Labour politicians splurge £4m in taxpayers' cash on 'gender equal' tree planting scheme more than 4,000 miles away - "Labour politicians in Wales have allocated over £4million in public funds to support "gender equal" tree planting schemes in Uganda, whilst domestic services face mounting financial strain. The funding supports the Mbale Tree Planting Project, which has operated since 2013 with objectives including climate mitigation, livelihood enhancement for Ugandan communities, and advancement of gender parity amongst female participants. This international expenditure comes as Welsh residents experience deteriorating public services."
Naturally, left wingers claimed this was misleading without saying how
Hypocritical Labour are now the ones going cap in hand to Gulf dictators - "Is there ever a good time to be cosying up to foreign despots? It’s a dilemma that successive governments have grappled with, not least Boris Johnson. Indeed, the former prime minister seemed genuinely unable to decide where he stood when it came to unsavoury regimes. On the one hand, Johnson repeatedly rallied Western powers against Vladimir Putin after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a cause that he has continued to champion since leaving Downing Street. Yet he also chose to pursue closer economic ties with China “amid all the evidence of genocide, brutality, crackdowns on peaceful protesters”, as Sir Iain Duncan Smith put it at the time. Equally as controversial was a decision to head out to Saudi Arabia in 2022 in search of an oil supply agreement that would reduce the UK’s dependence on Russian energy. At the time, senior Labour figures accused the Conservatives of doing business with the “murderous” regime. Whether that was a reference to Saudi Arabia’s brutal killing of the brave dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the hundreds of executions that it carries out every year, or its war in Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, isn’t clear. The point is that it is just as accurate a description of Riyadh today as it was back then – nothing has changed. What has suddenly shifted, however, is Labour’s stance, not just towards Saudi Arabia but to autocratic regimes all over the world, it seems. In what amounts to a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, Rachel Reeves is heading out to the Gulf, begging bowl in hand and UK plc in tow. Lest we forget that the current occupier of No 10 spent much of his legal career opposing the death penalty in foreign countries. Or that Sir Keir Starmer accused Boris Johnson of “going cap in hand from dictator to dictator” for visiting the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to secure alternatives to Russian energy. Yet, here we are, just one year into a Labour Government, and the Chancellor is leading a UK trade delegation to Saudi Arabia, as part of a desperate bid to forge an economic alliance with Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates... If only Angela Rayner were still around to repeat the taunt she directed at Johnson when she accused him of making the UK “reliant on another murderous dictator to keep the lights on”. Still, who cares about such minor details when a deal with the GCC could add £1.6bn to the UK economy each year and contribute a further £600m to UK workers’ annual wages in the long term, as the Government is keen to point out – rather than say, the appalling human rights record of the region? The closest Reeves will come to addressing some of these issues that Labour supposedly holds so dear will be acknowledging “areas of divergence and cultural differences”, according to officials. What courage. It is, of course, no coincidence that this trip is taking place with just weeks to go before the autumn Budget. The truth is, the country is broke, and as the Government is fast finding out, it can no longer afford to take the moral high ground... Today, the country’s feeble state is even more pronounced, and whereas Johnson could at least point to Covid as a major contributing factor for the country’s ills, Reeves must accept the vast proportion of blame after dragging the UK into an economic doom loop of ever-higher taxes and weak growth. With the gap in public finances estimated to be as high as £30bn, the prospect of yet more tax rises seems nailed on. Indeed, it is shaping up to be a Budget of nightmarish proportions after the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) downgraded its estimates for productivity. Economists have calculated the financial blow from the OBR’s decision alone to be somewhere in the region of £20bn a year. About-turns on welfare cuts and the winter fuel allowance, together with the rising cost of government borrowing, leave the Chancellor with a further £10bn hole, it is estimated."
Tories to blame for Reform’s rise, says Sir John Major
Darren Grimes on Xs - "David Lammy claimed Nigel Farage “flirted with the Hitler Youth.” Small problem: Farage was born in 1964. The Hitler Youth was disbanded in 1945. This isn’t just a smear, it’s historical illiteracy of the highest order. If this is the calibre of Labour’s top brass, no wonder the country’s in chaos."
Farage is a danger and has features of a fascist, claims Zarah Sultana - "In other controversial comments on Friday, she rejected calls for a two-state solution that recognises Israel and Palestine, instead demanding one state “from the river to the sea”. Ms Sultana, who was a prominent figure on the Labour Left before she quit the party in July, said of Mr Farage: “I do think he has all the features of a fascist politician and I think it’s important that we stop a fascist Reform government.” Challenged on her use of the word “fascist”, she added: “When someone attacks trade union rights, when they are not supportive of minority communities, where they are trying to get us out of the ECHR so they can get away with anything. “When there is no state accountability, we can see what’s happening across Europe, which is a descent into fascism.”... Ms Sultana recently called on Sir Keir Starmer to suspend all diplomatic relations with Israel and withdraw the UK from Nato. Mr Farage had not yet responded to her comments, but during the general election campaign last year, Mr Farage said nobody had done more than him to stem the rise of the far-Right. He said in June 2024: “I’ve done more to drive the far Right out of British politics than anybody else alive. I took on the BNP just over a decade ago. “I said to their voters – if this is a protest vote but you don’t support their racist agenda, don’t vote for them, vote for me. [It] destroyed them.”... Sir Keir called a flagship Reform policy “racist” after the party said it would scrap rules that allowed migrants to stay in Britain after a set period of time. Challenged on his comments, the Prime Minister doubled down in calling Reform’s migration policy racist but insisted not all its supporters were. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, went further and claimed Mr Farage himself was racist because of campaign literature distributed by Reform. Mr Farage responded by accusing Sir Keir and his Cabinet of stirring up the radical Left just weeks after the murder of Charlie Kirk, the Right-wing activist, in the US... “The only just future is one democratic state from the river to the sea, guaranteeing equal rights for everyone who lives there and the right of return for all Palestinians. If that offends you, maybe ask yourself – why does equality and democracy scare you more than apartheid and racial supremacy?” The phrase “from the river to the sea” is chanted at pro-Palestinian marches despite claims that it is anti-Semitic because it envisages the destruction of the state of Israel. It is a reference to the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, within which the whole of the state of Israel lies."
Time to jail Nigel Farage and ban Reform to Protect Democracy
If you're not a left winger, you're a fascist. Every decent person supports mass migration
Dog whistles are only used by the right, of course
Labour is following the Tories on the road to extinction - "We could also say that we have had an extraordinary run of talentless, convictionless politicians in both parties, alternating between the two until reaching the Platonic ideal of Sir Keir Starmer, a man who seems to believe in nothing more than the process that reaches a given outcome no matter what that outcome is; whose lack of charisma makes Rishi Sunak look like James Bond... Two parties and two coalitions of voters built around economic questions that are not exactly settled but not nearly as salient as they once were. All the baggage of their history and structures are still attached. But they are confronting a political environment where perhaps the most important dividing lines are matters of identity. Britain is a nation that is increasingly fragmented on ethnic and religious lines rather than divided by class. The answer of the Left to this was to double down on its anti-establishment leanings, and to pivot into identity politics. Labour made some attempt to be “the party of everyone else”: of feminism, of gay rights, of minority migrants, of Islam and the white working class too. They attempted to tie up every group that could argue it was disadvantaged by the established mainstream, and could benefit from overturning it, even if each wanted something very different to follow after. The Conservatives, meanwhile, found themselves caught between their socially conservative membership and their liberal MPs. The division was perhaps sharpest on migration, where the desire to placate the Treasury, the attraction of cheap labour for businesses, and the instinctive dislike of borders of the Westminster set clashed horribly with their voters’ desire for cultural preservation. In other words, it’s no wonder both parties are collapsing... Nothing is inevitable in politics. But it does feel like both the Conservatives and Labour have reached the end of the road in their current forms. To borrow from Roger Scruton, they have the feeling of something “built from forgotten theories, forged together in weird and ghoulish shapes”; remnants of ideological battles past. Unless and until they find a way to forge new coalitions, the explanation for their troubles is straightforward: they are failing because they can no longer succeed."
Farage would be better PM than Starmer, voters say for first time - "A monthly tracker of political preferences by Ipsos, the polling firm, also shows that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is favoured over Sir Keir as a better prime minister. Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, appears to be enjoying a post-conference bump with voters choosing the Tories over Labour when asked which party they prefer... A separate YouGov poll found Labour has hit its lowest-ever poll rating after falling to just 17 per cent of the vote, some 10 percentage points behind Reform UK and just one point ahead of the Greens. However, the Reform leader’s relentless campaigning on immigration and crime, coupled with a lacklustre Labour Party conference and fears of more tax rises in next month’s Budget, have seen support for Sir Keir ebb away... Labour is now polling with YouGov lower under Sir Keir than the Conservatives ever did under Rishi Sunak. The lowest Tory score recorded before the last election was 18 per cent."
Greens overtake Labour in opinion poll - "The Greens are on 17 per cent, up two points on the firm’s last study, and ahead of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour and the Conservatives, who are tied on 16 per cent."
Reform has shattered the two-party system. This result proves it - "Something fundamental has changed in Wales. After decades of Labour control, locals are prepared to break from tradition and back a different horse. More than 80 per cent of voters in Caerphilly backed Plaid Cymru or Reform, on a record turnout above 50 per cent — the highest in the Senedd’s history. The Welsh nationalists may have claimed the prize, but Nigel Farage’s Reform recorded the biggest swing — from 1.7 per cent in 2021 to 34.2 per cent on Thursday. In a major blow to Sir Keir Starmer, Labour was knocked off its pedestal and fell to third place. The two-party system that has long dominated Westminster is under threat nationwide, but in Wales, it could collapse altogether. Despite Plaid’s win, Reform appears the firm favourite ahead of the devolved elections in just over six months."
Burnham allies warn Starmer ‘time is running out’ after Caerphilly by-election defeat - "It is the first time Labour has lost a parliamentary vote in the former mining town in more than a century, signalling a collapse in support that will fray nerves in Downing Street."
Starmer’s Labour Party simply doesn’t understand what voters want - "Labour’s analysis of its humiliation in the Caerphilly by-election is flawed (telegraph.co.uk, October 24). Voters are not “disappointed with the pace of change”. In fact, changes have come aplenty over the past 16 months: attacks on pensioners and family farmers, an increase in small-boat arrivals, stuttering growth, higher council tax and water rates, a rise in anti-Semitism, increased unemployment and the loss of the Chagos Islands, to name but a few. The problem is that these changes are not the ones wanted by the electorate, and they were not advertised in the 2024 Labour manifesto. Until the party faces reality, it must expect the loss of other constituencies held for the previous 100 years."
"Now that Plaid Cymru has won the Caerphilly by-election, I hope it will remember its electioneering. It sought votes claiming that it was the only party that could prevent Reform from winning. On this basis, the result is not a vote in favour of the separation of Wales, although Plaid may wish to see it that way."
Caerphilly shows how our politics is turning European: losers will stay in office - "Labour was wiped out in their Welsh heartland this week, winning a paltry 11 per cent in a seat they have held since 1918. The party of the Valleys has been ejected, bag and baggage, reeking worse than an old Caerphilly cheese. Or has it? Under the list-based proportional representation (PR) system that will replace first-past-the-post in the nationwide Welsh election next May, Labour will very likely cling onto office. Their feeble result, even if it were replicated across the Principality, might still be enough to make them junior coalition partners with Plaid Cymru in the Senedd. Even if Reform were to improve on the 36 per cent that it received in Caerphilly and become the largest party in Wales, it would remain in opposition for as long as Labour and Plaid Cymru were determined to keep them out of office. If necessary, they would enlist the support of other parties to erect a “firewall” against Reform. This kind of outcome is deeply unpopular with voters, but it has become the pattern in Europe. Unlike the British two-party system, the multiparty politics that prevails across the Channel makes it much harder to remove failed parties from power. Labour’s German counterpart, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), has held office almost continuously since 1998. Yet during that time the SPD lost five elections and won only three. Apart from a short interlude in 2009-13, the party was a junior partner in Angela Merkel’s “grand coalition” governments that ruled Germany from 2005 to 2021. Then Olaf Scholz cobbled together a centre-Left coalition with the Greens and the Free Democrats, but his fractious crew turned on one another. Earlier this year the SPD lost the federal election with its worst result in a century – just 16.5 per cent. Yet it remains in office, propping up Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in yet another coalition. Meanwhile, the frustration of the German electorate has manifested itself in the rise of ever more extreme parties to Left and Right. An anti-Muslim nationalist party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), is now polling at 40 per cent in parts of the former East Germany and is more popular across the country than either the SPD or the CDU... In neighbouring Austria, the even more pro-Russian Freedom Party (FPÖ) emerged as the winner of last year’s election with 29 per cent, but found itself shut out of power by a coalition of the conservative ÖVP and the social democratic SPÖ, plus the centrist Neos. The new government, which took 151 days to form, was denounced as “losers” by the hard-Right FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl. In Europe, however, losers are often the winners. Sometimes the electoral arithmetic stops the political establishment using a firewall to keep the populists out. But in France Emmanuel Macron has used his presidential powers to achieve the same result. Since he called and lost a snap legislative election last year, Macron has installed one minority government after another to run the country while excluding both the biggest parties of Right and Left: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise. This revolving door regime culminated in the resignation of the latest prime minister, Sébastien Lecornu, on October 6 (after just 26 days in office) and his reappointment four days later. Absurd? Bien sûr – but there is nothing in the constitution to bring down the curtain on Macron’s French farce."
Proportional representation - a recipe for instability
New hard-Left Green leader could hand Farage the keys to No 10 - "The Green Party’s new leader has vowed to unseat Sir Keir Starmer by embracing so-called “eco-populism” and seizing votes from Labour. In the process, Zack Polanski risks unwittingly providing a leg-up to Nigel Farage, who would be the biggest beneficiary from a further fracturing of the Left in British politics... Mr Polanksi once claimed women could increase their breast size with their minds. Before taking on the Green Party leadership, he worked as a hypnotherapist in Harley Street, and in 2013 attempted to help a reporter from The Sun newspaper increase the size of her breasts using her mind. The reporter was told to picture herself with bigger breasts while Mr Polanski addressed her unconscious mind. She claimed that the size of her breasts then increased for about 10 days. Mr Polanski told The Sun at the time: “Essentially, I am looking to utilise the unconscious process to make changes to the body. We don’t exactly know what is changing because of the complexities of the unconscious. “We do know that whatever is changing is ecological, so if it’s changing one thing – such as the size of a person’s breasts – it’s making sure that the whole system is changing in order to support it.” He later apologised. In an interview in 2019, he said: “I think it’s important to say that I’ve apologised. If it was 2019, I would have not done that article and if I had, I would have been stronger to condemn it.”"
Only ECHR withdrawal can stop Britain from becoming America - "What everyone “knows” about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is the claim that it was a British invention, comprising traditional British rights, eagerly adopted by Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill. The problem is, “that just ain’t so”. In fact, Attlee reluctantly ratified the convention in 1950 only on condition it had no jurisdiction in the UK – a position upheld by Churchill and his Conservative successors. Even so, the myth that the ECHR is our British and Churchillian heritage is endlessly deployed to bolster Conservative support. Yet leaders of both parties have found the ECHR problematic. Even Tony Blair told ministers to consider resiling from parts of it, whilst David Cameron, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak all threatened to leave. If the convention just incorporated long-standing British rights, it would have had little effect when Harold Wilson – 15 years later and without Parliamentary debate – allowed British people to take cases to the European Court in Strasbourg. But far from cases being few and trivial, the Strasbourg court has found the UK to have violated Human Rights in 329 cases out of 567, ranging from military operations to environmental policy. Why is it such a problem for Britain? Attlee refused to accept the court’s jurisdiction following official warnings against giving “an international court… unprecedented legislative powers which Parliament would never agree to entrust to the courts of this country”. Those “unprecedented legislative powers” arise because convention rights are so vague that the Strasbourg court has to create new law to give them concrete meaning. The court also decides how rights may be balanced against other objectives. Under the pretext that he was “bringing rights home” from the international court, Blair’s Human Rights Act did extend those “unprecedented legislative powers” to the courts of this country, which since 2000 can also interpret and apply ECHR rights in domestic cases – though still subject to appeals to, and rulings of, Strasbourg. So “rights” mean whatever the courts – initially British, ultimately, Strasbourg – decide they mean. The right to life sounds clear. But when does life start and who can end it? If Strasbourg were to rule, quite plausibly, that the Right to Life means the state cannot help to end it, Britain would be treaty-bound to abandon the assisted dying Bill. Equally, given that the court treats the ECHR as a “living instrument”, they might decide it implies a far more extensive right to die than in the Bill. Either way, the point is that voters would have no say. The Strasbourg court recently overruled a Swiss referendum declaring that: “Democracy cannot be reduced to the will of the majority of the electorate and elected representatives in disregard of the requirements of the rule of law” – as interpreted by the court, needless to say. Making laws and balancing rights are intrinsically political processes that used to be the job of Parliament, accountable to voters. Transferring those powers to the courts, here and in Strasbourg, inevitably politicises the judiciary, through no fault of the judges themselves. It exposes them to political criticism – even Sir Keir Starmer has criticised immigration tribunal judges. It provokes demands for political vetting of judges. It undermines faith in the rule of law. Maybe only withdrawal can save us from ending up like America, where Supreme Court judges are appointed based on their political loyalties and life expectancy. The claim that withdrawal would bracket Britain with Belarus and Russia is fatuous. We would be joining other common law democracies – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – who uphold human rights without submitting to a supranational court... Paradoxically, the Labour Government’s recent proposal to legislate to tell courts how to interpret convention rights for immigrants destroys the whole rationale of the ECHR. This was the belief that only the courts – free from political considerations – could determine the “true” meaning of each human right. Once Parliament takes back control, as it should, of spelling out our rights in law, the original case for adhering to the ECHR will evaporate."
Starmer accused of ‘virtue signalling’ with millions for Madagascan lemurs - "Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of “virtue signalling” after the Government pledged £35m for overseas conservation schemes – including supporting lemurs in Madagascar. Environmentalists criticised ministers for “throwing money overseas” while neglecting the British countryside after Labour this week unveiled millions of pounds extra in funding for foreign conservation projects. This included cash for initiatives to protect forests in Bolivia, and restoring habitats for eagles in the Philippines and lemurs in Madagascar."
Politics latest: Starmer 'very vulnerable' following Mandelson revelations, Farage says - "Sir Keir Starmer's government's net approval rating has dropped to the same level the Tories achieved before they went on to lose the 2024 general election. The public has given the government a net approval of -56, which matches the final rating of Rishi Sunak's Conservative government before they suffered a landslide defeat."
Meanwhile, Labour members elected Lucy Powell as Deputy Leader
Basil the Great on X - "🚨KEIR STARMER SIGNS OFF ON £111 MILLION POUND FAMILY PLANNING PACKAGE FOR PAKISTAN I wish this was a joke. Britain is bankrupt, our taxes are going up to fund millions we are sending to Pakistan to help promote contraception and family planning Why are we paying for this?"
Meme - Manchester Evening News: "OPINION I 'British politics just became a little less northern, a little less working class, and a little less female - and that loss should worry us all. Angela Rayner's real offence was being a working class woman in power"
John O'Neill: "Working class with 3 homes! Can someone explain to me what I'm doing wrong I'm working cla... See more"
Labour is blinded by a misguided sense of moral superiority. The Rayner scandal proves it - "Angela Rayner may have had to leave the Government in disgrace over underpaid stamp duty, but to her colleagues she is a martyr... What were Rayner’s achievements in office? Having set a target to build 1.5 million homes, her target immediately ran up against a building crisis as planning approvals in England dropped to the lowest in a decade. The various sycophantic obituaries of her career focus squarely on her impressive rise from a difficult background and “the venom of her political attacks”, but hardly a word on what she has actually delivered in her 10 years in Parliament. Three weeks since her resignation, Rayner is now the subject of a fresh controversy as her taxpayer-funded BMW has reportedly been spotted ferrying her partner Sam Tarry (a former Labour MP) around, while her protection officers (also taxpayer-funded) appear to move boxes around outside the £800,000 Sussex home, which was the source of the stamp duty scandal. We are told that Rayner has been allowed to retain the car and her security detail to shield her from threats, but that doesn’t answer questions raised about those benefits being extended to her partner in her absence. The deep sense of entitlement betrays a contempt for ordinary people who pick up the bill by paying their fair share in taxes. Then, of course, there’s the even deeper sense of hypocrisy. While in Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, Rayner served as a relentless tormentor of her political opponents, even having to apologise for a particularly intemperate outburst in the House of Commons when she condemned Conservatives as “scum”. “One rule for them and another rule for us” was her common refrain in attacking any Tory’s transgression. On the tax arrangement of Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor, Rayner was moved by righteous indignation to remind the nation, “[e]very pound of tax that is not delivered to the Chancellor and to the Exchequer means that it damages our public services”. Does the Exchequer suffer any less if it misses out on tax intake from Labour politicians? Is the damage to our public services somehow mitigated when Rayner underpays her stamp duty? Why do her colleagues – who are proclaiming her to be their hero – believe that there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us? The answer is that too many in the Labour Party are so blinded by their own sense of moral superiority that they simply cannot accept that the rules which apply to others must apply to themselves as well."
Britain is the Soviet Union in the 1980s. And Farage is our Gorbachev - "Britain’s managerial class increasingly resembles that of the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. They know that change is coming, but they’re doing their utmost to ignore the fact as best they can, for as long as they can. Keir Starmer plays the part of Yuri Andropov – a once plausible face of the system, now presiding over a stagnant regime that few believe in and whose old solutions no longer have any effect. When his time is up, perhaps Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband will stand in briefly as the British Konstantin Chernenko; an absurd, puppet-like centrepiece of a court riven by indecision. But Reform is coming. Waiting in the wings is Nigel Farage, poised to play the role of Britain’s Gorbachev. Like the USSR of the early 1980s, political rigidity and borderline terror at the idea of questioning obsolete dogma infects almost every corner of institutional Britain... What sets Farage apart in the eyes of his supporters is his suggestion that the Government can actually do things, and that if something gets in the way, it can be removed. This is in stark contrast to either of the two main parties. Labour in particular seem so hemmed in by ideological conformity that they are unable even to think about the nature of the problems facing the country, let alone address them. All of their policy suggestions sound like helpless tinkering that will make things worse – such as Rachel Reeves reportedly considering levying National Insurance on rental income, or the giving of a sort of automatic temporary asylum to people from Afghanistan or Syria. The Tories on the other hand, were hamstrung by their timid acceptance of the fact that certain things were simply politically off-limits. If the civil service said that the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow it, then it couldn’t be done, and that was that... This Gorbachev analogy works nicely, in as far as Nigel Farage appears to be offering a British Glasnost. A political opening up that allows the state to navigate problems as they exist in reality, without being constrained by theoretic orthodoxies. For us, Human Rights law has been playing the role of Marxism-Leninism. But beyond immigration policy, the public finances need to be dealt with. While Farage’s Glasnost is likely to be popular with a large swathe of the electorate, he will have to accompany it with a British Perestroika; wrenching economic reforms that will be popular with pretty much nobody. By 2029, Britain’s period of productivity stagnation will have gone on for longer than that of the Brezhnev era, and some bold supply side reforms will do it a power of good. But at some point, a Reform government will need to untangle the bewildering array of benefits, entitlements, cross-subsidies and needs-based pricing that have effectively cancelled the free market in Britain, and created a burden that is far too great for the tax-paying public to bear. All of this is going to pose existential questions about what the British state itself is for, and whom it exists to serve. This will challenge underlying assumptions going back to 1945, let alone those of 1997 – assumptions that are as dear to Reform supporters as they are to the current nomenklatura. In the sour political atmosphere that follows, people are likely to look for answers in the form of even deeper radicalism on questions of identity and belonging – the like of which Farage has always firmly resisted. Like Gorbachev, Farage may find himself desperately trying to hold together a system that he has spent his career trying to shake up, as economic and political forces beyond his control finish the work he began."
The Left think the BBC is biased towards Reform. What planet are they on? - "this belief, however gibberingly unhinged it may seem to the rest of us, is gaining serious traction on the centre-Left. And I think I know how it began. Three months ago, we reported that BBC executives had held talks about how to win over Reform-voting viewers. To prevent them from deserting the broadcaster, the executives vowed to ensure that the views of this increasingly sizeable demographic were better represented in news coverage. A perfectly reasonable plan. Unfortunately for the BBC, it has backfired. People who loathe Reform seem to have convinced themselves that our national broadcaster has suddenly been taken over by the Nigel Farage fan club... What makes such paranoia all the more absurd is that, little more than a year ago, the BBC was forced to apologise for describing Reform as “far-Right.” Perhaps the Lib Dems think this description was meant as a compliment."
Left wingers believe the UK press has magicked up support for Reform. It can't have anything to do with actually caring about voters' concerns, of course. It's only oligarchy to ignore what people want when that pushes the left wing agenda
Similarly, left wingers claim the US press is biased towards Donald Trump and claim if they had demonised him even more, he would never have been elected. As usual they're out of touch with reality
Clearly, the press cannot be allowed to report on what is actually happening, because that promotes "far right" ideology
Lib Dem Leader Meets BBC Boss To Complain About Level Of Reform Coverage : r/unitedkingdom - "Reform is currently leading to the polls to the point there is a serious chance they will form a majority government. If that happened, it would be the first election since 1910 where a party other than Labour or the Conservatives won power. Reform UK has the mass appeal needed to form government. The LibDems do not. They are not in the political position Reform is, and they appeal to a far smaller portion of the electorate than Reform does. They get less coverage because they matter less. Maybe Ed Davey should consider trying to get more support instead of complaining to the BBC because he's too irrelevant to get the kind of media coverage major political parties get."
Only drastic spending cuts can get the country out of its economic bind - "I note that the BBC condensed Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf’s hour-long speech on immigration on Tuesday to just eight minutes on iPlayer, under the title “Farage outlines plans to tackle illegal migration”. Mr Farage was shown speaking for only about 40 seconds, while Mr Yusuf, who had set out policy detail, was not included at all. Instead, much of the programme featured responses or commentary from opponents, rather than the substance of the speech. How can the public be expected to have an informed debate on such a significant issue if the BBC allocates only a handful of seconds to the policy?"
Reform with Ipsos record 9-point lead over Labour, as public satisfaction with government nears lowest point recorded under a modern Labour administration : r/unitedkingdom - "I can't help how people vote, but how they vote shows me how much of a moron they are"
"That’s a great idea mate. It’s a wonder that no one has tried insulting them before."
"I don’t think discussing on Reddit which is a niche platform is going to sway many people either way so we can be free to say: they absolutely are morons and should lose their right to vote"
"Remind me, who are the fascists again?"
‘An idea looking for a form’: How Starmer’s art imitates life - "The artist himself has described his drawings, such as the one that sits daily behind Sir Keir, as “marks on a paper, lines and smudges”, and as “an idea looking for a form or just a notion needing clarity”. The same has been said of Labour’s political performance. A recent poll found that, when asked to describe the party’s biggest achievement since coming to power, the most common response was “nothing”. Enigmatic as its message may be, civil servants may have taken heart at the work on Sir Keir’s office wall. How better to describe Blue Column II than as a celebration of “the blob”?"
Alex Armstrong on X - "Rachel Reeves vowed to crack down on Ministers jetting off on the taxpayer’s dime. Lammy has racked up over £1.3 million on flights in just 3 months. And Starmer? He’s spent 15% of his time abroad, TRIPLE Sunak’s entire premiership. 1st class flights, 1st class hypocrisy."
