Recent posts

#81

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - April 28, 2026, 06:28:00 AM

Labour are still attached to and funded by the unions. The majority of party funding and resources is still from the big unions. Mick Lynch former leader of the RMT (who disaffiliated with Labour about 20 years ago) was saying he won't vote Green because he still believes in the need for a labour movement with an industrial wing and a political wing. He's very open to working with or coalitions with Greens or other socialist movements but thinks you need the labour base. Also slightly loved that he framed this as being because he's "more Martov than Lenin"

Ironically historically the unions tended to keep the left out in Labour. Even in 2015 - of the electoral college (MPs, unions and party members each getting a third of the vote for leader) was still in place Andy Burnham would have beat Corbyn with union backing That is changing particularly on the union front a lot of unions are starting to elect industrial rather than political general secretaries and there's more talk of the unions breaking the link with Labour and focusing more on industrial and workplace disputes v internal fights in the Labour Party. This happened in my union - the last contested election was basically between a pro and anti Corbyn candidate, but then won by an underdog who was absolutely on the left but ran as an industrial, workplace focused candidate.

Councils are FPTP (Scottish Parliament and Senedd more like German system) - but also multi-member. So you can get splits. I think my ward has 2-3 councillors.

Directly elected mayoralties, the Tories moved to FPTP but are traditionally AV (and should go back to that).

Also on how it happened I think BBoy was right and I was (mostly) wrong about Labour's incredibly low vote share in 2024. It was a punishment election were voters who are sophisticated in relation to electoral systems maximised the votes to kick out Tory MPs but were never sold on Labour and, I think, particularly Starmer.

#82

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by garbon - April 28, 2026, 06:11:14 AM

It is a Tory motion that the government was arguing against for a variety of reasons - that the Tory line keeps changing, that it's pointless and that it's party political etc. Some of which are true - but the nature of politics will be political.

Omg, I was just saying that this morning as like what, of course politicians will do something political. Maybe you should too?

#83

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Norgy - April 28, 2026, 05:42:50 AM

How the hell do you lose such a big lead?  Oh. Yeah. Starmer and Mandelson.

But I suppose, Labour in Britain is different than Norway's Labour party, which still heavily relies on the trade unions.

In my local council, Labour held power from 1923 until 2019. They were still the biggest party, by far, but since Norway uses proportional representation, an unlikely coalition managed to get the mayoral seat.

Is it "winner takes all" in local elections too in the UK?

#84

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - April 28, 2026, 05:40:03 AM

The Mandelson story continues to develop with former head of the FCDO giving evidence this morning followed by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's key aide, who recommended Mandelson as ambassador and was (reportedly) putting pressure on the FCDO to "just fucking approve him".

Later the Speaker will allow a vote on referring Starmer to the Privileges Committee to determine if he mislead the House. This was the Committee that Johnson was referred to. The test for the Speaker is that he should block "frivolous" motions but otherwise it's a very low bar. It is a Tory motion that the government was arguing against for a variety of reasons - that the Tory line keeps changing, that it's pointless and that it's party political etc. Some of which are true - but the nature of politics will be political. Starmer addressed the Parliamentary Labour Party last night on this. But the government will be imposing a three line whip to oppose the motion - to me that suggests the gentle persuasive approach has failed, but I could be reading that wrong. Number 10 are apparently confident there won't be a major revolt and they will be able to kill the motion - flipside is if you're having to impose a three-line whip to get there... Also to the party political point I think this is win-win for the Tories. Either Starmer gets referred (arguably the really attractive thing about this is actually that the Committee takes a few months to report so Labour get locked with very damaged goods waiting for it) or Labour impose a three line whip defending a historically unpopular PM for misleading parliament (which I think on a plain reading of the English language he did) over appointing a mate of Epstein over FCDO concerns.

The other strand is what comes next and there's been reporting that basically Labour MPs are coming to the view that they need to get Burnham into the race. They have noticed that it would be insane for the Labour Party in its current state to decide to turn up its nose at the most popular politician in the country. Story over the weekend of Labour MPs being particularly struck by polling but also focus groups with people saying things about Burnham like "he cares about people like me". That's gold and rare in politics - and contrasted by one MP with their experiencing canvassing in these local elections, when they were chased down the street by a woman

There are still procedural obstacles - Burnham is not an MP, he would need to be approved by the National Executive Committee which Starmer controls. My own view is that rules and procedures don't really matter when there's political will and I think if the will of the Labour Party is to get Burnham onto the ballot a way will be found. On that note one Liverpool MP has said he might step aside to allow Burnham back into the Commons.

But we are very much at the Downfall stage of things with the Times reporting that Starmer is determined to block Andy Burnham coming to Westminster "at any cost".

Again what is striking in it all for a man who I think cast himself as its antithesis (and I think genuinely sees himself in that way) is all the echoes with Boris Johnson. Misleading parliament, privileges committees, three line whips against the Commons' disciplinary proceedings, the "burn a village to save a village" attitude to the party/office. It'll be after the local elections but I think it'll end in a similar way with, in Johnson's phrase, the "herd moving" - as whether they've got the successor lined up or not, whether they can see a good alternative or not this is unsustainable. I could see a route to Starmer clinging on with the Labour Party like that Dr Evil henchman watching a slow moving steam roller approach (the Gordon Brown model) - but the three line whips, blocking Burnham "at any cost" all those signs of Starmer entering his Caligula phase of holding power will provoke action.

#85

Gaming HQ / Re: Victoria 3

Last post by Syt - April 28, 2026, 05:37:04 AM

DLC is live, but there's a few known issues to ba aware of, I guess:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/known-issues-update-1-13.1919129/

Known Issues 1.13

• All saves of a previous version of the game will not work and may crash due to the changes implemented in game.
• Due to updated shaders, the game may load a bit longer the first time loading the game.
• Users with specific hardware (mainly Intel i9 13900K) might encounter very frequent crashes. This is likely due to issues tied to the CPU itself and should at this point be solvable by updating your BIOS. The process to update your BIOS is specific to the motherboard you have, so make sure to consult the Motherboard manual, contact the manufacturer or vendor for assistance if you are not able to perform the update yourself.
• If Ironman Cloud Save is enabled, ensure you have enough free space by deleting old saves or use local saves for better stability.
• When unlocking special production methods (PMs) via certain principles (e.g., transportation III or food standardization), locked PMs may incorrectly display default PMs instead of the special ones.
• Power Bloc Statue constructions become NULL_OBJ after leaving a power bloc.
• Some Linux players are experiencing crashes, which are linked to the Steam Linux Runtime, not the game itself. Workarounds you can try:
• Launch the game directly via the command line (bypassing Steam).
• Launch the game in Steam using Proton (this runs the Windows version instead).
• Pops do not get hired to a building with high dividend income due to low wage.
• Armies embarked to a front are not mobilized during a war.
• Springtime of the People becomes active too early.
• AI creates dozens of formations with one or two units.
• AI doesn't disband all obsolete ships late game.
• Army formations can get stuck out at sea.
• Military Ship maintenance is not hooked into shipyards.
• Ottomans have double the maneuvers than anyone else.
• Agitator/Politician General is cleared of roles when exiled but is not cleared from being a general of a formation.
• Marines are ignoring the marine carry capacity limit.
• No tooltip for armies cut off from supplies that the supply route is unavailable.
• Unlocalized mine in Kyoto (HUB_NAME_STATE_KYOTO_mine)
• Renegotiating "make this work" adds negative acceptance articles.
• Costs of war not calculating military goods.
• AI unable to manage crew deficit and build naval administration buildings.
• Naval Administrations sometimes cannot be built in a save.
• The Iwakura Mission can unseat the Emperor.
• Emperor role does not have its own category in outliner.
• Cannot colonize states that only have impassable provinces.
• Number of penalty issues for breaking Ship Transfer treaty.
• Ship Transfer treaty appears when drafting a treaty with a landlocked country.
• Carlist Spain cannot get supplies in two states.
• Text not updated for achievement Everyone Disliked That.
• Improve Supply network tutorial mission isn't updated.
• Supply Ships have no models in the Naval Battle window.
• DLC icons are misplaced on the event windows.
• Generals creating coups can be removed to dismantle the coup.
• Armies may be able to travel through neutral countries to reach inaccessible fronts.
• Flagship button greyed out without explanation.
• During a Civil war, a fleet can belong to one side and shipyards to the other, resulting in ship loss due to lack of maintenance.
• Ships can end up with the name MINE.
• Interest Group negotiations can trigger Trade Center demand for countries with Sakoku or Canton System trade policy law.
• Re-sync after an Out of Sync during multiplayer can cause an Out of Sync relating to Countries Ai Ships ShipConstructionManager.
• Ships can be decommissioned from a fleet carrying troops.
• Some Supply Ships are lost when splitting them on revolution breakout.
• Retired commanders don't become politicians.
• A conscript-only army formation cannot be stationed in another state that has land connection to their current location.
• AI doesn't assign generals to marine formations that are navally invading causing naval invasions to stall.
• Magnates with 0 holdings will display a visible placeholder icon in their holdings list.
• Army upkeep tooltip does not add up.
• Blockade graphics are not visible on the 3D map.
• 'Tropical Storm' harvest conditions can appear in the non tropical areas.
• Locality does not always add to 100%.
• Unlocalized USA ship names.
• Ship Construction cannot be paused if only Supply Ships are being built.
• Misleading tooltip when attempting to establish a Colony in a region with insufficient Interest.
• Toast for Heir becoming Ruler title not showing correct title.
• The Logistics Center for "Army" is called "Land".
• When the defensive side leader gives up to the unification play ultimatum, unifier gets the capital state of said country.
• Supply ships count as military units once they are engaged in battles.
• Japanese officer pops are wearing peasant clothing without The Great Wave Expansion.
• AI creates multiple 1 ship fleets and does not merge them into one fleet.

#86

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by The Brain - April 28, 2026, 02:44:05 AM

I mean, he can have a bunker if he promises to do what the other bunker guy did.

Bro ain't giving up well-done steaks.

#87

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by Solmyr - April 28, 2026, 02:39:30 AM

I mean, he can have a bunker if he promises to do what the other bunker guy did.

#88

Off the Record / Re: Hungarian Politics

Last post by Norgy - April 28, 2026, 02:21:38 AM

Yeah, I remember Hungary being seen as something of a beacon along with Czechoslovakia. Poland's regime, particularly under Jaruszelski, had been very repressive. All three have lost some faith in the "Western dream", though, in different ways.

So has the former GDR, I'd say. Pure AfD country.

#89

Off the Record / Re: Hungarian Politics

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - April 28, 2026, 02:07:53 AM

Back in 1991, as the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe regained it's freedom, Hungary had one of the better Eastern European economies. The press called it "goulash communism" and it permitted more free enterprise than in other EE economies. As a consequence the Hungarian GDP per capita was double that of Poland's. Poland started catching up in the 1990s and 2000s but that process really accelerated in the past 10 to 15 years and now Poland is now about 20% ahead.

Corruption is one of the worse things that can happen to an economy it is very insidious. If Hungary had had better governance then, from her 1991 starting point, there is no reason for the country not to be up there with Slovenia and Czechia at essentially a western European level.

#90

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by Norgy - April 28, 2026, 01:35:20 AM

So Trump would've run from the Hilton to his ballroom bunker?

I mean, seriously, don't let this man have a bunker.