Even if this manages to pass, it’d only apply to those currently in or candidating for the Senedd. This wouldn’t affect the UK government (and thus Farage) at all, even if he were attempting to get re-elected.

to have this relationship between A and B you have to make a third database

Probably just a mistake here, but you make a third table, not a new database.

Apart from that (and the fact that one to many and many to one is the same thing), yeah, looks correct.

If he has said otherwise I’m open to being corrected, of course.

I went back to double-check what I’d heard from the horse’s mouth. I misunderstood the first time (they had just finished talking about Rwanda). This was in relation to third country processing of migrants.

Labour are promising the biggest expansion of workers’ rights in decades and the most ambitious environmental policies

You made me interested in what exactly they’re promising, so I tracked down their manifesto.

The fines on river and ocean polluting sounds long overdue. Hardly revolutionary (every EU country does this) but it’s definitely needed from some headlines I’ve read. There’s also some stuff there about taxing oil and gas companies. That’s honestly a good thing! Wouldn’t exactly call that incredibly ambitious though.

EDIT: My eyes completely glossed over the “Clean Power by 2030” investment plan somehow. That sounds pretty great, and definitely counts as ambitious. My napkin math says 95 GW of electricity could power about 18 million homes, which according to this is more than half of UK homes. Pretty ambitious.

I couldn’t find anything in there about workers’ rights though. Maybe I missed something?

EDIT2: Why wasn’t Starmer mentioning any of this in the debate, I wonder?

Fair enough. So if I understand you correctly, this isn’t really about Labor having any positive policies, but more that they won’t actively make things much worse.

Btw, on the Rwanda plan, didn’t Starmer say in the debate he’d do that if it complied with international law? EDIT: I’m wrong, he said he’d do third country processing of migrants if it complied with international law.

Not British, but interested in your opinions: isn’t Labor almost as bad as the Tories these days? I watched the Sunak - Starmer debate, and they seemed to just be angrily agreeing with eachother on every point that mattered. There was a lot of “Yes, we should do that, but your track record shows you’re not serious about [policy]!”

As long as the next line also has 5 spaces, that’s fine. Python only complains about inconsistency, not the exact number of spaces/tabs.

I kept reading waiting for the punch line, didn’t see one. I think I’ve fallen victim to Poe’s law. I legitimately can’t tell if this is satire.

Completely agree. I’m as against the Israeli terror campaign in Gaza as the next guy, but come on. Iran-backed terrorists attacking random cargo ships is hardly a basis for progress.

Legislation, paperwork, border checks and tariffs make it more expensive and difficult to transport stuff to the UK. Companies importing from the EU pass on the higher cost of transport to customers. Customers now pay more for the same thing because it costs more to import.

EDIT: Should also mention that this applies to stuff made in the UK too. I doubt there’s many industries that don’t use anything from the EU for raw materials. If you make a widget with German steel, you still pay for that import even if your widget is made in the UK. That cost gets passed on to customers too.

Just think of all the trade agreements Britain has made now that it can independently negotiate! Why, the FTA with Australia alone increased GDP by checks notes 0.08%. Wait, that can’t be right. Surely the British public weren’t misled about any of this?

It’s not lying. It has no concept of context or truth. Auto complete on steroids.

It’s also breaking the joint calendar between the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches. So a symbolic breaking of unity.

Yes and yes, imho. The only humane way forward is an end to the killing on both sides and a diplomatic solution. Whether that’s a one, two or five state solution doesn’t matter to me, that’s up to the people negotiating.

That diplomacy and negotiation feels a very long way away at the moment though.

I’d like to offer some corrections and clarifications.

First, you are absolutely 100% right that Zionism is much bigger than just “Let’s go genocide”. The usage of Zionism today seems very muddied and strange, especially by non-Jews.

Zionism is actually even more expansive than you describe here though: it’s simply the belief in the right of the Jewish people to a state. A lot of 19th century Zionists actually wanted to buy land in Africa to start a Jewish state to sidestep the thorny mess that is politics in the holy land. They lost out to Herzl in the first Zionist Congress though.

Secondarily, I completely agree that anti-zionism based on Jewish dispersal is exactly identical to Palestinian genocide, just reversed. There are one-state proposals that could work if the crazy religious nutjobs weren’t in power in Israel and Gaza, working hand in glove to maintain power by mutual terror.

I think when people that aren’t fully aware of the ideologies are hating on Zionism, what they’re actually against is Kahanism, they just don’t know the terminology.

Honest question: as the Nazis were an explicitly Christian group, does hating the Nazi ideology make you anti-Christian?

Hi, I’m a Jew. I also absolutely hate Netanyahu and the entire disgusting coalition of Likud, Tkuma, Otzma Yehudit and all their Kahanist allies.

It’s not anti-semitic to hate the government of the state of Israel, as much as they might like to pretend that the terms are synonymous.

The problem is making a statement like that is a very clear demonstration of Poe’s Law.

Because some people actually honestly believe that the Nazis were socialists, without any other indication nobody can tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.

I reflexively downvoted you before reading the second paragraph and amending my vote.

Remote Follow sounds like a really amazing QoL improvement

Your story is missing quite a bit.

First of all, Jew refers to both a religion and ethnicity, but in this context (Israel) is almost exclusively ethnic.

Palestinians are Jews (the religion), Christians and Muslims, not exclusively Muslim. The PLO is an explicitly religiously tolerant group whose logo was a menorah, cross and crescent moon.

Hamas, the Muslim Palestinian extremist group, was primarily funded and supported by Israel to break PLO dominance of Palestinian politics, because fighting a religiously tolerant nationalist movement that had recently commited to non-violence was bad optics internationally.

The Palestinians were forced at gunpoint to abandon their homes and move to Gaza and the West Bank during the Nakba in 1948.