Forum menu
I am not sure what the point of digging it all up again now is
Because his stock has risen since 2012? Nice easy story for the journalists? Maybe not a McSweeney conspiracy?
Children can be incredibly crass and insensitive. I think children justify that sort of insensitive and deeply unpleasant "humour" because they believe that it isn't physically hurting anyone and they lack any serious insight into the consequences of that sort of unpleasant humour
True but that doesn't make most of them teenage racist bullies.
I'm a year or two older than Farage and was at a multi ethnic comp in the 70s, rather than Dulwich College. NF actually leafleted at the school gates from time to time. I was a not very active member of SWP (I later realised) offshoot Nat Union of School Students, and Anti Nazi League. Sure there was Manuel in Fawlty Towers stuff on telly and I'll have told racist jokes I'd be highly embarrassed to be reminded of now. But teenagers weren't thick and knew what racism was, hence frisson in crossing lines with 'banter'. That didn't make most of us racist bullies, as Farage very clearly was.
We're all having to take Farage more seriously now. Imagine how you'd feel seeing every day the teenager who'd bullied you in racist fashion at school being talked up as the next Prime Minister? Bad?? I think that's why 20 plus people are now speaking out and good on them.
The way Farage is dealing with it: (1. I didn't do it; 2. The thing I didn't do was only banter and I was very young; 3. My victims are politically motivated; 4. The BBC was just as bad) may persuade some fans but I think for most people it's revealing of the person he is.
I am not sure what the point of digging it all up again now is
Because his stock has risen since 2012? Nice easy story for the journalists? Maybe not a McSweeney conspiracy?
I am not sure that I would describe it as a conspiracy, the very day after the Guardian revived this 12 year old story Starmer, no doubt after being briefed by McSweeney, decided to run with it and raise it in parliament. I obviously don't know if the Guardian and McSweeney colluded I suspect not, but it is of course possible that Downing Street were tipped off before the Guardian published.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1j8jdpej0wo
That didn't make most of us racist bullies, as Farage very clearly was.
The suggestion that Farage was a racist bully isn't just plausible imo but also highly likely. And yes racist bullying should never be tolerated but the time to deal with Farage's behaviour was then not 45 years later.
Like most voters I am not interested in what Farage, Starmer, or any other politician, were saying 45 years, why should I be? I am far more interested in what they are saying right now.
The problem for Starmer is that with all his talk of Islands of strangers and the "incalculable damage" to the UK he claims immigrants have made he actually agrees with much of what Farage is currently saying with regards to immigrants and asylum seekers, at least so he claims, hence Starmer needs to pull the narrative back 45 years.
During last year's racist riots which swept across the UK Starmer had a fairly unique and golden opportunity to attack Farage for his anti immigrant and anti asylum seeker rhetoric which was clearly fueling the riots, Starmer deliberately chose not to do so. He now wants to criticise Farage for what he was saying 45 years ago. For ****s Sake. 🫣
And perhaps the hypocrisy and inconsistency could be forgiven if it was actually showing any sort of positive result for Labour, but it isn't. Starmer decided to go after Nigel Farage's childhood behaviour over two weeks ago, the 12 national opinion polls since then all show Reform's huge lead over Labour being maintained with the very latest one showing Reform on 31% against Labour's 14%
It's a shit tactic providing no positive result. How about trying the alternative tactic of tackling the lies which Nigel Farage is saying right now? 💡
This is not the Starmer thread, but hey,
Starmer had a fairly unique and golden opportunity to attack Farage
Which he did, calling out his racist tactics at the party conf. During the riots the priory was to end them not inflame them.
It's Farage's nasty response to 20 odd fellow pupils calling out his teenage racist bullying that I was highlighting, Though frankly it doesn't endear him to me I must admit.
Anyway that's all I have to say about Farage.
During the riots the priory was to end them not inflame them.
And how exactly do you think attacking Farage's rhetoric which inflamed the riots would end up inflaming them?
Starmer is worried about criticising Farage's racist rhetoric, which is coming out of Farage's mouth right now in 2024-5, too much because he wants to engage in a bit of dog whistling himself.
So instead Starmer wants to focus on Farage being a raving Hitler supporter when he was a school kid. The problem is that very few people apart from those who already hate Nigel Farage give a monkeys about what he was saying as a child nearly 50 years ago.
The revelations didn't hurt Farage 12 years ago and there is no evidence that it is hurting him now, it just makes Labour look desperate which of course they are, especially after trying to steal Farage's thunder over immigration and asylum seekers and finding that it hasn't helped them one iota.
The centrists have no idea how to deal with Nigel Farage, and everything they are doing seems to be making the problem worse for them.
Amazing that the big 6 on here lost their minds over Starmer accepting a free pair of specs, and have literally nothing to say about Reform accepting the largest single political cash donation ever made to a UK political party, and from some-one who's not resident in the UK.
You realise Starmer was supposed to be better that Farage don't you? And I am sure if Starmers Labour Party could accept a multi million pound donation from a single person they would do it without question.
Amazing that the big 6 on here lost their minds over Starmer accepting a free pair of specs, and have literally nothing to say about Reform accepting the largest single political cash donation ever made to a UK political party, and from some-one who's not resident in the UK.
I think it is terrible and Starmer should use his massive 172 seat majority to introduce legislation capping political donations from individuals whilst also banning donations from those who are not UK residents.
HTH
Donations are only part of it. A huge war chest for party campaigning is one thing to contribute to. But it’s probably more effective spending a small proportion of your huge wealth (or even better getting other investors to provide the money) buying a newspaper, or a magazine, or starting a TV channel, or a taking over a social media company… lots of ways we’re being swung towards Farage the Fascist by the ridiculously rich (mostly from the safe distance of a country far, far away).
Donations may only be a part of it but I can't believe anyone donates large amounts of money to any party/person if they don't want to benefit from it, ranging from a question in parliament to policy direction.
If someone wants to help political parties then any donations go into a pot and get shared equally across all parties, failing that I would reduce donations down to a £10 max per person per year
If someone wants to help political parties then any donations go into a pot and get shared equally across all parties, failing that I would reduce donations down to a £10 max per person per year
Both of those are mad. Why should I be forced to donate to Reform if I want to donate to the NI Greens? £10 is nothing these days.
It't not "mad", impolitecameraaction. It's civllised and democratic. State finance parties, limit private donations and have rules on who can donate.Then prosecute those who break the rules and hand them jail terms. It works here.
State finance can work. Asking for donations that will then be handed out to parties you’d never support is unlikely to work. I wouldn’t donate, that’s for sure. Despite the fact I’ve often donated to more than one party (or their candidates) during the same campaign period.
Black & White Minstrels
I remember catching it once as a kid, I just couldn’t get my head round how people thought it was entertainment as it was just dire , that was around 77/78 when it ended up getting canned but I wouldn’t have picked up on the racist nature of it then as I was young, I found a good article/comment about it :
Probably the most offensive thing about the show was the repertoire of old songs the group would trot out and sing every weekend. The sort of material that even Max Bygraves used to throw out.
If someone wants to help political parties then any donations go into a pot and get shared equally across all parties, failing that I would reduce donations down to a £10 max per person per year
Both of those are mad. Why should I be forced to donate to Reform if I want to donate to the NI Greens? £10 is nothing these days.
Because everyone that donated to Reform would have to donate to the NI Greens.
So instead Starmer wants to focus on Farage being a raving Hitler supporter when he was a school kid. The problem is that very few people apart from those who already hate Nigel Farage give a monkeys about what he was saying as a child nearly 50 years ago.
It’s also giving him even more Print/internet/TV time,it’s the same mistake that’s always happening with Trump.
Starmer doesn't control how much print/internet/TV time Farage gets. You guys have Starmer Derangement Syndrome if you're blaming Starmer for the Guardian and other media outlets publishing articles that make Farage look bad.
Because everyone that donated to Reform would have to donate to the NI Greens.
Everyone would stop donating in the hope that the “other side” would keep donating. The idea that we’d be voluntarily popping our own money into a pot for “all politicans” to use rather than causes closer to our own hearts is for the birds.
And I am sure if Starmers Labour Party could accept a multi million pound donation from a single person they would do it without question.
The nature of the politician is that they don't want to restrict things that may benefit their party/self interest but are unable to see beyond this potential benefit to the very real danger this laissez faire attitude poses to the country from populists and extremists.
My point was that if you want to donate millions into the working of UK political parties then it gets shared equally. In other words it would stop people donating millions, but if they did donate it would be shared out giving all parties the same funding boost.
The £10 limit (other made up limits are available) was to donate to a party of your choice to again stop individuals donating millions of pounds. Your £10 to Green party would all go to Green Party for example.
Or just carry on as it is of course and see Reform get a £1BN donation from Musk and use it to easily win the next election.
Reform UK councillor’s company fined £40,000 for hiring illegal worker
https://www.ft.com/content/de36d9bd-9b8f-429c-a632-e1b82917c8d0
Also seeing that Farage is possibly under investigation for breaching election spending rules in Clacton.
Which is nice.
My point was that if you want to donate millions into the working of UK political parties then it gets shared equally.
No-one wants to donate money to "the working of UK political parties". They want to donate to the parties that they support.
Sharing political donations equally would result in a massive increase in funding to microparties and extremists.
Sharing political donations equally would result in a massive increase in funding to microparties and extremist
Again, these would only be donations above the cap which would overnight become zero but if someone really wants to then they can.
And what is wrong with giving funding to all political parties so all have the same chance to sell their solutions to the voters?
Sharing political donations equally would result in a massive increase in funding to microparties and extremist
And what is wrong with giving funding to all political parties so all have the same chance to sell their solutions to the voters?
I think you should be forced to comment equally in favour of all political parties, not just the political party that you support.
Farage was hanging around the paddock in Abu Dhabi with another prick - Briatore.
Let's be honest even if he is guilty of overspending on the Clacton election, no one will care.
It's not llke he'll have to resign & they'll have a by-election
I think you should be forced to comment equally in favour of all political parties, not just the political party that you support.
Odd comment. So how would you change the unlimited donation and undemocratic process where a party could in theory have £1BN versus another that has 10 pence down to the whim of billionaires or are you happy with how it is?
Starmer doesn't control how much print/internet/TV time Farage gets
No, but him calling for police investigations etc keeps the story alive and heavily influences the amount of coverage.
Starmer doesn't control how much print/internet/TV time Farage gets
No, but him calling for police investigations etc keeps the story alive and heavily influences the amount of coverage.
None of the coverage I've seen - Beeb, Guardian, Mirror, various online groups - has mentioned any calls or involvement by Starmer.
Starmer doesn't control how much print/internet/TV time Farage gets
No, but him calling for police investigations etc keeps the story alive and heavily influences the amount of coverage.
Farrage is as bent as a £9 note though...
Just look at his 'de-banking fiasco' ....
My theory is Natwest (or more specifically thier posh elite branch) kicked him out due to questionable sources of money, most likely of Russian origin.
It's all about media attention... He did the same thing whilst complaining about the EU when he was a MEP.. Didn't actually do anything other than shout loudly whilst trousering the pay cheque and rinsing his expenses claims.
And to be fair it's not a bad strategy.. The uk public have enough stupid people to lap that up.
Defunding education for example is a good way to win votes.. If your audience is incapable of critical analysis you can feed them whatever crap you like and they'll fight for thier own deaths.
None of the coverage I've seen - Beeb, Guardian, Mirror, various online groups - has mentioned any calls or involvement by Starmer.
Labour has called for an investigation. He is the leader of the Labour party.
Starmer doesn't control how much print/internet/TV time Farage gets
No, but him calling for police investigations etc keeps the story alive and heavily influences the amount of coverage.
When has Starmer called for Farage to be investigated by police? It's highly improper for political office holders to pressure or encourage the (supposedly...) non-partisan law enforcement and prosecution bodies to investigate and prosecute people on political grounds. Starmer as former DPP knows this better than anyone, and if Starmer did that, then I agree with you that it is outrageous.
PS there is zero chance of any criminal action resulting from Farage's behaviour 40ish years ago. There's no criminal statute of limitations in E and W, but there's no way this would pass the CPS two part test, and the courts would see this an abuse of process. Starmer also knows this better than anyone...
Farrage is as bent as a £9 note though...
Just look at his 'de-banking fiasco' ....
My theory is Natwest (or more specifically thier posh elite branch) kicked him out due to questionable sources of money, most likely of Russian origin.
Farage had a semi-point on this. Banks at that time were massively "derisking" ie binning customers that bore higher compliance costs or risks. It wasn't just politicians - also sex workers, people that did business in developing markets, gambling operators etc.
If you get kicked out by one bank but can still walk across the street to get an account with another bank - well, that's just life, suck it up. But if you have a whole industry doing it, then you end up with all these accounts finding a home with a small number of risk-loving banks (which is bad - see Silicon Valley Bank and BCCI) or you drive them out of the formal banking sector entirely (which is also bad - because then no-one is doing any KYC, transaction monitoring or reporting...).
This affected quite a few people. Also, the report on Farage was very shoddy.
I'm not saying I trust anything about him personally...
It's always 'semi points' though. AKA a load of bollocks. That's how they get you.
Sex workers tax is a very different kettle of fish than opaque foreign donations to public MPs or MEPs who have a duty to their electorate rather than thier pimps.
That's a far cry...
... Or is it? I'd argue farrage is a prostitute to whoever is funding his extreme right wing philosophy.. I suspect it's mostly Russian and USA money from the extreme right in the USA.
When has Starmer called for Farage to be investigated by police? It's highly improper for political office holders to pressure or encourage the (supposedly...) non-partisan law enforcement and prosecution bodies to investigate and prosecute people on political grounds. Starmer as former DPP knows this better than anyone, and if Starmer did that, then I agree with you that it is outrageous.
Labour has written to the FCA and Electoral Commission about Farage's conduct. It's inconceivable this wasn't approved by the leader.
So not about the schoolboy racism stuff at all then? And not Starmer?
So not about the schoolboy racism stuff at all then? And not Starmer?
Sigh. You said:
It's highly improper for political office holders to pressure or encourage the (supposedly...) non-partisan law enforcement and prosecution bodies to investigate and prosecute people
I gave you an example of the Labour party, which Starmer leads, writing to law enforcement and prosecution bodies regarding Farage's conduct.
BTW, I never said it was outrageous as you have claimed, so please stop attributing opinions to me that I have not expressed.
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).
In that case, I guess you you’ll be perfectly happy with your employer saying, when the subject of your annual salary review comes up, that they feel you’re more than adequately paid, and in the interest of maintaining the company profitability, you won’t be getting any further raises.
You guys have Starmer Derangement Syndrome
**** me sideways. I know centrists arent exactly the brightest and are the classic case of being easily fooled by cold reading etc into believing in the conjurers tricks but even so.
Parroting the hard right about "derangement syndrome" doesnt make you look like someone above media manipulation but instead makes you look like the ideal victim. Someone who thinks they are too bright but repeats those simple two or three words slogans whilst patting yourself on the back about how much of a genius you are.
Amazing that the big 6 on here lost their minds over Starmer accepting a free pair of specs
**** me its difficult to tell what is the most moronic statement from the self professed pragmatic grown ups. politecameraaction made a good effort but you are making a good effort in the whatabouterry stupidity stakes.
Its fascinating how easily led people like you are. Give you a slogan like "big six" and so on and you will repeat it until the heat death of the universe whilst insulting someone who uses "brexit means brexit". Is it the extra word that requires the insults? Three words slogan bad but two word good?
Its difficult to know where to start with the flaws in your claim but honestly it isnt worth it.
Sadly thats why the country is ****ed since the self proclaimed moderate pragmatic grown ups in the room confused the concept of a swing vote with an actual majority and so ****ed everyone else over. Personally I hoped that the brexit vote might prove a wakeup call but sadly most doubled down on their extreme position.
If you cant comprehend why exactly a labour government promising a change from a corrupt and incompetent tory government but then proving incompetent and corrupt isnt a problem then there is no hope for you. Especially if you havent managed yet to catch up on the problems of a majority hard right media which, lets face it, served your needs whilst defeating those nasty lefties who thought labour shouldnt be a centre right party.
You guys have Starmer Derangement Syndrome
**** me sideways. I know centrists arent exactly the brightest and are the classic case of being easily fooled by cold reading etc into believing in the conjurers tricks but even so.
Wow, so centrists/moderates are now basically extreme right Nazis? that's seriously inventive, so have a gold plated badge for that, you deserve a medal, you might have to fight Trump for it though, or settle for a chocolate christmas coin from Farrage that he bought from tescos.
Pure ignorance.