leicsmac

Two thoughts about that: - given the way the campaign played out, I'm not sure that anything the Remain side would have said on the matter would have made much difference - I'm inclined to think that unforeseen consequences are so consequences and do lie with the people who created the situation in which they were capable of happening only.

Perhaps it's rose-tinted specs, but in terms of actual progress in required areas to help people who need or needed to be helped, pre-Iraq Blair government was easily the best of the last roughly fifty years. Had the right blueprint and the charisma to get the public on board with it. But moving onto the present day, we're in a different era. Politics seems so much more fast food right now, thanks to instant digital solutions in some places people then expect instant solutions everywhere else too.

Good piece of investigative from the Beeb.

Not much at all post-1979.

WRT Starmer, he's hardly what I'd call my optimal option but on the list of viable PMs based on polling data right now I'd choose him every damn day over the alternatives and I'd be interested in hearing policy arguments beyond just soundbites/immigration one-liners about why anyone else wouldn't. (Davey is a good bloke but he's Home Secretary material, not PM). There's been far too much talk (at least some of it justified) recently about the current government work, and not enough about what an alternate government would do better beyond soundbites and innuendo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl1pgr2zn8o Even the Papacy is understanding it. Perhaps it's time for other people who should know better to get it too?

Jane Goodall, aged 91. A legend of conservation, and one of those people where it's a certainty that their deeds in life made the Earth a better place.

Add the old media acting as a force multiplier for this too. It doesn't end well, even for those self important people who think they're rich and powerful enough to be immune from the consequences.

Of course the infrastructure concerns based on increasing population are ones that are valid and should be considered carefully. That doesn't, however, stop that argument being either ignored or used as a smokescreen for good old-fashioned xenophobia. The UK (and governments of all stripes running it in recent times) has really dropped the ball on long term infrastructure projects, and so vital services are creaking right now, that's obvious. That's rather tangential to the actual matter at hand, though, and there really needs to be a look at the whole thing that encompasses both getting such projects started and finished without political interruption and added cost, and also addressing the root causes of why people migrate in the first place. Because without addressing those causes, it isn't going to stop, it isn't going to get better (particularly as the world changes) and the only other choice is to functionally choose the borders and abandon millions, if not more, people to their fate.

Not to answer for the OP, but I would suggest practically all of those who list excessive migration as their only or top of the list of concerns that they have. If polling data is accurate, that's quite a few people.

But not out of moves yet.

No. Because it's not. But then, this is the era where perception overrules proven facts, so unfortunately the question is irrelevant. Interesting times, eh?

Yep, and so am I, and so has every thinker on the topic since Plato. Not a simple problem. Of course, the difference is today the stakes are higher in terms of the degree and consequences of the problem than they've ever been. To follow on from the above though, I'm not sure that slick con artistry has been as much of a problem in the past as it is now, but perhaps that's recency bias.

If this is indeed true (and it may well be so), then as per above it shows a weakness in the system that requires looking at, rather than simply accepting.

Exactly. A (relatively in terms of death rate) mid-level pandemic turned everything upside down very, very quickly just a little while ago. And that is merely a taste of what's out there in terms of consequence.

You're right. Up until the bodies start piling up close to them, anyway. And, just for the record, that's both a critical weakness and a reason for responsibility for any horrible events that do ensue on the part of those "average people". Au contraire, it's obvious that they are. My point is that things changed a lot in four years recently, and so they might again. Or they might not. We shall see.

It didn't need to last time round. Four years is a long time in politics. Particularly when in the field of science and healthcare one of the leading figures in the polls is already on record with a distrust of science that can be proven to cost lives.

Lots of things. Start of 2020, BoJo had a near bulletproof lead in polls, seats and popularity. Fast forward four years... The world is moving so fast now that it's rather foolhardy to make many solid political predictions that far ahead.

Policymaking in certain areas based on popular opinion (which social media has acted as a force multiplier for rather than really generating it itself) rather than fact is, at the moment, likely the biggest threat to human civilisation that exists. It is the reason not enough is being done about the change in the Earth's biosphere (both climate and biodiversity), it's the reason leaders get approval for warfare where countless innocent people suffer and area, and it's the reason why critical issues that affect everyone are not focused on while ones mostly focused on short term self interest dominate. Adapt, or perish. Darwin had it right. This adaptation isn't totally physical, but it's necessary. And soon.

https://www.ft.com/content/429193b3-26d5-44d6-8f42-9b0a6a6e9ab5 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has refused to distance himself from comments US President Donald Trump made linking the use of paracetamol by pregnant women to autism in children, although an overwhelming majority of medical experts have rejected the claim. “We were told thalidomide was a safe drug and it wasn’t. Who knows?” Farage told LBC on Wednesday, referring to the sedative that caused birth defects in more than 10,000 people around the world after it was widely prescribed to pregnant women for morning sickness. Farage, whose party is leading national opinion polls, said he had “no idea” whether paracetamol was linked to autism, adding: “When it comes to science I wouldn’t side with anybody.” ... I'm wondering if "stopping the boats" or "smashing the gangs" (if indeed either of those things happen) is worth the cost of having this person and those who think like him setting scientific policymaking in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4y159190go Interesting article on what the Chinese are doing (right direction but not enough) and a little bit on what the US, among others are doing (not enough and entirely the wrong direction too).

A drunken stumble that ended with one arm across the finish line just in time. But who cares? The win, particularly against this opposition, is all that matters.

Nah, I'll take the win against such boorish opposition on away soil however it comes. They'll certainly just see it as a loss, that's for sure.

They'll get the half point they need, but they have made rather hard work of it all.

I'm sure that will come under all due consideration when he wins a future RC as captain - which I'm sure he will.