General News

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

I think Labour will only do one term if they continue like they are. 

 

I hope that's not the case but, on current form, a lot of voters are feeling anxious, let down and deceived.

 

Things are being done now that many Con defectors/Labour swing voters, never expected.

[Sampson]

nevermind

Edited 11 December 2024 by Sampson

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

They’ve had to make some choices which will have caused some backlash. 
 

They’ve got 4 years (ish) to get the country on the road to recovery.

 

I can’t imagine what a reform lead country looks like. 

Incompetent. And they still wouldn’t “sort out” immigration because they can’t in the way they prescribe. Instead they’d go for trans rights and try to whip people up against women like the Republicans in America.

[Paninistickers]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Incompetent. And they still wouldn’t “sort out” immigration because they can’t in the way they prescribe. Instead they’d go for trans rights and try to whip people up against women like the Republicans in America.

They'd sort out immigration surely by popping a blanket ban on it until a new system was sorted out. Edit; and turfing out undesirables

 

I don't see a problem with attacking garbage like proactive trans or other various bizarre self identification things. 

 

But the rest, as in general running of the country on an everyday basis, they'd be a disaster.

Edited 11 December 2024 by Paninistickers

[The Horse's Mouth]

The tories are so weird, it’s almost like they had a self destruction pact to not split the vote next election

[Dunge]

35 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

They'd sort out immigration surely by popping a blanket ban on it until a new system was sorted out. Edit; and turfing out undesirables

 

I don't see a problem with attacking garbage like proactive trans or other various bizarre self identification things. 

 

But the rest, as in general running of the country on an everyday basis, they'd be a disaster.

I’m convinced they wouldn’t because they’d understand how much that would damage the economy and turn people against them.

[Paninistickers]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I’m convinced they wouldn’t because they’d understand how much that would damage the economy and turn people against them.

that's the interesting conundrum. Tories basically opened the floodgates to allow (literally) millions of people in to keep Amazon warehouses, Uber, just eat and the NHS sweet. 

 

I'd suspect reform wouldn't quite as be in the pockets of corporations

 

We'd have poorer just eat deliveries. But is that really the end of the world? 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Farage has for ever been on about an Aussie style immigration system so I’d imagine that would be the first thing he’d put through, don’t think we’d ever see a blanket ban on immigration 

[leicsmac]

Reform have shown rather clearly that they're incapable of preparing for or even acknowledging the situation that will result in migration levels vastly higher than we've ever seen, so I'm not sure what meaning other aspects of their immigration policy has anyway unless they intend for a blanket ban no matter what with all the consequences that entails.

[Grebfromgrebland]

6 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Often wondered if the UK has sufficient war weaponry, in case it's needed, but it seems to get rarely reported.

Maybe Israel would bail us out seeing as we do so much for them. 

[Wymsey]

4 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Maybe Israel would bail us out seeing as we do so much for them. 

Certain other countries seem to milk us for their own gain and offer little back.., so doubt it unfortunately.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

that's the interesting conundrum. Tories basically opened the floodgates to allow (literally) millions of people in to keep Amazon warehouses, Uber, just eat and the NHS sweet. 

 

I'd suspect reform wouldn't quite as be in the pockets of corporations

 

We'd have poorer just eat deliveries. But is that really the end of the world? 

 

This is a joke post, right?

[Grebfromgrebland]

I was being a little glib but we did create Israel to give us access to oil and leverage in the middle East which is now coming to real fruition.

 

We're gaining more land mass every single day from Syria, Lebanon and other areas, soon we'll have full access to the energy reserves in the newly obtained Gaza and Palestinian lands which is worth billions and also access to the shipping / transport routes.

 

At this rate we could have full control of Syria during 2025.

 

 

 

 

[Sly]

6 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I was being a little glib but we did create Israel to give us access to oil and leverage in the middle East which is now coming to real fruition.

 

We're gaining more land mass every single day from Syria, Lebanon and other areas, soon we'll have full access to the energy reserves in the newly obtained Gaza and Palestinian lands which is worth billions and also access to the shipping / transport routes.

 

At this rate we could have full control of Syria during 2025.

 

 

 

 

Obviously the Israel / Hamas war as it is now known was triggered in October last year. 

 

From a one point of view it does look like Israel are also undertaking a “special military operation” within the Middle East currently. 
 

Either way, when you look around the world, we’ve got ongoing conflicts in the Ukraine, Myanmar, Middle East, large proportions of Africa, Mexico, Sudan, Colombia, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Haiti. 
 

It’s crazy really that we’ll have over 100,000 unnecessary deaths this year, because people wants to disagree about religion, drugs, oil and are on ego trips. 
 

We’ve got so much land that isn’t used in certain areas because people are in dick swinging competitions with each other, so you have this migration that causes constant friction.
 

If we addressed the root cause of the issue and maybe supported the infrastructure growth in some of these places, rather than resorting to blowing them to pieces. We’d have a more balanced and developed world. Ultimately though to reach that point, this will lead to more blood shed. I’m not sure certain sections of the world want full world peace either. 

 

Unfortunately as anywhere takes in more people from either side of a conflict, it brings that anger to its own shores. So violence spreads. This is why we see the riots in Europe etc.

I personally don’t believe that the migration levels are the issue really, if we can all live in peace and harmony, people won’t care. Unfortunately it’s the culture clash, or even historical actions that causes the friction.
 

We are a little island at heart and whilst we’ve always had migration, we need don’t have an infinite amount of space. It would be quite nice to keep some greenery and not need the 1,500,000 houses they want to build in the next five years. I fully understand why people want to come here for a better life. I’d want to as well if my family were at risk of some of the atrocities that are happening within the conflict zones.
 

It just seems bonkers when you consider that we are cramming everyone in because we have a system that semi works but is breaking at heart. If we had the land Australia have, we could potential accommodate the amount of migration that ideally wants to come here in a safe manor, rather than people risking their lives crossing the sea on rubber dingys that are made for paddling in a lake. 
 

My solution. Send everyone to Australia. 

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, Sly said:

Obviously the Israel / Hamas war as it is now known was triggered in October last year. 

 

From a one point of view it does look like Israel are also undertaking a “special military operation” within the Middle East currently. 
 

Either way, when you look around the world, we’ve got ongoing conflicts in the Ukraine, Myanmar, Middle East, large proportions of Africa, Mexico, Sudan, Colombia, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Haiti. 
 

It’s crazy really that we’ll have over 100,000 unnecessary deaths this year, because people wants to disagree about religion, drugs, oil and are on ego trips. 
 

We’ve got so much land that isn’t used in certain areas because people are in dick swinging competitions with each other, so you have this migration that causes constant friction.
 

If we addressed the root cause of the issue and maybe supported the infrastructure growth in some of these places, rather than resorting to blowing them to pieces. We’d have a more balanced and developed world. Ultimately though to reach that point, this will lead to more blood shed. I’m not sure certain sections of the world want full world peace either. 

 

Unfortunately as anywhere takes in more people from either side of a conflict, it brings that anger to its own shores. So violence spreads. This is why we see the riots in Europe etc.

I personally don’t believe that the migration levels are the issue really, if we can all live in peace and harmony, people won’t care. Unfortunately it’s the culture clash, or even historical actions that causes the friction.
 

We are a little island at heart and whilst we’ve always had migration, we need don’t have an infinite amount of space. It would be quite nice to keep some greenery and not need the 1,500,000 houses they want to build in the next five years. I fully understand why people want to come here for a better life. I’d want to as well if my family were at risk of some of the atrocities that are happening within the conflict zones.
 

It just seems bonkers when you consider that we are cramming everyone in because we have a system that semi works but is breaking at heart. If we had the land Australia have, we could potential accommodate the amount of migration that ideally wants to come here in a safe manor, rather than people risking their lives crossing the sea on rubber dingys that are made for paddling in a lake. 
 

My solution. Send everyone to Australia. 

I honestly don't think that traditional borders and nations as they are now can survive the next few decades with the way both the earth and humans are advancing.

 

Darwin had it right; those most adaptable to change survive, and that goes for institutions, nations and species, as well as individuals.

[Bordersfox]

7 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Certain other countries seem to milk us for their own gain and offer little back.., so doubt it unfortunately.

We are one of the most successful exporters of arms in the world, particularly  given our size.   I would argue the milking goes the other way if anything.

[bovril]

8 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I was being a little glib but we did create Israel to give us access to oil and leverage in the middle East which is now coming to real fruition.

 

 

Well no

[Sly]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly don't think that traditional borders and nations as they are now can survive the next few decades with the way both the earth and humans are advancing.

 

Darwin had it right; those most adaptable to change survive, and that goes for institutions, nations and species, as well as individuals.

You’re right, however people will still continue to warmonger to hold onto them. 
 

At some point, some crazy nation will drop a nuclear bomb and we’ll need to adapt to survive. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

You’re right, however people will still continue to warmonger to hold onto them. 
 

At some point, some crazy nation will drop a nuclear bomb and we’ll need to adapt to survive. 

Depends who drops it, where they drop it, and what they drop 

 

if you accept that Iran are pretty much there then I think there are potentially 8 ‘crazy nations’.  (Unless some non state entity manages to get hold of one like in a 60’s James bond film) 

Edited 12 December 2024 by st albans fox

[Sly]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Depends who drops it, where they drop it, and what they drop 

 

if you accept that Iran are pretty much there then I think there are potentially 8 ‘crazy nations’.  (Unless some non state entity manages to get hold of one like in a 60’s James bond film) 

I’m think nine nations are generally accepted as having them.

 

Great Britain, United States, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea

 

Then under sharing rule - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Belarus.

 

I guess it’s then where are they stationed elsewhere like in a James Bond film, like you mentioned. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

You’re right, however people will still continue to warmonger to hold onto them. 
 

At some point, some crazy nation will drop a nuclear bomb and we’ll need to adapt to survive. 

That's the bad way it could end up going.

 

For everyone's sake, here's hoping it goes a better way, instead.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Sly said:

I’m think nine nations are generally accepted as having them.

 

Great Britain, United States, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea

 

Then under sharing rule - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Belarus.

 

I guess it’s then where are they stationed elsewhere like in a James Bond film, like you mentioned. 

 

 

Forgot about big Kim.  (And someone else cos you’ve not included Iran - I think I didn’t count the usa 😄)

the ‘sharers’ are unable to drop anything without one of the nine effectively doing it. 

I can’t see any of the security council members dropping one (that not because they are sc members btw) 

I don’t see anyone dropping one adjacent to their country either. 
 

Not sure that n korea are interested in dropping one. they just want everyone to stay out of their self interest 

 

most likely would be Iran or Israel because striking either nation would not badly affect the sender with fall out. But Iran isn’t nuking Israel because there are 2 million Muslim Arabs living in Israel and a further 5 million in Gaza/West Bank. It’s a v small area. 

and Israel have access to conventional weapons that mean they don’t need to nuke Iran to achieve their goals. 
 

So I’d  say it’s most likely that a non state actor would be responsible. (Perhaps with the assistance of a ‘crazy state’)  

 

[SkidsFox]

12 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

that's the interesting conundrum. Tories basically opened the floodgates to allow (literally) millions of people in to keep Amazon warehouses, Uber, just eat and the NHS sweet. 

 

I'd suspect reform wouldn't quite as be in the pockets of corporations

 

We'd have poorer just eat deliveries. But is that really the end of the world? 

From a selfish pov, I'm not so bothered about numbers of just eat delivery drivers, but I am concerned about hospital staff, care workers etc. I don't mind if more Brits can be encouraged to do those jobs (and perhaps persuaded from jumping to better paid jobs in Saudi or Oz), but equally I'm fine with migrants coming here to do those jobs, whether they be from India, Sudan or Italy. But one thing is 100% certain - the likes of Farage/Tice/Anderson/Jenrick who are promoting the anti-migrant hatred will never help in such jobs - they are too busy feathering their own nest.  

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Forgot about big Kim.  (And someone else cos you’ve not included Iran - I think I didn’t count the usa 😄)

the ‘sharers’ are unable to drop anything without one of the nine effectively doing it. 

I can’t see any of the security council members dropping one (that not because they are sc members btw) 

I don’t see anyone dropping one adjacent to their country either. 
 

Not sure that n korea are interested in dropping one. they just want everyone to stay out of their self interest 

 

most likely would be Iran or Israel because striking either nation would not badly affect the sender with fall out. But Iran isn’t nuking Israel because there are 2 million Muslim Arabs living in Israel and a further 5 million in Gaza/West Bank. It’s a v small area. 

and Israel have access to conventional weapons that mean they don’t need to nuke Iran to achieve their goals. 
 

So I’d  say it’s most likely that a non state actor would be responsible. (Perhaps with the assistance of a ‘crazy state’)  

 

I wouldn't disregard India/Pakistan there either, especially if water resources in that region start to become strained.

[Paninistickers]

36 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

anti-migrant hatred

I agree with most of your points above, but not sure everyone who has extreme concerns about immigration is hatred. I hope I don't 'hate' immigrants. I'd like to think I'm polite and sociable to anyone. And frankly, if I were i had a chance to move abroad for better paid work, I'd do it too like they have. 

 

But it's all too easy to lump genuine concerns as hated or racism..

 

36 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

I'm fine with migrants coming here to do those jobs, whether they be from India, Sudan or Italy

Yes and no. It's a shame we can't get UK nationals to do these sort of jobs. However, in my limited experience of the NHS, many of these nurses and care workers may be qualified, but lack the soft skills of care. So e even lack the language skills. We aren't replacing apples with apples. More apples replaced by potatoes!