BBC Blog Network

User Profile

RealisticJimmy

Listed below are comments made by RealisticJimmy between Friday, 10th October 2008 and Friday, 9th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Generals as politicians - lessons from history 10:03am on 09 Oct 2009
I guess we're more uncomfortable over here (compared to the States) with politicising our military commanders. With, I think, good reason. We don't wish to live in a military dictatorship afterall. The role of the CGS/CDS is to advise the government, not to decide policy.

But it isn't just the party political nature of this move by Gen. Dannatt which makes things uncomfortable. It's the fact that if (as is likely) we have a Tory government after the election the Services Chiefs will be sidelined or at least be drowned out by Dannatt.

Oh, just a quick factcheck - #34 - Dannatt was never a theatre commander in Afghanistan, he was Chief of the General Staff (CGS) which is the head of the Army. And to those who like the "conspiracy" theories that Brown blocked Dannatt from becoming CDS, historically the CDS role has rotated around the services. It was the RAF's "turn" to hold the seat, and - for future reference - the next CDS should be from the Senior Service (RN). When someone becomes CDS out of turn there might be cause for wondering about political interference... ;-)

Of course, what makes that all the more fustrating is that Gen. Dannatt isn't worth listening to anyway. And I'm not just referring to his nonsense about the "Christian" values of the UK. His comments about the Eurofighter and about the new aircraft carries prove that though he may be a competent Army officer he hasn't really moved on to grasp the broader strategic picture. Afghanistan is important and is currently our primary combat theatre, yes. But we still need to maintain our capability to fight in different scenarios in the future - not to mention keep up the many other important tasks that the RN in particular are doing now that rarely make the news.

Inter-service rivalry is hardly new and is just one of those things but one would expect someone at the level of Gen. Dannatt to have a better understanding of the roles of the other services. Then again the bosses of crab air never seem to understand why they shouldn't be running everything so maybe I'm being over-optimistic.
Sorry for what? 12:48pm on 06 Mar 2009 What is your (and the rest of the media) obsession with Brown saying "sorry"?

If (say) five years ago if Brown -or anyone else for that matter- had proposed the level of regulation now being considered (the FSA vetting bank bosses for example) you and the rest of the media would have eviserated him. You would have derided it as totally unnecessary state intervention into the private sector and so on.

It is very easy to sit here now with hindsight and potificate about what "should" have been done but that doesn't change the simple fact that if anyone -in government or business- had tried to suggest it 5 or ten years ago they would have been slammed for doing so.

Now I'm not saying government and buisness aren't at fault because they are. But, maybe, if you are wanting to apportion blame you should also look at the continually irresponsible media coverage of the economic situation over the past year.
How To Destroy...T.I. 3:13pm on 03 Dec 2008 Zing!

Fraser FTW! :D
Caption Competition 3:42pm on 27 Nov 2008 "This wasn't what I had in mind when you said we were going to blow up Macdonalds."
42 and 44? 08:32am on 31 Oct 2008 #13, weebison,

By the sound of it, some of us still are.
Scouting For Girls - 'I Wish I Was James Bond' 4:14pm on 28 Oct 2008 Simply put, it's a rubbish song anyway.
McCain loses it 2:29pm on 23 Oct 2008
Oh and with regard to the "socialist", "spreading the wealth" problems I present the following quote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich. . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Lenin maybe? Mao?

...

It's from “The Wealth of Nations”. By Adam Smith. And in case you don't know who he was (try google), he wasn't a communist or even a socialist.
McCain loses it 08:52am on 23 Oct 2008 #2, vivaelcid. "Spreading the wealth" wasn't a gaffe. Correct me if I'm wrong but McCain isn't proposing a flat income tax, so McCain's proposed tax plan is definately redistributive taxation as well (McCain is a socialist...?). So McCain is intending to "spread the wealth" through the tax code just as Obama is intending to. He's just spreading it differently (favouring the wealthy).

Arguably, of course, all taxation is "spreading the wealth", flat rate or not. At least Obama can be intellectually honest about what his proposals do, rather than hide behind smoke and mirrors as McCain does.
Here comes the 'S' word 2:46pm on 22 Oct 2008
#8 Have to agree with you.

Liberal is the most misused word in American politics (well, until the recent exessive use of "socialist"). A lot of it has to do with the Cold War, I think. Especially the use of socialist as some kind of slur.

In economic terms of course, a socialist isn't a liberal. Apparently Obama is the most liberal Senator in the US Senate and a socialist at the same time. Impressive feat. In fact in economic terms a liberal is the same as what is commonly referred to as a "conservative". That is, favouring a laisse faire "small government" approach to the economy. The opposite would be the traditional economic "left" which would be "big government" intervention in the economy, socialists, etc.

In "social" terms (individual liberty, etc), social liberalism is the opposite of social conservatism. Social liberalism would be about minimal government interference in peoples lives and giving people greater freedoms. Social conservatism is about "big government" in peoples personal lives and is on the authoritarian side of the scale.

Perhaps both "liberal" and "conservative" are misleading terms then.

Arguably, therefore, the part of the political spectrum that would be closest to the "American Ideal" would be economically and socially liberal.

Oddly that would be neither the Republicans (especially the "modern" Republican party which is a long way away from Lincolns GOP) or the Democrats. It would probably be some form of libertarianism...
Get Ganley! 12:53pm on 10 Oct 2008 Libertas... sounds rather like Orange Kilroy-Silks attempt at a anti-EU party...

Conspiracy!!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

RealisticJimmy