| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying 09:20 - Oct 1 with 8441 views | redrickstuhaart |
But I thought I would see what Sunak had to say this morning. One of the most rude, dishonest and irritating interviews I have ever seen. Will not answer a single question and keeps talking over her to avoid doing so. Infuriating and utterly disingenuous. |  | | |  |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 12:12 - Oct 2 with 1463 views | Radlett_blue |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 09:40 - Oct 2 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ Is it just me, but why the hell are we spending £4 billion to defend the Indo-Pacific region?”
It creates skilled jobs in the UK (particularly in deprived regions). and associated tax - not just p1ssing money down the drain.
But specifically, there’s a real growing concern (including in my industry) that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could happen in the near future. In fact China only recently conducted war games off their coast. Humanitarian issues aside, if China gets control of their semi conductor industry then we have all sorts of problems. [Post edited 2 Oct 2023 15:29]
|
Britain is a small nation. I don't think it's our job to stand up to China. All we do instead is usually follow the USA into their usually disastrous overseas incursions. |  |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 12:16 - Oct 2 with 1454 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 11:17 - Oct 2 by DJR |
Maybe the despotic regimes will follow in due course, just as they have bought other arms and the like initially developed for British use.
And given your second point, I would imagine China will proceed very carefully. They have, after all, not exactly rushed things since 1949.
But more widely, the new subs seems part of a UK decision, post-Brexit, to position itself towards the Pacific region, but with such small armed forces these days, it does make one think that the country is taking on more than it can chew in a bid to prove the benefits of Brexit. |
Timely - more about the Western withdrawal of capital and manufacturing from China:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/how-china-west-tensions-will-shape-global-market
Some of this is driven by geopolitical factors, but the Chinese regime is also driving this with its interference with foreign firm’s operations - so really push and pull. It looks like their rival India might be the greatest beneficiary. | | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 12:23 - Oct 2 with 1433 views | WeWereZombies |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 11:29 - Oct 2 by soupytwist |
This is an interesting listen for a bit of wider context about China and parts of the world we don't really think about too often (at least I don't) - https://unherd.com/podcasts/the-race-for-the-arctic/
The fact that the Chinese can now use a Northern sea route to get from its east coast to Europe in less than a month was a revelation.
I've no idea what, if any, axe the guest has to grind but I generally trust that Helen Thompson is worth listening to. |
The Northern Sea Route has been opening up for some years now, although with it being mainly under the control of Russia who knows what economic and political implications follow from its expansion. |  |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 13:44 - Oct 2 with 1389 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 11:38 - Oct 2 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
In restrospect, I can see how it read that way - but the anti NATO comment wasn’t aimed at you in particular (I don’t even know your views on that, so would have been quite an assumption). So apologies. |
No worries but, as someone who believes in free speech and proper debate, it seems to me that expressions such as the one you used (or "......" apologist and the like) are designed to in effect close down debate.
Indeed, there is an increasing tendency in the UK to suppress views which do not accord with the prevailing orthodoxy and also for people to abuse people whose views they don't agree with. Some of the comments on TWTD on both the football and general section are certainly evidence of the latter, although I don't include you in this. But all of this to my mind runs counter to the principles of liberal democracy we are supposed to be fighting for in Ukraine.
I have always been someone who treats anything I read or hear with caution or scepticism and I always like to look at the background of anyone I don't know who pens an article because that then explains where they are coming from.
As it is on China, the prevailing orthodoxy has changed in recent years from one that in my view was too favourable to China to one that is now too hostile. Of course I am no expert, but such a change in such a short period of time obviously brings my scepticism into play.
As regards the concept of a prevailing orthodoxy, I always go back to Orwell who in a proposed preface to Animal Farm, which he struggled to find a publisher for because of the pro-Russian orthodoxy at the time, wrote the following.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it ..., . A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
I would give austerity as an example of a recent orthodoxy, and for evidence of inconvenient facts being kept dark, I would give the ethnic cleansing of the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has got virtually no traction. This seems particularly shocking given the past Armenian genocide but the explanation appears to be that the enclave and Armenia are supported by Russia.
I would conclude by saying, for the avoidance of doubt, that I do not believe in conspiracies theory, but I have grave misgivings, as a proponent of free speech, about trying to silence people who express them.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:10]
|  | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 13:57 - Oct 2 with 1367 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 11:41 - Oct 2 by Unhinged_dynamo |
It would interesting to see the graph with upto date costs re fuel and insurance etc |
Yes, I thought that when I posted it. | | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:04 - Oct 2 with 1360 views | blueasfook |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 17:30 - Oct 1 by DJR |
Is it just me, but why the hell are we spending £4 billion to defend the Indo-Pacific region?
"Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, used his conference speech to announce a £4bn investment to advance work on a new class of hunter-killer submarines.
The submarines, which are being developed as part of the Aukus security pact with the US and Australia, will be “the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy, combining world-leading sensors, design and weaponry in one vessel”, the Ministry of Defence said." |
We are also already in the process of delivering the Astute class subs. 5 have been delivered and 2 are still being built. That program began around 2000 and we still have 2 boats to deliver in 2023! Absolute shambles of a program.
These boats are now technologically out-of-date having been designed in the late 90s/early 00s. |  |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:09 - Oct 2 with 1348 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 13:44 - Oct 2 by DJR |
No worries but, as someone who believes in free speech and proper debate, it seems to me that expressions such as the one you used (or "......" apologist and the like) are designed to in effect close down debate.
Indeed, there is an increasing tendency in the UK to suppress views which do not accord with the prevailing orthodoxy and also for people to abuse people whose views they don't agree with. Some of the comments on TWTD on both the football and general section are certainly evidence of the latter, although I don't include you in this. But all of this to my mind runs counter to the principles of liberal democracy we are supposed to be fighting for in Ukraine.
I have always been someone who treats anything I read or hear with caution or scepticism and I always like to look at the background of anyone I don't know who pens an article because that then explains where they are coming from.
As it is on China, the prevailing orthodoxy has changed in recent years from one that in my view was too favourable to China to one that is now too hostile. Of course I am no expert, but such a change in such a short period of time obviously brings my scepticism into play.
As regards the concept of a prevailing orthodoxy, I always go back to Orwell who in a proposed preface to Animal Farm, which he struggled to find a publisher for because of the pro-Russian orthodoxy at the time, wrote the following.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it ..., . A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
I would give austerity as an example of a recent orthodoxy, and for evidence of inconvenient facts being kept dark, I would give the ethnic cleansing of the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has got virtually no traction. This seems particularly shocking given the past Armenian genocide but the explanation appears to be that the enclave and Armenia are supported by Russia.
I would conclude by saying, for the avoidance of doubt, that I do not believe in conspiracies theory, but I have grave misgivings, as a proponent of free speech, about trying to silence people who express them.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:10]
|
All very interesting, but have to say at no point did I use the phrase ‘apologist’.
Would also have to disagree that austerity has been accepted as orthodoxy, perhaps in the tabloids, but the FT and Economist have both argued against starving the economy of public funds. | | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:19 - Oct 2 with 1335 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:09 - Oct 2 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
All very interesting, but have to say at no point did I use the phrase ‘apologist’.
Would also have to disagree that austerity has been accepted as orthodoxy, perhaps in the tabloids, but the FT and Economist have both argued against starving the economy of public funds. |
I didn't say you did, but I was just indicating that the expression you used fell into the same category.
I wasn't aware of the FT and Economist (or many economists) making those sort of arguments in 2010, but if they did they were in a tiny minority and not given much in the way of the oxygen of publicity. It was certainly the case that the whole broadcast media (including the BBC) bought into it. Indeed, even the Labour Party largely bought into it.
Interestingly, the IMF only changed its stance on austerity in 2020: this from an FT article in 2020.
"Most advanced economies that can borrow freely will not need to plan for austerity to restore the health of their public finances after the coronavirus pandemic, the IMF has said in a reversal of its advice a decade ago."
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:32]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:23 - Oct 2 with 1318 views | Darth_Koont |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 13:44 - Oct 2 by DJR |
No worries but, as someone who believes in free speech and proper debate, it seems to me that expressions such as the one you used (or "......" apologist and the like) are designed to in effect close down debate.
Indeed, there is an increasing tendency in the UK to suppress views which do not accord with the prevailing orthodoxy and also for people to abuse people whose views they don't agree with. Some of the comments on TWTD on both the football and general section are certainly evidence of the latter, although I don't include you in this. But all of this to my mind runs counter to the principles of liberal democracy we are supposed to be fighting for in Ukraine.
I have always been someone who treats anything I read or hear with caution or scepticism and I always like to look at the background of anyone I don't know who pens an article because that then explains where they are coming from.
As it is on China, the prevailing orthodoxy has changed in recent years from one that in my view was too favourable to China to one that is now too hostile. Of course I am no expert, but such a change in such a short period of time obviously brings my scepticism into play.
As regards the concept of a prevailing orthodoxy, I always go back to Orwell who in a proposed preface to Animal Farm, which he struggled to find a publisher for because of the pro-Russian orthodoxy at the time, wrote the following.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it ..., . A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
I would give austerity as an example of a recent orthodoxy, and for evidence of inconvenient facts being kept dark, I would give the ethnic cleansing of the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has got virtually no traction. This seems particularly shocking given the past Armenian genocide but the explanation appears to be that the enclave and Armenia are supported by Russia.
I would conclude by saying, for the avoidance of doubt, that I do not believe in conspiracies theory, but I have grave misgivings, as a proponent of free speech, about trying to silence people who express them.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:10]
|
Great post.
As you are perhaps suggesting, there isn’t any conspiracy to the orthodoxy or how it can flip 180 from one moment to the next in true Orwellian fashion. It’s a simple case of economics where there are major incentives to being a weather vane for whatever is being blown around by the government, Westminster, think tanks and the major newspapers and severe disincentives to being one who challenges these narratives and wants to set a different kind of weather instead.
We’ve simply stood by and let our wider society and democracy be run by the powerful — and in their own narrow interests — for too long. That’s not even arguable and yet it’s the type of truthful and useful orthodoxy we won’t see because it’s clearly threatening to take that power away and give it to millions of citizens instead. |  |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:54 - Oct 2 with 1279 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:23 - Oct 2 by Darth_Koont |
Great post.
As you are perhaps suggesting, there isn’t any conspiracy to the orthodoxy or how it can flip 180 from one moment to the next in true Orwellian fashion. It’s a simple case of economics where there are major incentives to being a weather vane for whatever is being blown around by the government, Westminster, think tanks and the major newspapers and severe disincentives to being one who challenges these narratives and wants to set a different kind of weather instead.
We’ve simply stood by and let our wider society and democracy be run by the powerful — and in their own narrow interests — for too long. That’s not even arguable and yet it’s the type of truthful and useful orthodoxy we won’t see because it’s clearly threatening to take that power away and give it to millions of citizens instead. |
My view is that the prevailing orthodoxy or consensus in this country switched in the period starting in 1979 from social democracy to what one could describe as neo-liberalism.
As evidence of this both parties prior to that date supported nationalisation but these days both parties accept the use of the private sector to provide many public services.
There is also precious little difference these days on the attitudes of both parties to taxation.
By contrast, most successful European countries have stuck to much more in the way of a social democratic model.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:58]
| | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:17 - Oct 2 with 1250 views | Darth_Koont |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:54 - Oct 2 by DJR |
My view is that the prevailing orthodoxy or consensus in this country switched in the period starting in 1979 from social democracy to what one could describe as neo-liberalism.
As evidence of this both parties prior to that date supported nationalisation but these days both parties accept the use of the private sector to provide many public services.
There is also precious little difference these days on the attitudes of both parties to taxation.
By contrast, most successful European countries have stuck to much more in the way of a social democratic model.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:58]
|
Yes, and even if those countries can slip right from time to time, social democracy is certainly helping balance the debate and, not coincidentally, electorally represented in a PR system.
By contrast, we have a centre-right orthodoxy and the only real challenge is from right-wing populism that doesn’t essentially disagree with the socio-economic consensus but is blaming the adverse results of it on “others” e.g. refugees, immigrants, minorities, experts, academics, public sector, unions and the Woke/Left none of whom have been in power during that time.
It’s really been quite a trick to pull to safeguard an oligarchy and its interests. The question is why do we still fall for it or even tell ourselves it’s in the public interest when it patently isn’t? | |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:25 - Oct 2 with 1226 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 14:19 - Oct 2 by DJR |
I didn't say you did, but I was just indicating that the expression you used fell into the same category.
I wasn't aware of the FT and Economist (or many economists) making those sort of arguments in 2010, but if they did they were in a tiny minority and not given much in the way of the oxygen of publicity. It was certainly the case that the whole broadcast media (including the BBC) bought into it. Indeed, even the Labour Party largely bought into it.
Interestingly, the IMF only changed its stance on austerity in 2020: this from an FT article in 2020.
"Most advanced economies that can borrow freely will not need to plan for austerity to restore the health of their public finances after the coronavirus pandemic, the IMF has said in a reversal of its advice a decade ago."
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 14:32]
|
Disagree - anti NATO is not the same as Russian apologist. You can be anti NATO and appealed by the actions of Russia.
I don’t disagree regarding the selective media coverage and orthodoxy of the tabloids. My views on China (and others) are not formed only by the media as I noted.
Really not sure why you feel your opinions have been shut down given that we’ve had quite a substantial back and forth…don’t go all GB News on me! | | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:34 - Oct 2 with 1210 views | Radlett_blue |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:17 - Oct 2 by Darth_Koont |
Yes, and even if those countries can slip right from time to time, social democracy is certainly helping balance the debate and, not coincidentally, electorally represented in a PR system.
By contrast, we have a centre-right orthodoxy and the only real challenge is from right-wing populism that doesn’t essentially disagree with the socio-economic consensus but is blaming the adverse results of it on “others” e.g. refugees, immigrants, minorities, experts, academics, public sector, unions and the Woke/Left none of whom have been in power during that time.
It’s really been quite a trick to pull to safeguard an oligarchy and its interests. The question is why do we still fall for it or even tell ourselves it’s in the public interest when it patently isn’t? |
Indeed, the UK, since Thatcher, has adopted a culture of lower taxes & s smaller state, whereas much of Europe has gone down the "social democracy" route of higher taxes & more public services. It's arguable that the UK should move towards a more social democratic model, especially as inequality has grown, rather similarly to the USA &that is unhealthy & ultimately unsustainable. However, voters rarely tick the box marked "higher taxation". | |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:41 - Oct 2 with 1203 views | Darth_Koont |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:34 - Oct 2 by Radlett_blue |
Indeed, the UK, since Thatcher, has adopted a culture of lower taxes & s smaller state, whereas much of Europe has gone down the "social democracy" route of higher taxes & more public services. It's arguable that the UK should move towards a more social democratic model, especially as inequality has grown, rather similarly to the USA &that is unhealthy & ultimately unsustainable. However, voters rarely tick the box marked "higher taxation". |
Agreed. I suspect a lot of that is also fuelled by the oft-repeated and rarely challenged lie that we are a high-tax, high-spend nation and that tax cuts and austerity/private enterprise are the way to fix things.
It’s a fix alright ... | |
| |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:50 - Oct 2 with 1183 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:25 - Oct 2 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Disagree - anti NATO is not the same as Russian apologist. You can be anti NATO and appealed by the actions of Russia.
I don’t disagree regarding the selective media coverage and orthodoxy of the tabloids. My views on China (and others) are not formed only by the media as I noted.
Really not sure why you feel your opinions have been shut down given that we’ve had quite a substantial back and forth…don’t go all GB News on me! |
I didn't intend my comment on apologists to be about Russia. It's a term that is used in lots of contexts, and I was trying to make a much more general point.
I also didn't say my views have been shut down, and your reference to going all GB News on me is a very objectionable one, given I would never in a million years watch that channel.
I am not quite sure what your issue is with me (because I have a feeling I've had it from you in the past) but the general point I am trying to make, which maybe you didn't fully appreciate, is exactly the same as the great George Orwell made. You did after all say the rather condescending "all very interesting" in response to my post about Orwell.
It should also be noted that there's a world of difference between my making a point on TWTD, and an unfashionable view breaking through more generally.
I might add that TWTD is the only social media site I use, and I try to express my views carefully and treat people with respect, whatever their views. And I am not used to people replying to my comments with cheap shots.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 16:02]
| | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 16:00 - Oct 2 with 1161 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 15:50 - Oct 2 by DJR |
I didn't intend my comment on apologists to be about Russia. It's a term that is used in lots of contexts, and I was trying to make a much more general point.
I also didn't say my views have been shut down, and your reference to going all GB News on me is a very objectionable one, given I would never in a million years watch that channel.
I am not quite sure what your issue is with me (because I have a feeling I've had it from you in the past) but the general point I am trying to make, which maybe you didn't fully appreciate, is exactly the same as the great George Orwell made. You did after all say the rather condescending "all very interesting" in response to my post about Orwell.
It should also be noted that there's a world of difference between my making a point on TWTD, and an unfashionable view breaking through more generally.
I might add that TWTD is the only social media site I use, and I try to express my views carefully and treat people with respect, whatever their views. And I am not used to people replying to my comments with cheap shots.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2023 16:02]
|
I have no issue with you, if I’ve replied to you it’s probably because you are fairly prolific poster, and raise some interesting points. Doesn’t mean we will always agree, for example I think we disagreed before on Norway’s approach to climate change.
The GB News comment was tongue in cheek, you’ll notice most of the time my comments are fairly light hearted. | | | |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 16:05 - Oct 2 with 1158 views | DJR |
| I dont often watch Kuensberg etc. Too annoying on 16:00 - Oct 2 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I have no issue with you, if I’ve replied to you it’s probably because you are fairly prolific poster, and raise some interesting points. Doesn’t mean we will always agree, for example I think we disagreed before on Norway’s approach to climate change.
The GB News comment was tongue in cheek, you’ll notice most of the time my comments are fairly light hearted. |
That's fair enough.
Maybe I don't fully understand the nuances of social media. And (probably like you) can't resist pursuing a point to the bitter end.
And maybe for my own good, I need to row it in a bit if you think I am prolific.
I do, however, think the formulation of ideas for the purposes of posting is good for keeping the mind active, now that I am retired and no longer actively involved in politics. [Post edited 2 Oct 2023 16:11]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
