I remember that Truss made a derogatory remark about Brown, during her brief moment in the sun. What an absolute joke, in terms of humanity and compassion. Why do we elect these zombies?
I asked my wife, and she said, because people believe their lies. Next question - why?
Because they are, to quote Keats, half in love with easeful death and would rather hear that they can continue as they are, than be told that life can improve, but only if they allow change to happen in ways which are pretty much unprecedented in human history. Capitalism has thus far been allowed to impose technological change on the world mostly by finding ways of convincing us that we want that change. I'm not sure how that can be achieved for the changes which are now vital, such as wealth taxes and less consumption, but we have to find ways. Otherwise, consent will have to be obtained through the political process, which seems to be a prospect which scares politicians into total paralysis.
We can't go on with the idea that politics is marketing. Marketing is essentially conservative and sells people more of what they already have or know they want. The sort of politics we need is the sort which inspires/allows people to find that they want what they already need. This is the task which Starmer is totally terrified of, and why he is unsuitable to be Labour leader. He should be a Tory leader, because he has the sort of instinct that can only sell people more of what they already want. Otherwise, we will have to wait for a Green party leader with any kind of empathy with much of the population, and which the populus at large are willing to hear. The entire ecosystem will probably have collapsed before this happens.
It says good things about Gordon Brown that he uses his retirement from being an elected politician to keep on working for the people in schemes such as the Big Hoose. I don't see any sign of David Cameron doing anything remotely similar, nor Tony Blair. And, when they lose their seat (or don't stand) at the next election does anyone imagine May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak will be out there trying their best to get people food and loo roll?
May might, she seems to have a public service ethic.
It says good things about Gordon Brown that he uses his retirement from being an elected politician to keep on working for the people in schemes such as the Big Hoose. I don't see any sign of David Cameron doing anything remotely similar, nor Tony Blair. And, when they lose their seat (or don't stand) at the next election does anyone imagine May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak will be out there trying their best to get people food and loo roll?
May might, she seems to have a public service ethic.
Well, using her position as former PM to highlight the difficulties people face wouldn't be very effective if we don't know anything about it.
Perhaps that wouldn't be her motive. Perhaps she just wanted to help without bigging herself up.
Is that what you believe Mr Brown to be doing? *Bigging* himself up?
I don't know but when it comes to charity I always think of Matthew 6.1.
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them"
It is wrong to assume, as you appear to be doing, that public figures practice righteousness in order to be seen by others, although it could be said that advertising the plight of food banks at the present time is worthwhile.
But Gordon Brown isn't just lending a hand with a super-food-bank, like anyone else could. He's using his celebrity status to draw attention to the need that it meets, to both promote the work (would they have free use of a warehouse and all those unsold goods coming in if the work of the Big Hoose hadn't been advertised - and everytime he gets on the TV and in the papers talking about it then he advertises it to people who can help) and to campaign to change government policies so that food banks and the like will no longer be needed in the UK.
Likewise, Jimmy Carter doesn't just help build homes for the homeless (and, get his Secret Service guards to help out as well by all accounts), but by talking about the work he was doing he was both recruiting others to help and it was an act of campaigning for fairer government policies.
If Theresa May has a similar public service ethic then she will find a cause that is close to her heart, and both help out as anyone else could and use her celebrity to promote that and campaign. And, if she does that for the common good (or, just her understanding of that even if I may think there are better things that she could do) then more power to her.
It is wrong to assume, as you appear to be doing, that public figures practice righteousness in order to be seen by others, although it could be said that advertising the plight of food banks at the present time is worthwhile.
You may well be right. It might just be a co-incidence
A quick Google reminds me of just what a Good Egg (mostly) Jimmy Carter is - and still (it seems) hale and hearty at 98!
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
A quick Google reminds me of just what a Good Egg (mostly) Jimmy Carter is - and still (it seems) hale and hearty at 98!
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
I did say *sort of*. I am quite aware that neither Carter nor his government were perfect.
A quick Google reminds me of just what a Good Egg (mostly) Jimmy Carter is - and still (it seems) hale and hearty at 98!
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
I did say *sort of*. I am quite aware that neither Carter nor his government were perfect.
I think massacres are quite far from 'not perfect'.
A quick Google reminds me of just what a Good Egg (mostly) Jimmy Carter is - and still (it seems) hale and hearty at 98!
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
I did say *sort of*. I am quite aware that neither Carter nor his government were perfect.
I think massacres are quite far from 'not perfect'.
I don't disagree.
As I said, neither Carter nor his government were perfect, and I was not being dismissive of what you call *a few brown people living in a jungle*.
A quick Google reminds me of just what a Good Egg (mostly) Jimmy Carter is - and still (it seems) hale and hearty at 98!
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
I think with Carter, and Brown, there are two measures: how do they compare with others who held the same office, and how do they compare with an ideal occupant of that office. I would suggest both come out pretty well on the first, while still doing poorly on the second.
It's frequently said that Carter's post-office activities are viewed more favourably than his time in office. And, it's his time after leaving office that are relevant to the discussion we'd been having about retired politicians.
That said, I'm not sure how the massacres in East Timor could be laid at his feet. For a start, the Indonesian invasion and the start of the massacres was before he was elected as president, and continued long after his term in office. The refusal of the US to support calls for stronger UN action against Indonesia is a historical fact - but, then China and the Soviets didn't support those calls either. Whether stronger action would have resulted in East Timor regaining independence and stopped the massacres is also an exercise of "what if" - action against Russia this year has exceeded the actions against Indonesia, and support for Ukraine far in excess of that given to East Timor, and there's little sign that it's going to stop years of war and atrocities in Ukraine, do we think that similar intervention in East Timor would have rapidly ended the Indonesian invasion and atrocities?
I think the biggest issue was the Carter administration arming the Suharto regime. Turning a blind eye is one thing but when you're supplying the weapons and keep doing so when you know how they're being used you share culpability. The modern parallel being Yemen.
I don't see how one should really hold anyone else other than the Indonesian government and those who were in power there responsible for what happened in East Timor. i'd go further, and say that suggesting anyone else carries responsibility is going quite a long way down the road of shifting the guilt away from where it belongs.
It also contains an implicit, and almost explicit, racism. It's saying the Indonesian government are let off the hook because they couldn't have been expected to have known any better.
This whole topic, though, is spectacularly tangential to Rishi Sunak and this thread.
Indeed it is, and my original comment about Gordon Brown was simply intended to highlight the iniquities and shortcomings of Rish! Sunak, his predecessors, and their travesty of a government.
I don't see how one should really hold anyone else other than the Indonesian government and those who were in power there responsible for what happened in East Timor. i'd go further, and say that suggesting anyone else carries responsibility is going quite a long way down the road of shifting the guilt away from where it belongs.
It also contains an implicit, and almost explicit, racism. It's saying the Indonesian government are let off the hook because they couldn't have been expected to have known any better.
This whole topic, though, is spectacularly tangential to Rishi Sunak and this thread.
It seems to me that guilt is not a zero-sum game. That the Indonesian government are responsible for the massacres they ordered doesn't absolve either the soldiers who pulled the trigger or the people who provided the weapons. If someone in the same period was supply the IRA with semtex we would consider them complicit in the resulting damage and deaths from IRA bomb attacks.
Indeed it is, and my original comment about Gordon Brown was simply intended to highlight the iniquities and shortcomings of Rish! Sunak, his predecessors, and their travesty of a government.
I agree that Rishi has not yet saved the world, but he's doing his best.
Particularly as what we get from Hunt is to economics what cupping is to medicine. It's marginally better than the Truss-Kwarteng pistol to the temple but it's still hurting rather than helping.
He should get a spot on an open mike session as a stand up comedian. He'll have them rolling in the aisles.
Rhyming slang being PM ... that's a classic.
He's a serious politician and far better than anyone in any of the other parties
Another one for the routine.
I say what I believe to be the truth. Do you have a problem with that ?
The fact that it's obviously bullshit? In what way is he better than Rachel Reeves? Or John McDonnell for that matter?
He is able to present sensible policies for starters. Marxist McDonnell didn't have a clue. Ms Reeves thinks she can solve problems without asking ordinary people to pay any more
He should get a spot on an open mike session as a stand up comedian. He'll have them rolling in the aisles.
Rhyming slang being PM ... that's a classic.
He's a serious politician and far better than anyone in any of the other parties
Another one for the routine.
I say what I believe to be the truth. Do you have a problem with that ?
The fact that it's obviously bullshit? In what way is he better than Rachel Reeves? Or John McDonnell for that matter?
He is able to present sensible policies for starters. Marxist McDonnell didn't have a clue. Ms Reeves thinks she can solve problems without asking ordinary people to pay any more
In what way is crashing the economy and plunging millions into poverty "sensible policies"? And I note your complete lack of any substantive critique of McDonnell's economic policies. Even the CBI is worried about Hunt strangling the economy.
McDonnell made an effort to consult people in the City about his policies. Their verdict was that while they weren't happy they could at least live with them and were willing to give them a try if Labour was elected.
According to the Mail and Express, which hailed Truss and Kwarteng's budget as a true Tory budget at long last, McDonnell would have been a disaster.
He should get a spot on an open mike session as a stand up comedian. He'll have them rolling in the aisles.
Rhyming slang being PM ... that's a classic.
He's a serious politician and far better than anyone in any of the other parties
Another one for the routine.
I say what I believe to be the truth. Do you have a problem with that ?
The fact that it's obviously bullshit? In what way is he better than Rachel Reeves? Or John McDonnell for that matter?
He is able to present sensible policies for starters. Marxist McDonnell didn't have a clue. Ms Reeves thinks she can solve problems without asking ordinary people to pay any more
In what way is crashing the economy and plunging millions into poverty "sensible policies"? And I note your complete lack of any substantive critique of McDonnell's economic policies. Even the CBI is worried about Hunt strangling the economy.
McDonnell was only given the job because he was a chum of Corbyn. NO other Labour leader would give him the time of day.
What is your evidence for Jeremy Hunt crashing the economy
He should get a spot on an open mike session as a stand up comedian. He'll have them rolling in the aisles.
Rhyming slang being PM ... that's a classic.
He's a serious politician and far better than anyone in any of the other parties
Another one for the routine.
I say what I believe to be the truth. Do you have a problem with that ?
The fact that it's obviously bullshit? In what way is he better than Rachel Reeves? Or John McDonnell for that matter?
He is able to present sensible policies for starters. Marxist McDonnell didn't have a clue. Ms Reeves thinks she can solve problems without asking ordinary people to pay any more
In what way is crashing the economy and plunging millions into poverty "sensible policies"? And I note your complete lack of any substantive critique of McDonnell's economic policies. Even the CBI is worried about Hunt strangling the economy.
McDonnell was only given the job because he was a chum of Corbyn. NO other Labour leader would give him the time of day.
What is your evidence for Jeremy Hunt crashing the economy
Meanwhile, back to Rish! Sunak, and here is a POV which clearly does not see him as *saving the world* - the latter phrase being a graceless slur against Gordon Brown, IIRC:
Comments
O for the sense and compassion of a Jimmy Carter government...(well, sort of).
No, I didn't understand why, either...
Because they are, to quote Keats, half in love with easeful death and would rather hear that they can continue as they are, than be told that life can improve, but only if they allow change to happen in ways which are pretty much unprecedented in human history. Capitalism has thus far been allowed to impose technological change on the world mostly by finding ways of convincing us that we want that change. I'm not sure how that can be achieved for the changes which are now vital, such as wealth taxes and less consumption, but we have to find ways. Otherwise, consent will have to be obtained through the political process, which seems to be a prospect which scares politicians into total paralysis.
We can't go on with the idea that politics is marketing. Marketing is essentially conservative and sells people more of what they already have or know they want. The sort of politics we need is the sort which inspires/allows people to find that they want what they already need. This is the task which Starmer is totally terrified of, and why he is unsuitable to be Labour leader. He should be a Tory leader, because he has the sort of instinct that can only sell people more of what they already want. Otherwise, we will have to wait for a Green party leader with any kind of empathy with much of the population, and which the populus at large are willing to hear. The entire ecosystem will probably have collapsed before this happens.
May might, she seems to have a public service ethic.
If she did, we probably wouldn't know about it.
Perhaps that wouldn't be her motive. Perhaps she just wanted to help without bigging herself up.
Is that what you believe Mr Brown to be doing? *Bigging* himself up?
I don't know but when it comes to charity I always think of Matthew 6.1.
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them"
Likewise, Jimmy Carter doesn't just help build homes for the homeless (and, get his Secret Service guards to help out as well by all accounts), but by talking about the work he was doing he was both recruiting others to help and it was an act of campaigning for fairer government policies.
If Theresa May has a similar public service ethic then she will find a cause that is close to her heart, and both help out as anyone else could and use her celebrity to promote that and campaign. And, if she does that for the common good (or, just her understanding of that even if I may think there are better things that she could do) then more power to her.
They believe the lies that match the world as they wish it to be. Its comfort, nothing more.
You may well be right. It might just be a co-incidence
Not sure the Timorese people would be so eager for a Carter government. But hey, what's a few brown people living in a jungle as long as you build some houses for Americans?
I did say *sort of*. I am quite aware that neither Carter nor his government were perfect.
I think massacres are quite far from 'not perfect'.
I don't disagree.
As I said, neither Carter nor his government were perfect, and I was not being dismissive of what you call *a few brown people living in a jungle*.
I think with Carter, and Brown, there are two measures: how do they compare with others who held the same office, and how do they compare with an ideal occupant of that office. I would suggest both come out pretty well on the first, while still doing poorly on the second.
That said, I'm not sure how the massacres in East Timor could be laid at his feet. For a start, the Indonesian invasion and the start of the massacres was before he was elected as president, and continued long after his term in office. The refusal of the US to support calls for stronger UN action against Indonesia is a historical fact - but, then China and the Soviets didn't support those calls either. Whether stronger action would have resulted in East Timor regaining independence and stopped the massacres is also an exercise of "what if" - action against Russia this year has exceeded the actions against Indonesia, and support for Ukraine far in excess of that given to East Timor, and there's little sign that it's going to stop years of war and atrocities in Ukraine, do we think that similar intervention in East Timor would have rapidly ended the Indonesian invasion and atrocities?
I wonder what Rish! will do, once he's no longer in office?
I blame the lecture I gave on Thursday including content about radionuclides leaching out of soils into water ...
It also contains an implicit, and almost explicit, racism. It's saying the Indonesian government are let off the hook because they couldn't have been expected to have known any better.
This whole topic, though, is spectacularly tangential to Rishi Sunak and this thread.
It seems to me that guilt is not a zero-sum game. That the Indonesian government are responsible for the massacres they ordered doesn't absolve either the soldiers who pulled the trigger or the people who provided the weapons. If someone in the same period was supply the IRA with semtex we would consider them complicit in the resulting damage and deaths from IRA bomb attacks.
I agree that Rishi has not yet saved the world, but he's doing his best.
His first big decision was to keep Jeremy Hunt in place. Actually I would prefer Hunt to have been made PM
Rhyming slang being PM ... that's a classic.
He's a serious politician and far better than anyone in any of the other parties
Liz Truss was doing her best but she just wasn't good enough.
The fact that it's obviously bullshit? In what way is he better than Rachel Reeves? Or John McDonnell for that matter?
He is able to present sensible policies for starters. Marxist McDonnell didn't have a clue. Ms Reeves thinks she can solve problems without asking ordinary people to pay any more
In what way is crashing the economy and plunging millions into poverty "sensible policies"? And I note your complete lack of any substantive critique of McDonnell's economic policies. Even the CBI is worried about Hunt strangling the economy.
According to the Mail and Express, which hailed Truss and Kwarteng's budget as a true Tory budget at long last, McDonnell would have been a disaster.
McDonnell was only given the job because he was a chum of Corbyn. NO other Labour leader would give him the time of day.
What is your evidence for Jeremy Hunt crashing the economy
Still no substantive criticisms of McDonnell's economic policies, just ad hominem.
Google McDonnell's economic advisory council.
You might learn something.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/14/rishi-sunak-prime-minister-britain-cuts-culture-war
There will, of course, be other views as to how well Rish! is doing...