leicsmac

One topic of conversation for the forthcoming state dinner: "So, Don... did you happen to run into my mate Peter/my dear Andrew while you were being entertained on Epstein Island? Could do with knowing."

Not exactly. As I've said before, I think, with good reason I hope, that if the current path continues those with legitimate concerns that practically anyone wouldn't consider "far right" will be overridden/talked into accepting extreme measures by those who almost certainly are. It's a well trodden historical narrative - no truly horrific violation of human rights began with such violations, but it ended there, and with a populace too scared, browbeaten or apathetic to speak or act up otherwise.

I think NHS reform and immigration reform, along with a couple of other areas, do fall under the idea where changing things up is a good idea in principle but in practice (given the extremity of viewpoints that can gain traction now) the slippery slope will take full effect and you will end up with a system where a great many people end up suffering and dying just because a few powerful people wanted it that way.

I disagree and I think there is very good reason to suspect that it is they who will get what they want if things continue like this, not the "moderates".

I wasn't aware that civil policy discussion resulted in bans these days? I guess that's why there doesn't appear to be any such policy based arguments forthcoming when requested, though.

Random find, possibly pertinent: "I'm tired of researching chronically online bullshit that should never have any actual bearing on real life but here we are in 2025 where the chronically online are domestic terrorists. The internet was a mistake."

So is the refusal to describe any kind of policy ideas for the future from those endorsing the match on Saturday beyond soundbites. So, drivel all round apart from the very clear idea that diminishing resources due to a changing Earth is a problem, I guess?

It's entirely possible to move to sustainable and much less damaging methods of generating energy that won't doom us all while preserving all the luxuries of modern life listed above, but fair point well made. The above being said, people can and should recycle/look in various ways to minimise their carbon footprint as much as they can, but the most important thing they can still do on the matter is vote, because the kind of change needed is state-level in scale.

Yes I am, and it's entirely possible to both acknowledge that they are doing what they should be doing and pointing out the hypocrisy at the same time. That being said, I guess hypocrisy is rife in high level politics regardless of affiliation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd725pj0g9ro Unusual rocks discovered on Mars contain the most tantalising evidence yet of potential past life on the Red Planet. The mudstones, found in a dusty riverbed by Nasa's Perseverance Rover, are dotted with intriguing markings nicknamed leopard spots and poppy seeds. Scientists believe these features contain minerals produced by chemical reactions that could be associated with ancient Martian microbes. It's possible the minerals were produced by natural geological processes, but at a press conference Nasa said the features could be the clearest signs of life ever found. It's been long held that there was ancient life in Mars while there was liquid water there. It's good to have more and more evidence pointing in that direction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce32qepq12qo The Conservative Party has written to Sir Keir Starmer demanding answers over the extent of Downing Street's knowledge of Lord Mandelson's links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The Tories also called for the prime minister to release documents relating to Mandelson's appointment, including evidence showing how No 10 reacted when they learned of his ties to Epstein. While it's right to ask because people should know how deeply Mandelson was involved here, it's just a mite hypocritical that the ones doing the asking are those all too happy to embrace the policies and strike the ego of the man with whom Epstein had as much as if not more involvement.

Oh, yes. Those too.

I'm sure that they do. It seems that there still are issues, and they may become more flashpoints as resources get scarcer, though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jg9vy1n0o Southern Water has warned tanker companies to stop delivering its water to the Wiltshire estate of an American billionaire. Some of it was recently used, entirely legally, to help fill a lake, despite a hosepipe ban being in place locally for domestic users. Multiple water tankers have been filmed both day and night by local residents filling up from standpipes in part of neighbouring Hampshire where a drought order is in place. The BBC has been told that those tankers went to Conholt Park, a 2,500 acre estate owned by Stephen Schwarzman – who is one of the world's richest men and a financial backer of US President Donald Trump. Now imagine the water shortage is much more acute than just hosepipe bans.

No. Recent events show that we apparently haven't. In any case, WRT the topic above systematic discrimination has been the name of the game since time immemorial yet some folks seem bound and determined to voice objections when such systems perhaps take one step too far in addressing that problem, with apparently zero consideration of the original issue. And another reminder - while I'm pretty sure that a very great many people attending that march yesterday don't want that kind of discrimination to return/an ethnostate to happen, the movement that they're attaching themselves to will make sure that they get both, regardless of what they want.

WRT current discussion: https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY?si=SKV5X8XjgOAakJ44 Edit: apparently the auto-embed is on the blink right now.

46 is no age at all.

Right, and it isn't going to get any better either. So, there either needs to be a proper action to address the root cause of this migration in the first place, or the UK/other places accept that their policies on the matter will mean their additional comfort comes at the direct and indirect cost of human lives.

Pretty much, yes. The only thing I would say is that it's the powerful and sociopathic, as well as the rich, and the way they do things can't - won't - survive the new world that is changing in the long term anyway. It will end as well for them as everyone else.

You're making the mistake of assuming logic and consistency of thought where there is none.

Katie Hopkins and Laurence Fox, for two.

I'd say it matters from the point of view of the consequences that will happen in its name, but I do agree here.

And it's pretty verifiable that the path they want to lead everyone down hurts everyone in the end, even themselves.

Hopefully not, it's been pretty civil thus far I reckon.

It's what a lot of people are (either accidentally or deliberately) missing. The moderates with legitimate concerns (that term again) will be marginalised as the useful fodder they have been and the hardliners will seize the power and enforce what they want, which is (and has been from the start) an ethnostate. This is a well-trodden historical narrative. Part of the reason why I'm not big on political compassing any more. Is it Left or Right to think that all of this artificial demographic division is not only fvcking stupid but also hugely detrimental to any kind of future at all?