Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A Very British Alternative: Jim Callaghan's Victory and the Redefinition of Britain's Future

1234689

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,967

    slade said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    Interesting that @KemiBadenoch has just admitted on @bbclaurak prog
    that the Tory party changing its leader (@BorisJohnson) led to an historic defeat.

    Would Rishi Sunak ever say that?


    https://x.com/nadinedorries/status/1918944785252970847?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Yes, the self-destructive antics of Boris Johnson was the leading cause.

    The Conservative party should have appointed a H&S officer and a financial ethics officer to keep him under some sort of control.
    To the Tories, Boris was simply a mechanism to win an election.

    Everyone knew he was totally unqualified to be Prime Minister.

    In that all the problems of the 2019-2024 parliament were laid.
    Didn't John Major try to blackball him as a Conservative candidate? After all, his unsuitability was pretty obvious long before 2019. And once he was an MP, of course he would seek to become PM, no matter what harm that caused to the non-people who were non-BoJo.

    Now there's a counterfactual. He's sacked from The Times, and that's the end of the matter. What happens next?
    Boris would have become a Latin teacher at his alma mater (that's Latin, you know).
    It is easy and lazy to knock Boris but his spoken French seems to me to better than that of any leading British politician for a very long time. I guess but can't judge that his Latin is pretty good as well. Also he writes well in English, well better than ANY of his critics.
    Blair was fluent in French. Clegg was trilingual in English, Spanish and French.
    Clegg also spoke Dutch.
    Yeah but that's not a proper language ;-) Its German for those that couldn't get the hang of the grammar.
    ho, ho, ho.....
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,404
    Taz said:

    kamski said:

    Taz said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    We’re moving to ‘Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler’ territory.
    Yes - @williamglenn is already at the stage of "deny the vote to everyone who doesn't vote how I want"
    Ha, you really are a spacker 😂😂

    Quality projection.
    Who have I ever said should be denied a vote? Or are you talking out of your arse again?@williamglenn supports the AfD and thinks they should be in power despite only getting 21% of the vote. He thinks German citizens who disagree with him should be disenfranchised. He doesn't believe in democracy.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    edited 3:01PM

    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    Which is happening, Enforced returns are up by by a quarter year on year.
    And you support Starmer going “further and faster”?
    Yes, we need to quickly process asylum seekers and get those that aren't genuine out of the country. Ideally we shouldn't need to have hotels full of wasted potential. But the backlog Labour inherited was awfully large and will take time.

    But I want Starmer to do everything else he promised as well.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,267
    Andy_JS said:

    The main difference between Canada/Australia and the UK is population density.

    Yes - Canadians tend to live in areas of much greater density than Brits. Same with Australians.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,404

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,710

    kamski said:

    Scott_xP said:

    His brains are leaking out of his ears...

    @atrupar.com‬

    WELKER: Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree?

    TRUMP: I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

    WELKER: Don't you need to uphold the Constitution?

    TRUMP: I don't know

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lodz6fabi22e

    Are you really unable to interpret those answers in any other way than to see Trump as stupid?
    The second question is pretty basic. He literally swore an oath to uphold the constitution, so the only correct answer is 'yes'.

    Trump is quite clearly going gaga in front of our eyes. He was always a corrupt lying racist sociopathic gangster, admittedly all things that @williamglenn admires, but denying that he is clearly losing the plot is just silly at this point.
    ‪Aaron Rupar‬
    @atrupar.com‬
    · 34m

    WELKER: When does it become the Trump economy?

    TRUMP: It partially is right now. I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy
    And it will always be thus.

    Even the tariffs will be Biden's when they kill the US economy.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,404

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,458

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    ‘A description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements’

    Well, your rhetoric is certainly soaring this afternoon.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150
    edited 3:10PM
    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this; and so the Establishments just ban or cripple these parties - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,458
    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,931
    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this; and so the Establishments just ban or cripple these parties - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Indeed. If mainstream democratic parties persist in giving their electorates what they repeatedly make clear they do not want - i.e. massive numbers of low-grade immigrants - they shouldn' be surprised if they look elsewhere.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,657
    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    Which is happening, Enforced returns are up by by a quarter year on year.
    And you support Starmer going “further and faster”?
    Yes, we need to quickly process asylum seekers and get those that aren't genuine out of the country. Ideally we shouldn't need to have hotels full of wasted potential. But the backlog Labour inherited was awfully large and will take time.

    But I want Starmer to do everything else he promised as well.
    That won’t take long.
  • Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    * Chef's kiss *
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    If you're Biedermann and you firmly support the policies of the Brandstifter...
  • ClippP said:

    slade said:

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    Interesting that @KemiBadenoch has just admitted on @bbclaurak prog
    that the Tory party changing its leader (@BorisJohnson) led to an historic defeat.

    Would Rishi Sunak ever say that?


    https://x.com/nadinedorries/status/1918944785252970847?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Yes, the self-destructive antics of Boris Johnson was the leading cause.

    The Conservative party should have appointed a H&S officer and a financial ethics officer to keep him under some sort of control.
    To the Tories, Boris was simply a mechanism to win an election.

    Everyone knew he was totally unqualified to be Prime Minister.

    In that all the problems of the 2019-2024 parliament were laid.
    Didn't John Major try to blackball him as a Conservative candidate? After all, his unsuitability was pretty obvious long before 2019. And once he was an MP, of course he would seek to become PM, no matter what harm that caused to the non-people who were non-BoJo.

    Now there's a counterfactual. He's sacked from The Times, and that's the end of the matter. What happens next?
    Boris would have become a Latin teacher at his alma mater (that's Latin, you know).
    It is easy and lazy to knock Boris but his spoken French seems to me to better than that of any leading British politician for a very long time. I guess but can't judge that his Latin is pretty good as well. Also he writes well in English, well better than ANY of his critics.
    Blair was fluent in French. Clegg was trilingual in English, Spanish and French.
    Clegg also spoke Dutch.
    Yeah but that's not a proper language ;-) Its German for those that couldn't get the hang of the grammar.
    ho, ho, ho.....
    Blair's French sounded very stilted to me, certainly not fluent. Can't judge the others.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012
    edited 3:21PM
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this; and so the Establishments just ban or cripple these parties - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Indeed. If mainstream democratic parties persist in giving their electorates what they repeatedly make clear they do not want - i.e. massive numbers of low-grade immigrants - they shouldn' be surprised if they look elsewhere.
    What the German Establishment has done is quite remarkably stupid and dangerous

    Here is a British equivalent. Imagine if the British Establishment decided it was "unBritish" to campaign for or formally espouse Scottish independence. You can see the logic underlying such a move: these people are trying to break up the British state. It is treason! Get @HYUFD and his tanks!

    However, and thankfully, the British state is not THAT stupid - yet - because if they did do such a thing, despite millions of Scots obviously wanting and seeking independence, the result would be blood in the streets. Denied the democratic chance to seek statehood, what choice would Scottish nationalists have?

    It was suppression of political will and identity that led to the Irish Troubles: the IRA had a GENUINE grievance

    The whole point of democracy is to turn political anger and passion into a safe, legal process where everyone is heard. But that democracy we once loved is now dying, as someone predicted on the Spectator quite recently. I fear what may come after

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

    "Where will this end? One good guess is that desperate voters will understandably elect ever more radical parties – until, perhaps, they are so radical they don’t believe in democracy: one man, one vote, one final election. A glance across the West shows this is happening already, with voters fleeing to the far left and hard right, while the reaction of the democratic establishment is to dubiously remove ‘extreme’ yet legal candidates it doesn’t like – from France’s Le Pen to Romania’s Georgescu. Thus democracy kills itself"
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,458
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    What particular way are AfD being crippled in attempting to gain power aside from not getting enough votes and other parties being unwilling to work with them?
    Surely them being more carefully monitored for what they say and do and what connections they have with foreign agencies will show them to be entirely clean potatoes with nothing dubious going on.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012
    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    What particular way are AfD being crippled in attempting to gain power aside from not getting enough votes and other parties being unwilling to work with them?
    Surely them being more carefully monitored for what they say and do and what connections they have with foreign agencies will show them to be entirely clean potatoes with nothing dubious going on.
    Read the entire Spectator article
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,952

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
  • DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    Not the strongest argument ever. You could note their promises on tax, housing, pretty much anything, and use it as an argument to end democracy by saying it doesn't exist anyway...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    Charlotte Ivers in today's Sunday Times, page 25.

    "As I watched the couple glued to their phones I realised — people are forgetting how to talk" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/media/article/watching-a-couple-glued-to-their-phones-i-realised-people-dont-talk-8jgbqq2qc
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    Not the strongest argument ever. You could note their promises on tax, housing, pretty much anything, and use it as an argument to end democracy by saying it doesn't exist anyway...
    The difference is that immigration is a constitutional issue in disguise, not simply a political issue. It changes the country in a way that can't be undone.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    I'm not going back 25 years, the Labour manifesto 2024 doesn't promise much but what it does promise is being delivered.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    kamski said:

    Taz said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    We’re moving to ‘Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler’ territory.
    Yes - @williamglenn is already at the stage of "deny the vote to everyone who doesn't vote how I want"
    Did he say that?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,952

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    Not the strongest argument ever. You could note their promises on tax, housing, pretty much anything, and use it as an argument to end democracy by saying it doesn't exist anyway...
    The difference is that immigration is a constitutional issue in disguise, not simply a political issue. It changes the country in a way that can't be undone.
    If you're something in disguise, it's very thin.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 719
    Perhaps we need a sticky for the debate on immigration/democracy - Who can vote in a General Election?

    House of Commons Library has a handy guide. Saves all the petty sparing.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,439
    Andy_JS said:

    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%

    Assuming the Green vote to be 10%, and putting it thru Baxter[1], that gives us

    Reform 399
    LAB 87
    LIB 64
    SNP 46
    CON 22
    Green 5
    PlaidC 4
    Other 5
    N.Ire 18

    I'll wait for StatsForLefties to do the graphics.

    [1] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=19&LIB=16&Reform=32&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,448
    And in the-tiny-things-make-you-happy news (*), one of our blue tit's eggs has just hatched.

    It's quite wonderful to watch the father bringing grubs in, and the mother feeding the (hopefully first) chick.

    (*) No sniggering at the back...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    Interesting counterfactual. Had Labour won in 1978 there would have been no significant privatisations, taxes would not have been cut significantly, the unions would have remained powerful and no SDP (not quite sure a future PM Owen would have left the EEC though)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,439
    Chris said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    The problem is that every winning party for the last 25 years has made the same promise on immigration, which is quite a big issue, and all of them have done the reverse of what they said they would. This government probably will be the first in a long while to reduce it in office, but that is only because short of forcing people to come here at gunpoint, it is difficult to get it much higher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    Just come back from a very well done VE Day commemoration on Matching airfield, including representatives from the US Embassy and RAF Lakenheath


  • (*) No sniggering at the back...

    Surely (*)(*) ?

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,940
    edited 3:59PM
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%

    Assuming the Green vote to be 10%, and putting it thru Baxter[1], that gives us

    Reform 399
    LAB 87
    LIB 64
    SNP 46
    CON 22
    Green 5
    PlaidC 4
    Other 5
    N.Ire 18

    I'll wait for StatsForLefties to do the graphics.

    [1] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=19&LIB=16&Reform=32&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
    The LibDems have repeatedly done much better in projected national vote share from local elections than in polling or subsequent general elections. Will that also apply to Reform UK or not? I don’t know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    It can be designated extremist but banning the AfD from contesting elections would be a step too far
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 880

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%

    Assuming the Green vote to be 10%, and putting it thru Baxter[1], that gives us

    Reform 399
    LAB 87
    LIB 64
    SNP 46
    CON 22
    Green 5
    PlaidC 4
    Other 5
    N.Ire 18

    I'll wait for StatsForLefties to do the graphics.

    [1] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=19&LIB=16&Reform=32&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
    In which case it would now make sense for Labour and the Tories to join the Greens and LDs in favour of PR, otherwise Reform will near wipe most of the 2 main parties out despite Farage only winning a third of the vote
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,817
    edited 4:04PM
    LilaZ said:

    isam said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    The reactions to this GB News are quite interesting, as a potential guide to questions where reality and reason will have no impact, and others means are needed to wash the sandcastle away. It's like a found poem.

    TBF the comments will also include a fair proportion of bots from various place there to stir up patianship.

    "Labour on the 'VERGE' of local EXTINCTION after party suffers HUGE blow in recent elections"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsUdNtkWwbg

    eg
    - @thetimeisnow6822 1 day ago
    STARMER IS DELUSIONAL
    Everything that he says is the TOTAL OPPOSITE OF REALITY"
    - @mrseddie5971 1 day ago
    Wages are up more than prices was my personal favourite


    (Note: wages are up more than prices.)

    - @oriel229 21 hours ago
    NHS waiting lists DOWN???? NOBODY is going to buy that lie.
    - @janeevans1859
    - 12 hours ago
    @oriel229 why are the lists so high? I don’t get it
    - @einsam_aber_frei 10 hours ago
    NHS waiting list is getting shorter because those can’t wait has passed away.

    (Note: lists are down, but there's a smidge of truth in the last comment.)

    As I see it, Lab needs a media person, and some clued-up communicators - just for a start.

    Labour needs confidence. It just doesn’t project that at the moment. Trump, Farage, Thatcher, Blair show how much (or how little) you can get away with if you do it with utter confidence and assurance.
    Charisma plays a big part. Starmer was lucky that the Tories imploded so spectacularly he didn't need to do anything other than not lose too many votes to become PM. But now his stiff, awkward persona is in the spotlight having to get people onside, and the results are predictable
    He is much worse than stiff. Watching Keir Starmer “lead” is like watching someone try to defuse a trifle: trembling hands, quiet panic, and a lingering fear that custard might be fatal. Also, why do you call him Sir? The United Kingdom is a piece of absurdist theater.
    Leon remembered to spell it "theater" here. Also the introduction to this character, asking about site rules, was moderately clever. B+.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,653
    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%

    Assuming the Green vote to be 10%, and putting it thru Baxter[1], that gives us

    Reform 399
    LAB 87
    LIB 64
    SNP 46
    CON 22
    Green 5
    PlaidC 4
    Other 5
    N.Ire 18

    I'll wait for StatsForLefties to do the graphics.

    [1] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=19&LIB=16&Reform=32&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
    In which case it would now make sense for Labour and the Tories to join the Greens and LDs in favour of PR, otherwise Reform will near wipe most of the 2 main parties out despite Farage only winning a third of the vote
    IIRC Labour were at one time in favour of PR and only finally abandoned it after 1945. When they'd won a big majority.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,814
    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
    I'm not going back 25 years, the Labour manifesto 2024 doesn't promise much but what it does promise is being delivered.

    Really

    Cant say Ive seen many more houses.

    Or growth for that matter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    edited 4:06PM
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this; and so the Establishments just ban or cripple these parties - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Indeed. If mainstream democratic parties persist in giving their electorates what they repeatedly make clear they do not want - i.e. massive numbers of low-grade immigrants - they shouldn' be surprised if they look elsewhere.
    What the German Establishment has done is quite remarkably stupid and dangerous

    Here is a British equivalent. Imagine if the British Establishment decided it was "unBritish" to campaign for or formally espouse Scottish independence. You can see the logic underlying such a move: these people are trying to break up the British state. It is treason! Get @HYUFD and his tanks!

    However, and thankfully, the British state is not THAT stupid - yet - because if they did do such a thing, despite millions of Scots obviously wanting and seeking independence, the result would be blood in the streets. Denied the democratic chance to seek statehood, what choice would Scottish nationalists have?

    It was suppression of political will and identity that led to the Irish Troubles: the IRA had a GENUINE grievance

    The whole point of democracy is to turn political anger and passion into a safe, legal process where everyone is heard. But that democracy we once loved is now dying, as someone predicted on the Spectator quite recently. I fear what may come after

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

    "Where will this end? One good guess is that desperate voters will understandably elect ever more radical parties – until, perhaps, they are so radical they don’t believe in democracy: one man, one vote, one final election. A glance across the West shows this is happening already, with voters fleeing to the far left and hard right, while the reaction of the democratic establishment is to dubiously remove ‘extreme’ yet legal candidates it doesn’t like – from France’s Le Pen to Romania’s Georgescu. Thus democracy kills itself"
    The last Spanish government effectively took that line with Catalan nationalists in 2017, arresting their leaders
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,864
    Andy_JS said:

    Charlotte Ivers in today's Sunday Times, page 25.

    "As I watched the couple glued to their phones I realised — people are forgetting how to talk" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/media/article/watching-a-couple-glued-to-their-phones-i-realised-people-dont-talk-8jgbqq2qc

    My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,977
    carnforth said:

    LilaZ said:

    isam said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    The reactions to this GB News are quite interesting, as a potential guide to questions where reality and reason will have no impact, and others means are needed to wash the sandcastle away. It's like a found poem.

    TBF the comments will also include a fair proportion of bots from various place there to stir up patianship.

    "Labour on the 'VERGE' of local EXTINCTION after party suffers HUGE blow in recent elections"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsUdNtkWwbg

    eg
    - @thetimeisnow6822 1 day ago
    STARMER IS DELUSIONAL
    Everything that he says is the TOTAL OPPOSITE OF REALITY"
    - @mrseddie5971 1 day ago
    Wages are up more than prices was my personal favourite


    (Note: wages are up more than prices.)

    - @oriel229 21 hours ago
    NHS waiting lists DOWN???? NOBODY is going to buy that lie.
    - @janeevans1859
    - 12 hours ago
    @oriel229 why are the lists so high? I don’t get it
    - @einsam_aber_frei 10 hours ago
    NHS waiting list is getting shorter because those can’t wait has passed away.

    (Note: lists are down, but there's a smidge of truth in the last comment.)

    As I see it, Lab needs a media person, and some clued-up communicators - just for a start.

    Labour needs confidence. It just doesn’t project that at the moment. Trump, Farage, Thatcher, Blair show how much (or how little) you can get away with if you do it with utter confidence and assurance.
    Charisma plays a big part. Starmer was lucky that the Tories imploded so spectacularly he didn't need to do anything other than not lose too many votes to become PM. But now his stiff, awkward persona is in the spotlight having to get people onside, and the results are predictable
    He is much worse than stiff. Watching Keir Starmer “lead” is like watching someone try to defuse a trifle: trembling hands, quiet panic, and a lingering fear that custard might be fatal. Also, why do you call him Sir? The United Kingdom is a piece of absurdist theater.
    Leon remembered to spell it "theater" here. Also the introduction to this character, asking about site rules, was moderately clever. B+.
    That's pretty generous.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,864
    Andy_JS said:

    kamski said:

    Taz said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    We’re moving to ‘Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler’ territory.
    Yes - @williamglenn is already at the stage of "deny the vote to everyone who doesn't vote how I want"
    Did he say that?
    No, he just triggers some people.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,653
    HYUFD said:

    Just come back from a very well done VE Day commemoration on Matching airfield, including representatives from the US Embassy and RAF Lakenheath


    There was something on both airfields near us. It's quite sobering to think how many military airfields there were in East Anglia in WWII.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,572
    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,814
    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.

    We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.

    German parties are just ignoring the voters.

    Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,817

    carnforth said:

    LilaZ said:

    isam said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    The reactions to this GB News are quite interesting, as a potential guide to questions where reality and reason will have no impact, and others means are needed to wash the sandcastle away. It's like a found poem.

    TBF the comments will also include a fair proportion of bots from various place there to stir up patianship.

    "Labour on the 'VERGE' of local EXTINCTION after party suffers HUGE blow in recent elections"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsUdNtkWwbg

    eg
    - @thetimeisnow6822 1 day ago
    STARMER IS DELUSIONAL
    Everything that he says is the TOTAL OPPOSITE OF REALITY"
    - @mrseddie5971 1 day ago
    Wages are up more than prices was my personal favourite


    (Note: wages are up more than prices.)

    - @oriel229 21 hours ago
    NHS waiting lists DOWN???? NOBODY is going to buy that lie.
    - @janeevans1859
    - 12 hours ago
    @oriel229 why are the lists so high? I don’t get it
    - @einsam_aber_frei 10 hours ago
    NHS waiting list is getting shorter because those can’t wait has passed away.

    (Note: lists are down, but there's a smidge of truth in the last comment.)

    As I see it, Lab needs a media person, and some clued-up communicators - just for a start.

    Labour needs confidence. It just doesn’t project that at the moment. Trump, Farage, Thatcher, Blair show how much (or how little) you can get away with if you do it with utter confidence and assurance.
    Charisma plays a big part. Starmer was lucky that the Tories imploded so spectacularly he didn't need to do anything other than not lose too many votes to become PM. But now his stiff, awkward persona is in the spotlight having to get people onside, and the results are predictable
    He is much worse than stiff. Watching Keir Starmer “lead” is like watching someone try to defuse a trifle: trembling hands, quiet panic, and a lingering fear that custard might be fatal. Also, why do you call him Sir? The United Kingdom is a piece of absurdist theater.
    Leon remembered to spell it "theater" here. Also the introduction to this character, asking about site rules, was moderately clever. B+.
    That's pretty generous.
    Perhaps. Depends whether one grades whoever does Roger at A or A+++.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    tlg86 said:

    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?

    Now is the time, but they'll probably leave it too late.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,940

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.

    We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.

    German parties are just ignoring the voters.

    Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
    The Thatcher government put all sorts of restrictions on Sinn Féin, all that stuff about having a voice actor do Gerry Adams’ voice. Oh, yes, and there was detainment without trial in Northern Ireland before that. Those were greater limits than anything put on AfD.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,940
    tlg86 said:

    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?

    If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,233

    tlg86 said:

    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?

    If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
    Would be a PR disaster though (no pun intended).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    There was a comment in the last thread that Reform voters were ambivalent about the monarchy.

    That isn't really true, Yougov has found 72% of Reform voters think the monarchy is good for Britain, higher than the 57% of LDs and 47% of Labour voters who think that and only beaten by the 87% of Tory voters who believe that.

    Where Reform voters are more sceptical is on King Charles and his relative wokeism, only 63% of Reform voters have a favourable view of the King, below even the 64% of LDs who do and well below the 85% of Tory voters who do.

    Reform voters have a much higher 85% favourable view of Prince William though

    https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Times_RoyalFamily_241205_w.pdf
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,814

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.

    We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.

    German parties are just ignoring the voters.

    Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
    The Thatcher government put all sorts of restrictions on Sinn Féin, all that stuff about having a voice actor do Gerry Adams’ voice. Oh, yes, and there was detainment without trial in Northern Ireland before that. Those were greater limits than anything put on AfD.
    The AfD arent actually murdering people. The restrictions on Sinn Fein were lifted when they signed the GFA. Though they still do the odd bit of intimidation and leg breaking, something Ive yet to associate with the AfD,

  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,108

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.

    We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.

    German parties are just ignoring the voters.

    Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
    We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.

    Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,439
    edited 4:29PM
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    It's not as if the public have demanded "far right" immigration policies; all previous governments, from1997 onward, had to do was to make good on their promises on the future level of immigration. Now the people who are upset by these politicians failure to do that are being branded far right because they are voting for people who are making the same pledges that Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, and Sunak failed to keep.

    Immigration isn't like crime statistics, or education standards where the results are out of the governments hands to a certain extent, it is something they can control... if they wanted to. But from Blair and the A8, to Boris and the post Brexit arrangements, they have all said they would do things that they haven't and not done things they said they would
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012
    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
    Your recollection differs from mine.

  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 880
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    How about we actually let people vote for those things in a general election first? I hate to break it to you but they didn't. Five MPs got elected who supported those types of policies. The rest all agree that to a greater or lesser extent, we have a moral duty to help those genuinely seeking asylum whilst dealing efficiently with those who don't.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,108

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
    You don’t own our flag. It’s everyone’s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    What happened in Australia and Canada was almost nothing to do with immigration for most voters.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,814
    TimS said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany

    "Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.

    "Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.

    It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-is-dangerously-close-to-banning-the-afd/

    Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
    If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?

    Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
    In what way is it all-but-crippled?

    You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.

    And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
    Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.

    We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.

    German parties are just ignoring the voters.

    Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
    We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.

    Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
    Then why give Die Linke a clear run ? Some of them are they are Stalinist and have no qualms about eliniinating the opposition either.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,012
    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
    Your recollection differs from mine.

    Allow me to remind you:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labours-keir-starmer-caused-diplomatic-row-over-bangladesh-comments

    The leader of the UK’s Labour Party, Keir Starmer, caused a diplomatic row with Bangladesh when he questioned why Britain was unable to deport Bangladeshi asylum seekers from Britain.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-slash-migration-labour-government-b2555190.html

    The Labour leader said: ‘Read my lips – I will bring immigration numbers down’ as he vowed to ‘control our borders’
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    edited 4:36PM

    tlg86 said:

    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?

    If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
    Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,814

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
    Remains to be seen if he'll deport one of his MPs to Bangladesh
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,330
    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    And if I know Donald like I think I do, he'll stick to this position and won't flip it 138 times between now and 2028, every time he wants an easy headline - that sort of cheap trick isn't his style at all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,427
    Andy_JS said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    What happened in Australia and Canada was almost nothing to do with immigration for most voters.
    Exactly.

    While some people are obsessed with immigration, most voters prioritise other issues, as seen in both the Australian and Canadian elections, as indeed we saw in July 24 in the UK.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,313
    Meanwhile it appears that the dumbest National Security team in history "We are good on OPSEC" are even dumber than you thought they were

    They are not in fact using Signal to discuss their Top Secret plans

    They are using a knock-off version. The source code is available on t'internet

    The boys in Beijing must be pissing themselves laughing
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,653
    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,931
    Andy_JS said:

    Rallings and Thrasher have slightly different figures for the projected national share compared to the BBC:

    RefUK 32%
    Lab 19%
    Con 18%
    LD 16%
    Oth 15%

    Lib Dems look about 17% to high there
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,330

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    As noted below, I expect he'll change his mind multiple times.

    But he did in fact get more explicit than that in the interview:

    "So many people want me to do it... It's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else... there are many people selling the 2028 hat... but this is not something I'm looking to do".
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    edited 4:48PM

    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
    Your recollection differs from mine.

    Allow me to remind you:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labours-keir-starmer-caused-diplomatic-row-over-bangladesh-comments

    The leader of the UK’s Labour Party, Keir Starmer, caused a diplomatic row with Bangladesh when he questioned why Britain was unable to deport Bangladeshi asylum seekers from Britain.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-slash-migration-labour-government-b2555190.html

    The Labour leader said: ‘Read my lips – I will bring immigration numbers down’ as he vowed to ‘control our borders’
    A misspoken statement that he immediately apologised from is not a BNP lite campaign in any way other than in Hampstead and Highgate.

    Edit - stupid statement, the BNP are the other party to the one Tulip Siddiq is associated with.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,931
    Chris said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,653

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    As noted below, I expect he'll change his mind multiple times.

    But he did in fact get more explicit than that in the interview:

    "So many people want me to do it... It's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else... there are many people selling the 2028 hat... but this is not something I'm looking to do".
    Fair enough. I wouldn't, for one moment, disagree with you, though.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    The US Constitution can be amended, but it takes two-thirds of both houses is that right?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    edited 4:50PM

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Citation needed on that claim.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,599
    edited 4:51PM
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Trump doesn't believe he has a 41% approval rating. He is surrounded by sycophants who've told him he's the best, and he thinks the polling companies are making the numbers up because they are the liberal elite who hate him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    edited 4:51PM
    DM_Andy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Citation needed on that claim.

    Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,599
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    The US Constitution can be amended, but it takes two-thirds of both houses is that right?
    And then it needs ratification by the States.

    Personally, if I was the Democrats, I would be very happy to offer to back the change to the constitution, and then I'd be on Obama to wipe the floor with Trump in 2028.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    The US Constitution can be amended, but it takes two-thirds of both houses is that right?
    and three-quarters of the states. Good luck with that. But if the Supreme Court says it's okay, then it's okay.

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,931
    edited 4:54PM
    Andy_JS said:

    tlg86 said:

    How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?

    If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
    Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
    We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,372
    HYUFD said:

    DM_Andy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Citation needed on that claim.

    Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
    I respect a lot of people I disagree with (I don't hate anyone). But we're talking about someone who thought MS13 was tattooed on Garcia's fingers.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,330
    edited 4:55PM
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Any politician (and Trump is far from being an exception) backs themselves and their ability to turn poor approval ratings around - and he's had worse many times in the past.

    It really isn't realistic to say that he's seen a couple of bad polls, three and a half years from the next Presidential election, and decided to throw in the towel.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,653
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Are you sure about your first sentence?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,102
    Good evening

    I understand Farage visited Helsby several times and was there all day last Thursday

    Starmer didn't visit once

    And Labour lost by 6 votes

    I imagine if Labour had held the seat the narrative may well have been very different
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,101
    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,150
    DM_Andy said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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'.
    No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
    No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work

    Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12627493/Danish-government-accused-racism-plan-break-ghettos-non-Western-immigrant-communities-bid-boost-integration-cities.html

    You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
    The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."

    You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.

    Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
    Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania

    You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile

    And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct

    More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,592
    "Reform is 'a real threat' to Labour, Wes Streeting says"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-04/reform-is-a-real-threat-to-labour-wes-streeting-says
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,457
    HYUFD said:

    DM_Andy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Citation needed on that claim.

    Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
    Shrewd? In a Swiss Tony sort of a way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,279
    edited 5:09PM

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.

    "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno

    I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
    Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
    Any politician (and Trump is far from being an exception) backs themselves and their ability to turn poor approval ratings around - and he's had worse many times in the past.

    It really isn't realistic to say that he's seen a couple of bad polls, three and a half years from the next Presidential election, and decided to throw in the towel.
    Given he is constitutionally ineligible to run for President again and for a third term why should Trump give a toss if he even has a 1% approval rating while he governs as he wants to? It will be Vance now who has to face any voters backlash in 2028 not him
Sign In or Register to comment.