I dunno about anyone else, but when I hear someone using the term 'woke' without irony it only outs them as idiots.
Woke (no irony) "idiot" right here and proud of it.
When I hear someone taking the micky out of woke it outs them as facho right wingers or extreme left.
Come on, mattyfez, be welcoming cuddly and nice to all on STW. 🙂 Jeez this forum sometimes.
but for clarity firstly that offensive and totally unrepresented poster (it had bugger all to do with the UK and deliberately only featured young men) was produced by UKIP not the official Leave campaign.
Two cheeks of the same arse I’m afraid Ernesto.
The ‘official’ campaign was a bit coy about its racism, with its nods and winks, because it knew it could be. Why? Because Farage and Banks and the ‘unofficial’ campaign provided the foghorn to their dog whistle. Outriders, doing their dirty work for them.
Both campaigns were saying exactly the same thing, just in different ways.
To believe otherwise you’ve either got to be hopelessly naive or absolutely delusional
A whole load of human rights are written into EU treaties, Ernie. You don't want those but want the ECHR. So you refuse the EU that has teeth but want the ECHR that is consistently ignored by the countries signed up to it.
A good summary of Niges performance this morning….
As soon as NF gets forced to talk about tax he sounds less animated and interesting than Keir. Listen to yesterday’s speech - but do take a pillow and a nice blanket
Keep the conversation on the economy, sort the economy, and Reform are toast.
Keeping the conversation on the economy is easy enough but sorting it out will never be done with Reeves and Starmer in charge. Let's say she fixes her black hole and balances her books, do you think the average voter would notice? Of course they wouldn't, all they will notice is the stupid things that were done to 'fix the economy' and things getting worse for them rather than better.
I notice that among his economic plans yesterday he was looking to target public sector pensions, which would achieve his goal of shrinking the Civil Service as anyone who can would take the financial hit and retire early.
I've pretty much decided that if Reform do get into power I'll resign the next day. I've worked under governments of both colours and held my nose to deliver policies that were never going to deliver or I fundamentally disagreed with, but I'll not serve under a Reform government.
I notice that among his economic plans yesterday he was looking to target public sector pensions, which would achieve his goal of shrinking the Civil Service as anyone who can would take the financial hit and retire early.
The blue-rinse brigade will shit themselves at yesterday's announcement that the triple lock will go under a Reform government.
At this point I almost feel that they need to get in, break everything, and let the population learn from their stupidity.
notice that among his economic plans yesterday he was looking to target public sector pensions
I know a few public sector workers (NHS) that will still vote reform despite this.
At this point I almost feel that they need to get in, break everything, and let the population learn from their stupidity.
Hasn't this already happened with Brexit/Boris/Truss
Nope, there is lots left to break - NHS, benefits and so on.
Yes and as Starmer and Reeves will never do that Farage is free to BS away.
When you are actually in a position of authority and have to make hard "decisions".
@kerley - they are starting to do some of the right things - I’m involved in some - but by their nature they are confidential until they happen (otherwise they won’t happen).
We’ll see if it’s enough.
but for clarity firstly that offensive and totally unrepresented poster (it had bugger all to do with the UK and deliberately only featured young men) was produced by UKIP not the official Leave campaign
Remind me... who was UKIP leader at that time? 🤔
And, FWIW, drawing lines between Banks and Farage on the one hand and the official leave campaign on the other is ridiculous.
Keeping the conversation on the economy is easy enough but sorting it out will never be done with Reeves and Starmer in charge. Let's say she fixes her black hole and balances her books, do you think the average voter would notice? Of course they wouldn't, all they will notice is the stupid things that were done to 'fix the economy' and things getting worse for them rather than better.
Very true. Also surpluses just don't happen much at all in modern economies as they're extractive - so she's on a doomed journey.
(The public might notice by virtue of things being cut or pay more tax to get the spreadsheet to balance. )
But not directly, and probably won't connect the dots.
A balanced economy not balanced books please governments.
This is likely to make Reform voters have a cognitive reality dysfunction.
The hero on the train is called Samir Zitouni.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxr4qn6d66o
Sounds like woke fake news to me poopscoop!
I bet it was good old Tommeh and Our Nige themselves who stopped the attacker with their bare hands!
^^ Indeed.
It's almost like someone's skin colour and ethnic origin have no bearing towards their character.
Mind blowing stuff!
Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/RhPWssW1/Screenshot-20251104-120251-2.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/RhPWssW1/Screenshot-20251104-120251-2.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
The blue-rinse brigade will shit themselves at yesterday's announcement that the triple lock will go under a Reform government.
I hold Nigel Farage in the same contempt as the vast majority of other commenters on this thread, but I have to say I agree with this point. Triple lock was a good idea at the time raise the living standard of some pensioners who were genuinely skint, but it should always have been time limited. Now none of the main parties dare to mess with it and it's become a vast drain on the exchequer with no end in site.
It obviously wouldn't sway my voting decision to Reform, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, (which is once more than Nigel).
The blue-rinse brigade will shit themselves at yesterday's announcement that the triple lock will go under a Reform government.
I hold Nigel Farage in the same contempt as the vast majority of other commenters on this thread, but I have to say I agree with this point. Triple lock was a good idea at the time raise the living standard of some pensioners who were genuinely skint, but it should always have been time limited. Now none of the main parties dare to mess with it and it's become a vast drain on the exchequer with no end in site.
It obviously wouldn't sway my voting decision to Reform, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, (which is once more than Nigel).
I’m not sure I agree with you on this. Despite the triple lock, the UK spending on state pension provision is relatively low, the percentage replacement rate relative to pre retirement earnings is low and pensioner poverty rates are high.
calling someone a racist for saying coloured people instead of people of colour (yes it does happen)
I can confirm that it does happen yes, because I'm the source of your example - this genuinely happened to me.
I wasn't outright called racist, but I was schooled that I'd said the wrong thing despite being well-meaning. I'm as "woke" as they come but I agree with you here, this sort of linguistical pin-dancing silliness helps neither side.
For someone who repeatedly asks me to explain what I mean it is quite extraordinary how little attention you pay to what I actually write. You appear to be arguing with what you think I should be saying rather than what I am actually saying.
You use a lot of words to say very little and then when someone asks for clarification your Condescension Gland goes into overdrive. It's almost as though you do it intentionally.
Pro tip: if someone asks for clarification, it might just be because you weren't clear rather than them just being feeble-minded plankton in the shadow of your towering intellect.
Whatever the original definition of woke was a hundred years ago this is what it is widely seen to mean now in the UK in 2025. For the record I don't use either terms.
You used the term "woke brigade" in this very post. 🤷♂️ I suppose you were being ironic.
that offensive and totally unrepresented poster (it had bugger all to do with the UK and deliberately only featured young men) was produced by UKIP not the official Leave campaign.
It was produced by UKIP to adorn the sides of Leave.EU vans.
They're two cheeks of the same arse in any case. I doubt many voters were analysing whether Leave propaganda was "official" or not.
It was produced by UKIP to adorn the sides of Leave.EU vans.
Whoopsie! 🤭
Incidentally, lest we forget, shall we remind ourselves what the 'official' Leave campaign was up to at the time?
"Vote Leave" were the 'official' leave campaign (the ones using the NHS logo on everything). "Leave . EU" was a UKIP (Farage et al) spin off to make their case without having to stick to the same campaign rules. See also the shenanigans that had the DUP and others based in NI campaigning across the whole UK via social media without having to stick to the same rules as the whole UK campaigns. All very messy. A campaign for everyone.
Pro tip: if someone asks for clarification, it might just be because you weren't clear rather than them just being feeble-minded plankton in the shadow of your towering intellect.
Whatever the original definition of woke was a hundred years ago this is what it is widely seen to mean now in the UK in 2025. For the record I don't use either terms.
You used the term "woke brigade" in this very post. 🤷♂️ I suppose you were being ironic.
I hadn't realised that you needed a towering intellect to understand what I was saying but when I said that I don't use either of the terms I was of course talking about "coloured people" and "people of colour", I simply say "black man/woman/person", it seems to work fine for me.
Edit : It also seems to work fine for the NHS which uses a standard set of 16 ethnic group categories none of which include the term "person of colour" but several categories do use the term "black".
Dunno if that makes the NHS racist?
The NHS would have a problem if it DID use the term "coloured people" but as you say it doesn't then all good and woke.
They are also just about to roll out some training about antisemitism but never did the same for Islamophobia so guess they may not be that good after all...
They are also just about to roll out some training about antisemitism but never did the same for Islamophobia so guess they may not be that good after all...
I think the NHS has accepted and treated some wounded Palestinians, though. That would probably meet the definition of antisemitism for Israel, Netanyahu and Mirvis - so I guess that training can't be rolled out fast enough. Phew!
The NHS would have a problem if it DID use the term "coloured people" but as you say it doesn't then all good and woke.
i said that the NHS doesn't use the term "people of colour" and it was with regards to that that I said I didn't know if in the eyes of some people that makes them racist.
The NHS uses the term "black" to describe black people, the same as me and most of the rest of the population, Including the police, but apparently not everyone is happy with that term.
I see Nige is courting the yoof vote…
I see Nige is courting the yoof vote…
He is using the well-established right-wing tactic of trying to convince voters that only a government that shafts you can be truly trusted.
It worked a treat for the Tories and LibDems in 2010 when they successfully managed to convince voters that austerity was a great idea.
Tice is on Today, on the one hand states we need to have "a rational and informed discussion" about pension reform, then goes on to stoke the flames by saying public sector employees still have gold-plated pensions and asks "if you're a public sector employee, do you want to be apologising to your grandkids for being responsible for bankrupting the country!?"
How big do we reckon Tice’s pension pot is?
Tice can get ****ed. Mrs 100th is a police officer and has been front line in uniform and been assaulted. She now has to deal with RSOs which is having a huge mental health impact. She will retire in 5 years time after paying 12%+ into her pension. Annually she'll be on just over £16k. All thanks to the new pensions schemes.
I listened to Dickies rambling. When it was pointed out to him that the OBR has forecast that civil service pension liabilities are forecast to decrease substantially over coming years, he didn’t let mere inconvenient ‘facts’ get in the way of the fantasy world him and Nigel inhabit.
How big do we reckon Tice’s pension pot is?
Pretty small. At least the bit that is visible to financial authorities will be.
Tice can get ****ed. Mrs 100th is a police officer and has been front line in uniform and been assaulted. She now has to deal with RSOs which is having a huge mental health impact. She will retire in 5 years time after paying 12%+ into her pension. Annually she'll be on just over £16k. All thanks to the new pensions schemes.
Very much this. I'll have 27 years in the civil service when I hit 60. The pension (old and new schemes) is not much more than what I'll get from the 16 years in my private pensions before that.
In the light of this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c891403eddet
this came into my head:
Reform = Racist Extremists Full Of Russian Money
Genuinely not expecting a sentence anywhere near that long. I hope Farage is absolutely shitting himself.
As a flag shagging **** wit should I be taking to social media to demand this fallen warrior:s release or wanting him beheaded?
It's all so confusing these days.
If Farage was doing the same work for free… what a bargain for Putin… buy one get one free.
If Farage was doing the same work for free… what a bargain for Putin… buy one get one free.
Farage does nothing for free
Genuinely not expecting a sentence anywhere near that long. I hope Farage is absolutely shitting himself.
I am genuinely mystified why/how Nathan Gill got over 10 years. Is it purely because he didn't declare the money? It just doesn't add up to me. Making the pro-Russian statements didn't break any laws, why would it?
And taking Russian money obviously isn't a legal problem as Putin's oligarch have been bankrolling the Tory Party for years, and much more recently than Nathan Gill who took Russian money long before Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine.
Presumably Putin's oligarch will now want to shift bankrolling Reform UK rather than the Tories. They obviously don't pump money into UK political parties because they are concerned about how the cost of living crisis is affecting the UK population and they want to do what they can to help.
All the Russian money the Tories have received in very recent years has been because Putin felt that it would serve Russian interests, I can't see how that is any different to the moral case against Nathan Gill.
If it is because in the case of Nathan Gill it wasn't declared then over 10 years in jail sounds ridiculously over the top and both Tory and Labour politicians should be shitting themselves with regards to undisclosed donations, it seems to regularly happen.
Tbh whatever the explanation 10 years sounds totally over the top to me, Jonathan Aitken only got 18 months
https://goodlawproject.org/revealed-the-tories-are-still-receiving-funds-from-russia-linked-donors/
Tbh whatever the explanation 10 years sounds totally over the top to me
It's treason, Lord Haw Haw was hanged for broadcasting foreign propaganda. 10 seems reasonably to me though 20 wouldn't have shocked in a country where a stop oil protestor got 5 before appeal.
I hope Farage is absolutely shitting himself.
Off with his head 🙂
It's treason, Lord Haw Haw was hanged for broadcasting foreign propaganda.
No, Nathan Gill was not convicted for treason. I guess you think that the whole Tory Party (and therefore previous UK government) is guilty of treason because they accepted Russian money?
Btw Lord Haw Haw did not broadcast foreign propaganda. The United States born German national was broadcasting his own country's propaganda.
If he had done it with a strong German accent he probably wouldn't have been hung.
No, Nathan Gill was not convicted for treason
He was convicted of taking bribes. I haven't read the full trial transcript but he admitted accepting money for promoting Russian interests. The sentence will have been within the relevant guidelines.
I agree that there's a fine line between donations and bribes. I'd like to think it makes all politicians very nervous about past actions, and rethink any future plans.
there's a fine line between donations and bribes.
Yup, as I said Putin's oligarch haven't bankrolled the Tory Party because of philanthropic concerns about UK politics, it is because they believed that it would serve theirs and Russia's interests, if that isn't a bribe I don't know what is.
I reckon that Nathan Gill probably has good reason to feel hard done by. Especially when you compare the custodial sentences dished out to Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer. Ten years is a long time.
there's a fine line between donations and bribes.
In this instance - it wasn't a case of being influenced by or unduly favourable to a cause as the result of a donation - the money was for delivering speeches in parliament, verbatim, that had been written an prepared by Voloshyn. His correspondence with Voloshyn made it clear that they both knew that was what he was doing - delivering Voloshns scripts, word for word, but passing these speeches off as his own. Basically he agreed and conspired to act as a shill for a foreign government in another parliament. 8 times.
So the sentence will represent the repeat pattern of offending. A single offence of bribery can carry a 10 year sentence so he's got off comparatively lightly for 8 offences. In fact the 10 years is a reduced sentence, the judge reduced it from 14 years due to mitigating factors.
Especially when you compare the custodial sentences dished out to Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer. Ten years is a long time.
those offences were trivial by comparison (both perjury convictions as cover up for fairly minor offences). Gill has at least fessed up, eventually, he didn't cooperated with police but ultimately pled guilty pre trial and its pretty much his own evidence, from turning over his phone, that he has been convicted on
His correspondence with Voloshyn made it clear that they both knew that was what he was doing - delivering Voloshns scripts, word for word, but passing these speeches off as his own.
Okay that at least helps to explain the severity of the allegations, but firstly even prime ministers don't write their own speeches and secondly had it all been written in his own words but with the same sentiments (I don't know what the speeches were about) would he really not have got 10 years?
And how does that compare with the case of Jonathan Aitken who got just 18 months not for taking dodgy Saudi money, which he did, but because of lying about it under oath.
My link above suggests that right-wing UK politics is awash with Russian money it seems strange that one person gets over 10 years for greedily accepting a piddling £40k
When Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister will he be able to grant Nathan Gill a Royal pardon Trump style?
Edit : I hadn't seen your edited post with the last paragraph. Anyway I'm not going to lose any sleep over the issue but I can't say that I am comfortable with the sentence, plus I worry that it will be used to claim a witch hunt against Reform politicians not least because of all the Russian money that's gone into the Tory Party.
as always you can read the judgement
the amount of money is sort of irrelevant - £40k doesn't sound a lot, but it was actually £5k for each offence. He was very, very easily and very, very cheaply bought. Saying exactly what he was being paid to say was the deal.
There are quite likely more lucrative and more sophisticated ways this could have been done, but that would have required someone smarter, and someone smarter probably wouldn't have got caught.
someone smarter probably wouldn't have got caught.
Someone smarter on an MEP salary would might have concluded that even with a cunning plan it just wasn't worth it for peanuts.
I wonder if it is connected to the excitement of risk taking and being very naughty? Sometimes in cases of bent coppers I do wonder if that plays a part.
Someone smarter on an MEP salary would might have concluded that even with a cunning plan it just wasn't worth it for peanuts.
Someone smarter in any situation would have realised them getting caught was probably part of the overall scheme.
Putin doesn't fund people and organisations because he's a fan of them. He funds both sides of opposing factions, he funds his own opponents. His general aim is to sew confusion and distrust. Conspiring with people like Gill to feed Russian propaganda into other nations' parliaments would be one part of a plan, having it be revealed that they had done that would be another. Putin meddles with stuff in order to achieve one end, reveals the interference to achieve another, then implausibly denies it as another win.
Conspiring with people like Gill to feed Russian propaganda into other nations' parliaments would be one part of a plan, having it be revealed that they had done that would be another.
Erm, wasn't it in connection with the European Parliament? I am sure that there many far-right politicians in the European Parliament who are prepared to do favours for Putin, probably even without financial reward, I not sure that getting them in the shit helps Putin much.
I think that the Nathan Gill conviction is possibly likely to result in more scrutiny and likely put Putin at a disadvantage
I very much agree with the suggestion that the Kremlin likely funds opposition parties to themselves though, for example that was originally the case with Rodina, but I have no idea what the present situation is.
This is who’s funding Farage, who ‘forgot’ to declare the money…
The man earned 1.2 million from second jobs in the last year. It's not surprising that he could forget small sums like 25k here and there for a speaking arrangement or two.
Is Reform still a limited company instead of a proper parliamentry party?
Its not just reform that have dodgy funding though. The whole funding of politics needs addressing, the money pumped into political parties and lobbying makes a mockery of democracy. It's a far bigger issue than FPTP because no matter what the voting system we only get to vote on the policies the political doners allow the parties to offer.
IMO the oligarchy and Israel will have pumped far more direct money into subverting democracy through political funding and lobbying than Russia over the past decade or so, and in the UK that will mean that labour and the tories will have been the biggest recipients of that money.
The man earned 1.2 million from second jobs in the last year. It's not surprising that he could forget small sums like 25k here and there for a speaking arrangement or two.
Is Reform still a limited company instead of a proper parliamentry party?
yeah particularly the ones where he gets to sniff the arse of his orange pal + entourage.
Btw Lord Haw Haw did not broadcast foreign propaganda. The United States born German national was broadcasting his own country's propaganda.
That's somewhat selective, Ernie, and grossly misleading. Lord Haw Haw was an American born in the US to a Northern Irish father. He obtained British nationality thanks to his father's origins in the 30s. He only obtained German nationality during the second world war. At the Nurenberg trial he had his British nationality so was tried for treason and hanged.
Joyce was a British Fascist... his cause was fascism, and nothing to do with any affinity or loyalty to Germany before it was became enthralled to and controlled by the Nazis (he was naturalised under them IIRC).
More Tory rejects welcomed into the Reform fold, including missing link Johnathan Gullis. To be fair to him, he does have the same intellectual heft as Lee Anderson, so I’m sure the two of them will get on well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr12e7259xo.amp
Be interesting to hear the conservative response as it looks like they would be the junior party . I suspect some of them would sell their mum for a ministers position. 
Be interesting to hear the conservative response as it looks like they would be the junior party
I would be more interested in hearing what some of the current reform supporters who rant about the "uniparty" think of this idea.
Whilst I dont disagree with the idea that the two major parties have got a bit too close in terms of policies I am not sure how a hostile takeover of one of them would solve this.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/reform-uk-richard-tice-christmas-party-croydon-cancelled
It is hardly a case of "bullying" .....SUTR has no means of bullying the owners and management of Grand Sapphire, they can rent out their venue to whoever they want.
The Grand Sapphire is actually a British Asian owned venue. It was built and is managed as an Asian owned business. It serves primarily the Asian community which uses it extensively for weddings and other celebrations.
I suspect that persuasion was the tool that was used. It surely can't be that hard to persuade a British Asian owned venue that they shouldn't facilitate the fundraising exercise of a bunch of bigots and racists?
But whatever the reason I think it's hilarious that icancelled 3 days before Reform's Christmas extravaganza event 😂
Tbh I don't understand how it is even legal for them to cancel but presumably it is.
This is who’s funding Farage, who ‘forgot’ to declare the money…
He looks like a bad AI hallucination of Aphex Twin.
Whilst I dont disagree with the idea that the two major parties have got a bit too close in terms of policies I am not sure how a hostile takeover of one of them would solve this.
I'm sure Farage will be aware of this . I think for most people Reform is Farage , infact i heard something where the majority of reform voters didn't recognize Richard Tice , and he'll be aware there'll be a point when Reform just look like rebadged Tories.
The question is will it shift the dial at all in terms of people voting for reform . Whilst they're the only real option in terms of a coalition for Reform surely the population of the UK wouldn't accept the Tories back in government already , even as a junior party . How the heck did we go from a labour landslide to contemplating a Reform Tory coalition in a year and a half
Are there stats for toady's work as an MP? Days attended and surgeries held? How much time spent in his constituency?
Do the reform voters think he'll be dedicated as a potential PM?
I don't think he wants to be PM. I think he wants to do what Jimmny Åkesson is doing for the Swedish Democrats is doing to Lil' Uffe of Moderaterna here in Sweden: Shaping the discussion, moving policy, but avoiding the main responsibility as the head person.
Assume Kemi is still leader of the Tories when there is an election. How quickly would she do a deal with Reform to be PM in a coalition with them? Farage could be deputy, do almost nothing, but threaten a split every time he wanted crypto de-regulated or something and he would get a result.
In the meantime, how much do you think a deputy PM could charge on the speaking circuit or as a friendly ear to crypto-bros?
Are there stats for toady's work as an MP? Days attended and surgeries held? How much time spent in his constituency?
Not really. About the closest you get is they work for us with voting history/speeches.
Someone did try getting the HoP security pass records to show how often MPs were attending but in response the last tory government changed the system so MP records get deleted after seven days so thats no longer an option.
How the heck did we go from a labour landslide to contemplating a Reform Tory coalition in a year and a half
You need to ask Starmer and his useless cabinet. I did state that the next government will be a Reform Tory coalition about a year ago, in fact I was even offered a bet on it but the person offering it reneged on it and went back to searching for Monty Python images.
Assume Kemi is still leader of the Tories when there is an election.
Unlikely, really.
I've said for a long time that Reform will end up occupying the hollowed out shell of the Tories, and the process seems to be ongoing as Tory support continues to erode. My view now is that, with so many Tories drifting to Reform, there will eventually be a leadership contest, a candidate who is effectively 'Reform-approved' and Farage will be the kingmaker.
Not sure who it will be, Jenrick maybe, he seems the right combination of corrupt and weak. Whether this leads to a full merger so that Farage can be PM, or a placeholder Medvedev/Putin arrangement, we will see. Farage has always liked the Russian model of doing things.
Reform received a single £9m donation from a Brit living in Thailand, we're doomed.
Funding of political parties really needs to be looked at - also Reform surely need to become a party at somepoint, we cannot have a business running the UK can we?
Not sure who it will be, Jenrick maybe, he seems the right combination of corrupt and weak. Whether this leads to a full merger so that Farage can be PM, or a placeholder Medvedev/Putin arrangement, we will see. Farage has always liked the Russian model of doing things.
Any merger or deal, does have the potential to fall into the "they're all the same" trap.
we cannot have a business running the UK can we?
People keep crapping on about "needing a businessman to run the ****ry" so why not a put an actual business in charge?
That was ironic in case it wasn't obvious.
Funding of political parties really needs to be looked at
Yep but it won't be looked at by Starmer as he is in the trough with donations, lobbyists etc,.
Could a **** like Musk, in theory, give Reform a billion pounds?
Of course! Reform is a limited company and a billion is only a few times more than the Thai resident gave Farage's company.
Funding of political parties really needs to be looked at - also Reform surely need to become a party at somepoint, we cannot have a business running the UK can we?
This whole "Reform is a company" point is really meaningless. A company is not necessarily a business. The Lib Dems are also a company. I can't be bothered to do the other parties but I am sure there will be other examples.
What is important is whether a party is registered with the electoral commission etc.