2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
In future, we will still admit asylum seekers but we will decide how many, when and from where rather than as now a universal right.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The lib dems are not liberal though no wonder you had to join while inebriated
My fundamental problems with the LibDems remain the blindingly obvious mistakes they made from the onset of the coalition onwards, and the disillusion that stems from their having all these great ideas about how our country could be run better, but conspicuously failing to apply any of them to how they actually run the internal affairs of their own party.
Nevertheless it is all too easy, later in life, to adopt a purist position and sit out active engagement until the day when you get to force your own rules onto your own quiet small corner of the graveyard.
A showdown between democracy and authoritarianism is incoming, and all sensible folk need to be getting ready to take a stand.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
Its not complicated at all, you want to change the voting system such as they did with the av referendum you just explain the system you want to change to. Then ask yes or no.
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
Multiple major changes in voting happened over the first three quarters of the twentieth century -- like expanding suffrage to all men, then to women, introducing and then abolishing STV constituencies, big re-organisations in local government -- without anyone holding a referendum. Was that a mistake?
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
Your timeline starts too late. Mass immigration began before EU expansion with the plan to "rub the right's nose in diversity". In a way it was a historical accident that the EU expanded soon afterwards and for a time displaced some of the numbers that had previously been coming from outside Europe.
So, you're back to spouting Grand Replacement Theory nonsense?
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
Its not complicated at all, you want to change the voting system such as they did with the av referendum you just explain the system you want to change to. Then ask yes or no.
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
Multiple major changes in voting happened over the first three quarters of the twentieth century -- like expanding suffrage to all men, then to women, introducing and then abolishing STV constituencies, big re-organisations in local government -- without anyone holding a referendum. Was that a mistake?
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
I’ve made cucumber pickle a few times. It’s lovely.
Do you mean gherkins, available in any supermarket or fish and chip shop?
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The LibDems can virtue signal day and night, knowing that illegal migrants won't be housed in the communities they represent.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
While it will fall it will still be 300k + a year
Of course no one knows but I think that's a plausible scenario. I wonder whether Labour campaigning on cutting immigration by 60% will work!
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
In future, we will still admit asylum seekers but we will decide how many, when and from where rather than as now a universal right.
I'd rather restrict the right than cap. If we have to cap, so be it, but it doesn't feel good. In the event of a genuine humanitarian catastrophe the cap would end up being lifted anyway.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
Hmm. Doing a convincing alt-hist takes a lot of research (here's mine from 2013) and you'll run out of ideas fast once the obvious cliches (Germans win WWII! The South wins the ACW!). You're competing with stuff like this:
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The LibDems can virtue signal day and night, knowing that illegal migrants won't be housed in the communities they represent.
I live near LibDem Cheltenham, and we've just had our first migrant hotel open, right in the centre of town.
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
The challenge is to find something to say that is relevant to the choices facing us today. Otherwise it would just be historical wank.
No.
The trick is to limit yourself to one change. Otherwise you end up with the German Army invading England riding on mutated sealions, or something.
Must get round to finishing The Flashman Option Part 0. Even though touching that story is heresy.
Yet historical changes are generally interdependent. Such that if you wish to posit a change in one aspect, this is often only credible with changes to other related aspects. Otherwise the scenario isn’t credible.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
While it will fall it will still be 300k + a year
Of course no one knows but I think that's a plausible scenario. I wonder whether Labour campaigning on cutting immigration by 60% will work!
Its still a minor cities worth every year when housing and infrastructure like gps the nhs etc are struggling to cope with the population we have
OT, I’ve just been listening to Skyfall by Adele and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish (both are on my daughter’s car journey play list).
Do you think when an artist is selected for a bond theme they’re issued with a style guide including obligatory keys, chord sequences and instruments?
All bond tunes must be minor key. All but a scarce few must be andante or adagio (live and let die, die another day and the living daylights are exceptions). All must contain a sequence of chromatics starting at so: so, le, la.
Skyfall in particular is essentially the same in tonality and structure as Diamonds are Forever.
These paragraphs from Wikipedia are instructive for this, and I've heard interviews before with the Bond music production people. There is definitely formal style guide:
Background and production In early 2011, Sony Pictures President of Music Lia Vollack suggested to the James Bond film producers at Eon Productions that they ask Adele to record a theme song for their next Bond film, later revealed to be titled Skyfall. Vollack thought that Adele would be a good choice to ask to record a Bond theme song because her music had a "soulful, haunting, evocative quality", which Vollack considered would bring back the "classic Shirley Bassey feel" associated with several early Bond films.
Adele, who had just released her second album, 21, admitted that initially she was a "little hesitant" about agreeing to write a Bond theme song. On meeting with the Skyfall film crew, the singer had told Skyfall director Sam Mendes that she felt as though she was not the person they were looking for because "my songs are personal, I write from the heart". Mendes simply replied "just write a personal song", telling her to use Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" from The Spy Who Loved Me as an inspiration. Adele left the meeting with the script of Skyfall and upon reading it, decided that it was a "no-brainer", as she "fell in love" with the film's plot. Producer Paul Epworth, who had worked with Adele on 21, was brought in to help her write the song. Adele stated that she enjoyed working to a brief and set of guidelines, even though it was something she had never done before.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
Winter Fuel Allowance was a waste of huge amounts of political capital for no political gain. The idea of doing the hard decisions early in the parliament was correct, but the choice was boneheaded.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
Winter Fuel Allowance was a waste of huge amounts of political capital for no political gain. The idea of doing the hard decisions early in the parliament was correct, but the choice was boneheaded.
They ruled out all the more sensible hard decisions in order to get elected.
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
Hmm. Doing a convincing alt-hist takes a lot of research (here's mine from 2013) and you'll run out of ideas fast once the obvious cliches (Germans win WWII! The South wins the ACW!). You're competing with stuff like this:
Or, this bit of fun from the authors of Agent Lavender, where the game is "same PMs, different order", and Sunny Jim really has a sunny time of it;
The Home Service’s popular ‘Geezil Show’ had an episode entitled “The Navy Lark!” wherein a young bosun, adopting a thick South Coast accent, is revealed to be in control of the entire fleet by utilizing a complex system of telegraph machines, tin cans and a number of increasingly ostentatious costumes.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
Winter Fuel Allowance was a waste of huge amounts of political capital for no political gain. The idea of doing the hard decisions early in the parliament was correct, but the choice was boneheaded.
They ruled out all the more sensible hard decisions in order to get elected.
But when you get elected with a landslide, you can change course. If they raised income tax or VAT, with some bollocks about seeing the real books, would it have caused more consternation than WFA? Probably about the same for much more income.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
I’ve made cucumber pickle a few times. It’s lovely.
Do you mean gherkins, available in any supermarket or fish and chip shop?
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
Times Radio do a mainly military history series called History Undone, with some other content mixed in, weekly. They have very good contributors, so it's one example.
Personally I'm not that keen, but sometimes see one interesting. It's one example. I think a specialised substack on just that may be too focused. I think a single-person written format may also not be optimal.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
Its not complicated at all, you want to change the voting system such as they did with the av referendum you just explain the system you want to change to. Then ask yes or no.
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
Multiple major changes in voting happened over the first three quarters of the twentieth century -- like expanding suffrage to all men, then to women, introducing and then abolishing STV constituencies, big re-organisations in local government -- without anyone holding a referendum. Was that a mistake?
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
Winter Fuel Allowance was a waste of huge amounts of political capital for no political gain. The idea of doing the hard decisions early in the parliament was correct, but the choice was boneheaded.
They ruled out all the more sensible hard decisions in order to get elected.
But when you get elected with a landslide, you can change course. If they raised income tax or VAT, with some bollocks about seeing the real books, would it have caused more consternation than WFA? Probably about the same for much more income.
They would have squeezed the Greens and The Gaza Independents hard if they did so. My guess is that Labour would be on 35%+ if they’d done so.
OT, I’ve just been listening to Skyfall by Adele and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish (both are on my daughter’s car journey play list).
Do you think when an artist is selected for a bond theme they’re issued with a style guide including obligatory keys, chord sequences and instruments?
All bond tunes must be minor key. All but a scarce few must be andante or adagio (live and let die, die another day and the living daylights are exceptions). All must contain a sequence of chromatics starting at so: so, le, la.
Skyfall in particular is essentially the same in tonality and structure as Diamonds are Forever.
These paragraphs from Wikipedia are instructive for this, and I've heard interviews before with the Bond music production people. There is definitely formal style guide:
Background and production In early 2011, Sony Pictures President of Music Lia Vollack suggested to the James Bond film producers at Eon Productions that they ask Adele to record a theme song for their next Bond film, later revealed to be titled Skyfall. Vollack thought that Adele would be a good choice to ask to record a Bond theme song because her music had a "soulful, haunting, evocative quality", which Vollack considered would bring back the "classic Shirley Bassey feel" associated with several early Bond films.
Adele, who had just released her second album, 21, admitted that initially she was a "little hesitant" about agreeing to write a Bond theme song. On meeting with the Skyfall film crew, the singer had told Skyfall director Sam Mendes that she felt as though she was not the person they were looking for because "my songs are personal, I write from the heart". Mendes simply replied "just write a personal song", telling her to use Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" from The Spy Who Loved Me as an inspiration. Adele left the meeting with the script of Skyfall and upon reading it, decided that it was a "no-brainer", as she "fell in love" with the film's plot. Producer Paul Epworth, who had worked with Adele on 21, was brought in to help her write the song. Adele stated that she enjoyed working to a brief and set of guidelines, even though it was something she had never done before.
As an aside, however long it takes, there would be no justice in the world if Raye* doesn't get called for and takes on the next Bond theme.
*I refuse to follow the unorthodox capitalisation of any pop stars any more.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
What has he done wrong. He's too right wing for my taste now but for one of your persuasion I can't find significant fault
Winter Fuel Allowance was a waste of huge amounts of political capital for no political gain. The idea of doing the hard decisions early in the parliament was correct, but the choice was boneheaded.
They ruled out all the more sensible hard decisions in order to get elected.
But when you get elected with a landslide, you can change course. If they raised income tax or VAT, with some bollocks about seeing the real books, would it have caused more consternation than WFA? Probably about the same for much more income.
... and they have put taxes up on working people indirectly anyway. Starmer is satisfied that he hasn't broken any pledge because he sees everything through the eyes of a dorky, pedantic lawyer, but normal people saw the sleight of hand and that's why they can't have him
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The likelihood in most English seats (S,W and NI will be different) is that come the election in most seats other than those where only one party can win (tough, but that's normal) there will be only two parties who can win. One will be Reform/Toryreform, the other will be Labour mostly or LD.
Making a stand against the right means working out which of Labour or LD it will be, and voting for them. If they have any sense Labour and LDs won't seriously go head to head in more than a handful of seats.
IMHO however there is a stronmg chance that Reform will tack to an interesting popular centrist position over the next four years, to be where their voters are on all matters apart from migration related ones. This would look like 1950s Labour: government intervention dirigisme, private enterprise, welfare state but trying to weed out the undeserving poor, NHS, more public ownership.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
There's always been a party to the right of Farage (Griffin's BNP, Batten's UKIP to name two), and they always disappear because he is the only show in town
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
Which is why they need to get to net emigration by the time the election rolls around. Deportation of illegals, revoking visas for low wage migrants, reducing the student visa grace period to 3 or 6 months rather than 2 years, increasing the skilled worker threshold to above £50k, designating safe third countries to deport any and all uninvited asylum seekers and emptying the hotels with deporting them rather than just giving up and handing them legal status.
Labour need to get tough and do it now so that by 2028 the policies have fed through and they have enough credibility to run on a low immigration, tough on illegal immigrants policy. People need to see that the hotels are empty and that we aren't just handing out legal status to any and all who cross the border illegally.
If they do this I actually think they have a chance to finish the Tory party once and for all. Reform will lose votes to Labour but the Tories won't have any platform from which to run and they will leak a huge proportion of votes to Reform.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
In future, we will still admit asylum seekers but we will decide how many, when and from where rather than as now a universal right.
But that future needs to start now, if not then we're heading for a Reform majority.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Would certainly rather that than live in a country populated by bigots like you
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
If you're in Skye and the gloaming is good, get thee to the pub at Isleornsay
Sit outside with a beer. You are looking at one of the greatest views in Europe, across the sound of Sleat to Knoydart. You are also looking at Eilean Sionnach, location of S K Tremayne's globally bestselling novel, the Ice Twins (an added inducement, surely - as I believe the author used to comment here)
And also the home of Gavin Maxwell, of Ring of Bright Water fame, for a few brief months
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Well Max and I don't exactly look the same! But we talk the same talk on immigration, so perhaps you have it wrong
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
I read all of the header. I have loved reading political history books since about the age of 9 or 10. Since 2007 I must have read dozens.
I like alternative histories too. Alt histories can act like a black mirror, it was happening when reading your header, getting me to think how would a moderate labour government elected in late 70s have handled the occupation of the Falkland Islands?
This header though I think is poor example. I fear politics experts would tear it to bits. A few bullet points of what
Could Labour have won in 1978, or more likely a 1970 type result, which is why they didn’t call it. History of the period is written up as though “the writing was on the wall” and a change and Thatcherism was coming anyway. Mainly because after clear failure of ideas and status quo as it was it was high time for economic change in UK that drove the political change and reason to elect Lady Thatcher.
More writing on the wall was Labour was split, between lefties and social democrats, with members increasingly favouring the left positions, and leading it from a moderate centre became increasingly impossible. The lefties would never allowed the necessary Thatcherite economic change your header implies happens anyway. Your alt history has this lefty labour trajectory dispersing into nothing far too easily not getting worse to inevitable conclusion of SDP leaving, hard left leader with hard left policies not doing what was actually needed. For example, Labour would never have controlled the unions, we would never have had the environmental benefit of closing all the mines, something we should be thankful to the Conservatives for.
UK electorate happy to leave EEC in 1980s? Were we not getting the economic benefits overwhelmingly voted for in 1975? But UK was benefiting from long overdue (blocked by French) membership. Even what remained as moderates inside Labour regarded that leave policy as electoral suicide in 1983. The Tories, press, liberals and the electorate would have been against it.
Falklands bounce. Didn’t intelligence services pick up possibility of Argie invasion in 1978, and government took advice to successfully deter it with warships? That should and could have happened in early 80s too - the security agencies let Lady Thatcher down not noticing stuff and suggesting prevention measures.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Well Max and I don't exactly look the same! But we talk the same talk on immigration, so perhaps you have it wrong
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Well Max and I don't exactly look the same! But we talk the same talk on immigration, so perhaps you have it wrong
Heaven forbid!
This is the problem on the left, diversity to them is merely skin deep. Diversity of thought and ideas means nothing to them, it's just white vs black, Asian vs African etc...
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The LibDems can virtue signal day and night, knowing that illegal migrants won't be housed in the communities they represent.
Thatchers hotel in a posh bit of the Guildford constituency did. Bizarrely most were unaware and when the contract ended and it reverted to normal use the locals complained about them being moved on as they had become part of the community. So not all the stereotypes are true.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt like you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Wasn't Adam Afriyie made bankrupt, John Stonehouse too and they carried on (well Stonehouse until he got sent down)
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Wasn't Adam Afriyie made bankrupt, John Stonehouse too and they carried on (well Stonehouse until he got sent down)
With Adam Afriyie it didn't reach as far as the Bankruptcy Restriction Order phase which is where the trigger for MPs now kicks in.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The LibDems can virtue signal day and night, knowing that illegal migrants won't be housed in the communities they represent.
Thatchers hotel in a posh bit of the Guildford constituency did. Bizarrely most were unaware and when the contract ended and it reverted to normal use the locals complained about them being moved on as they had become part of the community. So not all the stereotypes are true.
A very brief and cursory search on the internet shows plenty of asylum seeker’s accommodation in Lib Dem constituencies, and Lib Dem council seats, and I’m glad because they hopefully are in less risk of arson than elsewhere.
I really think this is a bubble thing. Some people cannot conceive of the idea that not everyone in the country has the same attitudes that they do. They assume it’s hypocrisy. But it’s not.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
But for their backers, that's just proof the Deep State is interfering to thwart the People's Will.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
There's always been a party to the right of Farage (Griffin's BNP, Batten's UKIP to name two), and they always disappear because he is the only show in town
I occasionally think of Nick Griffin now - working in a 'Chicken Village' take-away, greasy bib covered in day-old 'spicy sauce', salting the 'fries' with his own tears.
...
Jeez - I foolishly looked at his page on wikipedia. What a 'rollercoaster' of a read. Though I quite enjoyed this :
He was declared bankrupt in January 2014. In March 2017, Griffin expressed a desire to emigrate to Hungary within six months. In May 2017, Griffin was banned from Hungary as he was perceived to be a "national security threat"
I can happily report that the Scottish Loch trout, new pots, creme fraiche, horseradish, cucumber pickle, dill dill dill Nordic thingy that I just made was EPIC
OT, I’ve just been listening to Skyfall by Adele and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish (both are on my daughter’s car journey play list).
Do you think when an artist is selected for a bond theme they’re issued with a style guide including obligatory keys, chord sequences and instruments?
All bond tunes must be minor key. All but a scarce few must be andante or adagio (live and let die, die another day and the living daylights are exceptions). All must contain a sequence of chromatics starting at so: so, le, la.
Skyfall in particular is essentially the same in tonality and structure as Diamonds are Forever.
An interesting exchange from Reddit *:
Q) Skyfall by Adele, Spectre by Radiohead (not used in the film) and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish
I get very similar vibes when I listen to these. I know part of that is due to similar instrumentation (strings, piano etc.) and the fact that they're essentially written to serve a certain purpose in Bond films.
But what's going on with the theory aspect? Do these tracks have anything in common to convey the same feel?
A) They all contain the three ascending followed by one descending chromatic notes (which is the Bond theme) hidden in the chords.
Skyfall: Cm - Ab - F - Fm. Hidden chromatic line: G - Ab - A - Ab.
Spectre: Bsus2 - G - E. Hidden chromatic line (unfinished but still effective): F# - G - G# (could be more places too).
No Time To Die: Em - Cmaj7 - A - Am. Hidden chromatic line: B - C - C# - C.
I've sung in music groups, and have a lot of the theory, but I'm not ingrained enough in this stuff to do things like recognise keys, chords and musical grammar, and for it to become a language I can think in. I see the chromatics as the wallpaper, and the tune / voice / film as what is happening in the room of the song. The minor key they provides a wash of emotion. In one sense the chromatic line provides base and some rhythm, with the voice being the melody.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
"Unfortunately, we have had to spend all the funds raised to save our Great Leader from the Woke Blob. Now we have paid for him to have a well-earned rest in the Cayman Isles (by way of Mar-a-Lago) and are now short of funds. [Click to donate]"
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
He could save himself fairly quickly at this stage, by apologising and grovelling to Lowe a lot. That would undoubtedly be the best thing for The Movement. Avoiding libel cases is nearly always a good idea, and I'd expect this to end up with handshakes and false grins on the court steps.
And yet, this has already got further than any sane group of people would have let it. There must be precedents for internal party disputes ending up in the courts, but I can't think of any.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
I once voted for a no-hope Tory candidate in the local council elections (2nd pref...) as they had an amusing name. I think it had the word 'bum' in it.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
He said on Sunday that he aimed to bring Georgescu into government if he won. “There are several ways in which, if the Romanian people want, Mr Georgescu can be in our country’s leadership, and we will use it,” Simion said. “We can form a majority and have him as a prime minister, we can have snap elections or call for a referendum.”.."
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
Oh, woe is you! You could just stop exaggerating. Parties never deliver 100% of their manifestos, but they usually deliver a good chunk of them and rarely do the opposite of them.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
There's always been a party to the right of Farage (Griffin's BNP, Batten's UKIP to name two), and they always disappear because he is the only show in town
There's a whole list of groups and groupuscules to the right of Reform. Most of them want to use Reform as a vehicle for furthering their dogmas.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
He could save himself fairly quickly at this stage, by apologising and grovelling to Lowe a lot. That would undoubtedly be the best thing for The Movement. Avoiding libel cases is nearly always a good idea, and I'd expect this to end up with handshakes and false grins on the court steps.
And yet, this has already got further than any sane group of people would have let it. There must be precedents for internal party disputes ending up in the courts, but I can't think of any.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
I think it's perfectly OK to express opinions about how people vote.
A good political event requires a good speaker and attentive listeners, and the analogy reads straight across.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
I will gladly vote for a party that has manifesto promises I agree with if I believe they will at least try to implement those promises. The problem is every party now makes promises they actually have no plan on keeping.
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
I personally think the answer to that is that you vote on values, which I think is a big component of most voters' decision anyway. Being in government means dealing with whatever random events and situations come along, as well as a myriad of smaller decisions that were too fine grained to fit in the manifesto even if you could predict them. I don't know what those will be so part of my vote is "this party seems to have overall values and opinions that line up with mine, so I hope that when they're faced with those decisions then they'll do the kind of thing I would prefer". I also think that even when parties fail to honour manifesto promises or are negotiating policies in a coalition they're still generally likely to follow their existing vibes and values, so it's in some ways a more reliable guide to behaviour in government than the manifesto.
Ah. Part of the Lowe/Farage split. What happens if Reform UK are outflanked on the right?
I spoke to somebody a few weeks ago and they say there is a very strong possibility that Nigel Farage (and Lee Anderson) will be disqualified from being MPs if Mr Lowe wins his libel case against them.
Because they can't pay? Wouldn't Zia Yusuf cough up?
It stems from MPs being ineligible if they become bankrupts, and Lowe has very deep pockets and is litigious.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Ooh! Save our Nige!!
He could save himself fairly quickly at this stage, by apologising and grovelling to Lowe a lot. That would undoubtedly be the best thing for The Movement. Avoiding libel cases is nearly always a good idea, and I'd expect this to end up with handshakes and false grins on the court steps.
And yet, this has already got further than any sane group of people would have let it. There must be precedents for internal party disputes ending up in the courts, but I can't think of any.
Lowe’s beef is as much with Yusuf as anyone else I believe. So I’d expect the money man to back Farage if it meant Reform’s leader would be expelled from the commons otherwise
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
If voters feel a party has failed to deliver on their promises to a sufficient degree, they can vote them out at the next election. The party in government got in again, more or less, in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in the UK, so presumably voters thought they'd gotten close enough to their promises. In Canada, that happened in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The voters don't seem to be saying that parties have catastrophically failed to deliver.
Yes they can vote them out then vote for another party who will promise x, y, z then do nothing about them. It comes to guess work which party actually means what they say in their manifesto.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
I would like all sorts of change. I didn't vote to keep the Tories in in 2015, 2017 and 2019. But I'm a democrat and I respect that that was the decision of the wider electorate.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
Why would no party be returned if they did what they said they would do in their manifesto and people voted for them.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
Apologies, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I was saying that if most people felt you do, i.e. that parties are insufficiently delivering on their promises, then we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power. But parties in government are returned to power. This suggests that most of the electorate think, most of the time, parties are delivering enough of what they promised for it to be worth returning them to power. Have I explained my contention better this time?
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines rather than looking at how parties performed against what they promised
Well, you see, that may be true, but I believe in democracy, so if people are doing that, that's their choice and people doing that get as much say as anyone else. You're the one who is in danger of seeming like you only want democracy if people vote how you think they should!
I haven't once criticised how people vote. I have merely argued people should be allowed to know what they are voting for. My arguments have been non party based. Your argument therefore is a) null and void and b) just a way to try and make it out that I am arguing for something bad
You just said, "Sadly too many voters still vote on tribal lines..." If that isn't criticising how people vote, what is it?
I don't particularly think you are arguing for something bad. I agree that we should be concerned if turnout falls and that parties should be largely sticking to their manifesto promises. I think you are overly pessimistic about the state of our democracy, and I'm less keen on referendums.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What problem do you and Max have with diversity? Do you just want to live in a land of pot bellied 'Englishmen' and women?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
I'm not white and I have no problem with ethnic diversity. I have a problem with the government, Labour or Tory, mass importing people from cultures that are opposed to our own for no economic gain. An agency care worker making £23k per year that comes with 4 dependents will have a net contribution of -£15k once all of the welfare and education for dependent children is taken into account, we gain precisely zero from their presence in the country, indeed, it increases the burden of tax on the rest of us.
Care workers visas have not permitted bringing dependents since March 2024.
Comments
The trick is to limit yourself to one change. Otherwise you end up with the German Army invading England riding on mutated sealions, or something.
Must get round to finishing The Flashman Option Part 0. Even though touching that story is heresy.
How many Labour leaders have had the first name James?
Nevertheless it is all too easy, later in life, to adopt a purist position and sit out active engagement until the day when you get to force your own rules onto your own quiet small corner of the graveyard.
A showdown between democracy and authoritarianism is incoming, and all sensible folk need to be getting ready to take a stand.
By all means keep up your ra ra support of things as they are just be aware that you are supporting a system that drives people to distrust it.
You are probably also the sort of person who says well if you want that you should vote for parties that support it.....and now arguing we cant believe anything a party claims to support and thats ok.
Sorry if you allow this farce of parties making manifesto promises and then ignoring them you are not a supporter of democracy.
A Reform UK Councillor Has Been Suspended By The Party 3 Days After Being Elected
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/a-reform-uk-councillor-has-been-suspended-by-the-party-3-days-after-being-elected_uk_68173abfe4b0c86669215866
Margaret Hodge, reflecting in 2020 on defeating Nick Griffin for Barking in 2020.
it does not all read across, but the comments about being what you are not living up to your opponent's caricature are relevant.
https://labourlist.org/2020/05/the-battle-for-barking-ten-years-on/
A more contemporaneous account of the on-the-ground strategy by Matthew Taylor and Hugh Muir:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/14/general-election-2010-fall-bnp
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3nctzK57k
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPFhwZ3Ql-Y
- https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/book-nook-agent-lavender-by-tom-black-and-jack-tindale
- https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/agent-lavender-the-flight-of-harold-wilson.261475/
- https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tliaw-gödels-loophole-s.546342/
- https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/remember-remember-the-fifth-of-november-britain-1981-1990.433198/
The last link is a alt-hist depiction of the rise to power of Norsefire, a right-wing party rising to power following engineered atrocities. Not that such a thing would happen IRL, of course.Background and production
In early 2011, Sony Pictures President of Music Lia Vollack suggested to the James Bond film producers at Eon Productions that they ask Adele to record a theme song for their next Bond film, later revealed to be titled Skyfall. Vollack thought that Adele would be a good choice to ask to record a Bond theme song because her music had a "soulful, haunting, evocative quality", which Vollack considered would bring back the "classic Shirley Bassey feel" associated with several early Bond films.
Adele, who had just released her second album, 21, admitted that initially she was a "little hesitant" about agreeing to write a Bond theme song. On meeting with the Skyfall film crew, the singer had told Skyfall director Sam Mendes that she felt as though she was not the person they were looking for because "my songs are personal, I write from the heart". Mendes simply replied "just write a personal song", telling her to use Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" from The Spy Who Loved Me as an inspiration. Adele left the meeting with the script of Skyfall and upon reading it, decided that it was a "no-brainer", as she "fell in love" with the film's plot. Producer Paul Epworth, who had worked with Adele on 21, was brought in to help her write the song. Adele stated that she enjoyed working to a brief and set of guidelines, even though it was something she had never done before.
Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald, Harold Wilson, and Gordon Brown all had/have the first name James.
James Callaghan had the first name Leonard.
The Home Service’s popular ‘Geezil Show’ had an episode entitled “The Navy Lark!” wherein a young bosun, adopting a thick South Coast accent, is revealed to be in control of the entire fleet by utilizing a complex system of telegraph machines, tin cans and a number of increasingly ostentatious costumes.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tliad-shuffling-the-deck.317898/page-4
Flip knows how they would have coped with adding Boris, Liz and Rishi to the story.
If most people felt like you do, we'd expect no party in government to be returned to power, and yet it happens more often than not.
These are the cucumber ones I’ve done
https://www.kilnerjar.co.uk/recipe/japanese-quick-pickled-cucumbers?srsltid=AfmBOopv7TCO_dgCNNpNF1QWfqa8ZNRc-HZbd5lDs3KPKzK1Ydcd5JVe
https://www.kilnerjar.co.uk/recipe/pickled-cucumbers-karenhb?srsltid=AfmBOopHAy339kpn712lZsqyPLY831_cBiR57o6728w2D0dr57BiAIZm
Personally I'm not that keen, but sometimes see one interesting. It's one example. I think a specialised substack on just that may be too focused. I think a single-person written format may also not be optimal.
https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryUndonewithJamesHanson/videos
https://x.com/whitehouse/status/1919053040734072844?s=61
*I refuse to follow the unorthodox capitalisation of any pop stars any more.
We live in a country where less and less people are voting because they don't believe that anything they vote for matters because parties nowadays abandon manifesto pledges the moment they have the persons vote.....can you not see why a lot of people are getting cynical and why politicians are approaching estate agents level of trust?
If it was that you wanted a 'closed shop' stopping better or harder working people taking your jobs i could just about understand it........
But reading your posts it's obviously not the problem. You simply want the place you live in to be populated by people who look and sound like you.
Making a stand against the right means working out which of Labour or LD it will be, and voting for them. If they have any sense Labour and LDs won't seriously go head to head in more than a handful of seats.
IMHO however there is a stronmg chance that Reform will tack to an interesting popular centrist position over the next four years, to be where their voters are on all matters apart from migration related ones. This would look like 1950s Labour: government intervention dirigisme, private enterprise, welfare state but trying to weed out the undeserving poor, NHS, more public ownership.
Labour need to get tough and do it now so that by 2028 the policies have fed through and they have enough credibility to run on a low immigration, tough on illegal immigrants policy. People need to see that the hotels are empty and that we aren't just handing out legal status to any and all who cross the border illegally.
If they do this I actually think they have a chance to finish the Tory party once and for all. Reform will lose votes to Labour but the Tories won't have any platform from which to run and they will leak a huge proportion of votes to Reform.
In which war (or country) did the Battle of Norfolk take place?
Sit outside with a beer. You are looking at one of the greatest views in Europe, across the sound of Sleat to Knoydart. You are also looking at Eilean Sionnach, location of S K Tremayne's globally bestselling novel, the Ice Twins (an added inducement, surely - as I believe the author used to comment here)
And also the home of Gavin Maxwell, of Ring of Bright Water fame, for a few brief months
Heaven forbid!
I like alternative histories too. Alt histories can act like a black mirror, it was happening when reading your header, getting me to think how would a moderate labour government elected in late 70s have handled the occupation of the Falkland Islands?
This header though I think is poor example. I fear politics experts would tear it to bits. A few bullet points of what
Could Labour have won in 1978, or more likely a 1970 type result, which is why they didn’t call it. History of the period is written up as though “the writing was on the wall” and a change and Thatcherism was coming anyway. Mainly because after clear failure of ideas and status quo as it was it was high time for economic change in UK that drove the political change and reason to elect Lady Thatcher.
More writing on the wall was Labour was split, between lefties and social democrats, with members increasingly favouring the left positions, and leading it from a moderate centre became increasingly impossible. The lefties would never allowed the necessary Thatcherite economic change your header implies happens anyway. Your alt history has this lefty labour trajectory dispersing into nothing far too easily not getting worse to inevitable conclusion of SDP leaving, hard left leader with hard left policies not doing what was actually needed. For example, Labour would never have controlled the unions, we would never have had the environmental benefit of closing all the mines, something we should be thankful to the Conservatives for.
UK electorate happy to leave EEC in 1980s? Were we not getting the economic benefits overwhelmingly voted for in 1975? But UK was benefiting from long overdue (blocked by French) membership. Even what remained as moderates inside Labour regarded that leave policy as electoral suicide in 1983. The Tories, press, liberals and the electorate would have been against it.
Falklands bounce. Didn’t intelligence services pick up possibility of Argie invasion in 1978, and government took advice to successfully deter it with warships? That should and could have happened in early 80s too - the security agencies let Lady Thatcher down not noticing stuff and suggesting prevention measures.
There's also restrictions on MPs receiving money from outsiders.
Plus the rozzers are involved so this has the potential to get even messier even before the financial aspects kick in.
Saddam Hussein promised the mother of all battles and the US and UK armies smashed his forces back into the Stone Age.
The Iraqis lost over 1,000 tanks in the battle, whilst the US had three tanks slightly damaged and the UK had none damaged.
I am concerned about falling turnout, but I think turnout has many explanations. Turnout tends to be low when elections aren't close. Turnout has fallen in the last few elections, but it was going up before then: it was up in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
https://x.com/paulleyticks/status/1918714839947710588?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Although it was his just Deserts (or even Dorsets).
I really think this is a bubble thing. Some people cannot conceive of the idea that not everyone in the country has the same attitudes that they do. They assume it’s hypocrisy. But it’s not.
...
Jeez - I foolishly looked at his page on wikipedia. What a 'rollercoaster' of a read. Though I quite enjoyed this :
Q) Skyfall by Adele, Spectre by Radiohead (not used in the film) and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish
I get very similar vibes when I listen to these. I know part of that is due to similar instrumentation (strings, piano etc.) and the fact that they're essentially written to serve a certain purpose in Bond films.
But what's going on with the theory aspect? Do these tracks have anything in common to convey the same feel?
A) They all contain the three ascending followed by one descending chromatic notes (which is the Bond theme) hidden in the chords.
Skyfall: Cm - Ab - F - Fm. Hidden chromatic line: G - Ab - A - Ab.
Spectre: Bsus2 - G - E. Hidden chromatic line (unfinished but still effective): F# - G - G# (could be more places too).
No Time To Die: Em - Cmaj7 - A - Am. Hidden chromatic line: B - C - C# - C.
I've sung in music groups, and have a lot of the theory, but I'm not ingrained enough in this stuff to do things like recognise keys, chords and musical grammar, and for it to become a language I can think in. I see the chromatics as the wallpaper, and the tune / voice / film as what is happening in the room of the song. The minor key they provides a wash of emotion. In one sense the chromatic line provides base and some rhythm, with the voice being the melody.
*https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/qjozed/what_is_common_in_these_bond_themes_in_terms_of/
So as a voter I look at the manifestos and I go who shall I vote for and have no idea because I have no idea which party might actually do anything I agree with when in power.....I can't rely on the manifesto so how do I choose where to put my x?
Ah, farmed trout, lol
And yet, this has already got further than any sane group of people would have let it. There must be precedents for internal party disputes ending up in the courts, but I can't think of any.
So... that's a method. I guess.
Though how mush that is so is questionable.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/04/ultranationalist-wins-first-round-of-romanias-rerun-presidential-election
"...In contrast to Georgescu, Simion has frequently denounced Russia, while lashing out at Brussels and praising Trump’s Republicans in the US. He has said he aims to set up an alliance of countries within the EU “in the spirit of Maga”.
He said on Sunday that he aimed to bring Georgescu into government if he won. “There are several ways in which, if the Romanian people want, Mr Georgescu can be in our country’s leadership, and we will use it,” Simion said. “We can form a majority and have him as a prime minister, we can have snap elections or call for a referendum.”.."
They neither expected nor wanted to win
A good political event requires a good speaker and attentive listeners, and the analogy reads straight across.
I don't particularly think you are arguing for something bad. I agree that we should be concerned if turnout falls and that parties should be largely sticking to their manifesto promises. I think you are overly pessimistic about the state of our democracy, and I'm less keen on referendums.