I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Personally I am not convinced reform voters will defect to the Tories. They think the Tories have failed, why would they vote for failure? They are just as likely in my view to go to Labour or the Lib Dem’s.
Some number of them at least - having mentally decided to switch away from the Tories some can be tempted back, but others will seek out others, even if policy wise it may not make much sense.
Got a call from our local office today saying could I come out to door knock in carshalton and wallington this weekend (Tory majority 600) because whilst the Conservative vote has dropped, it’s not dropping as much as hoped and they are facing a lot of local activity from Labour who are pointing to national polling data and saying Labour are the anti Tory choice there.
Reminder this is a long time Lib Dem seat that was lost recently.
OK they may be panicking unnecessarily but I think we’ll see a lot of this. Witness NPXMP in Wantage. Labour4theduopoly
Farage on Ukraine also already leading Guardian and Telegraph websites.
Most of the time he keeps up the chummy act, and its pretty effective as he's likeable enough, but every now and then he reminds you that for once a Trump comparison is accurate.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
I wish it would hurt him, but it won't.
What Farage is saying about Putin will appeal to some of the electorate and probably more than 20%, I would guess.
The Russian electorate maybe - and perhaps 97% of them (just a guess).
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
These comments by Farage why a merger between Reform & the Tories won't happen.
Yes, that's my main takeaway.
I'm not sure his comments will shift many votes (not in Con's favour anyway) but it surely means whatever is left of the Conservative Party on 5th July couldn't possibly consider a merger with Reform.
I wish I had your optimism.
People will believe a lot when they are desperate, and as much as Farage's claims to hold Putin at fault are clearly a lie (hence raising the ridiculous NATO provocation line), would a devastated Tory party find it acceptable to pretend to believe it?
Not right now. But if they were at 50 seats? If it was a pact rather than a merger perhaps?
Probably still no. But not definitely. And it seems to be the only point of criticism they would have with Farage at this point.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
It's rather depressing you believe this.
Like Sweden and Finland the newly independent Eastern bloc states joined NATO because they felt threatened by Russia, so joined a defensive alliance.
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Complete Bullshit.
NATO did not expand into the Russian space, Rather Russia, as the Soviet Union, occupied western societies and kept them in brutal subjugation, murdering and trampling on all basic human rights. As soon as they were free they rejoined the West.
Putin is a criminal, not even a "neo" Fascist; an actual Fascist. He will never stop war or war crimes unless he is stopped. Farage has taken money from Russia Today, and for that alone he should be absolutely challenged and denigrated.
It is not an inconvenient truth it is a lie direct.
Farage comments on Ukraine are made in BBC interview with Nick Robinson.
Full interview on BBC1 at 7pm.
As it's a BBC interview, I think good chance it leads BBC1 10pm news.
Could be a big moment.
Farage might have just saved the Tories 30 seats.
Just to delve into this "Reform are all Tories" claim. Looking at the current Redfield & Wilton data, 241 out of 367 people saying they will vote Reform were Conservative voters in 2019 so it's more like two thirds. The next largest group (78) are those who Didn't Vote last time while 30 were ex Brexit Party voters.
If all 241 went back to the Conservatives, the Tory poll rating would jump from 17% to 29% so I can see the potential value in getting these supporters back but is that likely or even possible? Given 80% of Conservative 2019 voters say they will definitely vote this time, let's say 192 of the 241 who go back actually go and vote which would put the Conservative number up to 26%.
That again assumes those who were Conservatives in 2019 will want to be Conservatives in 2024 - I'm not sure I'm convinced by that reasoning.
Farage on Ukraine also already leading Guardian and Telegraph websites.
Most of the time he keeps up the chummy act, and its pretty effective as he's likeable enough, but every now and then he reminds you that for once a Trump comparison is accurate.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
I wish it would hurt him, but it won't.
What Farage is saying about Putin will appeal to some of the electorate and probably more than 20%, I would guess.
Split beween the hard left and hard right, but that's probably about right as a percentage.
More relevant is the percentage who would actively change their vote from Reform because of it than how many it would attract.
And that is likely to be lower.
Labour shouldstill win big no matter what, so I would hope the Tories could gain a few points off something like this. Whatever else they are, our main two parties are both sound on this issue.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Be v careful who you trust and read on topic of Ukraine !! Lots of obv intelligence agency and bot activity even more than other topics (except maybe Israel) ! Stay skeptical and don’t be fooled
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
That's simply false. No commitment was ever made to the USSR/Russia about NATO expansion*. This is an invented Russian trope, that they had a promise that was betrayed, and therefore they need to conquer bits of what were once the USSR or Russian Empire.
* It wasn't made because it would have been bloody stupid to give Russia a veto over NATO membership.
Farage needs to be careful. I still think there is a limit to his support at around 30%. If he acts like a Trump fanboy it'll be heading towards 20% I suspect.
I might go out canvassing for the Conservatives now.
These comments have disgusted me.
Farage exists in some weird alternative MAGA world. The blokey, purveyor of commonsenss schtick he tries to put across is a complete sham. Let's hope someone sends several coachloads of Ukrainian refugees across to Clacton to do a spot of canvassing.
Be v careful who you trust and read on topic of Ukraine !! Lots of obv intelligence agency and bot activity even more than other topics (except maybe Israel) ! Stay skeptical and don’t be fooled
Be v careful who you trust and read on topic of Ukraine !! Lots of obv intelligence agency and bot activity even more than other topics (except maybe Israel) ! Stay skeptical and don’t be fooled
Indeed. Remember that Putin is always and everywhere the bad guy, and you won’t go wrong.
Farage on Ukraine also already leading Guardian and Telegraph websites.
Most of the time he keeps up the chummy act, and its pretty effective as he's likeable enough, but every now and then he reminds you that for once a Trump comparison is accurate.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
I wish it would hurt him, but it won't.
What Farage is saying about Putin will appeal to some of the electorate and probably more than 20%, I would guess.
I would think more like 10% and half of those Corbynistas that wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.
The West did promise the Soviet Union that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards, and it did anyway. That's the one valid argument that can be made.
Only because Russia then became determined to expand westwards.
In the pre-war status quo there were faults on both sides. There always will be in these sorts of dispute. No call whatsoever for full scale war though. Putin is 100% wrong.
The West did promise the Soviet Union that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards, and it did anyway. That's the one valid argument that can be made.
No it cannot, and I'm shocked to see you say it.
Even if such a promise were made since it doesn't excuse the hostile action from Russia, it would at best be a complete and total irrelevance if free nations chose to join it.
This is exactly the astonishing thing about this persistent trope - what makes it a 'valid' argument? I assume you don't think it justifies invasion (though Farage and Corbyn probably do, but have to be mealy mouthed about it). If so, what is valid about it?
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
That's simply false. No commitment was ever made to the USSR/Russia about NATO expansion*. This is an invented Russian trope, that they had a promise that was betrayed, and therefore they need to conquer bits of what were once the USSR or Russian Empire.
* It wasn't made because it would have been bloody stupid to give Russia a veto over NATO membership.
Also, crazy idea, free countries are perfectly at liberty (free and liberty, weird concept to Putin and co) to join any organisation they choose to if that organisation will have them.
Perhaps if Russia hadn’t been such a basket case of totalitarian crims then they could have offered countries the chance to join their security structures and would have been given a hearing but weirdly, countries who were next door, had been under Russian control and experienced the realities of Russian world think decided they wanted the exact opposite.
Russia really might just look at itself and its actions for an answer why countries chose NATO over Russia.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
That's simply false. No commitment was ever made to the USSR/Russia about NATO expansion*. This is an invented Russian trope, that they had a promise that was betrayed, and therefore they need to conquer bits of what were once the USSR or Russian Empire.
* It wasn't made because it would have been bloody stupid to give Russia a veto over NATO membership.
I just don't get it. If it doesn't justify events, why do people constantly bring it up to 'explain' it in a way which in fact does suggest it is justification for those events?
It makes people look very dishonest, since if they don't think it is justification it's meaningless to bring it up even were it true.
It's like if I said, look, Bob promised me he would not build his fence on my land, and he did it anyway. That doesn't justify me burning down his house with him in it, but it does explain it. And then it turned out Bob said no such thing.
Farage has already made his case about Ukraine on his Triggernometry interview. I think he used the 'poking the bear' analogy to which Konstantin Kisin responded that Russia wasn't a bear it was a wolf and if you allowed it to it would gobble up territory.
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
Yeah, and I was about to comment about that. The "We provoked Russia into invading Ukraine!" is often shorthand for : "We promised no eastwards expansion," which is not correct. In fact, I'd say it's bullshit. There were no guarantees in any treaties, and the participants disagree on what 'agreements' were made; sometimes the same participant has told different stories! And I believe Putin wasn't even there.
And even if such an agreement existed, there's the question of why such an unsigned backroom agreement should still be enforced after Russia's behaviour in recent years - especially when Russia has thoroughly broken the Budapest Memorandum, which was a signed agreement with real-world obligations and consequences.
Why do people not mention the Budapest Memorandum more?
It also ignores the democratic will of the smaller eastern European states, who appear to quite like independence and have little, if any, desire to go back into Mother Russia's bosom. The Sykes–Picot agreement was a bad idea; Russia and Germany carving up Poland in 1939 was a bad idea; why do we think that large, powerful states should be able to carve up smaller states anti-democratically?
If Farage follows up his comment with something like: "... and, of course, such an excuse is bullshit," then it may be okay and naughty journalism. But I doubt that'll be the case.
Whatever we did, Putin will have found an 'excuse' for his invasion - because he's a fascist imperialist, and that's what fascist imperialists do. And sadly, some people quite like fascist imperialist strongmen. And I fear Farage is one of them.
Everyone saying it's impossible for FPTP to be changed, how did other countries manage it?
From what I can see there's a mixed record for it being changed. India and US* haven't, Australia and Ireland have, for example. So it's clearly doable.
*I don't consider US a good example of how to/how not to change anything cause of their fetishisation of their constitution
Ireland have used STV since the beginning. When you have a war of independence it tends to encourage a bit of utopian thinking when writing a new constitution. It's a bit harder to make the change to an established system.
STV in Ireland was imposed by the BRITISH administration, as means of attempting to blunt the domination of most Irish constituencies by Sinn Fein under FPTP.
However, the Irish in the Free State then the Republic have retained STV ever since; up North the Unionists ditched it ASAP for FPTP, in order to lock in their dominance, along with gerrymandering & other sharp practice(s).
I don't think that's right? The last pre-independence general election in Ireland, in 1918, was on FPTP.
But the UK had already been using STV for parliamentary elections, in some university seats (one of which was Dublin).
The Parliament of Southern Ireland elections were STV in the (only) elections held in 1921. Irrelevant though as all consituencies were elected unopposed (4 Unionst 124 SF) and SF refused to turn up.
The reality is that had all the unpleasntness that followed not happened and the Southern Ireland Parliament functioned, the place would have become a dominion within ten years and adpoted the current flag. It is possible it might not have later become a republic (although I suspect it would after India did, but the only difference is that the word Republic wouldn't have been in the name of the country and the person in Dublin Castle called Governor General not President.
With respect to first paragraph, note that the Parliament of NORTHERN Ireland elections of 1921 were also conducted using STV. And while SF refused to recognized either the Southern or Northern Ireland parliaments, they did recognize BOTH sets of results as valid for election to 2nd Dail.
Re: 2nd paragraph, pure speculation. Note that what actually happened was that, after Fianna Fail became the government of the Free State, the post of Governor General was deliberately downgraded until it was eliminated entirely and replaced office of President - still under the Free State.
BTW, idea that seat of Irish administration in "Southern Ireland" would have remained Dublin Castle is rather far-fetched, to put it mildly.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
If Germany stopped invading France and Belgium then Versailles wouldn’t have been needed, Germany wouldn’t have had its nose rubbed in anything and so no Hitler and bankruptcy. I know, mad isn’t it.
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Only helps him if it moves votes to the Tories. This is when he needs Boris to appear, attack Farage on Ukraine, and implore those voters to come home.
Have the Tories attacked Farage or Reform at all yet? My impression is that they've spent more time criticising Davey and the Lib Dems.
This is a moment of truth for the Conservative Party. Are they going to fight Farage, or will they appease him?
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
By means of the scandalised selectively quoted response to NF's apparent endorsement of Vladimir Putin, he has done a couple of things.
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this. 2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army. 3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
By means of the scandalised selectively quoted response to NF's apparent endorsement of Vladimir Putin, he has done a couple of things.
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this. 2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army. 3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
His poll rating rises again.
I, for one, am not watching his Panorama interview, even although the cricket is finished.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
Hitler's rise to power is an interesting one. But from the (little) I know about it, the Weimar Republic was always unstable (see 1) and likely to fall. It may well have been a question of whether it fell to the Fascists or the Communists. Germany may not have got Hitler, but they may have got something equally bad.
Everyone saying it's impossible for FPTP to be changed, how did other countries manage it?
From what I can see there's a mixed record for it being changed. India and US* haven't, Australia and Ireland have, for example. So it's clearly doable.
*I don't consider US a good example of how to/how not to change anything cause of their fetishisation of their constitution
Ireland have used STV since the beginning. When you have a war of independence it tends to encourage a bit of utopian thinking when writing a new constitution. It's a bit harder to make the change to an established system.
STV in Ireland was imposed by the BRITISH administration, as means of attempting to blunt the domination of most Irish constituencies by Sinn Fein under FPTP.
However, the Irish in the Free State then the Republic have retained STV ever since; up North the Unionists ditched it ASAP for FPTP, in order to lock in their dominance, along with gerrymandering & other sharp practice(s).
I don't think that's right? The last pre-independence general election in Ireland, in 1918, was on FPTP.
But the UK had already been using STV for parliamentary elections, in some university seats (one of which was Dublin).
The Parliament of Southern Ireland elections were STV in the (only) elections held in 1921. Irrelevant though as all consituencies were elected unopposed (4 Unionst 124 SF) and SF refused to turn up.
The reality is that had all the unpleasntness that followed not happened and the Southern Ireland Parliament functioned, the place would have become a dominion within ten years and adpoted the current flag. It is possible it might not have later become a republic (although I suspect it would after India did, but the only difference is that the word Republic wouldn't have been in the name of the country and the person in Dublin Castle called Governor General not President.
With respect to first paragraph, note that the Parliament of NORTHERN Ireland elections of 1921 were also conducted using STV. And while SF refused to recognized either the Southern or Northern Ireland parliaments, they did recognize BOTH sets of results as valid for election to 2nd Dail.
Re: 2nd paragraph, pure speculation. Note that what actually happened was that, after Fianna Fail became the government of the Free State, the post of Governor General was deliberately downgraded until it was eliminated entirely and replaced office of President - still under the Free State.
BTW, idea that seat of Irish administration in "Southern Ireland" would have remained Dublin Castle is rather far-fetched, to put it mildly.
Indeed. Though the Castle did serve as courts temporarily after the Four Courts were burnt down. Though they did keep the Viceregal Lodge in Phoenix Park, carefully renaming it Áras an Uachtaráin = President's Residence.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
By means of the scandalised selectively quoted response to NF's apparent endorsement of Vladimir Putin, he has done a couple of things.
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this. 2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army. 3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
His poll rating rises again.
I, for one, am not watching his Panorama interview, even although the cricket is finished.
Neither am I - the edited highlights will be on Youtube or posted here. But I don't think you were necessarily a prime candidate to watch it. Nor are you a Reform-curious voter.
Everyone saying it's impossible for FPTP to be changed, how did other countries manage it?
From what I can see there's a mixed record for it being changed. India and US* haven't, Australia and Ireland have, for example. So it's clearly doable.
*I don't consider US a good example of how to/how not to change anything cause of their fetishisation of their constitution
Ireland have used STV since the beginning. When you have a war of independence it tends to encourage a bit of utopian thinking when writing a new constitution. It's a bit harder to make the change to an established system.
STV in Ireland was imposed by the BRITISH administration, as means of attempting to blunt the domination of most Irish constituencies by Sinn Fein under FPTP.
However, the Irish in the Free State then the Republic have retained STV ever since; up North the Unionists ditched it ASAP for FPTP, in order to lock in their dominance, along with gerrymandering & other sharp practice(s).
I don't think that's right? The last pre-independence general election in Ireland, in 1918, was on FPTP.
But the UK had already been using STV for parliamentary elections, in some university seats (one of which was Dublin).
The Parliament of Southern Ireland elections were STV in the (only) elections held in 1921. Irrelevant though as all consituencies were elected unopposed (4 Unionst 124 SF) and SF refused to turn up.
The reality is that had all the unpleasntness that followed not happened and the Southern Ireland Parliament functioned, the place would have become a dominion within ten years and adpoted the current flag. It is possible it might not have later become a republic (although I suspect it would after India did, but the only difference is that the word Republic wouldn't have been in the name of the country and the person in Dublin Castle called Governor General not President.
With respect to first paragraph, note that the Parliament of NORTHERN Ireland elections of 1921 were also conducted using STV. And while SF refused to recognized either the Southern or Northern Ireland parliaments, they did recognize BOTH sets of results as valid for election to 2nd Dail.
Re: 2nd paragraph, pure speculation. Note that what actually happened was that, after Fianna Fail became the government of the Free State, the post of Governor General was deliberately downgraded until it was eliminated entirely and replaced office of President - still under the Free State.
BTW, idea that seat of Irish administration in "Southern Ireland" would have remained Dublin Castle is rather far-fetched, to put it mildly.
Dublin Castle is where the President is inaugurated and holds state functions. The presidents residence is Áras an Uachtaráin in. Phoenix Park, same as the Viceroy up to 1922 and Governor General after that.
Irish Presidents powers are basically the same as the Governor Generals in Australia.
Next Tory leader: Farage is priced at about 9.5. I think this is a bit nuts. Next Labour leader: Burnham is priced at 13ish - nuts again. Next LD leader - ah kick those Ed Davey tires there's still a few very slow-poke miles left in them. (I though he was the best of the leaders at the debates last night, and I'm saying that as someone who has been very critical in the past) Next SNP leader - well it'll happen soon!
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
By means of the scandalised selectively quoted response to NF's apparent endorsement of Vladimir Putin, he has done a couple of things.
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this. 2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army. 3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
And yet as analogies to Russia-Ukraine that still doesn't work, since NATO didn't take any territory off Russia nor bankrupted Russia by treaty, independent states chose to join it. Expanding NATO is not rubbing Russia's nose in anything, nor is it being punitive towards them.
And invading pushed historically neutral nations to join it. And pushed most of the rest to increase their defence spending. And that doesn't have anything to do with the dozens of other justifications given for invading Ukraine.
So once more even were the no expansion promise true it would be an inconsequential detail at best.
Yet this is the big lie of the Farage types - they put such a strong emphasis on it because they believe it does provide justification, they pin so much on it to explain why they support Russia's aims. Usually not directly, most of even them would not stand for that, they accept Russia took things too far, but they support not helping thwart Russian aims, which is the same thing.
I bet the Mail comment section also has snide comments about how if people back Ukraine why aren't they fighting or are they just armchair generals, about how the West has done bad things too, and so on.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
You're saying that Ukraine has no right to be an independent country. How would you react if the French said that Britain had no right to be an independent country and invaded the country to stop us from leaving the EU?
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Only helps him if it moves votes to the Tories. This is when he needs Boris to appear, attack Farage on Ukraine, and implore those voters to come home.
Have the Tories attacked Farage or Reform at all yet? My impression is that they've spent more time criticising Davey and the Lib Dems.
This is a moment of truth for the Conservative Party. Are they going to fight Farage, or will they appease him?
Yes. As many have said, the one thing this government has unambiguously done well is support Ukraine, including by leading amongst our allies and nudging others into action. Sunak needs to get on this.
Cleverly totally against letting Farage join tories says Times.
This is the post-July 5th fault line in the coming tory civil war.
His views are an utter irrelevance, as are those of the entire contents of the Sunak bunker.
Not a total irrelevance, the post election leadership candidates will probably be one pro-Farage and one anti-Farage. How many MPs back the latter, when the Members will probably back the former, could be significant in terms of how many then jump ship.
I might go out canvassing for the Conservatives now.
These comments have disgusted me.
Farage exists in some weird alternative MAGA world. The blokey, purveyor of commonsenss schtick he tries to put across is a complete sham. Let's hope someone sends several coachloads of Ukrainian refugees across to Clacton to do a spot of canvassing.
We know Russia is interfering (again) in this election and Farage is in a bit of financial trouble.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
We got most of the West Indies off France, hence the current cricket tournament there. And Malta.
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
Yeah, and I was about to comment about that. The "We provoked Russia into invading Ukraine!" is often shorthand for : "We promised no eastwards expansion," which is not correct. In fact, I'd say it's bullshit. There were no guarantees in any treaties, and the participants disagree on what 'agreements' were made; sometimes the same participant has told different stories! And I believe Putin wasn't even there.
And even if such an agreement existed, there's the question of why such an unsigned backroom agreement should still be enforced after Russia's behaviour in recent years - especially when Russia has thoroughly broken the Budapest Memorandum, which was a signed agreement with real-world obligations and consequences.
Why do people not mention the Budapest Memorandum more?
It also ignores the democratic will of the smaller eastern European states, who appear to quite like independence and have little, if any, desire to go back into Mother Russia's bosom. The Sykes–Picot agreement was a bad idea; Russia and Germany carving up Poland in 1939 was a bad idea; why do we think that large, powerful states should be able to carve up smaller states anti-democratically?
If Farage follows up his comment with something like: "... and, of course, such an excuse is bullshit," then it may be okay and naughty journalism. But I doubt that'll be the case.
Whatever we did, Putin will have found an 'excuse' for his invasion - because he's a fascist imperialist, and that's what fascist imperialists do. And sadly, some people quite like fascist imperialist strongmen. And I fear Farage is one of them.
Why should Russia have a veto over what free independent states decide to do in their own foreign policy?
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
By means of the scandalised selectively quoted response to NF's apparent endorsement of Vladimir Putin, he has done a couple of things.
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this. 2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army. 3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
His poll rating rises again.
I, for one, am not watching his Panorama interview, even although the cricket is finished.
Neither am I - the edited highlights will be on Youtube or posted here. But I don't think you were necessarily a prime candidate to watch it. Nor are you a Reform-curious voter.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
You're saying that Ukraine has no right to be an independent country. How would you react if the French said that Britain had no right to be an independent country and invaded the country to stop us from leaving the EU?
Fuck off to Moscow with that attitude.
I feel like I can already see Farage's offensive defense on this issue. He will come out swinging and just say the mainstream parties are pretending he supports Putin when he made sure to say he doesn't (even if the rest of his words make the same justifications as Putin), he'll look outraged and call it desperate, and in any case the people of Britain care about immigration and tax and not matters outside their control.
It'll get a weekend of punditry chin wagging, then Rishi will step on a banana skin or his government chaffeur will be revealed to be the Boston Strangler or something, and we'll be back on track.
So what do PB's Putin cucks say about arming Ukraine, are we provoking Russia now?
The thing about Putin is this: anything we do that is against his desires, will be seen as 'provocation'. The only way not to 'provoke' his is to utterly give in to him. So, do they want us to give in to everything he wants?
That's the question they should have to answer.
edit: as can be seen by the maximalist 'peace' proposal Putin made last week.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Nope. He's scum.
I rest my case.
I'm neither great nor good but I do know right from wrong and the difference between vicious psychopaths and democratic leadership, no matter how incompetent. Putin is beneath contempt and so is anyone who makes excuses for him.
Hitler was the most filthy warmonger ever, but it dosen't change the fact that had the allied powers not rubbed Germany's nose in it and bankrupted them in the Versailles Treaty he never would have got near power.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
We got most of the West Indies off France, hence the current cricket tournament there. And Malta.
And 30 years earlier we'd had Canada, whatever the French had in India, bits of the Caribbean, and part of Spanish America in lieu of French concessions to the Spanish.
If Ukraine had joined NATO at the same time as the Baltic States this war would never have happened. If a mistake was made that was it. That's why Putin invaded Ukraine and not Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
It's the clearest example of the value of NATO as a defensive alliance, which is why Finland and Sweden decided to join too.
I might go out canvassing for the Conservatives now.
These comments have disgusted me.
Farage exists in some weird alternative MAGA world. The blokey, purveyor of commonsenss schtick he tries to put across is a complete sham. Let's hope someone sends several coachloads of Ukrainian refugees across to Clacton to do a spot of canvassing.
We know Russia is interfering (again) in this election and Farage is in a bit of financial trouble.
Maybe he's been paid?
There is a curiously large unexplained gap in Farages party finances as yet unexplained.
If Ukraine had joined NATO at the same time as the Baltic States this war would never have happened. If a mistake was made that was it. That's why Putin invaded Ukraine and not Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
It's the clearest example of the value of NATO as a defensive alliance, which is why Finland and Sweden decided to join too.
This should be obvious to everyone.
The value of the alliance until Trump is re-elected anyway.
If Ukraine had joined NATO at the same time as the Baltic States this war would never have happened. If a mistake was made that was it. That's why Putin invaded Ukraine and not Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
It's the clearest example of the value of NATO as a defensive alliance, which is why Finland and Sweden decided to join too.
This should be obvious to everyone.
I also think Biden’s rushed and shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan probably greenlit Putin.
As you all may also recall I was the most hawkish on here when it came to our initial response. I said from the get-go that we should install a No Fly Zone over Ukraine. The only way to stand up to a bully, even if it’s nuclear brinkmanship.*
*Absolutely no idea how you make that word pc and right now I don’t care, I’m so angered by what Farage has said. What a little shit he is.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
You're saying that Ukraine has no right to be an independent country. How would you react if the French said that Britain had no right to be an independent country and invaded the country to stop us from leaving the EU?
Fuck off to Moscow with that attitude.
I feel like I can already see Farage's offensive defense on this issue. He will come out swinging and just say the mainstream parties are pretending he supports Putin when he made sure to say he doesn't (even if the rest of his words make the same justifications as Putin), he'll look outraged and call it desperate, and in any case the people of Britain care about immigration and tax and not matters outside their control.
It'll get a weekend of punditry chin wagging, then Rishi will step on a banana skin or his government chaffeur will be revealed to be the Boston Strangler or something, and we'll be back on track.
A competent Conservative campaign with competent leadership could squeeze 30%+ of the vote out of this election.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
You're saying that Ukraine has no right to be an independent country. How would you react if the French said that Britain had no right to be an independent country and invaded the country to stop us from leaving the EU?
Fuck off to Moscow with that attitude.
I feel like I can already see Farage's offensive defense on this issue. He will come out swinging and just say the mainstream parties are pretending he supports Putin when he made sure to say he doesn't (even if the rest of his words make the same justifications as Putin), he'll look outraged and call it desperate, and in any case the people of Britain care about immigration and tax and not matters outside their control.
It'll get a weekend of punditry chin wagging, then Rishi will step on a banana skin or his government chaffeur will be revealed to be the Boston Strangler or something, and we'll be back on track.
He'll deploy the 'Corbyn Defence'. Namely that it's all "smears" and that people stating the foul logical endpoint of views that are deliberately couched vaguely to avoid stating that, are misrepresenting them.
Now if only the saner Tories had the gumption that Labour moderates did in taking on the extremists on their side instead of throwing the tiger meat in the hope it decides not to eat them.
What a surprise, people always get a sudden burst of ill health when facing potential consequences for something. A Swiss court has sentenced four members of the UK's richest family to prison sentences ranging from four to four-and-a-half years.
Prakash and Kamal Hinduja as well as son Ajay and his wife Namrata were found guilty of exploitation - usury in the Swiss penal code - and illegal employment...During the trial, prosecutors alleged the family spent more on their dog than on their servants.
The elder Hindujas, both over 70, have not been attending court proceedings, pleading ill health. Ajay and Namrata had been present, but they were not in court to hear the verdict. Their defence lawyer says they intend to appeal the ruling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggl6pe52eo
I know noblesse oblige was always bullcrap really, but it'd be nice to believe super rich people did not feel the need to exploit people and treat them like utter shit.
Comments
Enough.
Got a call from our local office today saying could I come out to door knock in carshalton and wallington this weekend (Tory majority 600) because whilst the Conservative vote has dropped, it’s not dropping as much as hoped and they are facing a lot of local activity from Labour who are pointing to national polling data and saying Labour are the anti Tory choice there.
Reminder this is a long time Lib Dem seat that was lost recently.
OK they may be panicking unnecessarily but I think we’ll see a lot of this. Witness NPXMP in Wantage. Labour4theduopoly
People will believe a lot when they are desperate, and as much as Farage's claims to hold Putin at fault are clearly a lie (hence raising the ridiculous NATO provocation line), would a devastated Tory party find it acceptable to pretend to believe it?
Not right now. But if they were at 50 seats? If it was a pact rather than a merger perhaps?
Probably still no. But not definitely. And it seems to be the only point of criticism they would have with Farage at this point.
Who says cricket isn’t the best sport?
Like Sweden and Finland the newly independent Eastern bloc states joined NATO because they felt threatened by Russia, so joined a defensive alliance.
It's entirely the other way round.
"I don't entirely agree with Farage, but he makes a valid point. Gorbachev was promised that the Soviet satellite states would never be allowed into NATO and that promise was broken. Then, Eastern European states started joining the EU. That in no way justifies invading Ukraine, but it does to some extent explain it."
+500 -84
NATO did not expand into the Russian space, Rather Russia, as the Soviet Union, occupied western societies and kept them in brutal subjugation, murdering and trampling on all basic human rights. As soon as they were free they rejoined the West.
Putin is a criminal, not even a "neo" Fascist; an actual Fascist. He will never stop war or war crimes unless he is stopped. Farage has taken money from Russia Today, and for that alone he should be absolutely challenged and denigrated.
It is not an inconvenient truth it is a lie direct.
If all 241 went back to the Conservatives, the Tory poll rating would jump from 17% to 29% so I can see the potential value in getting these supporters back but is that likely or even possible? Given 80% of Conservative 2019 voters say they will definitely vote this time, let's say 192 of the 241 who go back actually go and vote which would put the Conservative number up to 26%.
That again assumes those who were Conservatives in 2019 will want to be Conservatives in 2024 - I'm not sure I'm convinced by that reasoning.
More relevant is the percentage who would actively change their vote from Reform because of it than how many it would attract.
And that is likely to be lower.
Labour shouldstill win big no matter what, so I would hope the Tories could gain a few points off something like this. Whatever else they are, our main two parties are both sound on this issue.
* It wasn't made because it would have been bloody stupid to give Russia a veto over NATO membership.
Even if such a promise were made since it doesn't excuse the hostile action from Russia, it would at best be a complete and total irrelevance if free nations chose to join it.
This is exactly the astonishing thing about this persistent trope - what makes it a 'valid' argument? I assume you don't think it justifies invasion (though Farage and Corbyn probably do, but have to be mealy mouthed about it). If so, what is valid about it?
Check out the mobility scooter at around 3:20 !!!
https://x.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1804178802475700417
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1804208521174564905
Perhaps if Russia hadn’t been such a basket case of totalitarian crims then they could have offered countries the chance to join their security structures and would have been given a hearing but weirdly, countries who were next door, had been under Russian control and experienced the realities of Russian world think decided they wanted the exact opposite.
Russia really might just look at itself and its actions for an answer why countries chose NATO over Russia.
Post Wsterloo, Britain wisely decided not to take territory off France in the Treaty of Paris, leaving its 1790 borders almost unchanged, recognising that to do so would cause a greviance and imperil future peace.
It makes people look very dishonest, since if they don't think it is justification it's meaningless to bring it up even were it true.
It's like if I said, look, Bob promised me he would not build his fence on my land, and he did it anyway. That doesn't justify me burning down his house with him in it, but it does explain it. And then it turned out Bob said no such thing.
And even if such an agreement existed, there's the question of why such an unsigned backroom agreement should still be enforced after Russia's behaviour in recent years - especially when Russia has thoroughly broken the Budapest Memorandum, which was a signed agreement with real-world obligations and consequences.
Why do people not mention the Budapest Memorandum more?
It also ignores the democratic will of the smaller eastern European states, who appear to quite like independence and have little, if any, desire to go back into Mother Russia's bosom. The Sykes–Picot agreement was a bad idea; Russia and Germany carving up Poland in 1939 was a bad idea; why do we think that large, powerful states should be able to carve up smaller states anti-democratically?
If Farage follows up his comment with something like: "... and, of course, such an excuse is bullshit," then it may be okay and naughty journalism. But I doubt that'll be the case.
Whatever we did, Putin will have found an 'excuse' for his invasion - because he's a fascist imperialist, and that's what fascist imperialists do. And sadly, some people quite like fascist imperialist strongmen. And I fear Farage is one of them.
Re: 2nd paragraph, pure speculation. Note that what actually happened was that, after Fianna Fail became the government of the Free State, the post of Governor General was deliberately downgraded until it was eliminated entirely and replaced office of President - still under the Free State.
BTW, idea that seat of Irish administration in "Southern Ireland" would have remained Dublin Castle is rather far-fetched, to put it mildly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Irish_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Northern_Ireland_general_election
This is a moment of truth for the Conservative Party. Are they going to fight Farage, or will they appease him?
1. Ensured that everybody is now going to watch his Panorama interview - I was literally sitting there thinking "RefUK's rise seems to have slowed or halted and there's no debate or manifesto launch - what can he do?" - this.
2. United the right-thinking left and centrist right in righteous consternation, with a bit of glee mixed in, thinking they have finally got him like the ARP warden in Dad's Army.
3. Whereupon everyone watches Panorama, Nigel says something that actually sounds fairly logical in a 'Hitler was good at making speeches' way that will make most question why we can't say that even nasty dictators are 'good at some things' - if they have no political skills, how are they autocrats? And they listen to and quite like the rest of his interview.
His poll rating rises again.
A massive danger to this country.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Reasons_for_failure
This is the post-July 5th fault line in the coming tory civil war.
Irish Presidents powers are basically the same as the Governor Generals in Australia.
Next Labour leader: Burnham is priced at 13ish - nuts again.
Next LD leader - ah kick those Ed Davey tires there's still a few very slow-poke miles left in them. (I though he was the best of the leaders at the debates last night, and I'm saying that as someone who has been very critical in the past)
Next SNP leader - well it'll happen soon!
And invading pushed historically neutral nations to join it. And pushed most of the rest to increase their defence spending. And that doesn't have anything to do with the dozens of other justifications given for invading Ukraine.
So once more even were the no expansion promise true it would be an inconsequential detail at best.
Yet this is the big lie of the Farage types - they put such a strong emphasis on it because they believe it does provide justification, they pin so much on it to explain why they support Russia's aims. Usually not directly, most of even them would not stand for that, they accept Russia took things too far, but they support not helping thwart Russian aims, which is the same thing.
I bet the Mail comment section also has snide comments about how if people back Ukraine why aren't they fighting or are they just armchair generals, about how the West has done bad things too, and so on.
ESPECIALLY if the Reform echo chamber continues defending the indefensible.
Fuck off to Moscow with that attitude.
Or Starmer does…
Maybe he's been paid?
We need some "I was considering voting for Farage, but not after this" comments for this to matter.
And it’s why I’ll be quite happy to see the tories get 150-200 seats. Or even 100+.
The death of the Conservative Party, whilst it might appear funny at first, would severely imperil the security of this country.
They have to shut out the lunatics on the far right and they have to come back.
It'll get a weekend of punditry chin wagging, then Rishi will step on a banana skin or his government chaffeur will be revealed to be the Boston Strangler or something, and we'll be back on track.
That's the question they should have to answer.
edit: as can be seen by the maximalist 'peace' proposal Putin made last week.
It's the clearest example of the value of NATO as a defensive alliance, which is why Finland and Sweden decided to join too.
This should be obvious to everyone.
https://www.ft.com/content/ed7b2b5b-4ee6-4acd-851a-0bbe6eaf0a08#comments-anchor
Grifters gonna grift.
As you all may also recall I was the most hawkish on here when it came to our initial response. I said from the get-go that we should install a No Fly Zone over Ukraine. The only way to stand up to a bully, even if it’s nuclear brinkmanship.*
*Absolutely no idea how you make that word pc and right now I don’t care, I’m so angered by what Farage has said. What a little shit he is.
"Farage also calls the King’s remark that carbon dioxide was a pollutant a “very stupid comment”."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjqq8kgz80yt
Now if only the saner Tories had the gumption that Labour moderates did in taking on the extremists on their side instead of throwing the tiger meat in the hope it decides not to eat them.
A Swiss court has sentenced four members of the UK's richest family to prison sentences ranging from four to four-and-a-half years.
Prakash and Kamal Hinduja as well as son Ajay and his wife Namrata were found guilty of exploitation - usury in the Swiss penal code - and illegal employment...During the trial, prosecutors alleged the family spent more on their dog than on their servants.
The elder Hindujas, both over 70, have not been attending court proceedings, pleading ill health. Ajay and Namrata had been present, but they were not in court to hear the verdict. Their defence lawyer says they intend to appeal the ruling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggl6pe52eo
I know noblesse oblige was always bullcrap really, but it'd be nice to believe super rich people did not feel the need to exploit people and treat them like utter shit.