• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General UK politics VIII - The Last Tory

TikTok suspended the Reform rally live steam while Ann Widdecombe was speaking, declaring it "hate speech”
 
Samson said:
So Farage was party to the Alex Jones nonsense.
I have read the guardian article, and see no confirmation of Anti semitism, but more accurately accusations of Islamiphobia. On that subject I applaud Aayan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris etc.
Click to expand...

Normally it's considered antisemitic to tell a Jewish person that Hitler was right.

And there are multiple people who went to school with Farage who say that he was a racist then.

If that was all, he might be able to say that he changed, but he persists in using racist dog whistles, and having to apologise for using cultural references and songs that happen to be popular with white supremacists and Nazis.

He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I like Davey, he's a decent human being and I like the Lid Dems.
Click to expand...

My parents always voted Liberal, at least as far back as I can remember (I've a vague feeling that my mum once said that was a compromise, but I might have imagined that, and it's too late to ask now), and we lived in Orpington which was the site of one of their big by election victories, so that's how I started voting. However, when I've done something radical, like actually reading manifestoes, or doing online tests of where you stand on various policies, I still align very closely with the LibDems. I'd certainly never vote Tory, and I don't think I've lived anywhere where voting Labour would have been more likely to remove the MP than LibDem. I'll be happy if, as seems likely, Labour do get a big majority. I've never really understood the ridicule that the Liberals and then LibDems get; yes, on some specific issues, especially during the Coalition with Big Dave, but it seems to be continual. Then again, I don't understand how anyone, beyond the very well-off who benefit directly, could vote for the Conservatives.
 
Leaflet watch:

Green - 1
Reform - 3
Labour - 7 (obviously hoping to overturn the 26% 13k Tory majority)
Tory - 4
LibDem - 0
Freedom Alliance - 0
Campaign group for PR with no candidate - 1

My new polling station isn't fully accessible for wheelchairs (it's almost step-free access but the combination of a narrow corridor with a 90 degree turn and heavy fire doors make it inaccessible) and I refuse to vote by post - that doesn't solve the problem.

So I've had to tell the people at the council what time I intend to vote, and apparently the Presiding Officer will keep an eye out for me and if necessary bring the ballot paper outside for me to vote.

The previous polling station was accessible, and I can't find out why they changed it. I complained at the time of the PCC elections but the snap election means there hasn't been time for the council to investigate.
 
Johnny Mercer stood on a road bridge with "vote Mercer" signs this morning and tweeted "...called a wanker 409 times before 8am."

"Only 409" is now trending
 
Filippo Lippi said:
Johnny Mercer stood on a road bridge with "vote Mercer" signs this morning and tweeted "...called a wanker 409 times before 8am."

"Only 409" is now trending
Click to expand...

:D
You've gotta love us 'cap-doffing', 'forelock-tugging' Brits.
:D
 
136 Reform UK candidates are raising money from a crowdfunding platform that allows donors to keep their address secret and donate from abroad, both of which breach the rules of the Electoral Commission.

Apparently the rules and Electoral Commission are part of the plot to interfere with the Reform election campaign and deny the will of the people.
 
Jimbob said (see prior thread):

I disagree.

It keeps the constituency link, and makes it easier to vote against a candidate. The least unpopular candidate wins as opposed to the candidate with the largest plurality.

It avoids the party list, where you need a party to be utterly demolished for the leadership to loose their seat.

All in all, as far as I can see, it's the system that gives voters the most power to remove any particular candidate regardless of their wider party.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is an important point, when the current system means an MP literally represents his or her constituents. So you have MP's from deprived areas representing the interests of that area in the House whilst the rich landowners have theirs. The true problem is population density. The poorer areas tend to be crammed chocablock with people per square mile, which means one constituency with 26,000 people living cheek by jowl has the same representation in parliament as a couple of thousand people spread out over a leafy county sipping at their ice cold beer lazing about in their mansions.

Of course, should there be PR then the opposite problem occurs, so you have the unwashed masses having the most representation, because there are many more of them, whilst great swathes of the country area-wise (for example farmers) have their interests suddenly at the mercy of the populists.

We have PR here in Finland and whilst the north still tends to vote Centre Party (used to be the agricultural party), of course, the urban centres, where more than 25% of the population live tend to the liberal-conservative right, at least recently. So the governments tend to be coalitions because with five or more parties, it is rare to get a full majority. So ATM we have the conservatives sharing power with the far right Basic Finns (think UKIP), even though this sector inhabits a small area by size (big cities and suburbs).


Whilst I think coalition parties work well, proportional representation is not necessarily the answer to the problem of ensuring everybody is represented fairly, or even that your part of the country has a vocal say in the Commons.
 
Vixen said:
...
Exactly. This is an important point, when the current system means an MP literally represents his or her constituents. So you have MP's from deprived areas representing the interests of that area in the House whilst the rich landowners have theirs. The true problem is population density. The poorer areas tend to be crammed chocablock with people per square mile, which means one constituency with 26,000 people living cheek by jowl has the same representation in parliament as a couple of thousand people spread out over a leafy county sipping at their ice cold beer lazing about in their mansions.
...
Click to expand...

No.

"As of 2023, every recommended constituency must have an electorate as at 2 March 2020 that is no smaller than 69,724 and no larger than 77,062.[8] The exceptions to this rule are five 'protected' constituencies for island areas: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Ynys Mon, and two constituencies on the Isle of Wight.[9] These consequently have smaller electorates than the lower limit for other constituencies. "

link
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Ed Davy's been out living his best life again today. Bungee jumping this morning. Whether he returns to Parliament as Leader of the Opposition on Friday or not he'll definitely be handing in the best "What I did on my Holidays" essay.
Click to expand...
It's a shame that it's pretty much the only way he has of generating headlines, as their low representation in Parliament means there's no chance of a repeat of Clegg-mania of 2010 via the main televised leadership debates.

The 7-party televised debates were pretty much a mudslinging fest, in which few came out looking better than they did going in.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. This is an important point, when the current system means an MP literally represents his or her constituents. So you have MP's from deprived areas representing the interests of that area in the House whilst the rich landowners have theirs. The true problem is population density. The poorer areas tend to be crammed chocablock with people per square mile, which means one constituency with 26,000 people living cheek by jowl has the same representation in parliament as a couple of thousand people spread out over a leafy county sipping at their ice cold beer lazing about in their mansions.
Click to expand...

Are you from the ye olden times?

Constituency boundaries are updated to reflect the population density and changes in population. That's what the Boundary Commission does. There have been periodic reviews over the years to keep them balanced with some constituencies changing size and others being abolished or amalgamated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_commissions_(United_Kingdom)
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I am accused on this forum as being a nazi, and presumably thus pro Hitler.
Of course my children would be surprised.
Click to expand...

I can see why some people find Farage attractive: like, Hitler, he taps into people's 'dark traits', such as insecurity, anxiety, envy, jealousy, anger, frustration, violence, aggression, hatred; all of the things people aren't supposed to talk about, thus it is a 'recognition' when someone claiming to be a leader taps into all of this stuff. Hitler never cared for the country bumpkins and factory workers; he was a snob and considered himself cultured. His schtick - as is people like Farage or even 'Tommy Robinson' is power. They enjoy manipulating people's emotions (for example, calling them 'patriotism' or 'our people'), when really, they lap up the perceived adulation. The more 'followers' they attract, the more encouraged they are. Hitler literally spent hours rehearsing his rousing speeches because he knew how empowering the 'crowd effect' was. The more he saw what worked on the mob, the more he refined it. He used silly gestures such as the Caesar salute and cosplay, military outfit in shiny black leather, with lots of violence.

Don't be a sucker, Samson, don't let some power hungry politician who cares absolutely nothing about your hopes and fears fool you into tapping into your dark side.
 
KDLarsen said:
It's a shame that it's pretty much the only way he has of generating headlines, as their low representation in Parliament means there's no chance of a repeat of Clegg-mania of 2010 via the main televised leadership debates.

The 7-party televised debates were pretty much a mudslinging fest, in which few came out looking better than they did going in.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the generation that felt betrayed by the LibDems (when they propped up a Tory government) will forgive them.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
"I was dressing in a hurry to get to a meeting and my tan trousers and beige shirt were the first things to come to hand and with the rain the night before boots were an obvious choice. I know everyone's making a big deal about the swastika armband, but I simply pulled it on because it brought the outfit together in a fun and colorful way. The thought that it might have any kind of connotations at all never occurred to me and I think it's disgusting the way the press have published out of context photos of me performing my medically recommended arm and leg raising exercises on the way to the office."
Click to expand...


I was thinking more along the lines of:

"I'm shocked - shocked! - to discover that there are fascists in this party!"
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
It seemed a reasonable explanation by Farage.
Farage seems principled and intelligent from a distance.
He accurately predicted RU from a way back.
He seems to understand biology and sovereignty.
Mr 25 percent of the popular vote might be accorded more than abject contempt maybe?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12. Please keep to the topic of the thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom