leicsmac

You see, I don't mind people admitting that, it's better than denial or ignorance. That being said, for me the pathway must always be to do the least harm to the most vulnerable. And I honestly don't think such a thing is such a zero sum game as many people think.

Nor do I, but I do remember reading the social care budget is pretty damn big for a lot of local authorities. Don't get me wrong, I know how difficult an circle this is to square, but I'd rather people be honest and admit that their solution, whatever it may be, will have a human cost, rather than pretending it won't exist.

I thought the conversation was about reigning in public spending which does indeed cover those services mentioned in the above post, among others, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered relevant to the discussion? And yes, IMO human life is vital and it is precious, as is human health, as is a lot of other life come to that. Evidently, again as mentioned earlier, that degree of "precious" and therefore acceptably expendable clearly depends on the beholder. I've no problem with people offering criticism of public spending, but I do have a problem with disingenuous about where that criticism logically ends. So, with respect, I do think it's important to point that out, and make it very clear about what folks are actually advocating for as a logical outcome - even if that isn't what they intend.

All those stories of SEN kids suffering because of social care cuts and places getting flooded for the umpteenth time because there's no money to build defences (just two examples) that we hear about on the regular on the local and national news must be fictional, then. Or is it a matter of money going to the wrong places within the public sector, which then raises the question of how you deal with that while actually keeping those vital public services?

Quoted again for emphasis, should be required reading.

There's an absolutely ridiculous meme rumour going round regarding Felon#47 today. One of those "no, even for him, surely not..." I'll not share it here just in case there's anyone without a sense of humour who might get lawyer-happy watching, but shall we say..let's just not "blow" things out of proportion when it comes to the "Big Beautiful Bill"...

What barely-disguised dog whistle did they do now?

Think this applies here too.

Social care is another big one on the budgets. Thing is, with such cuts comes the inevitability that someone, somewhere is going to suffer or worse for it. Whether that person deserves to suffer, or if that suffering is acceptable collateral damage for the sake of some greater good, is clearly up to the beholder.

And the past has shown that laissez-faire does nothing but deepen inequality as well. So perhaps something in between is called for. Personally, I cherish my ignorance on the topic and it's rather rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic anyway IMO.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cj0e3y6yy99o Amber warnings have been issued by the Met Office as Storm Claudia brings heavy rain to parts of the United Kingdom. With rain persisting for much of Friday and into Saturday morning, some areas may get near to their whole month's worth of rain. Flooding and difficult travelling conditions are likely with a strong easterly wind also developing. ...Rain has featured a lot so far this November with some areas seeing over their November average in the first thirteen days. Shap and Carlisle in Cumbria for example have recorded more than their November rainfall already; 226mm and 95mm compared to the averages of 205mm and 85mm respectively. Other sites on higher ground such as Honister in the Lake District has recorded over 500mm of rain. Bannau Brycheiniog - known as the Brecon Beacons - in south Wales, has also been particularly wet with many Natural Resources Wales rainfall stations recording over 200mm of rain so far. The heavy rainfall in south Wales has also led to some significant flooding in previous weeks. A business owner who had to close his shop in Carmarthen due to the floods described it as "the worst in living memory". Be safe if you're out and about today, those in the affected areas.

A bit of trickle-down economics then? They're never quite specific about what exactly is trickling down onto people's heads, though.

There's something in that. That being said, the bigger problem might be however stuff like this is being leaked before it's being properly discussed as policy anyway. They should know that most of the print media aren't going to do them any favours, so it's not great to keep giving them the fodder to do so.

It's a bit ironically perverse, really; it's an ethnonationalist movement, but actually leans towards superiority of demographic rather than any one nation. If it wasn't horrible in every possible way, then I could almost admire the degree of international unity.

Yeah, there are clearly those for whom a massive population crash is acceptable, because they think it won't affect them. They're mistaken. And if they're not mistaken right away, it will be the job of those left to make sure that they are mistaken.

Yep, in all honesty what he's saying here is both almost entirely accurate and nothing new under the sun; it's been discussed quite often in a few places, including here. The unwillingness to see a single point of truth on some matters, including this one, will end horribly. It has in the past, but today the stakes are so much higher, and so the consequences for such ignorance are so much more severe. But what can decent folks do other than keep trying and, if it all comes to naught, at least leave a record of who was responsible so that those who come afterwards can administer justice in their own way and also not repeat our mistakes?

I'd recommend watching Reuters (and challenge anyone to find bias there) and comparing the two. Edit: for people who actually just want no bias (as opposed to only bias they like), then Associated Press does good Web articles as well.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently. There appears to be an insistence in some circles that criticism and "takedowns" of Trump are done "honestly", that being dishonest in the way that he is practically all the time in order to neutralise him is somehow not cricket, and should be entirely verboten. In principle, this is entirely right. However, in practice, how exactly is such honesty working out in terms of actually addressing people like him and making the world a better place as a result? Current evidence appears...spotty in that regard. Principles without the power to apply them are as much use as a fart in a hurricane. (Oh, and thanks to Trump's policy decisions, those hurricanes will on average be getting worse year on year too.)

So, an edit of the same matter but on a different programme? The Telegraph really do want that lovely Trump $$$ and "prestige", don't they? As before: the Beeb should just say to see you in court, and if you want to even have a chance to win, you'll need full disclosure. Who will that hurt more?

It is, ideal timing for it. We'll have to see how it all pans out.

Epstein stuff gathering pace again then.

I hope the England players back themselves more than folks on here appear to. The Aussies certainly will seize on any lack of confidence. There's a reason they genuinely feared players like Pietersen.

It certainly isn't a reason for a lack of integrity, but it does rather explain it and also highlights a rather damaging double standard at play which does have consequences and so forms an important part of the discussion. There's rather too much Single Issue Fallacy going on right now. I'm thinking it was ever thus, though.

Only one of those examples above pertains directly to the Tories. The other two concern a man who is already in high office across the pond, and another who is polling high here in the UK. There are also many others I could list. Evidently not so disgusting and wrong in the minds of many. If you don't think that a decent amount of people view people with power based on their ability to charm and tell them what they want to hear then fair enough, but for me it's reasonably obvious and provable that the smooth bastards get an easier ride from at least some of the public, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

Not forgotten, and the latest polling data is pretty optimistic for them both. I just wonder about the ability of either of them to get enough seats in the UK FPTP system, so I didn't include them as viable. I would absolutely love to be wrong on that, though. NB. I think Davey would be a magnificent Home Secretary (he actually gives two shits about people in a way a lot of other politicians don't), but I'm not sure about his steel for the top job.