Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Trump Presidency after 200 days and the ratings slump cont

13»

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited August 2017

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*

    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.

    It depends on the who did the study.
    What the question was.
    Do the commissioning agents have an agenda.
    Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective

    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    The 'methodology' in the study has buch.
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.

    http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.

    You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Allan said:

    FF43 said:

    Your usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK due to any friendship towards us.

    Friendship? I thought it was firmly established some time ago that there is no friendship between countries, merely aligned interests.
    FF43 said:

    It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.

    We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.

    South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
    Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC]
    It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP]
    It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
    It is also the country that put Pinochet on trial for murder, tortutre and other human rights violations.

    Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
    :+1: It is always nice to see progress.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    TOPPING said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    So Britain was a top power, it is now a top power.
    Ranking countries can be very misleading when it's the relative weight that matters.

    As an example the much vaunted status of being the 4th/5th/6th biggest economy in the world doesn't sound as impressive when you consider that this represents less than 4% of world GDP.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542

    FF43 said:

    Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.

    The ends justify the means?
    It's usually much muddier

    Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.

    If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
    For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.

    We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
    I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.

    Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?

    The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
    I think we're talking about different things. There's realpolitik, which all countries engage in and has nothing to do with friendship or principle beyond furthering your own country's interest. We were informally allied with Sadam's Iraq against Iran but we weren't friendly with it. Then there's Mrs Thatcher's furious denial and justification of Pinochet's mass murders - to the extent anything happened it was the fault of the victims. She also took the side of Chile against Spain, a country that I would say WAS a friendly ally to the UK.

    Interesting read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/06/pinochet.chile?CMP=aff_1432&awc=5795_1502198988_c1a668938163be64bb50e10760d60cfb
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,556
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    .
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.

    http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    .
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.

    http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassedions.

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.

    Yes. The report sort of says we have ejected ourselves from the group of international movers & shakers. Which I suppose is one of the least surprising outcomes of our Brexit decision.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*

    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.

    It depends on the who did the study.
    What the question was.
    Do the commissioning agents have an agenda.
    Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective

    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    The 'methodology' in the study has buch.
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.

    http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.

    You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."
    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    #2 in a ***world*** listing, with the same score, and this is somehow *bad*.

    matron, my whiskey, please.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,556
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    .
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.

    http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassedions.

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.

    Yes. The report sort of says we have ejected ourselves from the group of international movers & shakers. Which I suppose is one of the least surprising outcomes of our Brexit decision.
    But it identifies no change of any significance at all - other than confirming that we've opted to leave the EU (and possibly that France's 'engagement' score improved partly thanks to a large increase in asylum seekers).
    As far as the consequences of Brexit go, it's so far of no real use.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited August 2017

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    philiph said:

    *UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*

    Let's have a look at that update:

    However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.

    :lol:
    It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.

    It depends on the who did the study.
    What the question was.
    Do the commissioning agents have an agenda.
    Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective

    'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
    The 'methodology' in the study has buch.
    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
    I don't think that's true. Tunited-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.

    You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."
    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
    You can't hold fast to the scoring methodology which suits your position on the one hand, and then dismiss the qualitative comments (presumably by the same people who devised the scoring methodology) because you disagree with the conclusions on the other.

    Or is it your have cake and eat it strategy?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited August 2017
    I imagine the Ex Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles will face something similar to this when Charles becomes King

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/brigitte-macron-will-not-become-frances-first-lady-280000-people/
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."

    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
    You can't hold fast to the scoring methodology which suits your position on the one hand, and then dismiss the qualitative comments (presumably by the same people who devised the scoring methodology) because you disagree with the conclusions on the other.

    Or is it your have cake and eat it strategy?
    ... but the comments clearly don't affect the scores - it. has. stayed. the. same.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.

    I don't think that's true. Tunited-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.

    You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."
    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
    You can't hold fast to the scoring methodology which suits your position on the one hand, and then dismiss the qualitative comments (presumably by the same people who devised the scoring methodology) because you disagree with the conclusions on the other.
    I don't think it's true, actually, not least because the number of international organisations that we engage in will go up as we regain our individual memberships rather than having Germany speak for us. Unless they count all the two-bob EU quangos as international organisations.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    nichomar said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.

    The ends justify the means?
    It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.

    If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.

    We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
    I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.

    Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?

    The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
    Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?

    Edit: ok found it: https://medium.com/@rob_francis/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-falklands-692057233e66
    If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
    hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.
    No, it was common knowledge at the time.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/01/argentina.military
    I think "common knowledge" is putting it a bit strong.
    But yes, that is precisely why Carrington resigned after the invasion. Quite how much he had relied on the advice of civil servants is a matter of conjecture, but he rightly took responsibility for the FCO's complacency.
    Is there a single issue since the 1950s that the FO/FCO's complacency has been positive? It is perhaps the longest standing poor performing ministry of the lot...
  • TOPPING said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    So Britain was a top power, it is now a top power.
    Ranking countries can be very misleading when it's the relative weight that matters.

    As an example the much vaunted status of being the 4th/5th/6th biggest economy in the world doesn't sound as impressive when you consider that this represents less than 4% of world GDP.
    Yes it does sound impressive when you realise that there are about 200 countries in the globe each representing an average of 0.5% of world GDP.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."

    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
    You can't hold fast to the scoring methodology which suits your position on the one hand, and then dismiss the qualitative comments (presumably by the same people who devised the scoring methodology) because you disagree with the conclusions on the other.

    Or is it your have cake and eat it strategy?
    ... but the comments clearly don't affect the scores - it. has. stayed. the. same.
    Yes. I. get. it.

    But the people who devised the report, and the scores, presumably have an informed view of the whole analysis and therefore their comments cannot be described as "wishful thinking", but are integral to the report. To describe the comments as wishful thinking is wishful thinking.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Hello M. Macron - may I introduce you to M. Gravity? Oh, you've met....

    Since a landslide presidential election victory in May and a successful parliamentary campaign in June, Macron's popularity ratings have started to slide, impacted by tough debates in parliament over labor reform and a public ethics law, a standoff with the military and cuts to housing assistance.

    A YouGov poll published at the start of August showed 36 percent of voters held a favorable view of the 39-year-old, a fall of 7 points on the previous month and matching the downward trend seen in other surveys.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-eu-idUSKBN1AO1HJ?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5989c3e504d3010718c35424&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.

    I don't think that's true. Tunited-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
    I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:

    France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.

    However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.


    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
    Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.

    You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
    Ah yes, No.2. Not a hugely ringing endorsement of its current position, that said, especially this bit:

    "[following Brexit, hung parliament, Corbyn, etc] Geopolitically, Britain now finds itself slightly left out of the rebalancing we see playing out around the world."
    And yet, the absolute score is essentially the same as the last two years. It looks like the authors are projecting their hopes.
    You can't hold fast to the scoring methodology which suits your position on the one hand, and then dismiss the qualitative comments (presumably by the same people who devised the scoring methodology) because you disagree with the conclusions on the other.
    I don't think it's true, actually, not least because the number of international organisations that we engage in will go up as we regain our individual memberships rather than having Germany speak for us. Unless they count all the two-bob EU quangos as international organisations.
    Well that is the nub. Brexiters presumably believe that, once out of the EU, the UK will assert itself and its voice will become one of influence and import on the world stage.

    It's just that this report's authors don't agree with you.
  • TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.

    Yes. The report sort of says we have ejected ourselves from the group of international movers & shakers. Which I suppose is one of the least surprising outcomes of our Brexit decision.

    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483


    The ends justify the means?

    It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.

    If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.


    We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.

    I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.

    Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?

    The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.

    Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?

    Edit: ok found it: https://medium.com/@rob_francis/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-falklands-692057233e66

    If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.

    hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.

    No, it was common knowledge at the time.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/01/argentina.military

    I think "common knowledge" is putting it a bit strong.
    But yes, that is precisely why Carrington resigned after the invasion. Quite how much he had relied on the advice of civil servants is a matter of conjecture, but he rightly took responsibility for the FCO's complacency.

    Is there a single issue since the 1950s that the FO/FCO's complacency has been positive? It is perhaps the longest standing poor performing ministry of the lot...

    I was old enough during Wilsons government to rember the threat and how it was handled and the widely felt disbelief that Thatcher had miss read the situation so badly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited August 2017

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
  • FF43 said:

    Your usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK due to any friendship towards us.

    Friendship? I thought it was firmly established some time ago that there is no friendship between countries, merely aligned interests.
    FF43 said:

    It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.

    We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.

    South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.

    One of the primary functions of a government is to protect its citizens. Mrs Thatcher knew that and acted accordingly.
    Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. But there are two I would make and put money on (were I not sure to be dead before I could collect) about the world in 100 years' time. One is that South America will be as or more corrupt than today. The other is that the begging bowl will still be coming round for African famine relief.

    My mother remembers the latter in the 1920s, just about. If there's been little progress in the last 90 years the next 100 aren't looking good.

    Are there any examples of corrupt countries becoming honest? The only ones I can think of are former east bloc states, who seem remarkably regretful of the fact.
  • Mortimer said:

    It's Moniker Di Canio's favourite Irishman again:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexiteers-foolishness-gives-ireland-control-1.3179299

    Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.

    On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.

    On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.

    The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.

    So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.

    The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
    We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
    That's because he's a Remainer, though, surely.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited August 2017

    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?

    Number 2...
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
  • AndyJS said:

    "A "sex-obessed" former police officer who filmed a couple having sex from his force helicopter as well as other people sunbathing naked has been jailed for a year.

    Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/team-deviant-police-helicopter-observer-jailed-filming-sex-act/

    How is a bloke in his 50s still "swinging and sex-obsessed"? Hasn't he started to wind down a bit on all that at his age?

    I suppose the warning sign is that he's made it past 50 but not past constable.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Without looking, can anyone guess which couple has the bigger age gap: Donald and Melania Trump or Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    edited August 2017



    Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. But there are two I would make and put money on (were I not sure to be dead before I could collect) about the world in 100 years' time. One is that South America will be as or more corrupt than today. The other is that the begging bowl will still be coming round for African famine relief.

    My mother remembers the latter in the 1920s, just about. If there's been little progress in the last 90 years the next 100 aren't looking good.

    Are there any examples of corrupt countries becoming honest? The only ones I can think of are former east bloc states, who seem remarkably regretful of the fact.

    I disagree. There has been huge progress in the past 90 years. This chart shows the percentage of the world population going hungry has halved in the past fifty years. There has been a transformation in China and good progress in the rest of Asia and South America. Unfortunately Africa hasn't seen an improvement in relative terms and also the actual numbers haven't dropped due to a much bigger world population.

    image

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Sadly for this narrative, we're currently seeing a very visible demonstration of how a smaller nation, in this case Ireland, can magnify its power thanks to membership of the EU.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Again, not me. The authors (or as I call them, scoring methodology developers):

    "As the US charts its own ‘America First’ course, a resurgent EU works to forge its own destiny, and China presses on with its transformative ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative, the UK’s ability to retain its influence and relevance will be severely tested."
  • AndyJS said:

    "A "sex-obessed" former police officer who filmed a couple having sex from his force helicopter as well as other people sunbathing naked has been jailed for a year.

    Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/team-deviant-police-helicopter-observer-jailed-filming-sex-act/

    How is a bloke in his 50s still "swinging and sex-obsessed"? Hasn't he started to wind down a bit on all that at his age?

    I suppose the warning sign is that he's made it past 50 but not past constable.
    Cough cough...SeanT....
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Again, not me.
    Well, whoever, it's what it means. The number of countries in the EU with influence is at most two.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Mortimer said:

    It's Moniker Di Canio's favourite Irishman again:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexiteers-foolishness-gives-ireland-control-1.3179299

    Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.

    On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.

    On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.

    The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.

    So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.

    The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
    We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
    First Spain was going to "derail" Brexit over Gib but now Spain has chickened out it's Ireland that Remainiacs are rooting for...
    Ireland is surely on our side, wanting the EU to go easy in negotiations so as to avoid a hard border between North and South Ireland.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited August 2017

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Again, not me.
    Well, whoever, it's what it means. The number of countries in the EU with influence is at most two.
    So we weren't confident enough to think we could hold our own with only two other countries and shape the EU in the way we wanted it shaped so had to leave? And somehow out of the EU we'll kick their arses?

    Doesn't overflow with national confidence or pride, now, does it?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,556
    Back on topic, just how unusual is it for members of a party to be getting their acts together for a primary run against a sitting President, less than a year into his presidency ?
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/gop_challenge_to_trump_in_2020_is_a_bad_sign.html
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    edited August 2017

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Germany and to some extent France work through the EU. They are vastly more influential because of it. Which is the key point about Brexit and the UK's influence in the world. We're not China or the USA, which have superpower influence in their own rights. If Britain works multilaterally it can have a level of influence that goes far beyond what it is achievable on its own. We have just rejected membership of the most powerful multilateral forum in the world and the multilateral body that is best suited for the kind of interests that the UK likes to promote (European, liberal democracy, socialised capitalism)
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Again, not me.
    Well, whoever, it's what it means. The number of countries in the EU with influence is at most two.
    So we weren't confident enough to think we could hold our own with only two other countries and shape the EU in the way we wanted it shaped so had to leave? And somehow out of the EU we'll kick their arses?

    Doesn't overflow with national confidence or pride, now, does it?
    That makes no sense so I can't respond to it.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.

    If you actually look at the report, the 'whatever reason'(s) are quite clear.
    Britain has dropped in the rankings principally on its score for 'engagement'. The metrics for this are as follows:

    Total overseas development aid
    Overseas development aid / GNI
    Number of embassies abroad
    Number of embassies in the country
    Number of consulates general abroad
    Number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations
    Membership of international organisations
    Environmental treaty signatures
    Asylum seekers per 1,000 people
    Number of diplomatic cultural missions
    Number of countries a citizen can visit visa-free
    Size of Weekly Audience of State Broadcaster
    Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    No prizes for guessing why our score in this category dropped.

    The real question is what might happen to the rest of these measures post Brexit, and it's way too early to be certain about that. Though I'm not a massive optimist.


    So we're in the top three nations still our of nearly 200 and yet are outside the "group of international movers and shakers". If number 3 isn't in the group of international movers and shakers then just who is in your eyes and why do you cut it off there?
    Don't blame me guv, it's the report wot Carlotta quoted. They think that. They cite China, Europe, and the US as the nexus of such decision-making.

    Edit: China, the EU, and the US.
    There is no question that has been the case until now. But really your edit should have been "Germany". Or possibly "Germany and France".
    Germany and to some extent France work through the EU.
    Nope. The EU is Germany + France, with perhaps minor placings to those who are happy to drive along their Project.

    We have spent the past 25 years being ignored because we weren't signed up to the Project.
  • new thread
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited August 2017
    .
  • AndyJS said:

    "A "sex-obessed" former police officer who filmed a couple having sex from his force helicopter as well as other people sunbathing naked has been jailed for a year.

    Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/team-deviant-police-helicopter-observer-jailed-filming-sex-act/

    How is a bloke in his 50s still "swinging and sex-obsessed"? Hasn't he started to wind down a bit on all that at his age?

    I suppose the warning sign is that he's made it past 50 but not past constable.
    Got a company helicopter though. :)
This discussion has been closed.