It was a surprise to me when I learned that a country’s ambassador, even for a staunch ally, was actually part of the US’s transmission team.
British ambassadorships, even those to the most important countries are not given to friends as favours, as in the USA; but are nearly always career diplomats ( run by the civil service )· Very occasionally it might be a relative of the prime minister. Even so you would first have to become a relative to qualify that way.
Farage is widely considered a buffoon, certainly by the current government and its rivals.
As for wind power, nae chance. Even if our idiots in chief have stymied the growth of Solar ( a la Allemagne ) even they are going for wind and wave in a big way ( since the Chinese nuclear option they prefer is going to get too expensive ). Dong is investing £6 billion into a sea wind farm in the Humber; whilst Siemens is building a £300 million factory in nearby Hull to build 250 feet blades, each weighing 30 tonnes.
It’s not entirely unknown. In addition to Peter Jay, who you referred to (he was the Prime Minister’s son in law), David Ormsby-Gore, who had been Minister of State for Foreign Affairs under McMillian, was made Ambassador to the US in 1961, and John Freeman, who had been a Labour MP , and who at the time was the Editor of the New Statesman, was first High Commissioner to India and then Ambassador to the US. Additionally, there was the Earl of Cromer, made ambassador in 1971, who was a banker, and not a career civil servant (except technically, as he was governor of the Bank of England. But he didn’t “rise through the ranks”, so to speak.)
It is, of course, rare.
On a related note, from ABC News: Obama Legacy: Handing Trump a Broad View of War Powers
The OP was written well before Trump took office. Now that he’s actually upon us …
From the NYT: Trump Follows Obama’s Lead in Flexing Executive Muscle
From Vox: President Obama flouted legal norms to implement Obamacare. Now Trump may go further
So the theory here is that if Obama had sat on his Executive Orders pad, we might be seeing a different Donald Trump now? More thoughtful, measured, judicious with his exercise of power, not immediately trying to test the limits to see what he can get away with? Does he strike you as someone with a lot of respect for norms, who’s eager to follow precedent?
The answer to the first and third questions are yes and no.
The middle question is the core of the issue. Trump is what he is. But even Trump operates relative to the boundaries that exist. He just pushes them a lot further than most people. But once the boundaries are already stretched, then that makes it easier for a guy like Trump to push them even further.
In addition, there are other people surrounding Trump who are not quite as nuts as Trump himself, not to mention other power centers like congress and courts. In addition, there’s also public opinion, which while not completely enamored with Trump, has become somewhat inured to expansive executive power.
I take it from your last two posts that you have no problem with what Trump is doing? Does that mean you have no complaints with the previous President, who stretched the limits less than what Trump has done(according to the articles you cited combined with your reasoning that Trump stretched things just bit more)?
Perhaps you can humor me a bit here. How in the world did you manage to “take it from [my] last two posts that [ I] have no problem with what Trump is doing”?
I don’t see the slightest hint of anything like that. And on top of that, the context here is an OP in which I put forth my father’s position that “Trump is a threat to the entire US democracy system”.
I have my theory, of course, as to how your mind is working here. But perhaps you can expound a bit.
I see presidential powers like a buffet. Whoever is elected gets a choice on which they wish to eat. At first the buffet only has what’s in the constitution. Over time the choices on the buffet line increase through executive reach, court action, legislative ceding, etc. All of the power that the executive branch has accrued to it through the years is now available to Trump. Obama did it, Bush 43 did it, Clinton did it, Bush 41, etc.
A strong argument in favor of limited government, IMO.
Hope it’s not too late to expand. The first bit sounds like ‘go away and boil your head’, and I had to look up numpty. Short version is stupid windbag.
And you specifically put it forth as your father’s idea. And, while you have argued for your father’s idea about Obama, you have not done so for his idea about Trump. That you have to bring up your father at all implies that you do not agree with him entirely, so that leaves not agreeing about Trump.
And, now that you’ve been specifically asked, you still carefully avoid saying you disagree with Trump’s actions–when it would be in your best interest to say so and close that angle of attack.
Sometimes, people say things not because they know for sure, but to judge your reaction. If you then prove them wrong, they can easily retract what they said.
I believe Czarcasm uses this tactic a lot.
And, yes, I also don’t know for sure that Czarcasm is doing this, but I’m not doing it to judge his reaction.
If it were a real buffet, all the shrimp and crab legs would be long gone and the incoming POTUS would have to contend with a lone tray corner of crusted-over macaroni and cheese and an oily plank of what might be fried catfish.
I’m not sure what debate is being proposed but I will assume for the moment that it has to do with the threat to democracy, real or perceived, that Trump poses to the country.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I don’t know, I’d probably put it at 5 or possibly a 6. The only reason I’d put it that high has little to do with Trump the individual himself, but rather the fact that the Congress and the state legislatures are dominated by his party, which means he has a lot more latitude than someone like Nixon, whose view of the executive was arguably even more imperialistic than the Donald’s, had in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Here’s the thing: there has always been and always will be a threat to democracy in this country and anywhere else where it exists, and although I would rate the Trump era as about a 5 or 6 (for now) in terms of the danger it poses, that risk would not subside very much if we brought Obama or anyone else back to power. As much as I liked Obama and as much as I felt he reflected my values (a blend of FDR and Bobby Kennedy), I’m realistic: had Obama been working with a solid Democratic majority and had the majority of public supporting him throughout all of his 8 years, he undoubtedly would have been dictatorial in some situations. Now all of the outrage over his executive orders were largely overblown, and much of it was in response to a extremely recalcitrant congress and countless other local officials who tested Obama’s presidency and legitimacy daily. But had the tables been turned, sure, Obama would have overreached at times. Any president would.
The Framers of the Constitution were arguably some of the most erudite political scholars in human history and saw Nixon and Trump coming. They knew that there would be Executives who would compete with the congress, just as they knew there would be popular movements that would sweep the nation and threaten to sow the seeds of chaos, thus necessitating a strong senate and presidency to push back against such collective impulses. There are some aspects of our constitution that are possibly obsolete and in need of updating, but the Fathers got this part right. Now it’s up to voting people to hold all office holders accountable.