Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by editor, Jul 10, 2019.
Trumped and trashed by the Tories.
Sir Kim Darroch resigns as UK ambassador to US
An interesting one. I will simply observe that his comments about Trump seem very much in accordance with a public school superiority establishment sensibility. It's what your betters say about the oiks in private all the time. His words were only able to be exposed because he said them in the first place. Somebody without his background would probably have made comments about the state of the White House and Trump administration without the sense of superiority that infuses his words and caused such offence. Given this, I can't be too devastated that he was found out and ended up losing his job.
And yet, Boris has made negative comments about Trump and is about to be (presumably) elected as leader and PM. I think in the debate last night, he was offered the chance to back the Ambassador and weasled out of it ?
theres an old trump documentary from the 90s that had various people at mars-a-lago pretty much openly laughing at trump and his ambitions to buy in the area. Vulgar money like him would never trouble the rarefied atmosphere of the proper people.
and thats basically all any hashtag resistance or official disapproval has given its antipathy to the left and the fact that trump is not actually running counter to thier wider interests. Just its own outraged sensibilities. Useless cunts.
Quite. For a diplomat his words were not very diplomatic. Mayhem's talking about him as if he's died:
Sir Kim Darroch resigns as UK ambassador to US
Neatly bypassing that he went to Abingdon School - Wikipedia
I would expect any ambassador to report very much the same things as Darroch did when faced with the dysfunctional trump regime.
As such, I am very confused by some of the responses to this thread. Diplomats are supposed to be diplomatic publicly, whilst reporting an unvarnished picture to their government in private.
Darroch was due to go in December anyway. My main interest is whether these events and the change of timing end up changing who gets the job next.
Times change, and slippery fucks like Johnson certainly change their tune when it suits.
When was the last time Boris publicly insulted Trump? I think he changed his tune once he was no longer mayor and once Trump won.
There was an interesting interview with an American on R4 last night who basically pointed out that he could have reported factual truth without using words like "inept". She also pointed out that to write anything these days in the assumption it will never be made public is itself inept (my words, not hers).
Her overall point was that the job of a diplomat is to facilitate better ties between two countries, not to make it worse. In that sense, he has failed utterly.
But this only happened because private and confidential emails were leaked.
He called the Trump administration 'inept'. What he wrote has now seen the light of day. Trump turned his back on him, what use is he? Perhaps if he had not called the president of the country he was ambassador for inept that president may have had time for him? Dunno, I'm not great fucking diplomat.
What has this god-like ambassador not learned since...
Every email I ever write at work, I do so in the assumption that it might one day be read by somebody I would not want to read it.
But you don't work in a high level job for the government where you would think that there is sufficient robust security for internal, confidential emails which are clearly essential for conducting their business.
Have you seen any evidence that the ambassador was negligent, security wise?
He's gone so that May and Hunt get to choose his replacement, not Johnson.
The civil service is going to leak like a sieve under Johnson - the PUS's are going to be writing Corbyns' PMQ's for him. Not for the first time, Johnson has shot himself in the foot.
Huge swathes of the system need to be radically changed if this is to be the new assumption. States, bureaucracies, diplomatic services etc work on the basis that frank discussions and private records of meeting and opinions will rarely leak. Not to mention the intelligence services, and various laws designed to keep some things private and discourage leaking.
The focus on whether he should have minced his words more is also silly in my book, for much the same reason. People are not supposed to be vague or tone things down when delivering messages through private channels.
I should probably dig into the old giant leak of US diplomatic cables for all manner of examples of awkward realities being delivered in unvarnished fashion. Its a huge part of the game, its got very little to do with Darrochs personality and attitude.
Well, those internal, confidential emails got leaked. So much for this assumption of sufficient security.
And if you think that a financial services organisation somehow has worse information security than a government department, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
We are trained at work to do this.
Yeah he wrote shit down and electronically as well.
donald trump's not really an oik, is he, with his background at a prestigious private military academy and fordham university
clumsy and inept's only 'superior' because of the clumsy and inept administration we've had the suffer to last few years
he's missed his head AGAIN
It's not what he said , the fact that these were leaked in the 1st place have far greater import and possible consequences. These are highly sensitive/secret communiques, not some normal work banter/message. The timing is exquisitely painful for HMG also, couldn't be better/worse (depending on your pov).
So be it. It's not "mincing" words, it speaks to a confusion between evidence and reckons. He could state the problems and nobody would raise an eyebrow, but when he starts editorialising with words like "inept", that's where the problems start. Who says its "inept"? According to which criteria? Has this great diplomat identified any of this, or has he just made a sweeping judgement assuming everybody will know what he means? Wouldn't it be more useful all round for him to specify the actual failings rather than just label them? "Inept" isn't analysis, it's just bluster.
Yes, the whole diplomatic game reeks of entrenched privilege. It's not just Darrochs. But tough titties, maybe they should actually improve their own ineptness rather than whinge about it after they get caught out.
At the end of the day, he called Trump names. Trump responded by calling him names. Trump won. How's that for "inept"?
Leaks of politicially sensitive emails happen roughly once a week at the moment. Arguably Donald Trump is in the white house because of one such leak. How could it be anything but the new assumption.
Its a gradually dawning assumption in more circles than it used to be, sure. Information security in the digital age is a different picture, sure. That doesnt mean everything has changed, and with the more sensitive channels most of the effort will go into security, not changing the tone of the message.
I mean really, given the existing degree of inefficiency and ineptitude within bureaucracies, I think the last thing we need is a world where the useless fluff management weasel speak is the only form of recorded communication left. The phrase 'behind closed doors' is far from dead.
"Inept" is useless weasel speak. It tells you nothing. It's not analysis, it's just a privileged man's distaste.
Opinion: I'm a UN diplomat. This is how bad the Kim Darroch situation really is
Your fixation on that word seems to ignore the man, many other things he said that would have been just as likely to cause Trump to blow a gasket.
It's the word that seems to have generated the heat.
It's really not that hard to choose your words carefully, taking account that they may be read by somebody else some day. I have written a lot of emails that I have then had to rewrite, having taken this into account. They end up better, not worse, because it forces me to think about the message I really need to impart, not my personal emotion.
One diplomat defends another shocker. Groupthink in action.
Separate names with a comma.