New Prime Minister

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Brenden » 16 July 2016, 07:26

Derek wrote:Abolishing the Department for Energy and Climate Change? Is that as bad as it sounds?

Yes, and it's really sad, because the UK renewable energy sector had been growing quite healthily, 325% between 2003 and 2013.

May's government, whether cut short or until 2020, will probably see a huge hit to the sector and a massive, swift increase in hydraulic fracturing.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
+1s received: 1603
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 16 July 2016, 17:24

1. strong leadership, 2.unite the people, 3. get the country sorted out instead of playing about, 4. rebuild our armed forces along with the NHS and Po!ice and Fire Service, 5 . do what they say not dance around the issues with fancy jargon, 6. get article 50 going , 7. Stop picking on the disabled and sick nothing big about that,8 . let's make put the Great back into Britain. 9. Vote for Ironsky it would be non stop partying for five years :applause: :rofl: :thumbsup:
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 16 July 2016, 17:26

I bet you're a big fan of groups like Britain First. You read the Daily Mail or the Sun, I'd bet on that too
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6272
+1s received: 1178
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 16 July 2016, 17:32

Marmaduke wrote:I bet you're a big fan of groups like Britain First. You read the Daily Mail or the Sun, I'd bet on that too
;)
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 16 July 2016, 18:33

Marmaduke wrote:I bet you're a big fan of groups like Britain First. You read the Daily Mail or the Sun, I'd bet on that too
LOL never voted for any far right party in my life! O' wait served in the Army for ten years been in Iraq , help out at local food bank , helped ex servicemen off the streets yeah very far right that never brought the crap newspaper Daily Fail I mean Mail so mate what have you done by been a key board warrior ?
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Jacketh » 16 July 2016, 19:25

Ironsky3 wrote:1. strong leadership, 2.unite the people, 3. get the country sorted out instead of playing about, 4. rebuild our armed forces along with the NHS and Po!ice and Fire Service, 5 . do what they say not dance around the issues with fancy jargon, 6. get article 50 going , 7. Stop picking on the disabled and sick nothing big about that,8 . let's make put the Great back into Britain. 9. Vote for Ironsky it would be non stop partying for five years :applause: :rofl: :thumbsup:



What exactly is "strong leadership?", one of the reason's people did not want to vote Ed Miliband was because of his character and how wasn't perceived strong. I wasn't a fan of a lot of his policies, but point 7 certainly wouldn't have happened as much, and ludicrous policies like the bedroom tax wouldn't have been introduced :shrug: I think one of the problems with politics almost universally is that if a party can get someone with some charisma, who can spin really well - Think Cameron, Obama, Blair, even someone like Trudeau, then they're ahead of the game. People don't really think about the policies as much as they should, which, is kinda illustrated by all the attacks on Ed mainly targeting him as a person. What does the image of one eating a bacon sandwich really have to do with how good of a PM they'll be? Absolutely nothing. But The Sun rolling with that image clearly helped Cameron.

What do you think is achieved by "rebuilding" our armed forces?
User avatar
Jacketh
 
Posts: 541
+1s received: 271
Joined: 30 January 2015, 00:12
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 16 July 2016, 19:29

Jacketh wrote:What exactly is "strong leadership?"


Being a top. :cool:
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8031
+1s received: 1734
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Severelius » 16 July 2016, 19:33

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Jacketh wrote:What exactly is "strong leadership?"


Being a top. :cool:

Or a very dominant power bottom.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2879
+1s received: 225
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: Virgin Islands (British) (vg)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 16 July 2016, 19:47

Severelius wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Jacketh wrote:What exactly is "strong leadership?"


Being a top. :cool:

Or a very dominant power bottom.

That's like a cat trying to be a lion.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8031
+1s received: 1734
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What do expect in a leader?

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 16 July 2016, 20:46

Jacketh wrote:
Ironsky3 wrote:1. strong leadership, 2.unite the people, 3. get the country sorted out instead of playing about, 4. rebuild our armed forces along with the NHS and Po!ice and Fire Service, 5 . do what they say not dance around the issues with fancy jargon, 6. get article 50 going , 7. Stop picking on the disabled and sick nothing big about that,8 . let's make put the Great back into Britain. 9. Vote for Ironsky it would be non stop partying for five years :applause: :rofl: :thumbsup:



What exactly is "strong leadership?", one of the reason's people did not want to vote Ed Miliband was because of his character and how wasn't perceived strong. I wasn't a fan of a lot of his policies, but point 7 certainly wouldn't have happened as much, and ludicrous policies like the bedroom tax wouldn't have been introduced :shrug: I think one of the problems with politics almost universally is that if a party can get someone with some charisma, who can spin really well - Think Cameron, Obama, Blair, even someone like Trudeau, then they're ahead of the game. People don't really think about the policies as much as they should, which, is kinda illustrated by all the attacks on Ed mainly targeting him as a person. What does the image of one eating a bacon sandwich really have to do with how good of a PM they'll be? Absolutely nothing. But The Sun rolling with that image clearly helped Cameron.

What do you think is achieved by "rebuilding" our armed forces?
strong leadership is someone who puts the national interest first, Cameron was weak proven by the fact he jumped ship when the vote didn't go his way. He could have carried on if he so wished he won the general election did he not? But instead we have an unelected Prime Minster whos track record is at least questionable we will see if the party faithful were wise. By rebuilding our Armed Forces it creates employment not just in the Forces but also other industries benefit someone got to make the guns and so on dont take Putin lightly and IS is still around.The media have more political influence than one might think over the electorate I remember the ' Sun' had on its front page many years ago during a general election ' Vote Labour' that's what the electorate voted for plus helped along with other newspapers as Major's government never recovered from ' Black Friday' . Now we have social media every politicians speech's or movements are record like never before. The last Labour government started the ball rolling on the disabled and sick it was them who brought in Employment and Support Allowance in abide to save money on Welfare granted this government has made things worse on a already failed project I doubt Miliband would have done much better in fact I wrote to him about ESA I got a off cluff answer back DLA would have gone in the end even as far back as Labour's Blair days they were moves to get rid of DLA but got stopped in his tracks. Cameron got away with it due to crash of 2008 it give the government the excuse they needed and the media played along just fine. The Bedroom Tax who knows if Labour had a similar policy unlikely but MPs when in power move in mysterious ways.
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 16 July 2016, 22:19

I would just like to clarify that I did not mean to infer that you would vote for Britain First. Even Britain First supporters aren't that stupid, it's not an insult I'd level at anyone. No, mine was more a reference to the slightly empty idealist thinking that often also pops up when said supporters lead into their over-use of the sentence "let's make Britain Great again"

We should probably acknowledge the context in which you presented your list of qualities, it started as a separate thread titled along the lines of qualities you think are required from a good prime minister/leader. Thought I'd clarify just in case others thought you were just rambling.

To address your points;

1. Is there anyone advocating the election of weak leaders? This seems a bit of a generally accepted requirement for the role.

2. Again, democratically speaking, there aren't crowds marching for the election of politicians running on a platform of "let's fracture society"

3. What sort of "playing about" are you talking about? Because every time I see this argument presented, it's generally backed up with something along the lines of "they need to stop spending so much time discussing stuff in parliament and just do stuff". The reason stuff is discussed in parliament is because your ideas of what's wrong with this country would likely differ from mine and we have likely elected differing representatives to parliament to speak for us. These discussions are the democratic process which best ensures that everyone is fairly considered and represented before the government takes action. I, for one, would not support you in what appears to be your desire for an erosion of democratic process.

4. I'll address the rebuilding armed forces thing separately. But, contrary to my previous positions on the matter - which were admittedly biased - I don't think the Police service in this country requires more money. There certainly wouldn't be any cuts either, there just needs to be a root and stem restructuring of how the service is run, administrated and held to account. It wastes far too much money and is run by people without the necessary qualifications to manage such budgets and complex organisations. It also needs to be unified, a-la-Police Scotland. We don't need so many regional forces replicating spending and creating costs through inconsistent approaches. The NHS already has a massive budget and again would benefit more from greater scrutiny over it wasting money than looking to find any amount of money that would be large enough for it to find a significant help. What healthcare does desperately require is the ambulance service being separated from NHS trusts and designated an emergency service in its own right under law, like Police and Fire Sevices, and given its own budget. Currently, surprising though it may seem, Ambulance services are not designated emergency services but "essential services" and so are not funded from central government and rather forced upon local NHS trusts to fund and administrate. That needs to change. The Fire service finds itself in a quite grey area. Yes, none of them actually own any assets such as fire engines and stations are closing, but on the other hand they aren't missing performance targets and demands on them are on the decline. It remains to be seen as to whether giving them more money is the best thing.

5. Again, quite a lot of politicians at least try and do what they say, but it's the nature of politics that sometimes they will fail. Not everyone can deliver on all their goals, that's not how democracy works.

6. Invoking article 50 now, before the country has actually sat down, established a department to deal with the negotiations and figure out exactly what the UK needs, what it wants and what the process means for us exactly would be suicide. It would legitimately destroy the country. It's the opposite of making Britain great again. Delaying invoking article 50 is not a conspiracy theory to stop us ever leaving. It's a political necessity. It'll be a couple of years before we're ready to send the forms in and start the clock and in an ideal world, we want to be in a position to negotiate and conclude our exit long before the two year deadline before we start said countdown.

7. Nobody is picking on the welfare system to "look big". A number of questionable economic decisions have been taken, but it remains to be seen as to whether they were the best decisions that could've been made. These decisions are made because people believe they're necessary, not just to pick on those less fortunate.

8. Nothing you have suggested would put the great back into Great Britain. Whatever the fuck that means anyway, like we're some terrible failed state of a country.

9. Whilst I may consider voting for you as leader of a pub crawl, I don't feel political office would suit you.

Vis-a-vis the military, I find myself of the opinion that it doesn't need to have numbers increased. Money needs to be spent ensuring soldiers have reliable, correctly functioning equipment that is the best available on the market and that would likely necessitate relatively minor but long-term budget increases, but with the military at its current size such increases are a lot more achievable. Yes, the military does play an important role as a job creator, educator and career for many people and their families. But it does also have a lot of failings that need to be put right at its current size before increasing numbers should even be considered. An example of which is the appallingly high percentage of homeless people that are ex-forces personel and became homeless as a result of leaving the military. They are routinely failed by a system that builds them into brilliant and productive membes of an armed service, it deliberately and necessarily institutionalises them and then wholly fails to prepare them for life after, or support them during the transition between two starkly different ways of living. That needs to be dealt with.

Ultimately, as a country, it's very much debatable as to whether increases in military numbers are necessary. Our overseas combat deployments are increasingly hand-in-hand with NATO and the US and we can currently provide a valuable role in such collaborative approaches. There is very little in the way of reasonable arguments for a force returning to hundreds of thousands strong because we never have cause to act alone anymore. Yes, it does remain the biggest single consumer in British industry via total MOD procurement but that's not to say that an increase in size is the best use of funding for British economy. Ultimately, I think I'd be opposed to further military spending in the UK were Theresa to announce tomorrow that that was her plan. The money can be much better purposed elsewhere.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6272
+1s received: 1178
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Jacketh » 17 July 2016, 02:32

Vote Marmaduke.
User avatar
Jacketh
 
Posts: 541
+1s received: 271
Joined: 30 January 2015, 00:12
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 17 July 2016, 07:43

Jacketh wrote:Vote Marmaduke.

:jihad:
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 17 July 2016, 07:47

Marmaduke wrote:I would just like to clarify that I did not mean to infer that you would vote for Britain First. Even Britain First supporters aren't that stupid, it's not an insult I'd level at anyone. No, mine was more a reference to the slightly empty idealist thinking that often also pops up when said supporters lead into their over-use of the sentence "let's make Britain Great again"

We should probably acknowledge the context in which you presented your list of qualities, it started as a separate thread titled along the lines of qualities you think are required from a good prime minister/leader. Thought I'd clarify just in case others thought you were just rambling.

To address your points;

1. Is there anyone advocating the election of weak leaders? This seems a bit of a generally accepted requirement for the role.

2. Again, democratically speaking, there aren't crowds marching for the election of politicians running on a platform of "let's fracture society"

3. What sort of "playing about" are you talking about? Because every time I see this argument presented, it's generally backed up with something along the lines of "they need to stop spending so much time discussing stuff in parliament and just do stuff". The reason stuff is discussed in parliament is because your ideas of what's wrong with this country would likely differ from mine and we have likely elected differing representatives to parliament to speak for us. These discussions are the democratic process which best ensures that everyone is fairly considered and represented before the government takes action. I, for one, would not support you in what appears to be your desire for an erosion of democratic process.

4. I'll address the rebuilding armed forces thing separately. But, contrary to my previous positions on the matter - which were admittedly biased - I don't think the Police service in this country requires more money. There certainly wouldn't be any cuts either, there just needs to be a root and stem restructuring of how the service is run, administrated and held to account. It wastes far too much money and is run by people without the necessary qualifications to manage such budgets and complex organisations. It also needs to be unified, a-la-Police Scotland. We don't need so many regional forces replicating spending and creating costs through inconsistent approaches. The NHS already has a massive budget and again would benefit more from greater scrutiny over it wasting money than looking to find any amount of money that would be large enough for it to find a significant help. What healthcare does desperately require is the ambulance service being separated from NHS trusts and designated an emergency service in its own right under law, like Police and Fire Sevices, and given its own budget. Currently, surprising though it may seem, Ambulance services are not designated emergency services but "essential services" and so are not funded from central government and rather forced upon local NHS trusts to fund and administrate. That needs to change. The Fire service finds itself in a quite grey area. Yes, none of them actually own any assets such as fire engines and stations are closing, but on the other hand they aren't missing performance targets and demands on them are on the decline. It remains to be seen as to whether giving them more money is the best thing.

5. Again, quite a lot of politicians at least try and do what they say, but it's the nature of politics that sometimes they will fail. Not everyone can deliver on all their goals, that's not how democracy works.

6. Invoking article 50 now, before the country has actually sat down, established a department to deal with the negotiations and figure out exactly what the UK needs, what it wants and what the process means for us exactly would be suicide. It would legitimately destroy the country. It's the opposite of making Britain great again. Delaying invoking article 50 is not a conspiracy theory to stop us ever leaving. It's a political necessity. It'll be a couple of years before we're ready to send the forms in and start the clock and in an ideal world, we want to be in a position to negotiate and conclude our exit long before the two year deadline before we start said countdown.

7. Nobody is picking on the welfare system to "look big". A number of questionable economic decisions have been taken, but it remains to be seen as to whether they were the best decisions that could've been made. These decisions are made because people believe they're necessary, not just to pick on those less fortunate.

8. Nothing you have suggested would put the great back into Great Britain. Whatever the fuck that means anyway, like we're some terrible failed state of a country.

9. Whilst I may consider voting for you as leader of a pub crawl, I don't feel political office would suit you.

Vis-a-vis the military, I find myself of the opinion that it doesn't need to have numbers increased. Money needs to be spent ensuring soldiers have reliable, correctly functioning equipment that is the best available on the market and that would likely necessitate relatively minor but long-term budget increases, but with the military at its current size such increases are a lot more achievable. Yes, the military does play an important role as a job creator, educator and career for many people and their families. But it does also have a lot of failings that need to be put right at its current size before increasing numbers should even be considered. An example of which is the appallingly high percentage of homeless people that are ex-forces personel and became homeless as a result of leaving the military. They are routinely failed by a system that builds them into brilliant and productive membes of an armed service, it deliberately and necessarily institutionalises them and then wholly fails to prepare them for life after, or support them during the transition between two starkly different ways of living. That needs to be dealt with.

Ultimately, as a country, it's very much debatable as to whether increases in military numbers are necessary. Our overseas combat deployments are increasingly hand-in-hand with NATO and the US and we can currently provide a valuable role in such collaborative approaches. There is very little in the way of reasonable arguments for a force returning to hundreds of thousands strong because we never have cause to act alone anymore. Yes, it does remain the biggest single consumer in British industry via total MOD procurement but that's not to say that an increase in size is the best use of funding for British economy. Ultimately, I think I'd be opposed to further military spending in the UK were Theresa to announce tomorrow that that was her plan. The money can be much better purposed elsewhere.

Yeah yeah and in the meantime we still have people losing their jobs and homes and going to the local food banks.
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 17 July 2016, 09:42

And you think the best way forward for the country is not to invest in other, more nationality beneficial means of employing these people but instead force them all to join the army? I'm unclear as to what your point is.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6272
+1s received: 1178
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 26 July 2016, 15:48

Marmaduke wrote:And you think the best way forward for the country is not to invest in other, more nationality beneficial means of employing these people but instead force them all to join the army? I'm unclear as to what your point is.

Investment is always welcome my dear Marmaduke with investment comes jobs. No one is suggesting by you of course :lol: we bring back national service but job creation is possible by the armed forces not just in combat roles.
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Jack Spears » 27 July 2016, 11:44

Out of all the candidates within the conservative party, Theresa May seemed/seems to be the only GOOD option. The conservatives have never really been big on climate change, which saddens me as it's one of the most important issues we face as a race. But hey ho, can't have everything..
◕ ◡ ◕
Britney Spears
◕ ◡ ◕
User avatar
Jack Spears
 
Posts: 173
+1s received: 3
Joined: 21 March 2016, 23:06
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Frigid » 1 August 2016, 20:11

We're fucked one way or another.
User avatar
Frigid
 
Posts: 1383
+1s received: 120
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:23

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby René » 1 August 2016, 20:28

Image
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4656
+1s received: 1142
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: AvesVower, CommonCrawl [Bot] and 106 guests