leicsmac

I was thinking more about promises made by other parties should they have power and whether or not them being kept is in any way a good idea for the future of a great many people.

That's clearly rather subjective, but depending on one's definition of breaking promises I'd posit that rules out either all three or none of the largest polling parties right now. Also, it might depend on the promises being made.

Not speaking about Mdme Reeves personally, but is there a better general government option right now? And what would it be?

Wouldn't it be nice if all the death worshippers bound and determined on the supremacy of their own different ideologies simply decided to fight among themselves and left all the people with a hint of empathy alone to actually secure a future for our species civilisation?

Does the UK really have the capacity to stand on its own in the way described here for any length of time? If this legislation is not going to/ doesn't deserve to pass, I'm hoping that solutions for better palliative care are going to be included with that, because otherwise we end up with a situation for many families that is equally as painful as what is described here.

The US hasn't made any kind of effort to address domestic policy since the 1960's, regardless of military spending. If they somehow choose to abandon their ideal of rugged individualism/social Darwinism and address it now no matter what they do in terms of foreign policy, I'd be shocked.

As per above, FPTP will mean you're likely right there - Tories and Reform combined would get plenty of votes, but not enough seats. But four years is a long time. Who thought last time round it would go from a Boris 80 seat majority to a Starmer 170 seat landslide in roughly that time? I think it's more that only things immediately in their own line of sight and affecting them are "real" to them - the suffering of strangers is abstract. Understandable, but not excusable, given the consequences of that thought process when put into policy.

Oddly enough, it may in fact be possible to be a reasonably influential nation power without having enough firepower to blow up the world - unless those others that do it are wrong, too. Given that all the others also ignore the vast drop in resource availability on the horizon and closing fast that will require massive fast technological adaptability across the world or outright warfare, I think every option henceforth is "cross your fingers".

I'm not sure that Russia can keep up its current level of military activity for any length of time or escalate it, in terms of money and manpower. Surely in an economic race the combined European economies - much less the US or Chinese - would win that. Of course, the truth is that no one wins such a conflict anyway. Reform are almost without doubt a bigger threat now. They don't have to rely upon whether or not critique of Starmers responses is legit or not - the base backing them will always believe that it is.

Appreciate the clarification. Perhaps the UK should have used the peacetime dividend to make public services vaguely reasonable then, given that in this apparent new reality there will be no money except for soldiers and armaments, it would appear. I can't see such a rush to military buildup by the UK and European nations ending anywhere but badly both economically and (eventually) in much more stark terms than that, but it may be that if they don't the shit hits the fan anyway. We live in interesting times.

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.