kaosmark2

I wonder if this has anything to do with "will of the people" rhetoric and trying to inflame hatred and focus on ad hominem attacks against the opposition, instead of actually.... defending policies?

I think refusing to go to the court of law is suspicious.

Yeah. I don't like bringing my personal choices around these things into arguments like this because it comes from my own opportunities. That said, if I'm in the middle of a 14hr work day and somewhere that knows me as a staff member of a local business offers me a 1/2 price or free burger there's 0 chance I'm turning that down. I try and make decisions but I'm going to be kind for the times circumstances don't allow me them. I also know other people don't even has as much luxury around these choices as I do.

I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm saying that people's circumstances vary and it's often quite classist to try and judge someone's diet and shopping habits.

He and his supporters claim that. This is the effective charge: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-stealthing/#:~:text=The definition or meaning of,can be prosecuted for rape. Extradition to Sweden for these charges should have happened IMO. I'm not going to presume guilt/innocence but I don't think there's anything to suggest the Swedish courts would be fixed. Extradition to the USA for wikileaks shouldn't be happening, as I fully believe that'd be torturing him and no fair trial, but everything about Swedish rights/extradition makes it look like he's trying to dodge the sexual offence charges.

There's also a thing of it often takes more time/knowledge to cook nuts and pulses into a functional meal than it does to cook cheap meat. Certainly if you're relying on the cheaper stuff. Sure, bulk bags of lentils are cheap, but to cook them properly you should be pre-soaking them, then draining then stewing them. Compare that to grilling a few sausages. By contrast, if you look at snacking nuts as your primary protein source, you're going to be paying huge amounts. I'd generally say that our society largely has meat consumption at extremes - people who have meat in virtually every meal and over-eat it, or veggie/vegans who never touch it.

Yeah. The headline is sensationalist designed to appeal to Torygraph readers. The article basically talks about linking to earnings, which is what I'm saying is good as well.

I click the link and see: Carl Emmerson writes about the triple lock in The Telegraph followed by Originally published in The Telegraph on 13 December 2023

It was introduced back in 2011 by Gideon Osborne, alongside scrapping a lot of pensioner benefits, including a bunch of means tested ones. You can argue that there is sense of just having a good state pension scheme instead of means-tested benefits that are more costly to implement, but it was absolutely a vote-chasing giveaway.

Starmer visited Bristol recently, and had answers prepared to talk about stabbings (tragic but usually rare), drug use (erm), but was evasive and ran away the moment housing and bus services came up. The biggest issues here are that people can't afford to live anywhere near the centre, and people can't get into the centre from further out because the buses don't turn up. Every other issue put together isn't as important as either of those two.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll slag off hope again soon enough.

You can tell when a Tory Minister lies: Their lips move.

It's also circular. The youth don't vote because even when they do it's just politicians shitting on them. If no party is actually speaking for you, and respecting you, why would you go out of your way to endorse them?

This! The triple lock was a huge bribe to lock in the votes of pensioners, even those who don't need it! Noone is saying let pensioners starve! Either apply the triple lock to all benefits, or get rid of it and link pensions to wage growth.

Out come the dodgy graphs!

Yeah, although they're not tacking into carbon emissions intentionally, in a way that they could/would do without the threat of climate crisis. You compare to India, where India are making an active choice to industrialise large parts of their country/economy using fossil fuels, and ignoring the state of the globe (and like... anything about their farmers having even a hint of right to food they grow).

You can kinda see the self-interest. Those African countries will suffer a lot from climate catastrophes, so are making a proportionally bigger effort. Norway is interesting, and I suspect is largely to do with the fact they're selling off their remaining Oil reserves instead of burning it themselves - simultaneously creative accounting and good economics. Although they're also at fairly high risk of shifted currents with the ice caps melting etc.

Yes to basically all this. The "unfairness" of the West benefiting from the industrial revolution and no other countries being "allowed" to is a big part of why negotiations allowed later net zero. That said, China will certainly beat the US and probably beat most EU countries to net zero. I think it's fair to comment on the problems of capitalism, "replace" over "fix/recycle/refurbish" has been a thing for a long time, and the economics that lead to it being quicker, easier, and usually cheaper to just get a new thing should be called out. A big big question is going to be what green technology China develops, and then whether they actually choose to share it with the rest of the world. I can very much see a situation where China makes some brilliant advances in non-carbon technology, but declines to share the methods and only sells a sample of the products, leaving the rest of the world playing catch-up to China.

This is the depressing thing. Particularly as the developed world will point their fingers, while still buying all those products from India.

I don't even think it's the world lacking desire, it's the industrial capitalist complex that doesn't. Several countries are already seeing disaster and massive climate problems as a result of what's been done, but the rich need to get richer and those of us doing "middling" in wealthy countries aren't willing to reduce our own consumerism.

Well for a start the UK and US could stop supplying Israel with weapons!

The thing is, that's an unreasonable demand, framed as a reasonable one. The reason hostage exchange is usually done simultaneously is because there's no trust for the other side to follow-up. Israel are doing this to attempt to make it look like they're being reasonable, while in fact just manufacturing an excuse to carry on with genocide. Similarly, Hamas can point to this as unreasonable escalation and threats, instead of a direct hostage exchange, and go "look at them commiting war crimes, see how we're fighting for you against this oppressor!" and keep on with their own terrorism.

"Permissive attitudes" is fascist talk.

It really isn't that easy. This is Daily Mail level BS.

Off titles yes. I'd like to think winning a cup might be doable before that.