I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
I'm quite sure that those in favour of assisted dying will be using this survey as support for the proposals, probably during the bit over a couple of hours they have to debate it.
If there is ever a topic that should require a referendum after a public debate, it is this. Especially when not one single party (to my knowledge) included this in their GE manifestos just a matter of months ago. It's almost as if it is being pushed through by vested interests.
My wife works in social care assessing the care needs of the typical person that this will be relevant to. I can safely say that there will be many families perfectly happy to push and coerce people down this route. Especially where money is concerned and where it is being eaten up by care requirements.
Personally, I tend to lean towards favouring it, but not in the way it is being pushed through.
We elect MP's, surely, to make informed decisions, since they have, or ought to have, access to all the necessary information. It is, of course, open to constituents to try and influence MP's. On your third paragraph I have some experience there which supports your view. It is, or was when I was concerned with these things, sometimes difficult to persuade relatives to agree to a 'loved one' being taken out of a geriatric ward, where care is free, and sent to a care home where it isn't.
We do elect MPs to make decisions, but surely we should at least have expected them to put an actual matter of life and death into a manifesto. Is there anything more important? Realistically we had no idea of our MPs views on this subject. I doubt they would change their mind because I tried to influence them, nor should they and I would imagine others may have a different view, to influence. A referendum on this seems most suitable, then everyone has their say.
Sadly your other point is true. Many people will argue for months about the cost of care for a loved one, but spend no more than a few minutes thought on the actual care.
QTWAIN since matters of life and death have always, rightly, been classed as conscience matters and are not a matter of party politics.
Long may it stay that way.
See our friends in the former American colonies for a horrible warning of what happens when moral questions do become electoral ones. It crowds out everything else, like putting an elephant in a small paddling pool. And because elections are largely about voter enthusiasm, it means that the obsessives (on both sides) take on way too much importance.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
I don't give a fuck what any "sacred" books say. You're free to believe whatever you want. I have the same right to not believe that we should rely on 2000 year old stories to live modern life in the 21st century.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
Most self-identifying Christians don't want the law to be the Bible, but instead what they vote for.
Or as Jesus said Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
You have no interest in the teachings of Jesus though.
Evangelicals certainly do, in the US they voted for Bush in 2004 as he was anti same sex marriage and voted for Trump in the last 3 elections as he committed to reverse Roe v Wade and be more pro life
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
Very interesting. As he is a Labour MP I am just wondering why he belongs to this unapologetically social democrat political party which believes, like all social democrats, in a highly regulated private sector within which free enterprise is encouraged, and a gigantic welfare state.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Do they mean it though? Their leadership is economically Thatcherite at heart.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
I don't give a fuck what any "sacred" books say. You're free to believe whatever you want. I have the same right to not believe that we should rely on 2000 year old stories to live modern life in the 21st century.
Fine but your vote is exactly the same as my vote, no more and indeed if you don't vote I outvote you
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Which is the real wolf that That Bloody Brexit Bus let into the house. "Don't spend the money on Them- spend it on Us!"
Society- even at the level that Thatcher acknowledged society- requires us all to be Us some of the time, and Them at other times.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
I increasingly agree, actually.
Socially, the Tories are far too frit.
I hope that by 2029 Kemi will have transformed the party into an actual right wing outfit, not just a socially liberal wankfest with blue decorations.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
I don't give a fuck what any "sacred" books say. You're free to believe whatever you want. I have the same right to not believe that we should rely on 2000 year old stories to live modern life in the 21st century.
Fine but your vote is exactly the same as my vote, no more and indeed if you don't vote I outvote you
Thankfully we live in an enlightened democracy and not a Christian state, so we can outvote you.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Yes. Every significant party, including Reform, is irrevocably committed to the social democrat state, ie regulated private enterprise, modified ordered and regulated free trade, the international order, NATO, the welfare state of benefits, free education to 18, pensions and NHS.This is entirely unchanged since 1945. Mrs T made no difference in substance.
It would be fascinating if a party departing from these started getting more than a handful of votes.
Every single party difference is about emphases, marginal issues, national boundaries following referenda (SNP, PC, SF, SDLP), detail, unicorns, rhetoric and competence. All within a social democrat frame.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
Most self-identifying Christians don't want the law to be the Bible, but instead what they vote for.
Or as Jesus said Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
You have no interest in the teachings of Jesus though.
Evangelicals certainly do, in the US they voted for Bush in 2004 as he was anti same sex marriage and voted for Trump in the last 3 elections as he committed to reverse Roe v Wade and be more pro life
Actually even most US evangelicals want to vote over having the Bible as the law. They want to pick and choose which bits of the Bible they care about, they ignore the rest and don't want it as law.
And what percentage of British Christians are Evangelicals?
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Do they mean it though? Their leadership is economically Thatcherite at heart.
There is a major discordance between what Reform voters want and what the Reform leaders want. Both wany to stop immigration, but the voters see this as a route to more spending on them, while the leadership want to slash the state and cut taxes.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I'm not disputing a Reform-led Government would take a very different view on immigration and asylum but you seem to think they are a small state Party and they aren't.
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Like where's Kemi right now on this climate payments bullshit that Starmer has lumbered us with? Where is the condemnation, why isn't she pledging to reverse this nonsense and ensuring that when she's in power that not a single British taxpayer pound gets spent doing this shit? We already pay enough tax and our own public services are absolutely fucked, why should we also fill the coffers of corrupt states in Africa?
Labour are going to bankrupt the country because they want to feel good about themselves.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Do they mean it though? Their leadership is economically Thatcherite at heart.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
So at least we know it will involve less waste .
I can't imagine them paying $14000 for a loo seat.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I'm not disputing a Reform-led Government would take a very different view on immigration and asylum but you seem to think they are a small state Party and they aren't.
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Which is fine, I'd be ok with that as long as the NHS saw significant improvements. Better spend it here than it being siphoned off by a corrupt African dictator.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
This is what I mean when I say we need a Left Populism to counter the bleak xenophobic vision of the Populist Right which is all the rage atm. Lewis puts it well there.
The problem is it's not much use telling the "narrative" if you don't have the policy remedies. These must be both doable and popular enough to get elected on. That is not easy. Certainly nothing like as easy as "shut the borders, women are women, Muslims Muslims, enough is enough, charity begins at home, We can be Great again", etc etc).
Another issue is Right Populism gets funded by rich gamey men because it doesn't threaten financial elites. A Left Populism, ie one which would, would be opposed tooth and claw in those quarters.
So, very good Clive, saying all that, but it's the easy bit.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Just so I'm clear, you would be happy to pay additional taxes to fund additional defence expenditure though as we don't so hypothecated taxation you'd have to rely on the Government to put the money where it says it will.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
Superb performance from Liz Kendal on Laura K over assisted death vote.
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
This one is personal not party, though, isn't it? So Kendal is making the Kendal case not the Labour one.
It is one of the more heartening aspects of the discussion that it is not Party Political. Long may it remain so.
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
You don't. Eg a woman's right to have an abortion up to a reasonable timeframe should imo be above politics. It's fundamental to holding women of equal worth to men.
No it is just another example of a feminist agenda.
Now I could just about accept abortion up to 22 weeks but 24 weeks is too high and it is pleasing to see a wide range of Tory MPs from Hunt to Kruger and indeed Dorries when she was an MP trying to cut the abortion time limit
A female equality agenda. You can kiss goodbye to any notion of that if abortion is illegal or very restrictive. In fact I don't have a big problem with what you say here. Although I'd prefer to just trust women it is reasonable to have a debate about time limits and strike some sort of balance.
No
I’d prefer to trust in objective scientific evidence.
Which is where 24 weeks came from.
And that is as someone whose niece was born at 23 and bit weeks.
Don't do that "No" business. It irritates.
But ok, fine, we can disagree on the ideal law - as I say I'd prefer to trust women - but can agree that the current UK position is ok.
Yes.
No
Because, as a basic tenet of a civilised society, no one is entirely an island.
So while women have the largest say in what they do with their bodies, society as a whole does impose limits. Because of the effects of an individuals actions have ramifications beyond themselves.
Hence 24 weeks as a compromise based on the science of growth of the foetus, and the practical requirements of abortion vs the point at which a foetus becomes independently viable.
Which is the point at which we, as a society, have chosen to define the beginning of personhood.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I think it’s a complicated picture. Many in Europe and the Americas relied on their Christian faith to critique slavery, the treatment of colonised people and the horrors of war. The Normans outlawed slavery after 1066 on Christian principles.
The Qu’ran has many rules of war, like the ten rules summarised by Abu Bakr:
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
World religions are diverse and complicated phenomena. I think it’s never going to work trying to put them uncomplicatedly in a “good” or “bad” column.
An entertainment for the cynical, is to see the hoops people will jump through, to reconcile their faith with their actions -
- Christian slavers - Islamic slavers. Especially when the slave do annoying stuff like converting to Islam. - Buddhists in the Imperial Japanese military. They achieved peak *something* by coming up with a justification for acts such as Nanking. Yes, really.
Plenty of slaves in the Old Testament, slavery is clearly wrong but there is more Biblical evidence for slavery than Biblical support for no fault divorce
But what the bible supports has got nothing to do with me.
So what, it has got to do with me and the 46% of British people who still called themselves Christian on the last census.
Add the 6% of Brits who said they were Muslim (and there is some overlap between the Koran and the Bible) and the almost 1% who are Jewish you get to 53% who respect our sacred books
Most self-identifying Christians don't want the law to be the Bible, but instead what they vote for.
Or as Jesus said Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
You have no interest in the teachings of Jesus though.
Evangelicals certainly do, in the US they voted for Bush in 2004 as he was anti same sex marriage and voted for Trump in the last 3 elections as he committed to reverse Roe v Wade and be more pro life
Actually even most US evangelicals want to vote over having the Bible as the law. They want to pick and choose which bits of the Bible they care about, they ignore the rest and don't want it as law.
And what percentage of British Christians are Evangelicals?
I think it is fairly high, sorry I don't have reliable data, but on the whole meaningless. Evangelicals (I am not one but am Christian) split into conservative, moderate, liberal; and into charismatic (miracles and speaking in tongues) and traditional. They also split into two incompatible theological factions, Calvinist (no free will, double predestination, God will send you to hell you can't change it but it's your fault) and Arminian (the majority, who withot knowing it have beliefs similar to catholics over salvation).
There are also loads of evangelicals who just like the music, the warm glow and Jesus being their best friend without ever thinking at all.
They are human. Some of them are anti gay except for Charlie and Fred because we know them and they play the guitar......
None at all follow Jesus's line on divorce and remarriage.
To their massive credit, many of them would be on the 'safe, legal and rare' side over abortion.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
We are an island. One that is as susceptible to climate change as much as any in the world, but also an island that links economically and socially with the whole world.
It's not about "feeling good" it's about keeping our planet habitable for future generations. When Bangladesh, the Nile delta are underwater and the Sahel is in permanent drought then it affects even our island. A billion climate refugees by the end of the century is a very real possibility.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I was in a car with a couple of 20 year old girls the other day and they were fuming at Emmeline Pankhurst 'deciding we shouldn't be housewives any more - how dare she?' it wasn't said entirely seriously but it was an interesting and amusing perspective.
I hope you informed them that Pankhurst was about a tad more than that...
*I* hope you informed them that Pankhurst *was* a housewife.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
There is some capacity in the private system, but not much. Many of their staff also work for the NHS.
I recall some fast footwork, under Blair, when it was ruled that there was a right to prompt treatment. This sparked a huge increase in people travelling to Europe to have scheduled procedures, and expecting the NHS to pick up the tab.
The Tories have at least now backed Senator Graham in saying the UK should not allow Netanyahu to be arrested despite Starmer saying he would respect the ICC decision
Golly, so the Tories back a foreign politician recommending sanctions against the Uk and the crushing of its economy? Not just fuck business, but fuck the whole UK.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Just so I'm clear, you would be happy to pay additional taxes to fund additional defence expenditure though as we don't so hypothecated taxation you'd have to rely on the Government to put the money where it says it will.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
You know my answer to this question, take a big, mighty axe to state employment. Cut it by 50% in non-customer facing roles. Put 1.5m people back into the labour market and a 5 year hiring freeze in those non-customer facing roles and a ban on consultants. That's £60-80bn cut from public spending, hire more customer facing people, soldiers, pilots, navigators, ship crew, give them much better pay and conditions, much better after service care and support.
Trade unproductive middle management for productive customer facing people, it's the only answer.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
So at least we know it will involve less waste .
I can't imagine them paying $14000 for a loo seat.
Wasn't that explained by Jeff Goldblum's dad in the documentary film "Independence Day"? The inflated prices are to hide expenditure on studying the alien artefacts in Area 51.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
It's completely delusional to think that we can impose our policy preferences on other countries using the largesse of our aid budget as leverage. You are two centuries out of date.
The Tories have at least now backed Senator Graham in saying the UK should not allow Netanyahu to be arrested despite Starmer saying he would respect the ICC decision
Golly, so the Tories back a foreign politician recommending sanctions against the Uk and the crushing of its economy? Not just fuck business, but fuck the whole UK.
Do you really think a UK Conservative opposition party will be that concerned about measures hitting the economic record of a Labour government they oppose in response to a policy they don't support?
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
We are an island. One that is as susceptible to climate change as much as any in the world, but also an island that links economically and socially with the whole world.
It's not about "feeling good" it's about keeping our planet habitable for future generations. When Bangladesh, the Nile delta are underwater and the Sahel is in permanent drought then it affects even our island. A billion climate refugees by the end of the century is a very real possibility.
We pull up the drawbridge. We simply don't have the resources for this kind of thinking. The solution lies in technology, not giving money away to corrupt countries.
Superb performance from Liz Kendal on Laura K over assisted death vote.
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
This one is personal not party, though, isn't it? So Kendal is making the Kendal case not the Labour one.
It is one of the more heartening aspects of the discussion that it is not Party Political. Long may it remain so.
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
You don't. Eg a woman's right to have an abortion up to a reasonable timeframe should imo be above politics. It's fundamental to holding women of equal worth to men.
No it is just another example of a feminist agenda.
Now I could just about accept abortion up to 22 weeks but 24 weeks is too high and it is pleasing to see a wide range of Tory MPs from Hunt to Kruger and indeed Dorries when she was an MP trying to cut the abortion time limit
A female equality agenda. You can kiss goodbye to any notion of that if abortion is illegal or very restrictive. In fact I don't have a big problem with what you say here. Although I'd prefer to just trust women it is reasonable to have a debate about time limits and strike some sort of balance.
No
I’d prefer to trust in objective scientific evidence.
Which is where 24 weeks came from.
And that is as someone whose niece was born at 23 and bit weeks.
Don't do that "No" business. It irritates.
But ok, fine, we can disagree on the ideal law - as I say I'd prefer to trust women - but can agree that the current UK position is ok.
Yes.
No
Because, as a basic tenet of a civilised society, no one is entirely an island.
So while women have the largest say in what they do with their bodies, society as a whole does impose limits. Because of the effects of an individuals actions have ramifications beyond themselves.
Hence 24 weeks as a compromise based on the science of growth of the foetus, and the practical requirements of abortion vs the point at which a foetus becomes independently viable.
Which is the point at which we, as a society, have chosen to define the beginning of personhood.
Sure. As I say that's fine. Although I'd prefer to trust women. This for me would be the best approach, both philosophically and practically. A woman shouldn't be forced to give birth and become a mother against her will. Ideally the law should be predicated on that basis.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
This is what I mean when I say we need a Left Populism to counter the bleak xenophobic vision of the Populist Right which is all the rage atm. Lewis puts it well there.
The problem is it's not much use telling the "narrative" if you don't have the policy remedies. These must be both doable and popular enough to get elected on. That is not easy. Certainly nothing like as easy as "shut the borders, women are women, Muslims Muslims, enough is enough, charity begins at home, We can be Great again", etc etc).
Another issue is Right Populism gets funded by rich gamey men because it doesn't threaten financial elites. A Left Populism, ie one which would, would be opposed tooth and claw in those quarters.
So, very good Clive, saying all that, but it's the easy bit.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I'm not disputing a Reform-led Government would take a very different view on immigration and asylum but you seem to think they are a small state Party and they aren't.
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Which is fine, I'd be ok with that as long as the NHS saw significant improvements. Better spend it here than it being siphoned off by a corrupt African dictator.
We had plenty of home grown fraud during Covid with millions stolen in fraudulent claims. We are borrowing at an alarming rate and the deficit and debt are growing - I'll be the first to accept Labour are as culpable as the Conservatives but the Tories don't have clean hands.
One or two Conservatives are at least able to acknowledge the need to raise taxes to meet increasing defence spending commitments but most of your party is still wedded to the ludicrous concept of being able to pay for and do everything without raising a penny in taxation.
You're no more incoherent on this than any of the other parties - I'll give you that - but don't pretend to be a model of financial probity given your party's appalling record in Government.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
So at least we know it will involve less waste .
I can't imagine them paying $14000 for a loo seat.
Wasn't that explained by Jeff Goldblum's dad in the documentary film "Independence Day"? The inflated prices are to hide expenditure on studying the alien artefacts in Area 51.
2018 was in Chump's previous term.
I say they knew that he had no idea where he would turn up on any day, so all of them had to be gold plated, and made in Scotland from Girders.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I'm not disputing a Reform-led Government would take a very different view on immigration and asylum but you seem to think they are a small state Party and they aren't.
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Which is fine, I'd be ok with that as long as the NHS saw significant improvements. Better spend it here than it being siphoned off by a corrupt African dictator.
We had plenty of home grown fraud during Covid with millions stolen in fraudulent claims. We are borrowing at an alarming rate and the deficit and debt are growing - I'll be the first to accept Labour are as culpable as the Conservatives but the Tories don't have clean hands.
One or two Conservatives are at least able to acknowledge the need to raise taxes to meet increasing defence spending commitments but most of your party is still wedded to the ludicrous concept of being able to pay for and do everything without raising a penny in taxation.
You're no more incoherent on this than any of the other parties - I'll give you that - but don't pretend to be a model of financial probity given your party's appalling record in Government.
We have a million more people working in the public sector than we did in 2017. Tell me precisely what these million people have brought to the table? Services are worse than ever, the tax burden is higher than ever and all you can say is tax more and spend more and hire more? We've done that since 2017 and it hasn't worked, isn't that the definition of insanity?
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
And how many billions do you think Reform would allow the UK to be shaken down for by "developing nations", the answer is zero. Zero billions. How much illegal immigration do you think Reform would allow vs Labour or the Tories? Or what kind of asylum approval rate would we see with Reform in the coalition vs the Tories alone?
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I'm not disputing a Reform-led Government would take a very different view on immigration and asylum but you seem to think they are a small state Party and they aren't.
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Which is fine, I'd be ok with that as long as the NHS saw significant improvements. Better spend it here than it being siphoned off by a corrupt African dictator.
I am sure that you are delighted in the improvements in NHS productivity:
NHS England waiting lists in the latest figures were at 7.6 million so fractionally down on the peak in Sept 23 of 7.7 million.
Lots more to do but with the strikes over I expect considerable further improvement in the next year or two. Certainly that is what I am seeing in my own Trust.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Just so I'm clear, you would be happy to pay additional taxes to fund additional defence expenditure though as we don't so hypothecated taxation you'd have to rely on the Government to put the money where it says it will.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
You know my answer to this question, take a big, mighty axe to state employment. Cut it by 50% in non-customer facing roles. Put 1.5m people back into the labour market and a 5 year hiring freeze in those non-customer facing roles and a ban on consultants. That's £60-80bn cut from public spending, hire more customer facing people, soldiers, pilots, navigators, ship crew, give them much better pay and conditions, much better after service care and support.
Trade unproductive middle management for productive customer facing people, it's the only answer.
I know your answer - doesn't make it any less nonsensical hearing it for the umpteenth time.
"State employment" - what do you mean? 1.5 million people "back into the labour market" - who, from where, with what skills? I don't believe your spending figures which look a gross exaggeration.
Fine, get more people into the armed forces - who, where, doing what, how are they to be trained, paid, fed, clothed, supported?
I don't disagree veterans need a much stronger after-service regime but again how does that work, who funds it? How does it connect with the NHS, local Government, retraining and reskilling etc, etc?
My glib and nonsensical response would be to raise basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p, restore the link between thresholds and inflation and include some tapering to reduce the "cliff edge" between tax rates.
£37.5 billion raised from basic rate, £11 billion from higher rate - call it £40 billion (not because I can't add up but because I know tax rises never raise wht you hope).
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
Seriously?
Reform are as committed to large amounts of public expenditure as all the other parties. If you think they are some kind of small State proto-Thatcherite lasissez-faire party, you couldn't be more wrong.
They want lots of money spent on the WWC and that includes the NHS - they just don't want the money to be wasted, as they see it, on migrants.
Do they mean it though? Their leadership is economically Thatcherite at heart.
There is a major discordance between what Reform voters want and what the Reform leaders want. Both wany to stop immigration, but the voters see this as a route to more spending on them, while the leadership want to slash the state and cut taxes.
Yes it's small state economics with a dose of xenophobia and "traditional values" to pull in the punters. I don't know how they'd actually govern and I rather hope we never get to find out. This is a time of opportunity for them, though, no doubt about that. I'd be pumped up and loving life if I were one of them.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
Then came the election and ... well no good deed goes unpunished.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
HYUFD is a dinosaur in some respects, certainly this one.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
So at least we know it will involve less waste .
I can't imagine them paying $14000 for a loo seat.
Wasn't that explained by Jeff Goldblum's dad in the documentary film "Independence Day"? The inflated prices are to hide expenditure on studying the alien artefacts in Area 51.
Actually, the toilet seat thing is probably the least problematic spending.
This is because, on submarines, for example, there are 2 toilets for the entire crew. So you need an utterly unbreakable toilet seat (hundreds of uses per day, for 6 months at a time), that doesn’t make a bang when dropped, must be 100% fire proof, not painted with a whole range of paints (chemicals from paints are really bad in a closed loop environment), trivial to clean….
Oh and you want a production run of about 100.
The real problem is a pyramid of contractors, each one with 10-20% profit.
Did you know that in US law, such contracts have a limited level of profit *for each contractor*? So when building the F117, Ben Rich had to work out how to give money back to the government, since he built the plane really cheaply. If he had let the cost increase, he would have made more profit for Lockheed. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what those incentives mean.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
My sympathies also.
I do quite like the implied concept of "ineffective widow", if I may extract a smidgeon of pedantic humour.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
This is what I mean when I say we need a Left Populism to counter the bleak xenophobic vision of the Populist Right which is all the rage atm. Lewis puts it well there.
The problem is it's not much use telling the "narrative" if you don't have the policy remedies. These must be both doable and popular enough to get elected on. That is not easy. Certainly nothing like as easy as "shut the borders, women are women, Muslims Muslims, enough is enough, charity begins at home, We can be Great again", etc etc).
Another issue is Right Populism gets funded by rich gamey men because it doesn't threaten financial elites. A Left Populism, ie one which would, would be opposed tooth and claw in those quarters.
So, very good Clive, saying all that, but it's the easy bit.
What was Corbynism if not left populism?
It was, sort of, but it felt a bit dated. At least to me it did. It also needed a better front person. Still, nearly won in 2017. A sliding doors moment? No, not really. More of a road not travelled.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.
The mistake here is to think of the Chinese as a unitary government. Despite the dictatorship of Xi, much policy (especially domestic) is decided between his barons.
So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.
It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.
At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
We can probably all agree that Jesus is about as disconnected from a "traditional family" as it is possible to get.
And I'm not so sure his views on dying would be entirely standard...
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
It's completely delusional to think that we can impose our policy preferences on other countries using the largesse of our aid budget as leverage. You are two centuries out of date.
That's a load of balls. It would be pretty easy, for example, to provide finance for renewable power generation projects.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.
The mistake here is to think of the Chinese as a unitary government. Despite the dictatorship of Xi, much policy (especially domestic) is decided between his barons.
So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.
It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.
At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.
Simple economics comment it, too. Solar is simply cheaper power.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
Then came the election and ... well no good deed goes unpunished.
The stupidity in not putting things like the Chips Act front and centre in the campaign…..
I know that industrial support is a bit… old fashioned and goes down badly at Davos (except when the Chinese do it), but stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.
The mistake here is to think of the Chinese as a unitary government. Despite the dictatorship of Xi, much policy (especially domestic) is decided between his barons.
So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.
It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.
At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.
Simple economics comment it, too. Solar is simply cheaper power.
Which is big reason why those barons are winning - “Cheap power in perpetuity. No smog for the cities. Great exports.”
Superb performance from Liz Kendal on Laura K over assisted death vote.
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
This one is personal not party, though, isn't it? So Kendal is making the Kendal case not the Labour one.
It is one of the more heartening aspects of the discussion that it is not Party Political. Long may it remain so.
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
You don't. Eg a woman's right to have an abortion up to a reasonable timeframe should imo be above politics. It's fundamental to holding women of equal worth to men.
No it is just another example of a feminist agenda.
Now I could just about accept abortion up to 22 weeks but 24 weeks is too high and it is pleasing to see a wide range of Tory MPs from Hunt to Kruger and indeed Dorries when she was an MP trying to cut the abortion time limit
A female equality agenda. You can kiss goodbye to any notion of that if abortion is illegal or very restrictive. In fact I don't have a big problem with what you say here. Although I'd prefer to just trust women it is reasonable to have a debate about time limits and strike some sort of balance.
No
I’d prefer to trust in objective scientific evidence.
Which is where 24 weeks came from.
And that is as someone whose niece was born at 23 and bit weeks.
Don't do that "No" business. It irritates.
But ok, fine, we can disagree on the ideal law - as I say I'd prefer to trust women - but can agree that the current UK position is ok.
Yes.
No
Because, as a basic tenet of a civilised society, no one is entirely an island.
So while women have the largest say in what they do with their bodies, society as a whole does impose limits. Because of the effects of an individuals actions have ramifications beyond themselves.
Hence 24 weeks as a compromise based on the science of growth of the foetus, and the practical requirements of abortion vs the point at which a foetus becomes independently viable.
Which is the point at which we, as a society, have chosen to define the beginning of personhood.
Sure. As I say that's fine. Although I'd prefer to trust women. This for me would be the best approach, both philosophically and practically. A woman shouldn't be forced to give birth and become a mother against her will. Ideally the law should be predicated on that basis.
HYUFD doesn't believe in women's personal autonomy, that is abundantly clear.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
We can probably all agree that Jesus is about as disconnected from a "traditional family" as it is possible to get.
And I'm not so sure his views on dying would be entirely standard...
Ask John “Nuke ‘em” Sheridan. He dies three times in the story. I did like the bit, where someone tries to threaten him, after his second death.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Just so I'm clear, you would be happy to pay additional taxes to fund additional defence expenditure though as we don't so hypothecated taxation you'd have to rely on the Government to put the money where it says it will.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
You know my answer to this question, take a big, mighty axe to state employment. Cut it by 50% in non-customer facing roles. Put 1.5m people back into the labour market and a 5 year hiring freeze in those non-customer facing roles and a ban on consultants. That's £60-80bn cut from public spending, hire more customer facing people, soldiers, pilots, navigators, ship crew, give them much better pay and conditions, much better after service care and support.
Trade unproductive middle management for productive customer facing people, it's the only answer.
This recent long form interview with Milei was interesting.
The Tories have at least now backed Senator Graham in saying the UK should not allow Netanyahu to be arrested despite Starmer saying he would respect the ICC decision
Golly, so the Tories back a foreign politician recommending sanctions against the Uk and the crushing of its economy? Not just fuck business, but fuck the whole UK.
Do you really think a UK Conservative opposition party will be that concerned about measures hitting the economic record of a Labour government they oppose in response to a policy they don't support?
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
As we've discussed multiple times before we need a strategically essential override added to our planning system so things like this can be settled quickly.
I suspect it also means paying over the odds to pacify people but I don't believe paying 175% say of market value is going to cost £195m per a mile even if you included a people only vaguely impacted.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
Then came the election and ... well no good deed goes unpunished.
The stupidity in not putting things like the Chips Act front and centre in the campaign…..
I know that industrial support is a bit… old fashioned and goes down badly at Davos (except when the Chinese do it), but stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Yes maybe. Possibly. Probably. Everyone has their take on why Nov 5th happened. I have mine too. But whatever, I'm not inclined to stick the blame for Trump2 on the Dems. It was largely "events" plus Donald Trump's dark charisma. And at the end of the day there's something a whole lot stupider than any campaign decision Trump's opponents took - all the people who bought into his shit and voted for him.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
Then came the election and ... well no good deed goes unpunished.
The stupidity in not putting things like the Chips Act front and centre in the campaign…..
I know that industrial support is a bit… old fashioned and goes down badly at Davos (except when the Chinese do it), but stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Yes maybe. Possibly. Probably. Everyone has their take on why Nov 5th happened. I have mine too. But whatever, I'm not inclined to stick the blame for Trump2 on the Dems. It was largely "events" plus Donald Trump's dark charisma. And at the end of the day there's something a whole lot stupider than any campaign decision Trump's opponents took - all the people who bought into his shit and voted for him.
if Trump2 was caused by a badly managed campaign, Trump1 is the same issue..
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
Did you hear about the following - a company is experimenting with using smart steering, per uni, to that you can have, in effect a (small) tram sized bus. The units steer round corners etc. following a route.
Concern was expressed by some that such a vehicle would short circuit the planning process….
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out vs powerful vested interests.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
China just wants to produce energy, and it doesn't particularly care where it comes from. If wind and solar are more economic than coal, so be it but they're not against coal in the way say Miliband is or against onshore wind in the way the Tories were for much of the last parliament.
The mistake here is to think of the Chinese as a unitary government. Despite the dictatorship of Xi, much policy (especially domestic) is decided between his barons.
So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.
It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.
At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.
Simple economics comment it, too. Solar is simply cheaper power.
Which is big reason why those barons are winning - “Cheap power in perpetuity. No smog for the cities. Great exports.”
China is taking precisely squat action to reduce emissions in any way that will limit its growth. They are deploying renewables where it is economically beneficial to do so. Good for them I say, but why they continually come in for praise and excuses for it from idiots who want to sacrifice our own economy and security to eliminate the pitiful amounts of carbon we chuck out is a total mystery.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out.
It’s not just NIMBYs - there is a whole Enquiry Industrial Complex that feeds off the time and cost.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out vs powerful vested interests.
The problem is that too many deliberately don't want to fix it.
Lots of people claim that everyone wants growth. Bullshit. Far too many people have what they want and despise the idea of growth.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out.
It’s not just NIMBYs - there is a whole Enquiry Industrial Complex that feeds off the time and cost.
Yes, I actually edited my post immediate as I realised I missed this when I first posted.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
There were quite a lot of ‘unpaid domestic duties’ in Victorian censuses, even for the wives of Ag Labs.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out vs powerful vested interests.
The problem is that too many deliberately don't want to fix it.
Lots of people claim that everyone wants growth. Bullshit. Far too many people have what they want and despise the idea of growth.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
For those attempting to make sense of Trump’s victory and the rise of the far-right across Europe - look no further than the PMs statement. Whether you like it or not, the far-right has a set of common narratives. They are something like, "the reason you’re in an overpriced, damp rental, your gran lives in squalor, your job is low paid/insecure & your public services crumbling - is because elites declared war on workers, favoured immigrants & made your life more expensive with their green crap. Vote for the far-right and they will deport the immigrants, stop the elites, cut the green crap & declare war on woke, Britain will be great again."
This far-right narrative has a story. It has a beginning, middle & end. It sets the scene, explains why we are where we are and offers a solution. In other words it has goodies, baddies and happy ending.
Labour’s story, just like the US Democrats, doesn’t make narrative sense. Labour's story doesn't explain how 40 years of atomising, neoliberal plunder; the selling-off of & destruction of our public services; the undermining of our democracy, the hollowing out and selling off of our natural resources at the hands of companies like Blackrock and other price-gouging corporations, billionaires & financial institutions, has led us here. Instead Labour refuse to give a credible explanation for how we got here other than ‘it was Tory chaos’.
Problem is when the political & economic permacrisis continues, that won’t be a viable explanation. By refusing to identify who the culprits for this state of affairs is, Labour fail to make a convincing narrative story that explaims our predicament. Instead Labour become the defenders of the very elites that the right claim they are, even though the far-right themselves are a core part of the very establishment that championed these policies.
Therefore Labour either develop a story as the agents of progressive change, identifying those responsible and pledging to fix it, or Labour makes way for the inevitability of a far-right victory, just like in the US.
I think I agree with much of that.
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
Then came the election and ... well no good deed goes unpunished.
The stupidity in not putting things like the Chips Act front and centre in the campaign…..
I know that industrial support is a bit… old fashioned and goes down badly at Davos (except when the Chinese do it), but stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Yes maybe. Possibly. Probably. Everyone has their take on why Nov 5th happened. I have mine too. But whatever, I'm not inclined to stick the blame for Trump2 on the Dems. It was largely "events" plus Donald Trump's dark charisma. And at the end of the day there's something a whole lot stupider than any campaign decision Trump's opponents took - all the people who bought into his shit and voted for him.
if Trump2 was caused by a badly managed campaign, Trump1 is the same issue..
Yes and I think it misses the heart of it. The Trump thing is about a lot more than 'bad' Dem candidates. Lost to him! Must be awful! It's a bit knee-jerk imo.
That said, there's polling that 15% of Americans would be uncomfortable voting for a woman as POTUS. So that's an ???? He twice beat a woman and the only time he faced a man he lost.
Dunno. We can't know why he won, really. There'll be lots of reasons. Fact is, he did win and we have to deal with it as best we can.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out vs powerful vested interests.
The problem is that too many deliberately don't want to fix it.
Lots of people claim that everyone wants growth. Bullshit. Far too many people have what they want and despise the idea of growth.
Everyone wants growth.
They just don’t want this
They don't just not want that. They don't want anything.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
It's not just trams.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
The problem is nobody who gets into power seems to know how to fix it. And in addition its one of those difficult problems to solve with the right balance plus politicians are always scared of NIMBYs voting them out.
It’s not just NIMBYs - there is a whole Enquiry Industrial Complex that feeds off the time and cost.
And it's an industry where a lot of former MPs find an easy retirement - which means removing them is not the preferred option.
But unless we remove them (and soon) this country will stagnate and economically die as we can't continue with our current infrastructure..
Most of it is all the same stuff that is his hobby horse...but there is an interesting nugget in there. He talks about Ben Warner, who was the data cruncher, has a start-up for synthetic focus group polling via LLMs.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
On topic 'A group of 29 faith leaders have joined forces to oppose assisted dying in the biggest intervention from religious groups on the issue to date.
Senior figures representing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs have warned that the assisted dying Bill will lead to people being pressured into ending their lives to avoid burdening families or the NHS. They say a change in law will turn a “right to die” into people thinking they have a “duty to die”.
In an open letter signed by the Bishop of London, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi, they say they are “deeply concerned about the impact the Bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion”....Coming on the week that MPs vote on the controversial legislation, the letter says: “In the UK, it is estimated that 2.7 million older people have been subjected to abuse; many of these may also be vulnerable to pressure to end their lives prematurely“Disability campaigners and those working with women in abusive relationships have also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences should the law be changed.
“The experience of jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation, such as Oregon and Canada, demonstrate how tragic these unintended consequences can be. Promised safeguards have not always protected the vulnerable and marginalised. Notably, the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Dame Sarah Mullally, signed for the Church of England – a move likely to spark speculation about her prospects as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
She signed alongside Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, and Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi. Other signatories include Sayed Abdul Saheb al-Khoei, secretary general of the Al-Khoei Foundation, a prominent Muslim organisation; Zara Mohammed, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain; Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, the chair of the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha, one of the UK’s leading Sikh organisations; and Trupti Patel, the president of the Hindu Forum of Britain representing over 300 Hindu groups.' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/24/assisted-dying-bill-religious-leaders-letter-duty-to-die/
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Most of it is all the same stuff that is his hobby horse...but there is an interesting nugget in there. He talks about Ben Warner, who was the data cruncher, has a start-up for synthetic focus group polling via LLMs.
I have many questions ;-)
Given that McDonalds wasted $1bn on AI telling it that people wanted bacon ice cream I dread to think what a LLM / "synthetic" focus group would recommend to people.
I find it really strange that people don't grasp that until you can 100% confirm the results an AI gives you are not hallucinations you can't trust the end result...
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
Comments
One thing liked about Biden was that he didn’t deny the existence of problems. But came up with policy solutions (to some of the issues - see manufacturing) that were compatible with his (and his parties) moral and social positions.
So far:-
- The Speech That Brought Down Margaret Thatcher & Kick-Started Brexit | Sir Geoffrey Howe
- The Speech That Tried To Stop The Iraq War | Robin Cook
- "No, no, no!" Margaret Thatcher's Most Iconic Speech | Mrs Thatcher
- The Speech That Changed The Fate Of The Labour Party | Neil Kinnock
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4UcS198pg2IIatd1V0_4jd3PjvsRctRUA Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Society- even at the level that Thatcher acknowledged society- requires us all to be Us some of the time, and Them at other times.
Socially, the Tories are far too frit.
These are all things that need addressing, the UK is seen as a soft touch across the world and that makes us a target for illegal immigration, spurious asylum seekers who laugh in our faces when the out of touch judge grants them asylum after having been rejected in 3 or 4 European countries already.
Fundamentally we need to toughen up our approach to global affairs and neither Labour or the Tories are going to do that.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent
2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK.
3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
It would be fascinating if a party departing from these started getting more than a handful of votes.
Every single party difference is about emphases, marginal issues, national boundaries following referenda (SNP, PC, SF, SDLP), detail, unicorns, rhetoric and competence. All within a social democrat frame.
And what percentage of British Christians are Evangelicals?
Savings from immigration, asylum, foreign aid or whatever would be channelled into strengthening the borders and improving services for the white working class (their core constituency).
I'd argue they would spend as much on the NHS - accepting their priorities would be very different.
Labour are going to bankrupt the country because they want to feel good about themselves.
I can't imagine them paying $14000 for a loo seat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/pentagon-budget-military-spending-waste.html
The problem is it's not much use telling the "narrative" if you don't have the policy remedies. These must be both doable and popular enough to get elected on. That is not easy. Certainly nothing like as easy as "shut the borders, women are women, Muslims Muslims, enough is enough, charity begins at home, We can be Great again", etc etc).
Another issue is Right Populism gets funded by rich gamey men because it doesn't threaten financial elites. A Left Populism, ie one which would, would be opposed tooth and claw in those quarters.
So, very good Clive, saying all that, but it's the easy bit.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
Because, as a basic tenet of a civilised society, no one is entirely an island.
So while women have the largest say in what they do with their bodies, society as a whole does impose limits. Because of the effects of an individuals actions have ramifications beyond themselves.
Hence 24 weeks as a compromise based on the science of growth of the foetus, and the practical requirements of abortion vs the point at which a foetus becomes independently viable.
Which is the point at which we, as a society, have chosen to define the beginning of personhood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R19I8rdyR4
There are also loads of evangelicals who just like the music, the warm glow and Jesus being their best friend without ever thinking at all.
They are human. Some of them are anti gay except for Charlie and Fred because we know them and they play the guitar......
None at all follow Jesus's line on divorce and remarriage.
To their massive credit, many of them would be on the 'safe, legal and rare' side over abortion.
It's not about "feeling good" it's about keeping our planet habitable for future generations. When Bangladesh, the Nile delta are underwater and the Sahel is in permanent drought then it affects even our island. A billion climate refugees by the end of the century is a very real possibility.
There is some capacity in the private system, but not much. Many of their staff also work for the NHS.
I recall some fast footwork, under Blair, when it was ruled that there was a right to prompt treatment. This sparked a huge increase in people travelling to Europe to have scheduled procedures, and expecting the NHS to pick up the tab.
Not just fuck business, but fuck the whole UK.
Trade unproductive middle management for productive customer facing people, it's the only answer.
The inflated prices are to hide expenditure on studying the alien artefacts in Area 51.
They're not doing nothing, but that's not the same as pulling their weight.
One or two Conservatives are at least able to acknowledge the need to raise taxes to meet increasing defence spending commitments but most of your party is still wedded to the ludicrous concept of being able to pay for and do everything without raising a penny in taxation.
You're no more incoherent on this than any of the other parties - I'll give you that - but don't pretend to be a model of financial probity given your party's appalling record in Government.
I say they knew that he had no idea where he would turn up on any day, so all of them had to be gold plated, and made in Scotland from Girders.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/nhs-hospital-productivity-some-positive-news
NHS England waiting lists in the latest figures were at 7.6 million so fractionally down on the peak in Sept 23 of 7.7 million.
Lots more to do but with the strikes over I expect considerable further improvement in the next year or two. Certainly that is what I am seeing in my own Trust.
2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions
3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above.
My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you.
For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
1,000 Days of War in Ukraine - Russia's IRBM Strike, Trends & The Forces after 1,000 days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf2vSoWsmgI
"State employment" - what do you mean? 1.5 million people "back into the labour market" - who, from where, with what skills? I don't believe your spending figures which look a gross exaggeration.
Fine, get more people into the armed forces - who, where, doing what, how are they to be trained, paid, fed, clothed, supported?
I don't disagree veterans need a much stronger after-service regime but again how does that work, who funds it? How does it connect with the NHS, local Government, retraining and reskilling etc, etc?
My glib and nonsensical response would be to raise basic rate tax to 25p and higher rate to 50p, restore the link between thresholds and inflation and include some tapering to reduce the "cliff edge" between tax rates.
£37.5 billion raised from basic rate, £11 billion from higher rate - call it £40 billion (not because I can't add up but because I know tax rises never raise wht you hope).
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
This is because, on submarines, for example, there are 2 toilets for the entire crew. So you need an utterly unbreakable toilet seat (hundreds of uses per day, for 6 months at a time), that doesn’t make a bang when dropped, must be 100% fire proof, not painted with a whole range of paints (chemicals from paints are really bad in a closed loop environment), trivial to clean….
Oh and you want a production run of about 100.
The real problem is a pyramid of contractors, each one with 10-20% profit.
Did you know that in US law, such contracts have a limited level of profit *for each contractor*? So when building the F117, Ben Rich had to work out how to give money back to the government, since he built the plane really cheaply. If he had let the cost increase, he would have made more profit for Lockheed. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what those incentives mean.
I do quite like the implied concept of "ineffective widow", if I may extract a smidgeon of pedantic humour.
So the baronages of the cities complain about pollution. The coal baronages try and demand more power stations to burn their coal. The solar and wind barons make common cause with the city baronages.
It’s exactly how things worked in the West before democracy. There is an element of listening to the people, but it’s about the power brokers.
At the moment, the city barons and the solar and wind barons are winning.
8 points now in the As It Stands table.
And I'm not so sure his views on dying would be entirely standard...
It would be pretty easy, for example, to provide finance for renewable power generation projects.
Solar is simply cheaper power.
I know that industrial support is a bit… old fashioned and goes down badly at Davos (except when the Chinese do it), but stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
https://bsky.app/profile/alastairmeeks.bsky.social/post/3lbp725d3d22m
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a
Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
Javier Milei: President of Argentina - Freedom, Economics, and Corruption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLzc9kobDk
I suspect it also means paying over the odds to pacify people but I don't believe paying 175% say of market value is going to cost £195m per a mile even if you included a people only vaguely impacted.
Trams, roads, rails, houses, prisons, factories, power supply and every other dammed thing.
Our planning system is broken and not fit for purpose.
Concern was expressed by some that such a vehicle would short circuit the planning process….
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Lots of people claim that everyone wants growth. Bullshit. Far too many people have what they want and despise the idea of growth.
They just don’t want this
That said, there's polling that 15% of Americans would be uncomfortable voting for a woman as POTUS. So that's an ???? He twice beat a woman and the only time he faced a man he lost.
Dunno. We can't know why he won, really. There'll be lots of reasons. Fact is, he did win and we have to deal with it as best we can.
It's worse than NIMBYs, it is BANANAs.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
But unless we remove them (and soon) this country will stagnate and economically die as we can't continue with our current infrastructure..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoG5EammWI4&
Most of it is all the same stuff that is his hobby horse...but there is an interesting nugget in there. He talks about Ben Warner, who was the data cruncher, has a start-up for synthetic focus group polling via LLMs.
I have many questions ;-)
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
Senior figures representing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs have warned that the assisted dying Bill will lead to people being pressured into ending their lives to avoid burdening families or the NHS. They say a change in law will turn a “right to die” into people thinking they have a “duty to die”.
In an open letter signed by the Bishop of London, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi, they say they are “deeply concerned about the impact the Bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion”....Coming on the week that MPs vote on the controversial legislation, the letter says: “In the UK, it is estimated that 2.7 million older people have been subjected to abuse; many of these may also be vulnerable to pressure to end their lives prematurely“Disability campaigners and those working with women in abusive relationships have also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences should the law be changed.
“The experience of jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation, such as Oregon and Canada, demonstrate how tragic these unintended consequences can be. Promised safeguards have not always protected the vulnerable and marginalised. Notably, the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Dame Sarah Mullally, signed for the Church of England – a move likely to spark speculation about her prospects as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
She signed alongside Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, and Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi. Other signatories include Sayed Abdul Saheb al-Khoei, secretary general of the Al-Khoei Foundation, a prominent Muslim organisation; Zara Mohammed, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain; Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, the chair of the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha, one of the UK’s leading Sikh organisations; and Trupti Patel, the president of the Hindu Forum of Britain representing over 300 Hindu groups.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/24/assisted-dying-bill-religious-leaders-letter-duty-to-die/
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
I find it really strange that people don't grasp that until you can 100% confirm the results an AI gives you are not hallucinations you can't trust the end result...