Best Of

Derailed from last thread.

Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?

Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.

Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".

A £13m donation to Reform and £5m as a gift to Farage all makes Bernie Ecclestone's £1m to Blair Labour to be a drop in the ocean. And we still, a quarter of a century later, get posters castigating New Labour for their year 2000 corruption, yet posters are giving Farage a free pass on something that looks and smells utterly rank.

Lest we forget, I believe the Tories kept the £10m from the lad who said Diane Abbott made him hate all black women and that she should be shot.

Derailed from last thread.

Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?

Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.

Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".

A £13m donation to Reform and £5m as a gift to Farage all makes Bernie Ecclestone's £1m to Blair Labour to be a drop in the ocean. And we still, a quarter of a century later, get posters castigating New Labour for their year 2000 corruption, yet posters are giving Farage a free pass on something that looks and smells utterly rank.

I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

I’ve said many times, whilst cutting spending on some things was fair enough, cutting the police has to be one of the dumbest decisions any government has made in history.

Justice, even more so, because the sums involved are so small, but the harm caused is so great.

I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

Derailed from last thread.

Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?

Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.

Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".

As with many polls, I think this is one we might put down to the framing effect. I don't think it is necessarily particularly meaningful data.

At the end of the day, Farage has a total, including defections, of 8 MPs, Badenoch has 116. I find it hard to believe that Farage can make the case that he should win in a seat that already has a Conservative MP, when whatever his vote percentage, his parliamentary party fits in a taxi.

As a Lib Dem, we know about having large percentage votes and not gaining too many seats- as the Alliance, we got 25.4% in 1983 and got 23 seats to show for it. I understand that FPTP can throw up strange results, but as, again the Lib Dems learned and as the 2024 results show, a strong ground campaign in the right seat can still win, even if the national percentage is not that strong- the Lib Dem national vote was only 0.6% up in 2024, but a gain of 64 seats.

Farage gets the attention of sympathetic and fash-curious figures in the media, but as we see with the chaos after the local elections, the Reform ground game is weak. More to the point, there is a consistent pattern of people voting for Farage in elections they do not deem to be important- Locals, Europeans- but not at the general election.

So, even allowing for the FPTP capacity to give skewed results, I do not think that Farage will overtake Badenoch- his negatives are much worse than any other leader, and as Trump implodes, my judgment is that it will get worse for him, The Tories are incumbents in 109 more seats than "Reform", and they have a solid ground game in these seats, as well in others they lost narrowly to Labour. The last election says The Tories get 23.7%, Farage only 14.3%. Notwithstanding the current polling snapshot, there is a lot more inertia to overcome for the general election.

I would favour the Tories to win a lot more seats than Farage, and this poll may create a betting opportunity for much better odds.

I think Farage is more Falstaff in Henry V- a seemingly jolly but in fact rather dark figure- than he is Bolingbroke.