RayC

Deleted.

Apart from the startling revelation that American diplomats discuss diplomatic affairs, this conversation proves what exactly?

Then we had best ban any donations and gifts to political parties and MPs to avoid a possible conflict of interests.

Putin has his fellow countrymen's blood on his hands

There has not been any great enthusiasm for Labour since Starmer became leader, and he probably didn't have any great bedrock of support amongst the 3 groups you mention. If I were Starmer I'd also feel absolutely buoyed by the news that I no longer had the support of Owen Jones and Novaro. The overwhelming evidence to date suggests that Starmer is far from weak; in fact, the exact opposite. He can justifiably be accused of being authoritarian. Incompetent? I'd suggest that after less than 3 months in office, it's too early to jump to that conclusion. Hypocritical? Certainly looks like it. A liar? Well Starmer may have lied prior to becoming PM, but what lies have this Labour government told since taking office? Wrt how long Labour MPs will put us with Starmer - assuming no Johnson-like scandals occur - I'd suggest that it will be until at least 2028, unless these MPs see their future in the political wilderness. As I have said previously, unless there is some bombshell of the "Starmer eats babies" type, it is wishful thinking on the part of some, if they think that Starmer will be ousted as PM anytime soon.

So based on a piece of anti-Labour rhetoric from Conservative Central Office's propaganda unit (aka The Daily Telegraph), the Labour Party which has been in power for 3 months, has a parliamentary majority of 174 and does not need to call an election until 2029, is under pressure and is about to ditch its' leader. Sound reasoning or wishful thinking on the part of the anti-Labour lobby?

He may be unfit for political office but not because of his 'colourful' past. You have to question the sanity of anyone who states that, "I have lived in Merthyr all my life; and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else"😁

It says that the proposed measure would be 'consensual and reversible'

That's the problem with DIY fixes. Should've gone to a vet😉

You've misunderstood the gist of the article, which is about Meloni's ability to engage with politicians of all (most?) political persuasions. Still, no surprise there as you appear to view everything as 'black and white', and your default position is confrontational.

Imo that's a pretty fair summary. And TBF to Italy, the rate at which they replace governments has slowed. In the '70s and '80s they appeared to install a new government every 1.11 months!😁

If only Putin had taken your advice we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

If only Putin had taken your advice we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

So the premise is 'Socialism consists of nothing more than Protectionism?' That's it?

I disagree, old bean. While assassinating politicians may be par for the course in the 'New World', we tend to frown upon that type of behaviour in the 'Mother Country'. Bad form, don't you know?

You can get some hints here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_nationality_law#:~:text=Moroccan nationality is typically obtained,period of time through naturalization.

Imo the idea that a PM - Labour or Tory - can be brought for the price of a match day ticket, a decent suit and a pretty frock is ridiculous. That said, this is (yet another) example of a lack of political nous on Starmer's part, and it gives his opponents a stick to beat him with. Starmer can, with some justification, be accused of hypocrisy. Moreover, even if his defence that security dictates he must take match-day hospitality is accepted, it doesn't explain why a couple with a combined income of circa £200k/annum needs to accept gifts of free clothing. Lammy's "defence" that they need to look their best is laughable. Are Mr. & Mrs. Starmer incapable of choosing well-tailored clothes themselves?

It is nothing of the sort. EU efforts to use Russian funds are being stymied by the cuckoo in the nest, Orban.

I was using the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to mean the eradication of a race. As your link explains, the reason(s) behind the expulsion of Germans from the Annexed terrorities did not include purposefully killing Germans. The action may have wrong, inhumane even, but it is hardly comparable to Hitler's 'Final Solution' for the Jews. The Morgenthau Plan was not implemented to any large extent; the Marshall Plan was. The Morgenthau Plan was a US initiative. Churchill was initially opposed to it but was effectively bribed into accepting it. Churchill can be labelled unscrupulous, but he was acting within the context of war and its direct aftermath, and in what he saw as the UK's best interests. "Although Winston Churchill was initially opposed to the idea, he eventually came around, thanks to the US offering the United Kingdom a sizeable Lend-Lease agreement" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/morgenthau-plan.html An alternative view: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign. You didn't. I confused your post with an article. My apologies. To repeat, Churchill was a flawed individual. Outside of the context of WW2, I - and I suspect many (most?) others - would find it difficult to say much good about him. However, within that context, he was a great leader. More to the point, I think that your (implied) contention that Churchill should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin is without any merit.

And yet despite these efforts, we are all still able to access alternative views with relative ease? We are, fortunately, long way from 1984 and thought crimes.

What ethnic cleansing? Where is there any evidence that Churchill wanted to eliminate all Germans? Churchill may have 'signed off' on the Morgenthau plan, but Hoover came up with a figure of 25 million displaced Germans much later. There is little evidence that this figure is accurate and/or that Churchill would have been aware of the long-term effects of population numbers. In any event, this plan was soon discarded. It is disingenuous to imply, as you did in your reply to @placeholder that the bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry were different (and presumably somehow more noble?) than the bombing of German cities by the Allies: The effects were similar. Imo it is also ridiculous to imply that 'carpet bombing' of the sort seem in WW2 was somehow similar to warfare waged by England in the Middle Ages. Presumably this is another attempt to lay guilt at the feet of the English? You have still not addressed the fundamental difference between Hitler/Stalin and Churchill. Churchill's actions were dictated by the context i.e. war/ conflict; call it what you will. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin's murderous actions also took place outside of the theatre of war, and were a systematic attempt to eradicate political opponents (and in Hitler's case, a whole race(s)).

What is untrue about my original post? You have chosen to ignore what it says. What I wrote was: "A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF WAR (addition of capitals): Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not". Churchill was Secretary of State for War at the time of your examples, so his words/ actions need to be seen in that context and are outside of the scope of my proposition. Whether Churchill's actions were necessary and/or moral are different questions, but Churchill is no more a murderer than any other Head of Government or Defence/ War Minister of any nation at any point in time. The fundamental difference between Hitler & Stalin and Churchill is that the former pair deliberately murdered their political opponents - and in Hitler's case engaged in genocide - Churchill did not.

I completely agree with your final sentence. However, you are letting your own bias show. In this day and age, anyone living in a Western State has access to an almost endless supply of information from sources from hard-left to hard-right. There are very few restrictions on what an individual can read.

Here we go again ..... Those of us who read newspapers and watch TV are being "fed propaganda", whilst the 'enlightened' source their undeniable 'facts' from 'alternative' sources (heavy sarcasm intended). The people I find tiresome are those who - when offered a different perspective to their tedious 'The West is to blame for everything' narrative - are unable to mount a credible defence of their position.

You may not be a child - neither am I - but imo it is childish - naive at best - to imply that winning is unimportant when it comes to war: Whatever the eventual outcome of this war, there will have been human, economic and political costs for both sides, however, one side will lose more than the other. This will not be a 'forever' war. At some point, one side will back down. When will that be? I have no idea. Do I think that NATO troops should be deployed on the ground? Frankly, I don't know. (Limited) nuclear war? I suppose that it is possible. MAD? Imo extremely unlikely. Economics undoubtedly plays a part in wars and - if the apparent military stalemate continues - economics will probably dictate when this war ends. From the West's perspective, should we consider that stage to have already been reached? Imo, no. The implication that the only consequence of submitting to Russian demands wrt Ukraine will be the latter replacing one corrupt leadership with another is naive. A Russian victory in Ukraine will have lasting and widespread repercussions. There will be a change in the balance of power in Europe. Putin believes that Russia's 'sphere of influence' extends to its' neighbouring states. Putin will be emboldened and may start to make demands of the Baltic States. What then? And what of the wider implications? A victory for Russia is a de facto defeat for the US. Do you not think that China is looking on with interest and evaluating what implications this might have for their actions in Taiwan/ the South China Sea. War is bad. It should be avoided. However, unfortunately sometimes it is necessary.