leicsmac

And will only get messier. Not sure how that will be addressed successfully, but I would posit that better cooperation would help.

And I would say that's equally valid because you see it so often too. So being stuck between them in the limbo of actually being able to do something meaningful while not compromising yourself to do so makes finding a solution very, very hard.

If I would be totally blunt about it, no. This is about power, and principles without the power to apply them to make the world a better place mean as much as a fart in a Category 5 hurricane. I know that's probably harsh, though.

I think this is broadly true from what I've read, which is worrying in of itself.

Yeah. And the problem then is that the next time the far right gains power in a lot of places, then the consequences will be much worse than even the last time it happened, what with both the advances in weaponry and an already more parlous ecosystem.

Is there a reason it is not?

Moderates going to Lib Dem, and...not moderates (shall we say, there are other euphemisms could be used) pulling for Reform, I reckon.

A little bit, bit thankfully not so much as five years ago.

If people want to see what real population density is in a country similar size to the UK, look at Korea. Around 90% of the people, in 10% of the built-up space.

... tbh I'd love to have more cogent arguments in that thread about the matter. Also as it happens, the polling in that thread actually is a decent reflection of the broader UK polling data on the matter, too.

And it's difficult, though often necessary, to navigate those waters, yeah. Tbh away from such subjective fields scientific and environmental policy should really speak for and stand for itself anyway and is a much more solid argument.

The Electoral Calculus poll aggregator actually now has the Lib Dems as more likely to be the official opposition than the Tories. Regardless of where you stand in the whole matter, a shift like this is seismic, almost unprecedented.

I don't disagree, but again I don't see a good way to fix it that actually works, either.

... again, this is all absolutely agreeable so long as those who are few to come out and say they voted for Reform then likewise are OK with taking responsibility for the policy decisions such a party makes, if elected. People shouldn't be shut down, but then they shouldn't absolve themselves ofthe results of their decisions should they go sideways, either.

Wimbledon starting today. Difficult to pick a mens winner, Murray in his final act, likely no Brit to get into singles week 2.

Yep, people can vote their conscience as they wish, and long should it remain so. That's the essence of a free and fair vote, after all. However, that freedom comes hand in hand with the freedom to be held accountable for the consequences of that vote. And if there is enough of them, this time or next, to set policy, there likely will be consequences, ranging from relatively minor to (hopefully not) utterly catastrophic.

The stance on the future in general from such parties is absolutely terrifying, and should be to pretty much anyone who actually has any kind of investment in that future.

I don't disagree. Thankfully, we may still have the opportunity to find out as you say here.

Seeing as the Euros are on now, imagine how a big chunk of the French team feel now that their citizenry might be about to elect a parliament that would never have let them be French in the first place.

I can certainly see the case of the folks who will make a stand and insist on "this far, and no further" for their candidates. I just don't see how well it works in practice in terms of effecting change. Corbyn embodied that change, and look how that turned out in terms of having the power to enact it. (That the system and establishment have turned on him is irrelevant imo, the only thing that matters is that it didn't work - the system is broken but the only way you fix that is git gud enough to have the power to change the board.)

Fair enough - I think that while some of the criticism is justified, at least some of it is hyperbolic to the point of being utterly ridiculous. But then that's always the case when passions run high, I guess. I'm certainly not going to say Bellingham was wrong to respond in the way that he did, even though I agree the performance was very subpar. But then I know others value aesthetics over results in such things, and that's their equally valid prerogative.

...and perhaps there's a reason that kind of management structure was left back in the 90's. Or perhaps not, and maybe brutal honesty is the way to go. Truth is, we have no empirical way of knowing which is the best way to motivate this team to get results (which I would think is the shared end goal for everyone) and so it's better not to presume one way or another is best above all other consideration. If that subset of fans can't hack Bellingham scoring and then giving a bit back to them, then perhaps they might consider growing a thicker skin themselves. Fair's fair either way.

Agreed. (Aside from a cursory look at the policies making that choice crystal clear and obvious to anyone with a modicum of empathy beyond their own line of sight, though.)

There appear to be a great many looking to do exactly as you say or look for a third option - namely Reform, for the most part. None of those things end well IMO. I totally agree that we need a better system mate and that's why I mentioned the flaws in the current one above, I just wish I knew how best to implement it.

I agree that the media is culpable for that, but frankly, as I've implied before, I'd also implicate the aforementioned members of the fanbase who I wholly believe won't be reasonable enough to give manager and team a pass based on honesty - or even if they do feel their self-interest is satisfied, might not consider the idea such honesty may harm the team more than help it. That's just chewing the fat on my part, though.