FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Nigel ridiculous sound bites
Nigel ridiculous sound bites
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. " About 9 years ago he told us that Turkey's membership of the EU was imminent - and we risked getting overrun with thousands of Turkish immigrants. He's just prays on the fears of people who don't take time to check facts for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. About 9 years ago he told us that Turkey's membership of the EU was imminent - and we risked getting overrun with thousands of Turkish immigrants. He's just prays on the fears of people who don't take time to check facts for themselves." The annoying thing about that is that Turkey had only completed 1 of the 24 steps needed to join the EU… the court now stands at.. 1 of the 24 required steps! This is where I thought the panorama interview was good because it made him have to justify his previous comments!! Of course he was going to believe that, remember he was getting a bag from RT at the time! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths." This is exactly what he said Being twisted bythe media in the face of uk public support for Ukraine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths." The interviewer was poor and the reporting of the interview equally. People getting on their high horses over this have obviously not watched the interview and are reacting to poor reporting that satisfies their bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. This is exactly what he said Being twisted bythe media in the face of uk public support for Ukraine. " Not seen the interview yet but if that was what he actually said then it is different to some stories and different to the impression I get from previous posts here. EU and NATO expansion should not provide a reason to invade another country but this is Putin we are dealing with who wants the old Soviet union back. The expansion gave him an excuse he previously did not have (in his mind). That excuse backfired as his invasion has led to eve more NATO expansion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths." Which is what has made him the most effective British politician in the last 25 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. The interviewer was poor and the reporting of the interview equally. People getting on their high horses over this have obviously not watched the interview and are reacting to poor reporting that satisfies their bias. " Agreed on both points Media spinning Farage as the boogie man again They will change their tune on 5th July. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths." Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My son is in the army and the British military think exactly the same about NATO closing around Russia" So you don’t think that any independent nation has a right to choose its own defence strategy? You think that NATO should have told Latvia (for example) that because they were once part of the Soviet Union and had been oppressed by Russia for 50 years they cannot be allowed to join NATO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives." You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe." Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives." I agree. Russia has a very long history of the surfs being subdued but strong men, be they Tzars or dictators. I don't think Russian's in general actually understand the concept of Democracy so if it was not Putin it would be some other autocrat there. The countries that border Europe showed the ex-USSR satellite countries that Western commerce and democracy was better than bending the knee to a Russian dictator so they would want to join and the EU was only too happy to receive them. At 233,000 square miles Ukraine is significantly bigger than the UK at 94,000 square miles so it is a big addition to the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe." Putin knows the west does not wish to invade Russia, there's simply no need to and it's policy of disarming post 89 is further evidence of that but it serves him to have an enemy.. To perpetuate the myth that even though Hitler and Napoleon tried and failed a less militaristic west will do.. It's only to maintain fear and control of his population.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him???" Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'?" Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense." But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. " pmsl that’s exactly why putin waged war on Ukraine why do you think it was ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will." …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. The interviewer was poor and the reporting of the interview equally. People getting on their high horses over this have obviously not watched the interview and are reacting to poor reporting that satisfies their bias. Agreed on both points Media spinning Farage as the boogie man again They will change their tune on 5th July. " Yep, and it is obvious people are commenting about something they have not watched, or if they have, they don't understand. The power of a headline and being the boogeyman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that " It's a fair cop, I don't know all the facts. But Google does:- NATO enlargement summit November 2002, adopted a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan.    | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will." I wonder if he came to that particular conclusion during one of his appearances on Russia Today? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. I wonder if he came to that particular conclusion during one of his appearances on Russia Today?" Dunno, maybe ask Labour MPs David Lammy and Rosie Duffield, they've been on the channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Novichok chaser ….. farage’s latest tipple before bedtime " Nah… Nigel knows it as the “Salisbury special”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. I wonder if he came to that particular conclusion during one of his appearances on Russia Today? Dunno, maybe ask Labour MPs David Lammy and Rosie Duffield, they've been on the channel." Are they saying the same as Farage about Russia invading Ukraine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that It's a fair cop, I don't know all the facts. But Google does:- NATO enlargement summit November 2002, adopted a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan. "That’s good….. But you know 2 can play at this don’t you….
Check the 1994 Budapest memorandum which the Russians signed guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity and stated that NATO is purely a defensive alliance…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that It's a fair cop, I don't know all the facts. But Google does:- NATO enlargement summit November 2002, adopted a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan. "Ukraine abandoned nato ambitons aftwr this. Predicting the Ukraine war in the year of annexing crimea and insurgent invasions isn't the biggest of bets tbh. Tbh, I'm increasingly getting the.sense we could play Farage/reform or Corbyn/Corbynistas and it would be a hard quiz. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that It's a fair cop, I don't know all the facts. But Google does:- NATO enlargement summit November 2002, adopted a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan.
That’s good…..
But you know 2 can play at this don’t you….
Check the 1994 Budapest memorandum which the Russians signed guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity and stated that NATO is purely a defensive alliance…."Sure, I think Russia itself had ambitions to join NATO at one point. But Putin has cleverly nurtured a nationalist agenda. For what purpose, we are probably yet to discover  But the West has fed into Putin's narrative instead of being a bit more savvy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him??? Part of his long game? If the countries don't move towards a greater entity they are fair game and as they have done they are part of the 'threat'? Exactly - it’s utter nonsense and Farage is a complete dick for perpetuating the nonsense. But to be fair, Farage got it spot-on. He predicted:- 1) That Putin would use creeping EU/NATO expansion to garner Russian public opinion for war. (Exactly what happened). 2) Russia would invade Ukraine (Exactly what happened). It seems to me he is saying things people just don't want to hear. 'Inconvenient truths' if you will. …… well other than the fact that the Ukraine actually didn’t apply to either the EU or NATO to join until 9 months after the war started………… But… you know….. facts and all that It's a fair cop, I don't know all the facts. But Google does:- NATO enlargement summit November 2002, adopted a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan.
That’s good…..
But you know 2 can play at this don’t you….
Check the 1994 Budapest memorandum which the Russians signed guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity and stated that NATO is purely a defensive alliance…."Yes and the other signatory countries who have reneged on their security guarantees, which I believe includes the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. The interviewer was poor and the reporting of the interview equally. People getting on their high horses over this have obviously not watched the interview and are reacting to poor reporting that satisfies their bias. Agreed on both points Media spinning Farage as the boogie man again They will change their tune on 5th July. Yep, and it is obvious people are commenting about something they have not watched, or if they have, they don't understand. The power of a headline and being the boogeyman." It is effective as well. Look how much coverage he can get. How much would that cost normally with political broadcasters. As far as I see he blamed Putin for the invasion totally and just pointed out one of the excuses that Putin would use to try and justify the invasion. So far I have not heard anything factually incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. The interviewer was poor and the reporting of the interview equally. People getting on their high horses over this have obviously not watched the interview and are reacting to poor reporting that satisfies their bias. Agreed on both points Media spinning Farage as the boogie man again They will change their tune on 5th July. Yep, and it is obvious people are commenting about something they have not watched, or if they have, they don't understand. The power of a headline and being the boogeyman. It is effective as well. Look how much coverage he can get. How much would that cost normally with political broadcasters. As far as I see he blamed Putin for the invasion totally and just pointed out one of the excuses that Putin would use to try and justify the invasion. So far I have not heard anything factually incorrect." You are correct and it bothers me greatly that the noise generated from this is from people who are easily swayed, yet unconsciously complicit in spreading the narrative of sensitised media. It takes nothing to step back from the line in the sand and rationalise, it is no wonder the country faces so many socially driven obstacles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol" This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality." yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality.yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ???" Exactly, people thought voting for Brexit was a good idea. No matter how many times the impacts of leaving the EU were explained. Same with Reform. People simply don't want to listen to reason. Believe the over simplistic bollocks because they can't be arsed to think about it, or look into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality.yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ??? Exactly, people thought voting for Brexit was a good idea. No matter how many times the impacts of leaving the EU were explained. Same with Reform. People simply don't want to listen to reason. Believe the over simplistic bollocks because they can't be arsed to think about it, or look into it." I'm more than willing to listen as long as you can do better than 'they think science isn't real' or 'they don't want racist teachers'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero" The Blob is in a total panic about Reform’s polling. Expect this every day until election day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero" Why is offensive in quotation marks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality.yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ??? Exactly, people thought voting for Brexit was a good idea. No matter how many times the impacts of leaving the EU were explained. Same with Reform. People simply don't want to listen to reason. Believe the over simplistic bollocks because they can't be arsed to think about it, or look into it. I'm more than willing to listen as long as you can do better than 'they think science isn't real' or 'they don't want racist teachers'." ************************************ Spot on, in my opinion. Some people seem to parrot the same old rude and disrespectful 'opinions', without one iota of evidence to back them, it's both sad and amusing every time....!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero Why is offensive in quotation marks?" Because what's deemed as offensive changes from person to person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero Why is offensive in quotation marks? Because what's deemed as offensive changes from person to person." Specifically the things from the article, or in general? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero Why is offensive in quotation marks? Because what's deemed as offensive changes from person to person. Specifically the things from the article, or in general?" In general and the things from the article | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero Why is offensive in quotation marks? Because what's deemed as offensive changes from person to person. Specifically the things from the article, or in general? In general and the things from the article " No further questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the BBC is in full outrage mode against Reform. Today they published the article to show "offensive" tweets made by Reform candidates from 2011 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crggy73m2ero Why is offensive in quotation marks? Because what's deemed as offensive changes from person to person." ************************************** Yes, feelings of (genuine) offence is highly subjective, we all are complex as humans and totally unique. There seems (to me) to be far too many irrelevant but politically motivated cries of "I'm offended..! I'm offended....."!! Although I do agree on occasion some are genuine complaints and need addressing. All the above is my opinion which I stand by. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds." The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too." Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad." No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad." That's right, anyone who takes a moment to understand the impact of leaving the EU has mental health issues. This is where we are as a county now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course." It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. " That's right, anyone who acknowledges the impact of Brexit is completely beyond reason. Meanwhile anyone going on long irrelevant rants about Labour/starmer are completely on the ball and sensible.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. That's right, anyone who acknowledges the impact of Brexit is completely beyond reason. Meanwhile anyone going on long irrelevant rants about Labour/starmer are completely on the ball and sensible. "Maybe you should try and explain these “impacts of Brexit” that you refer to at least six times a day, preferably in words of one syllable that we mere mortals can understand, and without using the words “racist” and “sCiEnCe”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. This is exactly what he said Being twisted bythe media in the face of uk public support for Ukraine. " Exactly yet it suits people to ignore the facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. That's right, anyone who acknowledges the impact of Brexit is completely beyond reason. Meanwhile anyone going on long irrelevant rants about Labour/starmer are completely on the ball and sensible.
Maybe you should try and explain these “impacts of Brexit” that you refer to at least six times a day, preferably in words of one syllable that we mere mortals can understand, and without using the words “racist” and “sCiEnCe”."If you become aware of some of the impacts of Brexit, will you also become "insane" and "impossible to reason with"? Might be safer to continue ranting about Starmer/Labour. In any case, asking randomers on a swingers forum probably isn't the best bet, why don't you read up on it. It's pretty basic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths." It isn't an excuse though. In human terms, it'd be like someone beating up his next door neighbour because his wife made a new friend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. Do you find it objectionable that free and democratic nations are able to make their own decisions about their own economies and defence strategies? Neither the EU , nor NATO forced expansion on anyone. NATO expanded because free and independent countries wanted to better protect themselves from potential Russian aggression. Russia could easily have prevented this had Putin rowed back his comments that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history to befall Russia. The EU expanded because free and independent countries wanted to grow their economy and improve the lives of their citizens over and above what they could expect by relying on their historical trading partners. Russia could easily have prevented this had they committed to reform their own political system to help their own citizens improve their lives. You are right on all counts. But in any area of conflict, you have to see things from your opponents perspective. Russians are highly nationalistic and mindful of previous invasions. As NATO and the EU crept towards their borders, it created perfect conditions for Putin to tap-into. The West might have acted with more care. That's what Farage is saying I believe. Putin the master strategist eh? Since his illegal occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 more countries have joined both the EU and NATO. His own actions provoked the very things you say actually provoked him???" reckon Putin sees Ukraine as so important it was worth the other countries joining NATO just to get his hands on it. You can be sure he weighed up the pros and cons. Btw.. I think farage is right on this one. I remember some nsto spokesman bragging about Ukraine being welcome to join NATO about a year before Putin invaded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What he actually said was that NATO and the EU's Eastward expansions gave Putin the 'excuse' to invade Ukraine. He predicted the invasion in a speech in 2014. I'm no flag bearer for Farage, but sometimes he tells uncomfortable truths. It isn't an excuse though. In human terms, it'd be like someone beating up his next door neighbour because his wife made a new friend." It was an excuse to persuade Russians that the Ukrainian invasion was valid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. " Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. " It’s telling that you think anyone who doesn’t like what Brexit has done to the country is upset because ’they’ lost a vote. In your mind it’s about winning or losing a vote, not what has happened to the country as a result of that. Also telling that you talk about people’s entire world view being dominated by something, only then to go on a rant about how terrible Kier Starmer is and how Labour will destroy the country. One might say that your entire world view is driven by your inability to come to terms with a vote you are about to lose, and that Kier Starmer is living rent free in your head. Some people are so obsessed with Labour it has driven them insane. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. It’s telling that you think anyone who doesn’t like what Brexit has done to the country is upset because ’they’ lost a vote. In your mind it’s about winning or losing a vote, not what has happened to the country as a result of that. Also telling that you talk about people’s entire world view being dominated by something, only then to go on a rant about how terrible Kier Starmer is and how Labour will destroy the country. One might say that your entire world view is driven by your inability to come to terms with a vote you are about to lose, and that Kier Starmer is living rent free in your head. Some people are so obsessed with Labour it has driven them insane." Not at all. For a long time I’ve felt that it’s critical that the country gets a Labour government. I’m indifferent to a Labour victory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. " But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For a long time I’ve felt that it’s critical that the country gets a Labour government. I’m indifferent to a Labour victory. " If you are indifferent about a Labour government, as you now claim, why are you posting on this thread about Nigel Farage, attact after attact on Labour, its front bench and Sir Keir Starmer?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. " There's nothing socialist about the current Labour leadership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc." Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. There's nothing socialist about the current Labour leadership. " Not yet anyway. This is the honeymoon. Wait til SKS gets a tap on the door | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. " Labour aren't a socialist party. So no need to worry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. There's nothing socialist about the current Labour leadership. Not yet anyway. This is the honeymoon. Wait til SKS gets a tap on the door "From the socialist boogie man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. It’s telling that you think anyone who doesn’t like what Brexit has done to the country is upset because ’they’ lost a vote. In your mind it’s about winning or losing a vote, not what has happened to the country as a result of that. Also telling that you talk about people’s entire world view being dominated by something, only then to go on a rant about how terrible Kier Starmer is and how Labour will destroy the country. One might say that your entire world view is driven by your inability to come to terms with a vote you are about to lose, and that Kier Starmer is living rent free in your head. Some people are so obsessed with Labour it has driven them insane. Not at all. For a long time I’ve felt that it’s critical that the country gets a Labour government. I’m indifferent to a Labour victory. " Ah, ok. So what you’re saying is that when other people behave in a certain way they are insane but when you behave in the same way you are perfectly sane and you ain’t bovvered? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. It’s telling that you think anyone who doesn’t like what Brexit has done to the country is upset because ’they’ lost a vote. In your mind it’s about winning or losing a vote, not what has happened to the country as a result of that. Also telling that you talk about people’s entire world view being dominated by something, only then to go on a rant about how terrible Kier Starmer is and how Labour will destroy the country. One might say that your entire world view is driven by your inability to come to terms with a vote you are about to lose, and that Kier Starmer is living rent free in your head. Some people are so obsessed with Labour it has driven them insane. Not at all. For a long time I’ve felt that it’s critical that the country gets a Labour government. I’m indifferent to a Labour victory. Ah, ok. So what you’re saying is that when other people behave in a certain way they are insane but when you behave in the same way you are perfectly sane and you ain’t bovvered?" You’ve lost me there. A Labour government will be a disaster. But sometimes the child has to fall over and break its wrist so it learns from its mistakes. Hopefully something better will rise from the ashes of the impending disaster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP." Perhaps you could spend your Sunday explaining in depth how Brexit has been a disaster. You say it often enough so I’m sure you must have plenty of data to hand to support your assertion. Maybe you could provide some comparative analysis of EU economic and political performance since 2019 so we can see just how bad the situation is in the UK. Maybe then compare UK/EU and world economic performance and try and explain the differentials. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s incredible how much time people on this forum spend talking about Reform and Farage, given that they are unlikely to get more than a few seats. We are about to elect by default and with a massive majority one of the most talentless governments in the country’s history, and all people want to talk about is Farage. Just like Trump, it’s incredible how easily he manages to live inside the Left’s fevered minds. The Labour Government will be infinitely more talented than the current Conservative charlatans. I imagine that most people can see that as the polls are suggesting a total Conservative wipeout. Remember that Johnson hollowed out the Conservative Political Party when he demanded that anyone who wanted to be considered had to worship at the altar of Brexit. At a stroke, the strategists, the critical thinkers and the serious political figures were cut from the Party. It has been proven time and time again through history that when ideology is pushed to its limits the result is political failure. Starmer completely rebuilt the CPS and was so good - he got a Knoghthood for it. At the same time, Johnson was being paid to lie, Sunak was knee deep in the cause of the financial crash and Liz Truss… well she was just being Liz Truss back then too. Some people are just so obsessed with Brexit that it has driven them insane. It’s sad. No answer then? Just a personal attack. Par for the course. It’s impossible to reason with anyone whose entire world view is driven by an inability to come to terms with a vote they lost eight years ago. Starmer will be a dreadful PM. He is weak, vacillating, if he believes anything at all he is keeping it from us. He will be entirely driven by whatever the media tells him to say on a daily basis, or what he is being told to do by various international quangos. Walk down any high street and ask anyone to name half a dozen people on the Labour front bench and I guarantee nobody will have a clue. The only reason Labour will win is because the conservative vote is split and a Labour victory is the impact that will have due to the way the electoral system works. Starmer has an approval rating of around +5. For a new PM that is dire. He is just a suit with zero charisma. Give it 6 months and he will be down to -20. He (and the rest of Labour) will be totally out of their depth. It’s telling that you think anyone who doesn’t like what Brexit has done to the country is upset because ’they’ lost a vote. In your mind it’s about winning or losing a vote, not what has happened to the country as a result of that. Also telling that you talk about people’s entire world view being dominated by something, only then to go on a rant about how terrible Kier Starmer is and how Labour will destroy the country. One might say that your entire world view is driven by your inability to come to terms with a vote you are about to lose, and that Kier Starmer is living rent free in your head. Some people are so obsessed with Labour it has driven them insane. Not at all. For a long time I’ve felt that it’s critical that the country gets a Labour government. I’m indifferent to a Labour victory. Ah, ok. So what you’re saying is that when other people behave in a certain way they are insane but when you behave in the same way you are perfectly sane and you ain’t bovvered? You’ve lost me there. A Labour government will be a disaster. But sometimes the child has to fall over and break its wrist so it learns from its mistakes. Hopefully something better will rise from the ashes of the impending disaster. " “There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond and to know one's self.” - Benjamin Franklin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP." What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. Perhaps you could spend your Sunday explaining in depth how Brexit has been a disaster. You say it often enough so I’m sure you must have plenty of data to hand to support your assertion. Maybe you could provide some comparative analysis of EU economic and political performance since 2019 so we can see just how bad the situation is in the UK. Maybe then compare UK/EU and world economic performance and try and explain the differentials. " Why? You said anyone who considers the impact of Brexit is "insane" and "beyond reason". That doesn't sound like a person who is open to recieving information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. Being wrong about one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes and threats to our security will bring with it a level of scrutiny which is greater than him just saying 'brexit good' or whatever else he says. But Reform won't hold power after the GE, or even the balance of power. Yet faced with the prospect of minimum 5 years of socialism hardly any scrutiny of Labour whatsoever. There's nothing socialist about the current Labour leadership. Not yet anyway. This is the honeymoon. Wait til SKS gets a tap on the door "The only people who will be knocking his door are those who will have put him i No 10. They also aren't socialists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks?" You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere." No rational argument or supporting data, no linkage between scientific research and policy, no comprehension of the practical, political and economic realities of environmental policy options. Just “people who don’t agree with me don’t understand tHe ScIeNce and are stupid”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. " I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is like Brexit II. Farage must be loving all this free publicity. All this outcry, you'd think it was him who'd invaded Ukraine, not Putin. He just gave an opinion FFS. " Yep all free and judging by the threads not just in the main media either. His risk though is if his comments do him more damage in the public eye than the free publicity does him good. I suspect though that he would have guessed that those who oppose him will resort to insults to both him and anyone that considers reform. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere. No rational argument or supporting data, no linkage between scientific research and policy, no comprehension of the practical, political and economic realities of environmental policy options. Just “people who don’t agree with me don’t understand tHe ScIeNce and are stupid”." To be fair in another thread you did state that the Covid Pandemic was deliberately started and the vaccines were a scam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been suggestions Reform would like Ms Truss to join the party. Asked in April, former leader Richard Tice did not rule it out, saying: “Let’s wait and see what happens.” A good move i’d say. Really will improve their credibility…oh wait!" If she did join, then she would do so as a candidate for 2029, unless of course she got elected this time and was given the Reform party whip. I do believe that many Tories will leave that party and join Reform after this election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been suggestions Reform would like Ms Truss to join the party. Asked in April, former leader Richard Tice did not rule it out, saying: “Let’s wait and see what happens.” A good move i’d say. Really will improve their credibility…oh wait! If she did join, then she would do so as a candidate for 2029, unless of course she got elected this time and was given the Reform party whip. I do believe that many Tories will leave that party and join Reform after this election." On your latter point I think you may be right. I see a fracturing of the Conservatives. Actually I think it would be a good thing for the Tories to get back to their roots and more of the right wing elements to pick up their ball and take it somewhere else. All this ERG nonsense and purging of the capable after Brexit and Johnson has drained the very existence of the party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere. No rational argument or supporting data, no linkage between scientific research and policy, no comprehension of the practical, political and economic realities of environmental policy options. Just “people who don’t agree with me don’t understand tHe ScIeNce and are stupid”. To be fair in another thread you did state that the Covid Pandemic was deliberately started and the vaccines were a scam." Total lie. I said the origins of the pandemic were concealed. I never said that it was started deliberately. But of course we actually don’t know whether it was started deliberately or not, or if it was accidentally released from the Wuhan laboratory. Nobody knows the answer to this question, certainly none of the public do. What we do absolutely know for certain is that scientists and social media companies conspired to stop any discussion of the origins of Covid, other than the then official narrative that it escaped from a market. That narrative how now been debunked, not least by US investigative authorities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality.yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ??? Exactly, people thought voting for Brexit was a good idea. No matter how many times the impacts of leaving the EU were explained. Same with Reform. People simply don't want to listen to reason. Believe the over simplistic bollocks because they can't be arsed to think about it, or look into it." saying ppl can’t be arsed just because the have different opinions to you is just plain stupid get a grip of yourself man ffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. " Well remembered! It is an interesting article, if this is the one you were thinking of? "Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone-?deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-?century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter-?century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Well remembered! It is an interesting article, if this is the one you were thinking of? "Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone-?deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-?century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter-?century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not". " Was that a personal piece or a Guardian opinion? There is a difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere. No rational argument or supporting data, no linkage between scientific research and policy, no comprehension of the practical, political and economic realities of environmental policy options. Just “people who don’t agree with me don’t understand tHe ScIeNce and are stupid”. To be fair in another thread you did state that the Covid Pandemic was deliberately started and the vaccines were a scam. Total lie. I said the origins of the pandemic were concealed. I never said that it was started deliberately. But of course we actually don’t know whether it was started deliberately or not, or if it was accidentally released from the Wuhan laboratory. Nobody knows the answer to this question, certainly none of the public do. What we do absolutely know for certain is that scientists and social media companies conspired to stop any discussion of the origins of Covid, other than the then official narrative that it escaped from a market. That narrative how now been debunked, not least by US investigative authorities." So not a total lie then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Well remembered! It is an interesting article, if this is the one you were thinking of? "Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone-?deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-?century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter-?century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not". Was that a personal piece or a Guardian opinion? There is a difference." I believe it was an Opinion piece in the Guardian where “facts are sacred” The point I was highlighting is the current outrage when Farage voices exactly the same opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good article
"Why farage gets shot at: * He doesn't deal with the details. If he had explained his views more it would add credibility. * He's conflated EU and NATO in the past so can appear less genuine * His overall approach lack balance although this may be miss represented by his opponents. I struggle to think of any good things he's said about EU say or EU leaders. Therefore it's that bit harder to see him as so eken who takes dispassionate sides when viewing people and situations. I'm making no comment on whether this is right or wrong, fair or unfair. Just observing why he may be shot at when others are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All very reminiscent of Project Fear 2016. From now until 4th July we will probably have to endure half a dozen scare stories a day spontaneously fed to us by the “great and good” as to how, if Reform gets two MP’s, the economy will collapse, house prices will drop 40%, unemployment will go up 5 million, Russian troops will be marching through Lichfield etc etc. Yes very much like "project fear" which is and was all along "project reality". They just gave it a catchy tag line, which was enough for some people to completely discount the real life impacts of Brexit. 8 years on after the vote. Some people still think it was a good idea. That's how powerful the pro-brexit propaganda was. Reform having a few seats in parliament won't be anywhere near as damaging as Brexit though. Just be an annoyance. Like the DUP. What’s happening to the Greens across the EU? As a man with a unique understanding of “tHe ScIeNcE” is there a rational explanation as to why our EU friends are turning their backs on the Greens? It doesn’t bode well for “Net Zero” across the EU. Why are you so keen on these Far Right environmental rednecks? You seem proud that you don't know what science is (often spelling it with random letters capitalised to highlight how stupid you thing people with a grasp of science are ) Where can we go from here in any form of meaningful discussion? Nowhere. No rational argument or supporting data, no linkage between scientific research and policy, no comprehension of the practical, political and economic realities of environmental policy options. Just “people who don’t agree with me don’t understand tHe ScIeNce and are stupid”." You appear to be arguing with yourself now. So I'll leave you to it. May the best man win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it. "This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the same ppl on here who where terrified before the brexit vote lol This is a good example. People are voting for something that will damage the country. Same with Reform. Anyone the think Farage and Co. give half a shit about ordinary British people are just detached from reality.yes you said the same about brexit remember the standing on the edge of a cliff rubbish it’s more scaremongering so vote for reform will damage the country you do know labour will still win regardless of reform or not so you don’t want reform or labour then so who else then ??? Exactly, people thought voting for Brexit was a good idea. No matter how many times the impacts of leaving the EU were explained. Same with Reform. People simply don't want to listen to reason. Believe the over simplistic bollocks because they can't be arsed to think about it, or look into it.saying ppl can’t be arsed just because the have different opinions to you is just plain stupid get a grip of yourself man ffs" Why are you bringing my opinion into this? It has nothing to do with anything. Weak weak argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns."I think sit's more complicated than that. For example in a constituency with a tight race, you'd likely vote for you want to win. But in many constituencies the result is a foregone conclusion. So now you can vote tactically. What special interests do you have? Independence (Plaid, SNP), immigration (Reform), environment (Green), wokery (LibDems). You just use your vote in another way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns."Atm in the range of 17% voters/5.4million are polled to vote reform Not an insignificant number. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns.
I think sit's more complicated than that. For example in a constituency with a tight race, you'd likely vote for you want to win. But in many constituencies the result is a foregone conclusion. So now you can vote tactically. What special interests do you have? Independence (Plaid, SNP), immigration (Reform), environment (Green), wokery (LibDems). You just use your vote in another way."Student loans to be cancelled for 1.7 million at university, if they can be bothered to vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually I think it would be a good thing for the Tories to get back to their roots and more of the right wing elements to pick up their ball and take it somewhere else. All this ERG nonsense and purging of the capable after Brexit and Johnson has drained the very existence of the party." 100% agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. " Do you have a link to the article? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns.
Atm in the range of 17% voters/5.4million are polled to vote reform
Not an insignificant number. "It helps us to identify who the “simpletons” are in our society who don’t understand complicated things. Maybe it’s time for “progressives” to reintroduce some sort of property or IQ requirement before people are allowed to vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns.
I think sit's more complicated than that. For example in a constituency with a tight race, you'd likely vote for you want to win. But in many constituencies the result is a foregone conclusion. So now you can vote tactically. What special interests do you have? Independence (Plaid, SNP), immigration (Reform), environment (Green), wokery (LibDems). You just use your vote in another way."I think we're saying the same thing pretty much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politicians make estimations all the time, sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Nigel has been right much more than he has been wrong. Unlike the liberal left, he tells it like it is, but nobody is perfect. None of this claptrap is going to stop me voting for and supporting Reform UK, and I doubt if anyone else will be swayed by it.
This is how I see it too. Voting for Reform is a purely emotional decision. So any amount of information and logic is going to dissuade anyone from voting for these clowns.
Atm in the range of 17% voters/5.4million are polled to vote reform
Not an insignificant number. "
The electorate has been conditioned to believe headlines and slogans and to demonise "experts" who add context and information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article?" https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Well remembered! It is an interesting article, if this is the one you were thinking of? "Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone-?deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-?century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter-?century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not". Was that a personal piece or a Guardian opinion? There is a difference. I believe it was an Opinion piece in the Guardian where “facts are sacred” The point I was highlighting is the current outrage when Farage voices exactly the same opinion." Could it be a case of people focusing on who is speaking as opposed to what is actually being said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine " There is an interesting horse shoe theory at work here
On one hand, there are some far right people who are against NATO expansion because they are Putin simps.
On the other hand, there are some people from far left who were also against NATO expansion simply because they hate anything the west does and makes them powerful.
Now there are some people who hate Putin but don't like a war and were just worried that NATO expansion would give Putin an excuse. Not sure if Farage or guardian belong to this category or one of the ones I mentioned above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Well remembered! It is an interesting article, if this is the one you were thinking of? "Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone-?deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-?century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter-?century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not". Was that a personal piece or a Guardian opinion? There is a difference. I believe it was an Opinion piece in the Guardian where “facts are sacred” The point I was highlighting is the current outrage when Farage voices exactly the same opinion. Could it be a case of people focusing on who is speaking as opposed to what is actually being said. " That would certainly seem to be the case. The opening post to this thread being a classic example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine " Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter?" A political scientist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist." Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then." Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger." yes and no. Part of this is probably because farage is farage. But he's also the leader of a party who's candidates seem to often have positive things to say about Russia. And a party who don't seem to take any action. And also, as a lead politician, stories create clicks. It's not personal prejudice. It's business. He also has isn't helping himselves with other comments. It's not just about the Ukraine war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger." I’m not sure it emphasises that at all, I am sure had another party leader running for election said such things people would’ve been just as bothered by it, I certainly would’ve been. I’m not a fan of Farage but that’s because I find so many of his views loathsome, and his constant dog whistling offensive. If Ed Davey held the same views I would think the same of him. It’s not that I dislike the words because they are Farage’s, I dislike Farage because of his words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger. I’m not sure it emphasises that at all, I am sure had another party leader running for election said such things people would’ve been just as bothered by it, I certainly would’ve been. I’m not a fan of Farage but that’s because I find so many of his views loathsome, and his constant dog whistling offensive. If Ed Davey held the same views I would think the same of him. It’s not that I dislike the words because they are Farage’s, I dislike Farage because of his words." If Farage's opinion is incorrect then it follows that the Guardian piece must also be incorrect and equally distasteful. One could go further back in time and read the, now public, assurance that the US Secretary of State gave to Gorbachev regarding not expanding Nato eastwards following the reunification of Germany. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger. I’m not sure it emphasises that at all, I am sure had another party leader running for election said such things people would’ve been just as bothered by it, I certainly would’ve been. I’m not a fan of Farage but that’s because I find so many of his views loathsome, and his constant dog whistling offensive. If Ed Davey held the same views I would think the same of him. It’s not that I dislike the words because they are Farage’s, I dislike Farage because of his words. If Farage's opinion is incorrect then it follows that the Guardian piece must also be incorrect and equally distasteful. One could go further back in time and read the, now public, assurance that the US Secretary of State gave to Gorbachev regarding not expanding Nato eastwards following the reunification of Germany." I didn’t say either was correct, I’m not sure why you think I have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger. I’m not sure it emphasises that at all, I am sure had another party leader running for election said such things people would’ve been just as bothered by it, I certainly would’ve been. I’m not a fan of Farage but that’s because I find so many of his views loathsome, and his constant dog whistling offensive. If Ed Davey held the same views I would think the same of him. It’s not that I dislike the words because they are Farage’s, I dislike Farage because of his words. If Farage's opinion is incorrect then it follows that the Guardian piece must also be incorrect and equally distasteful. One could go further back in time and read the, now public, assurance that the US Secretary of State gave to Gorbachev regarding not expanding Nato eastwards following the reunification of Germany. I didn’t say either was correct, I’m not sure why you think I have." Forgive me. I incorrectly deduced that when you said you disliked Farage because of his words, those words included his opinion on Nato expansion - ergo you disagreed with that opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. I believe the Guardian reported exactly the same view more than two years ago. There was no outrage at the time as far as I can recall. Do you have a link to the article? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine Thanks, who is Ted Galen-Carpenter? A political scientist. Ah ok, so not the leader of a political party running for election in the UK? Probably why there wasn’t any big outcry when the article was reproduced in the Grauniad then. Thus emphasising the point made above that the furore is not due to the message itself but pure prejudice against the messenger. I’m not sure it emphasises that at all, I am sure had another party leader running for election said such things people would’ve been just as bothered by it, I certainly would’ve been. I’m not a fan of Farage but that’s because I find so many of his views loathsome, and his constant dog whistling offensive. If Ed Davey held the same views I would think the same of him. It’s not that I dislike the words because they are Farage’s, I dislike Farage because of his words. If Farage's opinion is incorrect then it follows that the Guardian piece must also be incorrect and equally distasteful. One could go further back in time and read the, now public, assurance that the US Secretary of State gave to Gorbachev regarding not expanding Nato eastwards following the reunification of Germany. I didn’t say either was correct, I’m not sure why you think I have. Forgive me. I incorrectly deduced that when you said you disliked Farage because of his words, those words included his opinion on Nato expansion - ergo you disagreed with that opinion." Whether I disagree or not isn’t really relevant, the opinion is equally wrong of right whether it’s printed in the Grauniad of comes out of Farage’s mouth. I do however think the reason it comes out of Farage’s mouth is to legitimise Putin’s actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saying Putin waged war on Ukraine thanks to expansion of NATO and EU. Really scr/aping bottom of the barrel when he wants to attack the EU. How can anyone vote for this excuse of a politician. " You'll find that NATO agreed not to go outside it 1990 borders, its taken all the East European countries. Zelensky was put into power bu Victoria Nuland, NATO wants war, they allowed AZov to do a Bosnia on the Dnbas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My biggest issue with all this is acting as if Ukraine is being forced into NATO or EU or whatever against their will. He should be shouting on the rooftops Ukraine aha a sovereign right to join these institutions and Russia should back off. Instead he is arguing a country should be worried about what it's neighbours will do when it makes a decision. " I wonder how much his hypocrisy costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub." Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party." Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! " A “loophole”. So I’m not clear. Are they complying with the law or aren’t they? It sounds like the answer is yes, they are. Given the antipathy of the Electoral Commission (another captured Blob organisation) to anti EU campaigns historically I have no doubt that if there were any hint of Reform not complying with electoral law, the Electoral Commission (and every mainstream media outlet in the country) would have been all over it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! " But why would Nigel ‘man of the people’ Farage not want people to know who funds him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! But why would Nigel ‘man of the people’ Farage not want people to know who funds him?" Maybe he took advice from Aaron Banks in that regard.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! " This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up." Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up." Err I don’t think Reform is s PLC is it? It is a Limited Company registered with Companies House with a list of Directors. But not a PLC right? Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. Significant shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A'Zami hold 1 share each. No shares are traded publicly AFAIK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Err I don’t think Reform is s PLC is it? It is a Limited Company registered with Companies House with a list of Directors. But not a PLC right? Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. Significant shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A'Zami hold 1 share each. No shares are traded publicly AFAIK?" You are correct its limited not a PLC but the electoral regulations in terms of financial transparency are still the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Err I don’t think Reform is s PLC is it? It is a Limited Company registered with Companies House with a list of Directors. But not a PLC right? Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. Significant shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A'Zami hold 1 share each. No shares are traded publicly AFAIK? You are correct its limited not a PLC but the electoral regulations in terms of financial transparency are still the same." Indeed but wanted to ensure we stayed correct in our descriptions as a PLC would come under other additional scrutiny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Err I don’t think Reform is s PLC is it? It is a Limited Company registered with Companies House with a list of Directors. But not a PLC right? Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. Significant shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A'Zami hold 1 share each. No shares are traded publicly AFAIK? You are correct its limited not a PLC but the electoral regulations in terms of financial transparency are still the same. Indeed but wanted to ensure we stayed correct in our descriptions as a PLC would come under other additional scrutiny " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. " ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! A “loophole”. So I’m not clear. Are they complying with the law or aren’t they? It sounds like the answer is yes, they are. Given the antipathy of the Electoral Commission (another captured Blob organisation) to anti EU campaigns historically I have no doubt that if there were any hint of Reform not complying with electoral law, the Electoral Commission (and every mainstream media outlet in the country) would have been all over it." Anyone can “say” they are a political party…. But they are not actually registered as a political party, so are not bound by the same rules as the Labour Party or the Conservative Party Reform are actually registered as a PLC….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. " I can't prove that I just read up on it I'm afraid. You're going to have to choose to believe it or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. " I don’t know about Johnny but there is this (I can’t say if totally true but not sure why we should doubt it)… By far the biggest single Reform donor is Chris Harborne, who according to Electoral Commission records has now given around £10 million to the Brexit/Reform party. Harborne made his fortune in aviation fuel and tech investing, and made multiple appearances in the Panama Papers. Harborne is based in Thailand, holding Thai citizenship under the name Chakrit Sakunkrit. Like Farage, Tice, and Habib, Harborne was privately educated. He worked for five years as a management consultant at McKinsey and is now CEO of Sherriff Global Group which trades in private planes, and owns AML Global, a firm that sells aviation fuel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! A “loophole”. So I’m not clear. Are they complying with the law or aren’t they? It sounds like the answer is yes, they are. Given the antipathy of the Electoral Commission (another captured Blob organisation) to anti EU campaigns historically I have no doubt that if there were any hint of Reform not complying with electoral law, the Electoral Commission (and every mainstream media outlet in the country) would have been all over it. Anyone can “say” they are a political party…. But they are not actually registered as a political party, so are not bound by the same rules as the Labour Party or the Conservative Party Reform are actually registered as a PLC….. " Not a PLC just a LTD. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. I don’t know about Johnny but there is this (I can’t say if totally true but not sure why we should doubt it)… By far the biggest single Reform donor is Chris Harborne, who according to Electoral Commission records has now given around £10 million to the Brexit/Reform party. Harborne made his fortune in aviation fuel and tech investing, and made multiple appearances in the Panama Papers. Harborne is based in Thailand, holding Thai citizenship under the name Chakrit Sakunkrit. Like Farage, Tice, and Habib, Harborne was privately educated. He worked for five years as a management consultant at McKinsey and is now CEO of Sherriff Global Group which trades in private planes, and owns AML Global, a firm that sells aviation fuel." it is reported, since 2021 Tice has provided 80% of Reform funding through his business Tisun investments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. I don’t know about Johnny but there is this (I can’t say if totally true but not sure why we should doubt it)… By far the biggest single Reform donor is Chris Harborne, who according to Electoral Commission records has now given around £10 million to the Brexit/Reform party. Harborne made his fortune in aviation fuel and tech investing, and made multiple appearances in the Panama Papers. Harborne is based in Thailand, holding Thai citizenship under the name Chakrit Sakunkrit. Like Farage, Tice, and Habib, Harborne was privately educated. He worked for five years as a management consultant at McKinsey and is now CEO of Sherriff Global Group which trades in private planes, and owns AML Global, a firm that sells aviation fuel." Anti-net zero funders It was reported by the climate disinformation database DeSmog that all of Reform Party’s funders in 2023 had oil and gas investments or ties to climate science denial, totalling £135,000. The party holds a vocal anti-net zero stance, seemingly reflected in its funding, which includes Panther Securities, a property investment company whose chairman has spoken out against climate policies and was also a former UKIP donor. Other donors include First Corporate, who gave £100,000 in June 2023, a consultants firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, director of the UK’s leading climate science denial group, Global Warming Policy Foundation. Richard Tice, the current leader of Reform has previously denied there is a climate crisis, airing his anti-net zero views on GB News – who’s co-owner has invested billions in fossil fuels – where he is a regular presenter. In a scientifically debunked video, he called C02 “plant food” in an attempt to challenge climate change facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! This is not correct. The party must hold annual general meetings and ensure transparency in financial dealings and be compliant with electoral law as well as corporate laws: Reform must adhere to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which includes rules on donations, spending limits during elections, and regular reporting of finances to the Electoral Commission. Reform being a PLC should enhance the transparency not hinder or cover up. Just read up about who funds Reform. Interesting that they get a lot of money from funders with links to the oil and gas industry and links to climate science denial. ************************************** Then prove it irrevocably. I don’t know about Johnny but there is this (I can’t say if totally true but not sure why we should doubt it)… By far the biggest single Reform donor is Chris Harborne, who according to Electoral Commission records has now given around £10 million to the Brexit/Reform party. Harborne made his fortune in aviation fuel and tech investing, and made multiple appearances in the Panama Papers. Harborne is based in Thailand, holding Thai citizenship under the name Chakrit Sakunkrit. Like Farage, Tice, and Habib, Harborne was privately educated. He worked for five years as a management consultant at McKinsey and is now CEO of Sherriff Global Group which trades in private planes, and owns AML Global, a firm that sells aviation fuel. it is reported, since 2021 Tice has provided 80% of Reform funding through his business Tisun investments." Yep Reform has debt/liabilities to repay his Director’s Loan(s). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can a PLC with the CEO owing 35% of the said PLC get to run his party/PLC for government? It just gets more and more unbelievable, and people are actually going to vote for a PLC. If my grandparents were alive and I told them the above they call me a bleeding lier, laugh me out of the pub. Have you reported it all to the Electoral Commission? I’m sure Reform didn’t bother taking any legal advice as to how they could set up their Party. Reform are using a loophole… Basically all the others are registered as political parties…. It also means that any donations they get over 10000 pounds it has to be publicly revealed and listed Because reform is registered as a business they don’t have to reveal exactly who is funding them… when ask to reveal they have refused! A “loophole”. So I’m not clear. Are they complying with the law or aren’t they? It sounds like the answer is yes, they are. Given the antipathy of the Electoral Commission (another captured Blob organisation) to anti EU campaigns historically I have no doubt that if there were any hint of Reform not complying with electoral law, the Electoral Commission (and every mainstream media outlet in the country) would have been all over it. Anyone can “say” they are a political party…. But they are not actually registered as a political party, so are not bound by the same rules as the Labour Party or the Conservative Party Reform are actually registered as a PLC….. Not a PLC just a LTD." Reform UK Party Limited are registered with Companies House as a private limited company. The shares are not publicly traded. As with all registered companies, the people, accounts and filing history are in the public domain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating." People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker!" Nearly there. You can do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it!" Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister?" You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker!" It’s you isn’t it? We know you from a past profile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. " I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are." But what about Labour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are." Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. " True understanding and being awake only comes if you take the red pill!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My apologies….. the are registered as a ltd not a plc… and have only just started confirming who is making political donations over 10000 since the beginning of this election campaign under the electoral commission rules….. So they have made 2 weeks worth of publicly known accounts…" They have the same regulations imposed on them as the other parties, I do not know why people are using the limited company as an issue. I'm no expert in this but I believe all the other parties are unincorporated associations, which allows them more flexibility, less overheads in reporting financial affairs than a limited company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My apologies….. the are registered as a ltd not a plc… and have only just started confirming who is making political donations over 10000 since the beginning of this election campaign under the electoral commission rules….. So they have made 2 weeks worth of publicly known accounts… They have the same regulations imposed on them as the other parties, I do not know why people are using the limited company as an issue. I'm no expert in this but I believe all the other parties are unincorporated associations, which allows them more flexibility, less overheads in reporting financial affairs than a limited company." Why would Reform and predecessors go down the route of Ltd Company? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. " How is this different from unions pumping money in the labour party and those same unions resist change, or the tory party having money going into it by x y & z. Climate change policy is a mess in all parties, and globally. It comes as no surprise that net zero is being pushed back, it was rushed out and not considered in terms of impact or if it could even be achieved. I welcome challenge to the idea of net zero, and how to achieve it, that challenge will improve considerations and drive better outcomes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My apologies….. the are registered as a ltd not a plc… and have only just started confirming who is making political donations over 10000 since the beginning of this election campaign under the electoral commission rules….. So they have made 2 weeks worth of publicly known accounts… They have the same regulations imposed on them as the other parties, I do not know why people are using the limited company as an issue. I'm no expert in this but I believe all the other parties are unincorporated associations, which allows them more flexibility, less overheads in reporting financial affairs than a limited company. Why would Reform and predecessors go down the route of Ltd Company?" I can only think it is to remove everything being passed through a committee, which other parties can suffer with. How long they would stay like that I don't know, I'm sure if they gather support members would demand more of a say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. " I’m sure we are all cynical about the motivations of people donating money to political parties, particularly when the views of those parties do not align with our own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. How is this different from unions pumping money in the labour party and those same unions resist change, or the tory party having money going into it by x y & z. " It's similar, but not the exact same. I'm against all corporate sponsorship of political parties. " Climate change policy is a mess in all parties, and globally. It comes as no surprise that net zero is being pushed back, it was rushed out and not considered in terms of impact or if it could even be achieved. " Yes, those advocating to do something to tackle climate change are nowhere near the levels of funding that the fossil fuels industry has. It's an uphill battle politically trying to fight against the money and against the politics that represents the interests of the money. " I welcome challenge to the idea of net zero, and how to achieve it, that challenge will improve considerations and drive better outcomes. " Indeed. But pretending science isn't real, and perpetuating misinformation purely so the fossil fuels industry can continue to make billions, whatever the cost. Is the problem, not a part of the solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Bit more (smaller scale but interesting)… Other Reform donations include £100,000 from First Corporate – a firm owned by Terence Mordaunt, the 13th biggest donor to the pro-Brexit campaign, and a director of Tufton Street’s anti-Net Zero Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The group’s aims are to challenge what it calls “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Mordaunt is also a patron of Conservative Way Forward, a Thatcherite think tank relaunched in 2021 with Steve Baker at the helm. ***** The spider’s web of connection and influence is fascinating. People who think Net Zero isn’t a good idea give money to Party which thinks the same. Shocker! Nearly there. You can do it! Can do what? What do you think about Dale Vince’s donations to the Greens and Labour? Is it sinister? You've nearly realised. We can get to your classic "what about Labour" after. It really feels like your almost at a moment of realisation. I feel that perhaps your musings aren’t quite as profound as you think they are. Not profound. It felt like you almost realised that Reform pump their anti climate science rheotic and policies because they're being paid to by institutions that make money from fossil fuels. And who don't want to risk their profits, no matter what the cost to the tax payer or planet. " I’m sure we are all cynical about the motivations of people donating money to political parties, particularly when the views of those parties do not align with our own. " Right. But in this instance it's about not aligning with reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
