One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
Oh, woe is you! You could just stop exaggerating. Parties never deliver 100% of their manifestos, but they usually deliver a good chunk of them and rarely do the opposite of them.
Oh do give over, how long for instance have the tories been promising for example that migration would be reduced to 10's of thousands and failed to deliver.....labour didn't really even bother with a manifesto last election going for the ming vase.
I don't expect them to deliver 100% I do expect them to at least try to deliver and often they don't even make the pretence of trying. Indeed labour even went to court to declare manifesto's were non binding.
Given that why the fuck should we give these idiots anything let alone a mandate and I apply that to all parties. The best thing we can do is do a voter strike and no one votes till they accept what they promise they try to deliver and until then we don't elect any of them
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
I think it's perfectly OK to express opinions about how people vote.
A good political event requires a good speaker and attentive listeners, and the analogy reads straight across.
I didn't claim it wasnt I was pointing out to the one I replied to that I hadn't once said people were voting the wrong way when he said "You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!"
I can happily report that the Scottish Loch trout, new pots, creme fraiche, horseradish, cucumber pickle, dill dill dill Nordic thingy that I just made was EPIC
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
You just said, "Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines..." If that isn't criticising how people vote, what is it?
I don't particularly think you are arguing for something bad. I agree that we should be concerned if turnout falls and that parties should be largely sticking to their manifesto promises. I think you are overly pessimistic about the state of our democracy, and I'm less keen on referendums.
That is not a criticism though of who they vote for. Its an observation that too many vote for a rosette colour and actually like most voters have no idea about what they are voting for as manifesto's cannot be trusted
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
Oh, woe is you! You could just stop exaggerating. Parties never deliver 100% of their manifestos, but they usually deliver a good chunk of them and rarely do the opposite of them.
Oh do give over, how long for instance have the tories been promising for example that migration would be reduced to 10's of thousands and failed to deliver.....labour didn't really even bother with a manifesto last election going for the ming vase.
I don't expect them to deliver 100% I do expect them to at least try to deliver and often they don't even make the pretence of trying. Indeed labour even went to court to declare manifesto's were non binding.
Given that why the fuck should we give these idiots anything let alone a mandate and I apply that to all parties. The best thing we can do is do a voter strike and no one votes till they accept what they promise they try to deliver and until then we don't elect any of them
You are right that the Tories did not deliver on their manifesto when it came to immigration. I have repeatedly expressed my bafflement at the Tory strategy of campaigning for lower immigration while delivering much higher immigration. Immigration is certainly an example of a party promising one thing and doing another. And they paid for it! They lost votes to Reform and crashed to historic lows in Parliament.
However, the Tories did do lots of other things. Their big thing in 2019 was to get Brexit done, and they got Brexit done, for example.
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
You just said, "Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines..." If that isn't criticising how people vote, what is it?
I don't particularly think you are arguing for something bad. I agree that we should be concerned if turnout falls and that parties should be largely sticking to their manifesto promises. I think you are overly pessimistic about the state of our democracy, and I'm less keen on referendums.
That is not a criticism though of who they vote for. Its an observation that too many vote for a rosette colour and actually like most voters have no idea about what they are voting for as manifesto's cannot be trusted
You said, "I haven't once criticised how people vote." I gave an example. You say the example "is not a criticism though of who they vote for". It isn't. But it is a criticism of how people vote.
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
I think most parties do that. They try and carry out things which they said. Unfortunately events occur. Surely you've had personal plans for your future which have been sidelined by things beyond your control?
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
I agree with you on this. I am not pushing back on this. However, you think this rarely happens and I think this happens more often than not.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
Presumably that's in the range where Yusuf could cover it he he wants/were allowed to. I mean, he wouldn't be a happy bunny, and the internal party dynamics would be awful (does Nigel take Rupert back?), but there are still some steps from there to anything really awful, aren't there?
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
I reckon it will all be ok. If Farage loses the money will be found somehow.
According to t'internet, Lowe and Yusuf are almost equally well off
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
Presumably that's in the range where Yusuf could cover it he he wants/were allowed to. I mean, he wouldn't be a happy bunny, and the internal party dynamics would be awful (does Nigel take Rupert back?), but there are still some steps from there to anything really awful, aren't there?
It's Lowe vs Yusuf that is at the heart of the squabble, so it's pretty certain Farage would have a ready backer... of readies
On reading the case, Lowe is threatening to sue Yusuf, as well as Farage and Anderson. That will make it easier for the MPs to be bankrolled I expect
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
I reckon it will all be ok. If Farage loses the money will be found somehow.
According to t'internet, Lowe and Yusuf are almost equally well off
But there's rules on the money MPs can receive from external parties.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
You just said, "Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines..." If that isn't criticising how people vote, what is it?
I don't particularly think you are arguing for something bad. I agree that we should be concerned if turnout falls and that parties should be largely sticking to their manifesto promises. I think you are overly pessimistic about the state of our democracy, and I'm less keen on referendums.
That is not a criticism though of who they vote for. Its an observation that too many vote for a rosette colour and actually like most voters have no idea about what they are voting for as manifesto's cannot be trusted
You said, "I haven't once criticised how people vote." I gave an example. You say the example "is not a criticism though of who they vote for". It isn't. But it is a criticism of how people vote.
Your accusation however went further than that "You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!" I took that too mean who I think they should vote for with the "how you think they should" . However if you mean merely that people should inform themselves of what they are voting for before they vote then yes I see no value in people voting tory/labour/lib dem/reform/green because they have always done so without paying any attention to what they are actually voting for. That way is the way to governments being elected like the nazi's
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
Rupert Lowe won a quarter of million quid in damages plus costs from Martin Samuels/The Times in a libel case.
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
I reckon it will all be ok. If Farage loses the money will be found somehow.
According to t'internet, Lowe and Yusuf are almost equally well off
But there's rules on the money MPs can receive from external parties.
I wouldn't worry yourself, I am sure it will be ok
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Care workers visas have not permitted bringing dependents since March 2024.
Yes I know, but there was a two year period where they were able to and I'm suggesting that we don't allow any from that period to recycle their existing visa when it ends. Train up our economically inactive to do those jobs.
The libel case highlights the fun we have ahead. Let’s assume best/worst case scenario with the Nigel taken out. Their voters will scream incoherently. The law? Who cares.
No it’s going to be the same when their box fresh councillors get their feet under the desk running big councils with big pledges. What do you mean the law says we can’t?
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Care workers visas have not permitted bringing dependents since March 2024.
Yes I know, but there was a two year period where they were able to and I'm suggesting that we don't allow any from that period to recycle their existing visa when it ends. Train up our economically inactive to do those jobs.
Having spent money educating the 4 children, shouldn't we encourage them to stay and get value out of them?
If Biden had posted a single AI pic of himself, the US media would have had a meltdown lasting weeks
Why does the Mad King get a pass?
Let me tell you the story of Dave and Lydia.
Dave is a warlord. Lydia is 7 years old and lives all her dolls equally, because she doesn’t want any of them to feel sad.
On Tuesday, Dave murders 126 people. Also on Tuesday, Lydia tells a fib.
Dave has a quiet night in and a good sleep. Lydia gets a telling off, and goes to bed in tears.
Or better still, replace Lydia with Sister Assumpta, who had an irritated thought about one of the other nuns singing out of tune at Mattins this morning. Sister Assumpta rightly feels guilty with herself.
Society depends on us having some agreement about where the line between right and wrong behaviour is. But the easiest route to individual success is to go further over that line than others do and to kill our personal concience when we do so.
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
So you want the Labour 2024 ,manifesto to be implemented in full?
If Biden had posted a single AI pic of himself, the US media would have had a meltdown lasting weeks
Why does the Mad King get a pass?
Let me tell you the story of Dave and Lydia.
Dave is a warlord. Lydia is 7 years old and lives all her dolls equally, because she doesn’t want any of them to feel sad.
On Tuesday, Dave murders 126 people. Also on Tuesday, Lydia tells a fib.
Dave has a quiet night in and a good sleep. Lydia gets a telling off, and goes to bed in tears.
Or better still, replace Lydia with Sister Assumpta, who had an irritated thought about one of the other nuns singing out of tune at Mattins this morning. Sister Assumpta rightly feels guilty with herself.
Society depends on us having some agreement about where the line between right and wrong behaviour is. But the easiest route to individual success is to go further over that line than others do and to kill our personal concience when we do so.
No, I don't have an solution to that problem.
Embrace it. Which is why the following is the greatest political pitch in history…
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
Its complete absence is suspicious. Perhaps it didn't qualify as an "incident", and therefore wasn't polled.
If Biden had posted a single AI pic of himself, the US media would have had a meltdown lasting weeks
Why does the Mad King get a pass?
Let me tell you the story of Dave and Lydia.
Dave is a warlord. Lydia is 7 years old and lives all her dolls equally, because she doesn’t want any of them to feel sad.
On Tuesday, Dave murders 126 people. Also on Tuesday, Lydia tells a fib.
Dave has a quiet night in and a good sleep. Lydia gets a telling off, and goes to bed in tears.
Or better still, replace Lydia with Sister Assumpta, who had an irritated thought about one of the other nuns singing out of tune at Mattins this morning. Sister Assumpta rightly feels guilty with herself.
Society depends on us having some agreement about where the line between right and wrong behaviour is. But the easiest route to individual success is to go further over that line than others do and to kill our personal concience when we do so.
No, I don't have an solution to that problem.
Not electing the free riding arseholes to high office would be a start. No doubt william will disagree.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
And they feature positively for the government, in relation to an increase in deportations. I guess ongoing small boats don't register as an "event" though.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Yes - it’s the relative numbers I was remarking on.
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
Hmm. Doing a convincing alt-hist takes a lot of research (here's mine from 2013) and you'll run out of ideas fast once the obvious cliches (Germans win WWII! The South wins the ACW!). You're competing with stuff like this:
The best alt-history I have come across is A Very British Civil War which is the basis for a very successful tabletop miniatures game (my company makes armed miners, cricketers and others for the game)
It is based on the concept of Edward VIII refusing to stand down in 1936 and being backed by Mosely who goes on to form the Government. Things fall apart rapidly with a descent into civil war similar to that in Spain. The regular forces split with many of them joining an Albertine faction whilst the Government forces consist of the Blackshirts with support from Germany. The Socialists are ina loose alliance with the Anglcan Union and Scotland effectively secedes.
There has been a lot of work put into the concipt and it is well worth a look if you like alt-history.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Yes - it’s the relative numbers I was remarking on.
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
Yep. A lot people have got confused by the swing from Labour to Reform, thinking that means lots of Labour voters switched to Reform.
I think a much bigger effect is that Reform have exceptionally high voter retention, picked up non-voters, and the Right wing vote has become a bit more efficient. Meanwhile Labour voters just stayed at home, pissed off at the lack of *anything* and the withdrawal of freebies.
The solution to this is not to lurch to the right - "tent cities" is genius - no chance Labour can beat Reform at their own game.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Yes - it’s the relative numbers I was remarking on.
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
Unfortunately, we're not yet a serious country. After all, the faster-than-inflation rises in pensions over the last couple of years are comfortably more than the WFA.
In the old days, this would have been managed by an army of occupation, or IMF technocrats. Without the pressure to win an election afterwards, working out what to do is easy.
"Boomerslop" has word of the year potential. Such an acerbic and accurate description of a lot of the narrative online. I've already used it on Facebook to explosive effect.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt like you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Turnout is also affected by the importance of the outcome. The Scottish Independence Referendum had a particularly high turnout. Council elections not so much. Turnout is also low when none of the candidates inspire voters.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
Which is why they need to get to net emigration by the time the election rolls around. Deportation of illegals, revoking visas for low wage migrants, reducing the student visa grace period to 3 or 6 months rather than 2 years, increasing the skilled worker threshold to above £50k, designating safe third countries to deport any and all uninvited asylum seekers and emptying the hotels with deporting them rather than just giving up and handing them legal status.
Labour need to get tough and do it now so that by 2028 the policies have fed through and they have enough credibility to run on a low immigration, tough on illegal immigrants policy. People need to see that the hotels are empty and that we aren't just handing out legal status to any and all who cross the border illegally.
If they do this I actually think they have a chance to finish the Tory party once and for all. Reform will lose votes to Labour but the Tories won't have any platform from which to run and they will leak a huge proportion of votes to Reform.
If Labour did that, they'd win a landslide at the next election.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
It now goes to a runoff, which he will find tough.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
It now goes to a runoff, which he will find tough.
He's starting from double the vote of his opponent though.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
It now goes to a runoff, which he will find tough.
He's starting from double the vote of his opponent though.
so what?
The issue is he's not likely to be the second choice of very many people.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
No-one could parody you better than you could do it yourself.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
The other guy declared zero election expenses. That seems implausible. I know a few Romanians, one of whom is very much a Brussels type internationalist and they thought all thing considered that it was a mistake to ban him.
"Boomerslop" has word of the year potential. Such an acerbic and accurate description of a lot of the narrative online. I've already used it on Facebook to explosive effect.
It is. But. To be a pedant, and why not? Isn't it two words?
Ps. Listen to the voxpop from Kent about voting Reform for its analogue equivalent.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Are you pleased about the new Lancashire councillor for Burnley Central? On the whole, I'd rather not see representation for the 'stop men and women mixing party'. Still: diversity, eh?
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
So you want the Labour 2024 ,manifesto to be implemented in full?
"...Keir Starmer suffered worst defeat of any new PM on record, losing 65% of Labour's seats. In 1977, just two years before being evicted from power, Labour lost 48% of the council seats it was defending. Starmer just lost a whopping **65%**..."
If Biden had posted a single AI pic of himself, the US media would have had a meltdown lasting weeks
Why does the Mad King get a pass?
Let me tell you the story of Dave and Lydia.
Dave is a warlord. Lydia is 7 years old and lives all her dolls equally, because she doesn’t want any of them to feel sad.
On Tuesday, Dave murders 126 people. Also on Tuesday, Lydia tells a fib.
Dave has a quiet night in and a good sleep. Lydia gets a telling off, and goes to bed in tears.
Or better still, replace Lydia with Sister Assumpta, who had an irritated thought about one of the other nuns singing out of tune at Mattins this morning. Sister Assumpta rightly feels guilty with herself.
Society depends on us having some agreement about where the line between right and wrong behaviour is. But the easiest route to individual success is to go further over that line than others do and to kill our personal concience when we do so.
No, I don't have an solution to that problem.
I thought Sister Assumpta's weakness was chocolate?
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
I am puzzled why I am getting push back on this....what is so wrong with stating when people vote they should be able to trust parties are actually going to try and do what their manifesto says. I don't see how that is controversial else how can you cast an informed vote
So you want the Labour 2024 ,manifesto to be implemented in full?
That is what people voted for so yes
I am sorry I see a manifesto as a contract between voter and voted for......you give us your vote this is what we will do with it
no different for example than a contract between me and my isp...you give us this much money each month this is what we will provide
If isp's behaved like politicians and said you are still bound to your contract but providing you internet access was only an aspiration there would be hell unleashed
Ferrari really couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
A Ferrari wouldn't last long enough there.
My father was a policeman. He always said he'd much rather break down in the 'worst' council estate than the poshest of neighbourhoods as the regular folk in the council estate would actually come out to help.
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
Couple of observations on the potential banning of the AfD:
First, the decision by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the domestic intelligence agency) to confirm the AfD nationally as 'confirmed extreme-right', doesn't ban anything or really have much practical effect. The AfD was already under surveillance as 'suspected extreme-right', some state chapters and the youth wing were already 'confirmed extreme-right'. Supposedly it makes surveillance easier. The 1100-page report giving the reasons for the decision hasn't been published. This is ridiculous, and makes it hard to decide whether the decision is justified or not. When the AfD challenge the decision in court, the report or its contents will anyway have to be made public. So far the AfD has lost every court challenge against the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz AFAIK.
Second, I don't think it will lead to the banning of the AfD. This decision perhaps makes it somewhat easier for the government or parliament to ask the Constitutional Court to ban the AfD, but I think its pretty unlikely to happen. The last attempt in the last parliament earlier this year to do this only attracted the support of 124 members (out of 736).
Couple of observations on the potential banning of the AfD:
First, the decision by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the domestic intelligence agency) to confirm the AfD nationally as 'confirmed extreme-right', doesn't ban anything or really have much practical effect. The AfD was already under surveillance as 'suspected extreme-right', some state chapters and the youth wing were already 'confirmed extreme-right'. Supposedly it makes surveillance easier. The 1100-page report giving the reasons for the decision hasn't been published. This is ridiculous, and makes it hard to decide whether the decision is justified or not. When the AfD challenge the decision in court, the report or its contents will anyway have to be made public. So far the AfD has lost every court challenge against the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz AFAIK.
Second, I don't think it will lead to the banning of the AfD. This decision perhaps makes it somewhat easier for the government or parliament to ask the Constitutional Court to ban the AfD, but I think its pretty unlikely to happen. The last attempt in the last parliament earlier this year to do this only attracted the support of 124 members (out of 736).
That's pretty worrying. Imagine if 100/650 UK MPs voted to ban the Labour party because the EHRC found it to have a serious anti-semitism problem.
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Yes - it’s the relative numbers I was remarking on.
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
Yep. A lot people have got confused by the swing from Labour to Reform, thinking that means lots of Labour voters switched to Reform.
I think a much bigger effect is that Reform have exceptionally high voter retention, picked up non-voters, and the Right wing vote has become a bit more efficient. Meanwhile Labour voters just stayed at home, pissed off at the lack of *anything* and the withdrawal of freebies.
The solution to this is not to lurch to the right - "tent cities" is genius - no chance Labour can beat Reform at their own game.
Surely if Labour lean a bit more Tory, and the Tories lean a bit more Reform - then everyone wins?
Pretty interesting table here. In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
According to that chart, increased illegal immigrant deportation is one of the popular policies….
Yes - it’s the relative numbers I was remarking on.
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
Yep. A lot people have got confused by the swing from Labour to Reform, thinking that means lots of Labour voters switched to Reform.
I think a much bigger effect is that Reform have exceptionally high voter retention, picked up non-voters, and the Right wing vote has become a bit more efficient. Meanwhile Labour voters just stayed at home, pissed off at the lack of *anything* and the withdrawal of freebies.
The solution to this is not to lurch to the right - "tent cities" is genius - no chance Labour can beat Reform at their own game.
Surely if Labour lean a bit more Tory, and the Tories lean a bit more Reform - then everyone wins?
Surely?
Politics benefits by a diversity of views giving people a range of options even if we disagree with those options. For democracy to flourish there have to be meaningful differences or else you get the current situation where every conventional party is centrist and only differs in the offers to the voters in minute detail
Comments
I don't expect them to deliver 100% I do expect them to at least try to deliver and often they don't even make the pretence of trying. Indeed labour even went to court to declare manifesto's were non binding.
Given that why the fuck should we give these idiots anything let alone a mandate and I apply that to all parties. The best thing we can do is do a voter strike and no one votes till they accept what they promise they try to deliver and until then we don't elect any of them
The timings look sus for Farage and others.
Rupert Lowe publicly criticises Farage on Thursday afternoon and the whip is removed the next day.
However, the Tories did do lots of other things. Their big thing in 2019 was to get Brexit done, and they got Brexit done, for example.
As for Labour, they published a 136-page manifesto, available here: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
Surely you've had personal plans for your future which have been sidelined by things beyond your control?
According to t'internet, Lowe and Yusuf are almost equally well off
On reading the case, Lowe is threatening to sue Yusuf, as well as Farage and Anderson. That will make it easier for the MPs to be bankrolled I expect
Why does the Mad King get a pass?
Dave is a warlord. Lydia is 7 years old and loves all her dolls equally, because she doesn’t want any of them to feel sad.
On Tuesday, Dave murders 126 people. Also on Tuesday, Lydia tells a fib.
Dave has a quiet night in and a good sleep. Lydia gets a telling off, and goes to bed in tears.
No it’s going to be the same when their box fresh councillors get their feet under the desk running big councils with big pledges. What do you mean the law says we can’t?
Society depends on us having some agreement about where the line between right and wrong behaviour is. But the easiest route to individual success is to go further over that line than others do and to kill our personal concience when we do so.
No, I don't have an solution to that problem.
https://youtu.be/XEECxN5P1nw?si=ewFy9LGadnptFcZL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5n0DLYbYqc
In comparison to WFA, migrants hardly figure:
To clearly understand how damaging winter fuel has been for the Government - this chart looks at key policies or political events so far by cut through and positivity. Winter Fuel has by far the highest cut through of any policy, and the highest negativity.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1918285704544637332
What do we make of it ?
No doubt william will disagree.
"I love advertising, because I love lying."
I agree it’s not an ideal poll, but the WFA numbers are bananas.
It is based on the concept of Edward VIII refusing to stand down in 1936 and being backed by Mosely who goes on to form the Government. Things fall apart rapidly with a descent into civil war similar to that in Spain. The regular forces split with many of them joining an Albertine faction whilst the Government forces consist of the Blackshirts with support from Germany. The Socialists are ina loose alliance with the Anglcan Union and Scotland effectively secedes.
There has been a lot of work put into the concipt and it is well worth a look if you like alt-history.
I think a much bigger effect is that Reform have exceptionally high voter retention, picked up non-voters, and the Right wing vote has become a bit more efficient. Meanwhile Labour voters just stayed at home, pissed off at the lack of *anything* and the withdrawal of freebies.
The solution to this is not to lurch to the right - "tent cities" is genius - no chance Labour can beat Reform at their own game.
In the old days, this would have been managed by an army of occupation, or IMF technocrats. Without the pressure to win an election afterwards, working out what to do is easy.
https://x.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1919133855488856532
George Simion is a big fan of Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni — and wants to halt military aid to Ukraine. He's also won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Introducing Europe's new hard-right icon.
The issue is he's not likely to be the second choice of very many people.
Woger wanks highly in Wome!
Sadly, not joking
But. To be a pedant, and why not?
Isn't it two words?
Ps. Listen to the voxpop from Kent about voting Reform for its analogue equivalent.
Source: https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3lodowxvvr22p
"This isn't what it looks like, Father!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viunxgncyfc&t=1s
no different for example than a contract between me and my isp...you give us this much money each month this is what we will provide
If isp's behaved like politicians and said you are still bound to your contract but providing you internet access was only an aspiration there would be hell unleashed
'The Eternaut' - Argentinian show - massive atmospheric problems leading to... bad times. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternaut_(TV_series)
'Families like Ours' - Danish - rising sea levels result in Denmark having a mass-evacuation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_like_Ours
First, the decision by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the domestic intelligence agency) to confirm the AfD nationally as 'confirmed extreme-right', doesn't ban anything or really have much practical effect. The AfD was already under surveillance as 'suspected extreme-right', some state chapters and the youth wing were already 'confirmed extreme-right'. Supposedly it makes surveillance easier. The 1100-page report giving the reasons for the decision hasn't been published. This is ridiculous, and makes it hard to decide whether the decision is justified or not. When the AfD challenge the decision in court, the report or its contents will anyway have to be made public. So far the AfD has lost every court challenge against the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz AFAIK.
Second, I don't think it will lead to the banning of the AfD. This decision perhaps makes it somewhat easier for the government or parliament to ask the Constitutional Court to ban the AfD, but I think its pretty unlikely to happen. The last attempt in the last parliament earlier this year to do this only attracted the support of 124 members (out of 736).
Surely?