This is RichardYoung's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following RichardYoung's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
For me (and I appreciate this might fall directly into the Enfield/Whitehouse category you outline) it's a question of competence and the transparency of his ultimate objectives, as much as it's his immediate economic agenda. Can he even deliver his own party to secure an economic or political platform? Does his ideological certainty allow him to adapt when things don't go according the plan? And what is the end-state he's building towards? I don't fear a loss of relative income - I'm quite happy to pay more tax, too. I'd just like to know that in doing so, I'm genuinely helping to make a fairer and more sustainable society, not one that's just generally poorer with fewer rich people; and less efficient. Put another way: Ed Miliband never exactly blew my socks off. But I felt like he knew enough about how stuff works to implement policies that would deliver; and was broadly capable of bringing along different sections of the Labour party. (I might have been wildly wrong about that. But y'know... truthiness and all that...) TL; DR: perhaps irrationally, I trust Corbyn much less than other left-wing political leaders I've been offered.
Toggle Commented Aug 27, 2019 on Origins of Corbynphobia at Stumbling and Mumbling
I'm not a student of the topic, but it seems to me maybe both Saddam and Bush/Blair were playing the same game. It suited all parties to believe (or make others believe) that Iraq had NBC weaponry. Where the evidence was scant, it was enhanced by the West for public consumption; where there was no evidence, it was assumed a sign of double secret deception or evasion - which is obviously even more of a threat! The real incompetence was Saddam's in not believing that Bush and Blair would launch an all-out war against him. It was a bad bluff (which, to be credible, had to include his own people.) Bush and Blair weren't incompetent at all. They got their war, they ousted their dictator. I really don't think it's credible to argue that the NBC weaponry was ever anything other than a fig-leaf for these broader aims, and it didn't serve any purpose to plant any after the event. (Please not: I'm not making a value judgment about those aims. One might sincerely believe, as Blair does, that overturning the Iraq regime was both moral and geopolitically necessary. I might not agree. But I'm trying not to let that colour my view of the weapons issue.)
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2013 on bush and blair: incompetent war criminals at Marbury
RichardYoung is now following The Typepad Team
Feb 27, 2013