So anyway we have our postal votes and duty has been done. I thought about it and discussed it with my family and in the end I decided to vote Conservative.
No - not really. For the first time since 1997 we have three generations all voting Lab
So anyway we have our postal votes and duty has been done. I thought about it and discussed it with my family and in the end I decided to vote Conservative.
No - not really. For the first time since 1997 we have three generations all voting Lab
I watched that NewsAgents report from Spalding. The old b@st@rds saying they would vote reform couldn't care less about Ukraine. Mind you, one of the interviewees was very interested in hanging and flogging.
Unless Rishi goes boots on for hanging and flogging, they are not coming back. That said no more than half a handful of Reform seats.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
You're saying that Ukraine has no right to be an independent country. How would you react if the French said that Britain had no right to be an independent country and invaded the country to stop us from leaving the EU?
Fuck off to Moscow with that attitude.
I feel like I can already see Farage's offensive defense on this issue. He will come out swinging and just say the mainstream parties are pretending he supports Putin when he made sure to say he doesn't (even if the rest of his words make the same justifications as Putin), he'll look outraged and call it desperate, and in any case the people of Britain care about immigration and tax and not matters outside their control.
It'll get a weekend of punditry chin wagging, then Rishi will step on a banana skin or his government chaffeur will be revealed to be the Boston Strangler or something, and we'll be back on track.
A competent Conservative campaign with competent leadership could squeeze 30%+ of the vote out of this election.
It could squeeze much more. A competent Conservative campaign should romp home.
Traditional Conservative party values are election winning every time. I see no party standing on those values though. No individual politicians really getting terribly close either.
The Conservative party has totally lost its way.
I agree.
We've heard Keir Starmer is a socialist. We've seen their leaked tax hike plans on inheritance tax, capital gains and pensions. We know he's vindictive to those who object to gender ideology. We know his weird ideological aversion to any aspect of the private sector in either health or education. We know he's a lapsed republican and enthusiastic vegetarian. We know he took The Knee.
He's cosplaying Blair, but he is no Tony Blair.
The only thing I take issue with here is "enthusiastic vegetarian". I'm trying to imagine what an unenthusiastic vegetarian would look like.
Now you come to mention it, I know several unenthusiastic vegetarians.
On topic, Farage is a worm. I doubt the Putin remarks will make much difference. Snake oil salesmen gonna snake oil. Sadly it seems he's quite good at it.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
I watched that NewsAgents report from Spalding. The old b@st@rds saying they would vote reform couldn't care less about Ukraine. Mind you, one of the interviewees was very interested in hanging and flogging.
Unless Rishi goes boots on for hanging and flogging, they are not coming back. That said no more than half a handful of Reform seats.
Every attitude survey shows you have about 10-20% of quacks and loons in the population. The quack and loon party, whether it's UKIP or REFUK or Galloway's Mob have a ceiling of the number of pub bores in the nation. The danger is that they frighten the Tories enough to take them over, and then you have 10-20% of enthusiastic quacks and loons married to the 15-20% of people who vote Tory no matter how much of a rolling bin fire that party is. Mix that with FPTP and you have a dangerous combination.
I did wonder why CCHQ didn't go in harder on the whole obvious bond-crisis-in-the-making that was the REFUK manifesto.
Because a number of high-profile Tories want to unite with Reform and for Farage to have a senior role in the subsequent party. They would publicly speak out for Farage if he was attacked.
The problem here is also the accuser. Yes the Tories should go for Farage highlighting his shilling. But the Tories are even less liked and believed that Farage. People will dismiss their attacks without really considering them simply because of who is making them.
If the aim is to prevent Reform from getting votes and seats then it needs to be Labour making the attacks as well, as they are considered more honest. Trouble is they won't because electorally it is in their interests for Reform to do well and take votes from the Tories.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
During the execrable 90 mins that passed as an England match yesterday I posted a screenshot of a webpage of a young lady who is standing for election to her student union who goes under the superb, and seemingly genuine, name of - I kid you not - Tuna Kunt. This is her website: https://www.citystudents.co.uk/elections/manifesto/4714/
So perhaps in a not-Cockney-rhyming-slang-but-feels-like-it way we could simply say something like ‘That Farage, he’s a right tuna!’ Or in a year’s time when the jubilation’s worn off and we think Labour are crap we can fulminate ‘Fuck off Starmer, you massive tuna.’
Perhaps we could get it to be one of those meems on that tick tock.
If you have not come across it before, you should read Archie Clark Kerr’s letter to Reggie Pembroke:
I watched that NewsAgents report from Spalding. The old b@st@rds saying they would vote reform couldn't care less about Ukraine. Mind you, one of the interviewees was very interested in hanging and flogging.
Unless Rishi goes boots on for hanging and flogging, they are not coming back. That said no more than half a handful of Reform seats.
Of course, we all have to keep our fingers crossed that the impending sidelining and marginalisation of said old fuckers endures. The risk is, obviously, that the Tory Party goes reactionary far right to try to win them back (and because this chimes with the inclinations of it's tiny, elderly, extreme membership,) and then wins actual power should Labour also make a hash of governing, and our Buggins' Turn voting system asserts itself once again.
There are no shortage of examples in Europe where popular discontent has led pissed off and/or thick voters to turn out in great numbers for parties that are more extreme than Reform. We ignore them at our peril.
So anyway we have our postal votes and duty has been done. I thought about it and discussed it with my family and in the end I decided to vote Conservative.
No - not really. For the first time since 1997 we have three generations all voting Lab
What type of seat - marginal?
Well - it depends. Liz Truss currently has a 26,000 majority so that probably makes South West Norfolk now a marginal!
The problem here is also the accuser. Yes the Tories should go for Farage highlighting his shilling. But the Tories are even less liked and believed that Farage. People will dismiss their attacks without really considering them simply because of who is making them.
If the aim is to prevent Reform from getting votes and seats then it needs to be Labour making the attacks as well, as they are considered more honest. Trouble is they won't because electorally it is in their interests for Reform to do well and take votes from the Tories.
Sorry this answer was meant more for those saying the Tories should go on the attack and didn't really relate to SO's perfectly valid statement
Bugger, fell into the new thread trap. I bring my reply to BatteryCorrectHorse onto this thread because it seems too good an idea to languish in obscurity. I might be slightly pissed:
During the execrable 90 mins that passed as an England match yesterday I posted a screenshot of the webpage of a young lady who is standing for election to her student union who goes under the superb, and seemingly genuine, name of - I kid you not - Tuna Kunt. This is her website: https://www.citystudents.co.uk/elections/manifesto/4714/
So perhaps in a not-Cockney-rhyming-slang-but-feels-like-it way we could simply say something like ‘That Farage, he’s a right tuna!’ Or in a year’s time when the jubilation’s worn off and we think Labour are crap we can fulminate ‘Fuck off Starmer, you massive tuna.’
Perhaps we could get it to be one of those meems on that tick tock.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Why this tendency for the rancid right to side with Putin? It's something in the brain chemistry but I'm not totally sure what.
A few months ago I wanted nothing more than the evisceration of the tory party.
That was then and this is now. It would leave a vacuum on the right where the extremists like Farage could take over. They already began to pull the Conservative Party to the right.
She’s way out of her depth. Mishal Husain showed her up as a lightweight.
The tories have got to find some heavyweights
Christopher Chope is likely to be one of the Tory survivors and is of a broadly similar age and outlook to the typical party member. His time has, perhaps, come?
Why this tendency for the rancid right to side with Putin? It's something in the brain chemistry but I'm not totally sure what.
Because the 10% of pub bores in any country who bloviate on about "fings aint wot it used to be" quite like the idea that a racially pure strongman can turn up and put the "lefties, pooftahs and ponces" in their place using violence.
Bugger, fell into the new thread trap. I bring my reply to BatteryCorrectHorse onto this thread because it seems too good an idea to languish in obscurity. I might be slightly pissed:
During the execrable 90 mins that passed as an England match yesterday I posted a screenshot of the webpage of a young lady who is standing for election to her student union who goes under the superb, and seemingly genuine, name of - I kid you not - Tuna Kunt. This is her website: https://www.citystudents.co.uk/elections/manifesto/4714/
So perhaps in a not-Cockney-rhyming-slang-but-feels-like-it way we could simply say something like ‘That Farage, he’s a right tuna!’ Or in a year’s time when the jubilation’s worn off and we think Labour are crap we can fulminate ‘Fuck off Starmer, you massive tuna.’
Perhaps we could get it to be one of those meems on that tick tock.
Why this tendency for the rancid right to side with Putin? It's something in the brain chemistry but I'm not totally sure what.
A few months ago I wanted nothing more than the evisceration of the tory party.
That was then and this is now. It would leave a vacuum on the right where the extremists like Farage could take over. They already began to pull the Conservative Party to the right.
This is a time of great danger.
The Far & Hard Right like Putin because he often funds them and supports them via the 'dark arts' of troll farms, etc. They also see him as the great leader of the white race against the black and brown people and their (you know who) puppet masters.
As for the Cons being replaced by extremists. That happened in 2019. They are all now already Farage fans or preparing to be appeasers.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
The Americans did not stay out till then. Look up Leaselend and Neutrality Patrol.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
So quisling Farage has outed himself as a shill for Putinist talking points already? That didn’t take long. I guess he picked them up from his fellow travellers in the US Republican party.
Off topic, I visited Mont St Michel today. It was absolutely stunning and much less busy than a certain gin-soaked scribbler experienced. It was also surprisingly reasonable to eat there. Not as cheap as in the little Breton coastal village I've hired a gite in (with rustic views and rustic internet) but not the sort of jaw-dropping rinsing that I'd expect in a tourist trap.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
The exclusive focus on Pearl Harbour rather than the simultaneous Japanese attacks on British territories shows how mentally Americanised we have become.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
If Richard Tice is watching, what do you make of this? There you were, trying to build a respectable populist right party, and then this clown comes along. He was always going to, but no use crying over spilt milk. You can't do anything, but you can say something. Or what about Lee Anderson. Thirty pee for your thoughts?
Or all the Farage-curious types in the Conservative politico-media ecosystem. Suella. Jacob. Are you OK with this? Between you and me, I'm rather looking forward to your impending irrelevance, but here's a chance to redeem yourselves before you shuffle off.
We need to see the poster of Farage in Putin’s pocket.
You have to remember that there are a significant number of Brits, like @Luckyguy1983, who are sympathetic towards Putin, just as there were a significant number in 1938 who liked Hitler.
We need to see the poster of Farage in Putin’s pocket.
You have to remember that there are a significant number of Brits, like @Luckyguy1983, who are sympathetic towards Putin, just as there were a significant number in 1938 who liked Hitler.
Why this tendency for the rancid right to side with Putin? It's something in the brain chemistry but I'm not totally sure what.
A few months ago I wanted nothing more than the evisceration of the tory party.
That was then and this is now. It would leave a vacuum on the right where the extremists like Farage could take over. They already began to pull the Conservative Party to the right.
This is a time of great danger.
I absolutely agree. I've never voted Tory, and I am unlikely so to do, but there was something reassuring about a party of Heath, Temple-Morris, Francis Pym and Heseltine.
The current Conservative Party with or without Farage is not that party, Johnson got rid of all the good guys. Johnson killed the Conservative Party as we knew it.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
Why this tendency for the rancid right to side with Putin? It's something in the brain chemistry but I'm not totally sure what.
I'd say it's a mix of the following:
- Direct Russian funding of far-right organisations in many cases - Binary opposition to "the libs" - centre left and general establishment are pro-Ukraine, so they are pro-Russia out of pure contrariness - Russia being seen as defenders of 'traditional values' (aka persecuting gay people) - Flat out white supremacy (despite Russia having the largest Muslim population by miles in Europe, Turkey aside)
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
They had the industrial might and were producing a lot of materiel, it just wasn't the US buying it. Roosevelt was crafty and encouraged the development of the export arms industry to provide jobs and to supply the US Armed Forces if they needed to enter the war.
So quisling Farage has outed himself as a shill for Putinist talking points already? That didn’t take long. I guess he picked them up from his fellow travellers in the US Republican party.
Yes. My worry is that, just as Trump's support for Putin changed the opinion of GOP voters, so the same effect will play out here. If Nigel says it, then it's fine with me, could be the reaction of lots of people.
And then the result is that British support for Ukraine is weakened.
I hope it doesn't go that way, but there is precedent.
If Farage fails to get elected AGAIN, I will both LOL and LMAO.
I hope and expect he comes third.
I'll be quite disappointed in the voters of Clacton if he doesn't.
Oh I think the ideal result is for Reform to win Clacton but no other seats - which would mean Farage has to sit in Parliament with a single question in PMQs once a year if he’s lucky.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
If Farage fails to get elected AGAIN, I will both LOL and LMAO.
I hope and expect he comes third.
I'll be quite disappointed in the voters of Clacton if he doesn't.
Oh I think the ideal result is for Reform to win Clacton but no other seats - which would mean Farage has to sit in Parliament with a single question in PMQs once a year if he’s lucky.
He would quickly become irrelevant
I disagree. Without a seat in parliament he has no vector to inject himself into the Tories. He becomes the also-ran, again. He fucks off to the United States to swing off Trump's bum hair next to Truss and we never hear from him again. If he's in Parliament he'll turn up on bloody Question Time every five minutes explaining how gay muslim Labour immigrants are going to kill your gran, and the intriguing about when he'll assume command of the Tories will be endless. In that circumstance I'd actively welcome Boris Johnson coming back to resume his leadership of the Tories, because at least he was just an idiot.
Comments
Occasionally the mask drops. But few will be listening.
https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
No - not really. For the first time since 1997 we have three generations all voting Lab
People will listen. Many have thought Farage a safe NOTA vote. Until they realise he is a fucking tool, nestled in Putin's lower colon.
And he just dissed the King too.
I wish my bookmakers to understand that I'm some penniless punter with an eye on politics. I'd prefer them not to know that this is in fact the truth.
Unless Rishi goes boots on for hanging and flogging, they are not coming back. That said no more than half a handful of Reform seats.
On topic, Farage is a worm. I doubt the Putin remarks will make much difference. Snake oil salesmen gonna snake oil. Sadly it seems he's quite good at it.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
If you’re selling at £100 a seat, that’s ten or twenty bags, a sizeable chunk of your liquidity gone unless you’re a millionaire.
Starmer will reverse Brexit, warns Badenoch
Business Secretary tipped as next Tory leader urges voters not to risk the danger of a Labour government
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/21/starmer-labour-reverse-brexit-warns-kemi-badenoch-election/
For example, neglecting to mention that Farages answer to that question also contained the words "obviousy the war is Putins fault"
If the aim is to prevent Reform from getting votes and seats then it needs to be Labour making the attacks as well, as they are considered more honest. Trouble is they won't because electorally it is in their interests for Reform to do well and take votes from the Tories.
https://lettersofnote.com/2009/10/28/we-all-feel-like-that-now-and-then/
The tories have got to find some heavyweights
😉
There are no shortage of examples in Europe where popular discontent has led pissed off and/or thick voters to turn out in great numbers for parties that are more extreme than Reform. We ignore them at our peril.
So perhaps in a not-Cockney-rhyming-slang-but-feels-like-it way we could simply say something like ‘That Farage, he’s a right tuna!’ Or in a year’s time when the jubilation’s worn off and we think Labour are crap we can fulminate ‘Fuck off Starmer, you massive tuna.’
Perhaps we could get it to be one of those meems on that tick tock.
https://x.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1804178802475700417
That was then and this is now. It would leave a vacuum on the right where the extremists like Farage could take over. They already began to pull the Conservative Party to the right.
This is a time of great danger.
I responded earlier on this thread
As for the Cons being replaced by extremists. That happened in 2019. They are all now already Farage fans or preparing to be appeasers.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
I think poor Nigel was provoked into making a total arse of himself by Nick Robinson asking him questions about it. So I blame Robinson really.
Next step.
If Richard Tice is watching, what do you make of this? There you were, trying to build a respectable populist right party, and then this clown comes along. He was always going to, but no use crying over spilt milk. You can't do anything, but you can say something. Or what about Lee Anderson. Thirty pee for your thoughts?
Or all the Farage-curious types in the Conservative politico-media ecosystem. Suella. Jacob. Are you OK with this? Between you and me, I'm rather looking forward to your impending irrelevance, but here's a chance to redeem yourselves before you shuffle off.
He has neither the depth nor the warmth to be the C word.
I'll be quite disappointed in the voters of Clacton if he doesn't.
What’s their campaign director up to? Oh…
The current Conservative Party with or without Farage is not that party, Johnson got rid of all the good guys. Johnson killed the Conservative Party as we knew it.
What's the common denominator between the rancid right and the rancid left, and what first attracted them to Putin?
·
1h
Just Farage echoing Putin’s vile justification for the brutal invasion of Ukraine.
https://x.com/iainmartin1/status/1804239923203182674
- Direct Russian funding of far-right organisations in many cases
- Binary opposition to "the libs" - centre left and general establishment are pro-Ukraine, so they are pro-Russia out of pure contrariness
- Russia being seen as defenders of 'traditional values' (aka persecuting gay people)
- Flat out white supremacy (despite Russia having the largest Muslim population by miles in Europe, Turkey aside)
And then the result is that British support for Ukraine is weakened.
I hope it doesn't go that way, but there is precedent.
He would quickly become irrelevant
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
He says South Holland & the Deepings is in the East of England.
It's in LINCOLNSHIRE, FFS !