Woke Vs The Populist Right: How to Depolarise Politics to Enhance Global Security?
Liberal Democracy and Liberal Institutionalism are worth fighting and sacrificing for: no other tested systems are better able to facilitate liberty, prosperity, and security. But these systems now face a grave peril from hostile authoritarian and genocidal actors who actively seek to dismantle and undermine our governance systems, and who are willing to risk World War 3 and nuclear holocaust to achieve that aim.
To mitigate the risk of both the destruction of the Western governance system and global nuclear catastrophe, it is essential Western powers establish a robust and long-lasting cooperative policy arrangement to deter our enemies and peacefully preserve the integrity of the liberal democratic coalition.
Yet polarised politics and the Culture Wars are tearing liberal democracies apart, both domestically and internationally. I believe we are due a serious and difficult conversation on how to resolve and diffuse the Culture Wars, lest we continue to tread a path that renders the integrity of our liberal democracies increasingly vulnerable to hostile authoritarian actors and, by extension, increases the risk of World War 3 and nuclear exchange.
Please allow me to attempt to frame this conversation: this is an exercise in moderation. Polarised politics is by definition extremist politics. There is a large Far Left and a large Far Right. As with many disputes, the truth often lies in the middle ground, and not at either polarised extreme. Both sides will have to acknowledge their own untruths and acknowledge the truths of the other pole for moderation to be achieved.
This is a sketch of what I think are fair critiques to be made on either side:
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Right:
1. There is scant evidence that economic isolationism and policy initiatives akin to Brexit do serve the national interest from the standpoint of geopolitics, economics, or global prestige.
2. 'Make America/Britain/France etc Great Again' policy initiatives are based on mythologised and flawed understandings of history.
3. Structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are real and important issues. Although progress has been made, these injustices have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention.
4. Although humans are not born 'blank slates', biological essentialism does not provide an empirically accurate explanation for gender differences.
5. Denigrating and caricaturing the 'Woke Left' as a malign and totalitarian-esque movement is not an effective communication strategy and undermines political pressure to strengthen welfare for the most vulnerable and rectify persistent social injustices.
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Left:
1. The majority of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and 'Make X Country Great Again' initiatives are not racist, sexist, or homophobic, and the desire to enhance immigration control does not necessarily make someone a xenophobe.
2. While structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention, a great deal of success has been achieved in this area: the vast majority of people in the liberal West are opposed to violent misogyny, racism, and overt discrimination against LBGTQ+ people; all such violence and discrimination is also formally outlawed.
3. Misandry is a real thing and institutional policy that discriminates against men in favour of achieving a 50/50 equality of outcome split is overtly sexist and illiberal in the same way that institutionally discriminating against women is overtly sexist and illiberal.
4. Not all societal inequality that can seem unfavourable to women is the result of overt or structural sexism. Although biological essentialism does not provide an empirically accurate explanation for gender differences, humans are not born 'blank slates' and limited biologically-driven temperaments can result in legitimate differences in outcome.
5. Labelling people who question the validity of gender theory, critical race theory, or affirmative action 'sexist', 'racist', or 'transphobic' only shuts down free inquiry and drives those people towards the Far Right, as the Far Right are ready in waiting to say "Yes, I know, the Left are crazy and call everyone 'sexist', 'racist', and 'transphobic, join us in the fight against those who insulted you and destroyed your reputation!"
______
Can we get to a place where we are able to discuss these sensitive matters without hatred, censorship, and mudslinging? I fear if we cannot, liberal democracy will continue to weaken contra our authoritarian enemies, and politics will continue down its futureless path...
To mitigate the risk of both the destruction of the Western governance system and global nuclear catastrophe, it is essential Western powers establish a robust and long-lasting cooperative policy arrangement to deter our enemies and peacefully preserve the integrity of the liberal democratic coalition.
Yet polarised politics and the Culture Wars are tearing liberal democracies apart, both domestically and internationally. I believe we are due a serious and difficult conversation on how to resolve and diffuse the Culture Wars, lest we continue to tread a path that renders the integrity of our liberal democracies increasingly vulnerable to hostile authoritarian actors and, by extension, increases the risk of World War 3 and nuclear exchange.
Please allow me to attempt to frame this conversation: this is an exercise in moderation. Polarised politics is by definition extremist politics. There is a large Far Left and a large Far Right. As with many disputes, the truth often lies in the middle ground, and not at either polarised extreme. Both sides will have to acknowledge their own untruths and acknowledge the truths of the other pole for moderation to be achieved.
This is a sketch of what I think are fair critiques to be made on either side:
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Right:
1. There is scant evidence that economic isolationism and policy initiatives akin to Brexit do serve the national interest from the standpoint of geopolitics, economics, or global prestige.
2. 'Make America/Britain/France etc Great Again' policy initiatives are based on mythologised and flawed understandings of history.
3. Structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are real and important issues. Although progress has been made, these injustices have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention.
4. Although humans are not born 'blank slates', biological essentialism does not provide an empirically accurate explanation for gender differences.
5. Denigrating and caricaturing the 'Woke Left' as a malign and totalitarian-esque movement is not an effective communication strategy and undermines political pressure to strengthen welfare for the most vulnerable and rectify persistent social injustices.
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Left:
1. The majority of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and 'Make X Country Great Again' initiatives are not racist, sexist, or homophobic, and the desire to enhance immigration control does not necessarily make someone a xenophobe.
2. While structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention, a great deal of success has been achieved in this area: the vast majority of people in the liberal West are opposed to violent misogyny, racism, and overt discrimination against LBGTQ+ people; all such violence and discrimination is also formally outlawed.
3. Misandry is a real thing and institutional policy that discriminates against men in favour of achieving a 50/50 equality of outcome split is overtly sexist and illiberal in the same way that institutionally discriminating against women is overtly sexist and illiberal.
4. Not all societal inequality that can seem unfavourable to women is the result of overt or structural sexism. Although biological essentialism does not provide an empirically accurate explanation for gender differences, humans are not born 'blank slates' and limited biologically-driven temperaments can result in legitimate differences in outcome.
5. Labelling people who question the validity of gender theory, critical race theory, or affirmative action 'sexist', 'racist', or 'transphobic' only shuts down free inquiry and drives those people towards the Far Right, as the Far Right are ready in waiting to say "Yes, I know, the Left are crazy and call everyone 'sexist', 'racist', and 'transphobic, join us in the fight against those who insulted you and destroyed your reputation!"
______
Can we get to a place where we are able to discuss these sensitive matters without hatred, censorship, and mudslinging? I fear if we cannot, liberal democracy will continue to weaken contra our authoritarian enemies, and politics will continue down its futureless path...
Scroll to see replies
Yes we can
Prior to anyone and everyone claiming the moral high ground and taking away that right to speak freely, it has been and always will be called 'freedom of speech' It has been destroyed by a few people having excessive influence on Government who then use a knee jerk reaction to legislate out every social integration problem.
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Prior to anyone and everyone claiming the moral high ground and taking away that right to speak freely, it has been and always will be called 'freedom of speech' It has been destroyed by a few people having excessive influence on Government who then use a knee jerk reaction to legislate out every social integration problem.
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Original post by Muttly
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Not to hijack the thread but Brexit wasn’t about much beyond peoples uneducated perceptions of the EU. The percentage of people on any side (remain 37%, leave 34% or stay in bed 29%) who had any actual understanding of the good or bad of the EU would be worryingly small considering the ramifications of such a vote and the weasels campaigning basically just lied on one side and fear mongered on the other.
Original post by AZhivago
Liberal Democracy and Liberal Institutionalism are worth fighting and sacrificing for: no other tested systems are better able to facilitate liberty, prosperity, and security.
Do you mean the classical liberalism or the modern American iteration?
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Right:
1. There is scant evidence that economic isolationism and policy initiatives akin to Brexit do serve the national interest from the standpoint of geopolitics, economics, or global prestige.
Debatable, you've made the slight problem of assuming a unified definition of this.. one persons subjective view point is not universal after all. To wit, see DPRK who take the opposite view.
2. 'Make America/Britain/France etc Great Again' policy initiatives are based on mythologised and flawed understandings of history.
Same as above... not least in that you haven't bothered to either analyse or state what this history is and what aspect of its interpretation is 'flawed'.
3. Structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are real and important issues. Although progress has been made, these injustices have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention.
I'm curious why youve decided this issue is one for the right as opposed to across the spectrum.. i'm equally curious what intervention, above the current baseline, you consider warranted? After all, the current extreme interventions are not only innately bigoted in their outlook but by definition suffer from diminishing returns, not to mention creating perverse 3rd order effects. As any wonk shop will happily tell you, policy in of itself is not going to achieve a perfect end result.
4. Although humans are not born 'blank slates', biological essentialism does not provide an empirically accurate explanation for gender differences.
Do you mean sex? Nominally the two not being the same. In any event, few people consider this an iron law as opposed to a fast and loose one.. in which case it still holds fairly well. Men are, by and large, bigger and stronger, women tend to have better sklills in empathy and being able to stay calm etc. etc. doesn't mean people should hold those views rigidly anbd base their life outlook on them but still, sex/gender does matter (after all, the left currently have a serious hard on about how gender instils intrinsic differences in people, as sexist as that is
5. Denigrating and caricaturing the 'Woke Left' as a malign and totalitarian-esque movement is not an effective communication strategy and undermines political pressure to strengthen welfare for the most vulnerable and rectify persistent social injustices.
We all know both sides are as bad as each other in this regard. Its worth noting, it isnt the right who keep calling everyone Hitler..
quote]
Balanced arguments against the Polarised Left:
1. The majority of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and 'Make X Country Great Again' initiatives are not racist, sexist, or homophobic, and the desire to enhance immigration control does not necessarily make someone a xenophobe.
No, there is a correlation though.
2. While structural inequality, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia have not been fully resolved and still deserve policy intervention, a great deal of success has been achieved in this area: the vast majority of people in the liberal West are opposed to violent misogyny, racism, and overt discrimination against LBGTQ+ people; all such violence and discrimination is also formally outlawed.
Not to actually defend the above but theres the slight problem that thought crimes are anything but liberal and half of the instances of these crimes being reported are entirely subjective, most rational people would not consider many instances of them as crimes at all. Then again, discrimination in the stated areas is totally outlawed anyway so..
3. Misandry is a real thing and institutional policy that discriminates against men in favour of achieving a 50/50 equality of outcome split is overtly sexist and illiberal in the same way that institutionally discriminating against women is overtly sexist and illiberal.
You're forgetting, 'reverse sexism' isn't a thing
5. Labelling people who question the validity of gender theory, critical race theory, or affirmative action 'sexist', 'racist', or 'transphobic' only shuts down free inquiry and drives those people towards the Far Right, as the Far Right are ready in waiting to say "Yes, I know, the Left are crazy and call everyone 'sexist', 'racist', and 'transphobic, join us in the fight against those who insulted you and destroyed your reputation!"
Not entirely certain what the far right have to do with the last bit there. After all, if you scroll through most threads on this site youll see that 'sexist, racist, transphobe' etc. etc. are regularly used as catch all insults, irrespective of whether its true.
______
Can we get to a place where we are able to discuss these sensitive matters without hatred, censorship, and mudslinging? I fear if we cannot, liberal democracy will continue to weaken contra our authoritarian enemies, and politics will continue down its futureless path...
Can we get to a place where we are able to discuss these sensitive matters without hatred, censorship, and mudslinging? I fear if we cannot, liberal democracy will continue to weaken contra our authoritarian enemies, and politics will continue down its futureless path...
Doubt it, not just because people who are genuinely passionate about these tedious non-issues are not going to agree with each other period (why would a Stalinist agree with a nazi and vice versa?) but equally, when these extremists go around harassing others for having the temerity to not lick their boots, why would the normal section of society feel overly inclinbed to offer them a hand, as it were. Merely look at any protest on these issues (the American ones tend to be the best though) and you'll see exactly why no one in their right mind would ever agree with their perverse version of a liberal, or anyone on the far right for that matter. A case in point, the blm rioters and various militas.
Original post by Muttly
Yes we can
Prior to anyone and everyone claiming the moral high ground and taking away that right to speak freely, it has been and always will be called 'freedom of speech' It has been destroyed by a few people having excessive influence on Government who then use a knee jerk reaction to legislate out every social integration problem.
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Prior to anyone and everyone claiming the moral high ground and taking away that right to speak freely, it has been and always will be called 'freedom of speech' It has been destroyed by a few people having excessive influence on Government who then use a knee jerk reaction to legislate out every social integration problem.
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
What makes British officials any better?
Original post by Djtoodles
Not to hijack the thread but Brexit wasn’t about much beyond peoples uneducated perceptions of the EU. The percentage of people on any side (remain 37%, leave 34% or stay in bed 29%) who had any actual understanding of the good or bad of the EU would be worryingly small considering the ramifications of such a vote and the weasels campaigning basically just lied on one side and fear mongered on the other.
It doesn't help that our political class is utterly mendacious. One struggles to think of a single politician who didn't lie through their teeth on the matter. Leave being objectively the worse, we need only look at Johnsons stream of lies but still.
If someone wishes to '
hate' the continent of Europe theyre perfectly welcome to, no matter how odd one finds hating a land mass or a string of institutions we helped create. However, one finds it completely bizarre that they could seriously think unelected British officials are somehow better than the European variety by dint of a quirk of geographic birth..
Sometimes one seriously thinks that living under a voluntary tyranny would be the best way forth. Remove the ability to lie or have a say on such matters and so many issues would cease to exist. Of course, many more would replace them but then that is the human condition for you.
Original post by Muttly
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Go back and read the material from 2016 and prior to the Referendum it was not about abstract sovereignty. It was about the ability to do specific things. As those who campagned for and supported on these issues have found that Brexit doesn't give £350M a week for the NHS or stop folk turning up on our beaches or bring back pounds and ounces, or coppers on bicycles, they have increasingly fallen back on saying Brexit has delivered abstract sovereignty.
Yet when our sovereignty is genuinely under threat, as from Putin, we are only too glad to want to associate ourselves with others.
Original post by Napp
It doesn't help that our political class is utterly mendacious. One struggles to think of a single politician who didn't lie through their teeth on the matter. Leave being objectively the worse, we need only look at Johnsons stream of lies but still.
If someone wishes to '
hate' the continent of Europe theyre perfectly welcome to, no matter how odd one finds hating a land mass or a string of institutions we helped create. However, one finds it completely bizarre that they could seriously think unelected British officials are somehow better than the European variety by dint of a quirk of geographic birth..
Sometimes one seriously thinks that living under a voluntary tyranny would be the best way forth. Remove the ability to lie or have a say on such matters and so many issues would cease to exist. Of course, many more would replace them but then that is the human condition for you.
If someone wishes to '
hate' the continent of Europe theyre perfectly welcome to, no matter how odd one finds hating a land mass or a string of institutions we helped create. However, one finds it completely bizarre that they could seriously think unelected British officials are somehow better than the European variety by dint of a quirk of geographic birth..
Sometimes one seriously thinks that living under a voluntary tyranny would be the best way forth. Remove the ability to lie or have a say on such matters and so many issues would cease to exist. Of course, many more would replace them but then that is the human condition for you.
Yeah, its just what happens when politics becomes a career lol. The thing I find most odd about it thought is that remain didn’t even need to lie and fearmonger like they did, just tell the truth about what being in the EU actually does for us, drop some facts and stats on it and job done. If people still wanted out at that point fair enough but I think it would have been a much better approach to show how we benefit from being in the EU rather than how bad things would be if we weren’t in it.
Original post by Djtoodles
Yeah, its just what happens when politics becomes a career lol. The thing I find most odd about it thought is that remain didn’t even need to lie and fearmonger like they did, just tell the truth about what being in the EU actually does for us, drop some facts and stats on it and job done. If people still wanted out at that point fair enough but I think it would have been a much better approach to show how we benefit from being in the EU rather than how bad things would be if we weren’t in it.
Well leave lied about being able to keep the benefits (easy trade)... The moral of 21st century politics is that its very difficult to defeat a bare faced liar.
Original post by Joinedup
Well leave lied about being able to keep the benefits (easy trade)... The moral of 21st century politics is that its very difficult to defeat a bare faced liar.
Yeah, but I can understand why leave lied. Outside of the "sovereignty" stuff, as devoid of substance as it was, they had nothing else so needed to lie to give them that something else. Remain on the other hand didn’t need to lie at all.
Original post by Djtoodles
Yeah, but I can understand why leave lied. Outside of the "sovereignty" stuff, as devoid of substance as it was, they had nothing else so needed to lie to give them that something else. Remain on the other hand didn’t need to lie at all.
Yeah but when remain pointed out the leave campaign lies the liars said remain was fearmongering.
Positive campaning is less effective than negative campaigning because of psychology.
Original post by Joinedup
Yeah but when remain pointed out the leave campaign lies the liars said remain was fearmongering.
Positive campaning is less effective than negative campaigning because of psychology.
Positive campaning is less effective than negative campaigning because of psychology.
😄 I’d just say most people are uninformed idiots but same difference 😄
Original post by Djtoodles
Yeah, its just what happens when politics becomes a career lol. The thing I find most odd about it thought is that remain didn’t even need to lie and fearmonger like they did, just tell the truth about what being in the EU actually does for us, drop some facts and stats on it and job done. If people still wanted out at that point fair enough but I think it would have been a much better approach to show how we benefit from being in the EU rather than how bad things would be if we weren’t in it.
I'm almost tempted to say that the ones in the 'remain' camp were little more than a 5th column given the attrocious way they conducted the campaign. Don't bother doing the obvious, like you noted, instead ignore any and all arguments (fibs) put forth be leave, try to scare the populace about it and top it off by treating everyone as idiots. It doesn't help half of them were little better than Johnsons ilk at rubbishing Europe constantly as well
Original post by Napp
I'm almost tempted to say that the ones in the 'remain' camp were little more than a 5th column given the attrocious way they conducted the campaign. Don't bother doing the obvious, like you noted, instead ignore any and all arguments (fibs) put forth be leave, try to scare the populace about it and top it off by treating everyone as idiots. It doesn't help half of them were little better than Johnsons ilk at rubbishing Europe constantly as well
I wouldn’t be shocked if they were, they did such a crap job for the remain side that it only really leaves complete incompetence or sabotage lol.
Original post by Djtoodles
Yeah, but I can understand why leave lied. Outside of the "sovereignty" stuff, as devoid of substance as it was, they had nothing else so needed to lie to give them that something else. Remain on the other hand didn’t need to lie at all.
I think it is worse than that. We knew they were lying at the time. They were outed as lying during the debate. But those who voted leave didn't care. They didn't care that those they supported were lying and they didn't care about the consequences of those lies not coming true. And we see this around the world - with those who support Putin, Trump and in Brazil, Bolsonaro. The question for those who base their decisions on thinking rather than emotions is how do you persuade someone who "believes" they are right to see reality?
It is a terrifying situation. We are just coming out of 20 years of war against ideologically driven Muslim terrorists only to find that a significant minority of our own society are becoming ideologically and radically driven. It is potentially terrifying. Like a grownup version of Lord of the Flies with very angry people with guns.
Original post by Muttly
Ps - Brexit is about sovereignty; about the UK choosing to determine its own laws and legislation and enacting this through its own courts without interference from other unelected EU officials.
Which of the laws imposed on the UK by the EU without passing through UK parliament did you most object to?
The EU parliament is elected. That's what you were doing when you voted for your MEP.
Most of the work of government in the UK is done by unelected officials.
Brexit was actually about avoiding a split in the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
Original post by Joinedup
Yeah but when remain pointed out the leave campaign lies the liars said remain was fearmongering.
Positive campaning is less effective than negative campaigning because of psychology.
Positive campaning is less effective than negative campaigning because of psychology.
"The amount of energy needed to refute bulls*** is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." - Brandolini's Law
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Djtoodles
I wouldn’t be shocked if they were, they did such a crap job for the remain side that it only really leaves complete incompetence or sabotage lol.
Given that they presented reasonable argument rather than downright lies aimed at a susceptible audience, the lack interference and manipulation on their behalf from outside influences, and the narrow margin of the result, I'd say they did a pretty effective job, all things considered.
Original post by hotpud
I think it is worse than that. We knew they were lying at the time. They were outed as lying during the debate. But those who voted leave didn't care. They didn't care that those they supported were lying and they didn't care about the consequences of those lies not coming true. And we see this around the world - with those who support Putin, Trump and in Brazil, Bolsonaro. The question for those who base their decisions on thinking rather than emotions is how do you persuade someone who "believes" they are right to see reality?
It is a terrifying situation. We are just coming out of 20 years of war against ideologically driven Muslim terrorists only to find that a significant minority of our own society are becoming ideologically and radically driven. It is potentially terrifying. Like a grownup version of Lord of the Flies with very angry people with guns.
It is a terrifying situation. We are just coming out of 20 years of war against ideologically driven Muslim terrorists only to find that a significant minority of our own society are becoming ideologically and radically driven. It is potentially terrifying. Like a grownup version of Lord of the Flies with very angry people with guns.
Interesting article
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/06/how-close-is-the-us-to-civil-war-barbara-f-walter-stephen-march-christopher-parker
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- A level politics help
- Canadian Decision Help: Carleton (NPSIA) Vs Durham
- Choosing Applied AI and Data Analytics | Student Blog
- Leiden vs KU Leuven
- AQA A Level Geography Paper 2 7037/2 - 8 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Studying in England: A Comprehensive Guide
- LSE or KCL or UCL for postgraduate IR programme?
- GCSE Citizenship Revision
- Thoughts on KCL MSc Global Affairs and MA International Peace?
- Help with choosing between KCL, LSE, and UCL for IR-related Master's
- Unveiling the Realm of Investment Banking
- Politics a level person edexcel
- Surrey vs Exeter for Law.
- Enhanced integrity checks, BORDER FORCE
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
