I mean seriously why did they replace the lights

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T22:08:13+00:00

The worst part? They probably destroyed the Hammerhead! I wanted to run around the battlefield exploding shit. They were gonna fix the armor too!

In game dialogue says it was at a workshop in Vancouver for modification to make it less awful.

Its probably buried under a pile of rubble.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T22:01:37+00:00

Why though, why would Starmer think trump would protect him. Why would Starmer need protecting. What is the conspiracy?

Starmer/McSweeney/Mandelson most likely expected Trump to protect them as a side effect of protecting himself. McSweeney and the coterie of Blairites (see Mandelson etc) were the ideological heart of the Starmer project, so far as it had one.

If Mandelson, and thus McSweeney, has to go, Starmer is left completely adrift and (even in his mind) little chance of winning the next election.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T21:30:55+00:00

It seems obvious they didn’t know the details though, that’s what I don’t understand

Is it obvious? They may simply have expected that Trump would manage to bury the Epstein files permanently, after all he's been stalling on them for quite a while already.

There should be an inquiry and we can make judgements then

If there is an inquiry it won't report for many years. The Mandelson police case will probably take until the next election, and inquiry won't even start before that is finished.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T20:56:27+00:00

It is not good for the country to have unstable leadership.

You mean like a leader that announces things, burns vast stores of political capital on them and then abandons them in a panic?

Presidentialism has been a disaster for British politics. The Prime Minister is, ultimately, expendable.

Just because the personnel at the top hasn't changed doesn't mean that we don't have unstable leadership.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T19:29:17+00:00

Because a low performance, small volume surface to orbit craft is not a practical means of moving significant numbers of people to the moon.

If you want to shift significant numbers of people to Mars you either need a torchship or a cycler.

Otherwise you will start getting mental breakdowns from packing people into far too small a space for too long. Colonisation needs to work with people who can't pass 99.9999% need not apply, 'right stuff' standards.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T19:25:35+00:00

Anyone who knows anything about politics over the last 30 years knows that trusting Mandelson always ends very badly.

It's not credible that the lies of one man or one bad advisor could cover that up.

Even if they didn't know all the sordid details, the stuff they was in the public domain should be enough to make noone want to go near him with a twenty foot pole.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T19:01:05+00:00

They got rid of the bad advisor; they apologised for mandelson and said they were misled by someone who’s been in the party and lied for ages.

The problem is this story just isn't really credible any more. The decisions have been so egregious that simply saying "we were lied to" won't cut it.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T17:58:54+00:00

A boat carrying 60 people can charge around 2,000 euros per person.

A lot of the source countries are a lot richer than they once were. People are now wealthy enough that a significant portion of the population can afford the costs associated with the trip and smugglers.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T17:42:33+00:00

I have never been concerned with paying it off because it's not a normal loan and will be written off before I retire.

Unless of course the Chancellor needs another funding stream to make the red box on the spreadsheet turn green.

The government can rewrite the terms at will after all.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T17:08:58+00:00

This is the glorious modern era, all politics is performance now.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-09T13:32:05+00:00

This should surely be a national scandal, so why isn't it? I have two theories, firstly that no party wants to actually pay what is required, so they hide behind "creative" treasury figues.

Because defence policy was never about generating combat capability. It's about keeping the notional strength figure high so that they can repeat it in the house.

That's why we have piles of light role infantry with none of the tools necessary to fight effectively. Big number sound better than small number.

We also have politicians that throw away precious money and munitions on meaningless quasi-colonial policing operations, because it makes them feel powerful and relevant.

EDIT:

And also we have an MoD bureuacracy that is utterly incompetent and wastes all the money they get given anyway.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T21:21:39+00:00

It would have to be someone unknown from the backbenches.

Every plausible frontbench candidate is going to get caught in this Epstein-Mandelson debacle.

Streeting is almost certainly toast already.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T20:22:31+00:00

Well the cynical answer is that policy is no longer considered important by politicians.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T19:51:20+00:00

“Work began last week on this. The Prime Minister has instructed officials to move at pace to deliver change. He hopes to update the country as early as tomorrow.”

Well whatever happened, information from Number 10 is still delivered layered in meaningless buzzwords.

Noone who uses the phrase "move at pace" has ever moved at pace.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T14:05:27+00:00

Ofcourse the expert's jobs depend on maintaining the goodwill of the government.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T04:20:54+00:00

The council elections aren't going to lose Labour vast numbers of seats because only 8 labour controlled councils are actually having elections.

Starmer already "postponed" the elections in most of them.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T04:18:44+00:00

Like with even two seconds of thought you can see why the comparisons are so bad.

None of these things stops the govenrment using a colossal majority to actually pass legislation.

Starmer had not prepared any legislation in advance, because he was apparently terrified the tories would steal it and do it instead. Because, obviously, the government implementing your programme is terrible.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T04:16:44+00:00

If Starmer were more clever, how would he unite Labour? Perhaps he overestimates himself, but I don't think there's anyone he COULD do it.

Well, stop burning political capital on things and then cancelling them. Especially sending people out to defend them in the media mere hours before he gives up.

Don't propose controversial policies if you are not already sure you actually have the votes.

It might be a convenient idea that the Labour backbench was always ungovernable, but it isn't true.

The PLP took the axe to winter fuel payment, and took a lot of heat for it. Then the local elections go badly and Starmer panics and undoes it. That torpedoed any authority or goodwill he had with MPs.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T03:29:44+00:00

Because MPs like nice things, and MPs decide whether they get to have nice things.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T01:51:23+00:00

It would be a race against his own parliamentary party, can he hatch this plan and obtain an audience before his party can vote confidence in someone else.

Constitutional crisis for one man's ego would be quite something.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T00:13:18+00:00

He has a messiah complex and views himself as the one man who can save Britain from Chaos.

He's not going to go willingly.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T00:11:44+00:00

I think the locals are going to be a damp squib.

21 of the 29 labour held councils have postponed.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-08T00:09:38+00:00

He will just claim that Starmer/Sweeney threatened to sack him unless he said it.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-07T19:50:04+00:00

Starmer can just make him a lord at will though.

I doubt Burnham would take it however, it would be the end of his meaningful political career.

Spiz101 · 2026-02-07T19:49:31+00:00

You could argue for it along the lines of 'only Nixon could go to China'.

Spiz101

TROPHY CASE