Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "Nigel Farage predicts UK will BENEFIT from Trump VICTORY - 'The most PRO-BRITISH President!'" video.

  1. Calling Starmer "Kier Stalin" is not only an unfair comparison, but it's also deeply inappropriate. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions through purges, forced famines, labour camps, and brutal political repression. Equating Starmer, a democratically elected politician, with a dictator known for such atrocities trivialises the suffering of millions and undermines serious political debate. Let’s keep the discussion respectful and based on facts, not hyperbolic insults.
    2
  2. Project 2025, a U.S.-based conservative plan, aims to overhaul government institutions to reflect a specific political ideology by expanding executive powers, curtailing civil rights, and aligning federal agencies with restrictive views on social and personal freedoms. This blueprint would limit freedoms in areas like reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, and freedom of speech – changes that many see as a threat to democracy itself. The approach targets federal agencies to enforce "traditional values," often prioritizing ideological conformity over democratic checks and balances. For the UK, this is a warning. Populist parties here are similarly advocating for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Exiting the ECHR could open the door to significant erosions of rights that protect individual freedoms, justice, and democracy in the UK. Without ECHR protections, which act as a vital check on government overreach, the UK would risk dismantling hard-won rights that protect all citizens. Now more than ever, as voices push for sweeping, populist changes, the UK must be vigilant to protect democratic foundations and resist the erosion of civil liberties. With the push from some UK populist parties to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), how might a similar plan to Project 2025 in the UK impact citizens' rights and government accountability? Do you think such changes would strengthen or weaken democracy in Britain ?
    1
  3.  @Stroopwaffe1  who's/whose/there/their/they're. Good English is your patriotic duty, Volksgenosse .
    1
  4. :face-blue-smiling::face-purple-crying::face-green-smiling::face-fuchsia-poop-shape::face-blue-question-mark::body-green-covering-eyes::planet-orange-purple-ring::hourglass-purple-sand-orange: No idea! But you people understand i. Low IQ leads to Reform UK mass populist manipulation.
    1
  5. Stop listening to Melvyn Bragg on Radio 4 then! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  6. With Deform voters wanting to make the UK a pariah on the international stage.
    1
  7. Project 2025, a U.S.-based conservative plan, aims to overhaul government institutions to reflect a specific political ideology by expanding executive powers, curtailing civil rights, and aligning federal agencies with restrictive views on social and personal freedoms. This blueprint would limit freedoms in areas like reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, and freedom of speech – changes that many see as a threat to democracy itself. The approach targets federal agencies to enforce "traditional values," often prioritizing ideological conformity over democratic checks and balances. For the UK, this is a warning. Populist parties here are similarly advocating for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Exiting the ECHR could open the door to significant erosions of rights that protect individual freedoms, justice, and democracy in the UK. Without ECHR protections, which act as a vital check on government overreach, the UK would risk dismantling hard-won rights that protect all citizens. Now more than ever, as voices push for sweeping, populist changes, the UK must be vigilant to protect democratic foundations and resist the erosion of civil liberties. With the push from some UK populist parties to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), how might a similar plan to Project 2025 in the UK impact citizens' rights and government accountability? Do you think such changes would strengthen or weaken democracy in Britain ?
    1
  8.  @philippayne4951  not stolen by Labourites . First tactic of the right is DIVERT. So explain and provide evidence for your claim with the following in mind. The level of taxation in the UK as a percentage of GDP for the years 1979, 1997, 2010, and 2024 are as follows: 1979: The tax revenue was approximately 34.6% of GDP. During this period, the UK experienced significant economic volatility, which influenced the fluctuation in tax revenue (CEIC Data) (Institute for Fiscal Studies). 1997: The tax revenue had increased to around 36.3% of GDP. This period saw an increase in government revenue as economic conditions improved and tax policies were adjusted accordingly (Institute for Fiscal Studies). 2010: Following the financial crisis, tax revenue was about 36.7% of GDP. The economic downturn led to a decrease in overall receipts, but measures to stabilize the economy helped maintain a relatively high tax-to-GDP ratio (House of Commons Library). 2024: It is projected that tax revenue will be approximately 40% of GDP. This reflects recent increases in tax receipts relative to the size of the economy, influenced by economic recovery measures and adjustments in tax policies (Institute for Fiscal Studies) (House of Commons Library).
    1
  9. Turn back the clocks, the reactionaries are in power!
    1
  10.  @Zoney06  The notion that "the Conservatives are no longer conservative" merits a nuanced examination. Historically, figures like Edmund Burke, one-nation Disraeli, and Palmerston embodied a more stable, inclusive vision of conservatism. Burke advocated for gradual change, emphasising the importance of tradition and societal stability, while Disraeli championed the idea of a cohesive society, striving to bridge the gap between different social classes. Palmerston's foreign policy reflected a commitment to national interest balanced with moral considerations. In the 20th century, Winston Churchill played a pivotal role in establishing a post-war consensus that prioritised human rights and welfare, reinforcing the idea that a strong society is built on collective well-being. However, the ideological shift initiated by Margaret Thatcher significantly altered this landscape, leading to fragmentation within society. Her policies promoted individualism and deregulation, fostering an economic environment that benefited the wealthy and contributed to growing inequalities. Today's so-called conservatives often push austerity measures, Brexit, and a vision of managed decline that disproportionately advantages London over the regions. Such policies are misaligned with the traditional conservative principles of social cohesion and community welfare. Instead of fostering stability and inclusivity, the current approach increases inequality, enriches the capitalist class, and undermines the civil and labour rights of working people. For instance, the push for deregulation and tax cuts often comes at the expense of public services and protections, diverging from the conservative values of responsibility and stewardship. Thus, while the Conservative Party may still claim to uphold traditional values, their current trajectory seems to prioritise market-oriented strategies over the well-being of society as a whole. This departure from historical conservatism raises an important question: How can a political party that emphasises individual gain over collective responsibility genuinely call itself conservative ?
    1
  11.  @doommonger7784  A matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
    1
  12.  @RawTopShot  Why would he do that? The people who will profit most from NHS privatisation are those that bankroll Farage and Reform UK.
    1