Forum menu
Twitter is rumoured to be ready to spaff $100 million at Reform to have a regime change.
But they only earn £32 million in the UK and pay sod all tax.
Why would this be legal?
It isn't legal. Foreign nationals cant make donations to UK political parties. It should be that straightforwrd.
However, there are potentially ways they could work around it, due to Reform not actually being a political party. Its a private company owned by one Mr N Farage. Conflicts of interest all over the shop there though. A foreign national making a huge donation to a private company owned entirely by a sitting MP, albeit one who never actually shows up in either parliament or his constituency
More migrants removed from UK since Labour elected than in any six months since 2019 - Home Office
Labour shows the Tories how to get tough on illegal immigrants:
Ms Cooper, who visited Rome yesterday for talks with her Italian counterpart on people-smuggling, pledged a crackdown on "exploitative" illegal working to address "the promise of illegal jobs that are used by criminal smuggling gangs to sell spaces in small boats".
It's always good to ask the far-right Italian government for advice on tackling illegal immigrants because like Nigel Farage they hate them.
Political speech in Italy 'xenophobic': Europe's anti-racism body
The Council of Europe's anti-racism body charged Tuesday that political speech in Italy had become xenophobic and divisive, often targeted at "refugees, asylum seekers and migrants".
I am sure that Farage would love the same accolade from the Council of Europe to apply to the UK.
Anyway since Labour appear to doing well in tackling illegals, well apparently better than the Tories, I wonder if incoming US president Donald Trump might ask them for advice on the matter?
Minister named in Bangladesh corruption probe
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3zqen209go
A source close to Siddiq said these were "trumped up charges".
The source also said the allegations were "completely politically motivated" and designed to damage her aunt.
It seems strange that Bangladesh's Anti-Corruption Commission should be motivated to make trumped up charges to damage a British government politician.
Why are they apparently so corrupt and what is there in it for them to damage a British government politician? I haven't seen that explained.
Luckily for the loyal right-winger she enjoys Starmer's full confidence :
"Downing Street said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had confidence in Siddiq, and she will continue her responsibility as the minister overseeing anti-corruption efforts"
Yet another apparent example of the current government lacking faith in their own convictions :
Ministers resist calls to block Musk donations to Farage’s Reform UK
Despite the fact that they don't need to convince voters, just themselves :
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows that most voters believe there should be a cap on political donations. It found that 56% believe there should be such a limit, while only 16% think there should be no cap. A third wrongly believed a cap was already in place.
And that they had told voters during the election campaign 6 months ago that rules around donations needed to be tightened up. :
"Labour promised in their manifesto to protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties"
They're afraid of his potential influence. If they don't let him donate, he'll just turn ****ter into (even more of) Labour-hating, far right cesspit.
The way to deal with Musk is a quiet word in his shell-like. Remind him that whilst he has the platform to subvert UK democracy he doesn't possess (currently) a military with a special forces capability. And remind him that, at some point, Trump and him will fall out because they're a pair of big-heads.
They also don’t want the man-frog, with his mates in the press, to have a field day with a ‘they’re changing the laws to deny you democracy’ narrative, which they’ll instantly weaponise to portray the government as Stalinist overlords
They also don’t want the man-frog, with his mates in the press, to have a field day with a ‘they’re changing the laws to deny you democracy’
Why not ...... what are they scared of?
The argument in support for a cap on political donations is a powerful one and one which is backed by the majority of voters. It was also a Labour manifesto commitment 6 months ago.
So Nigel Farage gets to decide Labour government policy now? That should help to ensure that he does badly in the 2029 general election!
Great article Beeb - I mean the figures start before labour was elected and then go on to cover the first few weeks in office then stop just before the first Labour budget you then go on to disparage but anyway....
How about just reporting the figures, you know like you used to do.
How about just reporting the figures, you know like you used to do.
The BBC has always gone beyond just reporting figures. They have always reported comments made by chancellors, shadow chancellors, and others, as they have in that article.
It is standard practice by all news providers.
Why not …… what are they scared of?
I’ve just told you. Giving Farage, Musk and the press distorting this completely into an ‘Enemies of The People’ narrative. They’re quite good at that
The argument in support for a cap on political donations is a powerful one and one which is backed by the majority of voters
Once again… It’s an issue that most voters have never given a seconds thought to, so you might as well ask them if they think baked beans should remain orange
The government have decided, probably correctly, that to change the law now would simply provide the usual suspects with another stick to beat them with. They’ve got enough on their plate without opening up another front.
As it is the present laws means that Musk is going to have to do some serious gymnastics to be able to make the rumoured huge payment to Farage
I’ve just told you
Yeah but I couldn't believe that it was really because you were worried about what "the man-frog, with his mates in the press" would have to say.
So any legislation that the current Labour government passes must not upset the man-frog and his mates in the press?
Well I guess that it is a natural progression from saying that Labour shouldn't say anything to upset the column writers of the Daily Mail when they were in opposition.
Apparently the only way to win the general election was by not upsetting Daily Mail columnists. Now in government it is important for Labour not to upset Nigel Farage and his mates. Presumably letting Nigel Farage set the agenda will help to defeat him in 4 years time. How's it going so far.btw?
Giving Farage, Musk and the press distorting this completely into an ‘Enemies of The People’ narrative. They’re quite good at that
God help me but I'm about to agree with ernie.
It was talked about pre-election. Only a (noisy, admittedly) minority oppose it. And it would be a Good Thing.
I was happy to go along with "playing nicely" to not scare the centre ground in the run up to the election, but it clearly isn't delivering what the country needs. So it's time to see bollocks, and racism, and dodgy donations called out for what they are, and that includes calling out the press for their role in it as well.
I've no doubt there will be plenty of ammunition to have a go back at Labour regarding their donations. They need to show some backbone, hold their hands up and show they are trying to fix the problem.
We need a government that is prepared to do "Good Things" and not just politically expedient things, and explain clearly and honestly why. There's more support for that, and the party that does that, than many people realise.
Failing to call out lies and disinformation is what got us Brexit, and Boris and all that shit. It needs to end now.
So any legislation that the current Labour government passes must not upset the man-frog and his mates in the press?
Strawman. (but you knew that)
On this particular issue, it smacks of bolting the stable door. X has just been very successfully used as a bully pulpit, It's an arena in which Labour cannot win. The only winning strategy is not to play.
Labour said one of Brown’s recommendations would be the abolition of the Lords, as well as new rules to “end the undue influence of wealth and foreign money, and prevent MPs part-timing the job”.
Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, said on Sunday that Labour will make sure there is an elected second chamber, and the plan is for it to be done in the first term.
So Labour were actually more radical when they were in opposition than they are now in government.
And yet binners I distinctly remember the centrists on here claiming that Labour could not implement radical policies without first winning the general election, which is why they allegedly had to tone down any radical stuff.
It turns out that they were more radical in opposition than they are now in government, how surprising is that? Or perhaps it isn't?
X has just been very successfully used as a bully pulpit
Not standing up to liars and bullies, politically or literally, really is not a sensible or safe option, and history can provide plenty of examples, many quite recent.
God help us, Hugh Grant is remembered as being the best PM of the 21st century precisely because he stood up to bullying and unacceptable behaviour. And I'm only half joking.
Strawman. (but you knew that)
Not really. I double checked and that is exactly what binners has said - that he is concerned that the man-frog and his right-wing mates will not approve of legislation placing a donation cap (despite voter approval)
Admittedly I have assumed that this will extend to other legislation which the man-frog and his right-wing mates in the press don't approve of, but that is a perfectly reasonable assumption since binners hasn't explained where he draws the line and why the same logic should not apply to other legislation.
Perhaps he might care to do so now?
Not standing up to liars and bullies, politically or literally, really is not a sensible or safe option
Many many folks in this country and across the Atlantic don't think that either Trump or Musk , or Farage are liars and bullies, they have an audience who think that they speak truth to power.
At some point in the past, between Labour immediately taking office and last week, they could've done something about political donations - although I'm willing to bet money that folks on this site and other places would just have accused them of not concentrating on 'proper issues that effect working people', but that's probably for another time and thread.
Looking to close this loophole now for this already unpopular govt is not an available option. It just makes them look scared. Which is exactly the whole point of the donation in the first place.
They haven’t said there won’t be Lords Reform Ernesto
No of course not, everyone talks about House of Lords reform. We are talking about abolition of the House of Lords, but you knew that
Not really.
Oh, OK, I'll tell you what, every tine you do it, I'll helpfully point it out to you, so you'll learn, and not do it in the future. How's that for Yule-tide giving? Cool, no
Not really. I double checked and that is exactly what binners has said – that he is concerned that the man-frog and his right-wing mates will not approve of legislation placing a donation cap (despite voter approval)
Not approve? That’s not what I’m saying at all. Farage will never ‘approve’ of anything that this government does, but they’re quite happy to upset him with pretty much everything they’ve done so far ie: tax on farms
What they’ve said about the cap on donations is that there are laws in place already and to change this now would play straight into Farage/Musks hands as they would weaponise it to portray the government as some sort of dictatorship. A narrative they’ve already been busy building
Like I said… choose your battles.
Not sure £80 million will make that much of an impact on the Reform bandwagon. By the time Farage and chums skim 25% £60 million over 4.5 years so about £33,000 a day not actually that much.
The other problem is middle England who don't like Farage or the people he attracts. Shifting the 5% right wing nutters to 25% of the electorate is going to be difficult.
However Reform could wipe the slate clean and rebuild as "ToryRight" using the Andrea Jenkins type people then they may get somewhere.
Also anything that bleeds Musk, Trump is good.
Badenoch was on R4 earlier. My God her tone is grating.
"What people don't realise is..."
**** off you arrogant arse.
She comes across appallingly. Unbelievably condescending and patronising. She’s an absolute gift to Labour.
I can imagine the Tory press team will have been listening to that interview this morning with their heads in their hands.
I’m sure they all want her to undertake some sort of media training, but nobody is prepared to actually have that conversation with her
The next scheduled US election is before the next scheduled UK election so Musk could be politically exposed, discredited and out of power by then.
So much still could happen, I think for now labour need to just focus on carrying on making improvements and let the right wing commentariat and their new-found impeccable standards - nowhere to be seen during their 14 years of complete failure - bore themselves to death with their intellectually dishonest gibberish.
The way to deal with Musk is a quiet word in his shell-like.
When has that worked before? You're dealing with the world's richest man. (Also the world's most divorced, midlife crisised man). He didn't get where he is by being reasonable and listening to people that disagree with him.
She’s an absolute gift to Labour.
They are going to need a much better gift than that. People don't care about Badenoch, they care about how Labour are not changing anything for the better with their lack of ambition and doom and gloom nonsense.
Like I said… choose your battles.
Choose your battles....... what are you talking about? You place a cap on political donations and job done. Labour have a huge massive majority and the public would support the move, there is no need for any "battle".
Why do you give a monkeys what Nigel Farage and his right-wing mates in the press think? As far as I'm concerned they can moan about it as much as they want. If they didn't moan about that they would be moaning about something else such as asylum seekers or Muslims or some other bollox
You place a cap on political donations and job done.
And then face a narrative of "they changed to rules to stop our grass roots democratic movement" ... (it's not a democratic movement, it's a company owned and run by conmen sowing destruction and chaos, but hey).
Why do you give a monkeys what Nigel Farage and his right-wing mates in the press think?
Because... "the voters"... we can all see where things are headed if Reform (or whatever they're called at the time) get into government.
And then face a narrative of “they changed to rules to stop our grass roots democratic movement” …
You mean changed the rules to comply with the wishes of voters :
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows that most voters believe there should be a cap on political donations. It found that 56% believe there should be such a limit, while only 16% think there should be no cap. A third wrongly believed a cap was already in place.
Even if you allow for huge margin of error it is very clear that the public support a cap on political donations. It's an open and shut case. What Nigel Farage thinks is totally irrelevant.
And then face a narrative of “they changed to rules to stop our grass roots democratic movement” … (it’s not a democratic movement, it’s a company owned and run by conmen sowing destruction and chaos
Then you simply point out that there is nothing to stop their grass roots movement fundraising in the same way all the other parties will have to, within the new rules. And if the frog faced turd whines about having to do the same as other political parties, repeat the facts, loudly.
When has that worked before? You’re dealing with the world’s richest man. (Also the world’s most divorced, midlife crisised man). He didn’t get where he is by being reasonable and listening to people that disagree with him.
So he get popped.
They also don’t want the man-frog, with his mates in the press, to have a field day with a ‘they’re changing the laws to deny you democracy’ narrative, which they’ll instantly weaponise to portray the government as Stalinist overlords
Just implement Leveson and come up with a response to the Russia report, you don't have to target Farage in any way to destroy much of his funding and influence.
Musk is also donating a 100 million or so to the Afd in Germany, I expect he is doing mush the same with major economies throughout the world, IMO Musk and the other billionaire oligarchs are now a bigger threat to western democracy, and our life, happiness and health than nation states, it is a major battle that if not fought will see massive reductions in living standards for a generation or two.
Protecting, and hopefully enhancing, even the current flawed democracy we have is far more important than the "deckchair shuffling" reform that labour are indicating.
It actually leaves me somewhat shocked that more poloticions are not speaking out about the problem, the only logic I can see for it is they want some of the money on offer to do what the oligarchs tell them.
Farage is just a puppet, but the money men are seeing sucsess and going after it harder than ever.
you don’t have to target Farage
It's got bugger all to do with Farage anyway. Dealing with the issue of political donations was in Labour's election manifesto before Farage even announced that he would be standing in the general election, and long before Elon Musk ever stuck his oar in.
Labour would simply be implementing a manifesto commitment. To claim that it is to target Farage would be a lie. Obviously Farage might choose to lie, after all he lies about most things, but there is no need to agree with him.
Labour were talking about a £5k donation cap 10 years ago when Ed Miliband was leader.
Starmer clearly isn't going to last unless he actually starts to make some half decent decisions.
He and Reeves don't have a clue what it takes to fix the country. The NI hike hasn't even hit yet and the economy is a mess. They talk of taking tough decisions but none of these decisions land on the correct groups of people. Tough decisions usually for the vulnerable groups of society is not good for voters is it?
What with him courting BlackRock and Saudi money - which is a totally ridiculous direction to go in - we will see no improvement in voter's material conditions.
UK economy heading for 'worst of all worlds', CBI warns - as businesses expect fall in activity.
Sky.
None of this was a surprise to a many of us - an inexperienced politician that is the biggest liar in politics making shoddy move upon move.
(I see this thread has turned into a debate about the how bad the Tories are again. Seems to always happen when Labour are making an absolute state of things.)
I will tell you who is a gift to Tories and Reform; Starmer and Reeves.
Keep this thread going though as the Starmer thread will probably be extinct next year.
And yet binners I distinctly remember the centrists on here claiming that Labour could not implement radical policies without first winning the general election, which is why they allegedly had to tone down any radical stuff.
Centrists never learn. They will just keep shifting the goal posts - and it will almost certainly be the left's fault whatever the occasion.
Centrists aren't interested in radical - they haven't a clue that fixing material conditions and offering solutions for people can't better than free clothes and lying.
Lying is good when it's your team.
Radical was never on the cards -hoodwinked into voting for right-wing caretakers was.
The Labour brand as a progressive party has been trashed by a twit in a suit out of his depth that brainlessly thought he was going to be popular by making terrible choices.
It’s almost as if our current situation might have something to do with them.
Then let's have some consistency because it wasn't welcomed in the Tory thread for the same reasons.
Easy though to solve.
We can fix the Reform, Farage and Musk situation but insisting Labour to do a better job.
It's only an issue for a shit party.
Starmer clearly isn’t going to last unless his actually starts to make some half decent decisions.
I think Starmer will last until the first proper crises that comes along and he is expected to deal with. That is when his Ineptitude as PM will become obvious.
In keeping with his extraordinary good luck Starmer hasn't had a proper crisis to deal with since becoming PM, apart from the far-right riots which required very little input from him.
I think Starmer will last until the first proper crises that comes along and he is expected to deal with. That is when his Ineptitude as PM will become obvious
Just a punt but the economic conditions will snowball into recession or downturn that destroys any popularity he's got left. I think that will take him and Reeves with a bit of luck.
No one said running this country was going to be easy. His popularity is a disaster zone and the public will not give him the room that the Tories had for failure.
Squandered everything on a muddled, dated and disastrous economic plan.
Then claimed their target is growth.
Get him out before mid-term please and get some real policies in. Actually life changing stuff that would make a difference.
Or we're ****ed.
His lies managed to ......
You do realise that it is extraordinarily easy to prove that Labour had a commitment to bring in a cap on political donations long before Nigel Farage had even announced that he would be re-entering politics six months ago, don't you?
Btw I'm lovin the apparent suggestion that 52% of voters voted the way he told them to vote. No wonder some people appear to be terrified of him!
Insult him, call him all sorts of names, such as man-frog, but ffs don't let a Labour government upset him.
Musk is also donating a 100 million or so to the Afd in Germany, I expect he is doing mush the same with major economies throughout the world, IMO Musk and the other billionaire oligarchs are now a bigger threat to western democracy, and our life, happiness and health than nation states, it is a major battle that if not fought will see massive reductions in living standards for a generation or two.
Absolutely this - Russia and China must be loving how passively "the West" is letting this play out. It is absolutely the reason that donations need to be capped, and those arguing against it need to be exposed.
Have you missed the last decade?
I've missed the bit where facts got as much publicity and attention as all the lies and misinformation
You do realise that it is extraordinarily easy to prove that Labour had a commitment to bring in a cap on political donations long before Nigel Farage had even announced that he would be re-entering politics six months ago, don’t you?
You do realise that doesn't matter, don't you? Most folks don't read past a headline, and the headline will read "Farage to receive £100 mil from Musk, Govt. try to block it" Labour could explain all it likes that it has a commitment going back decades, it wouldn't shift the dial one bit for the sorts of people who think this will the Govt. putting it's finger on the scale. It's the same as the WASPI campaign, there's no commitment to pay the compensation if Labour won in their manifesto, but that still doesn't stop an issue that was the fault of the Tory LibDem coalition becoming the current Govts. problem.
Just a punt but the economic conditions will snowball into recession or downturn that destroys any popularity he’s got left.
This. The crisis that will finish him off can be described in one word - Stagflation. He might be able to deflect it by getting rid of Reeves, which he will almost certainly do, but losing the chancellor he as aligned himself with so closely will cause a political crisis that he will struggle to survive. You can bet Streeting and Reeves will be doing the rounds of the tea rooms in the new year being very nice to their colleagues.
Renters Bill, workers rights, offshore wind planning, 40% funding uplift to courts, pay disputes settled, NHS funding uplift, train nationalisation, Rwanda scrapped, new crime and policing bill , knife crime review, prison review and on and on , but yeah, macro economics from Brexit to COVID all the way to Gas prices will do for them.
It could be the economy that does for Starmer but it could be that because he has already invoked his carefully worded lawyerly ways of making himself someone who is simply very hard to trust. So he can be as earnest and well-meaning in all sorts of directions but if the initial response becomes a roll of the eyes and "yeah right" he'll struggle to retain votes. And therein lies his problem - a stonking Parliamentary majority rests on a large number of relatively slim majorities at the constituency level.
Most folks don’t read past a headline, and the headline will read “Farage to receive £100 mil from Musk, Govt. try to block it” Labour could explain all it likes that it has a commitment going back decades, it wouldn’t shift the dial one bit for the sorts of people who think this will the Govt. putting it’s finger on the scale.
Wow, do actually believe that nonsense....... that Labour can't easily challenge obvious shite that comes out of Farage's mouth? No wonder the centrists appear to be terrified of him!
Yes of course most folk read past the headlines, what a daft comment to make. Still, I guess it falls into the usual centrist mindset that everyone apart from them are stupid.
So what's your explanation for stupid voters giving Keir Starmer one of the biggest parliamentary majorities in UK history? I would be genuinely interested.
In keeping with his extraordinary good luck Starmer hasn’t had a proper crisis to deal with since becoming PM,
He's been PM for less than six months. You think we usually have a proper crisis more than once every six months on average? Or are you just being silly?
Calling people who don't agree with you 'centrists' really doesn't help. I actually find it quite offensive.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it just makes you sound an intollerent extremist.
Think about what those words actually mean.
In PR I'd vote lib dem all day long.
I 'loaned' my vote to Labour this time around.
I'm somewhat disappointed with Starmers Labour, but I'd rather that than another conservative government or hell forbid, reform or a Tory/reform coalition.
The mere fact that anyone votes tactically suggest that the election system needs serious change.
You think we usually have a proper crisis more than once every six months on average? Or are you just being silly?
I think under the last however many years under the Conservatives, we kind of got used to having a crisis for breakfast and a new and more exquisite crisis by lunch time, and buckle up for this evenings crisis!
That's not ordinary though, it's extraordinary.
I think one of today's problems is people don't even read headlines anymore, their entire news feed is algorithm fed Facebook, Xitter and TikTok.
Calling people who don’t agree with you ‘centrists’ really doesn’t help. I actually find it quite offensive.
Agreed. We're regularly told on here it's disrespectful to slag off right voting Reform supporters but it would appear moderate centerists are fair game.
As for today's figures, so the economy flatlined for the 3 months after the election, before the Labour budget, I think thats firmly the fault of the Torys.
Starmer hasn't had a crisis? Apart from the murder of several children being exploited by far right forces and riots across England?
Calling people who don’t agree with you ‘centrists’ really doesn’t help. I actually find it quite offensive.
lol!
There's a lack of confidence in the Labour cabinet, no point dancing around the issues (brexit, immigration, economy)
They need to renegotiate access to the EEA, they need to call out the right wing with blunt language around immigration, they will struggle with the economy as the UK is notorious for the lack of private investment in the UK (hence Blair/Brown selling their souls to the Public private partnership)
If you want honesty, the private sector in the UK will not invest in manufacturing, technology, infrastructure its simply not what they do. They want to build assets to sell for a profit or rent out at a profit.
The UK has become a combination of SMEs and Public sector. The type of business that provides high wages and a stable job simply isn't coming.
At some point people will realise that rich people don't want to invest to make poor people better off. Add in the exit strategy mindset of UK entrepreneurs it's just a low investment vicious circle.
A very well off acquaintance of mine is disgusted that he must pay self employed trades £250 a day and mourns the disappearance of all the Polish trades. He is hoping for a big recession so the trades get cheaper. This is what we are dealing with.
The markets are well and truly in control of the UK economy regardless of who is in power.
No one in the UK wanted to invest in the Post Office so someone else from Eastern Europe buys it.
The only positive that Labour has done is adjust Farmers IHT shame they didn't go all the way and tax them like the rest of us.
Take my SME it has two family members working in it, the most cost effective way of maximising the value is to sell to a large integrated and pay 10% entrepreneurs allowance tax. Nothing promotes long term investment
Calling people who don’t agree with you ‘centrists’ really doesn’t help. I actually find it quite offensive.
Well you right-wingers need to make your minds up! I use the term centrist because I thought that's what you liked to call yourselves, I am trying to be polite!
You obviously don't like to be called right-wingers, understandably, so what do you want to call yourselves now?
My preferred term would be Tory-Lite but you would presumably find that highly offensive, you seem pretty sensitive souls. So what is it........do you want to go back to describing yourselves as "moderates", I thought that had fallen out of fashion?
Obviously left-wingers don't mind being called left-wing or lefties as we haven't got anything to be ashamed of, but how do you want to distinguish yourselves from left-wingers who you like to denigrate?
Tell me and I'll use whatever term you prefer.
You obviously don’t like to be called right-wingers, understandably, so what do you want to call yourselves now?
I can't speak for 'they', whoever 'they' are, But I'm a liberal socialist pretty much by definition. Being liberal shouldn't be confused with being 'soft' though, something a lot of people seem to forget.
Yeah well "liberal socialist" isn't widely recognised terminology for people who share a similar political position to Keir Starmer. When was the last time you heard Starmer or any of his Cabinet described as being "liberal socialist"?
And we are talking about collective terms such as left-wingers or lefties, not terms for individuals. So how do you think we should collectively call those who can't be called left-wing and claim not to be as right-wing as the Tories, eg Starmer supporters, if you find centrist offensive?
It is a perfectly reasonable question and I have no idea why you appear to be so touchy. Give me a term which you would like the media to use when describing the political stance of the present Cabinet.
Yeah well “liberal socialist” isn’t widely recognised terminology for people who share a similar political position to Keir Starmer.
I didn't say it was?
And we are talking about collective terms such as left-wingers or lefties, not terms for individuals. So how do you think we should collectively call those who can’t be called left-wing and claim not to be as right-wing as the Tories, eg Starmer supporters, if you find centrist offensive?
That's your square to try to circle... don't be trying to file me into your neat little pigeon holes.
Give me a term which you would like the media to use when describing the political stance of the present Cabinet.
Ineffectual?
I didn’t say it was?
No you said that you found the term centrist "quite offensive", which when you think about it is frankly ridiculous, assuming that you actually understand what it means.
I said that I consider the term to be polite and inoffensive but that nevertheless if you suggested another collective noun I would be happy to consider using it..
You came up with "liberal socialist" which is hardly a recognised term for the political stance being followed by the Starmer and his cabinet. It is obvious that I meant something like "moderate" or "middle-of-the-road".
I think I'll stick with centrist. Plenty of people use the term including the Guardian.
I said nothing about anyone’s intelligence. That’s entirely on you.
Absolutely I said it. My claim is that the predominantly centrist attitude on stw typically sees the average voter as stupid and themselves as intellectually superior. Are you actually disputing that?
And we are talking about collective terms such as left-wingers or lefties, not terms for individuals. So how do you think we should collectively call those who can’t be called left-wing and claim not to be as right-wing as the Tories, eg Starmer supporters, if you find centrist offensive?
Why do you need a collective term? People are individuals. Most will agree with some policies and disagree with others. It's better to talk about the policies imo
Politics has become very polarised. For some it's almost like football where your team is right and everyone else is wrong about everything.
My claim is that the predominantly centrist attitude on stw typically sees the average voter as stupid and themselves as intellectually superior
I’m a centrist (boo, hiss) and think the average voter is stupid, but I also think I’m stupid too. I don’t even feel intellectually superior to my cats, who outsmart me on a daily basis. Where do I fit in then?
Why do you need a collective term? People are individuals.
Astonishing argument!
Ernie has told me in the past I am offensive for calling Starmer and his supporters right wing - which of course they are 🙂 ( I know Ernie was just trying not to offend folk)
Technocrats? I did think Starmer would at least be a good technocrat but I have been very disappointed. the main issue for me is the folk he has surrounded himself with - corrupt and right wing and liars
So how would you like to be described?
So how would you like to be described?
I lean towards Social Democrat but would rather just be described as someone who gives a shit about more than just themselves.
Why do you need a collective term? People are individuals.
Another right wing meme "There’s No Such Thing as Society"
I lean towards Social Democrat but would rather just be described as someone who gives a shit about more than just themselves.
Well thats great, but a lot of contibuters to this and other political threads, the ones who seemingly are offended by being called centrists, don't represent what they claim to be when actually discussing the policies they would or wouldn't support (and I am not directing this at you personally I can't realy recall what you are for or against). Personally I don't think they should be called centrists either, traditional or one nation tories would be more accurate given the policies they support and opose.
My claim is that the predominantly centrist attitude on stw typically sees the average voter as stupid and themselves as intellectually superior.
I don't think that's a "truth" at all, I don't think any of the regular posters on here would describe themselves as either centrist or intellectually superior to anyone, I think there's probably as broad a political spectrum on here as there is in any group of middle aged men. It might be that that's your perception of the folks on here, but that's as clouded by your own values as much as all our regurgitated thoughts on these threads are. As for the population in general, I think that voters sometimes make daft decisions but that's far from labelling anyone as stupid, and while papers like the Sun and Mail can only exist (and succeed) in an environment where folks are willing to be fed things they instinctively want to think are true, or don't care to have their minds changed, or are lacking critical thinking skills [non-pejoratively speaking], it doesn't follow that I think that I'm any more immune from it, It just means I'm aware of it.
Why do you need a collective term? People are individuals.
#notallcentrists
#ExtremeRightWingLabourSocialistLite
I don’t think it’s a particularly centrist attitude to see the average voter as stupid.
In the last ten years, it has been the mistake of centrists (or moderates if you prefer the term) to vastly overestimate the intelligence of the electorate.
<Shrugs>
Agree. They are easily fooled so use that to your advantage as it goes both ways.
Personally I don’t think they should be called centrists either, traditional or one nation tories would be more accurate given the policies they support and opose.
Well as I said earlier my preferred description would be Tory-Lite although I accept that they would find that offensive as they like to pretend that they are not right-wing and totally different to the Tories.
I cannot recall ever meeting a left-winger who was in any way embarrassed or ashamed of being called left-wing but not that many people are proud of being right-wing,
When you think about it for every left-winger there has to be a right-winger otherwise the term left-wing is meaningless, it is a point of reference and nothing more. So where are all these right-wingers which must be definition exist?
The answer is that they hide behind the term "centrist" which I thought they found comforting. It turns out that some are apparently so embarrassed by their own convictions that they are even uncomfortable about that! 🙂
Anyway Keir Starmer and his supporters are clearly right-wing but it makes no odds to me whether they are called right-wingers or centrists.
On the question of why the need for a collective noun the answer is because it is the bog standard practice when discussing politics, not just on stw. On stw, which is not in any way reflective of wider voter attitudes, there are basically two political camps, on the political threads at least. The pro-Starmer/right-wing Labour camp which appears to be by far the largest, and the other camp which is undoubtedly smaller although disproportionately vocal and which argues from a more left-wing perspective. Any political disagreement is generally between these two opposing perspectives and anyone attempting to argue from a Tory perspective is generally dismissed as a troll.
In the last ten years, it has been the mistake of centrists (or moderates if you prefer the term) to vastly overestimate the intelligence of the electorate.
Maybe not intelligence per se, but there's a presumption of good intentions/empathy that is overestimated. Those with fewer principles, shall we say, realise and exploit that, while the rest of us wake up the morning after an election or referendum and wonder HowTF that just happened.
Some people see everyone to the left of them as left wing, and others see everyone to the right of them as right wing. I know people who honestly considered and called Theresa May a Left Wing PM! Anyway, it can all result in pointless navel gazing circular arguments.
I suppose the same goes for “centrist”, the term can be applied to nearly everyone if you yourself are on the fringes politically. Moaning about “centrists’ can come across as “everyone is wrong apart from me and my little band of brothers”. I used to use the term for people who accepted a mixed economy… but as that’s now nearly everyone, it’s become a meaningless term to me.
On the question of why the need for a collective noun the answer is because it is the bog standard practice when discussing politics, not just on stw.
Then maybe it's time to break the cycle
On stw, which is not in any way reflective of wider voter attitudes, there are basically two political camps, on the political threads at least.
Your side and the other side? Really there are way more. Not every political issue is binary