Nobody gave a flying fuck about the Chagos people for decades.
Suddenly they are at ground zero of the culture war.
Make it stop please...
Not quite
The Tories were concerned enough to have 11 or 12 rounds of talks about it before leaving the contract in Keirs in tray
You seem to be under the delusion that because there were talks there should be an agreement.
Having many rounds of talks that deliberately go nowhere is quite a typical way of evading doing something you have no interest in doing, without outright saying so.
The difference is Keir didn't just have talks, he actually signed an agreement.
Fool.
I’ve seen this but I’m too busy too tired right now and I need to sleep. Besides, I don’t mind the resident pirate or any PBer or anyone in politics claiming Labour negotiated the whole thing from scratch in just 8 weeks as it makes them sound very clueless and stupid. The Explanatory Memorandum (2025) document published by Parliament I linked to already summarises all the agreements in each eleven rounds of Conservative negotiations, but Labour likely publishes the full minutes of those 11 rounds ahead of commons debate to slaughter the Conservative front bench position.
Chagos deal passes through the commons at 19:21 on May 19th 2026.
Get some reading comprehension, I never said they negotiated it from scratch.
I said they made the stupid decision of actually agreeing the damned stupid thing.
Instead of scheduling another 12 rounds of talks.
we established 11 rounds of negotiations did happen before Labour came to power from the Conservatives told us this to Parliament in written answers. in late 24 and in 25 documents released by both governments after conclusion of talks, about what was discussed and agreed at which round of talks. The UKs Explanatory Memorandum (2025) acts as a "negotiation history" of the 11 rounds held between November 2022 and June 2024, what was discussed, agreed, and added to the Framework document at each round of talks. According to all official briefings and retrospectively published documents, the following was already "on paper" established as the working framework BEFORE Labour came to power. * The "Plan A" Framework: The core trade-off—transferring full sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius in exchange for a long-term lease of the Diego Garcia military base—was already the established before the change in government to Labour. it was at the September 23 negotiation the framework for ceding sovereignty, the lease, and the substantial payments were all drawn up and put into the existing ongoing Framework document. * The 99-Year Lease Principle: The concept of a 99-year lease to ensure the "continued effective operation" of the base was a foundational element of the early Conservative-led talks. But 99yr Lease started life in 2019 as a Mauritius offer in a presentation to the US who then contacted UK asking us to explore it as a way out of our problems. Boris passed this on to Liz to explore, who liked the idea and made it government policy to negotiate it. * Security & Veto Clauses: Technical provisions, such as the 24-nautical-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia and a veto over foreign military presence on the outer islands, were * hashed out and agreed in principle during these early rounds to secure UK/US strategic interests. * The Financial Baseline: While the final £3.4 billion figure was formalised later, UK government has stated that the financial settlement was "acceptable to both sides" and built upon calculations reviewed during those 11 rounds. It was also the Conservatives in the 2023 technical sessions who insisted it must be indexed the £101M annual payments, to ensure the value of the lease remains stable against inflation. It was also established in early rounds that while the UK would provide the "Resettlement Trust Fund," the actual implementation and management of resettlement on the outer islands would be a Mauritian sovereign right. These are some of the difficult agreements already in place inherited by Labour, which allowed them to finalise everything and own the Chagos Deal in just 8 weeks from coming to power!
I have cut and pasted it from when you obviously missed me boring everyone to death on this detail. I’m pretty much done my eyes are closing. But are you quite clear on the India bit?
Why are the Foreign Office obsessed with leaseback? You’d think they’d have learnt from Hong Kong.
Presumably, the FO views Hong Kong as a great triumph, as it successfully managed to give away a chunk of our territory to one of our enemies.
Ignoring the fact that their policy would trash the economy it’s just more hate and division .
Many of those on ILR won’t reach the salary threshold . There should be a campaign to get them to get citizenship and ensure they can vote , every vote is needed to ensure the disgusting hate filled Reform are nowhere near power.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It’s only fitting that you went to see Wuthering Heights after Worth Valley chose a Tory councillor in their recent by-election.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
Sounds good, raciness in film seemed to virtually disappear for a couple of decades unless that was entirely the point, anything remotely sexual is hard to get a pass from the censors even as they get more accepting of violence and language. Whereas racy smut seems to abount in literature.
Ah so they were breaking newsing someone else's story
Allegations fron
Yusuf Maggie Oliver
That Starmer used form of warning long used before he took COS job to warn suspected paedos not to contact specific children
A formal document issued under various Governments for decades by all police forces
A Daily Express cut and paste hatchet job but GB News decide critics eg Yusuf and a semi demented ex copper decide it's all on Starmer
Yikes
His relaunch must really be worrying them
It bears repeating once again that just because people attack a political figure or party, even in hyperbolic or misleading terms, it does not in itself mean they are worried by or are in fear of that figure or party. It can be the case, but it's also just standard practice or an attempt to further beat down a wounded opponent.
So in dismissing any such attacks, sure, perhaps they are worried by a relaunch, but don't rely on that being so in every case, it can be a coping mechanism.
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Good point well made, and hard to counter such an approach. It's an area where the public are at fault for encouraging such behaviour by responding more to it, and politicians at fault for being weak leaders in giving in to that temptation.
Today's Tory outing in case you missed it with all the drug wars stuff.
My children should definitely go to Oxbridge Your children should count themselves lucky to get Bristol Their children should do apprenticeships for boiler making
Stopping funding for creative arts degrees funded by taxpayers and redirecting it to apprenticeships which generally see higher wages is hardly a bad thing. Nothing to stop you paying for a creative arts degree yourself either
I can't remember which party it was - maybe LDems, maybe ScotGreens - but they had a policy that was (to paraphrase) "Ok, you've turned 18 - here's a pot of zero-interest money," With the choices to 'spend it' on a degree, or technical apprenticeship, or starting a business, or... (just not 'blow and hookers').
Back to the header for a moment; What is 'confidence in science' supposed to mean?
For example, I have huge confidence in the empirical, experimental process and in the trustworthiness of inductive reasoning and the reliability of the science community in reporting truthfully, and in the peer process by which stuff is reviewed, and in the principle of all findings that count as empirical being subject to the possibility of falsification by processes all parties would accept.
But I don't have any trust in a process in which politicians say they are 'led by the science' or 'following the science' or that scientists themselves are better at difficult moral decisions - which by definition are not empirical science - than the rest of us.
Another issue is the way people conflate "social science" with, well, actual Popperian science. The measles vaccine sits firmly in the latter category. Sociology is clearly the former. Economics is somewhere in between. Then you get these slightly creative interpretations of hard science being presented as if they are the science, and it’s hardly surprising some people start to get sceptical.
A good example is the whole "brains don’t finish maturing until 25" line that crops up in criminology (which itself probably sits roughly where economics does on the "real science" spectrum). It’s true that brain structure continues changing until around 25. But who decided that that point is what counts as "mature"? Now we’re told (not remotely to my surprise when the 25 thing started being banded about" that it's actually into the 30s. And from there it’s a short hop to policy like Scotland’s under-25 distinctions, and a general tendency to keep stretching the definition of "maturation" whenever it’s convenient. Why stop at 25? Or 30? Who’s to say the changes in our 60s aren’t the "real" maturation?
People look at this sort of thing - what feels like overconfident extrapolation by people educated beyond their competence - and they draw the wrong conclusion and go anti-science. I don’t agree with that reaction, but I can at least see where it comes from.
Still, mothers like in the OP are appalling.
I think you're being a bit unfair on social sciences there. Certainly there's a lot of poor science done, but on brains maturing for instance, that would be something that involves neurologists and various brain scientists, and some of the experiments done are quite impressive. I think we can definitely say there are implications for decision-making and impulsive behaviour in young adults.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invested with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
(As another example the recent radiolabs podcast on self-esteem was really interesting in terms of the way in which the science can be misrepresented, but that it can also say interesting things when it is done right.)
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Perhaps it is more “to refuse to implement this policy is to commit heresy”
Back to the header for a moment; What is 'confidence in science' supposed to mean?
For example, I have huge confidence in the empirical, experimental process and in the trustworthiness of inductive reasoning and the reliability of the science community in reporting truthfully, and in the peer process by which stuff is reviewed, and in the principle of all findings that count as empirical being subject to the possibility of falsification by processes all parties would accept.
But I don't have any trust in a process in which politicians say they are 'led by the science' or 'following the science' or that scientists themselves are better at difficult moral decisions - which by definition are not empirical science - than the rest of us.
Another issue is the way people conflate "social science" with, well, actual Popperian science. The measles vaccine sits firmly in the latter category. Sociology is clearly the former. Economics is somewhere in between. Then you get these slightly creative interpretations of hard science being presented as if they are the science, and it’s hardly surprising some people start to get sceptical.
A good example is the whole "brains don’t finish maturing until 25" line that crops up in criminology (which itself probably sits roughly where economics does on the "real science" spectrum). It’s true that brain structure continues changing until around 25. But who decided that that point is what counts as "mature"? Now we’re told (not remotely to my surprise when the 25 thing started being banded about" that it's actually into the 30s. And from there it’s a short hop to policy like Scotland’s under-25 distinctions, and a general tendency to keep stretching the definition of "maturation" whenever it’s convenient. Why stop at 25? Or 30? Who’s to say the changes in our 60s aren’t the "real" maturation?
People look at this sort of thing - what feels like overconfident extrapolation by people educated beyond their competence - and they draw the wrong conclusion and go anti-science. I don’t agree with that reaction, but I can at least see where it comes from.
Still, mothers like in the OP are appalling.
I think you're being a bit unfair on social sciences there. Certainly there's a lot of poor science done, but on brains marketing for instance, that would be that involves neurologists and various brain scientists, and some of the experiments done are quite impressive. I think we can definitely say there are implications for decision-making and impulsive behaviour in young adults.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invited with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
On the other hand you can just counter any "science" with "common sense innit. END OFF!!" Depressing to see Labour supporters on here becoming the voice of the grumpy old reactionary boomer earlier today. Then they wonder why younger folk are voting Green.
Comments
Nigel Farage’s party plans to deport up to 288,000 people a year on five flights a day
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/22/reform-uk-ice-style-agency-end-leave-to-remain-zia-yusuf
"Greenhouse gases are not injurious to human health as far as I am aware."
I don't know of any substance that is not "Injurious to human health" -- in the wrong amounts.
Many of those on ILR won’t reach the salary threshold . There should be a campaign to get them to get citizenship and ensure they can vote , every vote is needed to ensure the disgusting hate filled Reform are nowhere near power.
Yusuf
Maggie Oliver
That Starmer used form of warning long used before he took COS job to warn suspected paedos not to contact specific children
A formal document issued under various Governments for decades by all police forces
A Daily Express cut and paste hatchet job but GB News decide critics eg Yusuf and a semi demented ex copper decide it's all on Starmer
Yikes
His relaunch must really be worrying them
So in dismissing any such attacks, sure, perhaps they are worried by a relaunch, but don't rely on that being so in every case, it can be a coping mechanism.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invested with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
(As another example the recent radiolabs podcast on self-esteem was really interesting in terms of the way in which the science can be misrepresented, but that it can also say interesting things when it is done right.)
See the many works on Political Religions.
Depressing to see Labour supporters on here becoming the voice of the grumpy old reactionary boomer earlier today.
Then they wonder why younger folk are voting Green.