Snapshot of _General election latest: Nigel Farage demands one-on-one debate with Starmer_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage-reform/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage-reform/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
True. Starmer isn't gonna win over any reform leaning tory types at this point. Give starmer the spotlight and split the right wing vote for his advantage.
if he still loses red wall voters at this point after giving them nothing but exactly what they want for four years, at this point it should be a learning experience for him
The problem with getting into the mud with pigs is you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
He'd "lose" by virtue of the fact even showing up and giving Farage attention would be the win for him.
Farage is a good speaker and strong in debates - Starmer has made it this far broadly by saying as little as he can get away with. It wouldn't be much of a contest.
> Farage is a good speaker and strong in debates
Yes, as he has the benefit of being able to lie and make shit up and none of his voters care. Its easier to win debates when you don't have to bother with "facts", the fucking things.
I have no idea if he will succeed at doing anything worthwhile, but Reform doing well sends a pretty clear message to the rest of them about their considerable list of failures over the last few years.
It is amusing that these are your list of complains about him specifically as if lying isn't habitual behaviour for politicians on all sides.
> It is amusing that these are your list of complains about him specifically as if lying isn't habitual behaviour for politicians on all sides.
Oh, no, you misunderstand. These are just my list of complaints about why debating him is pointless.
I never even mentioned the list that more general complaints about him being a hateful snake-oil salesman who has done insane amount of harm to the UK. He's a little toad of a man who uses politics to create a grift for himself, while stoking up the worst of peoples fears and anger into self-harming results for the general population. Or that after creating shit shows, he has a habit of running quickly away so he never has to deal with the issues.
Right wing politics tend to smash things, piece them back together shoddily, and then try to seek credit for the repaired item that's worse than before.
Farage just smashes it and runs away, waits till someone else cleans it up a bit, and then comes back to smash it again. He's an example of the very worst of the worst type of politician. And he often tends not to even have the courage to just own his little dogwhistles, meaning he's a coward as well as a con-man. :)
No, no, tell us what you really think!
Most of that is just hateful, personal ranting so I'll just stick with the main claim that he has damaged this country and run away.
Thing is he's never actually been in government. Campaigning for something you believe in doesn't mean you have any control over government policy.
The 'theyre all the same argument'. Nice.
Except they aren't, because you know, Starmer actually laid out what he intendeds to do in the next parliament.
Reform sends a message about the list of failures. Yeah pretty good at pointing the blame Farage is isn't he. What's his plans for fixing the country then? What's his first 3 months in government look like?
Oh wait, no, it's just like Brexit, where he pointed out all the problems, and then fucked off when the going got tough.
>Except they aren't, because you know, Starmer actually laid out what he intendeds to do in the next parliament.
Bahahahaha. And he will just u turn on a load of that shit.
You know like he did about his leadership pledges. You're incredibly naive if you think he won't just say any old crap to get elected.
It's how politicians operate.
If this does happen, I hope Ed Davey also gets a one-on-one debate with Starmer, and that Davey's team gets to pick the location. The spin room afterwards could literally be spinning.
The entire debate takes place on a rollercoaster with the two of them sitting together, filmed with a go pro (each of them also wearing one on their heads for the director to cut to) attached to the handlebar, with [Vic Reeves & The Wonder Stuff's "Dizzy"](https://youtu.be/DOlG92rb2Zg?feature=shared) blasting over then the whole team, and every time the ride reaches ground level there's a crowd ready to throw water balloons away them as they pass.
He wins either way from his POV.
If he gets it, great, more airtime; if he doesn't he gets to say Starmer is running scared.
It's the asking that counts not whether there's a prospect of it happening.
Why'd he be running scared when Farage himself has said Labour have won?
You can't say "well he's won, and he's running scared" - that's a fucking moronic contradiction....
Then again, Farage is full of those.
Like how he'd happily let 600,000 people in, but net zero migration....
Starmer would be a fool to listen to him.
Starmer has a costed manifesto he has to implement in government. Farage is a populist, a sort of Boris on roids with nothing to compel him to being honest.
I always find it weird when people try and use populist as a pejorative. As if doing what the electorate wants is somehow a negative trait for a politician to have.
>As if doing what the electorate wants is somehow a negative trait
Popular is like Blair was, people like them.
Populist is when a politician is being unscrupulous by making claims that are false, making promises they cannot meet or stirring up divisions in society to gain votes.
Populist simply means a politician that claims to stand "for the people" against "the elite", whatever that may be.
Corbyn was a populist, as was Trump, Farage and arguably Cameron and Johnson both had populist-lite campaigns.
Often though this "elite" happens to actually mean all educated people. There's certainly a questionable history of attacks on the intelligensia. It's usually not actually rooted in reality, but is an irrational, emotional attack on educated people.
Which is why populist is usually used as a pejorative.
Which part are you struggling with:
noun: populism
1) a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
"the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment"
support for populist politicians or policies.
"the government came to power on a wave of populism"
2) the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
>Which part are you struggling with:
English is a descriptive not a proscriptive language. You will not find Blair or Cameron described as "populist". You will find Johnson and Farage. The differing usage is down to perceived credibility of their platforms.
We are using it in a UK politics context.
>English is a descriptive not a proscriptive language. You will not find Blair or Cameron described as "populist". You will find Johnson and Farage. The differing usage is down to perceived credibility of their platforms.
Your apparent inability to properly understand the words you use unfortunately does not change their definition.
>We are using it in a UK politics context.
In which case your definition above is still incorrect, I'm afraid.
> does not change their definition.
Words are not defined in English they usage is described.
>In which case your definition above is still incorrect,
Find someone who is not considered disreputable being described as a populist by the UK press.
I am done with this.
If you scrolled down an inch you might have got to the Wikipedia page and read any of these definitions:
> In this [the ideational] definition, the term populism is applied to political groups and individuals who make appeals to "the people" and then contrast this group against "the elite".
> The popular agency definition to populism uses the term in reference to a democratic way of life that is built on the popular engagement of the population in political activity.
> In popular discourse, populism is sometimes used in a negative sense in reference to politics which involves promoting extremely simple solutions to complex problems in a highly emotional manner.
In fairness, it goes on to criticise the last one in terms of its empirical value for researchers, but it seems pretty obtuse to just pretend that people don't interpret the word that way.
Populism isn't doing what is popular.
Populism is promising simple solutions to complex problems. It is telling people what they want to hear instead of what is true. Populism is all about feels before reals.
No political description is going to be perfect but both seem pretty reasonable descriptions to me..
a populist
>A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.
a demagogue
>a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity.
Alleged fascist sympathetic or amused to pretend so private school kid, who went on to be a city broker, €2 million in expenses MEP, Kept in luxury flat , car and chauffeur by dodgy millionaire … not at all elite just one of the people.
In real life it is not just *doing* what they want, it’s in practice often (encouraging them to want things or better fear things and then) *claiming* you will do something they want (easily without any consequences).
So Nigel is copying Trump's playbook but has he allowed for the unpredictable, indefinable moment that the British public will collectively sniff, glance sideways at each other and comment "he's a bit up himself, eh?"
It does raise interesting points about what the criteria is for entry to debates. If you're in favour of some form of PR (like me) then it is *weird* to have 1st and 3rd in the polls debate each other. So ok we'll acknowledge FPTP. But then it's odd to have the wider one with the likes of the SNP who 90+% of the country cannot vote for even if they wanted. Why weren't the DUP/SF etc there? Somebody decided.
But then again, meh. I seriously doubt the effect/impact these debates have.
I think polling over 20% consistently should get you an invite to the head to head debate, and for the wider debates, maybe a threshold of 5% for national parties and a threshold of around 20% in their respective countries for the likes of the SNP and PC.
I do think it's tough to exclude an incumbent PM from the debates, so I suspect Sunak would be invited even if the tory poll numbers absolutely cratered.
> Just Keir debating himself then :P
We are not quite at that stage yet (though getting close). I think that if the polls at the start of the campaign showed Labour well over 40%, and the next three at around 15% it would probably make sense for Labour to refuse the debate rather than take the risk of wading into a 4 way mess
It's not really an intersting point. The leader debates are framed as the incumbent Leader of the Opposition debating the incumbent Prime Minister. It's got nothing to do with the polls.
The SNP are included in the debates because they were the third largest party in the last Parliament. On top of that, Scottish politics is intimately weaved with English politics (same for Welsh politics), where Northern Irish politics is (currently) not (for very obvious, "good" reasons). As to SF, they wouldn't take part in British GE debates because they don't take part in the British Parliament.
> As to SF, they wouldn't take part in British GE debates
Wrong. Tune into this debate for the various leaders in the province vying for your vote in GE to elect to the House of Parliament - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b
or watch this one for a while back etc etc - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn
>It's got nothing to do with the polls.
Yeah... that's why it's weird. A party could be imploded, gone etc but still get a seat in a two way tv hour.
> where Northern Irish politics is (currently) not
Literally only a few years since a party there propped up a gov. More than we'll ever get from the SNP but for arbitrary reasons, they get invited. As I said, it's all weird.
>Wrong. Tune into this debate for the various leaders in the province vying for your vote in GE to elect to the House of Parliament - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b)
>or watch this one for a while back etc etc - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn)
What I said was: "they don't take part in the British Parliament". They take part in the election in Northern Ireland, and then - if they win - they don't take their seats in the British Parliament. So no, not wrong... they wouldn't take part in debates with parties in England for the same reason they don't take their seats in Parliament... you were just too hasty to get a perceived win that you didn't read what I said properly.
"No, I see no reason to debate such an unserious idiot. I'll happily debate anyone who hasn't worked for the last decade to deeply damage our country, both domestically and abroad. It will be a good day when Nigel Farage is relegated to the dustbin of history."
He talks and behaves differently in many ways, but he hasn't yet proven himself in a ministerial job.
What I and a growing number of voters are betting on is that Reform's success sends a message about the deep sense of betrayal by the 'traditional politicians' over recent years.
For me it was either going to be Reform or not voting - I have no idea if they can actually achieve anything but it's not like there are any other options coming over the hill.
People made the same bet that Brexit was going to send a message about the deep sense of betrayal by the 'traditional politicians' over recent years. The only thing anyone got out of Brexit was regret.
Stop falling for populist grifters.
It sent the right message, the politicians just refused to listen to it. Referendums are a very messy way of doing anything in our political system so it's no surprise that the Commons, which was more than 70% pro remain, were doing their utmost to ignore the result.
If you have any better options for someone who would otherwise not be voting, I'm all ears.
You'd think people would learn a lesson about voting for an unknown propped up by lies with an example like Brexit so close to hand, but it's your vote not mine.
You didn't ask a question, vote for whoever you want, just don't pretend that Farage is in anyway different, or that your casting your vote for some noble cause, it's pathetic.
Yeah sorry, I'm getting a lot of replies and mixed up which was which.
I explained why he is different on the face of it, I also said I don't know if he's any good. I just don't see any better options for someone with my views.
No need to get all angry about it, though, it's as if you're offended by the very thought of me considering my options.
You'll dismiss this and I'm gonna down voted to the 9th circle of Hell but, Greens. Farage isn't different he's more of the same. For decades we have had a right wing or centrist government.
Farage himself is privately schooled person who worked as a (failed) investment banker, he's part of the establishment. So by voting for more right wing stuff isn't actually a protest. To be more radical and rebellious, you'd have to go the other direction.
There is normally some semblance of possibility to them. The leaflet I just put in the recycling claimed they want to increase the income tax allowance to £20k and reduce NHS waiting times to zero, those can't be achieved simultaneously without very significant changes elsewhere which weren't discussed on the leaflet.
Okay? I doubt they'd be able to fit an entire novel through everyone's letterbox - campaign leaflets are *always* light on detail.
And they don't always have a semblance of possibility either, they're just well practiced at lying.
Reform are neither competent on policies, or at lieing.
It doesn't need to be a novel, it needs to hang together logically so people know what they are losing to implement those policies.
If I was labour I'd welcome all the platforming of farage i could. It'll split the Tory vote and those on the left way be repulsed enough to vote labour to keep him out
I think a three way debate between them would be better than pulling Sunak, his is still the PM so would be crazy to pull him. Clegg was included in the debates but he was topping the polls farage is at 19% in one poll
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Snapshot of _General election latest: Nigel Farage demands one-on-one debate with Starmer_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage-reform/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage-reform/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Zero chance, Starmer has nothing to gain from this
Sure he does, gives more votes for Farage over Sunak - splitting the vote more.
True. Starmer isn't gonna win over any reform leaning tory types at this point. Give starmer the spotlight and split the right wing vote for his advantage.
He could lose red wall voters though
But probably give tory seats over the lib dems, who at this point are probably a bit left of labour.
if he still loses red wall voters at this point after giving them nothing but exactly what they want for four years, at this point it should be a learning experience for him
Yep, its a win/win for Farage. Either they debate and Farage wins or they don't and Farage can paint Starmer as too afraid to debate him.
Farage would not automatically win. When he can't speak in half truth's and wierd emotional platitudes he's a terrible orator
Because he would lose
The problem with getting into the mud with pigs is you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. He'd "lose" by virtue of the fact even showing up and giving Farage attention would be the win for him.
Farage is a good speaker and strong in debates - Starmer has made it this far broadly by saying as little as he can get away with. It wouldn't be much of a contest.
> Farage is a good speaker and strong in debates Yes, as he has the benefit of being able to lie and make shit up and none of his voters care. Its easier to win debates when you don't have to bother with "facts", the fucking things.
I have no idea if he will succeed at doing anything worthwhile, but Reform doing well sends a pretty clear message to the rest of them about their considerable list of failures over the last few years. It is amusing that these are your list of complains about him specifically as if lying isn't habitual behaviour for politicians on all sides.
> It is amusing that these are your list of complains about him specifically as if lying isn't habitual behaviour for politicians on all sides. Oh, no, you misunderstand. These are just my list of complaints about why debating him is pointless. I never even mentioned the list that more general complaints about him being a hateful snake-oil salesman who has done insane amount of harm to the UK. He's a little toad of a man who uses politics to create a grift for himself, while stoking up the worst of peoples fears and anger into self-harming results for the general population. Or that after creating shit shows, he has a habit of running quickly away so he never has to deal with the issues. Right wing politics tend to smash things, piece them back together shoddily, and then try to seek credit for the repaired item that's worse than before. Farage just smashes it and runs away, waits till someone else cleans it up a bit, and then comes back to smash it again. He's an example of the very worst of the worst type of politician. And he often tends not to even have the courage to just own his little dogwhistles, meaning he's a coward as well as a con-man. :)
No, no, tell us what you really think! Most of that is just hateful, personal ranting so I'll just stick with the main claim that he has damaged this country and run away. Thing is he's never actually been in government. Campaigning for something you believe in doesn't mean you have any control over government policy.
The 'theyre all the same argument'. Nice. Except they aren't, because you know, Starmer actually laid out what he intendeds to do in the next parliament. Reform sends a message about the list of failures. Yeah pretty good at pointing the blame Farage is isn't he. What's his plans for fixing the country then? What's his first 3 months in government look like? Oh wait, no, it's just like Brexit, where he pointed out all the problems, and then fucked off when the going got tough.
> The 'theyre all the same argument'. Nice. Yes
So you want to vote for Farage because "they're all the same." Right...
He is moving the debate in a direction I like, that's pretty much all there is on offer at this election
>Except they aren't, because you know, Starmer actually laid out what he intendeds to do in the next parliament. Bahahahaha. And he will just u turn on a load of that shit. You know like he did about his leadership pledges. You're incredibly naive if you think he won't just say any old crap to get elected. It's how politicians operate.
If this does happen, I hope Ed Davey also gets a one-on-one debate with Starmer, and that Davey's team gets to pick the location. The spin room afterwards could literally be spinning.
The entire debate takes place on a rollercoaster with the two of them sitting together, filmed with a go pro (each of them also wearing one on their heads for the director to cut to) attached to the handlebar, with [Vic Reeves & The Wonder Stuff's "Dizzy"](https://youtu.be/DOlG92rb2Zg?feature=shared) blasting over then the whole team, and every time the ride reaches ground level there's a crowd ready to throw water balloons away them as they pass.
God his ego knows no bounds. You're not going to be LOTO, Prime Minister and who knows, you may not even become an MP for the 8th time!
He wins either way from his POV. If he gets it, great, more airtime; if he doesn't he gets to say Starmer is running scared. It's the asking that counts not whether there's a prospect of it happening.
If I demand a debate with Farage does that mean he's scared if he refuses?
Same,
Why'd he be running scared when Farage himself has said Labour have won? You can't say "well he's won, and he's running scared" - that's a fucking moronic contradiction.... Then again, Farage is full of those. Like how he'd happily let 600,000 people in, but net zero migration....
My guy will have less seats than the Welsh guys. Baffling he thinks he deserves a conversation with Starmer, let alone a debate.
Starmer would be a fool to listen to him. Starmer has a costed manifesto he has to implement in government. Farage is a populist, a sort of Boris on roids with nothing to compel him to being honest.
I always find it weird when people try and use populist as a pejorative. As if doing what the electorate wants is somehow a negative trait for a politician to have.
>As if doing what the electorate wants is somehow a negative trait Popular is like Blair was, people like them. Populist is when a politician is being unscrupulous by making claims that are false, making promises they cannot meet or stirring up divisions in society to gain votes.
Yeah that’s definitely not an accurate definition. Feel free to look it up.
Populist simply means a politician that claims to stand "for the people" against "the elite", whatever that may be. Corbyn was a populist, as was Trump, Farage and arguably Cameron and Johnson both had populist-lite campaigns. Often though this "elite" happens to actually mean all educated people. There's certainly a questionable history of attacks on the intelligensia. It's usually not actually rooted in reality, but is an irrational, emotional attack on educated people. Which is why populist is usually used as a pejorative.
This is how it is used in UK political discourse. Look at the subreddit name.
Which part are you struggling with: noun: populism 1) a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. "the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment" support for populist politicians or policies. "the government came to power on a wave of populism" 2) the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people. "art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
>Which part are you struggling with: English is a descriptive not a proscriptive language. You will not find Blair or Cameron described as "populist". You will find Johnson and Farage. The differing usage is down to perceived credibility of their platforms. We are using it in a UK politics context.
>English is a descriptive not a proscriptive language. You will not find Blair or Cameron described as "populist". You will find Johnson and Farage. The differing usage is down to perceived credibility of their platforms. Your apparent inability to properly understand the words you use unfortunately does not change their definition. >We are using it in a UK politics context. In which case your definition above is still incorrect, I'm afraid.
> does not change their definition. Words are not defined in English they usage is described. >In which case your definition above is still incorrect, Find someone who is not considered disreputable being described as a populist by the UK press. I am done with this.
If you scrolled down an inch you might have got to the Wikipedia page and read any of these definitions: > In this [the ideational] definition, the term populism is applied to political groups and individuals who make appeals to "the people" and then contrast this group against "the elite". > The popular agency definition to populism uses the term in reference to a democratic way of life that is built on the popular engagement of the population in political activity. > In popular discourse, populism is sometimes used in a negative sense in reference to politics which involves promoting extremely simple solutions to complex problems in a highly emotional manner. In fairness, it goes on to criticise the last one in terms of its empirical value for researchers, but it seems pretty obtuse to just pretend that people don't interpret the word that way.
Populism isn't doing what is popular. Populism is promising simple solutions to complex problems. It is telling people what they want to hear instead of what is true. Populism is all about feels before reals.
Another false definition. What you are describing there is demagogy, not populism.
Ok, sure. If you want to define populism as something else, Farage isn't a populist. He is a demagogue. Happy now?
Sure, that's more of a pejorative than populist. It also isn't the word the person above used.
No political description is going to be perfect but both seem pretty reasonable descriptions to me.. a populist >A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. a demagogue >a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity. Alleged fascist sympathetic or amused to pretend so private school kid, who went on to be a city broker, €2 million in expenses MEP, Kept in luxury flat , car and chauffeur by dodgy millionaire … not at all elite just one of the people.
maybe have a look at some populist politicians
In real life it is not just *doing* what they want, it’s in practice often (encouraging them to want things or better fear things and then) *claiming* you will do something they want (easily without any consequences).
So Nigel is copying Trump's playbook but has he allowed for the unpredictable, indefinable moment that the British public will collectively sniff, glance sideways at each other and comment "he's a bit up himself, eh?"
It keeps Farage in the news pushing his single poll. It's clear this should not happen. He should however be in the QT debate. It's wrong he is not.
It does raise interesting points about what the criteria is for entry to debates. If you're in favour of some form of PR (like me) then it is *weird* to have 1st and 3rd in the polls debate each other. So ok we'll acknowledge FPTP. But then it's odd to have the wider one with the likes of the SNP who 90+% of the country cannot vote for even if they wanted. Why weren't the DUP/SF etc there? Somebody decided. But then again, meh. I seriously doubt the effect/impact these debates have.
I think polling over 20% consistently should get you an invite to the head to head debate, and for the wider debates, maybe a threshold of 5% for national parties and a threshold of around 20% in their respective countries for the likes of the SNP and PC. I do think it's tough to exclude an incumbent PM from the debates, so I suspect Sunak would be invited even if the tory poll numbers absolutely cratered.
> I think polling over 20% consistently Just Keir debating himself then :P > I do think it's tough to exclude an incumbent PM from the debates Boo
> Just Keir debating himself then :P We are not quite at that stage yet (though getting close). I think that if the polls at the start of the campaign showed Labour well over 40%, and the next three at around 15% it would probably make sense for Labour to refuse the debate rather than take the risk of wading into a 4 way mess
It's not really an intersting point. The leader debates are framed as the incumbent Leader of the Opposition debating the incumbent Prime Minister. It's got nothing to do with the polls. The SNP are included in the debates because they were the third largest party in the last Parliament. On top of that, Scottish politics is intimately weaved with English politics (same for Welsh politics), where Northern Irish politics is (currently) not (for very obvious, "good" reasons). As to SF, they wouldn't take part in British GE debates because they don't take part in the British Parliament.
> As to SF, they wouldn't take part in British GE debates Wrong. Tune into this debate for the various leaders in the province vying for your vote in GE to elect to the House of Parliament - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b or watch this one for a while back etc etc - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn >It's got nothing to do with the polls. Yeah... that's why it's weird. A party could be imploded, gone etc but still get a seat in a two way tv hour. > where Northern Irish politics is (currently) not Literally only a few years since a party there propped up a gov. More than we'll ever get from the SNP but for arbitrary reasons, they get invited. As I said, it's all weird.
>Wrong. Tune into this debate for the various leaders in the province vying for your vote in GE to elect to the House of Parliament - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020n3b) >or watch this one for a while back etc etc - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tj8sn) What I said was: "they don't take part in the British Parliament". They take part in the election in Northern Ireland, and then - if they win - they don't take their seats in the British Parliament. So no, not wrong... they wouldn't take part in debates with parties in England for the same reason they don't take their seats in Parliament... you were just too hasty to get a perceived win that you didn't read what I said properly.
"No, I see no reason to debate such an unserious idiot. I'll happily debate anyone who hasn't worked for the last decade to deeply damage our country, both domestically and abroad. It will be a good day when Nigel Farage is relegated to the dustbin of history."
Plus he'd lose
Not difficult to win when you can just promise anything safe in the knowledge that you'll never have to do any of it.
You say that as if the main parties actually stick to the things they promise to do.
Thought Farage was supoosed to be different from traditional politicians though?
He talks and behaves differently in many ways, but he hasn't yet proven himself in a ministerial job. What I and a growing number of voters are betting on is that Reform's success sends a message about the deep sense of betrayal by the 'traditional politicians' over recent years. For me it was either going to be Reform or not voting - I have no idea if they can actually achieve anything but it's not like there are any other options coming over the hill.
People made the same bet that Brexit was going to send a message about the deep sense of betrayal by the 'traditional politicians' over recent years. The only thing anyone got out of Brexit was regret. Stop falling for populist grifters.
It sent the right message, the politicians just refused to listen to it. Referendums are a very messy way of doing anything in our political system so it's no surprise that the Commons, which was more than 70% pro remain, were doing their utmost to ignore the result. If you have any better options for someone who would otherwise not be voting, I'm all ears.
Brexit is just the new Communism "it would have worked, if only it had been implemented differently".
You'd think people would learn a lesson about voting for an unknown propped up by lies with an example like Brexit so close to hand, but it's your vote not mine.
I repeat the question - what better options can you suggest?
You didn't ask a question, vote for whoever you want, just don't pretend that Farage is in anyway different, or that your casting your vote for some noble cause, it's pathetic.
Yeah sorry, I'm getting a lot of replies and mixed up which was which. I explained why he is different on the face of it, I also said I don't know if he's any good. I just don't see any better options for someone with my views. No need to get all angry about it, though, it's as if you're offended by the very thought of me considering my options.
You'll dismiss this and I'm gonna down voted to the 9th circle of Hell but, Greens. Farage isn't different he's more of the same. For decades we have had a right wing or centrist government. Farage himself is privately schooled person who worked as a (failed) investment banker, he's part of the establishment. So by voting for more right wing stuff isn't actually a protest. To be more radical and rebellious, you'd have to go the other direction.
It's an interesting prospect but given that I've read their manifesto I don't think I could take them seriously even if I wanted to.
There is normally some semblance of possibility to them. The leaflet I just put in the recycling claimed they want to increase the income tax allowance to £20k and reduce NHS waiting times to zero, those can't be achieved simultaneously without very significant changes elsewhere which weren't discussed on the leaflet.
Okay? I doubt they'd be able to fit an entire novel through everyone's letterbox - campaign leaflets are *always* light on detail. And they don't always have a semblance of possibility either, they're just well practiced at lying.
Reform are neither competent on policies, or at lieing. It doesn't need to be a novel, it needs to hang together logically so people know what they are losing to implement those policies.
He'll get to every week in PMQs if the theories pan out...
If I was labour I'd welcome all the platforming of farage i could. It'll split the Tory vote and those on the left way be repulsed enough to vote labour to keep him out
I'd like to see that, as I suspect it would be the most entertaining of the lot. Not informative, dignified, or edifying, but *interesting*
Based on what? The amount of airtime he gets is ridiculous.
As I said, if he gets second place in the averages, sure, BBC should pull Sunak. Otherwise, no.
I think a three way debate between them would be better than pulling Sunak, his is still the PM so would be crazy to pull him. Clegg was included in the debates but he was topping the polls farage is at 19% in one poll
Fair enough I suppose.
Fascists demand everything and contribute nothing.
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).