Election Night Live Stream with Rob 

All I can say (over and over) is thank God it's Starmer not Corbyn. Hope the UK rejoins the EU that will be a real hit to Putin and make the UK and EU stronger

With what I've written before in mind: Trotzki was the 'useful idiot' for Stalin, like Che Guevara was the 'useful idiot' for Fidel Castro. Both did not last long, Trotzki was even k/lled on Stalin's order.

Slava Ukraine and as always a great listen for this Canadian.

The UK should use the Australian Voting System which is preferential

You should have a Greater No of people in a Seat to reduce the No of MP's also you should make Voting Mandatory

Being a hardcore Socialist of whatever name like Trotzki, Lenin, Marx is a mistake many who want to actually help society do when they are very young. The question is: How do they develop ? And the interesting part here is: look at the early lives of those hardcore left-wings leaders. And you'll find puzzling similarities, which I can sum up as - they were used to being cared about by others, usually the mother, had a rather harsh father figure, so they were all not interested in 'growing up', becoming self-sufficient. It disillusioned them at a young age, and made them bitter and often even unfriendly or hostile towards others - they developed narcissistic personalities often combined with more or less well hidden self-hate. And to be able to make their living, they had to develop the skills to manipulate and skimm off others. If you want to check what I mean, look at Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotzki, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussol/ni, Hit/ler.TIK History made a good podcast on those, Lewis read himself into the CVs of those figures which were written by other authors considered the standard works on those people, and then simply started to compare them - instead of focussing on their intellectual works, on their books. AND THAT is the key difference between the hard left and the social democrats like labour: The social democratic guys DID grow up, became responsible, and thus see 'working' as a nearly sacred action, all their politics is centered around that aspect of life. Many are thus from the working class or had their own business, usually running it in a way that their employees were/are the focus of their business planning - they are not so much about profits, but about giving their people the chance to make a good living. And this is the political agenda of Social Democrats: keep a society where people can further their own cause and live through work under healthy, 'rewarding' conditions. I call that 'responsible caring'. And there you see the main difference to hardcore socialists: For them it's about setting up a system that forces you to do often hard, non-sophisticated work under bad conditions while the leadership elite lives off all that you create with your hands. The system of socialisation of all goods means it officially belongs to everyone - but it is the leadership elites who decide who gets what, supported by a strong oppressive 'security' force to guarantees that. It's not that different from any other authoritarian systems in general, they just spend most of their time clouding, justifying and lying why their 'worker society' has to be the way it is - and is of course the complete opposite of the oppressive, capitalist dictatorships of the rest of the world. This is a challenging uphill battle, that's why they need to focus so heavily on propaganda and 'brainwashing' - using the same social/psychological mechanisms that a cult guru/leader uses to get and keep followers under control plus a feared oppression agency for those on which the 'brainwashing' does not work. So, they need to set up a Totalitarian system. This all is not easy to achieve, that's why we had/have only very few such societies, the only one that lasted longer is North Korea where you have a hereditary totalitarian state (Fun fact: South Korea which has become rather democratic now is the origin and power center of a cult named 'Unification Church' or 'Moon Sect' started by a billionaire in the 1950ies. They could not take over the state like the Kims in the North, but they still exist, although in a rather stagnant or even declining state due to infighting between the mother and her sons after the founder died. I see totalitarian systems as political cults having taken over states - that is for me the true face of hard-left 'Socialism'. As cult leader you get this kind of long-term super-parasitic life.) So, if you want to know what kind of 'socialist' you are dealing with, look at how they live, how they treat others, especially how they react to the opinions of others. And in the most cases you'll find out that most 'socialists' develop into the constructive positive way, while very few turn nasty into this parasitic existence. So, blaming any lefty as 'Socialist' usually gets it all wrong. I think it is important for people to understand what hard-core 'Socialism' actually is. And I don't see anything like that in the big parties, there are a few extremes on the left AND the right which might try to go down that path (just compare fasc/st and national soc/alist societies like Italy/Spain and Germany in the 1930ies, substract Nationalism and Rasc/sm as state ideologies from them, and compare them to the Communist/Socialist states - they turn out to be basically the same).

Darks days in the UK indeed. Seeing the UK delve deeper into socialism is a terrible sign.