General Election July 2024

[Pistom]

Not sure if this is the best place for the Farage Ratner movement discussions but it's the first place I've found.

My comment above is enough to demonstrate that I think he's balls up but - and I hate to admit this - he's for the first time in a long time won a little respect from me.

Not because I agree with him - I'm probably not smart enough to have a valid opinion, and especially not because it was a good political move, I don't think it was.

I like the fact that he's probably smart enough to realise that he's given his opposers a stick to beat him with but he's still said what he said.

I hate that the weak minded fall for the "Putin apologist" label he'll be branded with as it's just a way to slur him.

I'd still rather use a rusty hypodermic to tattoo an EU flag on my bell end than put a cross against any Reform candidate but he's got more balls than Sunak, Starmer and Diane Abbot put together.

[Unreal]

Hmmm.

Two out of three anyway.

[valiant]

Pistom said:

I'd still rather use a rusty hypodermic to tattoo an EU flag on my bell end than put a cross against any Reform candidate but he's got more balls than Sunak, Starmer and Diane Abbot put together.

Because the others are either in power or about to gain power (not sure why Abbot has been mentioned but hey ho) so they have to be very careful what they say as their words are listened to by both domestic and international listeners.

Farage can say what he likes at the moment because no one really takes him seriously and those that do fall into two camps of either hating the man or fawns over him. There are no real consequences or repercussions outside a very narrow window of opinion for whatever he says. If Sunak or Starmer says that, for instance “Ukraine is the fault of the West” then world leaders will listen and comment and that could very well have repercussions to future international relations. Farage says it and it makes a headline and then forgotten about.

There is a difference.

[Unreal]

valiant said:

Pistom said:

I'd still rather use a rusty hypodermic to tattoo an EU flag on my bell end than put a cross against any Reform candidate but he's got more balls than Sunak, Starmer and Diane Abbot put together.

Because the others are either in power or about to gain power (not sure why Abbot has been mentioned but hey ho) so they have to be very careful what they say as their words are listened to by both domestic and international listeners.

Farage can say what he likes at the moment because no one really takes him seriously and those that do fall into two camps of either hating the man or fawns over him. There are no real consequences or repercussions outside a very narrow window of opinion for whatever he says. If Sunak or Starmer says that, for instance “Ukraine is the fault of the West” then world leaders will listen and comment and that could very well have repercussions to future international relations. Farage says it and it makes a headline and then forgotten about.

There is a difference.

No one really takes him seriously you say, but those that do fall into two camps. That sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

[crankedup5]

Mrr T said:

pingu393 said:

Mrr T said:

pingu393 said:

What unintended consequences do you think will befall the Labour government?

I think...

1. State pension is unable to be taxed at the moment, so they will have to allow the triple lock plus.
2. VAT on private schools will result in lots of "normal" kids not getting places when they are supposed to start secondary school, as the private school parents will get in there first.
3. Banning leasehold will result in massive rises in house prices, as the ground under a building will now need to be paid for, as well as the bricks and mortar.

Feel free to quote me. 100 days on (13 Sep 2024), you can point out how wrong I was . I hope I am - especially 2 and 3.

I suspect you do not know how leasehold works.

Tell me. Genuinely, I think leasehold is to cover the ground rent and is also sometimes used to upkeep of the structure of communal buildings.

Upkeeping communal buildings can be sorted, but the ground belongs to the leaseholder. If the leaseholder has to now sell the ground as well as the occupancy rights, will the price not have to rise?

Your right the lessor owns the land. And if a lease is only a few years the lessor has has value because he will get the land in a few years. However, on a long lease say 99 years of even 999 years the lessor has very little value because it's so long until they get the land back.

Getting did of leasehold on flats would require a major rewrite of UK property law. The growth of leasehold on houses is new and seems to have been an attempt to get extra value from buyers by charging fees which seem excessive. A change in the law on houses should not have much affect except on a few where the fees may affect the same value.

Newly built Leasehold houses to unsuspecting people under contracts drawn up by the house builder that would typically state annual leasehold payments the house buyer would be responsible for. Any anxiety of the house buyer would be soothed away with terms such as the house builder would not be raising lease payments by x% over x years. Problem arose for house buyers when the house builder having sold the last of his houses on the development the builder then promptly sold the leased element of the property on. Of course all the T& C would then change substantially leaving the house buyers facing monster increases in lease costs.
Government brought in protective legislation to stop any further such abuses, but its left those on pre legislative contracts saddled.

[valiant]

Unreal said:

No one really takes him seriously you say, but those that do fall into two camps. That sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

Not really.

Outside of those who show a passing interest in politics like those who post on here there is clear water between how the man is viewed as he tends to be quite polarising but outside of places like this and in the wider world? He is still quite irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

That may change of course depending on how the Tory party decides to rebuild itself after the election but as it stands he is a leader of a minor political party that will be lucky to get 3 or 4 seats in a few weeks time. Ed Davey will have more influence then him after the election.

[Kermit power]

Unreal said:

No one really takes him seriously you say, but those that do fall into two camps. That sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

How so?

Next to nobody takes seriously the question of whether or not it is acceptable to wear a wing collar with a dinner jacket but if you've ever had the misfortune to be in the same room as one of each camp from the tiny minority who do then you know full well that they take it seriously!

[turbobloke]

valiant said:

Unreal said:

No one really takes him seriously you say, but those that do fall into two camps. That sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

Not really.

Outside of those who show a passing interest in politics like those who post on here there is clear water between how the man is viewed as he tends to be quite polarising but outside of places like this and in the wider world? He is still quite irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

That may change of course depending on how the Tory party decides to rebuild itself after the election but as it stands he is a leader of a minor political party that will be lucky to get 3 or 4 seats in a few weeks time. Ed Davey will have more influence then him after the election.

Really? It's still not at all clear that Davey will be Leader of HM Opposition, without that he's more likely to be lost in the noise with members of the public, Their first reaction will be Ed who? Even supporters of the LibDems have issues there. Less than 60% of LibDem supporters know who he is.


June 22
YouGov: One in three Lib Dem voters don't recognise Ed Davey
"Looking at the responses of those who intend to vote Liberal Democrat at the next election, the majority (59%) are able to identify Davey, and a further 5% are able to identify him as 'the Lib Dem leader'. Nevertheless, this leaves 35% who are planning on backing the party without knowing who he is at all.

Nearly 3x more people know who Farage is compared to Davey, more (just) than know who Starmer is...the YouGov graphic should have Farage next to Sunak.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49836-one-i...

[Mr Penguin]

One thing all sensible people can agree Farage is definitely on the right side of history on:

[valiant]

turbobloke said:

Really? It's still not at all clear that Davey will be Leader of HM Opposition, without that he's more likely to be lost in the noise with members of the public, Their first reaction will be Ed who? Even supporters of the LibDems have issues there. Less than 60% of LibDem supporters know who he is.


June 22
YouGov: One in three Lib Dem voters don't recognise Ed Davey
"Looking at the responses of those who intend to vote Liberal Democrat at the next election, the majority (59%) are able to identify Davey, and a further 5% are able to identify him as 'the Lib Dem leader'. Nevertheless, this leaves 35% who are planning on backing the party without knowing who he is at all.

Nearly 3x more people know who Farage is compared to Davey, more (just) than know who Starmer is...the YouGov graphic should have Farage next to Sunak.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49836-one-i...

I said influence.

Libdems will, according to polls, win about 50ish seats and should that be true then they’ll be sitting on and chairing various committees in parliament and more likely to be chosen to ask a question in parliament, more likely to have time found to present motions and whatnot and more likely to catch the Speaker’s eye at PMQs.

As much as I’d like it, they won’t be the official opposition as I don’t think the rout of the Tories will be as annihilating as forecasted but they will be the third biggest party.

Farage and his one or two colleagues won’t have any of that. They’ll be lucky to be seen on the BBC Parliament channel. We’ll just have to see what grubby little deal he comes up with if the Tory vote is as bad as predicted but if the Tories only lose by, as I predict, about 100 seats or so then they won’t even do that as that should be enough for the basis of rebuilding the party by itself and Farage really will be in the political wilderness as far as parliamentary influence is concerned.

[Mr Penguin]

Farage will get visibility if he's elected because he's famous and a big personality who tends to dominate everything. That visibility will give him more influence than Davey outside Westminster even if Davey becomes LOTO.

[Abbott]

Postal vote cast. Surprisingly simple

[bitchstewie]

Once again the Telegraph have their finger firmly on the pulse

The media has led the country into an anti-Tory fervour

[Teatowell]

S600BSB said:

It’s an awful error. Going to be very costly.

But probably not completely untrue. If Ukraine wasn’t threatening to joint NATO would the invasion have happened?

[captain_cynic]

Teatowell said:

But probably not completely untrue. If Ukraine wasn’t threatening to joint NATO would the invasion have happened?

Yes, yes it would

Next dumb question.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 22 June 17:39

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

Once again the Telegraph have their finger firmly on the pulse

The media has led the country into an anti-Tory fervour

For those of us who don't have subscriptions to the Telegraph, what is the gist?

[Teatowell]

said:

What is it that makes you able to be so absolute?

[732NM]

Teatowell said:

What is it that makes you able to be so absolute?

Putins own words, he has had a hard on for Ukraine since day 1, seeing it as the first major step to recreating the USSR, which he has never accepted as dead.

He wrote a paper on what he thinks about the subject in 2021 before the 2nd invasion currently in progress.

You can find it by searching for "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"

His last 2 paragraphs in this article are

"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with
Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their
origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements
and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is
in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine,
in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been
and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one
thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

The man is full of st.

[donkmeister]

Mr Penguin said:

One thing all sensible people can agree Farage is definitely on the right side of history on:

I think you are going to have to be explicit in the thing you mean... Smoking fags?

[donkmeister]

Unreal said:

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

WCZ said:

Not seen it but did read farage said the west provoked Ukraine’s invasion

While I don't agree with that view, if that's what he said then he isn't alone. As per this LSE article, the Financial Times, the New York Times & the Guardian have suggested that NATO is partly to blame.

I agree with the title of the article.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/04/27/nato...

I think that interview is going to cost Reform some votes.

I think it will gain them some. Whether it's like their net immigration aims we will have to see.

It doesn't suit the West to look too closely at the background to the Ukraine conflict. You have to wonder why any debate is shut down so quickly. Reminds me of 'trusting the science'. There is no debate, Putin bad, West/Nato/Eu/Zelensky good.

What do you think needs to be debated?

Putin literally decided to invade another country, sending thousands of people to their deaths, being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Rape, torture, pillage. Crimes against humanity so abhorrent that it makes many of us angry just to think about them. Blackmailing the world with the threat of nuclear conflict. Press-gangs of young Russian men to be sent to the meat grinder. What do you think needs debating about that? Genuine question; what is the debate?

Or do you want to debate the situation leading up to that? The oligarchy in Russia? Assassination of political rivals?

Or do you want to debate the situation before that where Putin was a KGB agent working with/over the Stasi in the DDR?

Do you want to debate the purpose of the cremation ovens in the German concentration camps too?