Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "A Different Bias" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. I would support national service if it was for two years and each conscript was allowed to choose between one of three options: 1) The armed services, obviously. And you can learn a skill or two that can go on your CV, as well as shore up our shrinking armed services’ numbers, which is an issue that needs attention as well as money. 2) Health and Social Services. Again, these services are desperate for staff and meaningful skills could be taught to young people for their CV’s, whilst they prop up the services by doing all the grunt work, while the NHS can redirect some of their real money to be spent on doctors, nurses and other skilled professionals, along with the equipment and premises they need. Just DON’T allow any, “friends and family,” contracts with people who are married to MP’s providing equipment that is unfit for purpose! 3) Community Projects. I started out in Community Resource work, in a previous life, and there is mountains of stuff to do and an awful lot that could be done if we got enough bodies to do the liaison work and build relationships in these communities. Everything from play-schemes during the school holiday periods, to needle exchanges, and countless other outreach projects which strengthen communities, build relationships between people in those communities and foster positive relations between local government and those communities. If all of them lasted for two years, they would be long enough for the participants to gain meaningful skills and qualifications. AND they would be long enough for participants to make a meaningful difference. And with their new qualifications and the knowledge of their contribution to society, each draftee will emerge with a sense of ownership over their contribution and a sense of responsibility toward their country and communities, making them better informed and responsible, contributing members of society. Of course, informed, educated and responsible members of society is the last thing that Tories want, so they wouldn’t dream of running it like that. Especially if National Service could result in the extended longevity of Health, Social and Community services, which they want to privatise by running them into the ground. But, if Labour were to pick up their ball and run with it? Doing it properly, in the manner I suggested? . . .
    1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. Isn’t it obvious to everyone, what actually happened? . . . “Brexit changed left wing voting habits,” for the simple reason that the general public were more worried about the possibility of a government overturning a democratic referendum and the UK no longer being a democracy, than they were about which party was in power. The Tories were promising to honour the Brexit vote, and that won them the election. The fact that we did not get the Brexit that was advertised came as a surprise to precisely no one, except for those right wing voters who were naive enough to actually believe in people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. I, and many people I know, voted Tory at the last general election, not for any ideological reasons. I simply believed that overturning a national referendum was such an egregious mistake that we would no longer even be a democracy anymore and we could easily wind up with governments that refuse to accept election defeats, as we later saw the Republicans attempt in America. What we actually DO about this seems pretty obvious to me too. We simply have to seek terms with Europe that closely align us on trade, human rights, strategic military goals and justice, without surrendering our sovereignty and without sacrificing our right to make policies on a case by case basis, when it comes to new crises affecting the world. And that’s something that the Tories have been fighting against since Margaret Thatcher. So, we have no alternative but to change government, if for no other reason than getting friendly faces into power that the Europeans will find acceptable, in order that we can iron out new deals without the baggage of the Euro-Skeptic politicians round our necks.
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31.  @martianunlimited : Underrated comment, there, my friend. That’s all there is to it. Be born with money and make a, “career,” out of paying to have your name slapped onto every pack and warehouse of the most successful projects, and let each company’s own publicity department get going on the myth making, with bonuses for those who raise your profile in a positive way and by a measurable metric. Sit back and look for more stuff to buy. The only way that plan ever goes wrong is when you fall for your own myth and start buying controlling shares in your investments, so you can, “make decisions.” Then, if your ego is really fragile, you’ll be spending the rest of your days looking for none-specific groups who cannot sue you for scapegoating them for your every mistake, like, “the woke,” or, “the left,” or, “bleeding heart liberals.” You think you’re getting away with it, but now people have started actually scrutinising your, “decisions.” And the smarter ones out there having started doing their homework and delineating the line between the point where there was a thriving, growing, future focussed business, and when YOU started making decisions, and realising that this is where things started to go wrong, each and every time. With the exception of SpaceX of course . . . Because NASA and the American government have never allowed you to fuck around with the science or the budgets and retained the last word on every decision of importance. But, you still get to pick the colour of the cockpit, so . . . Well done you . . . 🤭✌️
    1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. By the way, I must challenge that assumption that it was, “complacency,” that caused people to vote for other parties, rather than the Labour Party, since they knew they would win anyway. You can only tag those who don’t bother to vote with, “complacency.” I wanted Labour to win, but I didn’t vote for them, since they stood no chance in my constituency. Most of all I cast a TACTICAL vote, because it was between the Tories or the SNP in my constituency. I voted SNP to stop the Tories. And it worked. I think the use of that term in this context will be taken very negatively by people like me, who voted according to the advice of the tactical voting campaign, since it overlooks the very fierce opposition so many voters had for the Tories. Lots of different political persuasions followed the tactical campaign on the web and took advice on how to vote in order to STOP THE TORIES. That was NOT complacency, but political activism writ large across the land! And, as so many pundits seem so worryingly quick to forget, the tactical vote goes a long way to explaining why Labour won so many seats, yet did so rather narrowly in so many constituencies. The tactical voting campaign was far, far bigger than most news outlets either comprehend or are willing to give credit for. Largely, I believe, because they don’t want to encourage a trend by acknowledging its power to create meaningful changes in the political landscape. It is being treated like British politics’ dirty little secret. I wish someone would commission an independent study into how many people were aware of the campaign, versus how many voters cast their vote not, “for,” any particular party, but just to STOP the Tories? I think the answers would be game changing.
    1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1