Rayvin

WTF is she doing, seriously.

Doesn't include NHS workers apparently But yes, me too.

I think he should have stood up to him as well - just has to do it once in the campaign and it'll stick for enough people.

I think it's the £1.2tn thing from the Tories personally, at least in terms of potential impact.

On the other hand, Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser still:

I really hope he's out meeting "the people" more this election.

There's quite a few of them saying that the team that just lost 3-0 to a side fighting relegation in L2 was "their best 11". How long until Carlisle are legitimately our regional rivals based on club stature?

Seems to be costing them in the polls though. Down to 15%. This could just get silly from here tbh. If it turns out that the Liberals cost us the seats required to stop the Tories it's yet another betrayal of their voter base. Unless they really do think they're going to become the soft Tory party. Hopefully the swing to Labour represents LDs who recognise that they have to vote tactically. That message, at least, seems to be getting through.

That's an insane position. Although tbh I have noticed that a decent number of remain voters have utterly no idea what Labour's position is. I find that surprising and clearly it's a LP failure to convey the message clearly, but these are supposed to be well educated people who take an active interest... the ones abandoning Labour for the LDs at least.

Dear god Just been over to RTG - apparently they need to sack the manager, the board and clear out the rotten core. It's like a re-run of their halcyon days in the PL.

It is hard to imagine what they think they're going to gain there.

Indeed.

I mean, it's my assumption that if the Tories get away with Brexit, Labour will more or less collapse. I don't know who will emerge with control but I'm pretty damn sure the left and the centre aren't getting back into bed with each other for some time. Thus the Tories will continue to clear up, off the back of achieving a hard right fantasy, the effects of which will be delivered so slowly that people won't understand that things are becoming increasingly shit (much like austerity) and won't put the blame where it's due (much like austerity). Occasional moments of Brexit success will be feted as if they're hugely significant indicators of the wisdom of leave voters, and all bad news will be ignored for the 'national good'. The Tories will consolidate their grip on social media and spewing toxic bile and lies across anyone and everything, and no one will be able to do anything about it because they hold all the institutional power with which to put in place regulations for its control. My hope is that within 10 to 15 years, a new generation of young people come forward who can be mobilised around some kind of ambitious and forward thinking idea, or perhaps out of desperation in the face of climate change. But either way, lose this and we've got Boris for a decade at least IMO. Irrespective of who takes over Labour - and I personally hope it's a centrist, just so that we can underline the point that Labour's centrism isn't working any better against the shithousing of the Tories than Labour's left wing is. Which after the last decade, you'd think would be obvious. But alas.

And yet this is something the people of this country genuinely think matters at this election. I agree, ridiculous and pointless. This election is about one thing only - whether or not the Tories will govern the UK for the next 10-15 years, and as an extension of that, how much of the country they can sell off to the Americans in that period of time.

True, they wouldn't. Because of the interdependence of their market with everyone else's. Well you would hope that said nation didn't have nuclear weapons, I guess.

Again, I can see that statement logically. Although I would argue the EU has done quite a lot to assist with preventing conventional war in Europe between European states. Moreso than nukes. But with Russia I can see your point. At least up until the 90s. Now I'm really not sure. I think interdependence is far more valuable now.

What point are you trying to make here though. Germany could easily build nukes if it wanted them. The entire western world probably could at this point. You seem to be suggesting that there's an ideological difference between having nukes and choosing to get rid of them, and having the capability to produce them and deciding not to. And maybe there is, but I don't see it myself.

Fair points, I'm not well versed enough in the theory around nuclear weapons from that era to judge it one way or another. I just assumed Renton would be right on that.

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

Defence from what? Who are we poised to be at war with? If Russia decides to take out the UK, it's done. We can launch what, 2 nukes at them? They can hit us with 100. If the Americans decide to take the UK there won't even be a war, they'll just ask Johnson for the keys. So who are these nukes meant to be protecting us from? I mean Russia, the USA, China - none of these countries actually even need nukes to take over the UK if they really wanted to. They'd just have to show up. Anyone who won't vote for Corbyn based on nuclear weapons is willfully ignoring the digital nuking Russia is giving us on a consistent basis, and voting in the radioactive fallout. All of which is currently doing an incredible amount of damage to our country. But let's ignore that because someone, somewhere, for some reason, might lob a nuke at us. FFS.

Those people would be cretins. And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

I do agree with this. It's the same as the anti-semitism issue. Neither issue is really a big deal for Labour in its objectives, at all, and his stubbornness comes only from a determination to remain true to some purist ideological position. So yes, press the red button, rout the anti-semites, and then get on with everything else. It really would have been the way to go.

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country. Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead. But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.