General News Thread

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 hours ago, Raj said:

Revealed: Newly-elected Reform councillor’s double life as an online porn star | LBC

 

Typical Reform pushing the gay agenda down our throats, what's wrong with traditional values etc

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Is it Suella?

There needs to be a puking feedback option

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

I've noticed, rightly or wrongly that I've not seen a single Labour representative mention immigration/boat people when interviewed and trying to justify Starmer's or the Labour party's progress even though I believe it's dropped quite a lot relatively.

 

Are they scared of bringing into the public? Maybe they fear it may go up again or give more air time to Reform

At this point they are talking to members. Labour party members are not reform voters. They don't want to hear about boat crossings. They want to hear some left wing ideas about a path forwards. 

[Foxdiamond]

I'm not a fan of Starmer and the Mandelson issue was not good but the impatient want to chop and change PM less than 2 years since winning a landslide is ridiculous. Labour should focus on getting their message across and pushing through. Back in 1981 Thatcher was extremely unpopular 2 years after winning power. Somehow she gained popularity after the Falklands. Imagine if the Tories had turfed her out in 81.

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I'm not a fan of Starmer and the Mandelson issue was not good but the impatient want to chop and change PM less than 2 years since winning a landslide is ridiculous. Labour should focus on getting their message across and pushing through. Back in 1981 Thatcher was extremely unpopular 2 years after winning power. Somehow she gained popularity after the Falklands. Imagine if the Tories had turfed her out in 81.

Yep the general trends are going in the right direction. If an improving nhs, slowly growing economy and reduction in asylum hotels isn’t enough for people then there’s not much Labour can do anyway given the economic constraints in the west. 

[Lionator]

One things that saddens me re this upcoming by-election is that Burnham is being attacked by white, right leaning working class voters in the local area around his ‘clean air zone’. There’s nothing libertarian about being diagnosed with COPD before your 60th birthday.

[kenny]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Yep the general trends are going in the right direction. If an improving nhs, slowly growing economy and reduction in asylum hotels isn’t enough for people then there’s not much Labour can do anyway given the economic constraints in the west. 

The economy is odd at present. Its growing which is good news. But its mostly service sector which is presumably AI driven.

 

Jobs 'on the ground' ie retail, hospitality and construction are in recession with job losses and insolvencies all over. There is also rock bottom consumer & business confidence.

 

Its almost as if we are in a situation where the positive growth is disparate from peoples lived experience at the moment.

[Lionator]

9 minutes ago, kenny said:

The economy is odd at present. Its growing which is good news. But its mostly service sector which is presumably AI driven.

 

Jobs 'on the ground' ie retail, hospitality and construction are in recession with job losses and insolvencies all over. There is also rock bottom consumer & business confidence.

 

Its almost as if we are in a situation where the positive growth is disparate from peoples lived experience at the moment.

Which is the fundamental socio-economic issue where our economies are evolving beyond the control of government. 

[Foxdiamond]

47 minutes ago, Lionator said:

One things that saddens me re this upcoming by-election is that Burnham is being attacked by white, right leaning working class voters in the local area around his ‘clean air zone’. There’s nothing libertarian about being diagnosed with COPD before your 60th birthday.

Perhaps those fools would prefer a return to the smog days 

[leicsmac]

50 minutes ago, Lionator said:

One things that saddens me re this upcoming by-election is that Burnham is being attacked by white, right leaning working class voters in the local area around his ‘clean air zone’. There’s nothing libertarian about being diagnosed with COPD before your 60th birthday.

 

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Perhaps those fools would prefer a return to the smog days 

Oh, I don't know. 

 

Freedom does include the freedom to mess up the environment to the point of death to the future in the same of your own short term self interest. 

 

Or at least some people evidently think so. 

[CornwallFox]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Which is the fundamental socio-economic issue where our economies are evolving beyond the control of government. 

It's where we are with capitalism. The benefits of growth of all going to the top, not being shared between investors and workers. 

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Oh, I don't know. 

 

Freedom does include the freedom to mess up the environment to the point of death to the future in the same of your own short term self interest. 

 

Or at least some people evidently think so. 

I was listening to a radio debate today about Starmer. One bloke didn't like Labour because they were taking away the choice of his children to decide to smoke 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

At this point they are talking to members. Labour party members are not reform voters. They don't want to hear about boat crossings. They want to hear some left wing ideas about a path forwards. 

I'm not convinced most of the interviews with voters up north I saw nearly all mentioned immigration as to why they would vote Reform

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm not convinced most of the interviews with voters up north I saw nearly all mentioned immigration as to why they would vote Reform

No doubt. 

 

It's darkly ironic though that they would then turn to a party that, far from addressing the root causes of that issue, would instead make them far, far worse. 

[CornwallFox]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm not convinced most of the interviews with voters up north I saw nearly all mentioned immigration as to why they would vote Reform

Oh of course, but at the moment the candidates need to win a Labour party vote. They need to focus on their message to Labour members if they want to become PM. Once in the job, the winner will need to decide how to communicate with the wider electorate. Any candidate stood there talking to Labour members about small boats will not be the PM. 

 

You'll see Burnham move first to talk about those other issues as he is the one candidate that needs to win an election with the wider electorate. Until that campaign begins you might not hear much about immigration though. 

Edited 15 May by CornwallFox

[davieG]

8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Oh of course, but at the moment the candidates need to win a Labour party vote. They need to focus on their message to Labour members if they want to become PM. Once in the job, the winner will need to decide how to communicate with the wider electorate. Any candidate stood there talking to Labour members about small boats will not be the PM. 

 

You'll see Burnham move first to talk about those other issues as he is the one candidate that needs to win an election with the wider electorate. Until that campaign begins you might not hear much about immigration though. 

Well I wasn't referring to now I'm looking back 6 months or more since they seem to have deliberately taken it out of any political discussions.

[CornwallFox]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

Well I wasn't referring to now I'm looking back 6 months or more since they seem to have deliberately taken it out of any political discussions.

Oh sorry, thought you were talking about the likely candidates for pm. 

Yeah, I have no idea why they haven't been screaming the immigration figures from the rooftops. Immigration down 80%, small boats down 42%, it's incredible they've put so much effort into it then not really said anything. Maybe waiting to see if the numbers stick perhaps?

[Lionator]

Back to my favourite area, and WW3, does anyone actually believe the US would fight China and risk Armageddon over Taiwan? Seems insane to me. 

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Back to my favourite area, and WW3, does anyone actually believe the US would fight China and risk Armageddon over Taiwan? Seems insane to me. 

Nope. Think the US wording over it is they would provide weapons and stuffs for Taiwan to defend itself. Much like what US and Europe have done in Ukraine. 

 

Tbh I hope we never have to find out. Taiwan should be allowed to decide their fate for themselves. 

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Which is the fundamental socio-economic issue where our economies are evolving beyond the control of government. 

Probably a good thing, the bit they can control is doing badly.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Back to my favourite area, and WW3, does anyone actually believe the US would fight China and risk Armageddon over Taiwan? Seems insane to me. 

 

17 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Nope. Think the US wording over it is they would provide weapons and stuffs for Taiwan to defend itself. Much like what US and Europe have done in Ukraine. 

 

Tbh I hope we never have to find out. Taiwan should be allowed to decide their fate for themselves. 

There's a few layers to this IMO.

 

The US probably would only offer material aid to Taiwan (at the moment) rather than any "boots on the ground" or escalation. However, they likely feel they have to act differently so as to dissuade the Chinese from going for an invasion (they're certainly not going to risk Armageddon, the same way as the Americans hopefully wouldn't). Additionally, there may also be a school of thought that wants China to call their "bluff" and get involved in a Ukraine style boondoggle which would hurt them economically and geopolitically.

 

4 minutes ago, kenny said:

Probably a good thing, the bit they can control is doing badly.

"Probably" is doing a lot of hard work in that sentence - not sure Amazon etc is any more benevolent or competent a master at governance (eg. maintaining quality of life across the board) than any government that exists. 

Edited 15 May by leicsmac

[Bellend Sebastian]

Gutted that I went to London last weekend instead of tomorrow, thereby missing my opportunity to take part in the 'Unite The Kingdom' rally which sounds like a very noble aim to me

[DJW1]

6 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Pornstar's Shame at Being Elected as Reform Candidate.

You´d better copyright that before Private Eye uses it 

[kenny]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

There's a few layers to this IMO.

 

The US probably would only offer material aid to Taiwan (at the moment) rather than any "boots on the ground" or escalation. However, they likely feel they have to act differently so as to dissuade the Chinese from going for an invasion (they're certainly not going to risk Armageddon, the same way as the Americans hopefully wouldn't). Additionally, there may also be a school of thought that wants China to call their "bluff" and get involved in a Ukraine style boondoggle which would hurt them economically and geopolitically.

 

"Probably" is doing a lot of hard work in that sentence - not sure Amazon etc is any more benevolent or competent a master at governance (eg. maintaining quality of life across the board) than any government that exists. 

Funnily enough, I been in an Amazon warehouse today. Fascinating to see, it is one of the less automated ones so they have around 1000 staff there.

 

The treatment of the staff is better than anything I have seen at any other workplace. Socialists wet dream.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, kenny said:

Funnily enough, I been in an Amazon warehouse today. Fascinating to see, it is one of the less automated ones so they have around 1000 staff there.

 

The treatment of the staff is better than anything I have seen at any other workplace. Socialists wet dream.

... so the horror stories regarding worker protections are almost all myths, then? Interesting. 

 

Putting that as true for a moment, a governing body beholden to the bottom line is, at some point, going to view human beings, and other life, as the proper position of a spreadsheet cell and act accordingly. That won't be great for all the life deemed "too expensive". Now, one might make the argument that government itself is bound by the same rules, but I'm pretty sure it's rather less freewheeling than the libertarian attitude shown towards life displayed by the mega corps.

Edited 15 May by leicsmac