leicsmac

It certainly wasn't biased from the point of view of stanning for Reform, but as Dahnsouff has said here, it wasn't insightful either, just speaking a refrain heard too many times before and one that IMO is a bit tiresome.

I did, and ClaphamFox makes the key point of the article clear in the post above, for anyone lacking the means to get over a paywall. If there's another point to be made here, I'd be happy to hear it.

Because I've read a thousand like it and a thousand Internet comments, all looking to set things up to place the blame for all the appalling consequences of a Reform government on Labour and nowhere else, including where it should be. It's an argument I've heard quite a few times before, as well. I have sympathy for it, because these people clearly think they're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the consequences of their voting action. Yes, when change is this drastic, the status quo usually did something to bring it there, and should it happen, Labour should accept their failure of execution, communication, or both. But that doesn't mean that either the voters or the winning party then get a free ride in terms of responsibility for what they then do. I've really had issue with this argument ever since 2016/17 because it was used then to deflect from the worst excesses of the US administration at that time and since, and IMO it enabled them. The same ideas are taking root in the UK. NB. These folks have every reason to be anxious about the future. However, I fear that the specific reasons for their anxiety about it are not the most accurate or pertinent ones. Edit: and should the worst consequences of the ideology that Reform embody come to pass, those who are left certainly aren't going to be choosy about who they blame for the hellworld we left for them.

To add to the salient points already given above, the scientific method is both self-correcting and the most accurate and effective method we have of parsing facts about our universe at the present time. So yes, point taken, but we still need that single point of truth for the sake of unity, and empiricism, while flawed, is likely the best shot we have.

Enough abdication of responsibility, even when dressed up in 1000 well-chosen words.

Right. The only thing I'll add to this is that we do have empiricism and the rest of the scientific method as a means of establishing truth (or fact, if you like) in spite of whatever personal belief or perception an individual might have. And that's important.

Well, if that score is offered at the start of the day, you take it. Hoping they can add just a few more tomorrow. And Joe Root... form is temporary, class is permanent. And he is 100% the latter.

Good to see Jofra getting into character before he bowls.

Now at about a par score for this ground in these conditions. More would be a bonus.

47 overs in two sessions of play is pretty poor. Expect the ICC will be having a word about that.

This passage of play is critical.

What part of "you can go after everyone but Starc in a pink ball Test" is difficult to understand?

Likewise agree there. He needs the scores to inspire the fear, as well as the attitude.

There's a lot of KP there, both good and bad. Frustrating but at the same time I'm inclined to like it because that lack of fear is something that the Aussies did fear in KP and could fear in Brook.

Bloody hell, Harry.

And world events aren't distracting right now? Covid was a mad-sized matter (though some Conservative backbencher might disagree), but... Certainly agree about the nature of long term projects needing to be bipartisan, though.

I'm sure you're not the first person to feel that way towards our elected officials and I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary. So yes, then, who to believe? I think then it becomes a matter of other institutions found to be trustworthy. Media sources? A possibility, but they all act upon second-hand information, and very few report the truth directly. Medical and scientific institutions? A much better shout, they (at least almost always) have the welfare of life and helping make the world a better place as their primary concern, but then quite often they're far from the best communicators and when something isn't communicated well it's easy for it to be interpreted wrongly, with resultant distrust. The failures there are ones of execution, very rarely intent. Additionally, they lack the power and influence that either the media or politicians have. What's the solution? Goodness knows, but we do need one. And soon.

And this is a massively fundamental point. The current conflict and inequality comes from division. That division comes from far too many people seeing different truths. That comes from a lack of trust in any single point of truth. That trust in whatever single source of fact, is key to social cohesion. And, at least on certain matters, that trust needs to return, because if it doesn't, division and conflict based on the subversion and confusion of the very idea of fact will be all there is.

Agreed, but those who did the lying have their share of the fault too.

I think that could well be accurate. If it is, however, it begs the two questions that; was Brexit ever really a vehicle that could deliver that purpose, and now that it hasn't, exactly whose fault is it for the incorrect expectations and the failure in delivery?

It would have to go through both Bridge and Woodhouse Farms, not sure how well they'd take it either.

Exactly. It would be hilarious if... well, you know the rest.

Interesting. Does appear to be a better option. Isn't the cyclic nature of humans wonderful?

And given that migration is going to become ever more commonplace in a world where large tracts of inhabited land may well become almost impossible to inhabit any more, then there's even more ugly options coming up.

Perhaps too many people are making the misguided conclusion that "not having all of my personally beneficial wants satisfied" = "being ignored".