I wasn’t going to write about the Reform Party again any time soon, but since Reform’s deputy leader, Ben Habib, popped up on X to respond to some of my comments, it’s worth keeping the discussion going.
Pete - thank you writing this up. I am afraid I fundamentally disagree in a number of respects. I think we should meet rather to discuss. I will follow you on twitter so you may text me, assuming you are prepared to meet.
Ben, Reform are asking people to trust you with (at least influencing) the running of the country, yet you are treating us like fools.
Energy is my main area of expertise, and your policy is frankly incoherent. Your actual policy on the NHS is non-existent ("It's not about money", apparently, yet all your "ideas" are about money (staff pay and taxes). The fact that the Tories and Labour are even worse is no excuse. As Pete says, if you want to do better, you need to do better.
For example, what does "nationalise key utilities" mean? Do you believe in the need to reduce CO₂, or not? By 80%, as you have previously said, or something else? Do you believe in progressively banning internal combustion engines, or not? What is the actual cost of your "policy"? Not only does policy constantly shift, with every Tice tweet and hysterical media monologue, there is never any explanation for the changes - typically just a denial that things that were previously said were ever said. What ever happened to Tice's ludicrous catchphrase "net smart"? Etc. Does anyone in the party actually understand energy, or have any kind of vision as to what you are trying to achieve?
If you listened to constructive criticism, and responded in a way which wasn't 100% defensive (i.e. "political"), intelligent people might be more inclined to put their faith in you. More than that, you might find that professionals and thought leaders (like Pete, and dare I say, myself) could actually help you.
Can't disagree with much of this. I'm ex-blob (sorry, long time ago), but this does give me the perspective to see that many people vastly underestimate the complexity of the machine and the level of detail involved in any issue. As one of the few who does not, you deserve a wider audience.
I would like Reform to be a viable alternative but unfortunately it isn't. However, I believe Ben is well intentioned and credit to him for at least engaging with you. Maybe you should take him up on his offer. And/or are there any like-minded voices that you could work with on potential policy agendas? Or are you already doing this?
Another thing, an easy way to spot shallow thinking, defence policy. How many parties don’t use the 2%(or 3%) defence commitment policy? What actually does it mean? A serious party would explain what defence was for, what commitments at home and abroad are needed and would commit to spend to obtain that outcome. I include my party the SDP in this shallow thinking.
Another fine explanation of why this is no longer a serious country. Reform is a private vanity project business for Mr Farage, and is therefore incapable of … reform…
Sadly, we saw it all before with UKIP, as Pete has commented. I that case, it was when someone tried to put the party on an intellectual foundation, that person was removed because he was seen as a threat to Farage. It was his party and no one else's. I'm sorry to read that Reform still treads the same path.
Whichever Party wins at the GE any mandated policies of the winning Party unfavourable to the aspirations of those ultimately in power, the Globalist Elites, will, as ever and at best, never be fully enacted.
The winning Party will essentially, whether or not being its intention, not be in ‘governance’ for the greater good of the state but for the greater good of themselves.
But ultimately for the greater good of the Globalist Elites.
On Defence procurement, we have been down this road before. Following the Strategic Defence Review, the Defence Procurement Agency was set up in Bristol in 1999, which was then merged with the Defence Logistic Organisation in 2007. We now have an organisation covering Defence Equipment and Support. Defence suffers from far too many management change initiatives and, like the NHS, is still reeling from the last one when the next one comes along.
I must disagree with your comment: "Moreover, when it comes to front line equipment, the very last people we should listen to are “front line soldiers”."
The user input is a vital part of the process, but only a part. I've seen some very expensive A/C equipment returned when a pilot, walking through the test hanger, saw it and explained in very simple terms, why the A/C could not fly with it and he was right.
No. Change initiatives imposed from outside the organisation, is not bad management unless you expand your definition of management to include external but powerful bodies.
I take it that you have never worked in a government department. My definition of external meant one that was not in direct management control but could still make policies that undermined all that you were doing.
I’m still here and reading your thoughts! Despite still not understanding your focus on Reform. I like the depth of your arguments and see why they should be driving much of political strategy across any serious party seeking to get into power. But what’s your Reform obsession? Do you want to be their mentor maybe? Do I need to look deeper into your motives? What’s wrong with trying to engender change in the superficial thinking of other contenders?
This will pop a few bubbles, if it gets a wider audience. Will likely draw some criticism and a few Blocks.
Good stuff. Nothing wrong with a dose of reality.
Pete - thank you writing this up. I am afraid I fundamentally disagree in a number of respects. I think we should meet rather to discuss. I will follow you on twitter so you may text me, assuming you are prepared to meet.
Ben Habib
Ben, Reform are asking people to trust you with (at least influencing) the running of the country, yet you are treating us like fools.
Energy is my main area of expertise, and your policy is frankly incoherent. Your actual policy on the NHS is non-existent ("It's not about money", apparently, yet all your "ideas" are about money (staff pay and taxes). The fact that the Tories and Labour are even worse is no excuse. As Pete says, if you want to do better, you need to do better.
For example, what does "nationalise key utilities" mean? Do you believe in the need to reduce CO₂, or not? By 80%, as you have previously said, or something else? Do you believe in progressively banning internal combustion engines, or not? What is the actual cost of your "policy"? Not only does policy constantly shift, with every Tice tweet and hysterical media monologue, there is never any explanation for the changes - typically just a denial that things that were previously said were ever said. What ever happened to Tice's ludicrous catchphrase "net smart"? Etc. Does anyone in the party actually understand energy, or have any kind of vision as to what you are trying to achieve?
If you listened to constructive criticism, and responded in a way which wasn't 100% defensive (i.e. "political"), intelligent people might be more inclined to put their faith in you. More than that, you might find that professionals and thought leaders (like Pete, and dare I say, myself) could actually help you.
Can't disagree with much of this. I'm ex-blob (sorry, long time ago), but this does give me the perspective to see that many people vastly underestimate the complexity of the machine and the level of detail involved in any issue. As one of the few who does not, you deserve a wider audience.
I would like Reform to be a viable alternative but unfortunately it isn't. However, I believe Ben is well intentioned and credit to him for at least engaging with you. Maybe you should take him up on his offer. And/or are there any like-minded voices that you could work with on potential policy agendas? Or are you already doing this?
Another thing, an easy way to spot shallow thinking, defence policy. How many parties don’t use the 2%(or 3%) defence commitment policy? What actually does it mean? A serious party would explain what defence was for, what commitments at home and abroad are needed and would commit to spend to obtain that outcome. I include my party the SDP in this shallow thinking.
Another fine explanation of why this is no longer a serious country. Reform is a private vanity project business for Mr Farage, and is therefore incapable of … reform…
Sadly, we saw it all before with UKIP, as Pete has commented. I that case, it was when someone tried to put the party on an intellectual foundation, that person was removed because he was seen as a threat to Farage. It was his party and no one else's. I'm sorry to read that Reform still treads the same path.
Whichever Party wins at the GE any mandated policies of the winning Party unfavourable to the aspirations of those ultimately in power, the Globalist Elites, will, as ever and at best, never be fully enacted.
The winning Party will essentially, whether or not being its intention, not be in ‘governance’ for the greater good of the state but for the greater good of themselves.
But ultimately for the greater good of the Globalist Elites.
On Defence procurement, we have been down this road before. Following the Strategic Defence Review, the Defence Procurement Agency was set up in Bristol in 1999, which was then merged with the Defence Logistic Organisation in 2007. We now have an organisation covering Defence Equipment and Support. Defence suffers from far too many management change initiatives and, like the NHS, is still reeling from the last one when the next one comes along.
I must disagree with your comment: "Moreover, when it comes to front line equipment, the very last people we should listen to are “front line soldiers”."
The user input is a vital part of the process, but only a part. I've seen some very expensive A/C equipment returned when a pilot, walking through the test hanger, saw it and explained in very simple terms, why the A/C could not fly with it and he was right.
"Defence suffers from far too many management change initiatives ... like the NHS"
You are confusing change initiatives with bad management.
No. Change initiatives imposed from outside the organisation, is not bad management unless you expand your definition of management to include external but powerful bodies.
The job of management is to manage, not capitulate to "powerful external bodies". In a communist jobsworth society, it's always someone else's fault.
𝑌𝑒𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 “𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠” 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 - 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑧𝑦, 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑠, ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑔𝑜 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤” 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠. 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝑉𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑑 𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑛.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-collapse-of-soviet-britain
I take it that you have never worked in a government department. My definition of external meant one that was not in direct management control but could still make policies that undermined all that you were doing.
As I said, it's always someone else's fault.
Give me some specifics, and I'll give you an excuse.
I’m still here and reading your thoughts! Despite still not understanding your focus on Reform. I like the depth of your arguments and see why they should be driving much of political strategy across any serious party seeking to get into power. But what’s your Reform obsession? Do you want to be their mentor maybe? Do I need to look deeper into your motives? What’s wrong with trying to engender change in the superficial thinking of other contenders?
Just ‘askin!..
What other contenders?
We are stuck with the other contenders so they don't have to make, or listen to, sense.