leicsmac

I'd have to do some digging to be certain, but I'd hypothesise that the biggest part of the issue lies with what our esteemed member @Sampson talks about frequently, which is a change in age demographics that has put vastly increasing pressure on the exchequer through increasing health and social care budgets. Such a pattern is repeating in a lot of developed countries right now. However, while this is a problem, the truth is that it is a byproduct of advanced development and world developed population growth slowing, which is an absolute necessity. So while it's a bad outcome which will cause stress and have to be dealt with carefully, it's highly likely that every other option to address that matter other than the current one will end worse.

Pardon me, given the first paragraph I thought the point that you were making was that any kind of collaboration with the Chinese was a bad idea, hence the response wondering exactly who can be trusted for such collaboration atthe present time. The subsequent clarification is appreciated. I'd certainly agree that results matter, though I guess the "want to achieve" part is a matter of debate depending on one's worldview. And pardon me for being perhaps rather blunt with my line, but quite frankly I'm rather jaded at seeing problems stated with no solutions attached and I would even go so far as to say that the current social media trend of doing exactly that is one of the big reasons why things aren't great right now. Too much desire for "change" but not nearly enough thought about what that "change" should look like. Definitely not personal.

Not the question I asked, but I'll answer it anyway in the hope that an answer to my own question is forthcoming in return. If there is political corruption going on here, then I hope it's dealt with as much as the law allows it to be, no matter who is at the helm. Over to you, mon ami.

On this topic, a question; seeing as the UK no longer really has the clout to pursue massive tech and science projects by itself, who exactly should it collaborate with? The Americans? The Chinese? A grouping of Scandic and Anglosphere nations like Canada, Aus and NZ? (I think the last one of those is by far the most palatable, but they're also rather far behind in terms of organisation and coordination.)

No disagreement there. The last couple of centuries have had the luxury of practically unlimited natural vital resources being available to anyone who could exploit them (the problems have always been ones of greed and distribution, not availability.) In a few decades time, that may well no longer be the case. So as well as all of the very human troubles, the natural world is going to place trouble of its own that will be far larger - and the human response to that may well be very predictable. And this will, in all likelihood happen in the lifetime of people alive today - and perhaps in the lifetime of contributors on this very forum.

Absolutely, there is always going to be challenges of different types - some expected, some not. The problem here is the entire mentality of thinking problems of the present and future don't matter and shouldn't be addressed because problems of the past were worse and so the present has to experience such hardship similarly. That's just allowing suffering for some perverse sake of self-justification to me.

That's fair. Though tbh I think in this case the mentality is more important than the exact generation of the person holding it. Pseudo-Calvinist, pseudo-stoic bollocks about life being suffering that no generation should get away from is so inexplicable and frustrating. It's held back efforts to actually make the world a better place for everyone for centuries.

I know, right? Generations before suffered horribly so every generation that comes after should suffer too because that's somehow fair. No room for any kind of human progress at all... ... right?

Nothing like a bit of Social Darwinism for a Saturday evening.

Welcome to the post truth era, mon ami. Unfortunately that cat is very much out of the bag and most of the ways to get it back in involve methods that people in democracies find disagreeable.

It's not just (possibly) traitorous to the nation of the UK. It's (almost certainly) traitorous to the very cause of life itself. No greater treason than that IMO.

When future generations (such as they will be) ask who killed the world for them, we'd better have entries like this available to point out the answer.

It's tremendous. On a slightly more offbeat note, it's a measure of the man that he is one of the very few people who can unite an internet comment thread in almost universal adulation.

A bit of Saturday morning cheery nihilism:

Also, on the general council topic, a little perspective:

I'm not sure which is more thoughtless towards the future; the lack of knowledge required to just vote for a change candidate "just because", or the lack of regard for anything and anyone beyond ones own horizon to make an informed choice for that same candidate.

Carville was on to something when he said "it's the economy, stupid". That being said, that makes an argument to not vote at all or pick any party other than Labour, rather than a specific pick for voting Reform. That people are making that specific choice speaks to their agreement with at least some of their policy platform on the part of most everyone doing it, imo.

Japan, South Korea, China (though the difference in government structure probably makes a big difference there), Germany, the Netherlands, to name five - there are likely more, too. From an outside perspective (and from my own anecdotal experience in two of those places) the public sector, in terms of administering things like transportation, mail delivery etc looks to have much less trouble with what the Doge lot would call "inefficiency" than the UK (or at least, much less complaining about it). My question is why, and why so many people appear to be adamant that this is a failure of principle (as in such a sector can never work well) rather than a failure of execution when evidence suggests the latter much more than the former.

I think Reform would likely bring at least a certain amount of "good things" for the people they represent (at least in their own minds) in the very short term. Just a shame about everyone else who will be "othered", and everyone as a whole long term. I guess it just matters what function people think both democracy and government actually have.

Still waiting for theories on this.

Yeah, that's more like it.

Both Japan and South Korea have large and mostly effective public services, even if their welfare state is nowhere near as good.

No reason to contradict you there, but I'm also certain he or a large portion of his voter base don't buy into straight anti-vaxxer sentiment.

Abandoning any kind of effort to fight climate change and so advocating a race to the bottom with other nations that inevitably ends in disaster. Their other scientific policy areas appear to have more than a whiff of RFK Jr about them, too.

Again, I'm curious as to why it appears (emphasis there) to not be as big an issue in other countries with similar large bureaucracies, both government and otherwise.