RayC

Just think of me as a latter day Buddah bringing enlightenment.

I'll take my leave of this thread now as it became tedious a good while ago. No doubt you and your fellow intellectual giants of the right will be congratulating each other about how you saw off another socialist, communist, national socialist, fascist - I probably missed a few - lefty with the power of your argument. Have fun. Fill your boots as they say. All the best.

I have no idea of the relevance of this question but the answer is because we don't like British/ European winters, and we are in the fortunate position to be able to winter in Thailand. We will return to the UK next month. I hope that has sated your curiosity about my domestic arrangements?

Oh dear, I'm under surveillance. I thought that was the preserve of the socialist lefties?

Alternative viewpoints (not all of which I agree with): * Net zero: Necessary if the life on earth is to continue * Higher (business) taxes: Necessary if public service provision is to be maintained * (Further) Incentives for illegal immigrants: ??? None that I can see * Apple demand: Made under the Investigatory Powers Act in order to enhance the protection of UK citizens So what we have is option. In your opinion, Starmer's policies have a negative effect, others have a different perspective. Starmer may be stupid in your opinion, but to accuse him of having more sinister motives requires a lot more evidence than just your opinion.

He was always going to. Any US President can have influence (some) worldwide events although Trump has certainly made a large impact in quick time.

Is there any point to this comment?

Where have I insulted Trump? Where have I criticised him for stating that Europe should increase its' defence spending? Answer to both questions: I haven't. In fact, I think that he is correct regarding Europe's defence spending. Might be best to get your facts straight before commenting.

Ok. I'll admit it. I got it completely wrong when I thought that the comments in this thread couldn't get any more banal and simplistic. As for the three comments which precede this one? These are meant to be examples of the supposed intellectual superiority of the right?

I have my bias - we all do - but I don't see how you could deduce that from my previous post? It's also ironic that having accused me of bias, you prove my point regarding your own anti-Labour/ anti Starmer bias by openly displaying it so plainly in the very next sentence! You clearly object to UK Overseas Aid: Given that, surely the only valid criticism which you could make of Starmer's announcement would be that the cuts don't go far enough? Of course Starmer didn't want to do this and I agree, his hand has been forced by Trump (Reform are irrelevant in this regard). The situation has changed and Starmer has adjusted his stance. To misquote Keynes and do so out of context, "If the facts change then I may change my position". Or as the blessed Nigel said very recently, "I'm allowed to change my mind". What is so wrong with that? I don't understand what is the relevance of the removal of the winter fuel allowance to this discussion? Labour (Starmer) made a policy decision to get rid of it. You think that it was the wrong decision. Fine. It's valid to criticise Starmer's character/ attributes as being unsuitable for the role of PM, however, the idea that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - would possess "natural instincts to make the UK poorer" is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response. As for the next election. 4.5 years is a long time in politics in normal circumstances. Given the pace with which events are moving, imo it would be foolish to predict what will happen next month let alone in 2029.

Some people's bias apparently know no bounds. Starmer could announce that he has found a cure for all cancers. Rather than see the good in that, you would both probably criticise him for not curing Alzheimers at the same time.

You consider that to be an intelligent observation?

It is impossible to comment on the findings of this particular study as your link provides only the Abstract. Post a link to the full article and the methodology can be examined. Notwithstanding that, the conclusion suggests correlation not causation. Also worth noting that the research methods employed by the author in many of his other studies have been widely discredited by his peers e.g. "Academic scrutiny of Noah Carl's [OpenPsych] papers clearly reveals selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes about groups" — Clement Mouhot, Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University

Suggesting that your initial statement is nonsensical and that the subsequent comments of those who support you are banal and simplistic are not mutually exclusive statements.

Congratulations. You took up my challenge to Hotsun and succeeded. It was possible to dumb down the comments even further.

That would be some achievement as I'm not sure how the comments could be more banal and simplistic. But hey, give it a shot, go ahead and surprise me.

I clicked 'Confused' because your initial post makes no sense. There is no premise, no coherent argument and therefore no logical conclusion. Apart from that, it's fine. Mind you, TBF you are not on your own; your post is no different to most of the others in this thread.

The China debt trap is no myth as the experience of Sri Lanka and numerous African countries clearly demonstrates. BRICS stated purpose may well be to improve the well-being of its' members (my summation) but that is meaningless in itself, and doesn't differ from the objectives of any other similar grouping e.g. the EU, ASEAN, etc. Why are so many nations joining BRICS? Why not? There are no obligations or restrictions on member states currently, so where's the harm in joining? Whether these members remain and whether there is any benefit to being a member remains to be seen. You claim that BRICS is "apolitical and non-interference". This may well be the case currently and BRICS current lack of influence as a grouping on the world stage would appear to support this proposition. However, if BRICS is to develop into an organisation to break the grip of Western hegemony as you claim, it certainly won't be able to remain that way.

Oh, I don't doubt that the 21st century will turn out to be the 'Asian century' at some point, what I dispute is your contention that, "BRICS is the beginning of a new world order that promotes equality and fairness among all nations". China's behaviour in Africa and Asia suggests otherwise. Russia? Ukrainians think differently. India under Modi is a nationalist state. The other members are either much of the same or unimportant on the world stage or relative to China and India.

Rightio🤦

Actuality: I research issues, weigh up the evidence and then come to a conclusion, unlike some who, for example, think that the mere presence of the same noun in two philosophies shows commonality. Still no link to the other thread. Worried what it shows?

Actuality: Matter already debated and premise debunked in another thread. Post the link to your previous thread and allow others to see the evidence. Btw: One of the 'crib notes' which I posted was from the Encyclopedia Brittanica website.

Sometimes the use of internet crib notes is all it takes to debunk the facile arguments of those with extremely limited knowledge of a subject.

At least you're correct about one thing. Your previous overly simplistic argument that, 'National Socialism' and 'Socialism' are one and the same, was shot down in flames. Your argument amounted to little more than, 'The Nazis official title is, Nationalsozialistischer Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP, National Socialist German Workers’ Party), therefore they must be socialists. As was pointed out at the time, to highlight the absurdity of this line of argument, the fact that North Korea is officially named (in English), 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea', does not mean that it is a democracy. (You may have also stated that Mussolini initially described himself as a socialist as further supporting 'evidence' that fascism and socialism are 'one and the same'. Apologies if I am confusing you with someone else in this instance). Without wishing to reopen that whole sorry topic, here's a couple (more) links offering a more nuanced view on the matter: https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/ https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité". Really? I think that western countries may be concerned that the 'C' is more equal than the other letters and what the possible implications might be.