The Politics Thread 2020

[I am Rod Hull]

Lets have a bit of Yuri Bezmenov. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 October 2020 by I am Rod Hull

[ealingfox]

On 06/10/2020 at 16:36, Kopfkino said:

"There is no harm in being wrong - especially if one is promptly found out"(okay you can argue for harm and that it hasn't been prompt, but it's the idea behind the quote rather than the specifics in this case) and "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions". For sure, there's an issue that he was wrong previously and the possible damage that has done. But I don't see much value in holding past expressions against people, if they're now of a different opinion. We should value people changing their mind for the better rather than talk about them being wrong prior.

 

Forgive me for assuming, but you seem like the type of person that supports rehabilitation of offenders, that you'd judge a prisoner on their actions after rehabilitation rather than because of what they did to end up there in the first place. So why doesn't that extend to ideas or positions on wind farms?

 

I don't see what relevance it has tbh, although it's telling that your first thought for an analogy relating to Johnson was convicted criminals. I see no value in getting bogged down in it, but your assumption is simplistic. I don't necessarily disagree with life without parole or even the death penalty, if and only if the cap fits - Anders Breivik type stuff.

 

The difference I would say splits mainly into the fact that rehabilitated criminals aren't generally rewarded for their misdeeds as Johnson has been, and they especially aren't handed top government jobs that they aren't qualified for or deserving of, and that I have little confidence that either of Johnson's arguments and positions are made in good faith. I would wager he was twerking for the industrialist big-business Tory lobby in the first instance - in fact you could even argue there's a proto-Brexity air to it. This post-epiphany position, well the jury's out on whether there's anything genuine about it. Would it really be a shock if he was just saying it because he's twerking for a shifted public opinion and has no real intention of following up on it?

 

Don't get me wrong, the latter position is a vast improvement and it's an encouraging development. I just wish people would remember things like this the next time Johnson and his ilk are sneeringly dismissing something.

Edited 8 October 2020 by ealingfox

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54455112

 

So Huawei are (obviously) fibbing about taking work on the side for the Chinese government, but it doesn't present a bona fide national security threat to the UK at this time. Proceed with caution being the general message.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54455112

 

So Huawei are (obviously) fibbing about taking work on the side for the Chinese government, but it doesn't present a bona fide national security threat to the UK at this time. Proceed with caution being the general message.

Letting Huawei anywhere near our infrastructure is a terrible idea.  Spend the money with our allies.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Letting Huawei anywhere near our infrastructure is a terrible idea.  Spend the money with our allies.

...when there's a better government in the White House and in Congress, maybe.

 

And while/as the US tech companies aren't beholden to the government in the same way Huawei is, where's the accountability for them when it comes to infrastructure reliability, too?

 

I don't know, perhaps there's an Aussie or Scandinavian tech company the UK might be able to tap up that can actually be relied upon as they have less skin in the geopolitical game.

[Nalis]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...when there's a better government in the White House and in Congress, maybe.

 

And while/as the US tech companies aren't beholden to the government in the same way Huawei is, where's the accountability for them when it comes to infrastructure reliability, too?

 

I don't know, perhaps there's an Aussie or Scandinavian tech company the UK might be able to tap up that can actually be relied upon as they have less skin in the geopolitical game.

Think Nokia have won a 5G contract with BT / EE that was originally Huawei instead.

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...when there's a better government in the White House and in Congress, maybe.

 

And while/as the US tech companies aren't beholden to the government in the same way Huawei is, where's the accountability for them when it comes to infrastructure reliability, too?

 

I don't know, perhaps there's an Aussie or Scandinavian tech company the UK might be able to tap up that can actually be relied upon as they have less skin in the geopolitical game.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government, even the present one, presents in any way an even vaguely similar risk to our national security as China?  Are you mad?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government, even the present one, presents in any way an even vaguely similar risk to our national security as China?  Are you mad?

I'm suggesting that the present US government - and likely the next one, tbh - will demand their price for such vital infrastructure projects, and as such the UK might be better shopping around for a client that isn't driven by geopolitical self-interest in a way that threatens "national security" (the Chinese) or has the UK assuming the poodle role once again (the US).

Edited 8 October 2020 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm suggesting that the present US government - and likely the next one, tbh - will demand their price for such vital infrastructure projects, and as such the UK might be better shopping around for a client that isn't driven by geopolitical self-interest in a way that threatens "national security" (the Chinese) or has the UK assuming the poodle role once again (the US).

Go nokia then!

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Go nokia then!

Certainly onboard with that.

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Go nokia then!

We have. 

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

We have. 

I didn't write that very clearly did I?  I mean like:

 

Go Nokia! It's your birthday!  Gonna party like it's your birthday! Gonna install billions of pounds of infrastructure like it's your birthday" and we don't give a **** cos your not Huawei!

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I didn't write that very clearly did I?  I mean like:

 

Go Nokia! It's your birthday!  Gonna party like it's your birthday! Gonna install billions of pounds of infrastructure like it's your birthday" and we don't give a **** cos your not Huawei!

That makes more sense. 

 

End result should be use the best for the job, but I'm quite alright avoiding Chinese firms at the minute. Even beyond the "national security" concerns they're doing enough dodgy shit re muslims and HKers and messing around in the sea that we should be actively looking to be less reliant on their businesses. 

[Nalis]

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

That makes more sense. 

 

End result should be use the best for the job, but I'm quite alright avoiding Chinese firms at the minute. Even beyond the "national security" concerns they're doing enough dodgy shit re muslims and HKers and messing around in the sea that we should be actively looking to be less reliant on their businesses. 

I'm kind of the same. Although other superpowers arent exactly squeaky clean the others are the lesser of the evils, probably a sad indictment of the world really.

Edited 8 October 2020 by Nalis

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Nalis said:

I'm kind of the same. Although other superpowers arent exactly squeaking clean the others are the lesser of the evils, probably a sad indictment of the world really.

That's why it's better to not go with any of them if it's at all possible, IMO.

[bovril]

On 07/10/2020 at 19:24, I am Rod Hull said:

Lets have a bit of Yuri Bezmenov. 

 

 

 

 

Now I understand why you respond to so many posts with a laughing emoji. 

[Bob Farley]

On 08/10/2020 at 15:09, leicsmac said:

That's why it's better to not go with any of them if it's at all possible, IMO.

I’m not all the clued up on it but why couldn’t a British company do it, even if it costs more money at least it helps the UK economy?

[fuchsntf]

On 08/10/2020 at 15:16, Jon the Hat said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government, even the present one, presents in any way an even vaguely similar risk to our national security as China?  Are you mad?

Its like    McDonalds vs  Local Chinese take-aways.....innit

[Leicester_Loyal]

Absolute disgrace that MPs are getting a pay rise at the minute, if they had anything about them they'd donate the extra money to charity or a good cause.

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Absolute disgrace that MPs are getting a pay rise at the minute, if they had anything about them they'd donate the extra money to charity or a good cause.

 

MPs in self-serving behaviour shock...

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

MPs in self-serving behaviour shock...

They didn't vote for it themselves nor decide on the amount to be fair, but it would be nice if they decided to give the extra 3k or so away, but we'll see what happens.

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They didn't vote for it themselves nor decide on the amount to be fair, but it would be nice if they decided to give the extra 3k or so away, but we'll see what happens.

 

Don't hold your breath - Bozo is already bleating that he can't manage on his PM's salary. He can't even afford a nanny to look after his latest sprog.

[StanSP]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Don't hold your breath - Bozo is already bleating that he can't manage on his PM's salary. He can't even afford a nanny to look after his latest sprog.

What is the PM's salary just out of interest? 

Edited 10 October 2020 by StanSP

[Buce]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What is the PM's salary just out of interest? 

 

According to Wiki, he gets a basic MP's salary of circa £81,000, plus a similar amount for his additional duties as PM. Various other allowances for staff, accomodation etc.

 

Poor chap.

[Kopfkino]

25 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What is the PM's salary just out of interest? 

 

Around 155k i think. You know he even has to pay for his own food, poor soul