The Trump Presidency...

That leads to problems because he thinks he knows better than his expert advisors, but really he doesn't and that causes him to fumble around any subject like a drunken dock-worker with six months' pay in his pocket.
I am not altogether sure I agree with that. Firstly, what is an expert advisor? The civil service is chock full of them here and EUphile to the core in most cases which makes their advice suspect in my opinion. I know that Trump has appointed his own staff but also that many Federal appointments are still filled by Obama appointees. That Trump does things differently is beyond question, what we do not know yet is whether or not it will have a positive outcome or not. I doubt that he will be any worse than Barry, who had a pretty free ride from the media in general except for the lunatic "birther" fringe.
 
If I had to put my political bias anywhere it would probably be centrist
That would be ideal for me as well, unfortunately the whole established political picture here is now skewed with Labour marching ever leftwards and the Conservative party led by a strange sort of social democrat. The true centre is some way to the right of the present arrangements in the UK.
 
Was watching the excellent Ken Burns documentary 'The Roosevelts' last night, with this particular episode focussing on the presidency of Teddy.

It strikes one that every so often the USA needs a disruptor in the white house, with Teddy making some landmark achievements in social justice, international stability, labour relations and breaking monopolies.

Trump is also a disruptor, but seems to this casual observer to be shaking things up in all the wrong ways
 
I was watching a live stream by a former Republican strategist turned political pundit who keeps his ear to the ground this morning, he said the gossip is that things were so difficult between Trump and General Kelly on the flight back that staff had to keep him at the other end of the plane and that he and Mattis may be handing in their cards because they've had enough.
Mad dog for PotUS?

Would he run under a democratic ticket?
 
The Republicans can nominate anyone and for whatever reason, they chose Trump as their candidate. Hillary was the Antichrist for many - career politico who had an unlikeable personality. The Dems should’ve known better, but they misjudged the voter base and assumed Trump wouldn’t gain traction.
Except more people voted for her.
 
That would be ideal for me as well, unfortunately the whole established political picture here is now skewed with Labour marching ever leftwards and the Conservative party led by a strange sort of social democrat. The true centre is some way to the right of the present arrangements in the UK.
Not sure I quite agree with that.

Certainly, the Labour Party is making its Great Leap Leftwards at a rate of knots, but the Conservative leadership is actually rather "Conservative", if not a reactionary throwback to a 19th century model.

PMTM considers herself to be a Disraeli style One Nation Tory. Their paternalistic social reforms could be confused with "social democracy", but the motives are different.

The Tories took their Great Leap Rightwards under Thatcher, and you could argue that it has taken this long to rock the party back to a more Centrist position.

There is a more Right Wing aspect to Tory politics that is represented by the nomadic faction that views Europe as their nemesis.

These were the faction that spawned UKIP, (or rather hijacked it, as it was originally a far more Liberal Left party under Alan Sked, before Farage hijacked it ), but rallied back to the Tories after the referendum, (causing UKIP to implode), and who are now migrating back to UKIP because they don't like the Exit on offer.

It is said that "Hard cases make bad law", so you could say that "Hard issues make bad policies".
Circumstances often force political parties to act against their normal nature.

For instance, Roosevelt's New Deal saw America more centrally planned and Federally run that you would ever have expected an American party to consider.

Trump's "Republican Party" is absolutely nothing like one, say, Ronald Reagan or even George Bush snr. would have recognised.
In his case, it is more like "Bad policies make hard issues".
 
The Republicans can nominate anyone and for whatever reason, they chose Trump as their candidate. Hillary was the Antichrist for many - career politico who had an unlikeable personality. The Dems should’ve known better, but they misjudged the voter base and assumed Trump wouldn’t gain traction.

Well Trump managed to beat out every other Republican candidate in the primary. Hence why he received the nomination. He was the Feck You and die vote of choice, and not a Clinton.
 
In other breaking news Trump is now getting into it with Iran. The counter threat via tweet has been delivered. If this keeps up Russia won’t even be a memory by Friday. It’s like the Iranians just handed the man a get out of jail free card.
 

Nemesis44UK

LE
Book Reviewer
In other breaking news Trump is now getting into it with Iran. The counter threat via tweet has been delivered. If this keeps up Russia won’t even be a memory by Friday. It’s like the Iranians just handed the man a get out of jail free card.
Yes, I think the next drama will quickly supplant Helsinki.
 
In other breaking news Trump is now getting into it with Iran. The counter threat via tweet has been delivered. If this keeps up Russia won’t even be a memory by Friday. It’s like the Iranians just handed the man a get out of jail free card.
And there we can really see a huge shift in geopolitics - coming off the back of the Helsinki conference, this has to indicate that the US and Russia have done a deal on working with MBS to reign in Iran's influence in the region
 
And there we can really see a huge shift in geopolitics - coming off the back of the Helsinki conference, this has to indicate that the US and Russia have done a deal on working with MBS to reign in Iran's influence in the region
Syria for Iran?? Will have to see how this plays out.
 
Not sure I quite agree with that.

Certainly, the Labour Party is making its Great Leap Leftwards at a rate of knots, but the Conservative leadership is actually rather "Conservative", if not a reactionary throwback to a 19th century model.

PMTM considers herself to be a Disraeli style One Nation Tory. Their paternalistic social reforms could be confused with "social democracy", but the motives are different.

The Tories took their Great Leap Rightwards under Thatcher, and you could argue that it has taken this long to rock the party back to a more Centrist position.

There is a more Right Wing aspect to Tory politics that is represented by the nomadic faction that views Europe as their nemesis.

These were the faction that spawned UKIP, (or rather hijacked it, as it was originally a far more Liberal Left party under Alan Sked, before Farage hijacked it ), but rallied back to the Tories after the referendum, (causing UKIP to implode), and who are now migrating back to UKIP because they don't like the Exit on offer.

It is said that "Hard cases make bad law", so you could say that "Hard issues make bad policies".
Circumstances often force political parties to act against their normal nature.

For instance, Roosevelt's New Deal saw America more centrally planned and Federally run that you would ever have expected an American party to consider.

Trump's "Republican Party" is absolutely nothing like one, say, Ronald Reagan or even George Bush snr. would have recognised.
In his case, it is more like "Bad policies make hard issues".
The great leap leftwards is going to be the undoing of Labour, just like last time (the longest suicide note..etc), my issue with the conservatives is that there appears to be little desire to re-invigorate the free-market economy by taking a strong line on Brexit. We are leaving and must not be tied to a bloc whose share of the world economy is shrinking and will shrink further as the world economy grows and alternative customers with lower tariffs than the EU become viable.
 
The Tories took their Great Leap Rightwards under Thatcher, and you could argue that it has taken this long to rock the party back to a more Centrist position.
I agree if you are talking about social policy in isolation, but what Labour has always shut it's mind to, and the tories are increasingly coy about, is the need for robust, free-market capitalism to pay for their largesse.
The only sure way to hammer this point home is to cap gov't spending by law. Borrowing money is easy when someone else has to pay it back.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top