leicsmac

I guess we'll see what political capital he'll make out if it, if any, in the long run.

I think being ambiguous on it, rather than picking it as a hill to die on as the Dems did, would have been the smartest play. But you could well be right and I guess only time is going to tell. I think he could have simply batted off the questioning as a lot of it was bait from people who would never vote for him anyway, as per above. Also, as you say, it's a bit foolish to choose a position that is polar different to the one you had a few years ago on this matter rather than simply keeping his own counsel about it. But again as per above, I guess time will tell.

Starmer removing his ambiguity on trans matters will lose him more votes than it gains, seeing as people who are full-bore for the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't vote for him in any kind of number anyway. It's a mistake.

Population/demographic pressure is an issue that's coming up more and more often both here and out in the world. It's such a bloody difficult problem because there don't appear to be any good options - you accept that there's going to be a period of time where agree demographics are badly lopsided while populations stabilise, with all the social problems that entails, or you try to boost the birth rate/population to compensate in a world where inequality is rampant and finite resources may already be diminishing past the point of no return, with all the dire consequences that entails. If there's a third option that doesn't result in a lot of problems down the line, I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.

I doubt it, because you either require a totally liberated environment where women feel absolutely comfortable with choosing career or kids or balancing both with no big consequence, or you need a totally Afghanistan-style repressive environment where women have to do their "duty". The US (and Korea) is in between the two and so offers neither. (Though if Trump and those backing him get their way, the latter may become more real than most people would like.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/trump-birthrate-proposals.html The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values. One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children. Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery. A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive. .... the fresh Handmaid's Tale hell is this?

Ditto Poilievre in Canada. I get sick of referring to short term self interest, but on this matter at the present time there appears to be far too much of it.

The evangelicals clearly consider the Sermon on the Mount merely guidelines, rather than instructions on how to be a good person of God.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyq9pr47ejo Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has clarified he believes in climate change after facing backlash for comments made during an election debate on Wednesday night. Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked about the increasing impact of climate change, to which Dutton replied he would "let scientists and others pass that judgment". He had previously said that flooding and natural disasters were "part of the history of our state of this country". The comments generated outrage from climate groups and mockery from Albanese. "I believe in climate change, and that it is a reality" Dutton said while campaigning on Monday. I wish that the press and other critical parties in other places were more able and willing to hold leaders and potential leaders to account on this matter like this. (Yes, USA, I'm looking at you. Again.)

A Pope who actually advocated for proper Christian values rather than just paying lip service to them. He'll be missed. RIP.

Rewatching Years and Years, as it's now available on Netflix. It first aired in 2019 and of course it didn't see Covid coming, but there's so much else about the next few years that it has got right - terribly, dystopically so in some cases.

Proper "alpha male" bigot (usually against more demographics than simply women) behaviour, yes.

Also related to the above, this is the level of decorum the current US administration possess:

The man is living proof that in this age anything is possible when you lie and accentuate the negative. Unfortunately.

The working paradigm over there is deeply messed up, but then it's been that way for a while. They simply can't figure out a good way to square the circle. Possibly because there is no good way.

Appreciate the viewpoint from "on the ground", as it were. I hope that you're right in that the issue is manageable and is in the process of being managed.

The policy of the current Trump administration is their template. That's about it, really - whether someone thinks that good or bad is clearly up to the beholder.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjn0pn830ko Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said the government will "double down" on its environmental agenda and accused those against the move to net zero of "making up nonsense and lies". Political opponents in the Conservatives and Reform UK - and some trade unions – have argued that his agenda is putting jobs in traditional industries at risk and have urged a change of course. The UK is legally committed to moving to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – a goal set under a previous Conservative government. Writing in the Observer, external, Miliband warned that an anti-net zero agenda would not only risk "climate breakdown" but "forfeit the clean energy jobs of the future". It's not lies to those that tell them, Ed. They genuinely think that our species can continue the way that it is with no consequences that they should worry about. Call it what it is - short term self interested ideology that will bear all responsibility for the loss of a great many lives, both human and otherwise.

Different head of the same hydra, yeah. There needs to be more focus on this particular ideology - that of self-interest and "infamy" - along with the more traditional ideologies that such terrible acts are committed in the name of. While I'd agree, I'm not sure there's ever been a time where there wasn't at least a hint of moral bankruptcy in human society.

Totally agree, though the nuts and bolts of that might be tricky.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union. Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found. Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll. The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers". If this isn't dealt with, there will be a really serious incident at a school somewhere, and soon. Exactly how it's dealt with is unfortunately a much more complex question.

Best of luck with that one, mate.

I hope that you're right now, and more importantly that you're still right in, say, a decade.

Given that PhD's (or MDs) tend to rely on scientific citations rather than soundbites and innuendo for their arguments and that is rather ably being demonstrated here, it looks that way.

And then they like to call it "just human nature". As if such a thing is true, and if it is, as if it is in fact immutable or desirable for our species for it to be so.