Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

Johnson is economically incompetent, a proven liar and permanently lazy.
Truss is clumsy but at least, she called a spade a spade when she fell out with Braverman. Sunak is not only more intelligent and quicker than Johnson, he is more likely to limit the damage to our economy.
Time for the conservatives is up. The NHS, trains, water, electricity, post office, universities and private schools etc, everything point to the downside of selling off the family's silvers.
The sooner they call a new election the better.

Yep, it's nice we can all have opinions and express them.
I hope you aren't pinning your hopes on Starmer... At best in the slim hope he gets power he, d be a short term place holder, keeping no10 warm until Tories win 2 years later.
We look on Tories as incompetent, wait til Starmer and Rayner take over. To be honest think they know they are incapable of running country so will do what Corbyn did time and time again. Shoot themselves in foot.
And, I suspect this phenomenon highlights a crucial difference in Tory and Labour mindset. Deep down Tories know they are incapable of doing a good job, but take power anyhow. Labour run and hide.
You wait til next GE Woosh. Labour will disintegrate (even more) before our eyes irrespective of polls and Local elections. And, in will step Boris.
Time has been up for Tories for around a decade now.

 

[flecc]

Johnson is economically incompetent, a proven liar and permanently lazy.

Indeed, and we can't say we weren't warned:

in April 2014 Ken Livingstone stated his belief that Boris Johnson would soon become leader of the Conservative Party and advised Labour "not to make the mistake of assuming they're dealing with a hardline right-wing ideologue", but to "concentrate on the fact they're dealing with a fairly lazy tosser who just wants to be there".
.

 

[Zlatan]

Sounds like perfect PM material. Eminently qualified to lead a building full of like minded.

Wasn't Ken Livingstone kicked out of Labour party 2016 ish.. He sort of encapsulates exactly what I, ve been saying for months. He, s a good bloke, probably sincere and competent. (He is one of few I really like) Hounded out after he made some throw away comment about Hitler. (which, if I remember was not derogatory towards anyone) Labour are more interested in wokism than competence.
Free speech is dying. It died years ago in Labour.

 

[flecc]

Wasn't Ken Livingstone kicked out of Labour party 2016 ish.. He sort of encapsulates exactly what I, ve been saying for months. He, s a good bloke, probably sincere and competent. (He is one of few I really like)

Indeed, Ken was the best politician we never had nationally. But we in London benefited handsomely from his ability and are still grateful for all the lasting things he did while in power here.

Probably just as well though, as GLC leader and later London Mayor he was able to be effective in ways our parliamentary nonsense would have no doubt have frustrated.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Indeed, Ken was the best politician we never had nationally. But we in London benefited handsomely from his ability and are still grateful for all the lasting things he did while in power here.

Probably just as well though, as GLC leader and later London Mayor he was able to be effective in ways our parliamentary nonsense would have no doubt have frustrated.
.

The trouble is though Flecc, KL was kicked out for suggesting Hitler may have supported Zionism. Which factually is a possibility. (Germany supported establishment of Israel between 1933 and 1939, Haavara agreement)

But Labour expel him for saying it.???

He is a good bloke.

 

[flecc]

The trouble is though Flecc, KL was kicked out for suggesting Hitler may have supported Zionism. Which factually is a possibility. (Germany supported establishment of Israel between 1933 and 1939, Haavara agreement)

But Labour expel him for saying it.???

He is a good bloke.

On leaving a social event where he'd been drinking, he said that to a known Tory Jewish journalist who had provoked him, looking to cause political trouble. It was true of course, nothing Germany did between 1933 and 1939 was without Hitler's approval.

But of course my merely saying that makes me anti-semitic according to Zionists, who either don't even know what Semitic means or deliberately misuse the term.

That the Tory party enlists Zionists to lie about anyone on the left they want to oppose, such as Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn and even the whole Labour party, speaks volumes about the Tories lack of morals.
.

 

[Woosh]

View attachment 49670

Sounds like perfect PM material. Eminently qualified to lead a building full of like minded.

If you are concerned with how your tax is going to be spent, you would not vote for someone like BJ.
Sunak is the right PM for the moment. Before him, johnson brought the Pound down to 1.18usd, Truss brought the pound to 1.14usd. Sunak got it back up to 1.21. The market has a way to judge politicians for their economic competence.
What you don't see is Starmer can minimise the damage to the economy by brexit. Polls show that voters don't want yet to rejoin the EU but would like to see improvements in trade and cooperation. Conservatives are incapable of doing this.

 

[Zlatan]

If you are concerned with how your tax is going to be spent, you would not vote for someone like BJ.
Sunak is the right PM for the moment. Before him, johnson brought the Pound down to 1.18usd, Truss brought the pound to 1.14usd. Sunak got it back up to 1.21. The market has a way to judge politicians for their economic competence.
What you don't see is Starmer can minimise the damage to the economy by brexit. Polls show that voters don't want yet to rejoin the EU but would like to see improvements in trade and cooperation. Conservatives are incapable of doing this.

I didn't say I would vote for him. But I will say without massive changes in Labour Party I will not be voting for Starmer or whoever is leader of Party next GE.
But I still hold opinion it will be BJ leading Tories next GE and they will win, even without my vote. (or yours)
As for Starmer being able to offer any economic rescue... I somehow doubt it. Our future is decline,whoever presides.And that prediction applies to entire EU/Europe.

 

[Woosh]

Johnson could have made some kind of a comeback when he collected more support than Mordaunt last month. Could you think of any reason why he pulled out of the vote for PM?

 

[flecc]

Our future is decline,whoever presides.And that prediction applies to entire EU/Europe.

Perhaps not though. There's some real new thinking going on and Autarky is now the buzz word, a single word meaning self sufficiency and no dependence on others.

It's now China's official policy, Japan is keen on change to that too and of course Trump promoted it for the USA and Biden agrees. Now many of the EU countries are pushing for it too, helped along by Russia making it much more necessary now for food and fuel. Globalisation is now very much out of favour as it increasingly lets us down.

The world could look very different in as little as 20 years from now. If you doubt that, just look at the extraordinary progress we made in feeding ourselves in and after WW2 following the U boats sinking all the food ships heading our way.

And the incredible progress we've made in wind power, from supplying less than 3% of our electricity not long ago to over 50% now in favourable periods.

So many of those looking at decline currently could instead be in their own self created relative wealth, equalling those currently thought of as more fortunate.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Johnson could have made some kind of a comeback when he collected more support than Mordaunt last month. Could you think of any reason why he pulled out of the vote for PM?

To distance him self from current fiasco and to give it plenty of time for "party gate" be a distant memory. He will come back like a breath of stale air, all rejuvenated and with full support off 1922 mafiosa.. He won't go away no matter how many wishes you make Woosh. That 87 seat majority will plague us for generations.

 

[Zlatan]

Perhaps not though. There's some real new thinking going on and Autarky is now the buzz word, a single word meaning self sufficiency and no dependence on others.

It's now China's official policy, Japan is keen on change to that too and of course Trump promoted it for the USA and Biden agrees. Now many of the EU countries are pushing for it too, helped along by Russia making it much more necessary now for food and fuel. Globalisation is now very much out of favour as it increasingly lets us down.

The world could look very different in as little as 20 years from now. If you doubt that, just look at the extraordinary progress we made in feeding ourselves in and after WW2 following the U boats sinking all the food ships heading our way.

And the incredible progress we've made in wind power, from supplying less than 3% of our electricity not long ago to over 50% now in favourable periods.

So many of those looking at decline currently could instead be in their own self created relative wealth, equalling those currently thought of as more fortunate.
.

I agree, isolationism is the assumed way forward.
It used to be thought that a countries' wealth and standing was based on what it could dig up in its own backyard, make more valuable and use or sell on. It fostered our industrial revolution, trouble is we dug up other folks back yards. The whole concept led to wars over territorial /mineral rights and destruction of resources. Let's hope we have learned. Suspect its what Ukraine is all about.
To be self sufficient, its stating the obvious you have to have sufficient at your disposal and the will to exploit it.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Perhaps not though. There's some real new thinking going on and Autarky is now the buzz word, a single word meaning self sufficiency and no dependence on others.

It's now China's official policy, Japan is keen on change to that too and of course Trump promoted it for the USA and Biden agrees. Now many of the EU countries are pushing for it too, helped along by Russia making it much more necessary now for food and fuel. Globalisation is now very much out of favour as it increasingly lets us down.

The world could look very different in as little as 20 years from now. If you doubt that, just look at the extraordinary progress we made in feeding ourselves in and after WW2 following the U boats sinking all the food ships heading our way.

And the incredible progress we've made in wind power, from supplying less than 3% of our electricity not long ago to over 50% now in favourable periods.

So many of those looking at decline currently could instead be in their own self created relative wealth, equalling those currently thought of as more fortunate.
.

We're in the grip of a historic recession. Lurching to the right, isolationism, nationalism is what the sheeples do when the economy goes tits up. Now as in the 30s. But it may be worth remembering that homo erectus outcompeted neanderthal because it formed bigger tribes that allowed for more differentiation and specialisation of roles. Same principle applies to globalisation, larger entities. It's why a decrepit bunch of ageing farts like the unproductive (not to mention thick) uk population could (and will again) maintain a living standard far beyond what it deserves in a globalised world by rejoining the eu

 

[flecc]

We're in the grip of a historic recession. Lurching to the right, isolationism, nationalism is what the sheeples do when the economy goes tits up. Now as in the 30s. But it may be worth remembering that homo erectus outcompeted neanderthal because it formed bigger tribes that allowed for more differentiation and specialisation of roles. Same principle applies to globalisation, larger entities. It's why a decrepit bunch of ageing farts like the unproductive (not to mention thick) uk population could (and will again) maintain a living standard far beyond what it deserves in a globalised world by rejoining the eu

A bit of misunderstanding I think, globalisation isn't so much about large units, it's more about dependancies on distant and very different units. China is huge but is turning against the dependancies of globalisation.

Europe is also large so can similarly operate an isolationist policy but still be strong due to its size, and since we are also in Europe we can be a part of their isolationism. That's why I regularly preach that Europe should detach from the USA and isolate them.

The globalised relationship we've had with the USA hasn't made us in Britain richer or the world more peaceful. It has impoverished us as they've used us to make themselves richer and support their unnecessary wars while selling us unnecessary and useless war weapons like Polaris, Trident and B35b planes.

Would we have built two £13 billion aircraft carriers equipped with £100 million each B35b if we had no relationship with the USA?

No of course not.

Nor would we have been involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at huge financial and human cost.

Nor the Korean war 72 years ago and all the intervening conflicts.

Without globalisation we might also have had a large motor industry as South Korea showed. Their government right at the outset sensibly banned all car imports, making it possible, indeed necessary, for Hyundai, followed by their other car companies, to flourish and perfect product in their home market without competition.

Now ironically they are globalised world beaters, but that will only better them while the big powers allow it. There will come the day when they too rue globalisation.
.

 

[Zlatan]

We're in the grip of a historic recession. Lurching to the right, isolationism, nationalism is what the sheeples do when the economy goes tits up. Now as in the 30s. But it may be worth remembering that homo erectus outcompeted neanderthal because it formed bigger tribes that allowed for more differentiation and specialisation of roles. Same principle applies to globalisation, larger entities. It's why a decrepit bunch of ageing farts like the unproductive (not to mention thick) uk population could (and will again) maintain a living standard far beyond what it deserves in a globalised world by rejoining the eu

Don't think its fair to assume isolationism and nationalism are one of same. Europe is becoming much more isolated, and perhaps should do to avoid dependance on China, but that shouldn't mean an automatic resurgence of Nationalism.
UK, probably all countries, should steer towards isolation, ie self sufficient, in as many areas as possible. Russia/Ukraine has demonstrated one reason why. Had Germany had more isolationist policies its dependance on Russian gas would never have arisen. That shouldn't and doesn't infer anyone wanting that has nationalistic desires.
To my mind Nationalism assumes a superior view of your own nation. Isolationism simply means a desire for succusful isolation from outside events and dependance on as few other countries as possible, especially those led by authoritian dictators with completely alien attitudes to our own. (Being dependant on Putin /XI Jinping to me has always seemed wrong)

 

[jonathan.agnew]

A bit of misunderstanding I think, globalisation isn't so much about large units, it's more about dependancies on distant and very different units. China is huge but is turning against the dependancies of globalisation.

Europe is also large so can similarly operate an isolationist policy but still be strong due to its size, and since we are also in Europe we can be a part of their isolationism. That's why I regularly preach that Europe should detach from the USA and isolate them.

The globalised relationship we've had with the USA hasn't made us in Britain richer or the world more peaceful. It has impoverished us as they've used us to make themselves richer and support their unnecessary wars while selling us unnecessary and useless war weapons like Polaris, Trident and B35b planes.

Would we have built two £13 billion aircraft carriers equipped with £100 million each B35b if we had no relationship with the USA?

No of course not.

Nor would we have been involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at huge financial and human cost.

Nor the Korean war 72 years ago and all the intervening conflicts.

Without globalisation we might also have had a large motor industry as South Korea showed. Their government right at the outset sensibly banned all car imports, making it possible, indeed necessary, for Hyundai, followed by their other car companies, to flourish and perfect product in their home market without competition.

Now ironically they are globalised world beaters, but that will only better them while the big powers allow it. There will come the day when they too rue globalisation.
.

Don't think its fair to assume isolationism and nationalism are one of same. Europe is becoming much more isolated, and perhaps should do to avoid dependance on China, but that shouldn't mean an automatic resurgence of Nationalism.
UK, probably all countries, should steer towards isolation, ie self sufficient, in as many areas as possible. Russia/Ukraine has demonstrated one reason why. Had Germany had more isolationist policies its dependance on Russian gas would never have arisen. That shouldn't and doesn't infer anyone wanting that has nationalistic desires.
To my mind Nationalism assumes a superior view of your own nation. Isolationism simply means a desire for succusful isolation from outside events and dependance on as few other countries as possible, especially those led by authoritian dictators with completely alien attitudes to our own. (Being dependant on Putin /XI Jinping to me has always seemed wrong)

Globalisation is complex and not unambiguous (the third world hasn't benefited much, but perhaps more than the aggrieved let on). However, here's a few counterarguments. It's that most interdependent global of organisations thats defeating putin (NATO). Without it we may have had a trumpian us washing it's hands, a very deep **** scenario for Europe, uk.
South Korea is a very good advert for globalisation. The EU has decided to match biden's green subsidies in similar grants to eu electric car manufacturers (to stop them relocating to us). Soon we'll have cheap ev's, also in a sense as a result of open (us eu trade for example) economies

 

[Woosh]

He won't go away no matter how many wishes you make Woosh. That 87 seat majority will plague us for generations.

Johnson's time has passed, he knows that by the number of MPs supporting his candidacy (102). Sunak helps the tories reduce the deficit but that won't be enough to beat Starmer who is steering Labour to victory.

 

[Zlatan]

Globalisation is complex and not unambiguous (the third world hasn't benefited much, but perhaps more than the aggrieved let on). However, here's a few counterarguments. It's that most interdependent global of organisations thats defeating putin (NATO). Without it we may have had a trumpian us washing it's hands, a very deep **** scenario for Europe, uk.
South Korea is a very good advert for globalisation. The EU has decided to match biden's green subsidies in similar grants to eu electric car manufacturers (to stop them relocating to us). Soon we'll have cheap ev's, also in a sense as a result of open (us eu trade for example) economies

Agreed, there are benefits to globalisation, and yes we, ve all benefited, with all sorts of things from cheap goods to expensive holidays. Not sure isolation policies would mean cooperation and alliances would have to decline. UK being food or power independant wouldn't mean we would no longer help attacked countries, probably it would make it easier. Europe and or its individual countries really should be independently capable of defending themselves, that would surely mean we, d be in better positions to make decisions and supply help as we have with Ukraine recently.
Does isolation and self reliant have to mean selfish? I dont think so.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Agreed, there are benefits to globalisation, and yes we, ve all benefited, with all sorts of things from cheap goods to expensive holidays. Not sure isolation policies would mean cooperation and alliances would have to decline. UK being food or power independant wouldn't mean we would no longer help attacked countries, probably it would make it easier. Europe and or its individual countries really should be independently capable of defending themselves, that would surely mean we, d be in better positions to make decisions and supply help as we have with Ukraine recently.
Does isolation and self reliant have to mean selfish? I dont think so.

interdependence is key to a green energy revolution - we import nuclear from France, export wind surplus when it blows (like Scotland, once we have enough) to other countries. to me the whole issue of national identity, boundaries are spurious. the kind of thing opportunistic manipulators like boris or trump or putin use to foment war. id rather not live in a world where our identities are based on arbitrary geographical boundaries and rather on other qualities (what we do, how we contribute). the eu were expanding, russia may not have liked that. but i did - it created a very large space not defined by national boundaries in which a citizen could move freely living lives dictated by what they do, what they need - not arbitrary boundaries some fascist creep try to use to get them to fight a war against other equally manipulated sods living within other arbitrary geographical boundaries.

 

[Zlatan]

interdependence is key to a green energy revolution - we import nuclear from France, export wind surplus when it blows (like Scotland, once we have enough) to other countries. to me the whole issue of national identity, boundaries are spurious. the kind of thing opportunistic manipulators like boris or trump or putin use to foment war. id rather not live in a world where our identities are based on arbitrary geographical boundaries and rather on other qualities (what we do, how we contribute). the eu were expanding, russia may not have liked that. but i did - it created a very large space not defined by national boundaries in which a citizen could move freely living lives dictated by what they do, what they need - not arbitrary boundaries some fascist creep try to use to get them to fight a war against other equally manipulated sods living within other arbitrary geographical boundaries.

Again, I agree with that but as in all things there is a compromise. No countries could possibly be totally self reliant, probably on any front. However, looking throughout Europe as a whole it probably represents the least self reliant group on the planet. Norway is the least self reliant in the world with Argentina being the most.
Working towards more self reliance and close cooperation on issues that bernefit from close relations is surely way more beneficial than becoming dependant on essentially corrupt and or brutal dictatorships.
Why on earth did so much of Europe become almost utterly reliant on Russia? Why is so much of World dependant on goods from China. Its senseless and short sighted at best and catastroohic for our freedoms at worst.
Yes, by all means buy Putins gas but don't rely on it. We really all should be energy self reliant,and that includes not relying on China supplying majority of every piece of technical equipment needed to achieve zero carbon. (how many heat pumps, wind turbine parts, lithium batteries, etc etc arr sourced from China?)
We have been sleep walking into catastrophe for years. (not just UK, probably all Western developed countries)
Is that process globalisation or is it China/Russia taking advantage of our warped view of it?