Election prediction time

[StanSP]

55 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

When I read your question above, it looks no different than a religious person advancing a doctrine and accusing non-believers of being sinful heretics. 

How? 

 

We do still live in such a society that you mention, and it's okay to call out what people say, if they are racist or homophobic, as that. 

Just because people don't like being labelled as racist and hide behind 'oh I can't say what I think any more, society is changed', it's just a cop out. 

 

What's probably also lost here is that people don't actually realise they're being racist because they're too unintelligent to realise (not everyone, but some of the interviews you see on the street are staggering). 

Also, people get confused about hiding behind free speech, often from the right wing individuals. 'there's no free speech any more!! You can't say anything these days!'. 

No, there has always been free speech. But there's also never not been a time where there's not a consequence of what people say. You can have free speech but it doesn't free you of the effect or impact of the words spouted... 

Edited 29 June by StanSP

[The Doctor]

21 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

I've seen what the Tories have achieved destroyed in the last fourteen years and I've seen what Labour are hoping to achieve in the long term.

 

I'll quite happily, proudly take my chances with Labour.

no-one has seen what labour are hoping to achieve in the long term though! they've categorically ruled out lifting children out of poverty, of shoring up workers rights, of reversing the destruction of the NHS, they have made it clear that they don't have objections to what the Tories have done, only the pigs ear they've made of enacting it. they are telling you who they are and only fools pretend that they're just saying it to get elected.

[Daggers]

”Prove he personally put people in gas chambers, you can’t, there isn’t any evidence to show he did that. The people who killed the Jews and travellers were actors putting on pretend German voices, it said so in the Daily HawHaw. It’s ridiculous to use loaded buzzwords like ‘Nazi’ to describe Nazis, you’ve totally devalued the word - in fact, it’s you anti-Nazis who are the real Nazis.”

 

Imbeciles, the lot of them.

[HighPeakFox]

I'm not really interested in engaging with someone who (admittedly eloquently) basically projects stuff onto me that I never said and just plays the victim. 

 

And there, by the way, is Farageism in a nutshell. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

13 minutes ago, Daggers said:

”Prove he personally put people in gas chambers, you can’t, there isn’t any evidence to show he did that. The people who killed the Jews and travellers were actors putting on pretend German voices, it said so in the Daily HawHaw. It’s ridiculous to use loaded buzzwords like ‘Nazi’ to describe Nazis, you’ve totally devalued the word - in fact, it’s you anti-Nazis who are the real Nazis.”

 

Imbeciles, the lot of them.

Do you really believe this is a fair summary of the opposing side's viewpoint? Do you think you have identified the strongest argument against your position?

[Alf Bentley]

33 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Again, the reason why somebody disagrees with you might not be because they have an insufficiently open mind. I am open to all possibilities - it is perfectly plausible that this man, an actor who advertises his ability to do undercover work and portray a loutish character with a strong regional accent, is a genuine Reform supporter and used cartoonishly inappropriate language on camera. I have seen crazier things happen. However, I am exercising skepticism here, which I believe is the reasonable position.

 

What you don't seem to realise is that these buzzwords you have locked and loaded (spew, racist, homophobic, vile etc) have been devalued so much through overuse that fewer and fewer people are paying attention to them and they have almost lost all meaning. For some time it has been the MO of the political left to attempt to destroy the reputation of anybody who disagrees with them, especially if they offer credible opposition and have significant support like Farage does. So even if it is established that this man is who he claims to be, it will not change the minds of people who already support the party, and for those who already thought Reform was full of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis, this is yet further evidence of how right they were.

 

My words were not terribly original, but 2 (racist, homophobic) were accurate designations of the expressions the blokes used and 2 (spew, vile) expressed my disgust at what I saw and heard.

 

You imply that you have an open mind, yet go on to state that if your claim about this man is disproven, "it will not change the minds of people who already support the party". 

 

You don't respond to the evidence that Reform officials guided the undercover journalist to go with the "actor". Presumably Reform did not employ the "actor" to discredit their own party. So, are you saying that he turned up "acting" on a voluntary, unpaid basis and Reform officials chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him? Or are you presuming that C4 secretly hired him (any evidence, if so?) and Reform chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him?

 

You focus entirely on the "actor" (mainly a property developer, he says - easily checked, surely?) and ignore my point about the other blokes who came out with abuse, confirmed by Farage himself to have been known party activists.

 

I don't believe that Reform is "full of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis" (your words are no more original than mine). My working assumption is that aside from a small number who do fit that description, there are many more who are uncomfortable with the pace of change in this country, particularly the UK becoming increasingly multi-racial. They often blame this change for the undoubted problems that the UK currently faces: cost of living crisis, lack of housing, NHS in crisis, crime, public squalor etc. I also see the rise in support for Reform as partly due to widespread disenchantment with the mainstream parties - with the Tories due to their record and scandals in office, Labour due to them not announcing clear solutions to the nation's problems (a cautious, defensive campaign, which I regret but understand - it's partly honesty that the state of the finances does not allow for promises of instant change, partly caution that any promises will be misrepresented and used to scare away potential Lab voters).

 

The lessons of history are that right-wing extremism does not result from a sudden mass upsurge of "foaming-at-the-mouth" extremists. The hard core is usually small in number, though often with a charismatic leader who appeals to people who are not overtly politicised. They play on genuine economic/social problems and real, understandable (if often unjustified) fears held by people whose lives are difficult or who are uncomfortable with the state of the nation.  They blame minority groups for this, spreading division and hatred.

 

I presume that, at worst, Reform will only get a small number of MPs this time. But  I do not welcome the idea of Reform leading or strongly influencing the opposition to Labour, if they win.  It concerns me that might cause division and conflict in society. It also concerns me what will happen by 2029. The nation is in a state that will be hard to correct (high debt, high tax, low growth, collapsing public services, poor public health, aging population etc.). Even IF the incoming govt is a lot better than the outgoing crew (I'm hopeful, but there are no guarantees), the UK is still likely to have a lot of problems by 2029. If public discontent about problems is mainly channeled through a party mainly blaming immigrants and minorities, that is not a great prospect.

[David Hankey]

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm not really interested in engaging with someone who (admittedly eloquently) basically projects stuff onto me that I never said and just plays the victim. 

 

And there, by the way, is Farageism in a nutshell. 

Me too!!

[Daggers]

 

[HighPeakFox]

13 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Me too!!

I'm glad we're of a mind on this. I hope nobody has done that to you. 

[grobyfox1990]

41 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

no-one has seen what labour are hoping to achieve in the long term though! they've categorically ruled out lifting children out of poverty, of shoring up workers rights, of reversing the destruction of the NHS, they have made it clear that they don't have objections to what the Tories have done, only the pigs ear they've made of enacting it. they are telling you who they are and only fools pretend that they're just saying it to get elected.

Where did they make it clear? I’ve barely glanced at the manifestos, what’s the deal with what you mention above 

 

edit - noting the accusatory tone of this thread, my question is genuine! Not trying to honeytrap you into an answer. Actually interested. 

Edited 29 June by grobyfox1990

[st albans fox]

I may have to do the same as 2019 and spoil my paper 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

I may have to do the same as 2019 and spoil my paper 

Serious question, how does one officially spoil their paper?

 

Do you just put a line through every candidate or draw a big cock and balls on it or something?

[Daggers]

“But he is an actor”

 

 

[Daggers]

 

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Serious question, how does one officially spoil their paper?

 

Do you just put a line through every candidate or draw a big cock and balls on it or something?

Simply not putting one cross/clear mark  inside one box spoils your paper 

Officially you have to mark a cross in a single box but if it’s obvious to the returning officer that you are voting for someone then they will likely count your vote (ie if you tick a box).
Otherwise it’s counted as spoiled 

 

last time I wrote against each candidate why I couldnt  vote for them 😀

 

made me feel better ! 

[David Hankey]

48 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I may have to do the same as 2019 and spoil my paper 

Undoubtedly, I will.

[The Doctor]

53 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Where did they make it clear? I’ve barely glanced at the manifestos, what’s the deal with what you mention above 

 

edit - noting the accusatory tone of this thread, my question is genuine! Not trying to honeytrap you into an answer. Actually interested. 

not lifting kids out of poverty is the two child cap: labour have made no pledge in the manifesto and have repeatedly dodged committing to lifting it even though it would pretty much instantly lift 300k children out of poverty 

 

workers rights I'm talking about the way the unions have already been at their throats for putting out "a charter for bad bosses" https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2024/may/labour-s-draft-new-deal-for-workers-now-unrecognisable

 

Wes Streeting, shadow health minister before the election was called (so almost certain to be the health minister in Starmers government) has repeatedly talked about utilising more of the private sector. problem is that the private sector isn't a different set of doctors, nurses etc, it's the same staff moonlighting because the NHS has been cut to within an inch of it's life so they make up their pay elsewhere. utilising more of the private sector is doing nothing to fix the damage to the NHS 

[The Doctor]

55 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Serious question, how does one officially spoil their paper?

 

Do you just put a line through every candidate or draw a big cock and balls on it or something?

basically, just ensure that there's not a clear indication of what you want to vote for. initialling your paper also voids it. 

 

just, if you want to spoil make sure there's not something that could be construed as a vote. there's the story of the 2019 election, possibly apocryphal, of a voter writing BREXIT down the paper next to the party names and it being counted as a vote for the party that the X was next to

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Serious question, how does one officially spoil their paper?

 

Do you just put a line through every candidate or draw a big cock and balls on it or something?

In a previous election someone wrote "Cvnts"next to each candidate except the Greens where they wrote "Not Cvnts". This was seen as endorsement of the Greens and counted as a vote. 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

The first article simply refers to "fake accounts" in general. That there are thousands of them I think is undeniable. But the article doesn't actually make the claim that Russians are responsible for proliferating Reform UK material. In fact it simply says the following:

 

An interesting quote from the article too:

 

This is what I think a lot of people making your argument don't seem to fully appreciate. It is very patronising to tell people that the reason they think like they do is because they were simply unable to resist propaganda, the implication presumably being that the accuser has somehow managed to avoid such brainwashing themselves. Lots of people disagree with you and it's not because they were tricked by an AI image on a fake Twitter account.

 

The second article actually talks about fake accounts which disseminate information on all the major parties. So it's unclear how this would affect one party more than another.

 

As for the actor, his name is Andrew Parker and that he is an actor is not in doubt. You can see the man himself in Dan Wootton's video here:

 

Daily Mail also reports that he admitted he is an actor but still claims to be a Reform canvasser. In any case, Farage immediately condemned the remarks and said nobody holding those views can be a member of the party. So exactly what is the implication here? That the things this man said are Reform policy?

 

 

It could well be patronising, but in return I would say that the counterpoint of the idea of a human being having viewpoints entirely sovereign and not affected by any other agencies is idealistic to the point of being naive. And to be honest, I think the viewpoints are of equal value whether or not they are arrived at through sovereign cognition or outside influence anyway - either way they're harmful when turned into policy. Ditto the Reform UK stance on environmental issues, come to that.

 

WRT the canvasser, others have made the counterpoints here before I have.

 

 

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

The brexit vote of 2016 was a personality vote, no doubt about that. Plenty of people may have tried to reason but they did a terrible job, it was an overwhelmingly and materially an ‘us against them’ argument to the average man. If you were met with project fear arguments in 2016, meet them back with your grounded arguments? If enough people did this, it wouldn’t have turned into a reality contest. The arrogance of brits does not allow us to stick to grounded arguments. It will always turn to emotion and mudslinging. 

This thread is presumably a microcosm of many threads happening now. Reform = stupid. Arrogance and superiority complexes are at the heart of the average British personality, imo due to empire thinking. No one has thought that ‘none of it sinks in’ because you’re presenting a sh1t and weak argument? 

Ah, we've been here before when discussing another topic, mon ami.

 

AFAIC if things do end up going to hell in a handbasket as a result of negative policy being implemented, then personally I'm going to do my best to state for the record that the lions share of responsibility for that lies with those who did it and those who let it happen, as opposed to those who tried to stop it happening - as ineffective as they may have been or appeared to be.

Edited 29 June by leicsmac

[The Doctor]

15 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

In a previous election someone wrote "Cvnts"next to each candidate except the Greens where they wrote "Not Cvnts". This was seen as endorsement of the Greens and counted as a vote. 

yep, also possibly apocryphal (not sure how you'd verify that) but given the vote just needs to be a clear indication of intent, very possible. easiest way to guarantee it's counted as a spoiled vote is to draw a line through all of the boxes and then write NONE

[StanSP]

17 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

In a previous election someone wrote "Cvnts"next to each candidate except the Greens where they wrote "Not Cvnts". This was seen as endorsement of the Greens and counted as a vote. 

So do the cock and balls (and jizz?) need to be drawn in a certain place? What indicates an endorsement, where the jizz lands ?

Asking for a friend... 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

My words were not terribly original, but 2 (racist, homophobic) were accurate designations of the expressions the blokes used and 2 (spew, vile) expressed my disgust at what I saw and heard.

 

You imply that you have an open mind, yet go on to state that if your claim about this man is disproven, "it will not change the minds of people who already support the party". 

 

You don't respond to the evidence that Reform officials guided the undercover journalist to go with the "actor". Presumably Reform did not employ the "actor" to discredit their own party. So, are you saying that he turned up "acting" on a voluntary, unpaid basis and Reform officials chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him? Or are you presuming that C4 secretly hired him (any evidence, if so?) and Reform chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him?

 

You focus entirely on the "actor" (mainly a property developer, he says - easily checked, surely?) and ignore my point about the other blokes who came out with abuse, confirmed by Farage himself to have been known party activists.

 

I don't believe that Reform is "full of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis" (your words are no more original than mine). My working assumption is that aside from a small number who do fit that description, there are many more who are uncomfortable with the pace of change in this country, particularly the UK becoming increasingly multi-racial. They often blame this change for the undoubted problems that the UK currently faces: cost of living crisis, lack of housing, NHS in crisis, crime, public squalor etc. I also see the rise in support for Reform as partly due to widespread disenchantment with the mainstream parties - with the Tories due to their record and scandals in office, Labour due to them not announcing clear solutions to the nation's problems (a cautious, defensive campaign, which I regret but understand - it's partly honesty that the state of the finances does not allow for promises of instant change, partly caution that any promises will be misrepresented and used to scare away potential Lab voters).

 

The lessons of history are that right-wing extremism does not result from a sudden mass upsurge of "foaming-at-the-mouth" extremists. The hard core is usually small in number, though often with a charismatic leader who appeals to people who are not overtly politicised. They play on genuine economic/social problems and real, understandable (if often unjustified) fears held by people whose lives are difficult or who are uncomfortable with the state of the nation.  They blame minority groups for this, spreading division and hatred.

 

I presume that, at worst, Reform will only get a small number of MPs this time. But  I do not welcome the idea of Reform leading or strongly influencing the opposition to Labour, if they win.  It concerns me that might cause division and conflict in society. It also concerns me what will happen by 2029. The nation is in a state that will be hard to correct (high debt, high tax, low growth, collapsing public services, poor public health, aging population etc.). Even IF the incoming govt is a lot better than the outgoing crew (I'm hopeful, but there are no guarantees), the UK is still likely to have a lot of problems by 2029. If public discontent about problems is mainly channeled through a party mainly blaming immigrants and minorities, that is not a great prospect.

You are a fvcking gift to this forum, Alf.

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm glad we're of a mind on this. I hope nobody has done that to you. 

Amazing, I said that with sincerity and I get the passive aggressive laughing emoji. Tellingly. 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

not lifting kids out of poverty is the two child cap: labour have made no pledge in the manifesto and have repeatedly dodged committing to lifting it even though it would pretty much instantly lift 300k children out of poverty 

 

workers rights I'm talking about the way the unions have already been at their throats for putting out "a charter for bad bosses" https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2024/may/labour-s-draft-new-deal-for-workers-now-unrecognisable

 

Wes Streeting, shadow health minister before the election was called (so almost certain to be the health minister in Starmers government) has repeatedly talked about utilising more of the private sector. problem is that the private sector isn't a different set of doctors, nurses etc, it's the same staff moonlighting because the NHS has been cut to within an inch of it's life so they make up their pay elsewhere. utilising more of the private sector is doing nothing to fix the damage to the NHS 

Thanks for that, good analysis, had no idea