leicsmac

And likewise, because you appear to view that reality as defined by violence and all the associated suffering, human and otherwise. I guess leave it at that and let whoever is watching decide which is worse?

I'm saying that at the very least we can overcome it with the necessary effort of will - that's the entire basis of a civilised society. And, quite frankly, I've heard enough paltry justifications for shitty self interested and oppressive violent behaviour because "oh, that's just human" to last me a lifetime. We can do better. Should. Must. Anything else is just mud-grubbing death worship.

Guess it depends on whether one is a cynic who thinks humans have the inherent capacity for beating the shit out of each other. In any case, the man represents a differing turn from the horrific (and violent) orthodoxy that has taken hold in the US right now, and that's a good thing.

Correct answer is at the top of the list, folks. /thread

I think Black Coffee outranks it in terms of overall experience, but the flow of PS is top tier, yes.

That would be a short thread, and would open and close with All Saints.

Backstreet Boys not being included in this poll is criminal.

Fair enough and the elaboration is appreciated, mon ami.

In all seriousness though, it will be the world markets that will be the most accurate arbiter of anything Reeves does Budget-wise, so I guess we'll see what they say and do.

There must have been a time.

Mate, I know you went to a lot of effort with the new shirt and Lynx Africa for that occasion in high school... ...but she turned you down, and it was a long time ago now. Let it go, for your own sake.

Rousseau was right. Hobbes' viewpoint on this matter will lead to only one logical outcome. No doubt. But he has enough behind him in the position he has to at least apply some resistance. And he looks up for the fight.

In other news, Mamdani wins in NYC. Hopefully he'll be as much a thorn in the paw of the current government over there as possible.

When you look at local council budgets, health and social care costs tend to be by far the biggest part. And as much as Reform might say there are still cuts that can be made in that area, the fact is that at some point, likely not far along, when you go down that road in that area, you will have to choose between the money and someone's health - or even their life.

Anyhow, given what's just happened on Filbert Way, it perhaps might be that tensions are running a little high for everyone now? Can only speak for myself but I'm going to cool off on this one until morning, not sure if other folks would prefer to do the same.

In addition to this being the tired old strawman always trotted out as the poster above pointed out (as if accepting a refugee into one's home is the only or even the best way to help them), it would once again be nice to have some honesty of purpose from those who would prefer less action. Enough deflection. People should admit where such a policy decision would leave a great many non-UK lives and say that they're OK with that, rather than hiding behind platitudes on the matter.

I'd be fine with this if other areas of tax spending, for example military spending or oil/gas subsidies, were likewise subject to such voluntary schemes.

We're a communal species, and though our lifespans are short compared to the way some things change, you're right in that people can and do lots of things for other people they have no obligation to help. Perhaps mutual self interest is a better way of framing it, but not thinking of the future is the quickest way for there not to be one for anyone. Which is the very basis of the fears described above. So while, yes, people can and do serve their own interest, sometimes more is needed and I hope that enough people realise and are ready to act upon that, because a lot rides on it. Edit: considering what we now know about Mother Teresa, I'm not sure she's the best example to be used here

I think that's a sentiment a lot of people share regardless of political compassing. I wish I could say such fears are groundless, but unfortunately that wouldn't be true. However, there is hope and a pathway to a better future does exist. It will just take strength, smarts, and above all unity. And there are those who simply don't want that future, and would rather have one that serves their own self interest alone.

Fair to say. I think that global problems sometimes transcend national ones, sometimes the two are intertwined, and that while first and foremost a nation should look after its own citizens, doing that in every circumstance doesn't tend to end well. Edit: again, though, that approach guarantees the suffering and death of a great many people who just don't happen to be British. How well that sits clearly is up to the beholder, but I'd rather people have the stones to regardless admit that is the case and that's the choice they make.

Because their problems appear to also be our problems, and those problems will not go away - indeed, they will likely get worse. So we either help as best we can (and so does whoever else in the world who can), or we pull up the drawbridge and let them suffer whatever fate they do. At the fundamental level, that's the choice on offer here and I'd appreciate it if those dressing up the latter in flowery terms and deflection (probably because they know having that much blood on their hands won't look great) were actually honest about what it means and what they really want.

Assuming this is relevant to the ongoing discussion, perhaps the powers that be in the UK and elsewhere might then look to perhaps take measures to ensure those cheap workers don't have to come here (eg. help them more where they are). Or they can abandon them to their fate like any good Social Darwinist, I guess.

I'd like to see any government doing that. Particularly concerning highly important projects like green energy and public transport. But the fact is wealth inequality is clearly increasing, and the rising tide Isn't lifting all ships, and steps need to be taken to address that however possible.

On the general topic, ask practically anyone in the Gilded Age who wasn't a robber baron how well laissez-faire economics did for them. Or, for a more recent example, the UK and US in the 1980s.

Alright then... so assuming this is an accurate description of the problem, is there a solution that doesn't end with critical public services going missing and the most vulnerable people burning? Genuinely interested.