But enough about Keir Starmer/Nigel Farage, what about Polanski?
10.03.2026 12:48
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
But enough about Keir Starmer/Nigel Farage, what about Polanski?
The government has decided to mostly pretend the Iran price shocks aren't happening, Reform believe in mass deportations and fraudulent elections, the Greens sums don't add up and Kemi Badenoch has announced that she did actually get an A in maths.
I do think it's legitimate to criticise Polanski for failing to be straight with the electorate about the trade offs of policy, however I do think this is the sort of criticism you could extend across more or less every party ATM and part of our challenge is we're just debating levels of unreality.
Genuinely bonkers things are happening on the UK right, an entire wing of the political spectrum dedicated to unreality.
Maybe the true phantom of the opera is the brainworms we developed along the way?
Sorry, whose time is so valuable and what podcast is so useful that this is a sensible solution?
The US is a fake country
To try and offer a (very minor) defence of Sackman, this is entirely downstream of the UK deciding that it didn't want to have a defence policy for the last 16 years, meaning we are now indelibly attached to a deranged US administration pursuing atrocity after atrocity. She should still resign.
It's quite something that both of the main opposition parties are requesting we become even more enmeshed with this.
The problem with then trying to explain it is that you're caught in a trap
(Thank you though, Sabrina, if you're reading this...)
Yeah George, the lesbian is probably going to have some views on dating a man.
That's the Kemi effect.
In the same way that I might consider dating Sabrina Carpenter, a nice concept but not really practical, plausible or likely and almost certainly ending with songs condemning it.
What I like about our new global order is that this could mean anything and the markets will still decide to calm down out of pure optimism.
God there's a lot of grey on that bib now though.
Say Something by A Great Big World came on whilst I was getting my hair cut, and it triggered something in my brain: "John Oliver." Anyway, could not remember it, and the moment the barber released me from that curtain bib I googled it and, well, I don't know what I expected
youtu.be/HNPRad65-Kg?...
Again, this is a symptom of the British right's unwillingness to draw lines to its right, and the government's inability to directly call out racism. The right is radicalising itself constantly.
His thesis is that by trying to abstract away the racial component of the slave trade as it existed Hare's essay fails to engage with the purpose and utility of creating a racialised society for those who benefit from it, so a pure utilitarian argument fails. It's radical and thought provoking.
Unfortunately very hard to find these days but Dr Nathaniel Tobias C wrote an excellent rebuttal called "What is Wrong with [R.M. Hare's argument against] Slavery" that approaches Hare's text from a utilitarian racial lens and to this day I think about it.
Sure, your primary left wing party doesn't believe 45% of people should pay tax, whatever.
America does just feel like a fake country sometimes
Soooooo many 30% propositions.
"Finally, I am free"
The only thing that is close to a policy in there is "family wages" and that is definitely socially conservative and also definitely a very bad idea.
All else aside, the existing Israeli government is behaving in the manner of a rogue state. Its attacks on Iran were unprovoked and have cause unprecedented upheaval and hurt us and our allies across the region, it's invasion of Beirut is comparable to Russia in Ukraine, it is indefensible.
The situation in Lebanon is truly bleak, Israel effectively occupying the south, regular strikes into civilian areas of Beirut, half a million people displaced and even if the strikes on Iran slow down or cease this is likely to persist. It's horrific the news continues to fail like this.
This year will be worse than last year, however it will be better than next year
Their primary concern was the protection of the “moral economy.” This included: The sanctity of the home: Early unions fought for a “family wage” specifically so that the domestic sphere could be protected from the industrial machine. Communal discipline: The movement was rooted in self-improvement, temperance, and a strict ethical code. Localism: The focus was on the parish and the branch, not a borderless global utopia.
This is a real, "what are you on about" moment, because if you're going to advocate for a family wage then I am going to give you a massive side-eye given all that that entails...there is a very good reason every Labour government has moved away from that, and criticised the Tories for it on UC!