I have a feeling that they are generally unhappy because they can see they don't have a future.

Well this is looking backwards, the next result is not going to be so rosy.

more like 15 years

Would be nice to set some minimum standards on the inverter so that is can have batteries plug into it in the future, instead of whatever the cheapest un-upgradable inverter they can source.

He implemented a global carbon tax, pretty impressive.

Who cares how he talks if he backs people who act against those interests. There are plenty of people who talk well on the subject who didn't back the people currently refusing to fix the issue.

He backed labour at the last election didn't he?

Labour are never going to nationalise the water industry, they aren't even going to enforce the current laws in case they risk collapsing the water companies.

I didn't say you were left wing. In fact it is often a good indicator of a righwinger that they think labour is left wing.

Giving pensioners a huge payout at the expense of everyone else's taxes skyrocketing isn't particularly left wing.

Ah ok they are left wing if we run with your imaginary version of them, cool.

What is it with boomers replying with GIFs when they are challenged with basic facts.

No such thing as a centrist.

Labour are pretty clearly right wing, from their continuation of austerity to their support of genocide in Gaza.

Some minor concessions to workers doesn't suddenly make them left wing.

Really need the greens to step up because at the moment he will be replaced by a reform or reform+tory government and they are going to be even worse.

2024 wasn't a decade ago, you know, when he was pushing a labour candidate against the greens in Brighton Pavilion.

Labour is a right wing government.

He backed labour at the last election, a labour party that was never going to do anything to tackle the water companies.

He can't be trusted.

Ok, so you aren't going to read anything.

I opened the article, how about you read down the thread instead of just making the same asinine argument the other Starmer bot made.

UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites, says Starmer The prime minister says it remains the case that the UK will "not join offensive action now".

www.bbc.com/news/article...

"That doesn't sound anywhere near like you agreed with the change of stance"

Oh you just struggle to read.

Hilarious you accused me of not reading the article when this is in the first paragraph

"to use British military bases for 'defensive' strikes on Iranian missile sites"

Like come on.

It is funny that you accuse others of refusing to change their mind when I thought the original decision was a rare correct choice from starmer and changed my view when he changed his stance.

It is your argument, the fact is attacking another country isn't "defensive".

Oh so you can type correctly, well done.

So your whole argument is because they call it "defensive" makes it so?

"Defensive" strikes. Just because you call it one thing doesn't make it that.

Last time I checked Dubai wasn't the UK.

Can you pin point the hysterics? I have pointed out publicity available facts that contradict your position in a pretty calm and boring tone.

Is your shift key broken or did you just never get a hang of capital letters?

UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites, says Starmer The prime minister says it remains the case that the UK will "not join offensive action now".

www.bbc.com/news/article...

"The Iranians have been attacking us for days because of Trump's stupid war. "

No, they attacked after starmer signed us up without a vote to another pointless illegal war.

Facilitating an attack is still taking part in an attack. The only attack on the UK happened after Starmer caved and gave trump want he wanted.