Snap General Election called

[morepork]

And if we couldn’t defend ourselves then any work on saving the planet would be a waste. Priorities.

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

This is simply naive and irresponsible. Now more than ever we need a stronger military. We are facing threats to democracy all across the globe, and should be throwing our weight around more, not less.

British values are something we should be spreading. They are on the whole positive values.

Spreading. Let’s all be British. Pump the brakes on that one. Jaysus.

[Puja]

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

This is simply naive and irresponsible. Now more than ever we need a stronger military. We are facing threats to democracy all across the globe, and should be throwing our weight around more, not less.

British values are something we should be spreading. They are on the whole positive values.

Spreading. Let’s all be British. Pump the brakes on that one. Jaysus.

It's the "throwing our weight around" that's getting me. Have we not learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that it is well-nigh impossible to "spread British values" by force of arms? Unless one wants to go full empire on it and conquer places, it is not possible to kill enough people to change how another country works.

We need to have a really long thought about what the purpose of the British military is. I have no issues with deterrence and defence, but it is not defensible to discuss "throwing our weight around" or adventurism, and there has to be questions about what is the most efficacious and cost-effective ways of doing that, rather than just pumping in money to expand. There are a lot of shared interests between us and other nations - the AUKUS submarine thing is a perfect example, where efficiencies have been found by having a shared US/UK/Australian development of the next-gen nuclear submarine, rather than all three doing their own thing at three times the cost.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Zhivago has me convinced. Sign me up for the holy war.

[morepork]

Zhivago has me convinced. Sign me up for the holy war.

It is that absurd a statement.

[Which Tyler]

Who pays the piper calls the tune...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo

Nigel Farage has been criticised for suggesting the West "provoked" Russia's invasion of Ukraine by expanding the European Union and Nato military alliance eastwards.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Who pays the piper calls the tune...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo

Nigel Farage has been criticised for suggesting the West "provoked" Russia's invasion of Ukraine by expanding the European Union and Nato military alliance eastwards.

You'd think that someone who praised Truss's budget and admires Putin would have no chance of election.

Everyone should read that article.

[Donny osmond]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

[Zhivago]

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

This is simply naive and irresponsible. Now more than ever we need a stronger military. We are facing threats to democracy all across the globe, and should be throwing our weight around more, not less.

British values are something we should be spreading. They are on the whole positive values.

Spreading. Let’s all be British. Pump the brakes on that one. Jaysus.

You are a New Zealander, I am Welsh. What do we have in common? We have more in common than with someone from Russia or China. And I say this having good Russian and Chinese friends.

British is not what I mean. I use that word only for the lack of a better one. I wish we had a term for all related peoples of similar history and values. Even Anglo-Saxon does not work well as that alienates Celtic people's. British is too often equated with English. And I certainly don't want us all to be English.

I wish we had an equivalent of European. But for our kind.

[Zhivago]

This is simply naive and irresponsible. Now more than ever we need a stronger military. We are facing threats to democracy all across the globe, and should be throwing our weight around more, not less.

British values are something we should be spreading. They are on the whole positive values.

Spreading. Let’s all be British. Pump the brakes on that one. Jaysus.

It's the "throwing our weight around" that's getting me. Have we not learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that it is well-nigh impossible to "spread British values" by force of arms? Unless one wants to go full empire on it and conquer places, it is not possible to kill enough people to change how another country works.

We need to have a really long thought about what the purpose of the British military is. I have no issues with deterrence and defence, but it is not defensible to discuss "throwing our weight around" or adventurism, and there has to be questions about what is the most efficacious and cost-effective ways of doing that, rather than just pumping in money to expand. There are a lot of shared interests between us and other nations - the AUKUS submarine thing is a perfect example, where efficiencies have been found by having a shared US/UK/Australian development of the next-gen nuclear submarine, rather than all three doing their own thing at three times the cost.

Puja

When I say throwing our weight around I mean we should be (as we are but more so) a force for good in the world. We should not be timid. We should ally with and fiercely defend like-minded people.

I'm not talking about what we did in Iraq. And I don't expect us to revive the empire. But we should also not allow Russian and Chinese empires to grow. This would be dangerous for us. An Empire approach is outdated. I would prefer us to somehow create a federation of free peoples.

When you stand up to a bully the victim can become your friend. And we should be making friends around the world in this way. By being a defender of the oppressed.

[Mikey Brown]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

The focus/narrative around Corbyn coming from Labour at the moment is just weird. So many quotes and articles going on about Corbynism and never really expanding on what that is, other than it being “radical”.

Maybe it’s inspiring for some, but to me it comes across like he’s just borrowing the Tory “it’s all Labour’s fault” line, and doesn’t really know where he stands beyond not being Corbyn.

I’m cautiously optimistic Starmer will be better for “THE ECONOMY” than the conservatives have been, but I’m not really sure what about either of these articles jumped out at you as encouraging or insightful?

[Zhivago]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

The focus/narrative around Corbyn coming from Labour at the moment is just weird. So many quotes and articles going on about Corbynism and never really expanding on what that is, other than it being “radical”.

Maybe it’s inspiring for some, but to me it comes across like he’s just borrowing the Tory “it’s all Labour’s fault” line, and doesn’t really know where he stands beyond not being Corbyn.

I’m cautiously optimistic Starmer will be better for “THE ECONOMY” than the conservatives have been, but I’m not really sure what about either of these articles jumped out at you as encouraging or insightful?

After Truss, the benchmark for being better on the economy is pathetically low.

[morepork]

This is simply naive and irresponsible. Now more than ever we need a stronger military. We are facing threats to democracy all across the globe, and should be throwing our weight around more, not less.

British values are something we should be spreading. They are on the whole positive values.

Spreading. Let’s all be British. Pump the brakes on that one. Jaysus.

You are a New Zealander, I am Welsh. What do we have in common? We have more in common than with someone from Russia or China. And I say this having good Russian and Chinese friends.

British is not what I mean. I use that word only for the lack of a better one. I wish we had a term for all related peoples of similar history and values. Even Anglo-Saxon does not work well as that alienates Celtic people's. British is too often equated with English. And I certainly don't want us all to be English.

I wish we had an equivalent of European. But for our kind.

It’s your first draft statement that worries me, not this revised one. And who the fuck gave Europeans the keys to the house? It’s at best lazy rhetoric.

[Donny osmond]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

The focus/narrative around Corbyn coming from Labour at the moment is just weird. So many quotes and articles going on about Corbynism and never really expanding on what that is, other than it being “radical”.

Maybe it’s inspiring for some, but to me it comes across like he’s just borrowing the Tory “it’s all Labour’s fault” line, and doesn’t really know where he stands beyond not being Corbyn.

I’m cautiously optimistic Starmer will be better for “THE ECONOMY” than the conservatives have been, but I’m not really sure what about either of these articles jumped out at you as encouraging or insightful?

Edit: I'm a bit pissed so this is a ramble, sorry!

Fair enough. Both articles jumped out at me as encouraging although admittedly not hugely insightful; there again I wouldn't expect a huge amount of insight as he's trying to be canny and not give the "left wing" of his own party, nor the media, nor other parties (all of whom it seems would rather see the Tories returned to power) too much in the way of ammunition.

At least one of those articles does touch on how he is trying to be more than 'not Corbyn'. And we already know what Corbynism is/was; we lived thru it.

Even if that weren't true, I wouldn't say having a focus on Corbyn is weird; JC pulled in a lot of the left wing of Labour and spooked the hell out of everyone else. You can see on this forum how Starmer is constantly judged by the "left" as not being as pure or as noble as JC so it seems obvious, to me at least, that to get votes from the majority who aren't, how can I say this, "enthusiastic socialists", Starmer is having to distance himself from that wing of the Labour party.

I dunno. To me it feels like if you can't see what Starmer stands for, it's not because it isn't there. I feel like there's a narrative driven by everyone who hates him, which as I said is everyone outside centrist Labour, who are all parroting the same attack lines, generally pretty vacuous lines about being "Red Tories" or some other meaningless bollox. Who he is and where he's taking the Labour party seems pretty clear to me. If someone doesn't want to see it, that's at least as much on them as it is on him, there's 10s of millions of voters, he can't explain himself in detail to every last one of them, at some point people have to be open enough to at least try to understand him.

[Sandydragon]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

The focus/narrative around Corbyn coming from Labour at the moment is just weird. So many quotes and articles going on about Corbynism and never really expanding on what that is, other than it being “radical”.

Maybe it’s inspiring for some, but to me it comes across like he’s just borrowing the Tory “it’s all Labour’s fault” line, and doesn’t really know where he stands beyond not being Corbyn.

I’m cautiously optimistic Starmer will be better for “THE ECONOMY” than the conservatives have been, but I’m not really sure what about either of these articles jumped out at you as encouraging or insightful?

Edit: I'm a bit pissed so this is a ramble, sorry!

Fair enough. Both articles jumped out at me as encouraging although admittedly not hugely insightful; there again I wouldn't expect a huge amount of insight as he's trying to be canny and not give the "left wing" of his own party, nor the media, nor other parties (all of whom it seems would rather see the Tories returned to power) too much in the way of ammunition.

At least one of those articles does touch on how he is trying to be more than 'not Corbyn'. And we already know what Corbynism is/was; we lived thru it.

Even if that weren't true, I wouldn't say having a focus on Corbyn is weird; JC pulled in a lot of the left wing of Labour and spooked the hell out of everyone else. You can see on this forum how Starmer is constantly judged by the "left" as not being as pure or as noble as JC so it seems obvious, to me at least, that to get votes from the majority who aren't, how can I say this, "enthusiastic socialists", Starmer is having to distance himself from that wing of the Labour party.

I dunno. To me it feels like if you can't see what Starmer stands for, it's not because it isn't there. I feel like there's a narrative driven by everyone who hates him, which as I said is everyone outside centrist Labour, who are all parroting the same attack lines, generally pretty vacuous lines about being "Red Tories" or some other meaningless bollox. Who he is and where he's taking the Labour party seems pretty clear to me. If someone doesn't want to see it, that's at least as much on them as it is on him, there's 10s of millions of voters, he can't explain himself in detail to every last one of them, at some point people have to be open enough to at least try to understand him.

I think Starmer has made the correct assessment that the left as defined by Corbyn is unelectable. Better to be more conservative with economy than too radical. Elections are won from the centre ground and he’s positioned himself there.

I’m expecting some tax rises, but nothing that will spook the economy too much.

[Sandydragon]

I don't see rising sea levels and increased devastating weather events giving a shit about Putin either. Well, except in that they'll exacerbate global insecurity by causing food insecurity and mass emigration from stricken areas.

Puja

And if we couldn’t defend ourselves then any work on saving the planet would be a waste. Priorities.

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

Then you are naive in the face of the current geopolitical situation. Do you trust Trump led America enough to protect us from Putin?

I agree that we in Europe need to plan for a defence that might not include America. If you think that means reducing military expenditure below what it is today then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

[Puja]

And if we couldn’t defend ourselves then any work on saving the planet would be a waste. Priorities.

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

Then you are naive in the face of the current geopolitical situation. Do you trust Trump led America enough to protect us from Putin?

I agree that we in Europe need to plan for a defence that might not include America. If you think that means reducing military expenditure below what it is today then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Do you trust Trump-led America enough to protect us from climate disasters?

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Some sensible views on Starmer's Labour:

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-p ... byn-blair/

"Starmerism is about fixing the failures of not only Corbynism, but Blairism too"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... dApp_Other

"Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK"

The focus/narrative around Corbyn coming from Labour at the moment is just weird. So many quotes and articles going on about Corbynism and never really expanding on what that is, other than it being “radical”.

Maybe it’s inspiring for some, but to me it comes across like he’s just borrowing the Tory “it’s all Labour’s fault” line, and doesn’t really know where he stands beyond not being Corbyn.

I’m cautiously optimistic Starmer will be better for “THE ECONOMY” than the conservatives have been, but I’m not really sure what about either of these articles jumped out at you as encouraging or insightful?

Edit: I'm a bit pissed so this is a ramble, sorry!

Fair enough. Both articles jumped out at me as encouraging although admittedly not hugely insightful; there again I wouldn't expect a huge amount of insight as he's trying to be canny and not give the "left wing" of his own party, nor the media, nor other parties (all of whom it seems would rather see the Tories returned to power) too much in the way of ammunition.

At least one of those articles does touch on how he is trying to be more than 'not Corbyn'. And we already know what Corbynism is/was; we lived thru it.

Even if that weren't true, I wouldn't say having a focus on Corbyn is weird; JC pulled in a lot of the left wing of Labour and spooked the hell out of everyone else. You can see on this forum how Starmer is constantly judged by the "left" as not being as pure or as noble as JC so it seems obvious, to me at least, that to get votes from the majority who aren't, how can I say this, "enthusiastic socialists", Starmer is having to distance himself from that wing of the Labour party.

I dunno. To me it feels like if you can't see what Starmer stands for, it's not because it isn't there. I feel like there's a narrative driven by everyone who hates him, which as I said is everyone outside centrist Labour, who are all parroting the same attack lines, generally pretty vacuous lines about being "Red Tories" or some other meaningless bollox. Who he is and where he's taking the Labour party seems pretty clear to me. If someone doesn't want to see it, that's at least as much on them as it is on him, there's 10s of millions of voters, he can't explain himself in detail to every last one of them, at some point people have to be open enough to at least try to understand him.

Fair enough.

Perhaps I struggle to understand how those on the right would have viewed Starmer initially, I wouldn’t have thought there were many concerns about him being a leftoid. Do middle ground voters fear he’s the same as JC? I don’t know.

I guess we’ll see whether this is gaining more from the right or losing more from the left, with the Tories already in complete turmoil.

[Sandydragon]

Notice that I'm not saying that military security is completely irrelevant or advocating complete disarmament myself, but I'm finding it amusing that "Let's spend money on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster and not on preventing a military disaster" is 'student union politics' and 'not grown up', while "Let's spend money on preventing a military disaster and not on preventing/mitigating a climate disaster" is a grown-up and sensible political perspective. This is especially true given the case that the greatest threat to the continent is currently unable to conquer Ukraine in conventional warfare, so it doesn't feel like we're going to be fending off Russkies at the White Cliffs in the next 5 years.

Personally, I'd be interested in looking to reduce military budgets/get more bang for our buck forming closer military unions with our geographically close allies - is there really a need for separate UK and French nuclear deterrents, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc, when any threat coming at one of us will be directly affecting the other?

Puja

Then you are naive in the face of the current geopolitical situation. Do you trust Trump led America enough to protect us from Putin?

I agree that we in Europe need to plan for a defence that might not include America. If you think that means reducing military expenditure below what it is today then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Do you trust Trump-led America enough to protect us from climate disasters?

Puja

I trust Trump to do neither. But your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that we need China and India onboard to protect against climate change, as well as the US. To keep Europe free from Russian interference we don’t.

And if you focus on climate change and not defence then your work would be undone by a major war or indeed a Russian dominated Europe. Stability has to come before condos one the world to cut carbon emissions.

Stability is the top priority which comes from defence and collective security and good foreign policy. Top priority. Greens seem to think that if you ignore Russia it will go away. Naive

[Puja]

Then you are naive in the face of the current geopolitical situation. Do you trust Trump led America enough to protect us from Putin?

I agree that we in Europe need to plan for a defence that might not include America. If you think that means reducing military expenditure below what it is today then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Do you trust Trump-led America enough to protect us from climate disasters?

Puja

I trust Trump to do neither. But your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that we need China and India onboard to protect against climate change, as well as the US. To keep Europe free from Russian interference we don’t.

And if you focus on climate change and not defence then your work would be undone by a major war or indeed a Russian dominated Europe. Stability has to come before condos one the world to cut carbon emissions.

Stability is the top priority which comes from defence and collective security and good foreign policy. Top priority. Greens seem to think that if you ignore Russia it will go away. Naive

We do need China and India and Africa on board to protect against climate change, none of whom will be particularly interested in listening to us if we tell them they need to spend billions on decarbonising, but we're not going to right now, tyvm.

Also mitigating against climate change isn't just about reducing our carbon emissions, but about future-proofing ourselves with things like renewable energy, insulation, sea and river defences, so that when the upheavals come, we are in a far better position to weather them. Apart from anything else, the cost of living crisis would've been a lot less if Cameron hadn't said to "get rid of the Green crap" back in 2013 and we'd been less reliant on imported gas and oil.

I will point out once again that I am not in favour of disbanding the military nor am I in favour of a lot of the Greens' policy on it, but it's incredible that protecting against the threat of "a Russian dominated Europe" is mandatory to be a sensible politician and protecting against climate disaster is optional, especially since the former is very much a worst case hypothetical (given they can't beat Ukraine in conventional warfare, let alone NATO (even if we were America-less)) and the latter is very definitely happening and will only get worse.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Do you trust Trump-led America enough to protect us from climate disasters?

Puja

I trust Trump to do neither. But your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that we need China and India onboard to protect against climate change, as well as the US. To keep Europe free from Russian interference we don’t.

And if you focus on climate change and not defence then your work would be undone by a major war or indeed a Russian dominated Europe. Stability has to come before condos one the world to cut carbon emissions.

Stability is the top priority which comes from defence and collective security and good foreign policy. Top priority. Greens seem to think that if you ignore Russia it will go away. Naive

We do need China and India and Africa on board to protect against climate change, none of whom will be particularly interested in listening to us if we tell them they need to spend billions on decarbonising, but we're not going to right now, tyvm.

Also mitigating against climate change isn't just about reducing our carbon emissions, but about future-proofing ourselves with things like renewable energy, insulation, sea and river defences, so that when the upheavals come, we are in a far better position to weather them. Apart from anything else, the cost of living crisis would've been a lot less if Cameron hadn't said to "get rid of the Green crap" back in 2013 and we'd been less reliant on imported gas and oil.

I will point out once again that I am not in favour of disbanding the military nor am I in favour of a lot of the Greens' policy on it, but it's incredible that protecting against the threat of "a Russian dominated Europe" is mandatory to be a sensible politician and protecting against climate disaster is optional, especially since the former is very much a worst case hypothetical (given they can't beat Ukraine in conventional warfare, let alone NATO (even if we were America-less)) and the latter is very definitely happening and will only get worse.

Puja

It is not a worst case hypothetical, it's their overtly stated ambition. You should research a bit about their ideology before disregarding the threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundati ... eopolitics

[Puja]

I trust Trump to do neither. But your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that we need China and India onboard to protect against climate change, as well as the US. To keep Europe free from Russian interference we don’t.

And if you focus on climate change and not defence then your work would be undone by a major war or indeed a Russian dominated Europe. Stability has to come before condos one the world to cut carbon emissions.

Stability is the top priority which comes from defence and collective security and good foreign policy. Top priority. Greens seem to think that if you ignore Russia it will go away. Naive

We do need China and India and Africa on board to protect against climate change, none of whom will be particularly interested in listening to us if we tell them they need to spend billions on decarbonising, but we're not going to right now, tyvm.

Also mitigating against climate change isn't just about reducing our carbon emissions, but about future-proofing ourselves with things like renewable energy, insulation, sea and river defences, so that when the upheavals come, we are in a far better position to weather them. Apart from anything else, the cost of living crisis would've been a lot less if Cameron hadn't said to "get rid of the Green crap" back in 2013 and we'd been less reliant on imported gas and oil.

I will point out once again that I am not in favour of disbanding the military nor am I in favour of a lot of the Greens' policy on it, but it's incredible that protecting against the threat of "a Russian dominated Europe" is mandatory to be a sensible politician and protecting against climate disaster is optional, especially since the former is very much a worst case hypothetical (given they can't beat Ukraine in conventional warfare, let alone NATO (even if we were America-less)) and the latter is very definitely happening and will only get worse.

Puja

It is not a worst case hypothetical, it's their overtly stated ambition. You should research a bit about their ideology before disregarding the threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

I have the overtly stated ambition of winning the lottery.

Puja

[Zhivago]

We do need China and India and Africa on board to protect against climate change, none of whom will be particularly interested in listening to us if we tell them they need to spend billions on decarbonising, but we're not going to right now, tyvm.

Also mitigating against climate change isn't just about reducing our carbon emissions, but about future-proofing ourselves with things like renewable energy, insulation, sea and river defences, so that when the upheavals come, we are in a far better position to weather them. Apart from anything else, the cost of living crisis would've been a lot less if Cameron hadn't said to "get rid of the Green crap" back in 2013 and we'd been less reliant on imported gas and oil.

I will point out once again that I am not in favour of disbanding the military nor am I in favour of a lot of the Greens' policy on it, but it's incredible that protecting against the threat of "a Russian dominated Europe" is mandatory to be a sensible politician and protecting against climate disaster is optional, especially since the former is very much a worst case hypothetical (given they can't beat Ukraine in conventional warfare, let alone NATO (even if we were America-less)) and the latter is very definitely happening and will only get worse.

Puja

It is not a worst case hypothetical, it's their overtly stated ambition. You should research a bit about their ideology before disregarding the threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

I have the overtly stated ambition of winning the lottery.

Puja

All very well, but there is no wikipedia page about your ambition, and there is a surfeit of material about the Russian ideology.

The Russian ambition is well within the realm of possibilities if we were to reduce military expenditure, as you desire. You don't apprehend quite how close Kyiv was to falling. And how dire a situation we would have been in if that had happened.

[Puja]

It is not a worst case hypothetical, it's their overtly stated ambition. You should research a bit about their ideology before disregarding the threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

I have the overtly stated ambition of winning the lottery.

Puja

All very well, but there is no wikipedia page about your ambition, and there is a surfeit of material about the Russian ideology.

The Russian ambition is well within the realm of possibilities if we were to reduce military expenditure, as you desire. You don't apprehend quite how close Kyiv was to falling. And how dire a situation we would have been in if that had happened.

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

[Zhivago]

I have the overtly stated ambition of winning the lottery.

Puja

All very well, but there is no wikipedia page about your ambition, and there is a surfeit of material about the Russian ideology.

The Russian ambition is well within the realm of possibilities if we were to reduce military expenditure, as you desire. You don't apprehend quite how close Kyiv was to falling. And how dire a situation we would have been in if that had happened.

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

The war is not yet over and the outcome is uncertain.

[Puja]

All very well, but there is no wikipedia page about your ambition, and there is a surfeit of material about the Russian ideology.

The Russian ambition is well within the realm of possibilities if we were to reduce military expenditure, as you desire. You don't apprehend quite how close Kyiv was to falling. And how dire a situation we would have been in if that had happened.

If Britain combines its nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers with France, then Russia will gain the capacity to overrun all of Europe? This strikes me as unlikely.

I'm sure a counterfactual history could be written where Russia took Kyiv and everything went very differently, but in this timeline, they didn't. They are now in a situation where they have lost over 500,000 men and climbing and are forced to beg North Korea and Iran for weaponry. An "overtly stated ambition" to conquer all of Europe is meaningless when you have no capacity to carry that out.

Kanye West has the ambition to be US President and there are Wikipedia pages and a surfeit of information about that. Doesn't mean it's got any real chance of occurring.

Puja

The war is not yet over and the outcome is uncertain.

True, Ukraine may still lose the war - more than possible. But that won't affect Russia's complete inability to conquer all of Europe from its current position.

Puja