leicsmac

Thoughts and prayers.

Fair enough, but if you have any specific policy ideas that jump to mind I'd be interested.

Not the 100-125k earners, the proper higher earners. Those on seven figures or more plus. NB. Would still be interested in hearing your take on the best way forward - like I said, I think our aims align but our means differ.

Singhy for US Ambassador ASAP.

WRT Mandelsons job, it should be done by someone well prepared to tell the current administration to go fornicate with itself where needed (which, let's face it, may be often) anyway.

Not exactly. My point is more that most of the commentary on this matter is either people not suggesting a viable way to fix things or their suggestions basically make the current government Reform in name only anyway. I absolutely agree that things have to be done to prevent the next election following the path of the polling data, but quite frankly there's an awful lot of short term self interest running the populist thought right now and if the current government makes decisions in spite of that, they are getting pelters, and in the current era of perception trumping facts, that is important. Speaking personally about specifics, I think what is necessary is a large public service and nationalisation boost funded by increased taxation of the highest earners, trying to at least reduce the inequality levels that are becoming more and more stark. Social divisions tend to be much more stark when people don't have money (so I'm told), so more state management actually guaranteeing a baseline of service and life for the poorest (no matter who they are), is necessary. The economy is a key element - I know I've overlooked it in the past. On other issues, I'd be happy if Starmer told a lot of the people with "legitimate concerns" to do their worst and get locked up (after arranging more prison space of course), and also pushing hard on net zero and making it very clear that both the Tories and Reform advocate for a path that will cause both the UK and the world great harm in the medium to long term in the name of a quick cash boost in the short term. If you want more specifics, @Greg2607 list on the last page contains a great deal I would agree with. However, I also know that this runs counter to the current zeitgeist and the ideas being bandied about by the Mises advocates who believe that the free market solves everything. And I think that's a key problem - you and I both appear to want the same thing, but we reckon the means to achieve it are very different. You appear to think low-tax, lassiez-faire will work for the future we're facing, I think central planning will. Honestly though, I'm still looking for a way from another angle that Starmer may be able to keep Reform from the door without becoming a mirror of them, so I'd be interested in your ideas on that now.

The time period immediately after that has the very likely potential to be an order of magnitude grimmer.

I can see why folks think that tbh. And that brings us rather neatly back, yet again, to if all such politicians are morally compromised, perhaps the next step is to consider which ones will actually maintain a world long enough for them to stay morally compromised in and for us to complain about it.

Of course, but seeing as they are aiming at being in government in the near future... I can only speak for myself, but given the "all the same" arguments, I tend to veer towards utilitarianism rather than engage in the often messy straight moral arguments in situations like this anyway, unless the survival of a great many people is a moral matter rather than a utilitarian one.

I suppose in response he could take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of most of those (rightly) calling out Mandelson for links to Epstein while studiously ignoring their own (tacit or otherwise) endorsement of the policies and actions of the man who is at the front and centre of the Epstein revelations (as much as his sycophants are trying to deflect from it).

Yeah, fair to say. Was just thinking that they'd challenge for the RC all the time if they matched their World Cup pedigree. WRT the last paragraph, the RC has arguably four of the best six teams in the world in it, so you'd expect the quality to be good.

Yes, it is true that unsubstantiated innuendo can stand in for valid and cited fact these days. Also: Still curious about this one whenever the "just as bad" argument crops up.

Well, yes, Israel have made it even clearer that they're not interested in any kind of agreement short of "ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant", as the Romans described one of their fallen enemies saying. And why not? They have Biblical Old Testament Wrath-of-God vengeance on the mind and the superior firepower to make it happen. So Might Makes Right here... right?

Rules and financial propriety are for lesser mortals, not the Bullingdon Club. Those who want Farage as PM (though he wasn't a member of that club himself, similar circles clearly apply) should be aware.

Possibly because he's the only influential British figure listed (not sure about that)? That being said, it should be reasonably big news in all of the Anglophone world that the supposed "leader" of that sphere is looking more and more like a nonce.

It's almost as if said media have an axe to grind against the current government.

Which then creates a spiral of diminishing returns. Which is also why austerity was a horrible idea in the first place.

Yep. Let that market drive that increased inequality, US Repub-style.

He did say "original" rather than modern use tbf. I remember from my time in SK they liked a flag on particular holidays, too.

Right. And when such groups have the same amount of power and are shown to engage in the same degree of repeated behaviour directly harming other human beings, then perhaps we can make an apples to apples comparison there. Until then, possibly something other than straight equivalences might be drawn.

To add to this, given those people that she has annoyed, I'm inclined to think that they wouldn't be so amateur in their attempt. So probably just an accident, but I guess we'll see.

If this was a deliberate hit attempt, then quite frankly I'm surprised nothing like it has happened before. She's certainly annoyed enough of the kind of rich, arrogant and death-worshipping people that deserve to be annoyed in the name of the future.

Apparently so. No wonder he changed his tune on the current government over there. And that comes back to the degree of relative power the respective parties hold. More power should = more scrutiny. Unless folks want to see more scenes like last summer, only this time the "concerned patriots" do actually succeed in breaking into/burning down a building with many people inside? The above being said, yes, of course it stands to reason that anyone advocating directly for one particular demographic of people, no matter who they may be, deserves at least a cursory glance to make sure that advocacy isn't going to cross the line.

It is likely his, the problem is proving it to the degree that enough people accept it to be so.

It certainly is more attractive, but it'll only be more effective under the present system if it has coalition/alliance in mind.