Rayvin

They wouldn't win a GE though so I don't see how they can try for that with any expectation of holding power.

Yep - I'll listen to well reasoned arguments for anything, even Brexit, with an open mind as long as its tied to clear and accurate factual information with a logical framework. This has never been presented by anyone though. Not saying I have the monopoly on "correct opinion" but I am saying that the other side aren't putting forward opinions on equal factual footing.

Those people should not be allowed to vote, frankly. They're voting based on nothing. This isn't a game, we have a duty to educate and inform ourselves before we undertake decisions that commit the country to years of a particular outcome - a responsibility that many don't take seriously. We all have access to the same information. There are not multiple truths, just a single truth. Brexit will and is making us poorer. I don't blame people for voting for it so much as I blame them for refusing to see reality now. We are pandering to their reality instead of acknowledging truth. And as I said, that's where the division comes from - it's not on us to fix that, it's on them.

I sympathise with the thrust of this because it matches my thinking on other issues but for Brexit I can't make it fly. We did know Cameron would bail and run if he lost, it was a matter if some debate prior to the event and there was no way he would want to preside over the greatest calamity and omnishables of recent British history. As Renton said, there were no good Brexits. There was one that was Brexit in name only, which would have been more or less the same other than being humiliating and removing us from all decision making within the EU. It would have been strategically pointless but less damaging. People got the only Brexit that really made any sense from the perspective of the vote, but one they hadn't been honestly told about the damage of. As for the division - maybe you're right from a pragmatic standpoint - Starmer certainly seems to think so. But by the same token as you lamented the fact that the truth is not told in politics, I lament that truth cannot be accepted by the emotionally fragile. I don't see why I should bend for the egos of those who are demonstrably wrong about the virtues of this calamity, but who refuse to see this due to their own insecurity. If that causes division, I would contend that division comes from their denial of the truth, not my refusal to indulge them. Pet peeve, sorry.

If he's got me mixed up with CT that's frankly unforgivable.

Don't think I've been a downer on the team particularly? Tend to make the odd drunken postgame comment here and there about how we'll crush everyone too tbh I am absolutely thrilled with the team and the project and have no criticisms with any of it really

I reckon we can take this. 2-0, 2-1 but we can win. Its at OT so they -have- to attack us, and that will leave them vulnerable to our intensity and press. Our issues are with breaking down teams that expect to lose, not teams that have to go at us. We can do this.

I mentioned it only because we have previously been in argument with each other on several occasions Let's be fair though, this whole place is a huge echo chamber of agreement for the most part. It has to get quite specific for anyone to disagree. We are all:

I just keep finding more and more that I agree with you on.

He's an absolute lunatic. I know that word gets thrown around a lot when talking about the Tories, but he really is one.

Labour did that last time (gain centreground and stick) and still fell away from power in the end. They need to do everything you've outlined here plus PR. I know you're already on board with that but I keep coming back to how important that is to make sure this never happens again. The Tories can never be allowed unchecked power again.

Absolute insanity. And she backed that welfare bill that ultimately caused so much outrage within Labour and (in my case and doubtless many others) pushed us into the arms of Corbyn.

Wait, Miliband or Corbyn? I assume the vote in Parliament was the latter but was the commitment Miliband?? What on earth Labour were doing for the Cameron years in general, I'll never understand.

It would have been far more democratic than most of the nonsense we have had since. And he could have walked away and let Cameron try to get by with a minority government - would have been utterly useless but then.. less damaging. He enabled the worst legitimate Prime Minister in living memory, whose legacy has been one of total chaos. I say legitimate because the Brexit shower who followed him were not, to my mind, legitimate - they were a coup d'etat.

Clegg turned down coalition with Brown, not Miliband, as I recall it.

Gotcha, ok. Let's not repeat old ground on Corbyn, we always come to approximate agreement anyway. I have my own theory that since Brexit and Corbyn were both anti-establishment moves from either side of the spectrum (the centreground's total and absolute collapse through its own inadequacy and starvation of ideas delivered both), that had a GE happened before Brexit, Corbyn could have ended up in number 10 - i.e. capitalised on what was a significant desire within the electorate to give politicians the finger after years of austerity. Have to admit I'm not sure looking back now how well that would have worked out for everyone but... idk, it's hard to imagine we'd be in a worse state than we are now

On that basis though, is this not also on Clegg? It's not all about Labour, there's been a catastrophic failure of vision on the part of UK politicians for many years now. We very much never recovered from losing Blair, frankly.

Why wouldn't we have had a referendum if Corbyn hadn't won? He came to leadership after Cameron won with the referendum as a manifesto pledge..

She was a bigot though, tbf to Brown.

On the basis that only 65-70% of labour voters under Corbyn voted remain? The heavily pro remain LDs only a couple of percentage points higher. You hate Corbyn, I get it, but I'm afraid he's not responsible for everything you want him to be.

I would argue that this is always the case with the Tories. They try to make it sound like its just common sense necessity but in reality it's ideology.

I think that's fair. Especially when you factor in that they're stealing Ukrainian children for re-education, committing war crimes, and many other things that seem to approximate with the rough definition of genocide.

I mean I know, it's the same reason they can't tell the truth about Brexit and so on. But as per my post a little while ago on truth, it never ceases to annoy me that no one can handle dealing with reality and we're forced into this pantomime. I also suspect that if Starmer comes out and says he detests the Tories, he'll be accused of inciting violence against political opposition. So yes, I agree that he can't, but it annoys the fuck out of me was my point really

They've also forced Starmer to say that he doesn't detest them. Just has a difference of ideas. All right thinking parts of the country detest them man, idk why we need to hide it.

I'm with you, I think politicians should be truthful and state directly what they believe in and think, alongside presenting factual information clearly. In fact, I'd go so far as to make lying in office a criminal offence given the amount of lives it affects.