The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, hippo said:

Thats true and its kind of sad. Its spouting idealism instead of coming up with a sellable package to the ordinary Joe in the street. Personally I think momentum will run its course - It was a bit of a novelty to elect and reelect an anti establishment figure - will there be such a bandwagon when the next leadership ballot perhaps contains 3 such folk ?  

they won't put up three candidates for the leadership, eventually, there will only be the one candidate and no vote will be required

[peterms]

On 12/12/2018 at 00:23, blandy said:

Turns out that was bollocks, though. What they’d been doing was, amongst their ahem, normal work, they’d retweeted some tweets that were critical of Corbyn and retweeted some that were critical of the tories. Scottish paper picked up on it and neglected to mention all the ones critical of the tories. Better story, see. “Govt funded anti Corbyn shadowy org” is better news than “charity media bod a bit unwise on twitter account”

It's government-funded, run by the intelligence services, and its aim is to attack and undermine anyone who is at all critical of the rabidly anti-Russia narrative that the intelligence services are promoting.  It has clusters of tame journos in several countries who support it by spreading its line.  It's not just a twitter account retweeting a range of views.  If tories say things which suggest they haven't swallowed the official line, then they may get attacked as well, but the greater effort is spent on attacking the Labour leadership.

We all know that the scare stories put out are co-ordinated (eg wreathgate, supposed antisemitism), they aren't just spontaneous bits of coverage.  This secretive organisation, and the clusters of journos and others whose names were in the leaked documents, are part of that co-ordination.  This organisation will focus more on Russia, where the Israelis will obviously focus more on criticism of Israel, but the tactics are shared, and many of the journos will happily play a role in attacking people on both these issues, and others.  The co-ordinators prompt their clusters to action when an issue arises, to spread and amplify the message.

Organisations which Integrity Initiative is linked with include Bellingcat, and the Atlantic Council, which is now in charge of censoring Facebook and closing down channels which are critical of the official narrative.

Emily Thornberry is pursuing the issue, as it seems the Ministerial answers in Parliament were not accurate, and the Scottish charity regulator is now investigating.

[peterms]

More on this shadowy group.  They seem to be propagating plans which reasonable people would describe as fascist.

They also seem to be camouflage-dressing preppers, getting ready to launch a coup.

Pernaps they could be escorted to somewhere like St Kilda,  or Rockall, or deep space, to practice their delusional fantasies without inconveniencing normal society.

Mad.

here.

Quote

 
Private
 –
 in Confidence: second draft for comment
1
 The Institute for Statecraft  
Private Report. The Challenge of Brexit to the UK: Case study
 –
 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Updated: 01 02 2018
Understanding the world in which we must operate today and tomorrow
50 years ago, only about one third of UK Government spending went on health, education, social security. Today that figure is about two-thirds, leaving only one third for spending on everything  else, including defence, foreign affairs, national infrastructure etc. (see graph at annexe) If we consider that foreign affairs or defence need more investment to strengthen their capabilities and capacity, either specifically for Brexit or more generally, then the first challenge is to change public expectation so that the trend of the past two generations can be reversed and funding transferred to the FCO & MOD. If this solution is considered too difficult politically at the moment, then the only other option is to find a radically different way to do foreign affairs and defence. Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history. The end of the Cold War reinforced both this perception of permanent safety and stability and the trend in Government spending depicted in the graph at annexe
. This “peace time” mentality has been reinforced by “peace time” procedures, rules and regulations across society. All this is now considered normal and permanent by the bulk of the population and by public administrators, in both London and the regions...

It goes on.  And on.  Where are the psychiatrists when you need them?

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

More on this shadowy group.  They seem to be propagating plans which reasonable people would describe as fascist.

They also seem to be camouflage-dressing preppers, getting ready to launch a coup.

Pernaps they could be escorted to somewhere like St Kilda,  or Rockall, or deep space, to practice their delusional fantasies without inconveniencing normal society.

Mad.

here.

It goes on.  And on.  Where are the psychiatrists when you need them?

The link is now dead. From the bit quoted (only, as I can't access the rest) I see absolutely no problem with it.

And your previous post to that one, I've struggled for days as to how or whether to respond. But I think I'll just say it's the sort of thing that any group with a siege mentality might say. A kind of paranoid, everyone's out to get us, it's all a big conspiracy by the deep state to suppress our glorious revolution type of thing, whilst mentioning, as ever, Israel and anti-Russian propaganda. It's not from any world I recognise.

To be fair, where I do recognise some aspects as have an inkling of a link to reality, it's true, for sure, that parts of the media will look for things Corbyn has said or done in the past which demonstrate, er, "traits", such as anti-semitism, support for terrorism and such like. They want to support their own editorials about him with evidence, and sometimes it's tenuous, sometimes it's damning. Yet, similar digging towards MPs who might be thought to have wandering hands (from whichever party) goes on, as it's the media's role to unearth impropriety, hypocrisy, support for terrorists, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, racism and so on. Jeremy Corbyn, Seamus Milne, and others on that part of the left are susceptible and prone to "naivety" (useful idiots, more like) with regards to Russia. They are susceptible to at best turning a blind eye to anti-semitism, and at best occasional direct anti-semitic language. Equally, the tories in particular are susceptible and guilty of basically being bought off by Russian money. So the media exposing this (and they probably should do more of it, rather than celebrity guff) is a healthy and good thing.

That this, what appears to be fairly low rent shambolic, body has retweeted some tweets about tories and Labour people with dodgy links to Russian funding, or Russian sympathies is some evidence of a conspiracy is (to me) laughable. It's more like an inept, amateurish start to try and counter the very effective Russian troll factories that have been way ahead of the west for years now and have influenced, for the worse, US, UK and European politics and society. By all means criticise the bumbling almost laughable amateur attempts to set something up, by the Gov't, but claims of conspiracies and such like are equally laughable, to me.

[OutByEaster?]

I'm going to have a bit of a rant. For me, the interesting line in that bit that's been quoted is this. It's the one that most betrays the ideology of the group.

Quote

If we consider that foreign affairs or defence need more investment to strengthen their capabilities and capacity, either specifically for Brexit or more generally,

Spending on people is bad, spending with arms companies is good. These are the same people who told us we needed to spend £300m on beach landing craft, billions on aircraft carriers and trillions on Trident in a world where the biggest threat to the British people comes from four blokes in a transit van from Sheffield with knives. The biggest threat to the profit of companies that identify as British (and fund groups like this one) remains the idea that foreigners might want to benefit from their own natural resources, for that a load of bombs can be helpful, but that's not for the British people, that's for corporate interest.

It's not even raised as a discussion or an opinion or an option - it's the basis of the group, the sole fact, we must stop giving this money back to society and put it into the hands of private corporations immediately. It's the very core of Conservative values.

Quote

If this solution is considered too difficult politically at the moment, then the only other option is to find a radically different way to do foreign affairs and defence. 

"Considered too difficult politically" means people might notice, that people will be poorer, that society will be more troubled than they can get away with it - a balance on how much the average Joe in the street can take before he whacks on a yellow jacket and sets fire to something. I dread to think what a radically new way to do foreign affairs and defence might be.

Quote

Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history. The end of the Cold War reinforced both this perception of permanent safety and stability and the trend in Government spending depicted in the graph at annexe

Our problem is that there hasn't been a bloody war, people don't seem scared enough by the terrorists we bigged up, or by the Russians under their beds, they just seem to want to be happy and have an iPad and healthcare the selfish bastards. 

Quote

This “peace time” mentality has been reinforced by “peace time” procedures, rules and regulations across society. All this is now considered normal and permanent by the bulk of the population and by public administrators, in both London and the regions...

The last thing we want is them making their own rules, especially is some of them benefit people rather than corporate structure. 

You can almost feel the anger from that group that a functional peaceful society might not spend trillions in tax on the industries that matter. I have no doubt they'd be quite happy with the deaths of millions of brown people or hundreds at home in order to bring things back on track.

10 hours ago, blandy said:

From the bit quoted (only, as I can't access the rest) I see absolutely no problem with it.

I see everything wrong with it. Lobby groups like this are the single biggest threat to our future that exists, the people that would start wars, destroy the planet and let billions suffer for profit.

That government would provide funding for groups like this that operate directly in opposition to interests of the electorate is an abomination, and an example of the ways in which corporate power both bends and controls democratic power and leaves us blaming the only mechanism we have to defend ourselves against it - our parliament.

 

[HanoiVillan]

'Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.'

The rest of the world must be gutted for us. 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

That this, what appears to be fairly low rent shambolic, body has retweeted some tweets about tories and Labour people with dodgy links to Russian funding, or Russian sympathies is some evidence of a conspiracy is (to me) laughable. It's more like an inept, amateurish start to try and counter the very effective Russian troll factories that have been way ahead of the west for years now and have influenced, for the worse, US, UK and European politics and society. By all means criticise the bumbling almost laughable amateur attempts to set something up, by the Gov't, but claims of conspiracies and such like are equally laughable, to me.

It's a little more organised and sophisticated than a low rent shambolic body retweeting tweets.

Though you're right about it being low rent - they don't pay any rent to occupy their offices, I gather that's directly paid for by MoD.  Quite a nice place.

     

Their budget request to FCO for the current year requested £480k for phase 2 of their programme (FCO had funded Phase 1), and stated that £678k was coming from other sources, including £250k from the US State Department.

The activities which they proposed to FCO were in summary

Quote

To expand our long-term programme so that European and N American countries can better understand and counter Russia’s policy of malign influence and disinformation.
To be achieved by:
 Expanding our network of specialists, journalists, academics and political actors across Europe, empowering them to educate their publics and policy elites
 Sponsoring, including via the Free University of Brussels (thereby enhancing academic respectability of the topic), advanced research, publications, workshops, educational courses, mentoring, lectures
 Expanding the impact of the Integrity Initiative website, dissemination and Twitter/social media accounts, and increasing the reporting of the issue in mainstream and specialist press
 Engaging national political and military establishments and societal organisations, improving their ability to counter Russian disinformation and other weapons of hybrid warfare strategy
 Increasing the impact of effective organisations currently analysing Russian activities, making their expertise more widely available across Europe and North America.
 Reinforcing the will and ability of international organisations to address this issue, despite the reticence of some member nations. Organisations include: NATO Parliamentary Assembly; Atlantic Treaty Association; Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers; Baltic Defence College; HQ NATO Public Diplomacy; EU East Stratcom team
 Engaging Russian and Russian-speaking audiences to challenge Moscow’s narratives
 Adapting our approach as Russia responds to our successful counter moves
 Applying lessons of the programme more widely, e.g. to expose and counter Daesh influence in Muslim communities, and increasing Chinese influence in our countries
Phase 1 of this programme is now completed; FCO funding is requested for phase two.

The application sets out in more detail the activities which they will pursue.  One example is

Quote

Complete the development of the 9 national clusters (Hub + network) created during Phase 1 (Spain, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Italy; set up the latent clusters ready to go in Moldova, Georgia, Sweden, Montenegro, Malta. Establish clusters in USA, Canada, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland. Explore the need for the networks to extend to the Middle East/N Africa and other concerned countries.

The "clusters" are the networks of eg friendly journos who can be relied upon to run stories favourable to the aims of the programme.

It's rather more organised than a couple of guys on twitter.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

It's rather more organised than a couple of guys on twitter

Excellent news. It turns out then that the newspaper articles were very wide of the mark indeed.

i have to say that despite Scott’s rant, I thoroughly approve of the organisation and it’s aims and objectives, though have some suspicion as to their complete competence with Twitter.

Russia, Daesh, and also Chinese cyber and espionage activities are a genuine and significant real threat to the UK and allies and the nation needs to defend itself against those and other threats. 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Russia, Daesh, and also Chinese cyber and espionage activities are a genuine and significant real threat to the UK and allies and the nation needs to defend itself against those and other threats. 

The issue is that it would appear from their own reports that those other threats include democracy wherever it doesn't meet the ideology of the group. Those other threats include the Labour party and a big chunk of the population of the UK that believe in public services and the public sector. They aren't accountable to the British people, or even to Parliament; they're a group designed to disseminate propaganda for special interest groups.

 

 

[blandy]

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

it would appear from their own reports that those other threats include democracy wherever it doesn't meet the ideology of the group. Those other threats include the Labour party and a big chunk of the population of the UK that believe in public services and the public sector. 

I can’t see anything that suggests that, at all. If you could point me at something I’d obviously read it. I can’t speak for your outlook, but I will say 2 things about mine (which may turn into more). Firstly I’m, by nature, literal - ie I go by what I can verify, by what’s written on this. If you go by underlying instinct or something, then we’re talking about different things, really. Secondly, the things you mentioned such as public sector, democracy, public services and the Labour Party (excluding Catweazle and his band of angry tramps) - I absolutely believe in them, too.

I accept they are not accountable in the same way that judges, soldiers, nurses and most other people aren’t accountable to the general public. They are accountable to the government.

i think it’s perfectly fine to believe in the things you cited and yet also to look at the evidence of the threats posed to the UK by Russia, Chinese actions, terrorist groups and so on and feel that the UK government should absolutely be working to counter those threats. I want the UK to be doing this stuff. I see it as almost the primary duty of the government to be doing that.

now on instinct, sure, I can see why people would be sceptical or concerned about a notion of “shadowy bodies” doing stuff in cyberspace etc. But also, to be frank, the idea or complacency that Russia, China, Daesh aren’t out there promoting their interests and we should stand by and ignore that is one that worries me. The world is messy and sometimes we have to get messy too. 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

Excellent news. It turns out then that the newspaper articles were very wide of the mark indeed.

i have to say that despite Scott’s rant, I thoroughly approve of the organisation and it’s aims and objectives, though have some suspicion as to their complete competence with Twitter.

Russia, Daesh, and also Chinese cyber and espionage activities are a genuine and significant real threat to the UK and allies and the nation needs to defend itself against those and other threats. 

The person in charge, Chris Donnelly, ex-Army intelligence, ex-NATO, may or may not be someone you'd trust with running a propaganda unit.  I hae ma doots.  Personally I wouldn't, seeing his outlandish and extreme warmongering views as et out in the document linked in this tweet:

Quote

...The “classic” understanding of conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each other in a “war of all against all”...

...If we can understand that, in societal terms, one of the defining features of war is that it precipitates change, then to all intents and purposes the world is at war, because we are living through a period of change more widespread, rapid and profound than we have experienced during the last two centuries outside a world war. Moreover, this change has been sustained longer than any world war of the last two centuries, and it is still increasing. But because this is not a shooting war like 1939-45, we in “Western” countries have not adopted the “wartime mentality” essential if we are to cope with the instability which drastic change inevitably brings. We are now trying to cope in a wartime situation but with a peacetime mentality, peacetime institutions and peacetime procedures shaped by the last 70 years of living in a stable, secure, rules-based environment. We have also, quite naturally, selected our leaders for their abilities to shine in this “peacetime” environment. But “wartime” rates of change need a different form of leadership, just as they need different procedures and new ways of thinking. We are facing a new reality...

...So, if we consider what qualities and characteristics we need in those whom we select for leadership today, in a period of rapid and profound change, in all sorts of institutions – government departments, big companies, the NHS - the conclusion is that we need to look for people who have abilities that suit a wartime environment1 rather than a peacetime one...

...To deal with a situation of rapid change we also need leadership. Leadership understands that in a period of tumultuous change you cannot control, you have to command...

The paper then drifts into talking about more practical things, like the challenges posed by Brexit after years of running down the civil service, outsourcing areas of technical competence which will suddenly be required post-Brexit, and so on.  No great insights there.

But it's the Hobbesian, Darwinian state of perpetual war of all against all and the call for strong leaders who command that concerns me.  I imagine you could have heard this stuff in Munich bierkellers a century ago, or from Ukip and EDL types now.  People like this are dangerous.

The second area of concern, obviously, is that this propaganda unit has been set us as a charity but is in flagrant breach of charity law; that it is using extensive state funding to launch and co-ordinate political attacks against UK politicians; and that it appears to be unaccountable and out of control (if you accept that Alan Duncan was not deliberately lying in his parliamentary answers to Thornberry).

Those are things which should concern even those who think it's a good idea to stoke Russiaphobia and ramp up the new cold war.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

The person in charge, Chris Donnelly, ex-Army intelligence, ex-NATO, may or may not be someone you'd trust with running a propaganda unit.  I hae ma doots.  Personally I wouldn't, seeing his outlandish and extreme warmongering views as et out in the document linked in this tweet:

The paper then drifts into talking about more practical things, like the challenges posed by Brexit after years of running down the civil service, outsourcing areas of technical competence which will suddenly be required post-Brexit, and so on.  No great insights there.

But it's the Hobbesian, Darwinian state of perpetual war of all against all and the call for strong leaders who command that concerns me.  I imagine you could have heard this stuff in Munich bierkellers a century ago, or from Ukip and EDL types now.  People like this are dangerous.

The second area of concern, obviously, is that this propaganda unit has been set us as a charity but is in flagrant breach of charity law; that it is using extensive state funding to launch and co-ordinate political attacks against UK politicians; and that it appears to be unaccountable and out of control (if you accept that Alan Duncan was not deliberately lying in his parliamentary answers to Thornberry).

Those are things which should concern even those who think it's a good idea to stoke Russiaphobia and ramp up the new cold war.

I don't see warmongering there. To an extent I come across some of this type of person from time to time. It's important to separate, for example, in this instance, his espousing of "wartime" type of leadership, with warmongering. One is a set of characteristics which are suited to times of (as he says) change, and one is wanting and promoting warfare.

Personally, in a way I'm surprised you don't see the truth in what he's saying. For example as Scott has alluded to (sort of) certain tories and US companies are effectively waging a kind of war to get hold of the NHS. Banks are and have been doing similar with governments, big corporations with the tx man worldwide, and so on. Then you've got the propaganda warfare undertaken by Russia (there's a big difference between what you call Russophobia and recognising malign actions by Russia), there's the industrial and other espionage by China, which is staggering in scale. It's one are Trump is spot on. These "developments" are not well dealt with by the "peacetime" type of leaderships - slow, unresponsive, more concerned with party needs than national needs, more concerned with retaining cushy positions than addressing issues (from homelessness to health to tax dodging to...). He's not talking about War (as in explosions and guns) he's talking about the conflicts that are rife and the absence of decision making prowess or critical judgement by slow, paralysed 'Follow the protocol' leaders like May and so on (though he doesn't mention names).

How many people yearn in the UK for a leader and a party with the desire to put the country's needs first, rather than party interests? This is exactly what Wartime type leadership does.

Now I accept that solely a wartime type set of leaders would be a mistake, but there's no enough of that style around, for sure. ours are essentially timid followers, either of public opinion, or party membership, or long held outdated convictions utterly out of place in the modern world. For example Corbyn's desire to have a publicly owned set of Water and gas and Electricity and Phone etc.companies trumps any wider pragmatic consideration about EU membership. May's the same with immigration. A wartime leadership style would be focused around "make stuff work, get it working so it does its job" not "ooh, it'd be dreamy if the people owned power companies, rather than shareholders".

I should also point out that for all these types of people can be impressive in their focus and drive and ability to cut through the crap, they are often berks as well in some areas. Having them propose or float ideas and views is good, Giving them limited control of particular aspects that need sorting is good. Giving them carte blanche on a wider scale is less wise.

But my message is that just because the style of language is one sort, doesn't mean that for example suggesting "wartime style leadership" is needed is at all equivalent to "warmongering".

I'm totally with you on the Charity thing, mind.

[peterms]

Something from one of their papers, showing the tactics they use against people who question their narrative.  It's among the many documents here.  This one is called "Combatting Russian Disinformation".

Quote

Social media amplification

§ To amplify our actions, we will also launch social media campaigns on Twitter,
Facebook, LinkedIn and other local platforms to push our content
§ We would search for online influencers and encourage them become natural allies to
engage in the conversation online by combatting false narratives and fostering
constructive discourse

Wikipedia editing and monitoring

§ Since Wikipedia is the de facto, go-to source of information for decision-makers and
the general public alike, we recommend creating new pages, such as lists of known Russiabacked
propaganda sites, as well as expanding and updating pages related to fake
news and other relevant subjects
§ We also recommend monitoring relevant pages related to hot topics such as the Ukraine
conflict, or Western allies (pro-Western local politicians, journalists, medias,
businesspeople, companies, etc.) which may be particularly vulnerable to manipulation by
Russia-backed trolls
We will prioritize:
§ Engaging and mobilizing credible, independent authors and spokespeople
§ Publishing high-quality, compelling opinion, analysis, and policy articles
§ Publishing infographics, videos and stories appealing for a popular audience, with an emotional
dimension, attractive titles and images able to generate clicks and shares on social networks
§ Countries where elections are happening

III. ENGAGE IN COUNTER-ACTIVISM
Undertake operations intended to intimidate those relaying fake news.
§ Raising the “price to pay” for the influencers and media relaying Russian
propaganda and fake news
• “Name and shame” the media sites and influencers being caught promoting “fake
news” (reputations damages)
• Engage legal actions against the media site, whenever possible, to remove
controversial contents and encourage them to more cautious in their publication
policy
• Limit their visibility online: systematically alert search engines and social networks
against every fake news publication, in order to encourage them to take stronger
actions against the media and influencer responsible
• Reduce the revenues of the medias and influencers we are targeting by encouraging
advertising agencies not to work with them (in order to avoid any reputation and
economic damages for themselves)
• Launch “response to incident” operations against cyber attacks and hacking
operations, especially during elections, to limit the damages, learn, raise awareness and,
eventually, conduct ethical “hack back” operations.

Of course, when people have pointed out in recent years that there are co-ordinated campaigns of harassment against people who challenge the official line, the immediate response is "conspiracy theory! Tinfoil hat!". 

On the point they make about acting against media sites in order to encourage them to be more cautious, this piece in the LRB describes how the BBC operates with exactly the caution that Mr Donnelly would require.

Quote

...The most important moment in the recent history of BBC news was the publication of the Hutton Inquiry report into the circumstances surrounding the death of the scientist David Kelly. The report was highly critical of the BBC and, ever since, editorial controls on output have become stifling. Most editors are less concerned about what should be in a programme than with what should be left out for fear of – and this language is actually used in New Broadcasting House – being non-compliant. For all the talk of how much the BBC values original journalism, it is in fact very nervous of it. The vast bulk of its output merely turns around sanctioned news from officials, corporations and NGOs, or curates stories generated by other news organisations. Most BBC journalists neither break stories nor see it as their job to do so. It is not unknown for BBC journalists who do want to break new ground to leak their stories to the Times or the Guardian. Once editors see it in print they will be more comfortable broadcasting it.

But for all the damage Hutton’s report inflicted, it only accentuated problems that already existed and which arose from the power relationship inherent in the licence fee or, in the World Service’s case in the past, direct government funding. When BBC journalists went off-script during the Troubles in Northern Ireland they were dismissed. Until the 1990s MI5, with the BBC’s full co-operation and lying denials, monitored the political opinions of its staff. As recently as 2014, the BBC’s monitoring service in Caversham was generating material for the British intelligence services that was made available only to a select group of senior BBC journalists...

 

[blandy]

this from your link is good, by him

Quote

In times of slow change we can manageeverything. We can give in to the desire to control everything. But at times of rapid change, we cannot do that. We need to move the cursor along the line away from management towards leadership. Of course, we will always need management. But it needs to be the right form of management appropriate to the need to adapt to rapid change, cope with unpredictability and respond to being surprised. This is a far cry from the meaning most organisations and businesses give to management today, which in reality is ‘administration’.To deal with a situation of rapid change we also need leadership. Leadership understands that in a period of tumultuous change you cannot control, you have to command. To command means to trust and to delegate, because there is never time to monitor and check up on everything.

The third quality is risk. In peacetime we become risk-averse. Everything has to be failsafe. But in times of war or in times of rapid change, we need a system that encourages us to take risk; that allows us to make mistakes and learn from them. We have to create an environment for staff where it is safe to fail and try again. This means we must move thecursor along the line away from “error and trial” towards “trial and error”.

The fourth quality is effectiveness. Peacetime forces us to be efficient. It forces us to plan long term, to tie everything up for a long time so we have no reserves. But in wartime, that leads to disaster, because it means we are no longer flexible and cannot respond to a surprise or when things take a bad turn. It is the same in business and government duringtoday’s rapid change. Think of investments tied up long term. Think of just-in-time-delivery,which gives supermarkets and filling stations only 2 days’ reserves. No flexibility results infailure.

In wartime, or at a time of rapid change, we must have a clearly articulated, long term strategic vision and clear objective. Simply put, we need to know where we want to go in the world; what our interests are; what values do we want to protect. Without that, shortterm thinking can lead us astray. “Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat”, to quote Sun Tzu.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Something from one of their papers, showing the tactics they use against people who question their narrative.  It's among the many documents here.  This one is called "Combatting Russian Disinformation".

I like it. It's good. Commendable. If only it had been done earlier with Facebook etc. All the Russian funded Aaron Banks, Tim Wetherspoon, Nigel Farage etc. fake news needed challenging and rebutting. It wasn't.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

On the point they make about acting against media sites in order to encourage them to be more cautious

They don't make that point, though. They specifically say that “Name and shame” the media sites and influencers being caught promoting “fake
news” (reputations damages). It's all about going after the disseminators of lies. The likes of Fox news, the Daily Mail and many others as well as internet ones - we need that to happen.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

They don't make that point, though. They specifically say that “Name and shame” the media sites and influencers being caught promoting “fake
news” (reputations damages). It's all about going after the disseminators of lies. The likes of Fox news, the Daily Mail and many others as well as internet ones - we need that to happen.

But that's very evidently not what they do, Pete.  They (and the wider intelligence services) influence, intimidate, threaten, exert control over platforms like the BBC and Guardian.  For decades they directly vetted BBC staff to ensure their views were suitable.  Currently they have developed this "cluster" approach.  I don't see them challenging lies from Fox and ther Mail, but rather challenging views and interpretations which are at odds with the official line.

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

But that's very evidently not what they do, Pete.  They (and the wider intelligence services) influence, intimidate, threaten, exert control over platforms like the BBC and Guardian.  For decades they directly vetted BBC staff to ensure their views were suitable.  Currently they have developed this "cluster" approach.  I don't see them challenging lies from Fox and ther Mail, but rather challenging views and interpretations which are at odds with the official line.

This is a different subject to the "charity" and the paper you linked.

I would suggest that even then, while there's some truth in what you say (only some) it's actually been Government which has done what you say, or directed it, not the likes of this "charity" -  Whether it was the Blair Government and WMD bollox, the Andrew Gilligan thing, or more recently the Cameron Government and Wikileaks stuff the Guardian got hold of. As for "vetting" BBC staff to ensure their views were suitable", I don't know of that happening - who are you claiming does/did this, and to who, exactly?

On "challenging Fox and the Mail", that was a point I made about what this charity man has written - I think if we look at what he's written and take it as a deep state conspiracy, like I said to Scott, that's missing the point. If his proposals were applied then Fox and the Mail would be challenged. What he says about "Leadership understands that in a period of tumultuous change you cannot control," - I mean if this was in the Tory baby eating thread, you/we'd be saying - "Yeah, he's spot on and Theresa may needs to have a read." for example. In other words I think his paper about the need for better, different leadership, about the threats from Big Corps, Russia, Isis, China etc. is well written, wise and well put. It's nothing Iike "warmongering" and I find it hard to disagree with anything in it. The leaders of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are utterly of the wrong sort for these times. This paper puts reasons for  that (my) view starkly.

[blandy]

Oh and the BBC has changed because it's been filled at the top with Tory cronies.

[Chindie]

Some of the BBC's output recently has been obscene.