Well why don’t you fucking volunteer to go Ukraine then if its so important.

I’ll tend your wounds when you’re home sweetie

The Uk is between a rock and hard place geopolitically. It seems that joining the eu is political suicide but aligning economically with the Usa means selling off the nhs.

I guess the best we can hope for is going our own way and hoping for some economic miracle . Maybe we’ll discover some more north sea oil…

Im not sure what you’re referring to but i do know that USA has been interfering in the Ukraine which Russia considers its backyard. Imagine if Russia started arming and funding militias in alaska or mexico? (I know you’re probably going to bring up Russian bots but that isnt the same, and the USA does that kind of shit all the time).

Would we have had a couple hundred thousand dead if we hadn’t armed Ukrainian military? No the war would have ended if Russia just took the corridor it seems to want. If Russia had taken the whole country there would have been many resistance fighters but nowhere near the scale we’ve seen.

In any case , while we’ve been talking the russian minister at the talks with trump has said they wont accept peacekeeping forces anyway. So this is all futile speculation. There won’t be peacekeeping forces unless you want to prolong the war.

The USA invaded iraq - they didn’t have any intention of making it sovereign territory. That’s not enough evidence of intent.

Yes i also did gcse history and learnt about Chamberlain

Perhaps we could avoid war instead by making Russia a geopolitical ally rather than continually making them an enemy? Its not like we have any trouble making strategic alliances with other disreputable states.

No this chat by starmer is sabre rattling stupidity , what i dont fully understand is why they do it. The USA will be taking all the spoils from this war.

Any evidence for this?

Right i see why you think that, its a very seductive argument. We are in the right, we protect the weak, therefore what could possibly be bad about our presence?

However, thats not how real politics works. Russia will undoubtedly see this as a threat and it will escalate the war further. It doesn’t matter if they are correct to view us as such, but they will.

Unless Russia agrees to some unilateral peacekeeping arrangements as part of a peace deal, which seems unlikely, then why should we poke the beast?

There is also the fact that peacekeeping is not our forte, remember iraq, Afghanistan? Do you really think that pro-russian militias won’t retaliate? It doesn’t matter that we are in the right, our presence will not lead to peace.

I think Einstein said you can’t simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Its time to choose which you want.

Regarding your Palestine comment, its just a completely different situation. Im not sure its comparable. Peacekeeping forces might be part of a settlement reached by hamas and Israel but it would have to be acceptable to both parties otherwise it leads to more violence.

So in order to get peace you want to escalate the war?

There is no sense in this argument. When has increasing the presence of troops ever led to fruitful peace talks?

From their perspective it just looks like we’re about to invade Russia for a regime change

“The additional appointments were delivered in part by extra evening and weekend working, the government said.”

This is very sensible and sustainable. Although i recognise that it’s not possible to train more staff in time to get through the backlog , there’s no indication that enough staff will be trained or maintained (many trusts have hiring freezes, no decent pay rises).

This target has been met sure but where is the plan to stop it happening again?

Thank god they dont appease MBS or Netanyahu!

British troops in Ukraine would absolutely be unacceptable to any peace agreement that Russia is likely to sign so whats the point of making all this noise.

Better than nothing is a bit of a bug bear of mine. We are constantly told labour are better than nothing (ie tories).

If i am starving and need 2000 calories a day, would i rather have 1500 or 1200 calories? Obviously I’d rather have 1500. However this kind of comparison is too simplistic .

I would be right to ask why there isn’t enough calories. Taking the 1500 only legitimises that deal, when its clearly insufficient. I know both will starve me eventually so clearly i have to get those extra 500 calories. The only option is to reject both options and demand the 500 calories.

Labour are only partly funded by unions, and they by no means dictate policies. If unions dictated policies then we wouldn’t have this wishy washy workers bill and they would remove the anti-union laws.

I agree they do side with donation givers, which is why they are a bunch of private healthcare Zionist dweebs.

What you are asking for it sounds like is stronger party democracy which i couldn’t support more. However, the unions are central to any labour movement so it makes sense they are at the center of the party. Labour members do still vote on all policies technically but Starmer has centralised the process further so that the leader has complete control. Its also very expensive to send delegates to conference (in order to vote).

Ok ive edited because i think i see what you’re trying to say.

You think that alignment with unions is antithetical to socially liberal values (such as lgbt) ?

Fine the renters bill is mildly good, but its a long way off whats necessary to solve the housing crisis and has been continually watered down.

We have some of the worst tenants rights in Europe and the oldest housing stock. A small improvement like that still makes us look barbaric in comparison.

Also lol at the council rough sleepers budget - you know many councils are about to go bankrupt and labour are doing nothing about that?

The reason no one talks about them is they are ultimately piddly amounts of money. And how much of it is just getting funneled into the private sector as management consultants fees?

I find it difficult to understand how you believe Labour represents the interests of workers in any meaningful sense.

Labour is primarily a liberal party, and has been for many years. The union of liberals and socialists broke down in the 80s.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour aren’t just as racist as reform. They both are racist, neither actually want to stop immigrants. Both require migrants for cheap labour to keep the gravy coming. They represent different factions of capital.

Labour appealing to the right wing talking points isnt some cynical ploy to maintain power - its just what they think. No one who actually cares about immigrants would pander to those talking points.

Frances Ryan is probably one of the best and most consistent writers the Guardian has.

Its interesting how all the starmer fans have gone quiet in the comments. Even they are starting to realise how they’ve been duped by red tie wearing tories.