General News Thread

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

I keep away from social media where possible. How are the special online breed twisting this then?

A) he should solve homelessness (he kinda did in Manchester)

B) it’s a publicity stunt (he was very likely registered for event way before he became PM). 

[LCFCJohn]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

A) he should solve homelessness (he kinda did in Manchester)

B) it’s a publicity stunt (he was very likely registered for event way before he became PM). 

People really do show themselves up as completely clueless don’t they.

 

It was literally the thing Burnham was really passionate about in Manchester and as you say, made a difference). It’s the opposite of a publicity stunt!

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

People really do show themselves up as completely clueless don’t they.

 

It was literally the thing Burnham was really passionate about in Manchester and as you say, made a difference). It’s the opposite of a publicity stunt!

Meh it’s stupid people falling for stupid propaganda, they’ll call him protecting elite while he hangs out with Chris Kamara and Peter Reid and say that Farage will save us all 😂

[deep blue]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's good to hear about the matter from "on the ground", as it were, and I agree with you that the media representation of Reform is wildly disproportionate to their actual political importance at the moment. 

 

That being said, while things can change on the spin of a penny (and Reform have shown that), is there any demonstrable reason to suspect that the Lib Dems will ascend anywhere beyond third place any time soon?

 

(By the by, I've said before here that Davey would make a superb Home Secretary IMO, but not sure he's cut 

out for the top job.)

Re LibDems ascending beyond 3rd place - no, the support and local party resource vary too wildly from location to location at the moment.  But our campaigning in Stockport has demonstrated that where LibDems have enough "feet on the ground" and enthusiasm then people on doorsteps, and in subsequent voting patterns, react very favourably to LibDem values and personnel.

 

As for Ed Davey, he generally talks very good sense, and has a non-confrontational approach, which I believe is long overdue in British poliyics and whi h Burnham, thankfully, appears to echo.  I think he would make a good minister - Home Secretary is a good shout.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

 

The Americans also 'spirited away' one of their embassy staff who killed a fella by driving on the wrong side of the road some years ago.

It was the wife of a USAF officer who served at a UK airbase. There was some legalese that suggested that staff on the base were the same as embassy staff and which extended to their family.

 

It was all very tenuous on a number of points.

[LCFCJohn]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Meh it’s stupid people falling for stupid propaganda, they’ll call him protecting elite while he hangs out with Chris Kamara and Peter Reid and say that Farage will save us all 😂

Of all the PMs I can remember, Burnham is genuinely the most down to earth ‘for the people’ one.

 

If it wasn’t for the fear of what will happen to the rest of us, I’d enjoy the fall out of seeing how Reform voters will suffer if they ever got into power. 

[SkidsFox]

14 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Of all the PMs I can remember, Burnham is genuinely the most down to earth ‘for the people’ one.

 

If it wasn’t for the fear of what will happen to the rest of us, I’d enjoy the fall out of seeing how Reform voters will suffer if they ever got into power. 

I think Nige is too associated now with a dodgy spiv/Arfur Daley persona. But there is still a large minority of folk who've been brainwashed into believing things can be a lot better if we persecute certain groups, whether it be refugees or Pip claimants or shopkeepers or travellers. 

[Raj]

14 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Of all the PMs I can remember, Burnham is genuinely the most down to earth ‘for the people’ one.

 

If it wasn’t for the fear of what will happen to the rest of us, I’d enjoy the fall out of seeing how Reform voters will suffer if they ever got into power. 

yeah but he dont drink in pubs with "the Boys" like what Farage does.

 

Farage is one of the lads innit.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi millionaire ex Investment banker who's daddy was also an investment banker....

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, Raj said:

yeah but he dont drink in pubs with "the Boys" like what Farage does.

 

Farage is one of the lads innit.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi millionaire ex Investment banker who's daddy was also an investment banker....

Burnham is probably the closest we’d ever get to a true working class prime minister when you look at his background. 
 

In my line of work I’ve had indirect dealings with him (used to work in homelessness services in the north west) and while I don’t think PM is the position where he can make optimal change, it’s the closest you’ll ever come to a true working class PM in this day and age. 
 

Funnily enough he’d also be way better value over a pint talking about the stone roses and miserable morissey than Farage. 

Edited Monday at 07:48 by Lionator

[SkidsFox]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Burnham is probably the closest we’d ever get to a true working class prime minister when you look at his background. 
 

In my line of work I’ve had indirect dealings with him (used to work in homelessness services in the north west) and while I don’t think PM is the position where he can make optimal change, it’s the closest you’ll ever come to a true working class PM in this day and age. 
 

Funnily enough he’d also be way better value over a pint talking about the stone roses and miserable morissey than Farage. 

In the long term AB will be very dangerous. If he wins the first election I don't see any viable opposition politicians who can compete. He's in a league of his own.

[lcfc278]

6 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

In the long term AB will be very dangerous. If he wins the first election I don't see any viable opposition politicians who can compete. He's in a league of his own.

Can you explain this to me like I'm 12?

 

Genuine question, I want to know why he will be dangerous.

[LCFCJohn]

14 minutes ago, Raj said:

yeah but he dont drink in pubs with "the Boys" like what Farage does.

 

Farage is one of the lads innit.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi millionaire ex Investment banker who's daddy was also an investment banker....

Burnham and Healey literally went pulling pints in a pub in Essex near Clacton of all places a few weeks ago, excellent trolling 

 

But yeah, Burnham is more naturally that kind of guy whereas Farage is all a put on.

 

My wife has said a few times in the past, usually when we have had a wedding or something to go to, never wear a blue suit and red tie as men who go for those colours are knobs basically. I can’t help but notice the colours a certain party leader is always seen wearing 

[LCFCJohn]

4 minutes ago, lcfc278 said:

Can you explain this to me like I'm 12?

 

Genuine question, I want to know why he will be dangerous.

Context seems to mean not a bad dangerous, but in a popular leader sense.

[LCFCJohn]

17 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Burnham is probably the closest we’d ever get to a true working class prime minister when you look at his background. 
 

In my line of work I’ve had indirect dealings with him (used to work in homelessness services in the north west) and while I don’t think PM is the position where he can make optimal change, it’s the closest you’ll ever come to a true working class PM in this day and age. 
 

Funnily enough he’d also be way better value over a pint talking about the stone roses and miserable morissey than Farage. 

Also had the same indirect experience as you through working in social housing and totally agree. 
 

Would happily have a drink with Burnham but would leave the pub if Farage entered. Only one of these men is from a background that understands what the people need. 

[Wymsey]

At least Farage won't be the PM anytime soon at the same time as Trump, imagine that...

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4jq50eew0o

 

Similar agreements should be sought with Oz and NZ, perhaps even Korea and Japan if they're interested, now that the US is showing its true colours. 

[st albans fox]

[leicsmac]

On the topic of the above stupidity:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck790xg41ygro

 

Yeah, let's throw the Outer Space Treaty out the window now even though everyone stuck to it right at the height of the Cold War.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw980n0nd0qjo

 

And somehow it's better that when there's almost inevitably a world-changing incident regarding AI, the words that herald it will be English, not Mandarin. Because that's the really important thing, here. 

[Jon the Hat]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On the topic of the above stupidity:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck790xg41ygro

 

Yeah, let's throw the Outer Space Treaty out the window now even though everyone stuck to it right at the height of the Cold War.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw980n0nd0qjo

 

And somehow it's better that when there's almost inevitably a world-changing incident regarding AI, the words that herald it will be English, not Mandarin. Because that's the really important thing, here. 

I think it would be naive to think Russia and China give a shit about the Outer Space treaty unfortunately, and it would be foolish to not develop capabilities in the West.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think it would be naive to think Russia and China give a shit about the Outer Space treaty unfortunately, and it would be foolish to not develop capabilities in the West.

Once again, they did during the Cold War. That's not an acceptable excuse.

 

And if this line of thinking is followed through to its logical outcome, we're all screwed anyway. Perhaps it might be nice if that were not to occur. 

 

So, sorry Jon, miss me with this "realpolitik realist" spiel, I've heard it so many times before and it's a much a busted flush now as it was each time before.

Edited Tuesday at 07:02 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Once again, they did during the Cold War. That's not an acceptable excuse.

 

And if this line of thinking is followed through to its logical outcome, we're all screwed anyway. Perhaps it might be nice if that were not to occur. 

 

So, sorry Jon, miss me with this "realpolitik realist" spiel, I've heard it so many times before and it's a much a busted flush now as it was each time before.

They may well have done, but they are not now are they?  The article you shared says that.

 

Edit:  actually I am not sure it does say that.  The treaty is pretty vague and says nothing about not employing capabilities to take out the satelites of other states.  The definition of Nuclear or other WMDs is not designed to cover this I think.

Edited Tuesday at 07:15 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They may well have done, but they are not now are they?  The article you shared says that.

 

Edit:  actually I am not sure it does say that.  The treaty is pretty vague and says nothing about not employing capabilities to take out the satelites of other states.  The definition of Nuclear or other WMDs is not designed to cover this I think.

The way I read it, the US weaponry capability in space appears to go beyond targeting other satellites now, even though they have been coy about the capabilities of the weapon involved. Interfering with the satellites of other nations is, as you suggest, reasonably old hat, so this appears to be something new. Otherwise, why the announcement at all?

 

In any case, it's bloody stupid, for a variety of reasons. 

 

NB. Targeting other satellites (as all the big players appear to do) is rather daft in of itself IMO, unless you really know what you're doing and/or you like the idea of Kessler Syndrome. 

[Milo]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Once again, they did during the Cold War. That's not an acceptable excuse.

 

And if this line of thinking is followed through to its logical outcome, we're all screwed anyway. Perhaps it might be nice if that were not to occur. 

 

So, sorry Jon, miss me with this "realpolitik realist" spiel, I've heard it so many times before and it's a much a busted flush now as it was each time before.

I think I’m with the man with the hat on this. 
 

The Outer Space Treaty was created in a very particular era. The United States and Soviet Union were armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy one another, yet both broadly recognised the value of rules that prevented an unrestricted battlefield.

 

That assumption looks increasingly fragile and a lot less likely to be followed in this era. Also, individual loon-tube squillionaires are now part of the conversation, rather than just states, countries or blocs. 

 

The goalposts have been well and truly burned down, rather than merely moved, since the 60’s, imo. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I think I’m with the man with the hat on this. 
 

The Outer Space Treaty was created in a very particular era. The United States and Soviet Union were armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy one another, yet both broadly recognised the value of rules that prevented an unrestricted battlefield.

 

That assumption looks increasingly fragile and a lot less likely to be followed in this era. Also, individual loon-tube squillionaires are now part of the conversation, rather than just states, countries or blocs. 

 

The goalposts have been well and truly burned down, rather than merely moved, since the 60’s, imo. 

Certainly agree that the nature of the game has changed. 

 

But that's a reason to rewrite and redefine the treaty itself and stick to the new regs it may have, rather than engage in a race to the bottom that can only end badly. 

 

Same thing with AI development, come to that. 

[LCFCJohn]

The favourite myth of Reform is that the number of people crossing isn’t down and the government figures are about the number of boats and there are more people on each boat.

 

But it doesn’t surprise me that they can’t read…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjvgy1g932xro