices have consequences, and the decision-makers will not be able to please everyone.Here's an example I am working on at the moment. A busy road goes through a town. The residents are fed up with the amount of traffic on the road, the noise from heavy lorries, the air pollution, and so on. So what do we do?
Leave it as it is and the residents will continue to suffer.
Build a bypass to one side of the town and residents on that side of the town will get more traffic. We may have to compulsory purchase some of their houses. Environmental groups will complain about building new roads.
Try to push the traffic somewhere else and other people will suffer.
Switching it to public transport is only a partial solution because a lot of this car and HGV traffic would not switch to rail or bus.
So what do you do? There is no one solution that pleases everyone. Whatever you decide, someone will grumble about how rubbish the decision-makers are.
This sort of conundrum is what makes real politics (as opposed to armchair politics) a lot more difficult than it looks. From the outside it looks as if there is a single simple solution. I wish I had a penny for every time that I have heard a member of the public say "All you need to do is..." and then come up with a solution that would please them but would not work for a huge number of other people.
We grumble about politicians, but sometimes I think a little unfairly.
Part of the unreasonable expectation is that they stand up and say 'vote for us and we'll do.....'So you can see why the electorate has to an extent written them off as a bunch of charlatans.
When was the last time a politician stood up and said "Vote for us, we'll tweak things a bit, try not to do too much damage, and if we're lucky and the world economy is OK, then things will sort of get better." Because that is about all they can promise
Politicians are sycophants and the electorate want quick, easy answers to complicated social issues.Each side ends up with the pricks they deserve.
But if they said that would we vote for them? That's the politics trap. In order to be elected you have to promise something more than the other parties. But what do you say if the other parties are promising something that cannot be delivered? How could the Conservatives and Labour respond to the ridiculous anti-austerity and flag-waving nationalism of the minor parties?There is a trap like this in the TV programme "The Apprentice". In order to get onto the show in the first place, the contestants have to make wild claims about how wonderful they are and how their business idea will make gazillions. If they don't make these claims, they don't get past stage 1.
But then the TV programme takes great delight in mocking them for their outrageous claims. And we all laugh at the contestants for the silly things they said - not realising that they were forced into saying them.
Politics is exactly like that. Democracy forces politicians to appeal to the public - "vote for us and we will give you A, B and C". But the general public don't understand the true cost of what they are being promised. And there is very little to stop political parties from making outrageous claims that they can't deliver.
So we end up with the mainstream politicians having to be very careful about what they promise. They need to offer things which are deliverable, but at the same time they need to come across as more attractive than their opponents.
Meanwhile the minor parties can largely say what they want because they have no chance of forming a Government.
That's the problem with democracy. It is hard for an honest person to get elected over a dishonest person who is making promises he can't deliver.
The answer, surely, is to educate the electorate, but it would take a very brave politician to say that.
Will wrote: "But if they said that would we vote for them? That's the politics trap. In order to be elected you have to promise something more than the other parties. But what do you say if the other parties ar..."As Plato said
"This City is what it is because our citizens are what they are."
Mind you,he also said
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors"
As I've not been about over the weekend (recovering form 2 very late nights) I want to pick up on Will's sillyness about Corbyn's reply on the Interview about Millibans. I actually thought it straightforward and reasoned.'Ed was v ey good in that role and I'd like him to repeat it'. Why is that foolish? Unless you enjoy your politicians having an inability to make a decision or answer a question.
I think Corbyn is what we all need. A principled open bloke who will attract the excluded an uninterested b his honesty. And oppose the failed austerity idiocy at every step.
Burnham has been saying that there are "people" trying to sabotage the election for the leader of the Labour Party. Sounds like the comments of a loser to me, getting his excuses in early.
I never saw the interview (I try to make a point of judging politicians by what happens rather than wasting time on what they say) but looked at dispassionately if he's talking about energy ministers, I don't think we've had a good one since Harold Wilson picked one.We've had far too much waffle and side-stepping of issues which is why we're running so close to blackouts.
That's why we have companies building up stocks of Stand-by diesel generators for when the windpower fails us
http://www.yorpower.com/news-standby-...
Will - it was a sign of inexperience. Leaders generally choose their cabinets (shadow or full) after the leadership contest. This gives them a chance to see who backs them for the leadership. It allows them to ask each person if they want a job in the cabinet, and which job they want.The usual way to appoint a cabinet is to fill the top jobs first - deputy leader, chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary, home secretary ... and so on. The leader would ask his preferred candidates in turn if they would be prepared to accept a particular job. If they agree, then fine. If they turn the job down, the leader has to rearrange his reshuffle.
Only when each post is filled do you go on to fill the next post down, and so on until all of the Cabinet is appointed.
This way sounds a little fiddly (and it can be), but it is actually the best way of putting people into jobs that they are interested in doing and/or have some expertise in.
What Corbyn did was much more autocratic. He assumed that Milliband would want a job in his shadow cabinet and he made a public commitment about an appointment that he could not guarantee to deliver.
He has spent 30 years as a backbencher and it shows. This sort of stunt might look superficially attractive, but it is amateurish. What if Milliband turns him down? Or if Milliband asks for a different post in the shadow cabinet?
Straight talking is no virtue if its stupidity.
God grief Will, have you had a reality check recently? Mind you, they've probably been withdrawn by the NHS under Tory rule...The question was a staright question: Would you have Ed Milliband in your Shadow Cabinet, and if so doing what?
Corbyn gave a straight answer that he'd offer Milliband a job he had previously done well.
Where is that amateurish? Or do you consider honesty and a lack of duplicity as inexperience? (Man, Cameron must have experience flooding from every orifice if duplicity is a positive qualification!)
There is a simple mechanics question with bringing a previous party leader into his successors cabinet. Whenever I've chaired a committee, if the constitution of whatever body it was allowed, I've tended to quietly disappear to give my successor free rein. The last thing the person needs is their predecessor watching over their shoulder.It's not a political thing, more a human mechanics thing. If the previous boss comes back it should be after a couple of years when the new boss is established and the old one is on the verge of being forgotten.
Mind you, I'm not entirely sure that the labour party idea of letting anybody buy a vote for £3 is a good one in an internet age. Why should I be allowed to vote for the labour leader just because I'm willing to spend the price of a pint?
Don't think Miliband will seek re-election to Parliament beyond this term, so it's all likely to be moot anyway
Because Milliband may well say no. Because Corbyn now can't offer that post to anyone else. Because his leadership would be tarnished by including Ed "edstone" Milliband. Because he isn't talking with his colleagues about who to appoint - he is handing out posts as gifts like some autocratic tyrant.The other candidates gave the honest answers. At this stage in the process you can't possibly know who you would include in a shadow cabinet. That's what they said. It is what any sensible candidate would have said.
Surely you can see that?
No, Will. I saw an honest answer. 'I'd offer Ed a job he can do well.' The others sounded like every other snivelling useless politician who can't answer an honest question until they've talked to a spin doctor, because their answers, such as they were, were not honest .Who would vote for them? And why? You want an unpleasant bully, there's always a Tory to vote for. They are easily identified as liars (their lips move)and most Labour MPs are the same. People want someone honest instead now, and that's why Corbyn is doing well.
Surely you can see that?
I think you're taking this discussion down to a level I'm not prepared to follow. I'll leave you to your opinions.
I find it instructive that a comment made by Corbyn on a video clip of a radio show can be legitimately interpreted in two antithetical ways as above. There is no truth. No definitive opinion. Just interpretation, coloured of course by our own allegiances and parochialisms
Ok Will, let's move on to your defence of the delightful IDS's view that withdrawing benefits helps get people back into work. That it is an often repeated Conservative mantra, you will agree...http://www.theguardian.com/society/20...
Only the proof is in even the DWP's growing anxiety.
Will wrote: "I think you're taking this discussion down to a level I'm not prepared to follow. I'll leave you to your opinions."Welcome to my position, Will.
Well, this is something that I feel should be in the department of "Why aren't you out catching criminals"?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...
I think it's part of the modern idea that you should never, ever offend anyone. And that anyone who feels offended by something, they should be able to ban it.Whatever happened to common sense? The right to freedom includes the right for people to say or do things others detest.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Will.Blacking up is a phenomenally stupid thing to do and I don't see how anyone can be surprised or dismayed that there were complaints about it.
This isn't the 1940s.
A Golliwog is a child's toy and trade mark, and nothing to do with racism.
White people dressing up as black people has nothing to do with racism?Are you serious?
I'm with Geoff on this. I spent my childhood with golly stickers from marmalade jars, and I'm a long way away from being racist
I remember seeing the gollywog on marmalade jars during my childhood too and I'm not racist either.I don't really see what it has to do with the story though.
There are incredibly racist connotations behind both golliwogs and minstrels, which is why neither of those things exist any more.
The bell ends in that story have managed to do both things at the same time.
Apropos of bugger all, I have received a personal invitation to join the Institute of Directors, a snip at £ 605 plus VAT (Incl joining fee).I never knew that passionate socialists were allowed in.
Will wrote: "I'm with Geoff on this. I spent my childhood with golly stickers from marmalade jars, and I'm a long way away from being racist"I even remember my Dad watching the Black and White Minstrel Show. He loved the music.
Perhaps there's songs white people mustn't sing?
And if there are ways white people must not dress, are there ways Asians and Africans must not dress?
I've got Nigerian friends who regard the Black and White Minstrel show as hilarious.
Will wrote: "Apropos of bugger all, I have received a personal invitation to join the Institute of Directors, a snip at £ 605 plus VAT (Incl joining fee).I never knew that passionate socialists were allowed in. ."
They're probably the only ones with the money to join :-)
(Ducks and runs :-) )
On a serious note you've obviously reached a certain level within your profession if they've actually noted your presence, even if only as a source of funds. So I'd take it as a compliment of sorts
Just gonna have a wee rant about that son of a bitch dentist who killed the lion.Thought it was all legal. Bullshit.
I am ashamed to share the planet with some people. Let's fire him into space.
The man is a cretin.This Far Side cartoon is rather apt.
I heard a Zimbabwean man defending their actions. He said man has an instinct to hunt animals. I have no words only tears.
Ironically I've read quite a lot of discussion over the last few years about funding conservation in these places. You make a little out of tourists. Ironically you make rather more out of hunters. Which is why these countries have professional hunting industries supported by the conservation departments. It's the only way they can get serious money
Looking at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/zimba... the Zimbabweans are struggling to hold on to their tourists
Yes Jim, would you spend a holiday in Mugabeland. I wouldn't. I wouldn't go to Kenya again either since the attacks on tourists. Perhaps the only way to visit these places is with a gun. Thanks spellchecker, it changed gun to gin.
It's worth mentioning too that hunting to a certain level is acceptable for conservation purposes - rather like the annual deer cull on dartmoor.If conservation requires a level of population control, then I can see an argument for raising funds for maintenance of the parks by selling licenses and quotas, even if I find the argument uncomfortable.
And further evidence that my view of current economics is robustly supported by facts.Conservative economic policy is destructive: as Centrica doubles its profits to £ 528 million in 6 months and promptly announces 6000 people will lose their livelihoods.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ne...
If only they had more photo shoots rather than hunting shoots.
Yes Vanessa, thats right. Culling for health of the population is one thing but the lion that was shot was wearing a collar. The eyesight of these so called expert hunters and trackers must be crap. Often in the wild the population is controlled by the animals themselves. Deer on Dartmoor thrive because they don't kill each other, they drive the unwanted animals further, but in the bush there are enough predators to deal with excess if they are left to self regulate.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
signed A Londoner xx