leicsmac

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.

Four years is a long time and it remains to be how vote share translates to seats, but it does seem like there's the distinct possibility that they'll at least be kingmaker. This timeline is... well, an odd one.

Yeah, that's likely. It would be equally vacuous if they used it as front page fodder in the same way.

One would hope the AfD and whatever Mdme Le Pen calls her band won't get enough traction for power, but given the change in landscape in the last decade, I wouldn't want to lay money on it. Edit: the above being said, Yoon and his ideas in Korea have failed epically without much drastic change so there may be hope, yeah.

It does indeed. And I think that it's not just limited to the UK, either. France, Germany, parts of Latin America, South Korea, to name but a few, are having upsurges in such sentiment that are affecting their social fabric. Social media has allowed it to spread in that way.

The ascendancy of nationalist movements across the world, if not addressed adequately and allowed to control the democratic process, will result in a conflict/humanitarian crisis in the next two decades that will cost tens of millions of lives, at a minimum - either through direct application of supremacist ideals to oppress "undesirable" demographics, or from conflict over resources/lack of cooperation in the face of a novel natural threat, or both. (This is unpopular because those movements appear to be growing all the time in terms of popularity in a lot of democratic nations with little consideration as to what they might lead to, apart from dismissal like "it won't be that bad...")

Good to see that the current government are taking rapid action on their members of parliament being arses on social media, but that being said, would the Heil really make as much of a big deal of someone being called "a thick posh lazy oaf" if it was a Tory or Reform MP saying it? Compared to what Gwynne posted which was pretty beyond the pale, this seems pretty mild.

One would think any total above 300 in a ODI is fair, but have no idea about what kind of track this is.

Glad it didn't matter in the end. Superb game.

Forward pass on the buildup to that try?

What a bizarre 60 seconds of play that was

Think England should be happy to be going in all square at half time. All to play for especially with the conditions generating mistakes.

Justice done there with Dupont shelling that easy run in, looked like a quite clear obstruction infringement by France that led to the break. And they've shelled it again

https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-slashes-overhead-payments-research-sparking-outrage In a Friday night move that quickly drew howls of protest from the U.S. biomedical research community, President Donald Trump’s administration today announced it is immediately reducing by at least half the so-called indirect cost payments that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) makes to universities, hospitals, and research institutes to help cover facilities and administrative costs. A 15% indirect cost rate will now apply to all new and existing grants, NIH said in a memo from its Director’s office. Typically, about 30% of an average NIH grant to an institution is earmarked for indirect costs, according to NIH, but some universities get much higher rates. In 2023, NIH, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, spent nearly $9 billion on indirect costs; the change would likely leave research institutions needing to find billions of dollars from other sources to support laboratories, students, and staff. “It is… vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” NIH wrote in the memo. The new rate brings NIH into line with the maximum indirect costs rates allowed by private foundations, NIH stated, and is higher than the minimum 10% indirect cost payment NIH says it is required to provide. “This rate will allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs,” the memo stated. “This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” said a statement from the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), which tracks federal policy for major universities and medical research centers. “America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound. We urge NIH to rescind this dangerous policy before its harms are felt by Americans.” Alondra Nelson of the Institute for Advanced Study, former head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, lamented on BlueSky what she said would amount to a "generational restructuring of the US research and development ecosystem." She added that "This funding shift will not only reduce US research leadership, it will put working people out of work and reduce healthcare access." Yep, definitely a golden opportunity for the Chinese in the field of scientific research.