Is there any chance that, in the current changing world, Akrotiri may become untenable?
It will probably become unaffordable at some point. It's a very expensive facility and has only survived this long due to our three decade long national obsession with improving the Middle East by bombing it.
Also, if this 'new' party is basically so close in policy terms as to be utterly the same as the lib dems, why not just re-brand the lib dems and use that party structure?
Perhaps because there needs to be a new vehicle for disaffected Tory and Labour MPs to defect to. They are not going to defect to Vince Cable's tired old LibDems. The reality is that centrist Labour MPs and Conservative MPs have more in common with each other than they do with Momentum and ERG. It all seems very unlikely under our FPTP system, but those of us of a centrist nature can but hope.
Yeah, but there's only 12 lib dems.
Let say, you got 10 Tories, and 10 Labour. They would be sigif more than the current lib dem party. So why no just merge all into one, have 32 MPs, which is a good base and go from there. Get a new leader from that group, re-brand, with a new name.
Policywise there would be very very little difference between whatver a new party would be and the current lib dems. Is it pride which would stop the lib dems signing up for that?
Objectively, you'd get some who would and some who wouldn't - the LibDems were quite controversial among the Liberals, which is why the Liberal splinter emerged. I think you'd find that some significant LibDems objected to one or more of the potential centrist defectors and you'd end up with two rival centrist parties, the New Moderates and the rump LibDems. That would get sorted out in the ensuing election as one would beat the other in most places, but it would be a drag on their chances of getting enough seats under FPTP to be a significant force thereafter.
I really do think the current climate needs PR - it's geared to two parties in an age when most people don't identify closely with either. But we aren't going to get it any time soon. The centrist calculation is therefore that either (a) their leadership will prove better than expected and will do enough good stuff to count as positive (Anna Soubry and JRM do agree on *some* things, as do John McDonnell and John Mann) or (b) it will get defeated and the opportunity will then arise to swing the pendulum back. These calculations may not be probable, but still a better bet than a new party.
We need PR now like we need a massive hole in the head.
FPTP is the only thing keeping English Nationalist, Freedom for Britain or god knows whatever else from getting seats.
And I speak as someone who had supported PR for years until recently.
I think a few hard right seats would be a price worth paying for a more representative parliament and and end to the majority of voters feeling their vote is pointless because they live in a safe seat.
I was being serious. The opposite of populism int being unpopular. It is telling the electorate difficult truths and looking like a grown up politician, rather than offering simplistic (non-)solutions. The 2017 manifesto was attempting to do this.
Heck, I almost sounded like a Tory there!
Not used to serious in these parts. Yes, there were bits like that in there. And they won't make that mistake again!
When you say 'crabs,' do you mean they spend their time paddling around in pools looking for red crustaceans, or do they spend their time dipping in and out in another sense entirely?
Let's have an Akrotiri war story...
During my time on exchange with 4FTS when the weather was bad in Wales (ie most of the time) we occasionally had to move entire Hawk courses to Akrotiri to get them finished on schedule. In a four week stay one of my students got three different STDs, had his front teeth knocked out by picking a fight he couldn't win with a USAF Lieutenant and finished top of the course. He swallowed and then shit out one of his teeth, retrieved it from the pan and took it to some drunk Cypriot dentist to demand its reinstallation. This individual is now a B777 training captain for a prominent Middle East airline.
Honestly, rather than populism a better word is idiocracy.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
It's a simple fact that UKIP voters, and Trump supporters are just substantially less intelligent than the populace as a whole. The mistake we made was in allowing the dangerously and terminally thick to form a bloc.
The reason we struggle to counter them is that it actually causes us physical pain to think down to their level. My brain just doesn't want to operate at such a restricted intellectual capacity to think like a UKIP voter.
MUSLIM BAD IMMAHGRUNTS GRRR QUEERS BLACKS GRRRR ANGERY
You are mistaken. It is actually "Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the 1%".
Who amongst us expects Trumpism Corbynism to benefit the general population anything like as much as it will benefit and protect the wealth of the very rich?
Fixed it for you...
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks, while cackling evilly...*
I can understand why you might think Corbynism will not help the general population but why on earth might you think it will help the 1% ?
If it were likely to, the DM and Sun etc. would unexpectedly decide it's time to give Jez a try.
Honestly, rather than populism a better word is idiocracy.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
It's a simple fact that UKIP voters, and Trump supporters are just substantially less intelligent than the populace as a whole. The mistake we made was in allowing the dangerously and terminally thick to form a bloc.
The reason we struggle to counter them is that it actually causes us physical pain to think down to their level. My brain just doesn't want to operate at such a restricted intellectual capacity to think like a UKIP voter.
MUSLIM BAD IMMAHGRUNTS GRRR QUEERS BLACKS GRRRR ANGERY
You are mistaken. It is actually "Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the 1%".
Who amongst us expects Trumpism Corbynism to benefit the general population anything like as much as it will benefit and protect the wealth of the very rich?
Fixed it for you...
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks, while cackling evilly...*
I can understand why you might think Corbynism will not help the general population but why on earth might you think it will help the 1% ?
If it were likely to, the DM and Sun etc. would unexpectedly decide it's time to give Jez a try.
@Benpointer Because his programme would be paid for (after his sums had not worked out as expected) by huge increases in borrowing.
Borrowing is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, via the very high interest payments he would have to meet.
So anyone with money to spare invested in financial institutions would be helped, and everyone else would be screwed over either through higher taxes or inflation caused by printing money.
If the latter, those people with tangible surplus assets would also prosper.
Again, Chavez is a good example. Venezuela has a handful of billionaires, and the rest of the people starve.
Honestly, rather than populism a better word is idiocracy.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
It's a simple fact that UKIP voters, and Trump supporters are just substantially less intelligent than the populace as a whole. The mistake we made was in allowing the dangerously and terminally thick to form a bloc.
The reason we struggle to counter them is that it actually causes us physical pain to think down to their level. My brain just doesn't want to operate at such a restricted intellectual capacity to think like a UKIP voter.
MUSLIM BAD IMMAHGRUNTS GRRR QUEERS BLACKS GRRRR ANGERY
You are mistaken. It is actually "Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the 1%".
Who amongst us expects Trumpism to benefit the general population anything like as much as it will benefit and protect the wealth of the very rich?
One does not make the poor richer, purely by making the rich poorer.
You're arguing against something I didn't say.
For the record, I don't think Trump gives a flying f*ck about the poor; he's only interested in making the very rich (especially him and his family) even richer.
The MOD is to sell off RAF Scampton, home of the Red Arrows and the Dambusters. When the former Chief of the Air Staff says this is not a good idea, you would think people might listen. What is a Conservative government for if it isn't Conservative and doesn't govern? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44936234
RAFAT consume prodigious amounts of money and human resources to deliver zero additional defence capability. At least cohabiting them with 100 at Leeming allows them to share engineering and logistics facilities.
They don't actually spend a great deal of time at Scampton anyway. They depart to Akrotiri for pre-season training and to catch crabs in the spring and they are on the road for the summer.
iirc selling RAF Scampton has been on/off for years.
Yeah. They originally closed it back in the late Nineties and moved the Sparrows to Cranwell. They were there while I was doing my Engineer Officer Training. I'd walk to work every morning with the snychro pair practicing over the South Airfield.
You'd be surprised how quickly you can become blase about them doing their "come straight at each other and just miss" routine.
Probably technocracy these days. Historically feudalism or oligarchy maybe?
Technocracy: government by experts vs populism: government by idiots
the great financial crisis was created by people with Oxbridge degrees and Harvard MBAs not blokes in white vans
van drivers would have managed the economy better
How wonderful for Mr. Alanbrooke to provide us with a great example of populist drivel. He may be being ironic perhaps? The removal of the well-educated from positions of power has been tried a few times in history and its level of success has not exactly been overwhelming
then how did the crisis come about ?
do tell.
was it people straight off the unemployment register being placed in running the BoE monetary policy ? was it fork lift truck drivers managing hedge funds ?
putting well educated people in power is no guarantee of anything and never has been.
There are parts of the UK that have different electoral systems that do allow smaller parties to succeed, the Scottish Parliament is a prime example. In its ~20 year recent history it has had a wide range of parties and individuals elected. (In fact during the early 2000s there probably wouldn't have been any Tory MSPs without the "top up" list votes.)
Scottish councils are also elected by single transferable vote, with 16 and 17 year olds allowed to vote.
Surely the time has come to change the voting system for Westminster to a more proportional system, doing nothing will only increase alienation amongst the electorate.
Comments
During my time on exchange with 4FTS when the weather was bad in Wales (ie most of the time) we occasionally had to move entire Hawk courses to Akrotiri to get them finished on schedule. In a four week stay one of my students got three different STDs, had his front teeth knocked out by picking a fight he couldn't win with a USAF Lieutenant and finished top of the course. He swallowed and then shit out one of his teeth, retrieved it from the pan and took it to some drunk Cypriot dentist to demand its reinstallation. This individual is now a B777 training captain for a prominent Middle East airline.
I can understand why you might think Corbynism will not help the general population but why on earth might you think it will help the 1% ?
If it were likely to, the DM and Sun etc. would unexpectedly decide it's time to give Jez a try.
Because his programme would be paid for (after his sums had not worked out as expected) by huge increases in borrowing.
Borrowing is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, via the very high interest payments he would have to meet.
So anyone with money to spare invested in financial institutions would be helped, and everyone else would be screwed over either through higher taxes or inflation caused by printing money.
If the latter, those people with tangible surplus assets would also prosper.
Again, Chavez is a good example. Venezuela has a handful of billionaires, and the rest of the people starve.
And yes - I am, for once, being entirely serious.
For the record, I don't think Trump gives a flying f*ck about the poor; he's only interested in making the very rich (especially him and his family) even richer.
You'd be surprised how quickly you can become blase about them doing their "come straight at each other and just miss" routine.
Scottish councils are also elected by single transferable vote, with 16 and 17 year olds allowed to vote.
Surely the time has come to change the voting system for Westminster to a more proportional system, doing nothing will only increase alienation amongst the electorate.