You seem to forget we already tried a Clown Car comedy government under Boris Johnson - and it was a disaster.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Attachments
Of course, the current government is doing so much better. Under Johnson it was corrupt, under Starmer it is incompetent.
If you think you've seen corruption and incompetence, wait til Pound Shop Oswald Mosley and his assorted flag-shaggers, spivs and headbangers form a government (God forbid).
Its the lies that come with Reform and it's galivanting American Dad MAGA which worries me. Is it related to increasing online life and decreasing attention spans? That the case has be be made and won simultaneously, with memes and intense disembodied edits in mind? Contradictions no longer undermine the message when each message is consumed in isolation. You can be simultaneously anti-establishment and pro-billionaire, pro-freedom and pro-authoritarian, because people encounter these positions as stand alone moments, rather than a manifesto or cogent belief system to evaluate; but then again people are messy too.
"If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do." JD Vance.
Like a "goodie" spy in movie against a seemingly insurmountable foe, lies and deception are noble and for the greater good. "He's willing to say what needs to be said" or "he's fighting dirty because the stakes are too high for messing about with civility." Vance is not just instinctively lying like Trump. What he is saying here is a lie-within-a-lie; the "liberal media conspiracy." Vance's "Haitian immigrants eating pets," is being signal boosted and treated as a legitimate news story; by the conservative dominated media landscape, which ensures his untruths receive saturation coverage.
Never apologise, Liedology -101. I mean Starmer's had a crack at it, but he is - like politics in general - just not very good at it! His lawyerly approach often comes of as evasion and actually trips him up, "Its not illegal, no law has been broken" (those adenoidal strains). His trademark "grown-up" caveats look like weakness; like waving policy documents about amidst cut and thrust of online dopamine fight. You can almost hear the "weeeeell aaaactually" before he speaks.
Meanwhile Farage can just say the contradictory things, often false, vibes-based things - and they land because they're emotionally coherent even when logically incoherent. "Take back control" while backing billionaires who want to dismantle worker protections, "Free speech" while threatening to sue critics, etc. Starmer keeps answering questions nobody's asking while failing to address the ones many people feel.
Anyway, Starmer's just a convenient - albeit wavering- counterpoint here, he's not going to last. But interestingly enough here comes Polanski, "The Truth Speaker".
"If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do." JD Vance.
Like a "goodie" spy in movie against a seemingly insurmountable foe, lies and deception are noble and for the greater good. "He's willing to say what needs to be said" or "he's fighting dirty because the stakes are too high for messing about with civility." Vance is not just instinctively lying like Trump. What he is saying here is a lie-within-a-lie; the "liberal media conspiracy." Vance's "Haitian immigrants eating pets," is being signal boosted and treated as a legitimate news story; by the conservative dominated media landscape, which ensures his untruths receive saturation coverage.
Never apologise, Liedology -101. I mean Starmer's had a crack at it, but he is - like politics in general - just not very good at it! His lawyerly approach often comes of as evasion and actually trips him up, "Its not illegal, no law has been broken" (those adenoidal strains). His trademark "grown-up" caveats look like weakness; like waving policy documents about amidst cut and thrust of online dopamine fight. You can almost hear the "weeeeell aaaactually" before he speaks.
Meanwhile Farage can just say the contradictory things, often false, vibes-based things - and they land because they're emotionally coherent even when logically incoherent. "Take back control" while backing billionaires who want to dismantle worker protections, "Free speech" while threatening to sue critics, etc. Starmer keeps answering questions nobody's asking while failing to address the ones many people feel.
Anyway, Starmer's just a convenient - albeit wavering- counterpoint here, he's not going to last. But interestingly enough here comes Polanski, "The Truth Speaker".
Last edited:
Well the Greens want to make it another election based on Brexit vs Rejoin and it was exactly that setup that resulted in Boris' majority in 2019! And that was despite the constant tales of buyer's remorse et al!
Polanski was doing quite well but I think making it about Brexit will just push more into reform's hands while the remainers are much more spread out.
Like you would have if Great Uncle Corbyn had got that little bit more to beat Theresa May? Lol. Weird how tribal things have become again!
This kind of "snip" out of context attack and defend stuff has been in politics way before social media. Yes social media has amplified it but it is not a right wing thing to take a small snippet of a text and say "see, she/he said this." If anything the left have been more guilty of trying to present arguments based off out of context snippets over the past decade than the right although the right is quite obviously doing it a lot now.
Even last week Starmer did it when he took half a sentence of something Kemi stated in a government document about "China = Enemy" and she had to correct that if he read to the end he would have seen context and a meaning that countered the way he had framed the snippet he used. And then Cleverly had to step up at the end of PMQs to make it clear that he had been misquoted by someone else! Both sides are at it all the time!
On the Farage bit. Free Speech is not the same as libel! Sueing someone for libel or slander is not contradicting free speech! You are free to slander or libel me for example. That is your right! But if you are libelling/slandering me then I can sue you! I didn't stop you from saying these things about me!
And I fear Polanski today (as stated above) got a bit too confident and has opened the door if he makes the next election all about Brexit / rejoin again! We saw how that ushered in a majority for Boris and remain votes, even if it is true there are more now, do not congregate in one place like the leave ones will! It will be an own goal unless his strategy is to become the 2nd place party in the UK and get ahead of the other left wing groups!
You're comparing apples and orchestrated disinformation campaigns (mainly), Imps.
Yes, politicians have always selectively quoted each other - Starmer doing it to Kemi at PMQs is standard political point-scoring. That's not what I'm talking about.
"This kind of "snip" out of context attack and defend stuff has been in politics way before social media."
I'm talking about lying as explicit, stated political doctrine. JD Vance didn't "selectively" quote someone - he said openly: "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention... then that's what I'm going to do." That's not spin. That's conscious fabrication as a political strategy.
Trump unleashed the power of the unvarnished lie - it's a kind of power play delivered with swagger, it short-circuits liberal media leaving them in the dust crying foul as another zinger is hours if not minutes away. The knowledge of minimal consequences oils the machine's mechanisms and productivity.
Farage does the same: "four-star hotels" for asylum seekers (they're basic accommodation centres where rooms are dormitories and service is so curtailed they wouldn't attain one star, nobody wants refugees housed in this way), claiming a Palestine protest was celebrating a Jewish man's murder in Manchester (it was organized long before and a peaceful demonstration). These aren't misquotes or out-of-context snippets - they're constructed false narratives designed to generate emotional reactions. The lie is the tactic.
He's had a crack at Liedology. But Starmer is constantly having to lie adhoc and defensively. Apparently this Labour Government being the "politically sanguine "adults in the room'", prepared to get on with it and hold their noses when required - as if morals and ethics are for the young and naïve! - means getting into bed repeatedly with the shadiest of characters!! Then having to squirm and lie about the mess it's repeatedly created. That's not being grown up... it's being dickheads. He keeps having to lie, but mostly not on his own terms! Unlike Trump, Farage and Vance.
"And I fear Polanski today (as stated above) got a bit too confident and has opened the door if he makes the next election all about Brexit / rejoin again! We saw how that ushered in a majority for Boris and remain votes, even if it is true there are more now, do not congregate in one place like the leave ones will! It will be an own goal unless his strategy is to become the 2nd place party in the UK and get ahead of the other left wing groups!"
Good points here, I agree. Will be interesting to see how the campaigns take shape. Left-wing popularism vs Right-wing popularism!
PS: you're obviously completely right about the libel point... again!
Last edited:
Surprised that The Bloody Sunday trial concluding with Not Guilty has not raised a mention. I find this really staggering.whilst i can understand that accounts some fifty years after the event are not safe enough for a conviction, the case should have been tried in the mid 1970s. I do not understand why we are still discussing this in 2025 ! It is difficult to appreciate how the deaths of civilians have never been prosecuted. The murderers should be inside along with those who have swept this under the carpet for two generations.
Well done Plaid Cymru. Absolutely smashed it in the Caerphilly by-election with over 47% share of the vote. Hopefully this is repeated throughout Wales!
Labour are ****ed already. If they're losing seats they've held for over 100 years after only 14 months in power I don’t see them recovering in the polls at all.
I'm not a big fan of the Nationalist parties, but this is definitely a lesser evil situation.
Glad to see Reform eat humble pie for a change, they were getting very arrogant and cocky about this one. Little victories.
Labour are ****ed in Wales but that has been obvious for a while, it was always going to be either Plaid or Reform last night.
Glad to see Reform eat humble pie for a change, they were getting very arrogant and cocky about this one. Little victories.
Labour are ****ed in Wales but that has been obvious for a while, it was always going to be either Plaid or Reform last night.
And Reform did not even come close! Whilst Reform supporters were perhaps making the most noise, supporters of other supporters were perhaps keeping more muted. And analysing that result, it is highly likely that Labour supporters got behind the Plaid Cymru candidate. In another Welsh constituency, the reverse may well happen in order to keep Reform.and the Tories out.
John Crace on the rise of Katie culturally-coherent Lam rising member of the tory harridans club who, tipped as a future party leader, has been condemned for saying large numbers of legally settled families must be deported. I bet she shags on a flag.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-outdo-robert-jenrick-on-the-nastiness-scale
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-outdo-robert-jenrick-on-the-nastiness-scale
Why? This result is very obviously driven by an anti-Labour vote, just as last year's election result was driven by an anti-Tory vote. Unhappy voters aren't going to tactically vote for one of the most unpopular governments in history.
You must log in or register to see media
Good point, they really seem to believe this ILR rug-pull targets individuals, or maybe they just don't care about families being broken up.
"That includes anyone from the EU. Don’t think you get a free ride. Even if you married a Brit... She also wants anybody legally here earning less than £38,700 to jog on. That’s most nurses working in the NHS. Spongers all of them... she is also open to raising taxes for the lowest paid." John Crace.
Back in Thatcher's day she could lower taxes for the middle class and slice of a bit of the state pie (material inducement) and offer it back to Ayn-Randian private citizens. Even if you disagreed with it, there was a transactional element: "vote for us, get this." Now there's no meat on the bone for them to try and bribe voters with, other than these red meat policies, "we will hurt them more" rather than "we will help you."
Furthermore the amount of money has ILR generated for the state, they have already jumped through hoops, (non-refugees) 75% of them paying absorbent fees at every stage to build lives, careers, families in the UK legally. Over the 5 five years until citizenship is granted, IRL has costs an applicant £11,500. In 2023-24, the Home Office received £2.6 billion from all visa and citizenship fees.
https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys...it-from-skilled-worker-visas-in-a-year-but-w/
Last edited: