The main thrust of that article seems to be that Sunak isn't up to the job because he's right-wing.
Well, that is consistent with the view that right wing solutions are the wrong ones.
That's a matter of opinion, but either way it has no bearing on the PM's competence in the role.
Well, it does if you consider a sign of competence to be having the right solutions.
As I said, whether something is the "right" solution or not is a matter of opinion. I despair of the current trend in politics to label any disagreement over policy as evidence of incompetence or evil on the part of the one being disagreed with. It's lessened political discourse from being reasoned and mature debate about how best to manage the issues of the day to being no better than two primary school kids yelling at each other that they stink.
You have a very different idea of what makes a competent PM to me. Actually solving the problems would rank quite highly for example. That will not be achieved via the wrong solutions.
Thatcher was competent in the sense that she could steer her programme through and get it done. I'm not really very interested in that sort of competence. There are competent serial killers as well.
You have a very different idea of what makes a competent PM to me.
Yes. I'm not defining it by how closely they agree with my own opinions.
And I told you a post ago what one of my criteria would be.
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
Thinking your own opinions are right is one thing. Thinking anyone who disagrees with them is therefore evil, malicious, negligent or incompetent (or combinations thereof) is something else.
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
Thinking your own opinions are right is one thing. Thinking anyone who disagrees with them is therefore evil, malicious, negligent or incompetent (or combinations thereof) is something else.
Well, yes and no. If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
I'm not sure Sunak is malicious. Braverman is, undoubtedly.
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
It's not fundamentalism to believe morality is universal.
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
Thinking your own opinions are right is one thing. Thinking anyone who disagrees with them is therefore evil, malicious, negligent or incompetent (or combinations thereof) is something else.
Well, yes and no. If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
I'm not sure Sunak is malicious. Braverman is, undoubtedly.
I don't believe that any UK politicians are malicious.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
It's been suggested by some philosophers that that is criterial for something to be a moral opinion rather than a personal goal.
(The philosophers in question generally hold that morality has no reality beyond what we think about it. Philosophers who hold that morality does have such a reality can define moral opinions as opinions about moral reality.)
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
Thinking your own opinions are right is one thing. Thinking anyone who disagrees with them is therefore evil, malicious, negligent or incompetent (or combinations thereof) is something else.
Well, yes and no. If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
I'm not sure Sunak is malicious. Braverman is, undoubtedly.
I don't believe that any UK politicians are malicious.
Try telling that to the refugees who are contemplating self-harm, or even suicide, having been threatened with transportation to Rwanda:
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
It's not fundamentalism to believe morality is universal.
Believing that everybody else has to obey your moral strictures whether they agree with them or not is the very essence of fundamentalism.
If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
"If".
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
It's not fundamentalism to believe morality is universal.
Believing that everybody else has to obey your moral strictures whether they agree with them or not is the very essence of fundamentalism.
No, that would be trying to force them to obey them. Believing they *should* obey them is just thinking that morality is universal.
It's been suggested by some philosophers that that is criterial for something to be a moral opinion rather than a personal goal.
"Criterial" - not a word I know. Did you mean critical?
I meant forming a criterion. The criterion for an opinion to be a moral opinion is that you think everybody else is blameworthy if they don't share it.
Believing that everybody else has to obey your moral strictures whether they agree with them or not is the very essence of fundamentalism.
No, that would be trying to force them to obey them.
By passing legislation to that effect, for instance?
If anyone was to pass legislation requiring that people vote for politicians who share my moral views that would indeed be fundamentalism, if not bordering on theocracy (it's pretty much how Iran operates, as I understand it).
So if, for example, Westboro Baptist Church seek to elect and/or influence politicians to criminalise homosexuality then that's not fundamentalism in action, because they're not actually prohibiting anyone else from voting a different way?
So if, for example, Westboro Baptist Church seek to elect and/or influence politicians to criminalise homosexuality then that's not fundamentalism in action, because they're not actually prohibiting anyone else from voting a different way?
Criminalising homosexuality is wrong. I'm not sure it's indicative of fundamentalism as such.
He doesn't seem to have done anything especially egregious lately, and, in any case, most of the Noos seems to be about some sort of sporty kicky-ball thing...
Meanwhile, though, he may be having difficulty just being party leader:
He's probably struggling to compete with the numerous stories about 'Harry' and 'Meghan', two people, who as far as I can discern from reading the RW press, are responsible for all our ills. Vast numbers of people alternate between frothing about them and frothing about brown people who dare to arrive on our shores in dinghies. I suppose Harry and Meghan in a dinghy would be the ultimate headline. Especially if brought in by the RNLI, the far-left bunch of lifesavers.
He's probably struggling to compete with the numerous stories about 'Harry' and 'Meghan', two people, who as far as I can discern from reading the RW press, are responsible for all our ills. Vast numbers of people alternate between frothing about them and frothing about brown people who dare to arrive on our shores in dinghies. I suppose Harry and Meghan in a dinghy would be the ultimate headline. Especially if brought in by the RNLI, the far-left bunch of lifesavers.
I always thought that the Orange the RNLI wear was indicative of something.
He's probably struggling to compete with the numerous stories about 'Harry' and 'Meghan', two people, who as far as I can discern from reading the RW press, are responsible for all our ills. Vast numbers of people alternate between frothing about them and frothing about brown people who dare to arrive on our shores in dinghies. I suppose Harry and Meghan in a dinghy would be the ultimate headline. Especially if brought in by the RNLI, the far-left bunch of lifesavers.
I always thought that the Orange the RNLI wear was indicative of something.
So Dishy Rishi has still not come close to fulfilling his 5 promises. In fact some of them are going the wrong way. They were not really the public’s priories anyway. The public want policies that will make their lives better. Halving inflation will still mean you pay more just not as much as you did. Anyway that is general inflation. Food inflation is much worse. No one really cares about the boats. If we hadn’t closed many legal routes into the country there would be far fewer.
Getting NHS waiting lists down is a bit of a distraction. We need more staff in the NHS then the time you wait comes down. Numbers are secondary. If you have enough staff then you can get through more patients
Sorry to double post. Missed growing the economy. The deals we have recently formed with other countries are not good. We will be exporting less to Japan than we do now. There are still barriers to exporting to our biggest market The EU, whilst The EU has an easy time exporting to us.
TL:DR Not going well for Sunak’s five pledges.
Plus almost certain Rutherglen and Hamilton West (not that the Conservatives are in the running for what will be an SNP v Labour contest with an outside chance for the LibDems).
Comments
Well, that is consistent with the view that right wing solutions are the wrong ones.
A view that is well supported by the evidence.
That's a matter of opinion, but either way it has no bearing on the PM's competence in the role.
Well, it does if you consider a sign of competence to be having the right solutions.
If you advocate "solutions" that are known not to work you're either ignorant (a subset of incompetent) or malicious.
As I said, whether something is the "right" solution or not is a matter of opinion. I despair of the current trend in politics to label any disagreement over policy as evidence of incompetence or evil on the part of the one being disagreed with. It's lessened political discourse from being reasoned and mature debate about how best to manage the issues of the day to being no better than two primary school kids yelling at each other that they stink.
Thatcher was competent in the sense that she could steer her programme through and get it done. I'm not really very interested in that sort of competence. There are competent serial killers as well.
Yes. I'm not defining it by how closely they agree with my own opinions.
And I told you a post ago what one of my criteria would be.
It's only "agree with my own opinions" inasmuch as I hold the opinions I do because I think they're the right ones. As does everyone else, by definition.
Thinking your own opinions are right is one thing. Thinking anyone who disagrees with them is therefore evil, malicious, negligent or incompetent (or combinations thereof) is something else.
Well, yes and no. If one of the things that needs doing is relieving poverty, and policies are proposed that will not do that, then those policies are not competent and do not show competency.
I think we're using "competent" in different ways. You are I think using it to mean "can get done what he intends to do", whereas I am meaning it to use "governs the country in a way that benefits it".
I'm not sure Sunak is malicious. Braverman is, undoubtedly.
"If".
You are correct about my use of the word. My chief problem with yours is that "what benefits the country" is itself an inherently political opinion.
Also an inherently moral one, but you dislike the descriptions that go with that.
I certainly dislike the sort of fundamentalism that says if I believe something to be moral then everyone else must believe it to be moral as well.
It's not fundamentalism to believe morality is universal.
Yes. That's the main view on here.
I don't believe that any UK politicians are malicious.
(The philosophers in question generally hold that morality has no reality beyond what we think about it. Philosophers who hold that morality does have such a reality can define moral opinions as opinions about moral reality.)
Try telling that to the refugees who are contemplating self-harm, or even suicide, having been threatened with transportation to Rwanda:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/13/home-office-was-told-rwanda-policy-was-making-asylum-seekers-feel-suicidal
Your faith in the goodness of politicians is touching, though.
Believing that everybody else has to obey your moral strictures whether they agree with them or not is the very essence of fundamentalism.
No, that would be trying to force them to obey them. Believing they *should* obey them is just thinking that morality is universal.
"Criterial" - not a word I know. Did you mean critical?
By passing legislation to that effect, for instance?
Yeah but it's more important to be concerned about the theoretical threats from one side than the actual threats from the other.
If anyone was to pass legislation requiring that people vote for politicians who share my moral views that would indeed be fundamentalism, if not bordering on theocracy (it's pretty much how Iran operates, as I understand it).
Criminalising homosexuality is wrong. I'm not sure it's indicative of fundamentalism as such.
Meanwhile, though, he may be having difficulty just being party leader:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/28/unifying-fractious-party-may-be-rishi-sunak-biggest-challenge-of-all
I always thought that the Orange the RNLI wear was indicative of something.
They never seemed hardcore unionists to me.
Getting NHS waiting lists down is a bit of a distraction. We need more staff in the NHS then the time you wait comes down. Numbers are secondary. If you have enough staff then you can get through more patients
TL:DR Not going well for Sunak’s five pledges.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/10/rishi-sunak-faces-further-test-nigel-adams-johnson-ally-quits-parliament
I wonder how many more rats will leave the sinking ship in the next few days?
Or shits deserting the sinking rat?
An apology is duly offered to said Rodents. I posted in haste...
Dafyd Hell Host
Who? And which *Stormtroopers*?