Does everyone recall Truss embarrassing us on the world stage in Moscow getting the Black and Baltic seas confused, as well as being mistaken over entire swathes of Russian land. A woeful contribution to diplomacy ahead of the Ukraine invasion. The new Thatcher, I think not.

Then there was this jingoistic vacuous effort, full of buzzwords and containing nothing of any substance:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-liz-truss-building-the-network-of-liberty

Quote

 

Conclusion

So when I meet the G7 in Liverpool this weekend, my message will be clear: it’s time to get on the front foot and join us in advancing the frontiers of freedom.

 

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

Sunak thought it was a good idea to borrow a Kia and have a photo next to it. He also doesn’t know how to use a contactless card.

The UK also has the lowest projected growth in the G7, something that happened on his watch. I know it’s difficult conditions but someone super clever may achieve more (I.e. cooling the economy last year).

He's definitely a noob at politics, and doesn't seem to have great advisors. But from interviews etc I think he's reasonably sharp in comparison to Truss at least. 

He's not fit to be PM for the reasons you've alluded to. But for me he's the most dangerous candidate to beat Starmer... open to the idea I'm being too generous 

4 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

You may be reading a more British-English version of “brilliant,“ which is broad? I merely mean highly intelligent, which seems indisputable to me. But maybe you’re still speechless … Which one would you choose?

Dude Truss is very dim - for someone in her position at least. Something you can't say for Sunak, although he's patently unqualified for other reasons 

Random thought I was having earlier.

I notice few Tories - vocal ones at least - on forums. Here, or reddit, for example. 

Assuming that's the case, is that possibly because people who use forums lean towards valuing researched opinions, knowledge, logic, good faith discussions based on evidence.... things which generally lead people away from right wing ideology

....same why intellectuals and academics generally tend to lean to the left also?

Or is that just really patronising 

12 hours ago, hippo said:

Depends who you want it to function for.

It certainly won't function that well for anyone in poor health with no PMI.

Yep, or anyone who:

- cares about fighting climate change

- uses infrastructure of any kind

- wants the Police to investigate crimes; fire service to operate; ambulances to turn up

- thinks education or housing is a right

- wants protection from tech billionaires

- is concerned about infotech and biotech revolutions eliminating entire swathes of the job market

Etc etc

I can't believe anyone still thinks low tax small state is a viable program for a functioning country in the 21st century

10 minutes ago, hippo said:

Any leader will have his detractors over time.

Must admit I've warmed to him - whilst labour is only nominally ahead in the polls considering where they were when he took over I think he's done a decent job.

 

I think he's been crap. The whole point of him was to sacrifice left wing policy to sweep up the centrist vote, and as far as I can see he's completely failing to do that in the context of the worst British government of all time.

8 hours ago, hippo said:

He nearly died

 

Small point in the grand scheme of things but this is untrue. He and his team massively exaggerated how sick he was to gain public sympathy, and it worked amazingly well. Look it up. 

Edit:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/boris-johnson-denies-he-was-ever-put-on-a-ventilator-after-being-hospitalised-with-covid/268207

Quote

 

Boris Johnson denies he was ever put on a ventilator after being hospitalised with Covid

Three days later Mr Johnson was admitted to St Thomas’ Hospital, Lambeth, in what Downing Street called a “precautionary step”, but proceeded to spend three days in the ICU.

 

You don't spend three days in the ICU if your survival chances are 50/50, which was what was reported *globally*. And you're getting put on a ventilator ASAP. And finally you're not back at work within a couple of days of discharge.

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

It's not the kind of thing you forget

It might be if you are one yourself/completely indifferent, to be fair

Starmer is a coward, terrified of the far right, and completely lacks strategy. There is absolutely no need to rule out rejoining the SM at this point - it'd probably be a vote winner if he said it was on the table. I'm also guessing the LDs are seeing that and wondering if a coalition is even possible.

What a disappointment he is, in so many respects. Agree there is no positive reason to vote Labour atm. 

19 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Although I don’t agree with this outcome I do tend to agree with the principle he brings up there.

These issues should be resolved by democracy, not by courts. 

Won't they just strike out any attempt at legislation as "unconstitutional" though

*Trigger warning

So Private Eye are reporting that in 2018, Sir Gavin Williamson walked in on Boris (whose wife had cancer) getting a blow job off Carrie on the Foreign Office sofa*, hence all the furore over that Times FO Carrie story which got removed, and hence Williamson's baffling knighthood.

4 hours ago, peterw said:

If its a good policy that is popular then the govt will just nick it

A party that believed in its policies and helping people would see this as a great result.

4 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

That's the Egyptians and free labour you're thinking about.

EDIT: Ah, that's what you meant wasn't it?

A myth that the pyramids were built by slaves FYI

It was more like Bournville

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-by-slaves/

Quote

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t slaves who built the pyramids. We know this because archaeologists have located the remains of a purpose-built village for the thousands of workers who built the famous Giza pyramids, nearly 4,500 years ago.

I'm ever more certain these days that the Christian Fundamentalist Right in the USA are the group representing the single greatest danger to the future of humanity. Hear me out.

• They don't believe in man made climate change, and if they recognise it, they believe it is evidence of God's wrath
• They believe in an afterlife, and many believe that we are in fact in "end times" - approaching the final destiny of humanity
• They believe they are acting upon God's will
• They have massive (disproportionate) political influence in the most powerful country in the world, which has 5000+ nukes

The pro-life / evangelist lobby are just useful idiots who've been weaponized by the billionaire class, this is about:

- correcting the falling US birth rate and ensuring a healthy supply of wage slaves for said billionaire class (a poor kid born out of wedlock with no social power whatsoever - perfect)

- keeping the prisons full and profitable

I say they're idiots because their position is fundamentally inconsistent - you won't find the pro-life camp also campaigning for free healthcare and midwifery for all pregnant women, funny that?

Kanye West's position that all women who choose not to get an abortion should get a $1m cheque is more logically coherent, and he's bipolar

Can we just take a moment to savour this 5* entertainment in front of us, we deserve it after the last 12 years

*chef's kiss*

I almost don't want it to end

Feels like the dial might be shifting. The tory mouthpieces have no answer to the facts that a) the railways take public money in subsidies and b) the enormous shareholder dividends distributed, even in 2020

As an aside, I hate how the UK / West / World is socialist when it comes to propping up private business when they need help, but capitalist when it comes to supporting individual poor people when they do. Either be capitalist, and let private businesses fail when the market determines, or socialist, but be consistent please.

On 25/03/2022 at 12:42, OutByEaster? said:

The way things are going, I don't think it's possible that you can guarantee that a child born into the world today will have the opportunity to reach a full natural life

 

I'm nearly 32 and my partner is nearly 30. We don't have kids but both have previously said we intend do. I'm increasingly of the feeling however that bringing a person unwillingly into this world, to face this future, is not something I want to have on my hands.

Sorry if that offends people - and I'm sure it will - but it's how I feel sometimes. I'm already scared enough for our own future let alone that of my potential children.

Anyway happy Sunday!

19 hours ago, ml1dch said:

They're *so* predictable 

These b**** lawyers, bringing cases to the court within the confines of our existing laws, they must be stopped

And these woke judges who apply the law, don't get me started

He was 100% smashing the gear last night before facing the cameras.

It's a dead cat which neatly doubles up as a fake Brexit benefit, in case that needed to be pointed out

• We drink pints
• Our speed limits are set to miles per hour
• We report our weight in stones and pounds, height in feet, lengths of other things in inches

Merits of imperial vs. metric to one side, what is this actually going to impact

Quote

 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!