- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#1
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Tamas - Today at 07:56:13 AMNot to be mean but could we please prevent ourselves, before it gets too late, to discuss any assumptions that Farage is thinking about anything else but Farage. He is Johnson pushed to the extremes of lazy grifterness. He is bound to be a disaster because governing is more complex than attention-biting snippets of bigotry, he will have no persistence to deal with complex policy and he is surrounded by far-right businessmen and bellends.
#2
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 07:47:16 AMQuote from: Tamas on Today at 02:41:30 AMStreeting? Wes Streeting? Seriously?This is possibly my most conspiracy theory view on al this, that a lot of the people around Starmer and in Number 10 are from the New Labour right of the party. Starmer fundamentally doesn't really have strong views which is the cause of a lot of problems, but I think he basically has them around because they've got an electoral (if not a political) strategy and he asks people like Tony Blair "who's good?" and appoints them.
The preferred candidate of the New Labour wing of the party is absolutely Wes Streeting. But it would always be difficult because the party isn't in that place as they were in the 90s. In part I think because the Tories collapsed more quickly than anticipated. I think (as in so many ways) their expectation was to run the late 90s playbook - but times have changed. So I think the plan was for Starmer to be the Kinnock. He'd be the candidate of the soft left who'd de-Corbynise and get close but never win an election, then with the members exhausted and desperate for power they'd turn to Streeting.
While I don't think they've deliberately fucked up Starmer's term in office or anything like that. I do think the way Number 10 have cleared out/attacked all other alternatives and a lot of the stuff they've done seem to me exactly what you'd be doing if you were actually prepping the ground for another leader more closer to your politics.
QuoteI was thinking to myself the other day, "why are people getting so cross about a continuity government?"; but then I reflected "that is precisely why they are so cross". I think we have a huge shakeup coming, I would like Labour to start that shakeup as the alternative is a shakeup starting in 2029 led by Farage (and I don't think he is up to the job).Yes. I also think there are structural and real problems in the system that makes it very, very difficult for anyone to get a grip. And I don't see much evidence that Farage is thinking about that yet (although him reading Mr Balfour's Poodle is maybe an interesting sign that he is thinking about it).
Is there anyone who can implement a shakeup and get us out of this long, slow decline? Looking at the array of 3rd-raters I doubt it.
It would be helpful if they started thinking about the country more, and a bit less about their parties.
There are some very dark forces on the far-right at the minute. And I worry about what happens if the Tories can't get a grip, so the country votes Labour who also fail and then they turn to Reform - and what comes next if, as I suspect, they also can't get on top of things.
I'd add that the other risk for the government of constantly using the bond markets as a threat against any alternative candidates is that at some point the bond markets price it in. So I see that this morning there's record demand for gilts despite the possibility that Starmer might be forced out.
I did see Barry Gardiner being very critical on Newsnight and I feel like you've got into a lot of trouble when he is (1) right and (2) speaking for England
But I agree I think our politics also needs to start engaging with the country and not America basically. I think a lot of the problems for the left's analysis of where we are and what to do is a blief that we are as rich and as unequal as America - and we're neither (I think this also applies a bit to the right). Similarly that we've just had 15 years of radical right-wing Republican style government instead of the Tories. Their legacy wasn't deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, but the highest tax and spending levels in decades (with the top 10% being the biggest "losers" in terms of tax), record increases of pensions and minimum wages, significant increase in regulatory burdens (BOGOF, advertising, Online Safety, drink re-fills etc).
It's unpopular but we neeed to start from the point that we're a not particularly rich country (particularly per capita), not getting particularly richer. That we've salami sliced the state for the last 15 years - and even before that we loved outsourcing and public-private partnerships so everywhere we're paying more for less. We've got a lot of regulations but unevenly enforced - so the cost of trying to do things correctly is huge, while the penalty for breaking the rules is relatively low. And that we've massively narrowed our tax base. It's a different analysis.
QuoteStreeting a real monkey's paw Starmer replacement for sure.I think, reluctantly, that he would be better.
I actually think the real monkey's paw is Ed Miliband because I think he'd be an absolute disaster on so many fronts...but the party members love him and would immediately elect him given the chance
QuoteWhatever happened to Burnham's move for the leadership?He's not an MP and the Manchester MP with health issues who everyone expected to step down and make way for Burnham has decided not to (I'm sure there was no pressure whatsoever from the party leadership on that). That was and still is the biggest obstacle for Burnham.
But also Number 10 absolutely nuked him during conference. I think it was very ill-advised but you had loyalist MPs sharing memes of Burnham with Truss' hair and outfit etc, attacked him on the bond markets, attacked him over grooming gangs. I think the party would still quite like him (I actually think Burnham's a bit like Boris Johnson in that how he is perceived is very different from his actual politics in a useful way).
On Burnham I would just add that Lucy Powell, his ally who won the deputy leadership, has already come out against any tax rises that break their manifesto pledge (so no income tax, VAT or NI) which the government will break. Which is just an interesting piece of positioning.
#3
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:44:11 AMStreeting a real monkey's paw Starmer replacement for sure.
Whatever happened to Burnham's move for the leadership?
Heard an interesting interview from Polanski the other day- he said the quiet bit out loud, of course he doesn't expect to be PM, but he hopes to scare Labour into moving left and actually doing something to benefit normal people.
I've been saying this for years. Labour trying to out-reform reform just isn't going to work. Losing voters to the left is a far bigger issue- not to mention that policies in this direction are actually the right thing that needs to be done.
Whatever happened to Burnham's move for the leadership?
Heard an interesting interview from Polanski the other day- he said the quiet bit out loud, of course he doesn't expect to be PM, but he hopes to scare Labour into moving left and actually doing something to benefit normal people.
I've been saying this for years. Labour trying to out-reform reform just isn't going to work. Losing voters to the left is a far bigger issue- not to mention that policies in this direction are actually the right thing that needs to be done.
#4
Off the Record / Re: The Population Decline Thr...
Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:01:52 AMReading the Unmitigated Pedantry bit about about medieval people.
He speaks a lot about how high birth rates were a necessity due to the high mortality rate. That people not getting married and having kids just wasn't much of a thing because it wasn't for you that you got married and had kids, but for the community. It needed the people to survive.
This got me thinking then. Could this be a factor in birth rates today.
Having kids just...doesn't seem very good. So many people choose not to do it. It's entirely their individual choice. The social expectation from your parents has dwindled away and before that the expectation of the broader community where you spent your whole life also died.
A counter-point though. Those countries leading the way on plummeting birth-rates are the least individualistic countries on the planet. If its people no longer giving a shit about societal expectations that is to blame then explain Japan?
Sure...it could well be Japan had a hard shift to controlling your birth rates and efforts to push it back the other way haven't been enough.
Or maybe that this cultural shift is very sticky. Its hard to undo once it has happened....
I do think there's something in the community point. I've long said this is a key factor- live in a car centric dystopia where you have to drive to go to work and the shop then where the hell are you ever going to meet someone to hook up with?
Though the community pressure point, as well as the more recent parental pressure point, is something to think about.
Maybe the issue is that this is all coming from the government, in a very "government says don't eat the mercury? I better eat the mercury" age. There's not such a low level ground pressure as there would once be.
The Japanese government is panicking about its birth rates but your average little old lady in modern Japan? meh. She'd like to see more kids about. But she gets why young people aren't doing it. Its their choice.
He speaks a lot about how high birth rates were a necessity due to the high mortality rate. That people not getting married and having kids just wasn't much of a thing because it wasn't for you that you got married and had kids, but for the community. It needed the people to survive.
This got me thinking then. Could this be a factor in birth rates today.
Having kids just...doesn't seem very good. So many people choose not to do it. It's entirely their individual choice. The social expectation from your parents has dwindled away and before that the expectation of the broader community where you spent your whole life also died.
A counter-point though. Those countries leading the way on plummeting birth-rates are the least individualistic countries on the planet. If its people no longer giving a shit about societal expectations that is to blame then explain Japan?
Sure...it could well be Japan had a hard shift to controlling your birth rates and efforts to push it back the other way haven't been enough.
Or maybe that this cultural shift is very sticky. Its hard to undo once it has happened....
I do think there's something in the community point. I've long said this is a key factor- live in a car centric dystopia where you have to drive to go to work and the shop then where the hell are you ever going to meet someone to hook up with?
Though the community pressure point, as well as the more recent parental pressure point, is something to think about.
Maybe the issue is that this is all coming from the government, in a very "government says don't eat the mercury? I better eat the mercury" age. There's not such a low level ground pressure as there would once be.
The Japanese government is panicking about its birth rates but your average little old lady in modern Japan? meh. She'd like to see more kids about. But she gets why young people aren't doing it. Its their choice.
#5
Gaming HQ / Re: Dwarf Fortress
Last post by Sophie Scholl - Today at 03:05:39 AM You cannot view this attachment.
#6
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 02:50:33 AMI was thinking to myself the other day, "why are people getting so cross about a continuity government?"; but then I reflected "that is precisely why they are so cross". I think we have a huge shakeup coming, I would like Labour to start that shakeup as the alternative is a shakeup starting in 2029 led by Farage (and I don't think he is up to the job).
Is there anyone who can implement a shakeup and get us out of this long, slow decline? Looking at the array of 3rd-raters I doubt it.
It would be helpful if they started thinking about the country more, and a bit less about their parties.
Is there anyone who can implement a shakeup and get us out of this long, slow decline? Looking at the array of 3rd-raters I doubt it.
It would be helpful if they started thinking about the country more, and a bit less about their parties.
#7
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Tamas - Today at 02:41:30 AMStreeting? Wes Streeting? Seriously?
#8
Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...
Last post by Syt - Today at 01:35:46 AMBiggest conundrum for me to wrap my head around at the moment is diplomacy. Glancing at the map it appears to be covered with teeny tiny entities, begging to be conquered.
But then you look at it and they're vassals or fiefdoms of someone who has a personal union with someone and is also allied with someone else who has vassals etc. and it quickly becomes a crazy game of Jenga where you have to figure out which block you (i.e. your country and army) you can safely remove. That list is longer if you're, say, France, less so if you're Holstein-Rendsburg or Meissen or other midsized country.
It's also confusing how some interactions work in personal unions or regencies. The countries are separate entities, so when I was playing Brandenburg and the ruler of Lower Bavaria died, it created a personal union, but while I initially had leadership, Lower Bavaria took it over within months (since they are much stronger in 1337 start).
Which feels weird; it's a bit hard for my brain to internalize that I'm running the country, and its ruler is one factor of many in that - and just because they are also ruling another country, it doesn't mean I can do whatever towards them. I am not playing as the ruling dynasty.
Similar with Holstein-Rendsburg. Your count starts is also the regent of Denmark at game start. But at least at first glance I couldn't see many direct benefits (it was my first game, so didn't look into diplo bonuses etc. that it might give).
But then you look at it and they're vassals or fiefdoms of someone who has a personal union with someone and is also allied with someone else who has vassals etc. and it quickly becomes a crazy game of Jenga where you have to figure out which block you (i.e. your country and army) you can safely remove. That list is longer if you're, say, France, less so if you're Holstein-Rendsburg or Meissen or other midsized country.
It's also confusing how some interactions work in personal unions or regencies. The countries are separate entities, so when I was playing Brandenburg and the ruler of Lower Bavaria died, it created a personal union, but while I initially had leadership, Lower Bavaria took it over within months (since they are much stronger in 1337 start).
Which feels weird; it's a bit hard for my brain to internalize that I'm running the country, and its ruler is one factor of many in that - and just because they are also ruling another country, it doesn't mean I can do whatever towards them. I am not playing as the ruling dynasty.
Similar with Holstein-Rendsburg. Your count starts is also the regent of Denmark at game start. But at least at first glance I couldn't see many direct benefits (it was my first game, so didn't look into diplo bonuses etc. that it might give).
#9
Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...
Last post by crazy canuck - November 11, 2025, 09:41:31 PMYes, there is a region map mode you can toggle. It's worth taking a look at that, and the tactical map mode before starting a war.
#10
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Razgovory - November 11, 2025, 09:28:42 PMReally weird to go to Sudan to explain to kids in a refugee camp about how hard people in Gaza have it. https://www.tiktok.com/@soha_x/video/7566743964896873750