Forum menu
Attacking Farage for what he is alleged to have said aged 14 by someone else who was also a similar age at the time is likely to backfire
It's not just someone else aged 14 though, it's people of a variety of ages who were in the same classes and organisations, teachers... . I could still quote the racist, bullying nasty from my school year of 14 and so could most of the face book group of the year group, from which he's banned. The most comical was an attempt to bully us into buying a T rex single so it would beat Slade to number one - the actual quote isn't safe for STW.
However I suspect the revelations wil further increase Farigiz popularity with his core voters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2025v7qleo
"The debate centred on discussions around the use of single-sex toilets in the city and language used in maternity units".
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists.
I am staggered that a bunch of women rights protestors apparently made Green Party councillors :
"Feel under attack for their very existence or for the existence of their colleagues".
What do they mean by "their very existence", they thought that they might die?
They really need to get a grip ffs
Or when the Green party resembles STW with Hannah's editorial at one extreme and people who defend women's right not to have to race against or share a toilet with a biological male at the other end.
It's highly emotive, you can come out with racist shite and still be a hero to millions and given an easy ride with the media as Faridge proves. However J K Rowling is treated like she has the plague for defending women's rights.
The BBC report is crap because it gives no detail about what was actually said. It just implies what was said.
Not being racist is pretty simple, not being anti-trans is more difficult. I know I've been put in the anti-trans category on this forum because I agree with the position of the majority of sporting federations who don't allow trans to compete against women. When giving rights to one group removes rights from another limits have to be set.
No point walking out or resigning though, she should have fought till she was kicked out and recorded the lot so the press could properly report it.
I'd like to be in a Green party where both Hannah and J K Rowling would be accepted as members and be prepared to talk about the Green issues that are properly Green.
Oh FFS, here we go.
I have to say, I'm impressed with the rightwing scum that have managed to turn this into possibly the greatest wedge issue in the ****ing 'culture war'. People don't even realise they have been duped into spending all their energy arguing about this instead of focusing on the billionaires who have stolen everyone's money.
So yeah, let's spend the next 4 pages talking about 'women's rights'. It's exactly what they want us doing, afterall.
Massive apologies to all the trans/non-binary forum members. I'm not trying to minimise what you are going through, but I know that every time we start arguing about this it sucks all the oxygen away from every other area of debate and while that's happening the rich are able to consolidate their position further which means they are then better able to fund outlets and botfarms to continue keeping the fight on territory they are most comfortable. I am 100% an ally but every time we fight on this front it results in a stalemate and the billionaires continue getting more powerful.
Cue 4 pages of pointless arguments.
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists
I have heard ZP literally pushing back on this when he was on Piers Morgan show.
He literally said what you are saying.
It will filter down I'm pretty sure.
I have some sympathy across the board because the media have made this the talking point. Needs rewiring.
Not a day goes by that Nick Ferrari doesn't talk about a trans-person going into a children's toilet...
In fact he's literally talking about it now.
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists
I have heard ZP literally pushing back on this when he was on Piers Morgan show.
He literally said what you are saying.
It will filter down I'm pretty sure.
I have some sympathy across the board because the media have made this the talking point. Needs rewiring.
Not a day goes by that Nick Ferrari doesn't talk about a trans-person going into a children's toilet...
In fact he's literally talking about it now.
Also Zack Polanski had George Monbiot on his podcast. Nothing but discussion about the climate and inequality.
Can I suggest the regular media outlets drawing you attention to these things (just like Farage was platformed) rather than relatively little output about trans issues directly coming from the greens?
You can't blame the greens if Nick Ferrari and the BBC want to heighten these things.
The big media outlets set the narrative. They no longer just report the news.
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1991189800372634103?t=RcpFEuhHW15MGYsuZ85pXQ&s=19
I'd like to be in a Green party where both Hannah and J K Rowling would be accepted as members and be prepared to talk about the Green issues that are properly Green.
If the green party has any sense they'll ditch the trans-rights nonsense and focus solely on economic issues and climate change. I think that that's what ZP is doing if rone is right so lets hope that continues. No one is interested in whether women can have penises or not.
I'm impressed with the rightwing scum that have managed to turn this into possibly the greatest wedge issue
What a strange way of seeing things. All the right has ever wanted is for people born with a penis to use the men's loo (as they always have done).
What a strange way of seeing things. All the right has ever wanted is for people born with a penis to use the men's loo (as they always have done).
Nice try. Not falling for it.
Hopefully no one else will but let's see.
All the right has ever actually wanted to do is distract people with any wedge issue they can find to keep people from realising who the real enemy is. The real enemies are the people who are currently inconceivably wealthy and can now afford to pay to drive the narratives they want.
You're either a bot, a Russian in the pay of the Kremlin, or a useful idiot.
If I had to guess I'd say useful idiot but who the hell knows these days.
Back on topic. I see Andy Burnham is all over the news again, this time giving his opinion on Mahmood's deranged asylum reforms and more importantly bigging up his growth plan in Manchester while strongly hinting that it could be applied to the whole UK. And binners thinks he isn't interested in the top job?
No one is interested in whether women can have penises or not.
Well they wouldn't be if it wasn't stirred up so much by those that have issues (Rowling, Linehan, right wing media etc,.). I do wonder why it is such a big issue for them and if they are really concerned about female safety there are WAY bigger issues to support/highlight/spend time trying to make better.
As for Burnham, I would be happy for him to replace Starmer and become PM. That shows how bad Starmer is as I never rated Burnham when he was going for Labour leadership years ago. The tricky bit is that the Labour process (80 MPs, openly stating) is difficult assuming Starmer does suddenly get some self awareness and resign.
And binners thinks he isn't interested in the top job?
I still don’t think he’s remotely interested. Once again the Westminster-obsessed media is wetting itself with excitement as he has ‘not ruled out’ his leadership ambitions.
Well I’ve not ruled out changing my name to Loretta and living out the rest of my days wearing a lovely selection of floral Laura Ashley dresses.
the Westminster-obsessed media
I wouldn't characterize Clive Lewis as being part of the "Westminster-obsessed media" but okay we will see if your claim that that Andy Burnham isn't "remotely interested" in becoming Labour leader, like your claim that Reform UK will likely implode before the GE, stands the test of time.
Why do you think that the media should show less interest in what happens in Westminster btw?
Personally I think what happens in Westminster is massively important. Not because it's about ten miles from me but because what happens there affects the whole of the UK, and often in a very profound way.
What I’m talking about by Westminster-obsessed is journalist absolutely creaming themselves about the (possible?) internal machinations of political parties, which the vast majority of the population couldn’t give a flying **** about.
The sequence of events required for Andy Burnham to become Labour leader/PM is frankly so ridiculously convoluted, implausible and unlikely to happen, I think we can safely discount the possibility.
Something of which I’m sure he’s well aware. I’m sure he’s having a great time fueling the speculation though.
All good fun! And he’s getting a massive amount of coverage for his latest plans for economic growth in Greater Manchester.
Do you think he’d be getting that coverage without the leadership speculation?
Of course he wouldn’t! He’s just playing the game and playing it pretty well
He’s being interviewed by Matt Chorley on Five Live at the moment, and talking a lot of sense, while batting away daft journalistic gossip about being PM.
Well worth a listen Ernesto
All good fun! And he’s getting a massive amount of coverage for his latest plans for economic growth in Greater Manchester.
Do you think he’d be getting that coverage without the leadership speculation?
I haven't heard anything at about Andy Burnham's latest plans for economic growth in Greater Manchester, is it because the Westminster-obsessed media aren't interested in it?
Why should I be? And why would Andy Burnham want the whole country to know? According to you he is massively popular in Manchester, isn't that enough?
That shows how bad Starmer is as I never rated Burnham when he was going for Labour leadership years ago.
TBF he's improved massively since the 2017 shambles. Back then he thought he had to play the part of centrist aspirational tory-lite leadership candidate talking tough about immigrants etc when the membership wanted the exact opposite. Now he's allowed to be himself and he's clearly much more comfortable and effective.
The tricky bit is that the Labour process (80 MPs, openly stating) is difficult assuming Starmer does suddenly get some self awareness and resign.
It was reported yesterday that the left of the PLP alreadty have 80 MPs willing to back an alternative. That's the easy part. The more difficult part is standing for and winning a seat. Starmer and his cronies will do everything possible to stop that happening, so he may have to wait til he's gone and a more friendly leader like Rayner is in place. If the latter he won't be a leadership candidate until at least the election after next.
Back on topic. I see Andy Burnham is all over the news again, this time giving his opinion on Mahmood's deranged asylum reforms and more importantly bigging up his growth plan in Manchester while strongly hinting that it could be applied to the whole UK. And binners thinks he isn't interested in the top job?
Sounds exactly like what Sadiq Khan does. 🤷♂️
We need someone with conviction who can just make some solid progressive decisions, and move fast.
Maybe it's too late to implement anything useful or undo the good ship Starmer's fantastic road to nowhere.
But I would welcome just about anything at this point that is 180 degrees of these economically illiterate cretins.
Anyone coming round to mine for a budget row on the 26th?
I can supply coffee and water. We need clear heads. The booze comes later.
"I demand to have some booze!" 😉
(Personally I think he's wobbling as a leader. Reeves or Starmer or both will go sooner than we think. Streeting knows what he's doing the loony toon.)
The very latest poll yet again puts Labour in 4th place. From a 172 majority to 4th place in the polls 18 short months later really is quite something....... Starmer will go down in history as the hero-to-zero prime minister
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/
And exactly twice as many voters saying that they would vote for a party led by Nigel Farage than would vote for Labour really is the stuff of nightmares, imo.
Still, looking at it from a more positive angle it does look increasingly likely that if there were a general election right now it would result in the Green Party being the official opposition.
The one hundred year logjam that has characterised UK politics has, it would appear, finally broken free
I can supply coffee and water. We need clear heads. The booze comes later.
Surely during the speech? After all its the one time alcohol is allowed in the Parliament chamber - just for the chancellor.
A habit which has sadly fallen out of use. I think it should be expanded to PMQs as well since they have given up all seriousness there might as well get a few drinks in and make it properly fun.
Can I suggest the regular media outlets drawing you attention to these things (just like Farage was platformed) rather than relatively little output about trans issues directly coming from the greens?
You can't blame the greens if Nick Ferrari and the BBC want to heighten these things.
The big media outlets set the narrative. They no longer just report the news.
LBC has gone “all-in” on rage baiting discussions/phone in’s and every single presenter has been at it to drive interactions on their show, the entire channel is a ****ing cess pit of presenters and needs nuked from space
And exactly twice as many voters saying that they would vote for a party led by Nigel Farage than would vote for Labour really is the stuff of nightmares, imo.
Still, looking at it from a more positive angle it does look increasingly likely that if there were a general election right now it would result in the Green Party being the official opposition.
It will be interesting to see how that actually turns out in reality and if for an actual election people kind of revert to type and drift back to older parties , also I think tactical voting will play a major role in the next election.
Having said that my fear is that the reform vote is now pretty solid and won't drop that much from the polls at the moment as those people have made their mind up already.
Having said that my fear is that the reform vote is now pretty solid and won't drop that much from the polls at the moment as those people have made their mind up already.
I think the only thing that will substantially weaken the Reform vote is it's voters actually seeing what Reform are like in government.
It'll soon become obvious that they are confined by the same realities as the established parties are and the old "simple solutions to complex problems" BS just might have finally ran out of road.
However, the country is going to be in a right bloody state before this realisation dawns on Reform voters.
It'll be an expensive lesson to teach them and just like Brexit, we'll all be paying the price, like it or not.
It will be interesting to see how that actually turns out in reality and if for an actual election people kind of revert to type and drift back to older parties
For no real reason other than a hunch, and depending who the Tory leader is, I suspect that some of the Reform vote might well drift back to the Tories at the next general election. Probably not much but I will be surprised if Reform do manage a double digit at the general election lead as most polls are currently suggesting.
For no real reason other than a hunch, and depending who the Tory leader is, I suspect that some of the Reform vote might well drift back to the Tories at the next general election. Probably not much but I will be surprised if Reform do manage a double digit at the general election lead as most polls are currently
Alot can change in 3 years but the potential parliamentary arithmetic in terms of potential coalitions is both frightening and potentially positive.
I can see a situation where Reform win the biggest vote share but aren't part of a government which would challenge some people's views on electoral reform I'm sure .
I think the only thing that will substantially weaken the Reform vote is it's voters actually seeing what Reform are like in government.
I thought that about Trumps first term but blimey was i wrong about that .
I thought that about Trumps first term but blimey was i wrong about that .
Isn't that why he lost in 2020 though?
Most US presidents can expect to win a second consecutive election after their first one.
You need to also throw in the failings of the Biden-Harris administration into the equation as well as Trump's
Edit : I have zero doubt that any Reform-led coalition government will be total chaos and very unstable. Even Reform majority councils are highly unstable. UK politics are very different to US politics and iirc the Republican Party is the second oldest political party in the world. How experienced in government is Reform?
Isn't that why he lost in 2020 though?
Very possibly but it didn't stop normal Americans voting for him again . I agree that american poliitics are very different to UK but there are parallels that we would be unwise to ignore
I think the theory that the only way to get people to understand that Reform are a bad idea is to let them be a failure in government is flawed as it doesn't guarantee that someone on the left or center follows . A failed reform government could lead to people looking for something even further right.
You need to also throw in the failings of the Biden-Harris administration into the equation as well as Trump's
We're in a world where the options are rightwing and pure evil batshit crazy rightwing. Neither works and people can see that so we now just alternate between the two with the inevitable decline into the abyss accelerating during the batshit years and slowing slightly during the 'normal' years, but always on an ever downward trajectory.
It was a straightforward issue that we've witnessed - you either make the bond market happy, try to balance the books etc or your create a large deficit to fix the holes in society (and thus employment and investment.)
They are all political choices created by government.
However, this has now been ignored for so long the momentum has gathered that there is more wrong than just broken down infrastructure and facilities.
We're beyond all that - so it requires much of a realignment of ideas and hope, that we're miles behind and into mental illness, crime, lack of community, racism etc.
The real sad thing is Labour have helped accelerate the decline and what with even Tommy Robinson 'endorsing' Labour we're in the worst place possible now.
It's going to take years to get on a decent footing even if we started tomorrow.
Step aside Labour. 😉
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1991484654638288960?t=DmePyAiiS1yNQgiSZJPl5Q&s=19
Campaign on good solid progressive policies you go up.
Corbyn
Starmer (lied to get there.)
Polanski
People crying out for change.
Centrism is the most bankrupt, dangerous, deceitful and misguided ideology to walk this earth because it gives power to the right to wreck everything.
It confuses people into believing the middle is a great place to be whilst actually delivering right-wing outcomes.
Junior Conservativism.
Campaign on good solid progressive policies you go up.
You could also read that poll as having a charismatic leader and up you go.
I doubt many people who say they will vote Green really understand their policies, same with Reform voters. We're firmly in the time of protest politics which is why Reform and the Greens are doing well. I doubt either will affect much positive change if they get into government, reality will come crashing in. The major parties having been over egging what people can expect for years and of course have failed to deliver. People are now bitter and less rational than normal.
That is absolutely grade A bullshit, it isn't that the traditional parties have over promised it is that they have objectively failed to not only gradually improve peoples lives, but have made them consistently worse, the markets and asset owners have seen huge increases, while wages have fallen far behind compared to economic growth and the cost of life.
People are bitter and angry not because they are irrational but because they are suffering the failure and ignorance of the establishment path.
I doubt either will affect much positive change if they get into government, reality will come crashing in.
The reality is that if you try to implement progressive policies that reduce wealth inequality the mainstream press and the bot-farms will get put into action to turn public opinion against these policies and the party trying to impalement them.
Reform's policies are pie in the sky bullshit because the objective is not to make life better for everyday people, but rather it's to distract everyday people so the wealthy can steal even more from them.
The reality of implementing policies to reduce wealth inequality is not that it's pie in the sky distraction. It is real action that will improve life for everyone. And that's why it will be fought against so ferociously.
Reform and the Greens are not the same. Painting them as such is lazy, wrong, and ultimately harmful.
Not the same in the slightest, but the Greens now have a leader who can do media nearly as well as Farage, and, although it's still early days for him, it's paying off.
It is true that in addition to having a coherent narrative and principles, you do need to have a charismatic and articulate leader who can communicate this message without allowing that message to get derailed. ZP seems to be doing a pretty good job on that front so far.
I don't think any of the above could be used to describe Farage, which just goes to show how much easier a path it is to just find groups to other and make the enemy. Having a press that is onside no doubt helps as well.
Is Farage actually good at doing media or is he just working with a product that is easier to sell?
He's good. It's not just that othering is easy, he's very good at making it sound reasonable (and necessary) to a lot of people. Compare with, for example, Tice.
EDIT: or for that matter, the current cabinet... out there selling their own version of blame the vulnerable without getting much cut through with the public.
You could also read that poll as having a charismatic leader and up you go.
We are back to the false centrist explanation that support for UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform UK is down to the alleged personal charisma of Nigel Farage.
Nigel Farage has never been personally popular with UK voters. There is obviously a reason why it took him 8 desperate attempts over several decades before he was successful in securing the Westminster seat, something which must surely be unique in British politics?
Currently Nigel Farage has a favourability rating of -32 which is the same as Kemi Badenoch's. Sure it's more than Sir Keir Starmer's but that isn't a reflection that Farage is personally liked by voters just a reflection of just how unpopular Starmer is. Even Jeremy Corbyn's favourability rating is now higher than Starmer's!
Starmer is without doubt the least charismatic Labour leader in history and yet he managed to secure the second largest Labour parliamentary majority every. How did a Labour leader with no charisma manage to achieve something so spectacular?
Quite simply by not being a Tory after 14 years of Tory governments, or at least that's what voters thought. When the truth became more obvious that nothing had really changed support for Labour collapsed overnight.
Now it is Nigel Farage's turn to pretend that he is offering something different. I am sure that many voters are very cynical about Farage being much different, they are generally very cynical about all politicians, and they are quite right to be, but they are apparently willing to give him a go, they have after all given both the Tories and now Labour a go.
If the smarter ones are now apparently gravitating towards the Greens it is because Zack Polanski is very successfully articulating an alternative to both Labour and Reform. It's got bugger-all to do with anyone's charisma.
Currently Nigel Farage has a favourability rating of -32 which is the same as Kemi Badenoch's.
In a politically polarised world, net favourability means nothing. More people are favourable toward Farage than any other leader (more than twice as many people polled than Badenoch). That many people also dislike him doesn't reduce his appeal to the same level as other leaders... it may "cap" it, but not enough to stop him being the most popular leader (of the most popular party).
Yeah but it's got bugger-all to do with charisma. Sir Keir Starmer managed a 172 majority with zero charisma.
Centrist want to give "charisma" as the excuse because they refuse to accept that voters want radical change.
Radical change is the antithesis of centrism.
At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious though Ernesto, the kind of ‘radical change’ that different people are demanding varies wildly between pure socialism to full blown fascism.
That’s why the two parties in the ascendancy - the Greens and Reform - have approaches that are diametrically opposed to one another.
The mainstream ‘centrist’ (if that word even means anything any more) parties are simply caught in the no-man’s land between the two and none seem to have a clue how to deal with this new political reality
How do you square this particular circle?
How do you square this particular circle?
If you mean how do the mainstream parties regain lost support from Reform/Green Party, I think the answer is fairly simple. They need to clearly demonstrate that they are on the side of working people and that they have the solutions to the problems they are facing. Both parties, and Labour in particular under Starmer, have spent the last 30-odd years telling voters that there is no alternative to the way things currently work, and more recently tell us that we're basically at the mercy of the bond markets so the govt can't invest or spend money on the things that would make a difference to people's lives. Voters want to hear 'This is what we believe, here's what we think the problems are, and this is how we're going to solve them', not 'sorry we're in very tough times and there's not much we can do'. It's really not rocket science.
It's really not rocket science.
Isn’t it?
I don’t see how on earth, in this present ultra-polarised and febrile political climate, that you appeal to voters who have fled to Reform (and the far right agenda they offer) without then hemorrhaging votes on you’re left, to parties offering the opposite answers to Reform, ie: the Green Party? 🤷♂️
And vice versa, obviously
How exactly do you do that then, what policy platform do you stand on, seeing as you seem to think that it’s easy?
Over to you, Mr rocket scientist….
Over to you, Mr rocket scientist….
Well you have to nail you colours to a mast. For the Labour party that should be fairly simple because it should be obvious whose side they're on. But at the moment it really isn't. No one is going to vote for a party which doesn't believe in itself, and thinks it's main purpose in govt is to deliver bad news with no apparent interest or ideas about how to fix things. The main overriding message from Starmer and his govt at the moment is 'this is the way things are, get used to it!'.