Well yes... Since my county successfully achieved those goals, and you're looking to achieve those same things, are you not at least a little curious?
Well yes... Since my county successfully achieved those goals, and you're looking to achieve those same things, are you not at least a little curious?
But every Country that's made progress on these issues have done so by people working within the democratic structures. Revolutions are only needed to establish democracy. Countries that went for revolutions without democracy don't have a great record...
As it happens, I'm not an American. I'm from a Country with universal healthcare and gun control. Neither of these required revolutions. It was done by participating in democracy In the US it's a bit more challenging, with your obstructive Senate making it very difficult to achieve positive change
I agree that's a problem also. The Internet has destroyed the traditional business model for news, making it much harder to fund the profession. But part of the problem is, how does the industry get people to pay for it? I think they need to offer higher standards to make it worth it.
When media outlets screw up in some way, there's very little accountability. No serious mechanism to set the record straight. If we could strengthen the reliability of MSM (through regulation/accountability to enforce accuracy and good practice) I think that would make a big difference.
I think the problem is less that there's too many lies, and more that we lack an authoritative source of information that can be universally trusted. MSM sources are far more reliable than the alternatives, but still not good enough to be properly trusted.
You've inspired me to think differently. Before I thought that slowly walking to places was the best I can do. Now I'm committed to flapping my arms fast enough so I can fly anywhere I want, and I refuse to accept any alternative movement until I achieve this goal!
I actually can't tell whether you're satire or not! 😆
Also, I think they'd have fun with Trump being in hell and Satan not knowing what to do with him.
In NY you can be more ambitious than Georgia, but you can still put people off if you're too off the wall. Sounds like he's picked which areas he wants to push ambitious policy, and is sidelining progressive ideas that aren't relevant/practical.
My explanation would be that it was a delayed backlash. Sometimes when something is happening we can feel uneasy about it, but it's only after having time to process we have the confidence to call BS. I also think in 2024 we had additional problems, e.g. Biden's decline.
In fairness, he does seem to be using that platform to make a progressive case here.
He's speaking at a Spectator event, I think.
If we've got a stable birth rate and the families we welcome over are happy additions to our population, then we're not outsourcing. If the stability of our population is dependent on people born in other countries coming here, then that would be effectively outsourcing.
Lastly, isn't there an opportunity to develop a progressive pro-natal position, that debunks the far right attempts to blame women and feminism by pointing out modern successful families tend to have relationships based around working together? And pushes for affordable housing and childcare?
I feel that saying "no country has managed to increase fertility through policy" is like saying "no country has managed to achieve net zero" It's something we need to tackle regardless, even though we haven't yet completely worked out how.
1) Wouldn't that effectively be trying to outsource birth to women in poorer countries? (Isn't that kind of icky?) 2) Birth rates are falling around the world. 20 years from now will there be enough young people from other countries looking to come here? It's a short term fix at best!
I know that those who switch from "we're full" to "we need to increase the birth rates" are massive hypocrites and deserve to be roasted. But it's also true that the birth rate is an issue we need to tackle. Trying to use immigration to compensate is a bad policy for two reasons:
Straw seems to be an apt name for someone whose "principles" clearly blow with the wind. I guess it's times like these when we learn who genuinely believes in human rights, and whose support for them was just going along with the fashion of the time.
Yes, I remember. There were also people given large sentences for foolish posts on Facebook, similar to Connelly. (the idea it's "two tier policing" is provably wrong. I considered it to be excessive at the time. My mind hasn't changed just because it's now happening to right wingers.
If that was the bar for incitement then thousands would be guilty. People say horrible things all the time. A prison sentence was a complete overreaction.
Bigotry, as bad as it is, is not an imprisonable offence. If we believe in justice and human rights, that upholding them even for horrible people.
The AOC example was using the word twice in a statement nearly 3 years ago. The Pressley example was from a podcast over 4 years ago. Haven't you largely disproved your argument on this occasion?
It was pretty bad for everyone except the minority who were slave owners. Back then, opponents of slavery were mainly driven by the immoral cruelty of it, but they also used practical arguments, e.g. that it undermined and undercut paid labour, to widen support for their cause.
M&S come out very well in this account. A supportive management makes a huge difference in times like these.
Europe's diplomacy seems to be working and they now have the edge in this tug of war. Maybe they'll gradually pull Trump in enough that he'll actually get tough on Russia. Still frustrating it takes such an effort to get POTUS to do the right thing. November was such a disastrous election.
I think family farms have been caught in the crossfire as the rampant property speculation has pushed up the value of their land, causing it to rise above the thresholds, despite the business income being meagre.
I think the best way to see this isn't as a usual political announcement of policy, but as a tug of war approach to diplomacy. Putin is trying to pull Trump one way, Europe the other, both by using a mixture of suggestions and flattery. Europe seems to be gradually pulling him to the right side.
This does seem to be broadly in line for what Starmer was requesting for his "coalition of the willing". It means that if a ceasefire/peace is agreed, Europe will have the support it needs from the US to keep the peace and prevent another conflict But only once Putin actually agrees to a ceasefire
It means that if a ceasefire is eventually agreed, the West has a plan to ensure that it is properly enforced this time. So it's good to have that in agreed and in place, just incase a ceasefire/peace is actually agreed.
I slightly disagree on this. The "security guarantees" seems to be Trump finally agreeing to Starmer's coalition of the willing plan, where European forces keep the peace, but US agrees to get involved if they're attacked (extra deterrent)
What treaty was this exactly?
Doesn't that show it was an effective deterrent? Before it, crossings were pointless - they'd be sent straight back. Once it was gone, the floodgates were open.
Then came the 2010s where it became increasingly common for certain parts of the left to deny the rights of their opponents. Since then we've seen support for rights erode and fascists gain power and relevancy. It's not a coincidence.
In the decades after the War, rights were established by being for everyone, and were continually strengthened. And yes, that meant fascists had the same rights, that they were free to have their awful views, but they were increasingly marginalised and powerless.
In the 1970s, a Jewish ACLU lawyer fought the case to protect the free speech of a Nazi group. www.aclu.org/news/free-sp... They did it because they knew that protecting FoS, even for Nazis, was a necessary part of protecting the same right for everyone else.
If you want to break two party politics then you need electoral reform. The movements for IRV through ballot initiatives are leading the way on this.
She's pointing out that you can only protect rights for your allies if you establish and uphold them them for everyone, including your enemies. Treating your political opponents as subhuman erodes the principles of respect and dignity for everyone.
Lowercase L looking like an uppercase i made me doubletake! 😆
Great argument. I can see you're the kind of person that's really worth taking seriously. 👏🏻
That doesn't contradict what I said. Go splash some cold water on your face, have a nice cup of tea and a think, and see if you can come up with a more coherent response.
Communists were a part of that street violence. And it worked against them. The street violence (on both sides) worked in favour of the far right and against the left. The far right, although dispicable, followed a strategy that worked for them. The communist violence was self-defeating.
Hugely hypocritical and it's flabbergasting that the public fell for it. But that what instability does. People feel forced to pick the side most likely to protect them, which favours right wing extremists who project an image of fighting for the majority.
Hitler's promise to end this violence helped him rise to power. nazigermany.lmu.build/exhibits/sho...
Which history books are you referring to? Political street violence was a serious problem in Weimar Germany: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...
Well if you helped elect someone who made it worse, they've kind of got a point. If you prioritise your "anti-establishment" teenage rebellion over the actual interests of Gazan people then expect to be viewed accordingly. 🤷
On the contrary, I'm emphasising the point about the need for proper strategy. Too many people go with go with the simplistic "if they're being a dick then I'll be a dick" and that's a game the other side wins. Fighting effectively is recognising what works in our favour and what works against us.
If you're talking about Dems being stronger and more effective as a democratic force, then I agree. That's what we all want. I'm just pointing out that Jennie's "don't treat others as less than human" isn't just "being nice", it's a necessary standard to achieve that goal.
Lessons were learned and postwar we built a world based on reason and compromise, emphasising that we're all in it together. The moment we fall into the tribal trap of "us vs them", we're playing their game rather than ours. These calls for high standards are a reminder of that.
Hitler grasped power by promising the majority that he'd protect them from communist terrorism. The communist factions thought they were fighting the Nazis, but they were giving them the ammunition they needed to persuade people to give them power. And yes, those who backed him screwed up massively
A tribally split society favours right wing fascists because by definition they side with the strongest tribe. They get to meet their goals when they convince the majority people that a fight is inevitable, that attacking the other half society is necessary self defense.
It's not a matter of passivity or even being "nice", it's a matter of understanding what we're fighting for, and how we win things to our favour. Society becomes more progressive when people trust each other, when people see others as "their own".
And they'll demand an end to European sanctions for this "generous compromise".
I'm sure they can carve out some legitimate "fair use" exemptions.
At first I thought you were being a bit conspiratorial, but it does seem that this "controversy" highly manufactured. bsky.app/profile/ryan...
But whatever the mechanism, there does seem to be a link between eating more home prepared food and better health outcomes.
They haven't yet identified the causal link. Some blame the preservative chemicals, others claim that certain nutrients are lost, turning the ready meals into "empty calories" that fail to satisfy consumer, leading them to crave more.
That seems to be missing the claims being made. It's not anti-processing, it's saying that home-cooked/home processed meals are healthier than ready meals. (and if you're a half decent cook then the home made meals will be far tastier)
Lenin was a spoiled child who would angrily fall out with former allies over political disagreements and then make them his mortal enemy. The "October Revolution" was a coup that replaced Russia's fledgling democracy with an authoritarian terror machine based on his dysfunctional personality.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. The Dems aren't perfect, but that's akin to saying that a shoplifter and a mass murderer are "equally guilty" of committing crimes.
I think one of the troubles consumers now is that subscriptions are tied to one publication. We can only afford so many at a time, and they can often feel wasteful when we only read a few each month. The industry is really missing a pick n' mix option.
At first, free internet articles worked because they were an extra on top of people buying normal newspapers. As more people switched to online news, the old revenue model largely collapsed and the industry hasn't worked out how to replace it. We need to start paying for our news again, but...
Yes. Once they're signed into the law, Government agencies kick into gear and start implementing them. Sanctions since 2014 have already significantly reduced Russia's ability to hurt Ukraine. We need to keep ramping them up.
What does "getting dirty" and "elimination of the threat" mean in practice? Examples of what you have in mind? What's the strategy behind it? How does it help us win?
I'm not against it in principle, but it needs to be carefully done. The summer 2020 riots were damaging, and gave the Trump admin an excuse to clamp down with "law and order". Is there a clear strategy here?
???
Ending the "moral highground" approach to gerrymandering and deciding to instead fight fire with fire until the GOP agrees to accept a bipartisan reform could count as "outside the box"?
Isn't that all standard political activity that's been done for years? Is any of that "out of the box"?
What's crazy about this story is that even under Biden his treatment was unfair and unacceptable, and then under Trump it becomes outright distopian!
Is the poor chihuahua not dog enough?
That's pretty much what the article says. It makes the point there's an opportunity to offer a more positive alternative to the PUA crowd.
Did you read the article? I'm getting a feeling like you didn't read the article.
Thanks. I see what you mean. While I think we'd need other tax changes as well, to take this "seriously rather literally", a rise in VAT would definitely be a game-changer.
You hand the money to the exchequer, but isn't expected that you'd raise prices to compensate? So it would raise prices for your customers rather than hit your income/profits? That being said, I'm more than happy for the money to instead be raised from those alternatives if it can be done.
It is as bad as we have ever seen it. The scenes of famine in Gaza are simply barbaric. As MPs of Israeli and Palestinian descent, we hope though that recognition of the State of Palestine will serve to flame the embers of hope for peace. My open letter with @alexsobel.co.uk
The bureaucratic headaches around VAT are there regardless of the rate it's set at. What would increasing the rate from 20% to 25% change other than your customers paying a bit more?
Wouldn't your customers just pay a bit more for the goods you're selling them? The tax is ultimately on them rather than on you.
Are you sure about the VAT thing? It sounds too good to be true. I mean, I could see it being a welcome fiscal boost in the short run, but enough to properly repair the entire public sector and account for rising levels of need over the coming years? Surely it can't be that effective?
This is a popular misconception. Tribal hatred is done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean the religion caused it. Lots of anti-hate movements have also been in the name of religion, especially historically. And societies without religion have found other excuses for hate.
The UK is not "sitting on a tinderbox". Some far right thugs are threatening violence and unfortunately some are gullible and go along with it. Right wing politicians and media stoke it up and I'm afraid some elsewhere on the political spectrum sleep walk into lending it all credence. Wake up.
Don't be daft. The support we provide to Ukraine is a miniscule fraction of our yearly Government spending. Trying to blame Ukranians for our problems is incredibly weak-minded.
Hungary has faced a number of sanctions including a freezing of EU funds, due to its democratic backsliding. Although the sanctions are weaker than they should be.
The FT have just published an interesting article about Zelensky's right hand man and the controversy around him. (gift article - first 3 readers get past the paywall) on.ft.com/459vbzB
I think the more likely explanation is that certain members of his political coalition have screwed up and that he feels he can't afford to lose them right now. It looks like he's chosen to prioritise for short term political convenience over long term good governance, which I think is a bad move.
It's frustrating, especially given how awful the right are right now, but we need to understand that the excesses of the left have helped them get away with it. It's by being seen to uphold principle that the left/centre has a chance to win again.
If both sides seem to be without principle, just fighting for their own tribe, people will side with the one that is least likely to attack them. And given the Right tend to champion the majority, this plays right into their hands. They will always suffer less for breaking principle then the left.
The argument seems to be that because the Right lack principles, when the centre tries to uphold principle it will just play into their hands. But I disagree. I think the extreme right thrives best when people become disillusioned over principle.
I took a few issues with this article. While it's right to point out that a lot of the right wing criticisms were in bad faith, it misses that it worked for them they because neutral obervers could see that there were genuine issues with free speech on the left.
Ironically, this guy used to be a pick up artist. Guy who was a reckless libertine in their own youth, now wants to preach "virtue" to a new generation.
If gerrymandering became illegal, this wouldn't be possible, let alone necessary. But until that's the case, you're never going to succeed in making it illegal if you fight with one hand behind your back.
Yes. I think growing to 100+ MPs is plausible. But if it comes with a Reform majority government then I think most LD voters will feel like having won a rather phyrric victory.
This seems like a stretch. Seems to me that once you had political/social dynamic to create the black/white distinction, that any number of ways rationalise it would have worked, with or without Christianity.
Genuine photos, but I get what you mean. www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/2532369...
I think it's more about the rhyme.
On the one hand, you're right that these policy proposals are good despite the lack of PR. On the other hand, the lack of PR reflects the need to keep Labour under pressure on this, so unfortunately it needs to be done.
This inability to handle dissent will make him look weaker, not stronger.
It sucks that Zelensky has to do this. Kind of sucks for Biden, but it's the result of hanging on too long and not stepping down sooner.
To be fair, they were pushing an open door. The can stir and exacerbate tensions, but the only reason it works is because so many of us are ready to polarise and divide. It's largely because we haven't yet adapted to how to handle social media.
All western countries are struggling for finances but the others find ways to make contributions. This is pretty weak.