leicsmac

Is it possible to elaborate on this at all?

I can only wish that I was surprised. This administration have been almost totally transparent about their objectives before and during. Either people can't quite believe that, or they're actually OK with those objectives.

Big special on Midlands local tv regarding increased incidences of flooding in terms of frequency and intensity in the last couple of decades. Correctly referencing the cause of those increases quite often, which is good.

The problem is that mixed in with this lot of ridiculous stuff is a lot of bills much more serious and destructive to the rights of anyone outside a particular demographic also being forwarded, and the ridiculous stuff acts as a smokescreen, by accident or by design.

The state of politics in the UK and quite a few other areas at the present time summed up, there.

On the contrary, I think that both centre and left do have rather detailed solutions to those problems, but they have failed - and are failing - to sell that solution as what it is, the best of a set of bad options. (Which is a difficult sell, after all.) The other side are then using this very skillfully to either ignore the problem or implement even worse solutions but selling them to appeal to short term self interest successfully. Either consent is being manufactured, or large sections of humanity really are that lacking in empathy beyond their line of sight and we've got big problems. @Basildon Fox on this topic, I'm glad to have you put forward your own point of view because I'm interested in your take. You appear to be OK with Reform having power, but I'd ask a question; how do you think their policy positions fit into a future where there are so many global issues that need attention? I'm genuinely interested - if their worldview ends up in power in a lot of places, I need a reason to think that social Darwinist ethos won't be disastrously incompatible with what society needs to survive. So if you have the inclination, sell it to me.

No, we're on a road that leads to The Expanse at best and Furiosa at worst, but that's a way away; however I do think we're rapidly approaching a point where that future, one way or the other, will be locked in and there will be nothing we can do other than brace ourselves for either, hence my thought about there being precious little left to lose. The scientific discoveries we've made even in the last decade are outstanding, as you point out just a few here, and they truly have the power to make the world a better place. They have to be matched by a likewise progression in societal development and mindset, though, otherwise at best they might buy us a little time and at worst bring about or be used to enforce the possible dystopias referenced above.

If there's a solid reason that we're far from that situation, as opposed to being dangerously close or perhaps even arrived at it already, I'd like to hear it.

No, he means Mad Max in principle at first and then in practice not long afterwards.

This is a logical conclusion to make. However, I do rather fear for the consequences if the attempt is not made, because there simply isn't enough of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8edn0n58gwo The UK and US have not signed an international agreement on artificial intelligence (AI) at a global summit in Paris. The statement, signed by France, China and India among other countries, pledges an "open", "inclusive" and "ethical" approach to the technology's development. Downing Street said the UK "hadn't been able to agree all parts of the leaders' declaration" and would "only ever sign up to initiatives that are in UK national interests". Earlier, US Vice President JD Vance told delegates in Paris that too much regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) could "kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off". Vance told world leaders that AI was "an opportunity that the Trump administration will not squander" and said "pro-growth AI policies" should be prioritised over safety. A key commentary sentence here: "It is a powerful symbol of just how fragmented the global community is growing as each country pursues its own AI agenda."

Communication, particularly effective communication on complex topics, is getting increasingly trickier just at the time when it is most needed.

... which then leads to a most interesting problem where some of the things that people don't like are going to be essential to the future of any kind of society at all. It's likely true that social media has merely acted as a force multiplier.

Tbh though Gaza is an issue and the current hot button issue and so what he says about it is relevant, it's not even the biggest bone of contention that the UK should be engaging the US on.

And I can't see why anyone would see it happening. The mindset of the man and his backers is obvious. Bingo. Destruction is profitable when you're selling the tools to both destroy and rebuild.

I keep hearing this and I honestly don't know where the confidence in it is coming from given what's already happened. The man has learned from his first term about getting his agenda implemented, that's very apparent.

Mandelson: "[We do] not necessarily agree with every detail of Trump's agenda, but....We have to respect and understand what drives him, what his mandate is to do, and how his allies need to adjust sometimes." Trump: "Yeah, we're going to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and stage an administrative coup d'etat, and that's just the start." Someone arrange for a spinaplasty for the UKs new ambassador, please.

I don't blame you in the slightest there.

And just at the time when the stakes have never been higher. Fun, right?

Their harm would only be acted out at a local level if it occurs, so of course you're right to be worried about global actors with far greater influence acting similarly. That doesn't mean that their harm won't be great at that local level and contribute to that overall rise in misery and suffering, though.

This is in all likelihood true (unless resource issues become very stark), but sadly it's far from the only way for them to cause great harm and suffering.

That's the best case scenario. I guess we'll find out in four years. I just hope that I'm wrong.

By comparison to high level private industry, it really isn't that much, yes, while having influence and responsibility reasonably commensurate with those high level industry positions. That will result in those most talented for the job either looking elsewhere or finding...other revenue streams, it's true. And no one wants a corrupt political process.

Gazans "wouldn't have the right to return" to their homeland if the US were to take control of it. Well, thank you for saying the (sort of) quiet part about the ethnic cleansing out loud.

Yeah, the polling numbers speak for themselves. What that leads to... well, that will be interesting.