Non spiky Politics

AGAA4

Russia have spent 1.3 billion on spreading misinformation and disinformation in the UK in order to destabilise the country.
Andy Burnham is setting up a department to tackle this. He said this is another important part of our defence.

It is important if it is happening.

Cant say I have seen it, but wouldnt know where to look for it.
And presumably a government department would have access to all sorts of means, to suss out where it comes from precisely?

Whitewavemark2

Pleased to see that CNN and so forth have won the case against Trump.

He is losing a lot in the courts lately.

His star is on the wane. I just hope he doesn’t get even more capricious over the next couple of years.

Unfortunately CNN has fallen into the hands of the Ellisons, billionaire Trumps supporters who have purchased its parent company, Paramount. It is feared that they will strip it of its Trump critics and turn it into a propaganda channel for Trump.

See Robert Reich here:

robertreich.substack.com/p/now-cnn

Democracy dies when the press is no longer free...

It seems it is proven that Russia interfered in the 2019 GE.
I don't think the government would be taking this seriously if it wasn't happening fancythat.

AGAA4

It seems it is proven that Russia interfered in the 2019 GE.
I don't think the government would be taking this seriously if it wasn't happening fancythat.

I am hoping that this new department will take a long hard look at the Russia Report and ask questions about how and why it arrived at its conclusions.

I think this is a helpful overview

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_Security_Committee_Russia_report

This is what mystified so many people:

^Since the government had not authorised any investigation into the matter, the committee found no evidence that Russian interference had affected the Brexit referendum. Any such attempt without specific authorisation was not within the purview of British intelligence services as any such actions by the security services themselves could be seen as interference, itself undermining democracy^

The report having been commissioned by a tory government this set alarm bells ringing.

Whitewavemark2

At long last the government is to introduce a vocational pathway for those wanting an alternative to an academic pathway.

It is beginning with the introduction of vocational GCSEs. to be sat in 2029.

Completely support this, but it has to still include English, Maths and IT (imho)

MaizieD

^Assuming the country can afford to do this.^

I would suggest, fancythat, that you read the Hostage Nation report which I started a thread on. It suggests, in detail, a number of ways that the country could 'afford it', could afford anything it wanted to do so long as the resources are there with which to achieve it.

I know you object to reading documents, but surely being informed about a possible solution to a perceived problem is better than glumly accepting that there is no alternative just because it is a prevailing narrative?

👍👍

fancythat

Please read the Gransnet Cafe rules before replying.

This is a thread for people to post freely about Politics, without judgement from other people.

I dont care if you are left leaning, right leaning, yellow or green or whatever colour.

Post whatever is on your mind. With no judgements.

About a political subject that is current, old or new.
So an ongoing thread, if people want to use it.

In principle, this could be an excellent thread for brainstorming fancythat.

Right, Left, and those somewhere in the middle, could form a non-partisan think-tank!

And, as a largely female group often, if not mostly, charged with running a household - my late partner used to call me the "Home Executive" - maybe we could offer more practical solutions to current problems. Male and female perspectives do differ.

I did hear one rather nice chap say, a while back, that he thought he'd be happier under a Matriarchy - how about that!

Nothing wrong with a matriarchy as long as they are equally tough as the men would be, to be a leader you have to make tough decisions, a lot won't be popular, the successful female leaders we have seen have been tough.
Leader of a family or a nation decisions have to be taken that aren't popular.

Cossy

MaizieD

Assuming the country can afford to do this.

I would suggest, fancythat, that you read the Hostage Nation report which I started a thread on. It suggests, in detail, a number of ways that the country could 'afford it', could afford anything it wanted to do so long as the resources are there with which to achieve it.

I know you object to reading documents, but surely being informed about a possible solution to a perceived problem is better than glumly accepting that there is no alternative just because it is a prevailing narrative?

👍👍

MaizieD
Hostage Nation. After reading it I felt sad for my country having lived through and seen what we can do.
I know I’m not the only one on GN who remembers all the new town being built from the late 1940s. Many of my relatives from east London moved to them.
Our house was part of the slum clearance.

www.building.co.uk/from-the-archives-planning-the-postwar-new-towns-1945-46/5127718.article.

The trend for building "New Towns" has gone, we have a plan for a New Village nearby held up because of a road link
Expanding existing settlements is an easy option but not popular with locals who don't want "their" locality changed.

We could never have built these new towns if we had had the nodding dogs in charge then.
This is a video of just some of the hideous obscene waste that happens in this country when we are planning mega projects.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw

petra

We could never have built these new towns if we had had the nodding dogs in charge then.
This is a video of just some of the hideous obscene waste that happens in this country when we are planning mega projects.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw

You only have to look at HS2 to understand just how badly a project can go wrong

David49

Nothing wrong with a matriarchy as long as they are equally tough as the men would be, to be a leader you have to make tough decisions, a lot won't be popular, the successful female leaders we have seen have been tough.
Leader of a family or a nation decisions have to be taken that aren't popular.

Believe me David, many of us women will have taken unpopular decisions at home - and weathered the fall-out from family members. And expected it.

Pulling out the spikes ……

We have two “new” areas near us (25-35 min drives)

One was built around the mid 1970’s, on onto the 80’s and the other late 1990’s onto present.

Both were well thought out, both have a massive mix of housing, new road links, new railway stations, doctors surgery, community centres, schools, shops, green areas. This should be the model we use (in my opinion)

Another large housing development much closer to us has very nice and a mix of properties, close to a railway station, but no news transport links, no new schools, shops, etc and it’s caused massive traffic bottlenecks

There is a new town near Plymouth, still work in progress I understand.

Another large housing development much closer to us has very nice and a mix of properties, close to a railway station, but no news transport links, no new schools, shops, etc and it’s caused massive traffic bottlenecks

That is more the norm, Cossy.

Complete lack of planning, no infrastructure.

Dickens

David49

Nothing wrong with a matriarchy as long as they are equally tough as the men would be, to be a leader you have to make tough decisions, a lot won't be popular, the successful female leaders we have seen have been tough.
Leader of a family or a nation decisions have to be taken that aren't popular.

Believe me David, many of us women will have taken unpopular decisions at home - and weathered the fall-out from family members. And expected it.

Absolutely many do, but an awful lot loose control of their children before school age

David49

Dickens

David49

Nothing wrong with a matriarchy as long as they are equally tough as the men would be, to be a leader you have to make tough decisions, a lot won't be popular, the successful female leaders we have seen have been tough.
Leader of a family or a nation decisions have to be taken that aren't popular.

Believe me David, many of us women will have taken unpopular decisions at home - and weathered the fall-out from family members. And expected it.

Absolutely many do, but an awful lot loose control of their children before school age

... then we shan't pick them as part of the Matriarchy

Equally, there are men who just don't cut it either. Being male is no guarantee of strength of character.

MaizieD

^Assuming the country can afford to do this.^

I would suggest, fancythat, that you read the Hostage Nation report which I started a thread on. It suggests, in detail, a number of ways that the country could 'afford it', could afford anything it wanted to do so long as the resources are there with which to achieve it.

I know you object to reading documents, but surely being informed about a possible solution to a perceived problem is better than glumly accepting that there is no alternative just because it is a prevailing narrative?

I read parts of the thread, but decided I had nothing new to add to that thread, that I havent already said over the last month or so. And longer.

petra

We could never have built these new towns if we had had the nodding dogs in charge then.
This is a video of just some of the hideous obscene waste that happens in this country when we are planning mega projects.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw

It was the economic ideology that altered. When it followed Keynes we managed to achieve all the things the report lists. Thatcher and Reagan's following of Hayek and Friedman's 'Free markets, shrink the state' ideology is what has done the damage.

Never forget Keynes' words : "whatever we can do we can afford' .

fancythat

MaizieD

Assuming the country can afford to do this.

I would suggest, fancythat, that you read the Hostage Nation report which I started a thread on. It suggests, in detail, a number of ways that the country could 'afford it', could afford anything it wanted to do so long as the resources are there with which to achieve it.

I know you object to reading documents, but surely being informed about a possible solution to a perceived problem is better than glumly accepting that there is no alternative just because it is a prevailing narrative?

I read parts of the thread, but decided I had nothing new to add to that thread, that I havent already said over the last month or so. And longer.

I just asked you to read the report. Reading the thread tells you nothing.

fancythat it is quite sad that you want to completely ignore a well researched and evidenced report. Not even look at it.

The New Towns were built without all the beaurocracy and regulation we have today, the whole area was compulsory purchased and were built. Now it takes 10 yrs to get through the endless appeals and regulation before building starts.

10 years. Agreed. So expensive to build nowadays. So much cost added to the expense.