leicsmac

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/03/south-korea-highest-temperature More on this. Glad I'm not over there now.

For me it's not so much about it being a cheap shot at all, but as per above that it's coming from someone who would have happily carried water for their opponents at the time and is throwing the shot from a place of false concern anyway.

I'm reasonably sure that people like Ms Pochin would have been marching with Oswald Mosley at around that period of history, and supporting the efforts of the people looking to violate French sovereignty.

As per before, imo it's entirely possible that the whole thing was a psyop generated by those looking to bring the Spanish government back "into line", but that remains simply a theory at the moment.

The argument for pragmatism and an actual road map, at least in the short term, is fair and I won't argue with that. But you're right in terms of personal experiences guiding our outlook. I'm an idealist and while every single unfair situation in the world cannot be corrected, that shouldn't mean it's something folks cannot or should not strive towards. I know it must sound wild and wooly to be referring to ideas that appear abstract, but the way I see it is that if that big picture isn't at least in some way considered along with more pragmatic short term stated solutions, then all the world is going to do is lurch from crisis to crisis of its own making, fixing each one at a time like fixing holes in a dam, until there's finally one that is simply too big.

That could be what it takes. And your second paragraph here is spot on, some humans are just like that. Just a question if whether, over those generations, whether or not not addressing it will cost more, in lives and materiel, than stated here. I think quite possibly so, but that's just conjecture on my part.

I agree, but the topic here is migration in general, not just the movement of those seeking asylum by the strict definition thereof. Additionally, I would think there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that economic inequality is a pretty damn big driver of that war, violence and persecution that you speak of.

If that decent system is no longer fit for purpose (and that's certainly a cogent argument), then actually working towards a world where it's much less necessary, by directly addressing whatever causes make it necessary, is the best - and perhaps only good - option. Edit: unless someone thinks that large economic inequality that is a key driver of migration (in this argument) simply cannot be addressed.

Right. This matter is so much more complicated than many people appear to view it as. Especially as it concerns the life and welfare of other human beings - who, though there will be bad ones among them, a large part of will be entirely innocent of everything other than the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Interesting. In that case, it is a pretty odd thing for it to come about them and not a few years before or afterwards.

When this era of 24 hour soundbites and social media began, I would guess.

And I made it rather clear at the time that is simply one of the many causes (though becoming more and more important) of the lack of stability in those regions at the present time. Which all do need at least somewhat addressing if migration is actually going to be managed in an even vaguely humane way. Evidently I wasn't clear enough or some folks simply read what they want to read, but fair enough.

...trying to remember what it was Clarence Darrow said about obituaries.

Judging by recent debate on here, it seems like actually tackling the root causes isn't a popular thing, sadly.

The subversion of pretty much the very idea of facts and therefore having even those scientific facts becoming matters of debate and therefore not being acted upon is massively harmful now and may become absolutely harmful in the future, yes.

I'm sorry, can you please elaborate a bit here?

I would agree that the phrasing of the question could have been done better, particularly from a professional polling company. That being said, I think that the evidence is so out there and the lines drawn so starkly now that the people you speak of are (at least mostly) arguing in bad faith in a position they know that's bunk but want to fight for their own self interest anyway. No line of argument, however clear, will convince them.

A quick datamine appears to show a correlation here, if only indirectly. Be that as it may, however, actually addressing that adequately as a problem is a complex issue.

We've talked about this before and it is a semantic distinction without a difference. The change in climate is driving more extreme weather events, such as the one mentioned in the poll. That's "cause". If people want to be needlessly pedantic with terminology then that's between them and their thesaurus - the laws of thermodynamics on this one are quite clear and the links are quite obvious. Any such "denial" is at this stage most likely wilful and for base purposes and should be disregarded and marginalised in terms of policymaking as much as possible. I honestly don't think the variance based on age is statistically significant, whereas the variance based on party affiliation almost certainly is. And there's a multitude of reasons that there isn't total consensus right now, which I can elaborate on if asked.

Also, it's interesting to see that the polling data for the FT poll itself reasonably closely matches national data on the matter.

Judging by this, the ignorance isn't based on age. It's based on political ideology.

Record temperatures in the Far East today. Just summer, though.

... is it now too tinfoil hat to suggest that this is exactly what happened, viz. both the "migration" itself and the reaction to it were rather stage-managed, and those directing it are the ones who want to bring Spain back "into line" after recent comments their leaders have made?

Absolutely no disagreement there, and such selfish behaviour is sadly not limited to one or even a few nation states. Which, in the world we inhabit today, rather shows again a fundamental weakness of them.

We knew a while back that the south pole of the moon likely had what we needed in terms of resources to sustain a presence there. But when exactly has abundance of a resource stopped those with power trying to limit it in order to further their own power anyway?