This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Waveney · 31-35, MNew
@ArishMell I wouldn't call the Greens upstarts, they've been around for decades. It's just they're now finally doing what they should have done a long time ago - becoming more aggressive in getting their message across. Still, I think Labour will be ditching Starmer by June, and then I honestly think they'll start to see their numbers tick back up.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Waveney No - I accept your point about the Green Party. It has been around for a long time, and I accept it is mainly sincere though I think some of the ideology surrounding "greenery", naive.
"Green" policies have to draw on broad, at least lay if not professional, science and engineering knowledge, but most politicians of all parties are desperately ignorant there, seeming not to know even a joule from a Watt, iron from steel, or carbon from carbon-dioxide.
Sir Keir Starmer appears to think he hasn't done anything wrong - I think his biggest error is simply not really asking why his Party is losing to The Greens or Corbyn's "Your Party". Though that's common. Most of them blame losses of votes and personnel on anything but their own perfomance.
Will he go, or be pushed, back to the back-benches? Only time will tell. He does seem very slightly more keen to stand up for Britain abroad, even against the USA, than some of his predecessors both Tory and Labour, but not much. After all, his (a Labour government at that) did give Royal Mail to some Czech millionaire for no good reason. Otherwise he seems neither decisive nor incisive.
Similarly with the Conservatives. Though for one of their former ministers to betray her Party and her voters by transferring to Reform, then saying it was because her previous Government had done so much damage, shows only hypocracy and cowardice as she was part of the Cabinet doing the damage. That hardly does either Party any credit.
'''''
I do not trust Nigel Farage's lot any more than Jerry Corbyn's, less so when in a Radio Four interview recently Farage openly admitted being first a money-trader* and now politician, not for what he may do for his customers or voters, but solely for him.
His actual phrase was not "for me", he didn't go that far, but, "for the buzz".
We don't want politicians as shallow as that, of any party or ideology.
I was for a while a UKIP member but began to have doubts when it published manifesto suggestions for their vision on the United Kingdom once independent again. Some seemed gaod but others were destructive and would likely have proven very unpopular.
My last straw came after Nigel Farage was replaced by Gerard Batten, who initially seemed less abrasive and egotistical, and more analytical, than NG who was becoming more, and less, those respectively. For Batten then appointed as "advisor" a man barred from membership under UKIP's own anti-extremist rules - none other than that odious twerp Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. (The self-nicknamed 'Tommy Robinson', which I refuse to accept or honour.) I stopped my subscription.
With UKIP's raison d'etre gone, Farage then tried a new Party under his leadership. I forget its name, but so it seems did most people. He lay low for a bit then concocted Reform.
For the buzz.
*[Farage had seen his father succeed in money-trading, realised you don't need any real education for that, so chose not to go to university but to buy and sell other people's money instead. Merely for the buzz. Oh, and the earnings. Sorry, not earnings, the money he made from it.]
"Green" policies have to draw on broad, at least lay if not professional, science and engineering knowledge, but most politicians of all parties are desperately ignorant there, seeming not to know even a joule from a Watt, iron from steel, or carbon from carbon-dioxide.
Sir Keir Starmer appears to think he hasn't done anything wrong - I think his biggest error is simply not really asking why his Party is losing to The Greens or Corbyn's "Your Party". Though that's common. Most of them blame losses of votes and personnel on anything but their own perfomance.
Will he go, or be pushed, back to the back-benches? Only time will tell. He does seem very slightly more keen to stand up for Britain abroad, even against the USA, than some of his predecessors both Tory and Labour, but not much. After all, his (a Labour government at that) did give Royal Mail to some Czech millionaire for no good reason. Otherwise he seems neither decisive nor incisive.
Similarly with the Conservatives. Though for one of their former ministers to betray her Party and her voters by transferring to Reform, then saying it was because her previous Government had done so much damage, shows only hypocracy and cowardice as she was part of the Cabinet doing the damage. That hardly does either Party any credit.
'''''
I do not trust Nigel Farage's lot any more than Jerry Corbyn's, less so when in a Radio Four interview recently Farage openly admitted being first a money-trader* and now politician, not for what he may do for his customers or voters, but solely for him.
His actual phrase was not "for me", he didn't go that far, but, "for the buzz".
We don't want politicians as shallow as that, of any party or ideology.
I was for a while a UKIP member but began to have doubts when it published manifesto suggestions for their vision on the United Kingdom once independent again. Some seemed gaod but others were destructive and would likely have proven very unpopular.
My last straw came after Nigel Farage was replaced by Gerard Batten, who initially seemed less abrasive and egotistical, and more analytical, than NG who was becoming more, and less, those respectively. For Batten then appointed as "advisor" a man barred from membership under UKIP's own anti-extremist rules - none other than that odious twerp Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. (The self-nicknamed 'Tommy Robinson', which I refuse to accept or honour.) I stopped my subscription.
With UKIP's raison d'etre gone, Farage then tried a new Party under his leadership. I forget its name, but so it seems did most people. He lay low for a bit then concocted Reform.
For the buzz.
*[Farage had seen his father succeed in money-trading, realised you don't need any real education for that, so chose not to go to university but to buy and sell other people's money instead. Merely for the buzz. Oh, and the earnings. Sorry, not earnings, the money he made from it.]
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment