leicsmac

Well... - he's not cognisant/not been briefed enough on the genuine state of play - he knows the deal but he's also being the cynical politician and telling people what they want to hear rather than what's true, which makes one despair of the state of political discourse in the UK - he knows the deal but has no idea how to communicate it effectively to people who want short term reassurances right fvcking now - a combination of the above Any way it's sliced doesn't look great, for either him or his audience.

... pardon me, but wasn't the first response quoting Otis with the aforementioned sardonic quip regarding foundations?

If that's so then the above twitter post regarding Miliband is irrelevant, seeing as if it is true then what is or isn't done in terms of renewable energy infrastructure has nothing to do with the energy price cap. In any case, the necessity of putting it in place to save truly grotesque future costs is clear and obvious.

Tbf what Miliband should have said was "energy bills may rise a little in the short term to bring this technology to maturity, but if we don't do it and also encourage other nations to do it, every single person under a certain age in the UK will pay much, much more in the longer term. In more than money". Because that would be true. (Of course, he's couldn't say that because it's not a vote winner, seeing as a lot of people can't or won't see beyond their own noses and next month.)

Let's not go adding nuance here, eh? Charisma is the right word imo. And no, I'm not sure anyone could replicate the cult of personality the man has built, but who knows?

Yep, washed out. Means that (unless there's another washout) run rate is no longer factor and it's now a knockout tournament for England - only wins will do.

Yep. To get one Nobel Prize in the hard sciences is magnificent. To get two is legendary. To get two when the doors of science were so closed to women it was nearly impossible to start a research career, much less advance in one... well, that really should write Mdme Curie into immortality.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/three-people-dead-five-hurt-south-korea-highway-construction-site-yonhap-says-2025-02-25/ Well, bugger.

The Fifth Solvay Conference on Physics, 1927. If you open practically any textbook, particularly on quantum mechanics, chances are the names there are in this picture. A who's who of the most eminent minds of the early 20th century. Bonus for finding the only one in the picture who won two Nobel Prizes.

I think it's a little bit of both for this one.

Oh, no doubt that's the way it will play out. It would just be funny to see the look on Trump's face when Starmer asks him exactly what he thinks of blokes clearly looking to make women barefoot and pregnant again rather than having any part in the political process beyond tokenism. At least Macron showed some lack of intimidation when he met the man today. I've a feeling perhaps the new German guy might be cut from the same cloth. Starmer might look to take a lesson or two.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kootenai-county-town-hall-teresa-borrenpoh-b2703454.html Perhaps one of the questions Starmer asks at his transatlantic meeting is if Trump approves, or even knows about, some of the things being down to women in red states in his name.

Presented without comment.

Then I don't think Pakistan ever gets it again, unless something drastically changes in the geopolitical front. Of course, in the interests of fairness one could make the argument that means India shouldn't host such tournaments either as I'm sure the Pakistan team and fans could make similar safety based arguments, but that well clearly never happen because of the obvious money based power imbalance.

I think that's pretty much on the money. And pardon the gloominess, but I simply don't foresee any possible positive outcome resulting from that. There would be no way to avoid massive loss of life and suffering. If someone could supply something concrete to disabuse me of that notion, it would very much be welcomed.

Erudite. And where exactly does that pathway leave us? Nowhere good. As much as the sentiment is logical right now (Russia, China and the US all appear to be singing in harmony there), I'm wondering where a world divided into Cold War era blocs (but with even more division) based on nationalist superiority leads us in the next couple of decades, given the ascendancy of world changing technology and increased resource crises. I know I keep asking this question, or along similar lines - but that's because no one seems to want to give a full and/or reasoned answer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0ng4eyr3xo Interesting take from John Simpson on how in terms of foreign policy, 2025 may be a very interesting year.

Thought that at the time, surely the editor messed up big time there.

Yeah, he's clearly had access to far more information (both privileged and otherwise) than the man in the street so it's interesting to listen to the expertise. I'm also pretty sure that he knows that way of things playing out leads to only one logical outcome, but clearly he feels he can't do anything about that.

Pretty much what the man said. But I fear that traditional bloc nationalism of that type cannot survive the modern world. "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Charles Darwin That goes for ways of living, as well as organisms themselves.

As someone who bowls more deliveries off the cut strip than on it, it gives me heart to see that trained professionals sometimes do it too.

...so the hard currency of the future is military might? Yeah, there's only one way that ends. I hope that he's wrong. I fear that he's right, because he knows his stuff, clearly.

Mine tends to be flights, most common/ likely route between any two airports.

VDM has been the bane of the England teams existence for the last few years. It was a little satisfying to see him have to front up in the MotM interview.

It's like England can only be good at any one format of the game at a time.