Rayvin

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.

It scans for me because it presents a viable reason as to why no one is openly panicking in the media.

Why isn't this headline news then? Is it because it's happened too slowly for the media to notice?

What does that mean in terms of everyday life? That the cost of debt right?

Fair question, not sure. I assume many will understand the nuclear threat (which they would almost certainly take the brunt of) and maybe be glad we stayed back, assuming they win. Those who lost people will be angrier with us I suppose. They'll have earned the right to respond however they wish, I think.

That bit of paper is a technicality is my point. I don't believe (but could be wrong) that the treaty specifically forbids NATO to come to the aid of any country unless it is attacked first. If it does have that stipulation then Iraq was all the more egregious. But that said, even if NATO itself would have been incapable of acting, the fact remains that the individual nations of Europe and North America could have chosen to do so anyway, and instead hid behind this technicality. Maybe they were right to do so, but if Putin drops a nuke anyway then they were categorically wrong IMO. I feel we should have done more. We are Putin's enemy, not Ukraine.

I think I said my response to that first bit at the time - that in my eyes that piece of paper which dictated which countries we would respond over and which we wouldn't was nothing more than an excuse in the face of what is really a direct attack on Western liberalism and our values. This isn't just Ukraine's war although they're the only ones paying for it in blood. Putin is the enemy of the entire West and has been for fucking years. He's funded all the chaos we've had to live through, he's funded right wing lunatics the world over, he fundamentally believes in a fascist, authoritarian style of government - and has whittled away at our institutions and structures in order to weaken us in the face of his imperialism. The war was already raging, he just thought he'd done enough to take us out of the game. While Ukraine's bravery and defiance of him in this will not have been expected, neither will the collective respond of the West that he had thought to be wounded and broken. So yes, I do believe that we should be in there fighting him back in defence of any country that shares our values and asks for help. Bits of paper be damned. If Putin falls here we have won a much bigger war than just the battle for Ukraine's standing as a sovereign nation - it will be a great triumph of Western liberalism, proof that interdependency and internationalism work. Ukraine is paying a great price for this, fighting alone.