The big challenge with Farage’s anti-lock down party is that just 15% share that view – politicalbet

As we enter the final day of campaigning in the US presidential election Trump will be holding rallies in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan later.

Biden will be campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania and will hold a rally with Lady Gaga in Pittsburgh while Harris will appear with John Legend in Philadelphia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2020-54768273

Casino_Royale said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.

They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).

They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.

I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.

The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.

That's populism.

The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.

I think you may be rather categorising yourself in the same camp as you are a believer in the cult called Brexit. There is huge similarity in gullibility between angry young Corbynites and angry middle aged or older folk who blindly and obsessively follow charismatic leaders offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems such as the nationalisation of the railways or unilateral nuclear disarmament, through to Brexit. None are based on rationality, but people such as Boris Johnson know populism is a way to manipulate others to advance their own agenda.

No doubt you comfort yourself in the delusion that you thought it all through and knew the shitstorm that was coming and thought it was all worth it lol. *Cue the right wing vitriol and abuse (which sadly I won't be able to see or respond to as I have to do some work)!!*

Richard_Nabavi said:

A Nate Silver tweet:

@NateSilver538

This is semi-interesting.

In Nevada, 1.4% of mail ballots so far required a signature cure, when the voter didn't sign the ballot or the sig didn't match the one on file.

Dems have cured 51% of their rejected ballots so far, vs. 35% for Republicans.

That strikes me as more than semi-interesting. It suggests that the Dems have got a much slicker GOTV operation and are actively contacting voters whose ballots were rejected and helping them sort it out.

From reading the twitter Dems have setup on a state by state basis systems (mostly manual) to monitor ballot status and then alert when a Dem voter has the ballot rejected and blast them with texts, emails and phone calls to let them know if their early ballot has been rejected.

No idea if the GOP has the same.

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.

They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).

They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.

I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.

The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.

That's populism.

The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.

If they had half likes I'd have given one to you. You cannot compare the lowest common denominators that follow Farage with Scottish Nationalists or anti apartheid freedom fighters who follow a cause.

On Wiki - where at least you know that the lead of the article will have been pored and argued over - the definition given in the opening sentence is "Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The article goes on to set out that the definition is contested.

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

If Trump wins then any existing rules will be finished. Over. Gone.

It's quite fascinating to watch an empire die in real time. We're probably lucky to be witnesses to it.

Doesn't usually go too well for the empire's client states either though.

MarqueeMark said:

OllyT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday

I agree but the problem is BigG, 58% of Tory Party members also support Trump (according to ConHome) whereas only 13% of UK voters would vote for Trump.

Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.

ConHome is not remotely the Conservative Party.

ComHome has been misnamed for years. It has long been a home for Kippers.

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

Alistair said:

Mysticrose said:

IshmaelZ said:

Mysticrose said:

peter_from_putney said:

Mysticrose said:

By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.

In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.

I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.

You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.

That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.

Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.

Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.

Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.

I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.

So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.

p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.

On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?

Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange.
I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet.
It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.

According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?

Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:

"Senate Georgia (Regular)

Democrats
MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6
On this market:£1,632
On this selection:£1,175
Last price matched:2

Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."

This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.

So what's in your inbox??

What are you talking about? Please explain.

Read downthread. A claim that you have been sent evidence.

I've now checked an email received in my inbox which shows that Mysticrose has a bet at 2/1 as he claimed on Ossoff winning in Georgia. This is at odds with the betting information for this market I obtained from the Betfair Exchange and on which I relied. I accept that Mysticrose did indeed obtain odds of 2/1 from Betfair and I therefore apologise unreservedly for suggesting otherwise.

Is it possible Betfair reset the market? Only £1,636 is shown as matched (and that is probably double-counted) which seems low and the rules were updated at the weekend to allow for a possible runoff election. If so, you could both be right.

Impressive from UK Ambassador - and well done Lord Hague who re-opened the FO Language school Blair/Brown had closed:

https://twitter.com/stuartlauscmp/status/1322960505330348032?s=20

Another tweet suggests 2/27 EU ambassadors to China could do same. I also know UK Ambassador to Jakarta speaks Bahasa Indonesia.

RobD said:

More evidence that people are idiots: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/02/travel-covid-news-lockdown-flights-cancelled-holidays-banned/

Thousands of people have turned up at Heathrow in a last-ditch attempt to escape on holiday before national lockdown rules come into effect later this week.

There's a much bigger than expected group of people, for whom discretionary international travel appears to be the most important thing in their lives. We saw it all summer, with people determined to fly away on holiday even when it was obvious what would happen with the quarantine restrictions.

That said, it's easy to understand why people who can afford it might want to go somewhere with fewer restrictions, to sit out the next few weeks, I'm expecting my part of the world to get busy with tourists in the beach hotels soon.

CarlottaVance said:

OT Popcorn:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1323195994843078656?s=20

I've not followed the court case but would always be happy to see The Sun lose and pay substantial damages. Still not forgiven them for Hillsborough.

If The Sun win I probably need to change my avatar.

Useful tip:
https://twitter.com/thedalstonyears/status/1322472326085156864?s=20

MarqueeMark said:

OllyT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday

I agree but the problem is BigG, 58% of Tory Party members also support Trump (according to ConHome) whereas only 13% of UK voters would vote for Trump.

Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.

ConHome is not remotely the Conservative Party.

ConHome final June 2019 Tory members survey Johnson 66% Hunt 30%, result Johnson 66% Hunt 34%.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/our-survey-next-tory-leader-johnson-66-per-cent-hunt-30-per-cent.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election#:~:text=The general membership of the,as his opponent Jeremy Hunt.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/10/our-survey-more-than-half-of-tory-members-want-trump-to-win-next-week.html

So with ConHome finding Tory members would vote 56% Trump, 22.5% Biden and 19% neither in the US election over 80% of Johnson voters would vote for Trump with virtually all Hunt voters and 20% of Johnson voters voting for Biden or for neither

IanB2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.

They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).

They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.

I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.

The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.

That's populism.

The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.

If they had half likes I'd have given one to you. You cannot compare the lowest common denominators that follow Farage with Scottish Nationalists or anti apartheid freedom fighters who follow a cause.

On Wiki - where at least you know that the lead of the article will have been pored and argued over - the definition given in the opening sentence is "Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The article goes on to set out that the definition is contested.

I am afraid that my own view has long been that 'populism' is a label people give to democracy when they don't like the results. It's usage is a sign of arrogant dismissal on the part of the user.

New thread

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

OllyT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday

I agree but the problem is BigG, 58% of Tory Party members also support Trump (according to ConHome) whereas only 13% of UK voters would vote for Trump.

Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.

ConHome is not remotely the Conservative Party.

ComHome has been misnamed for years. It has long been a home for Kippers.

I suspect the number of ConHome contributors who voted Conservative in the 2019 Euroelections would be statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

OT Popcorn:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1323195994843078656?s=20

I've not followed the court case but would always be happy to see The Sun lose and pay substantial damages. Still not forgiven them for Hillsborough.

If The Sun win I probably need to change my avatar.

Whose bed will the judge shit in?

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

More evidence that people are idiots: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/02/travel-covid-news-lockdown-flights-cancelled-holidays-banned/

Thousands of people have turned up at Heathrow in a last-ditch attempt to escape on holiday before national lockdown rules come into effect later this week.

There's a much bigger than expected group of people, for whom discretionary international travel appears to be the most important thing in their lives. We saw it all summer, with people determined to fly away on holiday even when it was obvious what would happen with the quarantine restrictions.

That said, it's easy to understand why people who can afford it might want to go somewhere with fewer restrictions, to sit out the next few weeks, I'm expecting my part of the world to get busy with tourists in the beach hotels soon.

Only for them to reimport it and then back to square one. Does the same attitude prevail in Australia and New Zealand, for example?

Australians have to get permission in advance to leave the country (with good reason), and have a mandatory quarantine (in an hotel, at their own expense) on return. Non-Australians are banned from entering Australia except in exceptional circumstances.

That's how they've got almost no cases now, alongside strict local lockdowns (in the proper sense of the word).

YBarddCwsc said:

OldKingCole said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The polls would be more interesting if they looked for trends in age or class or profession.

Do young people support these measures as strongly as old? My guess is this is way more popular among the old than the the young. Is there a trend with income ? Again, my guess is this is way more popular with the managerial classes.

Also -- if you could get people to tell the truth -- it would be interesting to poll people as to whether they will really obey all the lockdown measures, or whether they would be willing to commit minor infractions ? My impression is that compliance is becoming laxer.

Data would be nice to confirm or refute.

Anecdote.
Went to the local last night for what I suspect will one of my last trips for some while. Had a 'business meeting with a colleague on a local committee to which we both belong', and as were were finishing a group of a 10 or so young people came in. (In passing, it's surprising how young 18 year olds look these days!) Anyway while where my colleague and I were sitting was tables of no more than four, all tables well spaced and larger than necessary, and to the best of my knowledge, occupied by households, the young people were outside, all huddled together round one medium sized table.

Anecdote.

Spies in Cambridge reported huge packs of students heading to Halloween parties

I have a lot of sympathy. I'm not sure if I was 18, and looking for druggy fun & parties, I'd be that worried about COVID.

My thinking might well be, "It won't affect me, it will be around for decades so I might as well get it when I'm young. And it is all to help the generations above who have completely screwed me."

I bet the spies had a party of their own. It’s that type of place.

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

Alistair said:

Mysticrose said:

IshmaelZ said:

Mysticrose said:

peter_from_putney said:

Mysticrose said:

By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.

In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.

I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.

You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.

That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.

Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.

Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.

Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.

I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.

So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.

p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.

On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?

Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange.
I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet.
It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.

According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?

Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:

"Senate Georgia (Regular)

Democrats
MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6
On this market:£1,632
On this selection:£1,175
Last price matched:2

Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."

This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.

So what's in your inbox??

What are you talking about? Please explain.

Read downthread. A claim that you have been sent evidence.

I've now checked an email received in my inbox which shows that Mysticrose has a bet at 2/1 as he claimed on Ossoff winning in Georgia. This is at odds with the betting information for this market I obtained from the Betfair Exchange and on which I relied. I accept that Mysticrose did indeed obtain odds of 2/1 from Betfair and I therefore apologise unreservedly for suggesting otherwise.

Now that's sorted, this indicates that we can't trust the "high/low" market information being put out by BFE?

Texas is at 57.3% turnout of the registered electorate. With more votes to come on election day, this already compares okay with some UK GEs this century, including 2001 (59.4%) and 2005 (61.4%).

Turnout in Texas might reasonably be expected to exceed the highest for a UK GE this century, in 2017 at 68.8%.

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

More evidence that people are idiots: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/02/travel-covid-news-lockdown-flights-cancelled-holidays-banned/

Thousands of people have turned up at Heathrow in a last-ditch attempt to escape on holiday before national lockdown rules come into effect later this week.

There's a much bigger than expected group of people, for whom discretionary international travel appears to be the most important thing in their lives. We saw it all summer, with people determined to fly away on holiday even when it was obvious what would happen with the quarantine restrictions.

That said, it's easy to understand why people who can afford it might want to go somewhere with fewer restrictions, to sit out the next few weeks, I'm expecting my part of the world to get busy with tourists in the beach hotels soon.

It was not "obvious what would happen with the quarantine restrictions" last summer. If it had been, then Cabinet Ministers would not have been caught out.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

IanB2 said:

peter_from_putney said:

Alistair said:

Mysticrose said:

IshmaelZ said:

Mysticrose said:

peter_from_putney said:

Mysticrose said:

By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.

In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.

I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.

You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.

That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.

Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.

Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.

Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.

I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.

So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.

p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.

On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?

Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange.
I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet.
It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.

According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?

Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:

"Senate Georgia (Regular)

Democrats
MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6
On this market:£1,632
On this selection:£1,175
Last price matched:2

Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."

This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.

So what's in your inbox??

What are you talking about? Please explain.

Read downthread. A claim that you have been sent evidence.

I've now checked an email received in my inbox which shows that Mysticrose has a bet at 2/1 as he claimed on Ossoff winning in Georgia. This is at odds with the betting information for this market I obtained from the Betfair Exchange and on which I relied. I accept that Mysticrose did indeed obtain odds of 2/1 from Betfair and I therefore apologise unreservedly for suggesting otherwise.

Is it possible Betfair reset the market? Only £1,636 is shown as matched (and that is probably double-counted) which seems low and the rules were updated at the weekend to allow for a possible runoff election. If so, you could both be right.

In fairness, based on the appearance of the betting confirmation from Betfair which Mysticrose provided, it appears to have been placed on their Sportsbook site, which unlike their betting exchange contains no history of bets placed. My mistake was in assuming it had been placed on the latter.

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.

They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).

They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.

I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.

The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.

That's populism.

The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.

If they had half likes I'd have given one to you. You cannot compare the lowest common denominators that follow Farage with Scottish Nationalists or anti apartheid freedom fighters who follow a cause.

On Wiki - where at least you know that the lead of the article will have been pored and argued over - the definition given in the opening sentence is "Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The article goes on to set out that the definition is contested.

I am afraid that my own view has long been that 'populism' is a label people give to democracy when they don't like the results. It's usage is a sign of arrogant dismissal on the part of the user.

Except that there clearly is an identifiable populist agenda and identifiably populist political tactics.

A valid definition of the populist agenda would be that it is generally illiberal and opposed to the idea of the liberal open society. Populists tend to reject internationalism and support the promotion of an isolationist nationalist agenda. Whether as strategy or tactic, in general Populists pay scant attention to facts, often making statements that are verifiably false with the intent to damage social harmony in the pursuit of power. Populists exploit social division and a demonisation of certain minority targets, be they racial or sexual minorities, promoting a mythically traditional political agenda.

Although paying lip service to the forms of democracy, populists attack the rule of law and oppose a fully free society which -at best- makes them only partially democratic. Examples: Orban, Erdogan, Le Pen, Trump, Putin, Kaczynski and yes, Farage.

Blair nostalgia from an unusual source.

https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/1323196905128603648?s=21

Thread on the Depp / The Sun case:

https://twitter.com/nickwallis/status/1323203870873411585?s=20

New thread...

Depp judgement:

https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2911.pdf

Cicero said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.

They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).

They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.

I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.

The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.

That's populism.

The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.

If they had half likes I'd have given one to you. You cannot compare the lowest common denominators that follow Farage with Scottish Nationalists or anti apartheid freedom fighters who follow a cause.

On Wiki - where at least you know that the lead of the article will have been pored and argued over - the definition given in the opening sentence is "Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The article goes on to set out that the definition is contested.

I am afraid that my own view has long been that 'populism' is a label people give to democracy when they don't like the results. It's usage is a sign of arrogant dismissal on the part of the user.

Except that there clearly is an identifiable populist agenda and identifiably populist political tactics.

A valid definition of the populist agenda would be that it is generally illiberal and opposed to the idea of the liberal open society. Populists tend to reject internationalism and support the promotion of an isolationist nationalist agenda. Whether as strategy or tactic, in general Populists pay scant attention to facts, often making statements that are verifiably false with the intent to damage social harmony in the pursuit of power. Populists exploit social division and a demonisation of certain minority targets, be they racial or sexual minorities, promoting a mythically traditional political agenda.

Although paying lip service to the forms of democracy, populists attack the rule of law and oppose a fully free society which -at best- makes them only partially democratic. Examples: Orban, Erdogan, Le Pen, Trump, Putin, Kaczynski and yes, Farage.

You make my case for me. Thankyou.