Youtube comments of robs2020 (@sbor2020).
-
174
-
114
-
99
-
86
-
85
-
67
-
60
-
56
-
55
-
48
-
47
-
43
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
David Starkey is known for promoting the "great man" view of history, which focuses on influential individuals - typically powerful leaders whose decisions and actions are seen as the primary drivers of historical change. This perspective often downplays the roles of broader social, economic, and cultural forces, and the role of ordinary people. So he highlights how figures like Henry VIII shaped the English Reformation, arguing that Henry's personal desires and decisions were the main catalysts. By doing so he oversimplifies history, ignoring the contributions of ordinary people and the complex interplay of societal factors.
In his analysis of the riots, Starkey similarly emphasises the role of a single major actor, "two-tier Keir" Starmer, portraying him as the primary influence while relegating the actions of the rioters to a secondary status. This reflects the same "great man" approach, focusing on a central figure at the expense of a broader understanding of the events.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
It's important to approach this topic with an understanding of the facts surrounding halal slaughter and animal welfare legislation in the UK.
First, halal slaughter is not illegal in the UK. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides guidelines that all slaughter methods must follow to ensure the humane treatment of animals, regardless of cultural or religious practices. Halal slaughter must comply with these regulations, including the requirement for the animal to be stunned before slaughter in most cases.
Second, many argue that halal methods can be humane when performed correctly. For example, the method involves a swift cut to the throat, which, if done properly, can lead to rapid unconsciousness and minimise pain. Studies have shown that when carried out by trained individuals, halal slaughter can be just as humane as other methods.
Additionally, banning halal slaughter would not only infringe on the rights of individuals to practice their faith but could also lead to a significant impact on the meat supply for various communities in the UK.
It’s crucial to focus on improving animal welfare standards across all methods of slaughter rather than singling out specific practices. Engaging in informed discussions can lead to better outcomes for animal welfare while respecting cultural and religious practices.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ionlyfearphobophobia So what you are saying is she didn't laugh at male suicide . Thank you. You are right though, as in 2022, the overall suicide rate in the UK was approximately 10.5 per 100,000 people. Breaking this down by gender, the male suicide rate was significantly higher at 16.1 per 100,000, whereas the female suicide rate was much lower at 5.3 per 100,000. This pattern of higher suicide rates among males has been consistent over the years (ONS). Males aged 50-54 had the highest suicide rate at 23.1 per 100,000, highlighting a particularly vulnerable age group. Regional differences also exist, with the North East of England having the highest suicide rate and London the lowest. These statistics underline the need for targeted mental health support and intervention, particularly for middle-aged men who are at the highest risk. The disparity in suicide rates between genders emphasizes the importance of addressing specific risk factors and providing appropriate support systems.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The concert started with Richard Strauss; the conductor was American; the singer Norwegian. Also on the progamme was Bruch, Wagner, Mascagni, Verdi, Kálmán, Roxanna Panufnik (British Polish), Villa‐Lobos (Brazillian). You could argue that it is now more international, but 50 years ago it included Dukas, César Franck, Bizet, and Rimsky-Korsakov. The Proms as a whole had 85 concerts, 3,000 musicians, about 35 orchestras. It would be poorer if it only consisted of British musicians. You have created your own culture: one that is based a narrow-minded, hostile, and reactionary worldview, not one embraced by the composers, performers or audiences of the Proms.
6
-
I understand and agree with your point that countries have the right and responsibility to control their borders and regulate who enters, as it is a matter of sovereignty rather than racism. This provides a foundation for a rational discussion on fair immigration policies. However, populist parties are exploiting this issue, stirring up fear and hatred, particularly among the far-right, who often incite violence against vulnerable asylum seekers.
The previous UK Conservative government's handling of immigration, especially illegal crossings of the English Channel, was appalling. It seemed intentionally cruel, turning immigration into a highly charged political issue, with intense debates over border control, asylum policies, and the strain on public services.
The new Labour government's Border Security Bill , announced in July, suggests a shift towards stricter border control. It focuses on cracking down on people-smuggling gangs, increasing penalties for immigration crimes, and fast-tracking deportations for those from "safe countries." While this bill takes a tougher stance on illegal immigration, time will tell whether it will be effective or create further challenges.
While it's essential for countries to manage their borders responsibly, the challenge lies in creating fair, humane policies without falling into the trap of xenophobia or cruelty. Populist movements risk exacerbating tensions, and any effective immigration policy must balance security with compassion.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@thetruth9210 It's strange that no one was saying this before the referendum. But after 2016, Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg, acknowledged that voters didn't fully understand the potential economic consequences. Rees-Mogg himself admitted in his “Moggcast” that, unlike the 1975 referendum on the Treaty of Rome, the 2016 vote was a "jump in the dark," with many leavers unaware of what they were voting for. Before the vote, the focus was largely on regaining sovereignty, with little emphasis on the economic risks involved. Now, in hindsight, many are grappling with unforeseen challenges such as economic downturns, labour shortages, and trade disruptions.
Shouldn't voters have been given a clearer understanding of the long-term consequences before making such a significant decision ?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@AndiWard International law doesn't automatically "supersede" national laws; it typically applies when countries choose to ratify treaties. However, universal human rights norms, such as those in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, establish baseline obligations that many nations voluntarily accept to protect fundamental rights.
While I get your frustration, breaking international law and ignoring human rights isn’t a viable solution. International law, such as the Refugee Convention, doesn’t just override national laws; it sets crucial protections for those fleeing danger. Human rights apply to everyone, including migrants, and violating these principles can have severe consequences. Rather than focusing on punitive measures like mass deportations, we should seek comprehensive immigration reform and international cooperation. A humane approach that respects both our laws and international obligations will lead to better outcomes for all involved.
How can nations balance their sovereignty and national laws with their obligations under international law and human rights norms, particularly when faced with complex issues like migration?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The awakening of NF .
How do you move a mob, Mr. Farage? How do you excite them? How do you make them feel as one with you ?
I-i don't know. How ?
Join them first, Mr. Farage .
Join them ?
Yes, when you speak to them, speak to them as if you were a member of the mob. Speak to them in their language, on their level. Make their hate your hate. If they are poor, talk to them of poverty. If they are afraid, talk to them of their fears. And if they are angry, Mr. Farage, if they are angry, give them objects for their anger. But most of all, the thing that is most of the essence, Mr. Farage, is that you make this mob an extension of yourself. Say to them things like... things like... "they call us hatemongers. "they say we're prejudiced. "they say we're biased. "they say we hate minorities... minorities. "understand the term, neighbors: "minorities. "should i tell you who are the minorities? "should i tell you? ( shouting): "we...! We are the minorities!" That way, Mr. Farage. Start it that way .
I... understand. I think I understand .
5
-
5
-
The UK isn’t in the gutter because of Labour – it’s because of the unchecked rise of billionaire wealth and the policies that protect it. In 2024, billionaire fortunes grew at three times the rate of the previous year, while ordinary people faced higher living costs, stagnant wages, and crumbling public services. Much of this wealth isn’t earned – it comes from inheritance, monopolies, and cronyism. Globally, $5.2 trillion is set to be passed down, creating a new aristocracy.
Meanwhile, nearly half the world lives in poverty, worsened by policies that prioritise the wealthy. Historical colonial exploitation funnelled wealth from the Global South to the North, and modern systems like the IMF and multinational corporations keep the cycle going. Women, particularly in poorer nations, bear the brunt of unpaid labour and inequality.
This isn’t about merit – it’s systemic exploitation. If we want to fix the UK, we need leaders brave enough to tax the super-rich, reinvest in public services, and stop blaming everyone but the billionaire class for the mess we’re in. The real enemies aren’t working people or immigrants – they’re the oligarchs hoarding wealth while the rest of us struggle.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Are you thinking of “spiritual war” in the sense that Apostle Paul wrote about “_our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms_ ?” If so, it raises profound questions: Are the battles we witness – political, cultural, moral – manifestations of something deeper, more metaphysical? And if that's the case, what does resistance or righteousness look like in such a struggle?
It seems to me that naming it as a spiritual war compels us to ask not only what we are fighting, but how we fight – and whether we’re aligning ourselves with justice, mercy, and compassion, or with fear, cruelty, and indifference.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If the United Kingdom were at war, what part of its sovereignty would you, the Faragists, be willing to surrender for peace? Would it be the entire south of England? Perhaps Kent? You have justified stripping citizens of their freedom of movement and accepting higher trade barriers, more red tape, and fewer opportunities for young people – all in the name of reclaiming sovereignty. Yet, when it comes to Ukraine, the principle of sovereignty seems to lose its importance.
Do you even understand what a so-called peace deal with Russia would entail? Ukraine is fighting for a lasting peace, not one that leaves Russia in possession of even more of its territory. They seek security and a durable resolution, not a temporary pause that allows further aggression.
Those who follow Nigel Farage appear to echo the Kremlin's line. Farage's support for Vladimir Putin has been nothing short of unwavering. I have previously asked Nigel why, as an MEP in 2015, he chose to vote alongside far-right European parties – such as France's Front National, Hungary's Jobbik, and Germany's AfD – against measures aimed at preventing Russian interference. This vote took place after Russia's occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014.
The hypocrisy is glaring. How can one demand sovereignty at home while dismissing it abroad?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@craigwebb4012 The question was how a can religion invade a country. Anyway, as for your comment, the three Abrahamic religions all believe in the existence of one God, the creator and sustainer of the universe. They share many of the same prophets, such as Moses and Elijah in Judaism, and Jesus in both Christianity and Islam. You far-right people even talk of “Judeo-Christian” tradition rather than “Abrahamic” ignoring the similarities and creating conflict. Abraham, the original prophet even sacrificed his own son Isaac, so that sacrifice is central to your religions. But I am sure theological discussion is not what you meant, but more on Islamophobia, which is mainly driven by ignorance, and political ideologies. Isn’t freedom important to you? Don’t you think it's important to promote understanding, tolerance, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Research from before the 2016 referendum indicates that substantial net migration to the UK was likely to continue, regardless of the Leave or Remain outcome.
Leave Scenario: If the UK leaves the EU, migration restrictions could lead to a modest reduction in immigration, but the UK would still likely receive over 500,000 immigrants annually, with net migration above 200,000. We may see fewer low-skilled workers and more students, alongside a potential rise in irregular migration due to visa overstays.
Remain Scenario: If the UK remains in the EU, current migration trends are expected to continue, with net migration possibly remaining above 600,000.
In conclusion, no matter the referendum result, high levels of immigration were anticipated, impacting migration patterns and policies significantly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
These people had meetings with Cabinet ministers. Who might the Tories have been protecting?
Lubov Chernukhin: Wife of Vladimir Chernukhin, a former Russian minister under Putin. She has donated millions to the Conservative Party.
Alexander Temerko: A former senior executive in Russian energy firms and now a British citizen, Temerko has donated large sums to the Conservatives and is linked to the UK energy sector.
Vladimir Chernukhin: Former Russian minister and husband of Lubov Chernukhin. While his wife is the formal donor, there are significant ties to Russian political circles.
Who might have influenced the last government's energy policy?
Michael Hintze: A major Conservative donor and a prominent figure in the hedge fund world, with investments in energy companies, including fossil fuels.
Ian Taylor: Former CEO of Vitol, one of the world’s largest energy trading companies dealing in oil and gas. He was a notable Conservative donor.
Ayman Asfari: CEO of Petrofac, a major player in the oil and gas services industry. He has made significant donations to the Conservative Party.
Who might have been influencing you during the Tory government, and who might still be influencing you now?
Jonathan Harmsworth (Viscount Rothermere): Owner of the Daily Mail and General Trust, which has been criticized for its use of offshore tax arrangements. The Rothermere family has made donations and has been supportive of Conservative policies.
Lord Ashcroft: Former Conservative Party deputy chairman and significant donor. He has been linked to offshore tax arrangements and has media interests.
David Rowland: A property tycoon with extensive business interests in offshore jurisdictions. Rowland has been a key donor to the Conservative Party and close to senior figures within the party.
Christophe Harborne: A major donor who has been linked to various business ventures, including aviation fuel. He has donated substantial amounts to the Conservative Party and Reform UK.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ I hear your frustration, and I agree that leaders – especially spiritual ones – have a responsibility to speak clearly and compassionately in the face of violence and suffering. But I don’t think Pope Francis was “against Jesus’s people.” His role is often to be a bridge-builder, not a politician or a judge. Meeting with representatives of groups in conflict, even terrible ones, isn’t always endorsement – it can be a path to diplomacy, pressure, or peace, however imperfect.
He has consistently condemned violence and called out cruelty on all sides, including the horrors of war and terrorism. And while symbolism matters – yes, Easter Monday has deep resonance – I’d be cautious about drawing conclusions without clear evidence. In times like these, we need less division and more moral clarity rooted in compassion, not fear or vengeance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@smellypunks It’s refreshing to see the Gini coefficient brought up, but it’s worth noting that focusing on a single metric doesn’t paint the full picture of inequality. Over the past 14 years, the UK has endured stagnant wages, austerity policies, managed decline, and Brexit – all of which the IEA has supported. These have compounded the economic divide rather than alleviated it. Consider the reality: the UK now has 57 billionaires (up by 4 since last year), and a 2025 Oxfam report shows billionaire fortunes grew three times faster in 2024 compared to 2023. This growing concentration of wealth entrenches inequality while public services have been decimated by austerity.
Here’s just a glimpse of what’s been lost in the last 14 years:
🔹 200 museums
🔹 244 courts and tribunals
🔹 279 playing fields
🔹 451 homeless services
🔹 600 police stations
🔹 673 public toilets
🔹 750 youth centres
🔹 793 playgrounds
🔹 800 libraries
🔹 926 football pitches
🔹 1,086 swimming pools
🔹 1,416 Sure Start children’s centres
🔹 8,000 bus routes
🔹 25,000 NHS beds
Austerity has gutted the very infrastructure that supports communities and fosters economic mobility. With inequality entrenched and opportunity stifled, it’s no wonder the economy is struggling. It’s time we start looking beyond isolated statistics like the Gini coefficient and examine the broader systemic impacts of policy decisions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'People who voted Brexit voted for better than this' Being outside the Customs Union, and therefore a Third Country , the increased red tape, the implementation of customs charges, and the visa requirements no longer makes the UK the attractive destination it once was. Certainly the availability of cheap flights is another factor. Overall, Brexit was a massive blow to the shipping industry. As for the workers' rights argument: it was deregulation that was the highest priority of the brexiteers in the capitalist class and those politicians that were supportive of it. Do you seriously think that workers rights was even a consideration of Mogg, of IDS, of Redwood? In fact, Brexiteers in the Conservative Party voted against the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill that would have protected P& O workers. The deregulation of labour laws was one major reason for the these to support Brexit. For the rest, which were those voting against their interests, you had your sacred sovereignty .
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So take your leaders to Den Haag. On which of these crimes against humanity woul you prosecute?
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We shouldn't ignore the European Court of Human Rights, or its convention. These protections exist for all UK citizens, ensuring fairness, dignity, and justice. If we strip rights from asylum seekers, what's stopping them from being taken from others in the future? For example, the ECHR has helped protect victims of domestic abuse, safeguard free speech, and ensure fair trials. Removing these protections, even for one group, weakens the rights we all depend on. Human rights shouldn't be conditional."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@straightouttacornwall Reform UK is a nationalist party not a conservative party .
A definition: in essence, conservatism in England is the belief in preserving traditional institutions, promoting gradual change, and prioritising stability, individual responsibility, and limited government intervention in economic and social affairs.
Although it may some ideological overlaps with the Conservative Party and conservatism, Reform UK's core focus on nationalism, particularly in terms of sovereignty, immigration, and identity politics, distinctly marks it as a nationalist party. This alignment with nationalist principles.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Solus94 It’s more complex than just blaming one leader or party. This also ignores the context of recent events like the Southport tragedy, where people were imprisoned not for “hurty words” but for inciting violence, including calls for deaths, after far-right groups spread false claims about the crime. This misinformation led to riots, with courts sentencing dozens for their roles in the unrest. The Labour government plans to strengthen online hate laws to combat such incitement. Protecting public safety from extremist exploitation isn’t authoritarian – it’s necessary.
Although I am no fan of Starmer, yet your comment that he is protecting grapist , is ridiculous. During his time as DPP, Starmer oversaw significant changes in the handling of CSE cases. Under his leadership, the CPS introduced reforms that prioritised the prosecution of perpetrators and improved the support for victims, particularly in high-profile cases like Rochdale and Rotherham. Starmer also acknowledged systemic failures in how authorities had previously handled such cases and pushed for more robust approaches to ensure justice for victims. The claim that Starmer’s priority was to protect criminals is factually incorrect. His record as DPP shows he focused on addressing institutional shortcomings and holding offenders accountable, helping to bring many to justice.
The government can't keep ordering new inquiries without acting on the recommendations from previous ones. Another inquiry could take years, and by then, a new government could come in and fail to act on that one too. It's not about more reports, it's about the political will to implement the changes already identified. The real issue is accountability – why hadn't the previous Tory government taken action on the findings from the last inquiry to protect children? The focus should be on immediate, tangible change rather than more delay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ChristineRead-ck1uq Firstly, is this a case against climate change? First you were basically saying that climate change is nonsense, now you are saying that climate change is real and that trees can off-set the effects. Yes indeed, trees are amazing, but as I said, there was 36 billion tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere last year, so that would mean 1.44 trillion mature trees just to absorb last year’s emissions. And indeed the forests are in areas of the world in countries with the highest carbon emissions. However, deforestation is also a massive problem: leading to flooding, soil erosion, contributing to further natural disasters. The guest, Christina Anderson of the AfD last year voted against Deforestation Regulation in the European Parliament. Parties like Reform UK are funded by fossil fuel investors, and deforestation is not a priority when they seek to profit from the lifting environmental protection.
With profit being the motive for deforestation, it becomes relentless. In the Amazon, 17% has already been deforested. This tipping point for climate change is 25%. Also Kent is called the “garden of England” but the River Medway has high levels of water pollution caused by untreated sewage and agriculture waste, but Southern Water is a private company and profit is the imperative.
My point would be that trees alone cannot prevent global climate change, especially when trees are seen as a raw material to extract profit . I live near on the edge of a forest, and I see the beautiful living things, whereas a capitalist operating the profit system sees forests are a source of wealth. I can see what Marx called “use value”, the capitalist sees only “exchange value”. What drives the destruction of the environment, and the lifting of environmental protections is the quest for profit in a capitalist system. Those who profit from this will also promote misinformation in order to protect their financial interests. You only have to observe GB News platforming climate science denial and attacks on net zero. This is the result of funding from fossil fuel investor, billionaire Jeremy Hosking, and having an owner – Sir Paul Marshall – that also has $2.2 billion investment in fossil fuels.
Look for more objective perspectives on the global environment rather than from those who benefit from disaster capitalism.
3
-
@alandavies55 I see where you're coming from, but I think it’s important to recognise that many UK laws and traditions are based on universal values like fairness, justice, and respect, which aren’t unique to Christianity. While Christianity has definitely influenced aspects of UK culture – like holidays such as Christmas or the role of the Church of England – these values also predate Christianity and can be found in other traditions. For instance, Roman law, pagan customs, and Enlightenment principles have all played key roles in shaping the UK’s legal and cultural framework. It’s more accurate to see it as a blend of influences rather than the work of just one religion!
Also, it’s worth noting – as an example – that the 1689 Bill of Rights, a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional framework, was heavily influenced by John Locke’s Enlightenment ideas about governance. Locke emphasised concepts like individual rights, the separation of powers, and the social contract, which weren’t derived directly from Christianity but rather from reason and universal principles. This shows how Enlightenment thinking, alongside other influences, played a significant role in shaping the UK's laws and traditions. Christianity was part of the mix, but it wasn’t the sole foundation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bwilliams572 It’s true that farmers across Europe and globally face challenges, but these issues often stem from different causes depending on the region. Protests in France, the Netherlands, and other EU countries have largely been about strict environmental regulations, land use changes, and climate policies, not the loss of market access or subsidies like in the UK after Brexit. As for Bill Gates owning farmland, it raises concerns about corporate influence, but that’s a separate issue tied to investment trends and land ownership – not directly related to trade, labour shortages, or rising input costs affecting UK farmers.
The point isn’t to ignore global farming challenges but to recognise that Brexit introduced specific, avoidable problems for British farmers. These are systemic and structural, linked to policy decisions that left them at a disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts. It’s not about being "on an EU soapbox"; it’s about addressing the realities UK farmers now face while understanding the broader global context. Critical thinking involves examining all factors at play, including how Brexit uniquely impacted the UK’s agricultural sector.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@beecat9951 Starmer's MPs register of interests shows Lord Ali donated £16,200 for clothes, and clubs like Norwich City, Man City, Wolves, Brighton, Spurs, Man Utd, West Ham, Swansea, plus the National Theatre, donated tickets. It's all publicly listed, but as I mentioned before, both raise serious questions about the integrity of our political system . As for the question I didn’t answer about party funding - do you mean, How do you propose parties are funded? With taxpayer money ? I thought that was rhetorical.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your statement simplifies and misrepresents the complexities of the situation, overlooking the efforts and legal obligations of both French and British authorities.
Firstly, The French government does not consider it "okay" for dinghies to operate freely in their waters. French authorities actively patrol their coasts and work to prevent illegal crossings of the English Channel. They have increased efforts in recent years to stop migrants from launching small boats, including cooperation with UK authorities, patrolling beaches, and intercepting vessels.
Secondly, the ECHR addresses individual complaints of human rights violations. Its focus is on ensuring that signatory states uphold the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR does not have a mandate to "have a go" at countries for allowing or not allowing dinghies to leave their shores. Instead, it intervenes when there are allegations of specific human rights violations.
As for France, it has significantly increased its efforts to prevent migrants from crossing the Channel. This includes increased patrols, investment in surveillance technology, and coordination with UK authorities. Despite these efforts, the sheer volume of attempts and the vast coastline make it challenging to prevent all crossings.
Finally, the RNLI and UK Border Force operate under international maritime law, which obligates them to rescue people in distress at sea. Once migrants are picked up, they are brought to the UK for processing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thetruth9210 While it's true that some predictions didn't unfold exactly as expected, it’s important to remember that the promises made during the Brexit campaign were very different from the actual outcomes. Key promises included taking back control over laws and borders, reducing immigration, investing £350 million a week in the NHS, securing better global trade deals, and freeing the UK from EU regulations.
However, since Brexit, we've seen issues such as trade disruptions, labour shortages, rising costs, and challenges to public services like the NHS – problems that may not have been immediately visible but are still affecting everyday life. So, while some immediate impacts didn’t materialize as predicted, many of the deeper, long-term consequences of Brexit are still being felt, particularly by working-class people and industries reliant on EU trade and labour. Shouldn’t these ongoing issues be considered when evaluating Brexit's success?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Since 2008, the UK has granted arms export licences to Israel valued at approximately £574 million. This includes £185 million for military technology, £136 million for aircraft, helicopters, and drones, and £30 million for grenades, bombs, and missiles.
In 2022, the UK issued licences for military goods to Israel amounting to £42 million, representing less than 1% of Israel's total defence imports.
However, in September 2024, the UK partially suspended arms sales to Israel, halting 30 out of 350 export licences due to concerns that these weapons might be used in Gaza, potentially violating international humanitarian law.
What factors lead you to support military involvement in Israel while opposing funding for the conflict in Ukraine, and how do you justify these positions given the similarities in terms of international law, human rights concerns, and global security implications ?
2
-
2
-
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy in which one event followed by another *is seen as a causal relationship*. During the pandemic, it led to incorrect conclusions in medical contexts, such as when a patient develops endocarditis after receiving a vaccine. This fallacy can result in the erroneous belief that the vaccine caused the endocarditis simply because the condition appeared after the vaccination.
Scenario : A patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine and two weeks later develops endocarditis.
Fallacious Conclusion : Someone might argue, “The COVID-19 vaccine caused the endocarditis.”
Explanation : This conclusion represents a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because it assumes a causal relationship based solely on the chronological order of events without considering other possible factors. In reality, the development of endocarditis may be influenced by numerous variables, such as:
The patient's pre-existing health conditions e.g., heart disease, congenital heart defects .
Recent infections or dental procedures that could introduce bacteria into the bloodstream .
The presence of risk factors for endocarditis, such as intravenous drug use or having an artificial heart valve .
To avoid this fallacy, a comprehensive medical evaluation would be necessary to investigate the true cause of the endocarditis. This would include:
Detailed patient history to identify any potential sources of infection .
Diagnostic tests, including blood cultures, to determine the type of bacteria causing the endocarditis .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mre7862 Is there really any need for an ad hominem attack? Anyway, I think there's some misunderstanding about the role of the ECHR. It’s true that many rights, like the right to a fair trial, were part of British common law before the ECHR was created. However, the ECHR serves to protect these rights on an international level, ensuring that they are upheld consistently across Europe and providing additional safeguards if they are ever undermined domestically.
The ECHR offers a layer of accountability for governments, ensuring they adhere to basic human rights standards. For example, if someone feels their rights have been violated and can't find justice at a national level, they can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which adds another level of protection. The Hillsborough disaster is a case in point where the ECHR provided justice. The disaster, which occurred in 1989, resulted in the deaths of 96 football fans due to overcrowding at the stadium. For years, the victims' families struggled to get accountability and a thorough investigation.
It’s not about saying the UK didn’t have rights before 1953, but about recognising that the ECHR strengthens and reinforces those rights, ensuring they are protected beyond just the national legal system. Leaving the ECHR would remove those international checks and potentially weaken the protections we currently enjoy.
We can agree to disagree, but I believe it’s important to keep all safeguards in place, especially in uncertain times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let’s break this down critically. First, means-testing the winter fuel payment isn’t about leaving pensioners in “economic sorrow”; it’s a policy to ensure limited resources go to those who genuinely need them. While the original universal scheme included wealthy seniors who didn’t require assistance, the means-tested system prioritises low-income pensioners most at risk of fuel poverty. It’s not without flaws, but the goal is to use public funds more effectively to protect the vulnerable.
As for farmers, their struggles aren’t caused by foreign aid or windmills – they stem from decisions like Brexit, which cut off vital EU subsidies tied to production and environmental standards. These subsidies weren’t just handouts; they kept many farms afloat. Post-Brexit trade barriers, labour shortages from ending free movement, and unfair trade deals with countries like Australia have further undercut British farmers. Rising costs and uncertainty around replacement subsidies have only worsened the situation, creating a perfect storm for small farms.
On inheritance tax, agricultural reliefs often disproportionately benefit wealthy landowners, including those with multimillion-pound estates. Reforming these reliefs to focus on smaller, family-owned farms essential to local food production could help preserve the agricultural landscape and reduce wealth inequality in the sector. The key question is whether exemptions should protect only small farms vital to food security or continue allowing large estates to benefit. While some argue the current system promotes agricultural growth and stability, others see it as entrenching wealth for the few, undermining fairness and equal opportunity.
On foreign aid: it represents a tiny fraction of the budget and helps address global issues like poverty and climate change, which ultimately benefit everyone. Blaming aid or windmills for UK economic problems is a distraction. The real culprits are years of poor policy decisions that have harmed pensioners, farmers, and rural communities. For example, austerity measures caused 120,000 excess deaths, gutted healthcare and social services, and mishandling care homes during the pandemic led to thousands of avoidable deaths.
Emily’s employers at GB News and the IEA might tell you otherwise, but their narratives often aim to protect the wealthy rather than address the real causes of economic hardship. Don’t let them distract you with easy scapegoats.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I love the BBC Proms! I have done since a kid (my first was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in 1980). For six weeks it provides a range of international ensembles, and artists; music across centuries, and continents. It is not a festival that celebrates Great British history and music, it was never about that. Sir Henry Wood established it in 1898 to create an audience for classical music . He played contemporary music, and well as the established composers, and the "Last Night" was a party and they had sing-a-longs and they played everyone's favourite blockbusters: Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory, and Rule Britannia!: though these didn’t become regulars until the 1950’s. German, Russian, French, Scandinavian and Italian as well as British music was always and will always be central to the idea of the Proms. Musicians criticise it, or moan about it but people like it: they wave flags of all countries. Even as a child I squirmed but Jerusalem always brings me to tears.
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
I only hope that people have a healthier attitude to culture and tradition. Instead you sectarians divide the world. As William Blake said:
In every voice, in every ban, / The mind-forg’d manacles I hear .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bibastarmedia9650 It's important to clarify that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is not merely advisory. The ECtHR plays a fundamental role in upholding and enforcing human rights across Europe, including protecting individuals from potential abuses by governments, public authorities, and private entities.
The court ensures that all member states comply with the Convention (ECHR), a treaty designed to safeguard fundamental rights like the right to life, freedom from torture, fair trials, and privacy. Its decisions are binding, not optional. When governments take actions that conflict with these rights, such as deporting or expelling individuals without due process, the ECHR intervenes to ensure these actions meet legal and human rights standards.
As for concerns about the ECHR and immigration, it's important to clarify that the ECHR has no influence on the UK's immigration policy, never has and never will . The ECHR primarily focuses on protecting human rights, but it does not dictate how countries manage their borders or immigration processes .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christophercurtis2893 Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil! Do we have a Tory cheerleader ? Someone who denies the existence of relative poverty; who denies the very existence of absolute poverty, but instead ignores the socio-economic factors of poverty, and ignores the political basis of class war. Everything is individalised, poverty is people's individual failing. In the words of Boris Johnson, working class men are: likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless . They are poor out of some lifestyle choice. Poverty and income inequality are accepted faults of capitalism, or even blanked out. You reject any notion of a better more equal society, and instead accept capitalism as being in continual crisis. Cheerleaders, corporations and governments shirk the responsibility of doing something to alleviate poverty, but are quick to scapegoat collectives , be it “élites”, railway unions, the “tyrannical EU” for the problems they themselves have created.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chris Packham is not someone who beats his partner, wants a better world for future generations, and sees the dangers in deforestation, the meat industry, to name just two. Compare this to Jim Davidson, a reactionary who once tried to woo the Edinbugh Fringe Festival, but then came to realise there are still reactionary bilious bigots who lap up his schtick. However, for me it is the tabloid hack Dan "Woody" Wotton, who finds the Sun headline in every interview, that is biggest gobshite! Well done Jim, with you “in the room” and still not being the biggest gobshite is some going!
2
-
2
-
@thetruth9210 Germany’s economy has faced challenges, such as slowing exports and the energy crisis, but it remains Europe’s largest economy and a global export powerhouse. France’s economy has shown resilience, with moderate growth and lower inflation compared to Germany, though it faces structural challenges. Poland has seen strong growth, but this is partly due to EU membership, including substantial EU funding, which contributes significantly to its infrastructure and development.
Poland has not adopted the euro, giving it monetary policy flexibility, but this does not mean it is planning to leave the EU. The EU provides Poland with numerous advantages, including a large export market. Speculation about the "collapse" of the eurozone or EU lacks evidence, as the union has weathered previous crises and remains integral to the economies of its members.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So please demonstrate why it is fair or just to charge rent and profit from land used by the army, navy, hospitals, schools, the prison service, and local councils in England – simply because an individual’s ancestors seized that land during the medieval period. This practice implies that the privilege of profiting from essential services rests not on merit, public service, or societal need, but solely on an inherited claim dating back centuries. Given the modern context, where public funds sustain these services, how can this be reconciled with principles of fairness and justice?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ben Habib made the claim that the Northern Ireland Protocol is as bad as Putin's invasion of Ukraine. A rankly despicable person. Habib is also not the most reliable of sources, is he? What is the evidence for this? GB News posters are cheerleading but critical thinking, they are lacking. “Do your own research!!”
Is Habib deflecting attention from the Commons cross-party Select Committee – the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts – which in a paper states that it is clear that EU exit has had an impact, and that new border arrangements have added costs to business .
Did you leave voters really vote for “added costs to business” in 2016? Are you all “communists”? Voting Leave in 2016 was indeed buying "a pig in a poke." You didn't know what you were getting: what thought you were voting for may not have been what you got. Promises of lower gas prices, bigger spending on the NHS, massive international trade deals, as well as the intangible sovereignty. Sovereignty is all you’ve got now, for the time being.
To quote one GB News poster: Brexit isnt about improving the economy or shit like that, its about national sovereignty . Does the UK have the same decision-making power it had in the world before 2016? This is the real sovereign power by which to judge a nation state.
As Wilde quipped, _ There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about_ . Former Brexit Party MEP hates no longer having his snout in the EU trough now making claims that “500 MEPs said this”. Really f**king sad!! The only consultation in the European Parliament was thoughts on the “Benefits of Brexit” UK government report, which was conspicuous by its absence of the benefits of … erm … but proclaims the ambition of becoming a science superpower in the fields of quantum technology, AI, medicines, etc . that could be achieved inside the EU.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zoney06 Such a tired clichéd argument. When it comes to neo-liberalism, were the 500,000 deaths of Iraqis the result of Friedrich Hayek’s philosophy? Of course not. Mind you, Friedman was indirectly responsible for the 30,000 deaths under Chile’s neoliberal dictatorship. Carl ( sic ) Marx died in 1886, whereas the Bolshevik revolution was in 1917. What was the link? Marx strength lay not in his philosophy, but in his ‘’discovery’’ of the laws of motions of capitalist society, the social, cultural, political, and economic factors. He only lived to analyse the economic factors. The historical materialist conception is a tool for understanding how the relations of production (capitalists and workers) are in conflict. What was Brexit but basically a conflict within the capitalist class as to the best form of profit accumulation? All other conflicts (social, cultural, political, etc.) arise from this conflict.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s interesting to hear the strong support for Farage, but we should also take a closer look at the inconsistencies in his arguments and actions. For instance, it’s curious how he treats the EU as a unified bloc when comparing its GDP to the US, but when it comes to trade realities, he conveniently avoids that framing. This selective approach raises questions about whether his rhetoric serves his party's interests or his personal ones, especially when considering the influence of fossil fuel investors who prioritize short-term profits over the long-term investment in renewables.
Moreover, Farage and Reform UK often push for austerity-driven policies that seem to benefit wealthy donors, especially those eager to privatise public services like healthcare. While Farage criticises the EU’s social policies, he never seems to mention the successful examples of countries like Finland or Sweden, where robust public services have contributed to a higher quality of life. The push to shrink the state ultimately leads to a privatised healthcare system that benefits the few while disadvantaging the many.
Reform UK claims to stand for freedom and democracy, but when you dig deeper, their actions tell a different story. They oppose progressive policies like abortion rights and LGBT protections, and the lack of internal democracy is glaring – exclusion of dissenting members and questionable leadership choices. How can a party that avoids hard questions and fails to demonstrate democratic principles truly be about liberation? Farage’s avoidance of critical issues like wealth concentration and his failure to engage meaningfully with complex questions about free speech show a worrying trend of evading accountability. So, while some may claim victory, deflection is not the same as winning the argument. Farage’s tactics seem more about avoiding challenges to his authority than actually addressing the real issues. Should we really be placing our trust in leadership that sidesteps these critical conversations?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@judyanne-r2y There is freedom of speech, but there is also taking responsibility, which means accepting the consequences of your actions. The suffragettes understood this well – they risked imprisonment, force-feeding, and even their lives to fight for their beliefs, fully aware of the cost. Similarly, civil rights protesters faced arrests, violence, and public backlash, yet they accepted these consequences as part of their struggle for justice. In contrast, many far-right supporters seem to misunderstand the essence of free speech here in the UK. They often conflate freedom of expression with freedom from accountability, refusing to accept that speech which incites hate or spreads harmful falsehoods can and should have consequences. Freedom of speech is a right, but it is not a shield from responsibility.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I understand your concern – the idea of artificially dimming the sun does sound alarming at first. In fact, there is significant opposition and debate around projects like this. Scientists, policymakers, and environmental groups often raise serious concerns, especially about unintended consequences, ethical risks , and the possibility that such projects could reduce pressure to cut emissions at the source.
The MIT team proposing the Space Bubbles idea clearly states that it is only meant as a last-resort supplement to current climate actions, not a replacement. They argue that because their solution is based in space (not Earth's atmosphere), it would be reversible and less risky than Earth-bound geoengineering methods. However, many critics point out that even reversible solutions carry huge uncertainties, and the moral risks — like governments delaying real climate action — are very real.
In short: there is opposition, and healthy scepticism is vital. It's essential that these ideas are thoroughly debated before any action is taken.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Myth Tree Have you even met a Holocaust survivor? Your banal comparison of Auschwitz-Buchenwald to a public health emergency simply belittles each and every experience of those who survived and those who had perished in the camps.
Have you read Primo Levi?
Let thousands of individuals, differing in age, condition, origin, language, culture, and customs, be enclosed within barbed wire, and there be subjected to a regular, controlled life, which is identical for all and inadequate for all needs. No one could have set up a more rigorous experiment to determine what is inherent and what acquired in the behavior of the human animal faced with the struggle for life. – Primo Levi, The Drowned and the Saved.
Does this even begin to compare to your experience of the pandemic?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you're convinced there is a no climate crisis, these questions should be easy for you to answer.
What scientific evidence leads you to believe there is no climate crisis, and how do you interpret the data that shows rising temperatures and extreme weather ?
How would you explain the growing number of climate-related disasters, such as wildfires, floods, and hurricanes, occurring more frequently ?
If there is no climate crisis, why do the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human actions are accelerating global warming ?
How do you account for the fact that many industries, even those that benefit from fossil fuels, are starting to invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources ?
What would you consider to be evidence of a climate crisis, and what would convince you that action is necessary ?
Given that right-wing populist parties like Reform UK and media outlets like GB News are funded by billionaire fossil fuel oligarchs, why do you think they are actively working to discredit climate science and oppose policies that could affect their financial interests ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@truthabovelies On the one hand it is great that you ask me for evidence to support the claim, but on the other you are unlikely to trust it.
In a study based on data from National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) and the Coronavirus Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN), in September 2021, of 40,000 patients. Using these conservative categories, of the 40,000 patients 83 (0.2%) had no information on date of symptom onset, 36,956 (92.4%) had no virus immunity , 1,859 (4.6%) had first dose failure and 1,071 (2.8%) had second dose failure. Of the 36,956 patients with no virus immunity 33,496 were unvaccinated and 3,460 had received their first vaccination ≤21 days previously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MuggyMeasures It's a common misconception that refugees must apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach, but that's not what the 1951 Refugee Convention states. This myth is often pushed by populist politicians and certain media outlets like Talk TV and GB News, which can create confusion and fear around the issue of migration.
In reality, the Convention recognises that refugees may have valid reasons for seeking asylum in a different country, such as family connections, language barriers, or fears of returning to their home country. For instance, many refugees fleeing conflict in Syria may first reach countries like Turkey or Lebanon but choose to seek asylum elsewhere due to various personal circumstances.
Media narratives that oversimplify the refugee crisis often prey on our psychological tendencies to fear the unknown. By framing refugees as a burden rather than individuals with stories and struggles, these narratives can create a divisive atmosphere. Instead of fostering understanding, they complicate the issue, leading to public misunderstanding and hostility towards refugees.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@seandrew7837 So you have no answer? My poltical worldview comes from political engagement, from life, from reading Kropotkin, Fromm, Reich, Marx, William Morris, Herbert Read, the SPGB, from Internationale situationniste , Gramsci, Marcuse, from having a sound university education. I asked a very apt question what exactly has Lee Anderson done for working class people ? So go on champ, have a go!
2
-
@sniffmearse I take it from your curt response that you are unable to find anything that Lee Anderson has done for the working class, but vote against their interests! Anderson is held up by people like you as a "man of the people", but is someone who does not care much for the freedom and civil rights nor for the quality of life and working conditions of those people . After all since 2019, he has voted against equality and human rights; against measures to alleviate climate change; and against freedom of movement. He has also voted for the restriction of trade unions. On the other hand, he has voted to restrict legal aid, and for companies he has voted to reduce corporate taxes, and voted against higher taxes on banks; he voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance. He is also a man that can criticise people for using food banks, claiming they can make “nutritious meals” for 30p, whist he himself eats subsidised meals in the Commons and last year claimed £186,000 in expenses.
It is clear who this MP is working for, and it is not for the majority of people, it is in the interests of the capitalist class . Do you also support such measures?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Craig Hart Childish to call it KGB? Maybe, but it is a misnomer to call it “GB” since the £60 million investment came from off-shore billionaires that have "access" (read make donations to push their agenda ) to the UK government, It also has links to Leave EU which used Russian money, and Russian intelligence. There are also more specific links. Firstly, Farage: as an MEP in 2015, he voted together with far-right Euro parties (France's FN, Hungary's Jobbik, Germany's AfD) to vote against an attempt to prevent Russian interference. This was after the occupation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014. Then there was GB News darling Darren "the lauderette" Grimes – answer this: how can a student contribute £676,000 to Leave EU? GB News also took the blueprint that was Kremlin backed RT News, which ironically was more balanced than GB News. This blueprint included spreading misinformation, stoking culture wars, and dividing the country. Finally, part of Putin’s grand plan was to get UK out of the EU. Check! For this you gotta thank KGB News, haven't you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here’s something to consider: If you don’t want to pay taxes, remember that taxes fund essential public services that benefit everyone, including you. Our roads, parks, libraries, and public transport systems all rely on taxpayer money. Imagine the world without these services! Taxes allow us to build infrastructure, create community spaces, and provide resources that everyone can access, whether or not they’re wealthy. When we pay taxes, we’re not just funding services for ourselves but contributing to the collective well-being of society. So, if you use these services, it makes sense to help support them through your taxes. If you don't want to pay, then leave this country!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sad that GB News neither informs nor educates, lest entertain, merely propagandises in the interests of those that support disaster capitalism. There is no debate about the role of history teaching. Is it as Thomas Carlyle wrote, that The History of the world is but the Biography of great men or is the great man made by social circumstances, as Spencer thought? Indeed these great men are but "slaves of history" as Lev Tolstoi wrote. Should we celebrate the privileged Eton educated poshos that fell upwards (Churchill, Johnson) or should we celebrate working class culture and history? The great historian E.P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Classes sought to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the "obsolete" hand-loom weaver, the "utopian" artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@susancurtis1651 Well it is not as obvious as you think. The scarcer a necessary object is, the bigger the demand and therefore the higher the price . Well it is apparent you have not read the first chapter of Marx’s Capital , which is about the circulation of commodities. All commodities have a use-value and exchange-value. When you say _ scarcer a necessary object is, the bigger the demand and therefore the higher the price_ , this is dependent on the commodity: whether there is a natural scarcity, such as diamonds and gold (also applies to “one-offs” like artworks), or the scarcity within a profit based economic system. In capitalism there is an artificial scarcity whereby to maximise profits producers may restrict production rather than ensure the maximum utilisation of resources. This strategy of restricting production by firms in order to obtain profits in a capitalist system creates this artificial scarcity . Why build more houses when not building them increases market (exchange) value? Should people be targeting vulnerable immigrants rather than seeing that the people responsible could easily implement safer routes, implement rent caps and provide affordable house, but the there is no political will when donors and MPs themselves are landlords and property investors. Capitalism exploits! As for the accepted fact that unskilled immigrants and migrants cost this county far more than they contribute , without referring to right-wing youtube channels, where is the conclusive evidence that immigrants cost more than they contribute ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lesliehall7683 Brexit will leave the Irish border “absolutely unchanged.” Boris Johnson, BBC interview 25 January 2019. Bullshitting or wishful thinking? We’ll have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.
When voting in the 2016 Referendum, there was not much consideration of the Good Friday Agreement and its possible effects of leaving . Why do you think there was? Afterall, even the UK government hadn’t even considered it, let alone the general public. Nowhere in the EU Referendum leaflet sent out to the public, is there a mention of Northern Ireland.
330,000 people in northern Ireland voted to leave the eu
Well, 440, 707 (55.78%) voted to remain. It is worth considering the values of those that voted to remain. Of the 440,700 that voted to remain, 85% were Catholics, compared to 40% of Protestants; 88% were nationalists, compared to 34% unionists; 87% described themselves as “Irish”, compared to 37% that described themselves as “British.”
Now that the UK is out of the EU, does it have the same job protection, a strong economy and the same level of security?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No fan of Starmer, but here are a few things that the Labour government has been doing that the media has not been reporting:
Summary of Labour Government Reforms (December 2024)
Anti-Corruption and Legal Reforms
🔹Anti-Corruption Unit: A new Domestic Corruption Unit established by the Home Office and City of London Police.
🔹Legal Aid Funding: Increased funding for criminal legal aid (+12%) and fees for police station and youth court work (+£24 million). Plans to consult on civil legal aid fees.
🔹Court Backlog: 2,000 additional Crown Court sitting days planned, the highest in a decade.
Local Government and Housing
🔹Council Funding: A £69 billion funding package with a real-terms increase of 3.5%, including a £600 million Recovery Grant and £3.7 billion for social care.
🔹Military Housing: Re-nationalisation of 36,347 military homes to address chronic underinvestment and improve conditions.
🔹Dangerous Cladding: New targets for cladding removal on high-rise buildings by 2029, with accelerated developer repairs by 2027.
🔹Homelessness Support: £10 million emergency fund for rough sleepers and 32 new Homebuilding Skills Hubs for apprenticeships.
Support for Veterans and Vulnerable Groups
🔹Veteran Compensation: Up to £70,000 for LGBT+ veterans dismissed due to discrimination (1967–2000).
Veteran Housing: Prioritised social housing access and £3.5 million for homeless veteran support.
Education and Workforce
🔹School Support: Reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to boost wages and union involvement.
🔹Green Schools: £2 million energy-efficiency pilot in London schools.
🔹Music Opportunities: A scheme for disadvantaged children offering singing and music lessons.
Environment and Energy
🔹Clean Power Plan: A roadmap to 95% renewable electricity grid welcomed by environmental groups.
🔹Global Clean Power Alliance: Initiative launched at G20 to accelerate clean energy worldwide.
🔹Zero-Emission Vehicles: £88 million fund for clean vehicle technology.
Economic and Social Spending
🔹Business Support: New Business Growth Service launching in 2025 for SMEs. Business rates reduced for small high-street businesses.
🔹Military Pay: Largest pay increase in decades for military personnel.
🔹Mineworker Pensions: Increases to rectify historical pension injustices.
Health and Social Care
🔹Hospice Funding: £100 million allocated for buildings, equipment, and accommodation over two years.
Justice and Policing
🔹Women’s Justice Board: Established to address gender-specific issues in the justice system.
🔹Police Reforms: Creation of a Police Performance Unit and National Centre of Policing.
🔹Intimate Image Abuse: Strengthened laws to combat abuse.
International Policy
🔹Sanctions on Russia: New measures targeting illicit oil vessels.
🔹UK-Germany Defence Pact: Signed to enhance bilateral cooperation.
These reforms span a range of areas, addressing social justice, environmental sustainability, and public sector investment. They reflect a shift towards increased government intervention and public ownership in key sectors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, there’s strong evidence that these events go way beyond what some call "regular weather patterns" and are being driven by human-caused climate change. Here's why:
Higher Temperatures : We know that global temperatures have risen by about 1.2°C since pre-industrial times, largely due to greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. Warmer temperatures mean the atmosphere holds more moisture, which fuels more intense storms and downpours – hence, extreme floods in places like Spain. This is why we're seeing more rainfall in shorter periods, which overwhelms natural drainage systems.
Ocean Warming and Hurricanes : The U.S. has seen more powerful hurricanes recently because warmer oceans provide extra energy to these storms. Studies show that Atlantic hurricanes are getting stronger as ocean temperatures increase, making them more damaging when they make landfall.
Scientific Consensus : This isn't ‘hype’ – scientists around the world have extensively studied these links and continue to find that climate change makes extreme weather events like floods, hurricanes, and wildfires both more frequent and more severe.
In short, what we're seeing is a pattern of increasingly intense and unusual weather directly connected to man-made climate change. This isn't speculation; it's backed by decades of research and a global scientific consensus. Ignoring it won’t make these problems disappear, but reducing emissions could make a big difference.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thetruth9210 OK, but the EU gave the UK a choice as to whether to remain or leave the ERASMUS programme, which the UK chose to leave. As for the Horizon programme, this was the decision of the EU due to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill introduced by Truss in June 2022, which was not passed. The EU saw this as going against the UK-EU agreement resulting in the EU preventing the UK’s participation in the Horizon programme since it said in the UK-EU Trade Agreement that participation depends on conformity to the EU legal framework. Mike Galsworthy said in 2015 that were the UK to exit the EU, the government would need to restrict immigration from the EU, spelling a major problem for UK science. This is before we even consider the impact of Britain losing its ability to shape the EU science programme . Does relaying facts and hypothetical outcomes indicate “delusion”? How does this compare to the level of delusion on the part of Truss, and of Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and all those that sold the lie of economic prosperity, and the Brexit unicorn we were sold?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Can someone on the populist right explain why a “globalist” capitalist society envisioned by the WEF – focused on regulation, investment, and recognising trade unions as key stakeholders in fostering social dialogue and inclusive economic growth, while also advocating for modernisation and adaptability to align with evolving labour markets – is inherently a bad thing? I’d genuinely like to understand your perspective.
Furthermore, the capitalists you place your faith in often align with Ayn Rand-style anarcho-capitalists who promote a future based on deregulation, trade union-busting, suppressing wages, avoiding taxes, and prioritising profits over environmental responsibility. Can you explain why this vision of unrestrained capitalism is preferable, especially when it frequently undermines workers' rights, fair wages, and the health of our planet? I’m genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is Reform UK really the future? According to their "Contract with the People," there are concerns about the impact of their policies on certain groups. For example, their approach to welfare reform could lead to stricter conditions for benefit claimants, which some fear might disadvantage vulnerable individuals. Their pledge to cut taxes for the middle class could be seen as beneficial for economic growth, but there are worries that it might reduce funding for essential public services.
While the party aims to cut NHS waiting lists, some are concerned this could open the door to more private sector involvement in healthcare, potentially affecting the public NHS system. In addition, Reform UK's stance on labour rights and their commitment to leave the ECHR has raised questions about the future of worker protections and human rights in the UK.
Finally, the party's funding, including from individuals like Jeremy Hosking, who has connections to the fossil fuel industry, raises concerns for some about potential conflicts of interest. Hosking, who has donated £2.2 million to the party. It's worth considering how this financial backing might influence their stance on climate issues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Privatisation has led to fragmented decision-making, with companies pursuing profits over investment in renewable energy, long-term infrastructure, and energy efficiency. For example, in the UK, energy prices soared in 2021-2022, with companies like British Gas and E.ON reporting record profits while consumers struggled with rocketing bills. This profit-driven model has exacerbated issues of price volatility, leaving consumers vulnerable to global price fluctuations. In contrast, state-owned energy companies tend to have a more balanced approach, focusing on national energy security, affordable prices, and infrastructure investment.
If we look at countries with public energy sectors, like France, the majority of electricity is produced by the state-owned company EDF, which provides lower energy prices and has more stability compared to countries where energy is fully privatised. The difference in approach shows how privatised energy companies, more concerned with shareholder returns than national interest, can contribute significantly to rising energy costs.
(The irony lies in the fact that EDF, originally a state-owned company in France, is now a private entity in the UK, where it operates under a market-driven model that can lead to higher prices for consumers, despite its public roots in France.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HRD01 You're right. Countries like France and Germany tend to have higher tax-to-GDP ratios due to their extensive social services, whereas the UK's level has been relatively modest, partly due to differing public service structures and lower social security contributions relative to total tax revenue.
Recent UK budgets have indeed raised taxes, partly in response to economic pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation, Brexit, and a need to fund healthcare, debt interest, and an aging population. With these changes, UK tax revenue as a share of GDP is projected to reach around 37% by 2027-28, which brings it more in line with other European countries but still somewhat below those with extensive social support systems like France, where it was closer to 45%.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bogeyonanostrilhair9568 You are believing Trump's lies, or "self-hagiography". Not a fan of history are you? Just a Trump fan? Any other President . Which war did Obama start? Or Biden? Between 1945 and 2022, there have been 14 presidents. Out of those, 4 started a full-scale war. These are Truman, L B Johnson, GHW Bush and GW Bush, and the wars being Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Truth and facts will not get LIKES, only lies and right-wing cheerleading
2
-
2
-
2
-
Contempt of court is a serious crime in the UK because it threatens the integrity of the legal process and the administration of justice. It typically involves actions that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings, such as disobeying court orders or publishing material that risks influencing a jury. The principle is vital to ensure that trials are fair and that justice is delivered impartially.
In the case of Tommy Robinson, he pleaded guilty to contempt of court in 2018 after live-streaming outside a trial that was subject to reporting restrictions. His actions risked derailing the trial by potentially influencing jurors, which could have resulted in the collapse of the case and a retrial. This would have wasted public resources and delayed justice for the victims. Importantly, Robinson's guilty plea and subsequent conviction were based on legal principles, not his political views. This means he does not meet the criteria for being a "political prisoner," which typically refers to someone imprisoned solely for their political beliefs or activities, rather than for violating the law.
As for your claim of a "corrupt establishment," it would be reasonable to ask the you to clarify what you mean by this. Are you alleging systemic wrongdoing, bias, or abuse of power? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim? Specific examples, arguments would be good.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ramoji9830 It might feel that way, but the geopolitical landscape - the world scene - is far more nuanced, with diverse outcomes depending on local histories, cultures, and governance systems. While some places show tensions aligning with this view, others demonstrate coexistence and minority protections that challenge such generalisations.
One example is example is Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, where Pancasila, the state ideology, promotes religious pluralism. The government officially recognizes six religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and protects the rights of these religious minorities to worship and celebrate their festivals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The child's message: stop killing children!
Your message: seems like obsessive adversity to sexual perversity. Why creepy?
Should we teach children right from wrong? Is the killing of over 5,000 children right or wrong? Please explain!
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past .
Ecclesiastes 3:2
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@golfbulldog It's important to consider the bigger picture. While differences in crime rates are complex, factors such as socio-economic inequality, educational disparities, and a lack of opportunities play a major role in shaping crime, including both victims and perpetrators. Policing practices and systemic biases contribute to higher imprisonment rates for some groups, but that’s only part of the issue.
When it comes to serious crimes like stabbings, we need to examine how poverty, social exclusion, and community breakdown drive people towards crime, regardless of ethnicity. Claims of a two-tier justice system are unfounded and misleading. The courts assess the specific actions, intent, and legal context for each case, whether it's manslaughter or inciting riots. Spreading misinformation like this only serves to divide us further.
Rather than blaming entire groups, we should focus on addressing the root causes - such as inequality and underfunded communities - that fuel these issues. It’s not just about race; it’s about the environment people are growing up in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Love, work and knowledge know no fatherlands, no customs barriers, and no uniforms. They are international and comprise all humanity. But you want to be a little patriot, because you are afraid of genuine love, afraid of your responsibility for your own work, afraid of knowledge. This is why you can only exploit the love, work and knowledge of others but can never create yourself. This is why you steal your happiness like a thief in the night; this is why you cannot see happiness in others without getting green with envy. ‘Stop thief! He is a foreigner, an immigrant_. – Wilhelm Reich, _Listen, Little Man
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Thank you for your interesting critique. I would argue though that your position overlooks the authoritarian tendencies inherent in GB News and TalkTV, which don’t require a “decades-old” lens to identify. I will address each point in turn.
Firstly, your point about “the left” and libertarianism deserves clarification. Historically, the term “libertarian” was associated with the socialists of the First International, who later became known as anarchists. Over time, the term was appropriated by the right and is now commonly associated with right-wing libertarianism. However, in its original context, libertarian socialism and anarchism were essentially synonymous and are still often used interchangeably today. So Orwell being both a libertarian and a man of the left isn’t contradictory. His libertarianism was about opposing authoritarianism, which he saw as coming from both the state and unchecked corporate or elite power. In today’s context, the left largely defends liberties like human rights, press freedom, and protections against state overreach – values Orwell championed. Meanwhile, right-wing outlets like GB News erode these preconditions by undermining climate science, human rights protections (e.g., calls to leave the ECHR), and pluralistic debate, often in service of corporate or nationalist agendas.
While platforms like GB News and Talk TV criticise state policies, this doesn’t make them libertarian. Their attacks often focus on rights-protecting mechanisms (like the ECHR) or “woke” cultural issues, framing these as overreach while simultaneously supporting authoritarian leaders like Trump and Orbán. They rail against the government when it suits their narrative but fail to hold their own ideological allies to account. Supporting oligarchical populism while vilifying dissent is fundamentally authoritarian.
You admit their reliance on hyperbole and rhetoric, which is part of the problem! Simplistic, fear-driven narratives (on immigration, climate change, or national identity) are tools of manipulation, not liberty. Orwell specifically warned about media that stokes division and emotion to suppress critical thinking.
On your point about “generals fighting their last war”, the idea that Orwell’s critiques are outdated assumes the mechanisms of power have fundamentally changed – they haven’t. Propaganda, fear, and erosion of truth are timeless authoritarian tools. GB News and TalkTV may oppose “state overreach”, but they bolster a different kind of authoritarianism: the consolidation of power among elites, the fostering of distrust in democratic institutions, and the creation of a monoculture disguised as patriotism.
In short, Orwell’s principles remain just as relevant in identifying authoritarian tendencies today, and these channels exemplify them in how they promote fear, suppress pluralism, and attack the very liberties they claim to defend. If liberty is truly your concern, I’d suggest scrutinising their agendas a bit more closely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ossianx8752 I can read a combination of nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-union, anti-progressive, and anti-internationalist sentiments, all of which are characteristic of far-right ideologies.
The mention of "mass immigration" and "British born people being put at the back of the queue" suggests a nationalist perspective that prioritises native-born citizens over immigrants, which is a common theme in far-right discourse.
The reference to "unions" and "waste" indicates a criticism of labour unions and public spending, which aligns with far-right views that often favour reducing the power of unions and cutting social welfare programmes.
The use of the term "woke" signifies a negative stance towards progressive social policies and movements that advocate for social justice, equality, and diversity, which far-right groups frequently oppose.
The phrase "more supranational rule" likely refers to opposition to international institutions and agreements, such as the European Union, which is a common far-right stance advocating for national sovereignty and reduced influence of external bodies.
Mention of "more taxes" and "higher bills" reflects a concern with taxation and cost of living, often tied to far-right economic policies favouring lower taxes and reduced government spending.
"Less freedom" suggests a fear of government overreach and a desire for greater personal liberties, which can be a feature of far-right libertarian thought.
It's important to challenge the narrative that blames social progress and solidarity for societal issues. Unions fight for fair wages and workers' rights, which is essential for reducing economic inequality. Being "woke" simply means being aware of social injustices and working towards a more inclusive society.
Instead of fearing taxes, we should recognise them as a tool to fund public services that benefit everyone, like healthcare and education. The idea of "less freedom" often overlooks the ways in which economic inequality and lack of social support limit true freedom for many.
Rather than dividing people by nationality, let's focus on building a society where everyone's needs are met and no one is left behind. We need to stand together against the real sources of oppression: economic exploitation and social injustice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is free speech masquerading as poor journalism. GB News’ shameless disregard for Ofcom's due impartiality . This supposed news channel seems more like a plaything of oligarchs and off-shore billionaires to platform propagandists of disaster capitalism. Once such influence and backer is Christopher Snowden of the Institute of Economic Affairs. The IEA has the financial backing of tobacco companies such as Imperial, Japan’s JTI, and Philip Morris International. In 2019 32 Conservative MPs had financial links either directly or indirectly with the IEA, including Raab, Patel, Rees-Mogg, Hancock, Villars, and Kwarteng. In line with their backers, the IEA supports smoking. Seemingly the libertarian attitude to smoking really derives from the economic impact of bans rather than the health benefits . Snowden argues creating a ‘tobacco free world’ – their solutions involve giving people less freedom .
This really depends on what you consider is freedom*. There *is no freedom without responsibility . Are you really concerned about smoking bans or real societal liberation? A stateless society? A society for individuals to flourish? In other words, does your freedom extend to the freedoms of others? Or do you wish to restrict the freedoms of others by voting for reactionary parties that curb civil liberties? These include laws against the freedom of movement, and the authoritarian Public Order Act (2023) that restrict the freedom to protest. Dolan’s “contrarian” position is not a rational one. It will not for a single second lead to real societal liberation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daniellebcooper7160 “The culture war is only there to distract us from the class war.”
When your ideology is characterised by authoritarian, and Islamophobic views, and advocating for a nationalist based homogeneous society and opposing liberal democracy then you are far-right in my book. Islamophobia is never justifiable, regardless of the frequency of attacks on religious sites. Discrimination or prejudice against Muslims, or any group, cannot be validated by statistics, as each act of intolerance should be condemned on its own. Promoting tolerance and understanding is crucial for a peaceful and cohesive society.
On climate change, if you are not shilling for the fossil fuel industry, then you are falling for right-wing grifters' manipulation. So can you provide reasonable evidence to claim climate change is entirely natural rather than anthropogenic?
So answer these two questions:
What evidence do you have to support the assertion that recent climate changes are purely natural and not influenced by human actions ?
How do you account for the rapid rate of temperature increase observed in recent decades, which is unprecedented in geological records, if it's merely a continuation of natural climate fluctuations ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ComedyMashUpCentral If the EU is “doing worse,” then why are wages, exports, and investment consistently higher in countries like Germany and the Netherlands? And if we “haven’t fully left,” whose Brexit are you actually defending - Johnson’s deal, Farage’s vision, or something else entirely? What Starmer is doing now is reviewing a bad deal made by a pro-Brexit government. As for young people coming here - mobility is mutual, and we’ve gained the ability to live, work, and study in the EU too. Isn’t that opportunity, not a threat? If we really want to “put Britain first,” maybe we should stop clinging to slogans and start focusing on what actually improves people’s lives - like affordable food, warm homes, fair wages, and working public services. That’s the real patriotism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darrenbristow9312 So 36% of the electorate voting for a pack of lies was clever was it? You didn’t know what you were voting for . Don’t take it from me, take it from Jacob Rees-Mogg who also said the British people didn't know what they were voting for in 2016. In 1975, people knew they were voting on the Treaty of Rome, whereas in 2016 they had no such treaty or agreement; it was a "jump in the dark" (Rees-Mogg's words, not mine). So it was less a folie à deux as a folie à dix-sept millions! So for me seeing Brexiteers use “the Big Lie” was to convince 17 million to vote against their interests. Sometimes the bolder and more outlandish “the Big Lie” becomes the more credible it seems to a willing, most often angry audience. It was the same in 1933, 17 million people voted for the Nazi Party. Using your tactic, I suppose you wanted a Second World War and you wanted 6 million Jews dead, did you? Ridiculous! Just as your claims to what I am supposed to think. Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980, Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adopteeonamission So far, no one has provided clear evidence, reasons, or explanations for how abolishing the WEF would actually improve their lives.
That said, it's important to distinguish between common sense and scientific reasoning. Common sense is shaped by everyday experience, personal beliefs, or intuition – what seems obvious. Scientific reasoning, on the other hand, relies on careful observation, testing, data, and evidence to reach conclusions – even when those conclusions go against what feels intuitive.
I get why it might seem like common sense that dimming sunlight would harm wildlife, but the reality is more nuanced – no one's trying to block out the sun entirely. Scientists, like those at MIT, are exploring ideas like space-based solar shields to reflect just a tiny fraction of sunlight – about 1.8% – as a last-resort measure to reduce extreme climate risks.
These proposals are rigorously studied to minimise unintended consequences and are intended to complement, not replace, efforts to reduce emissions . It’s not about plunging Earth into darkness; it’s about managing climate risks in a controlled, scientifically informed way.
1
-
@adopteeonamission Jesus, bro, I said I get why it might seem like common sense that dimming sunlight would harm wildlife. But the reality’s more nuanced. I didn’t say it would harm them – I said that’s what people might imagine . No one’s trying to block out the sun entirely. Scientists – like the ones at MIT – are talking about tiny adjustments, like reflecting just 1.8% of sunlight as a last resort to deal with extreme climate risks.
Jesus, bro, they’re blaming the WEF again ?
Why do you think organisations like the World Economic Forum are often turned into scapegoats? What psychological or social functions might this serve for some people ?
_GB News said it, but... where’s the evidence_?
How can we distinguish between legitimate criticism and unsubstantiated claims in media reporting? What are the dangers when news platforms spread information without verifying sources ?
Jesus, bro, if there’s no proof, why believe it ?
Why do some people continue to believe false or misleading claims even after they've been debunked? What role do emotions, identity, or distrust in institutions play ?
_Blaming the WEF without evidence – what’s really going on_?
In what ways might blaming global institutions distract from more local or systemic causes of social and economic problems? Who benefits from that kind of narrative ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are just like the Stalinist revisionists! Please explain what happened to:
Guto Bebb, Richard Benyon, Steve Brine, Alistair Burt, Greg Clark, Ken Clarke, David Gauke, Justine Greening, Dominic Grieve, Sam Gyimah, Philip Hammond, Stephen Hammond, Richard Harrington, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, Anne Milton, Caroline Nokes, Antoinette Sandbach, Nicholas Soames, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey .
The irony is that here on GB News you hear and read "the Conservatives are no longer conservative!" Why might that be?
Your glorious leader purged the Mensheviks and replaced them with Bolsheviks, ready to crush opposition and impose authoritarian rule. Your glorious leader lied to you,
... acted not through persuasion, explanation, and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How can a GB News pay Jacob Rees-Mogg £360,000 per year without massive investment from the dirty industries he supports? Like the fossil fuel industries! Mogg: we don't need HS2 we need cars (oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanbrown8295 We have been doing well since the 1950's Well if you ignore many things, we are! Ignore inequality, child poverty, and sewage pumped into rivers and seas to maximise profit. As of the latest data, approximately 4.3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. This number represents about 29% of all children in the country and reflects a significant increase in recent years. For instance, from 2021/22 to 2022/23, there were 100,000 more children living in poverty (Action for Children).
In 2023, the duration of sewage spills hit a record high, with untreated sewage being discharged for over 3.6 million hours, more than double the amount in 2022. (The Independent). Particularly affected areas include Cornwall, Devon and Dorset, as well as regions supporting delicate ecosystems like salmon and shellfish populations.
You are of the T.I.N.A. (there is no alternative). How will Truth telling, and a right-wing capitalist economy based on low-regulation, high profit seek to solve these problems?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is GB News a news channel? It's barely reports news and in the light of the support of Truss' disrespectful comments on the democratically elected party of government, it is hardly "GB". It is a disgraceful channel. Lies, and misinformation are a matter of course. Sooner or later it will run out of the £60 million seed money. It must therefore be even nastier to keep the core UKIPers and far-right Tories angry - their natural default setting - to keep the offshore billionaires investing in this sham. By the way, the backers of GB News do not pay their taxes in the UK.
The fact is people are more concerned about cost of living emergency, not the nonsense you spout. What is the mainstream media? The Times, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Star, and The Sun are not left-wing. The BBC is criticised for being too left-wing and too right-wing. A Conservative government was elected because of rather than in spite of the eco-system of the media in the UK. Emily, stop slagging off fellow journalists and give your own economic analysis and prove to your supporters that you actually speak sense instead of empty rhetoric.
For once, understanding what inflation is on GB News would be a step forward. There are many questions that the mainstream media – including GB News – do not address about the crisis. I see the latest recession as the latest in an attempt by the capitalist class to engineer a crisis in order to force workers to accept lower wage demands. We hear Liz Truss talking of “militants that disrupt our country” and GB News joining the anti-union, anti-collective action, and anti-democratic rhetoric. After the pandemic, there was a situation where there was a shortage of labour leading to higher wages in many sectors of the economy. This was exacerbated by Brexit. As a result, there was an imbalance between profit rate, wage rate and inflation rate. In the 1970’s to all intents and purposes, capital went “on strike” because wages were too high and allowed unemployment to reach over 10 percent. This is again happening. GB News is making its position clear: it is on the side of the capitalist class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@apollomemories7399 Austerity and Brexit started with the Cameron. Correct? Managed decline started earlier but accelerated under the Tories. For example, Police numbers were cut by about 20,000 between 2010 and 2019, and child poverty has risen significantly since 2010, with food bank usage reaching record levels. In general, successive Conservative governments oversaw or contributed to a decline in public services, infrastructure, and social support systems, either through austerity, underfunding, or privatisation. The Labour government cannot carry out many of the election pledges, as the previous government left the economy in such a ruinous state.
If you would like to deny this and claim that everything is Labour's fault, then go ahead provide support for your claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LA-fr7fx This is just how Communists in Central and Eastern Europe spoke during the Cold War, and no doubt Nazis during the 1930s/40s. Your narrowed stilted language might well have been extolling the virtues of a Five Year Plan. You are keeping up the pretense because that is all you have, you sense of identity is wrapped up in this. To question the notion that it was all a sham would be lead to an existential crisis. Never underestimate the power of ideological conditioning. This is what KGB News is here for. To extol the virtues of Brexit, they employ a Culture Historian. The Kulturkampf (culture wars) is what KGB News is here for, and it all that is left.
As for Brexit, it would not have been such a problem 20/30 years ago had it been a left-leaning exit: aimed at consolidating workers' rights, and Tony Benn leading the emphasis on democratic workers' control and the "tyranny of Brussels". However, this post 2016 Brexit was all about deregulation and about abolishing workers' rights, and the lies and the tyranny of the right-wing of the Tory party are far greater than that of the EU. I might have voted for it 30 years ago, but it was inconceivable for me to have voted for it in 2016. Most of my family voted leave, and I could foresee that it would not be good for people economically. This has sadly come to pass.
Since we are talking about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the nastiness found on the right-wing media indicates that her main crime is that she is a woman that doesn’t know her place. This “US” and “THEM” mindset requires outing, of ritual scapegoating. She is seen as not worthy of being a citizen, as in her press conference she was not extolling the virtues of your Leader. How dare she even cast a bad light on the UK government!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davfree9732 The issues you’re raising – prioritising basic needs like food and warmth – are undeniably important. However, the claims about Labour and farmland management don’t align with the broader realities. The UK’s farming challenges primarily stem from structural shifts like Brexit, which disrupted subsidies, export markets, and labour availability. These are not the result of policies comparable to those in France.
Regarding the winter fuel payment, it was changed from a universal benefit to being means-tested – a policy decision designed to ensure limited resources are directed to those who need them most. Framing this as an attack on basic needs overlooks its intent to address inequalities in resource distribution.
It’s also worth considering the lasting impact of previous Conservative-led policies. Under austerity measures, 120,000 excess deaths were linked to cuts in healthcare and social services, disproportionately affecting pensioners. During the pandemic, the government’s mishandling of care homes led to thousands of preventable deaths.
As for France, while its farmers have faced challenges due to EU-wide reforms and climate policies, it remains one of Europe’s leading agricultural producers. Economic theory doesn’t suggest basic needs are being deliberately undermined; rather, these issues require thoughtful policies and context-specific solutions. Simplifying these complexities risks missing the real systemic problems at play.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How much better off you'd better after the mini budget:
£10,000 - £0 better off
£100,000 - £1,470
£1,000,000 - £55,250
£10,000,000 - £617,720
So you think people on lower income got keep a little bit more of their money ? Don't believe what you read. The MSM - Daily Mail, The Sun, GB News did a job on you ... again!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidEdwards-e6m Or … maybe not .
Fracking might sound like a quick fix, but lifting the UK’s fracking ban wouldn’t significantly lower energy bills. Our shale gas reserves are relatively small compared to countries like the US, and it would take years to develop infrastructure before any gas even reached the market. Meanwhile, gas prices are set globally – so UK fracking wouldn't have made a dent in your bills any time soon.
And let’s talk consequences:
Methane leaks contribute massively to climate change – methane is 80+ times more potent than CO₂ in the short term.
Earthquakes ? Yes, real ones. Fracking caused seismic activity in Lancashire in both 2011 and 2019.
Pollution ? The chemicals used in fracking risk contaminating groundwater and damaging ecosystems.
Local opposition has been fierce for a reason – people don’t want their communities turned into industrial zones for marginal gains.
And perhaps most importantly, fracking distracts from what we should be doing: investing in renewable energy , which is cheaper, cleaner, and already being scaled up. Solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new energy generation in the UK.
Short-term fossil fuel fixes are not worth long-term environmental damage, public backlash, and delaying progress on climate goals. Let’s focus on real solutions, not slogans.
1
-
Or … maybe not .
Fracking might sound like a quick fix, but lifting the UK’s fracking ban wouldn’t significantly lower energy bills. Our shale gas reserves are relatively small compared to countries like the US, and it would take years to develop infrastructure before any gas even reached the market. Meanwhile, gas prices are set globally – so UK fracking wouldn't have made a dent in your bills any time soon.
And let’s talk consequences:
Methane leaks contribute massively to climate change – methane is 80+ times more potent than CO₂ in the short term.
Earthquakes ? Yes, real ones. Fracking caused seismic activity in Lancashire in both 2011 and 2019.
Pollution ? The chemicals used in fracking risk contaminating groundwater and damaging ecosystems.
Local opposition has been fierce for a reason – people don’t want their communities turned into industrial zones for marginal gains.
And perhaps most importantly, fracking distracts from what we should be doing: investing in renewable energy , which is cheaper, cleaner, and already being scaled up. Solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new energy generation in the UK.
Short-term fossil fuel fixes are not worth long-term environmental damage, public backlash, and delaying progress on climate goals. Let’s focus on real solutions, not slogans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pittland44 Referring to Marx in terms of megalomania is somewhat subjective, and we should consider the historical and literary context. The poem you refer to must be:
Then I will wander godlike and victorious
Through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force ,
I will feel equal to the Creator .
I wonder what your poems were like when you were a sixth former. It shows the influence of German Romanticism and Herder’s idea of organic historical renewal likely to have influenced young Marx’s early poetic vision, where destruction and rebirth were seen as necessary forces of transformation, though Marx later shifted from a cultural and national focus to a materialist, class-based theory of renewal through revolutionary crisis.
Marx didn’t advocate for “tearing civilization down” – he analysed capitalism’s internal contradictions, which lead to periodic crises. Influenced by German Romanticism, he saw these crises as both destructive and renewing: they expose capitalism’s flaws, force economic restructuring, and sometimes spark social transformation. Like the Romantics, he viewed history as a dynamic process of upheaval and rebirth, but he grounded this vision in materialist analysis rather than idealism. His goal wasn’t ruin, but a transition to a more just system. His early poetry was dramatic, reflecting Romantic themes of destruction and creation, but his mature work focused on understanding economic systems, and whether you view this as megalomania is subjective and not well-founded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elichabassol5238 Angry? I’m not angry; I have a cool contempt for those who, despite being clever, make unsubstantiated claims that amount to Israeli propaganda. While the IDF may claim to take measures to minimise civilian casualties, the reality is far more complex, and the consequences are devastating for those caught in the middle. I prefer to form my views based on a range of perspectives and facts, rather than accepting a single narrative. It’s crucial to critically evaluate all sides of such a complex issue. How can reports from the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch – documenting widespread civilian deaths, attacks on hospitals, and the restriction of humanitarian aid – be called “propaganda”, rather than an accurate reflection of the reality in Gaza?"
1
-
Angry? I’m not angry; I have a cool contempt for those who, despite being clever, make unsubstantiated claims that amount to Israeli propaganda. While the IDF may claim to take measures to minimise civilian casualties, the reality is far more complex, and the consequences are devastating for those caught in the middle. I prefer to form my views based on a range of perspectives and facts, rather than accepting a single narrative. It’s crucial to critically evaluate all sides of such a complex issue. How can reports from the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch – documenting widespread civilian deaths, attacks on hospitals, and the restriction of humanitarian aid – be called “propaganda”, rather than an accurate reflection of the reality in Gaza?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JackHaveman52 The demographic shifts in Israel, with significant growth in both the Jewish and Muslim populations, highlight the region's complex population dynamics, which must be understood within a broader historical, political, and cultural context. The Jewish population of Israel grew from 3.3 million in 1980 to 7.2 million in 2023 (+118.2%), while the Muslim population grew from 639,000 to 1.782 million (+178.8%). Although the Muslim population grew at a higher percentage, this statistic overlooks the historical, cultural, and political factors at play.
According to the international legal definition of genocide, it involves the intentional and systematic destruction of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group through acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions that lead to its destruction. If the IDF’s actions in Gaza – killing tens of thousands, destroying infrastructure, displacing nearly the entire population, and blocking humanitarian aid – aren’t considered genocide, then what exactly would they be?
Regarding the claim about the spread of Islam in the 7th century, this overlooks the complex nature of religious and cultural shifts over time. The spread of Islam was largely driven by military conquests and social integration, not solely by genocide or cultural eradication. While some indigenous cultures declined, the process was influenced by a variety of factors. Early Christians, like early Muslims, were deeply committed to spreading their faith, often through missionary work and conversion efforts across vast regions.
1
-
The demographic shifts in Israel, with significant growth in both the Jewish and Muslim populations, highlight the region's complex population dynamics, which must be understood within a broader historical, political, and cultural context. The Jewish population of Israel grew from 3.3 million in 1980 to 7.2 million in 2023 (+118.2%), while the Muslim population grew from 639,000 to 1.782 million (+178.8%). Although the Muslim population grew at a higher percentage, this statistic overlooks the historical, cultural, and political factors at play.
According to the international legal definition of genocide, it involves the intentional and systematic destruction of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group through acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions that lead to its destruction. If the IDF’s actions in Gaza – killing tens of thousands, destroying infrastructure, displacing nearly the entire population, and blocking humanitarian aid – aren’t considered genocide, then what exactly would they be?
Regarding the claim about the spread of Islam in the 7th century, this overlooks the complex nature of religious and cultural shifts over time. The spread of Islam was largely driven by military conquests and social integration, not solely by genocide or cultural eradication. While some indigenous cultures declined, the process was influenced by a variety of factors. Early Christians, like early Muslims, were deeply committed to spreading their faith, often through missionary work and conversion efforts across vast regions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alleuropetravel These are the words of the German national anthem:
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Blüh’ im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!
(Unity and justice and freedom / For the German fatherland! / Towards these let us all strive / Brotherly with heart and hand! / Unity and justice and freedom / Are the foundation of happiness; / Flourish in the radiance of this happiness, / Flourish, German fatherland!)
This is the Third Stanza of the Deutschlandlied .
The first stanza is no longer sung:
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt!
(Germany, Germany above all / Above all in the world / When it always, for protection and defence / Brotherly stands together. / From the Meuse to the Neman /From the Adige to the Little Belt, / Germany, Germany above all Above all in the world.
As in God save the King where only two verses are sung, those removed include:
O Lord our God arise
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On thee our hopes we fix
God save us all
So it is frankly foolish to use this weak and unfounded argument for the EU “superstate”
1
-
@StevenLewis-z6c A reality dodging Brexiteer thinking I am an “absolute weirdo” is something I can live with!
Utopia can never be realised because if it did it wouldn’t be utopia . As Wilde put it in The Soul of Man under Socialism_, _A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias .
Being a pedagogue, and having studied and taught in Sweden for years you have touched on a specialist area. The highest ranking European education systems according to PISA ranking are Estonia and Ireland. Estonia incidentally has a remarkably low number of private schools, and in Finland, which is admired for its being the “best in Europe”, private education is “banned”. So the two countries that have the lowest proportion of private schooling have the best education systems. In these countries, there is greater equality, and all children have a high standard of education, no matter their socio-economic background. Maybe you should consider this for your European utopia. So you mention countries with the best prison system, education system, the highest gender equality, and the happiest people, but how exactly does having perseverance translate into a utopian framework? Is it that the British can wait 50 years to see the economic benefits of Brexit? At least this is what Rees-Mogg urged us to do!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CharlesWhite-j4f Why not address the issue rather than individual example. Usual Tory diversion.
He has donated substantial amounts to the Conservative Party and Reform UK. ... Is that some sort of a crime ?
No, it's not illegal to donate to political parties. Jeremy Hosking, another example of a major donor has significant investments in fossil fuels. His investment company, Hosking Partners, had over £108 million invested in the energy sector by 2021, with a large portion of this in oil, gas, and coal. He has also made substantial donations to political parties, including £500,000 to Reform UK since 2019, and significant contributions to the Conservative Party and Brexit campaigns.
His donations and investments raise concerns about his influence on environmental policies. Reform UK, for example, has adopted a climate-skeptic stance, opposing net-zero targets and advocating for more reliance on domestic fossil fuels. Similarly, his connections with the Conservative Party align with certain factions that have been less aggressive in pursuing climate action. These contributions, combined with the push from affiliated organizations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), suggest a broader influence aimed at slowing or reversing the UK's environmental protections and climate policies.
This raises questions about how political funding from fossil fuel interests might impact legislative priorities, particularly regarding climate change. Reform UK and similar groups argue for economic growth through the continued use of domestic fossil fuels, reflecting the influence of donors like Hosking on environmental discourse in the UK.
1
-
@CharlesWhite-j4f Charles, why not address the issue rather than individual example. Usual Tory diversion.
He has donated substantial amounts to the Conservative Party and Reform UK. ... Is that some sort of a crime ?
No, it's not illegal to donate to political parties. Jeremy Hosking, another example of a major donor has significant investments in fossil fuels. His investment company, Hosking Partners, had over £108 million invested in the energy sector by 2021, with a large portion of this in oil, gas, and coal. He has also made substantial donations to political parties, including £500,000 to Reform UK since 2019, and significant contributions to the Conservative Party and Brexit campaigns.
His donations and investments raise concerns about his influence on environmental policies. Reform UK, for example, has adopted a climate-skeptic stance, opposing net-zero targets and advocating for more reliance on domestic fossil fuels. Similarly, his connections with the Conservative Party align with certain factions that have been less aggressive in pursuing climate action. These contributions, combined with the push from affiliated organizations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), suggest a broader influence aimed at slowing or reversing the UK's environmental protections and climate policies.
This raises questions about how political funding from fossil fuel interests might impact legislative priorities, particularly regarding climate change. Reform UK and similar groups argue for economic growth through the continued use of domestic fossil fuels, reflecting the influence of donors like Hosking on environmental discourse in the UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garethm7528 Reading your comments, I scored quite a few hits with “Fallacy Bingo”. First you base your claims on “appeal to closure” fallacy; The argument that the issue must be decided so that those involved can have "closure” . So we need to execute in order to provide closure. Second, the “bandwagon” fallacy, or the “Argument from Common Sense”, I am in the majority with my views . You think you have a valid argument because the majority agree with you, and so therefore the claim must be valid. Thirdly, the fallacy of reductionism: a return to capital punishment is needed to reverse the horrific rise decade on decade of serious crimes against the innocent . You reduce the argument to its simplistic core without assessing your own biases. Not addressing your biases is fourth, that your views are based on _ indisputable evidence, nothing less_ . But did you even consider the other side, it is therefore a “strawman”, and so a fifth fallacy. BINGO!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Twenty years ago, Bernie Sanders warned that populist parties, like the Republicans, had a hidden agenda to undermine key social protections. He argued that they aimed to abolish the minimum wage, privatise healthcare, offer tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, cut and privatise social security, and even privatise education. However, these policies could not be openly discussed, because they were unpopular with the majority of voters. In fact, such measures would only appeal to the richest 1%, making it impossible for these parties to win elections if they were upfront about their true intentions.
Instead, Sanders pointed out, they resorted to deceitful tactics. These parties began to implement policies designed to divide the working class along lines of race, immigration status, and other social issues – "indigenous" vs immigrants, blacks vs whites, abortion rights, gun rights, feminism, and so on. The strategy was clear: divide and rule. By stoking cultural and social divisions, they distracted people from the real economic issues that were undermining their interests.
This same tactic has since spread across the Atlantic to the UK, where parties like Reform UK, along with the Conservative government, have engaged in culture wars over issues such as the environment, transgender rights, and immigration. By framing these issues as existential battles, they manipulate public discourse and distract voters from the economic policies that serve only the wealthiest. In the end, working-class people often end up voting against their own economic interests, Meanwhile, the wealthiest elites are benefiting from the chaos, laughing all the way to the bank – while they laugh at everyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Farage and his ilk aren’t patriots – they’re pawns of billionaire oligarchs, defending a system where 57 UK billionaires thrive while millions suffer. Austerity gutted our communities: over 1,400 children’s centres, 800 libraries, and 8,000 bus routes gone. Meanwhile, billionaire fortunes grew 3x faster in 2024, deepening inequality. This isn’t merit – it’s cronyism and systemic exploitation. We need leaders who’ll tax the super-rich, rebuild public services, and prioritise people over profit. Inequality isn’t inevitable – it’s a choice. Let’s choose a fairer future, not the billionaire agenda.
Why do politicians like Farage, who claim to represent “ordinary people”, often align their policies with the interests of billionaire oligarchs, and how does this alignment impact democratic decision-making and the distribution of wealth in society ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504 After Brexit, the UK withdrew from the Dublin Regulation, which previously allowed EU countries to transfer asylum seekers to the first EU member state they entered. Without this framework and no bilateral agreement between the UK and France on refugee returns, the UK can no longer send asylum seekers back to France if they first arrived there. For example, in 2020, the UK made over 8,500 requests to return asylum seekers to other European countries under Dublin rules, with France receiving the most requests. Now, without Dublin or a new agreement, such returns have become more challenging, leading to increased pressure on the UK asylum system and more dangerous attempts by refugees to cross the English Channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All parroting and no reasoning – repeating slogans like “Just leave the ECHR” without understanding what that actually means. The ECHR protects your basic freedoms too – freedom of speech, fair trials, protection from state abuse. Leaving it wouldn’t just affect migrants; it would strip everyone in the UK of hard-won rights. You may consider yourself a patriot, but for me, the real legacy of patriotism lies in the sacrifices of the trade unionists, the suffragettes, the Chartists – people who fought for justice and dignity. Today, a section of the capitalist class, in alliance with reactionary elements of the working class, is seeking to roll back those rights, deregulate the market, and lower environmental standards. Why sacrifice our freedoms and protections to serve their agenda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-linzilou84 Is there any need to be so angry? Remember, you're not someone "far-right" spreading disinformation! Anyway, before Jimmy Savile's death in 2011, the BBC had received several complaints about his behaviour, but the exact number reported varies. Some sources indicate that seven allegations were made before his death (Wikipedia), while other sources suggest that various reports and concerns had been raised over the years, though many were not formally documented or acted upon by authorities at the time (The Independent). So what is your source for the 92 you claim?
At Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Jimmy Savile abused a total of 63 individuals over 24 years. Despite this, only one formal complaint was made, which was ignored. In total, staff at the hospital were informed of Savile's abuse on ten separate occasions, yet these reports did not result in any significant action to stop him (The Independent).
At Leeds General Infirmary, there were no official complaints recorded about Savile during his time as a volunteer and charity supporter. However, after his death and following media coverage, two individuals came forward with allegations of incidents from the 1970s (The Independent).
These failures to act on complaints have been widely criticized and highlight systemic issues in handling allegations of abuse within these institutions.
Can you a pattern of getting witnesses with strong enough evidence to withstand a trial whilst Savile was alive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sir Jacob - you are making a claim here: can you provide clear evidence please? I mean, would evidence of “some confidence” stand up in a court of law? That Gove was “shut down”? Anyone who has taken only a passing interest in the inquiry would instantly dismiss this as evidence. Basically, only fools and conspiracists would believe it. When faced with a public health emergency, was it important to know if bats or test tubes was the source of the virus? Maybe only to virologists. And are these virologists convinced by your claims? Sir Jacob: it is all circumstantial evidence!! It is also looking like unfounded claims, You must surely substantiate your claims with more convincing evidence, as any intellectually honest academic would. Put simply: put up or shut up Sir Jacob!
The thing is, Mogg cannot and would not be allowed to say this in the House of Commons. By doing so on GB News, Mogg is undermining democracy. But afterall, it’s what GB News pays Rees-Mogg £360,000 per year for: the dirty money GB News pays to him is indicative that this so-called news channel is no more than shills for the billionaire oligarchs that promote deregulation, climate change denial, and misinformation .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Environment Analyst :
Gove calls time on BSF
Half of school building projects frozen, but some may resurface
8 July 2010
Michael Gove
The government's £55 billion schools building and refurbishment programme, Building Schools for the Future (BSF), has had the number of projects in its pipeline cut by roughly 50% to just over 700, Education Secretary Michael Gove announced on Monday.
Just under 200 schools have been rebuilt or refurbished under the BSF programme since 2004, but more than 1,400 were in the pipeline and Labour's ambitious target was to rebuild or refurbish all of England's 3,500 secondary schools by 2023.
But Gove said “it would have been irresponsible to carry on regardless with an inflexible, and needlessly complex programme”.
Some 715 BSF projects have been frozen, including 180 newbuild and 319 refurb projects; 706 projects at a more advanced stage will still go ahead, thus avoiding costly compensation payments to building companies. These projects include 386 newbuild and 262 refurb. Some 123 academy projects in development which have not reached financial close will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
A comprehensive review, led by DSG International group operations director Sebastian James, will look at all capital investment in schools, early years, colleges and sixth forms. The review will guide future spending decisions over the next spending review period (2011/12 to 2014/15). It will examine how best to make current design and procurement cost-effective and efficient, and will overhaul how capital is allocated and targeted.
The cuts to the building programme will be a blow to those companies that are heavily reliant on the education sector, including environmental consultancies providing services to school building projects such as acoustics, BREEAM assessments, energy audits, ecology and archaeology. But there may be some relief that the pain will not be even greater.
It is also noteworthy that the Department for Education statement says that those projects that have been frozen will no longer be rebuilt or refurbished “through BSF”. WSP Group's UK education director, Paul Duncan, said that while there will be some projects that do stop, others might come back under an alternative procurement route. “The government can't stop funding education. It's still a viable sector to be in,” he told Environment Analyst.
Companies are now waiting to hear when the James review will be concluded and details of an alternative procurement process are revealed. Until then, the uncertainty created by this week's announcement is unsettling the market. In a half-yearly trading update issued the day after the government's announcement, Balfour Beatty, which bought Parsons Brinkerhoff last year, said while it remains confident about the outlook for the Group, “there remain uncertainties in some parts of our markets, particularly with regard to government funding of infrastructure investment”.
The government also announced that it is withdrawing funding for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment design advice service associated with the BSF programme.
As part of its agreement to cut its funding this financial year by £1 billion, the department will cut its 2010/11 capital budget by £156.5 million.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your claim that the Government "takes £300 from pensioners for winter fuel payments and gives migrants £4,000–£50,000 annually" is inaccurate.
Winter Fuel Payments for Pensioners: According to Age Concern, If you are over State Pension age and receive a qualifying benefit, you could get £200 towards your bills. If you are over 80, you could get £300 to help with your bills in winter this year. Payments are made to the person claiming the benefit and are for the household.
Support for Migrants: While the UK government does allocate funding for asylum seekers and refugees to cover basic needs such as housing, food, and healthcare, these amounts are far less than £50,000 per individual per year. Asylum seekers typically receive a weekly allowance and accommodation, with recent figures indicating support equating to approximately £40 per week for essentials, in addition to provided accommodation. This support is designed to ensure basic living conditions, not to provide a high income
In summary, the government provides means tested winter support to pensioners and asylum support is much lower than the claim.
1
-
1
-
@janetblackford8450 Four years after the Brexit vote, which ended our participation in the Dublin Accord that allowed for returning migrants to other EU countries, we’re seeing the direct effects of that choice. For almost five years, the Tory government – one that many Brexit supporters, including yourself perhaps, voted for – failed to create a workable immigration system. They ignored opportunities to speed up processing, set up processing points in France, establish bilateral agreements, or create safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Instead, they let the situation deteriorate, knowing they could later pass the blame to the next government and shift responsibility onto Labour without ever acknowledging their own role.
As for claims that “migrants have priority” over housing, healthcare, and other support, this doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Yes, asylum seekers are given basic provisions while they wait for their claims to be processed, as per international law, but it’s a far cry from the comfortable life many assume. Housing is usually in temporary, often overcrowded accommodations, with limited support to cover essentials – hardly a luxury or priority treatment.
Meanwhile, the government has allowed working families to struggle by failing to address the root causes of housing and cost-of-living issues. For instance, there’s been no meaningful investment in affordable housing, no policies to address low wages, and no effective support for those on the brink of poverty. If working families are struggling, that’s the result of years of government neglect, not because refugees are receiving basic support. That’s the reality .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You need to unpack this. There are four issues here, and a key one in this case is without lawful excuse . So the defendants did not have a lawful excuse for damaging the property. The question to the jury must have been, did they have lawful reason or excuse for this ? And remember, a decision of ''guilty'' must be ''beyond reasonable doubt.'' As for, the property would be destroyed or damaged , the defence point our that the statue is now worth now 50 times more in terms of its monetary value and has increased its cultural value. So if you increase an object's market value, how then have you damaged it as a commodity? People can still go to the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, and prostrate themselves in front of Bristol's most virtuous and wise son if they so wish.
Another issue is free speech . GB Newsers love their free speech just as long as it agrees with them. Yet another issue is that the statue of Edward Colston itself constituted a crime. That the statue, under the Public Order Act 1986, caused 'harassment, alarm or distress', and that it was 'indecent' (under the Indecent Displays Act 1981).
So not so cut and dried from a legal point of view. From a culture war point of view it is: there are biased opinions on both sides. There are those that wish to overtun the decision. and so interfere with what is the cornerstone of the justice system. For a government to undermine the checks and balances and the rule of law thereby undermines Britain as a democratic society.
Finally, as Prof Olusoga, who was witness for the defence, told the BBC,
An English jury… has come to the conclusion that the real offence was that a statue to a mass murderer was able to stand for 125 years, not that that statue was toppled in the summer of 2020 .
Just remember GB Newsers, ‘the rule of law’ does not mean ‘an outcome I agree with’. Neither does this set a precedence, as decisions made by juries are never used as a basis for later judicial proceedings. Nor will it legitimate future cases of vandalism. as there is never a guaranteed outcome with a jury trial. Hooray for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xenosscape8573 ¡Such random punctuation and capitalisation¡ Your emphasis is on financial accountability , whereas most people when considering a political party it would be on democratic responsibility . Like him or loath him, Keir Starmer was voted leader by the LP membership and the PLP; Sunak only by the PCP on the last occasion. However, in the case of Nigel Farage, he is the only person with significant control in having the right to to appoint or remove directors . Wouldn’t this be called an “autocracy” in political terms?
Reform UK Limited, the Labour Party and the Conservative and Unionist Party are capitalist parties. Reform want tax cuts and deregulation: it is capitalist business. Now if you want to reform capitalism, you don’t do so by demonising capitalists – Soros, multinational CEOs, etc., but through economic policies such as a wealth tax, universal basic income, green new deal, the reform of corporate governance, land value tax, public banking, re-nationalisation of key industries such as water, and expanding and fully funding the NHS.
As for the personal question, when I am accountable to you I will explain my living, working, and citizenship details, suffice to say I have the right to vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenrichards5386 I'm not sure WTO is the answer. Not because I am "anti-democratic" or the "economic implications", simply isn't the WTO another supranational organisation that erodes our sovereignty ? For example, on the issue of customs checks, what is the difference between WTO rules and the EU-UK trade deal legislation on rules of origin? Answer: No difference ! There is a need for customs checks on products. More importantly than those reasons it that reneges on the promise that there would be border between NI and Ireland (thereby honouring the 1998 GFA), thereby tearing up the agreement, certainly no trade deal with the US, and it might possibly if done badly lead to a trade war with EU. Is there a government that is ready to suffer the economic and political fallout from such a move? If anyone, Truss could have been the PM to do it! So instead of the breaking the promise (ii), it breaks promise (iii). But you seem to consider the Good Friday Agreement as a tool by the EU. Well remember the GFA was an international legal agreement underwritten by the EU and chaired by the US, so neither of these stakeholders are going to disregard it now, are they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DANNY35870 hard working honest people of Britain outside of the London bubble . Usual right-wing talking points of your Thought-Masters! Full of dog-whistles. Are people in poverty, not hard working honest people of Britain ? That’s what is so worrying: that your Thought-Masters consider those in need and in poverty as lazy freeloaders. Afterall, parties like UKIP, Brexit Party and Reform UK sided with the essentially "MORE AUSTERITY" wing of the Conservative Party in the Brexit debate, as it continues to side with them on the billionaire oligarchs on promoting deregulation, misinformation and climate change denial. As for the “London bubble”, is Hackney North & Stoke Newington in the London-bubble, is it? As of last year, this constituency has 8,500 households (15%) living in fuel poverty, and child poverty rates are around 15%. Abbott has been their MP since 1987 – 37 years. Imagine doing the same job – working in a paint warehouse, or whatever you do for 37 years! Respect from her constituents, but not the likes of you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voice.of.reason Shame that until now you not explained how completely wrong I am. I am also not pro-EU, to put it simply, I am against all institutions that are oppressive, and the Tory controlled UK government is far more oppressive than anything the EU has done .
On Wednesday, you even heard from your Great Leader, “Boris” saying it is the fault of the Labour Party and the EU.. On KGB this evening Ben Habib, formerly of the Brexit Party was supporting foreign workers coming over here taking British jobs! Oh, the irony! His reasoning: doing so saved P&O Ferries. The 800 workers were immediately replaced by people earning just £1.80 an hour. To quote Louise Haigh MP, It is nothing short of a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, can tear up the rights of British workers, all while its profits soared by 52% last year .
Source: P&O Ferries and Employment Rights , debated on Monday 21 March 2022 (Hansard)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You proles elected this government in 2019! Do we have to explain the UK parliamentary system again?
Neil Oliver uses the vitriolic language of a populist demagogue. You can even taste the bile of the man. I hope the money they pay you is worth it: stoking division and culture wars.
“Khan loathes Britain” “He sows racial hatred and racial unrest” Slanderous. But unsubstantiated claims are what drives a conspiracist, like Oliver, and his “followers”.
Agenda 21 (“world government” / clever that your right-wing bigotry – othering and scapegoating of refugees you included in theirs – Agenda 21), lockdown, cost of living crisis, the over-reaching power of the nation states, war, refugees, climate disaster, money (the banking system, inflation, devaluation of currency, debt).
Why do you not take on the real elephant in the room: GLOBAL CAPITALISM? GB News will never acknowledge the profit system at fault, as they have vested interests in preserving the power of global capital. Instead, Neil is sent out to do his Ronnie Corbett monologue to ensure that there are a number of unconnected conspiratorial issues. It is left up the viewers to connect the issues, and come to the wrong conclusions! Perfect populism!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pambennett6601 So no blame is to be put on the UK government's role in this?
In a game of consequences, you could argue that had the UK not placed and propped up the Shah of Iran in the first place, they wouldn't have had to supply arms to keep down opponents. And had the they not had to keep down opponents, there wouldn't have been the Iranian Revolution in 1979. And had there not been the Iranian Revolution, there wouldn't have been an Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. And had there not been an Iran-Iraq war, there certainly wouldn't have had the the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the US dominating the "World Order" and certainly no Russia-Ukraine war. What is more, UK's debt to Iran would have been paid way back in 1990 when the International Committee on Commerce ruled in Iran's favour. The UK again was breaking international law in a a "very specific and limited way". Had ALL this been done, Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe would not have been held captive, and people like you would not have lost their shit over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hazeyq4533 You tell yourself that you are a decent man, that you believe in justice, peace, and the brotherhood of man. But when injustice, war, and murder take place right under your nose, you look away or stay silent. You pay lip service to humanity, but you cling to your privileges, your little comforts, and your narrow views. You are quick to judge others, but you refuse to see your own complicity in the suffering of the world. You talk about fairness, but you fear the loss of your own security. You condemn the oppressor, but deep down, you envy his power .
Wilhelm Reich - Listen, Little Man .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dazza9326 In your presence they feel themselves small, and their baseness gleams and glows against you in invisible vengeance. You did not see how often they became silent when you approached them, and how their energy left them like the smoke of a waning fire? Yes, my friend, you are the bad conscience of your neighbors, for they are unworthy of you. Therefore they hate you, and would rather suck your blood. Your neighbors will always be poisonous flies; what is great in you — that itself must make them more poisonous, and always more fly-like. Flee, my friend, into your solitude — and there, where a rough strong breeze blows. It is not your job to be a flyswatter .
Thus spoke Zarathustra .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Propagandist for right-wing conspiracy theories
The whole interview from GB News referenced here has a real conspiracist agenda. This was a total misrepresentation of Dr. Chan’s work, the Harvard/MIT scientist cited in this polemic. Dr. Chan is an independent scientist doing rigorous evidence-based science, and she is interested in how Chinese scientists and authorities dealt with the virus before and after the outbreak. As for her findings, there is a need for rigorous investigation. The evidence for the laboratory leak is circumstantial, as is the evidence for a natural outbreak. For the natural theory, we are dealing in probability: of bats flying to markets. Therefore, no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Dr. Chan does not take the attitude of a GB News hack or posters: “oh, it’s all too much of a coincidence.” She is looking for conclusive evidence and is not tainted by bigotry or political posturing. She is clearly not interested in the GB News hack’s question on the credibility of the WHO. Her 3 minute answer reasserted the need for independent investigation, not ‘’No!” as the GBN hack assert elsewhere. Journalism like this is as credible as the Sun, the Express and all other tabloids. Scientists like Dr. Chan deserve better!
One question remains: how was this virus manufactured? In spite of the hack’s attempt, there is not conclusive answer to this.
1
-
If the Human Rights Act (HRA) were scrapped, as proposed by Robert Jenrick and Reform UK, then leaving the ECHR would strip away a key legal safeguard that currently allows UK citizens to challenge abuses in court – both domestically and, if needed, at a higher level. The idea that the ECHR enforces only "liberal nonsense" ignores its actual function: preventing torture, unlawful detention, discrimination, and protecting free expression. Would you consider justice for the Hillsborough 96 to be "liberal nonsense"? The Hillsborough disaster in 1989, which led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, exposed grave failures in accountability and state responsibility. It was through human rights principles – particularly Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR – that families were able to demand proper investigation and pursue justice. These aren't empty liberal optics – they are legal safeguards that help prevent the state from ignoring or covering up its failures.
And as for the death penalty – the UK remained under ECHR jurisdiction when it still had capital punishment; it wasn't the ECHR that banned it here, but domestic political and social change. What the ECHR does is help ensure that no government, regardless of political leaning, can easily roll back fundamental rights. So the real question is: why remove those protections now – and who exactly benefits when those rights are no longer guaranteed ?
I didn’t ignore your example, but I do think it’s important to consider the broader context of international human rights standards and accountability. While the desire for national sovereignty is understandable, the ECHR court plays a crucial role in ensuring that governments uphold their duty to protect citizens’ rights – not just in principle, but in practice. Withdrawing from it could dismantle vital checks on state power, weakening protections that apply to everyone , not just asylum seekers. The ECHR has upheld rights in areas such as freedom of expression, protection from torture, fair trials, and justice for victims of state failure – as seen in the Hillsborough case. Once those safeguards are stripped from one group, they become easier to strip from others. Human rights are not a luxury or a partisan issue; they are the foundation of a free, fair, and accountable society. Politicians pushing to leave the ECHR are not defending liberty – they’re removing the legal barriers that prevent abuse of power. This isn’t about “taking back control” – it’s about giving those in power more control over us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No one has provided a convincing reason to support the sado-populism of Reform UK. The party's alignment with think tanks and donors promoting a shift towards private health insurance raises serious concerns about increasing inequality in the UK. Such a move could strain public finances, limit access to healthcare for lower-income groups, and ultimately contribute to economic instability or even a potential economic collapse.
Reform's populists, however, often seek to preserve the existing profit-driven system, focusing their rhetoric on blaming specific groups for societal problems – whether it’s workers, immigrants, or elites – rather than addressing the systemic causes of inequality and corruption. This approach serves as a distraction from deeper issues such as the exploitation of labour, wealth concentration, and environmental degradation.
Additionally, Reform UK's commitment to fossil fuels and its reluctance to invest in green technology and infrastructure pose significant risks to the UK's economic future. As global markets increasingly favour sustainable energy solutions, this outdated approach could leave the UK economically disadvantaged, leading to a state of decline or "bust." The party's stance not only jeopardises environmental progress but also threatens long-term economic resilience and competitiveness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheMrmatthewparker I take it you have read the book, haven’t you? If so then you should be able to explain Lomborg’s ideas on investment in renewables, and its impact on both the economy and the environment. It’s also worth considering who is funding Mr Lomborg, as his ideas have attracted support from climate change deniers and fossil fuel investors. Right-wing attitudes to climate change typically progress through stages: from denial, to accepting it but claiming nothing can be done, to downplaying its severity, and finally advocating for market-based solutions. I’d argue that Lomborg is in the third stage, as he acknowledges climate change but tends to minimise its impacts, arguing that adaptation and selective, cost-effective measures are better than large-scale government intervention.
You initially claimed that investing in renewable energy is a “swindle” without providing any evidence for this. Your reasoning is that the British people are not “clamouring” for it. However, I have pointed out that far from “crippling” the economy that renewables have created jobs and contributed £74 billion to the economy.
You use the term “ideologically liberal mentality” to dismiss my views without addressing any of the issues, or substantiating any of your claims. Instead of focusing on ideological differences, it would be more productive to engage with the actual ideas and evidence presented.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seewhatifound You’ve made some fair points – but you also clearly haven’t been reading. Gas prices spiked, especially from 2021 onwards, due to global market volatility and major geopolitical shocks – most notably Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has been confirmed by Ofgem, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and virtually every credible energy analyst. Prices reached record highs in 2022, but have been gradually falling since mid-2023, and are projected to continue declining into 2025 as markets stabilise.
As for the idea that renewable subsidies are the main cause of high bills , that’s a popular narrative pushed by outlets like GB News – but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. GB News' anti-Net Zero stance just happens to align with its funding sources , including the Legatum Group , whose founder was a major investor in Gazprom . No surprise then that their coverage leans heavily toward fossil fuel interests.
And yes, standing charges and curtailment payments are worth examining – but these issues reflect a failure to invest in storage and infrastructure , not a fundamental flaw in renewables. When managed properly, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of new energy in the UK, and they reduce our dependence on volatile fossil markets.
Honestly, it’s starting to look like capitalism is a rigged game . Fossil fuel companies continue to receive billions in subsidies , lobby against climate action, and manipulate media narratives – all while pushing the idea that clean energy is “unrealistic.” Meanwhile, we pay the price: in bills, in lost jobs, and in climate breakdown.
So yes, let’s debate – but let’s also ask: who benefits when you blame renewables instead of the industries that got us into this mess ?
1
-
You’ve made some fair points – but you also clearly haven’t been reading. Gas prices spiked, especially from 2021 onwards, due to global market volatility and major geopolitical shocks – most notably Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has been confirmed by Ofgem, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and virtually every credible energy analyst. Prices reached record highs in 2022, but have been gradually falling since mid-2023, and are projected to continue declining into 2025 as markets stabilise.
As for the idea that renewable subsidies are the main cause of high bills , that’s a popular narrative pushed by outlets like GB News – but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. GB News' anti-Net Zero stance just happens to align with its funding sources , including the Legatum Group , whose founder was a major investor in Gazprom . No surprise then that their coverage leans heavily toward fossil fuel interests.
And yes, standing charges and curtailment payments are worth examining – but these issues reflect a failure to invest in storage and infrastructure , not a fundamental flaw in renewables. When managed properly, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of new energy in the UK, and they reduce our dependence on volatile fossil markets.
Honestly, it’s starting to look like capitalism is a rigged game . Fossil fuel companies continue to receive billions in subsidies , lobby against climate action, and manipulate media narratives – all while pushing the idea that clean energy is “unrealistic.” Meanwhile, we pay the price: in bills, in lost jobs, and in climate breakdown.
So yes, let’s debate – but let’s also ask: who benefits when you blame renewables instead of the industries that got us into this mess ?
1
-
1
-
@seewhatifound You're right to ask who benefits – that’s a key question. But there’s a big difference between broad-based media funding across the political spectrum and a media outlet like GB News, which is overwhelmingly backed by donors with vested interests in fossil fuels. For example, Legatum, a key GB News funder, was founded by someone with deep financial ties to Gazprom. That’s not just “selling a viewpoint” – that’s protecting a business model threatened by Net Zero.
Yes, donors support a variety of outlets – left, right and centre – but when those outlets still investigate, challenge power, and reflect competing perspectives, the comparison doesn’t hold. The Guardian, for instance, publicly discloses its funding, has editorial independence, and actively covers climate change even when it challenges corporate power – not something GB News can say.
As for Bristol Energy, its collapse was down to mismanagement, not some grand failure of renewables. In contrast, fossil fuel giants are making record profits during a cost-of-living crisis – while we’re told renewables are the problem? That’s the real “facade”.
So again, the question isn’t who gets funding – it’s who that funding serves. In the case of GB News and its donors, it’s often those with the most to lose from climate action and the most to gain from keeping energy expensive, privatised, and polluting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mjones4083 Thanks for raising your view so directly - it's important to be honest in debate, even when views differ deeply.
However, let’s look at your comments in turn:
Asylum isn’t illegal . Under international law - including the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory - people have the right to seek asylum even if they arrive without documents or by irregular means. It’s not a crime to flee war or persecution. The word “illegal” misrepresents that right - and calling it an “invasion” deliberately inflames public emotion while ignoring both law and context.
“We know nothing about them” is also incorrect . Every asylum seeker is processed and vetted. Many claims are rejected - but the UK’s system determines that. The claim that “we know nothing” implies either a lack of knowledge about the process or a refusal to accept the facts of how asylum systems actually work.
You call yourself a “proud racist” - but do you see where that leads ? When you say your humanitarian concern is now only for “indigenous British kind,” you’re advocating for a system where compassion is restricted by race or ethnicity. History has shown us, tragically, where such ideologies lead. It’s not "pro-British" to dismantle fairness, dignity, and rights for others - it's simply abandoning those values for everyone.
Multiculturalism isn't a con - it’s a reality . From the NHS to science, food, culture, and sport, British society has already been built by people from all backgrounds. Diversity isn’t an “add-on” - it’s in the fabric of the UK. You may not like that, but the reality is that society has changed, and the idea of a “pure” or unchanging Britain is a myth.
A final thought : If you’re truly concerned about housing, wages, or services, perhaps the blame lies not with desperate people in boats, but with decades of policy choices that have underfunded communities and turned working people against each other. Ask yourself: Who benefits from that division?
Let’s aim higher than scapegoating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brexit-voting areas of UK have highest COVID-19 death rate, study finds.
It reveals that the boroughs of Boston, Great Yarmouth, South Holland, and Hartlepool, for example, have the fourth highest fatalities from the virus in the UK and the biggest share of the vote for Brexit, with all four districts voting more than 75% for leave in 2016. By contrast, the 20 boroughs with the lowest death rates all voted heavily for Remain.
Angry, Brexit voting, anti-vaxx or sceptical? What are the chances?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The government and you KGBers alike must look around and find the very institution that is esteemed throughout the world, that promotes the UK's cultural and intellectual interests, and think"yeah, we'll break it up because it didn't support Brexit in 2016". It is cultural barbarism!! It is the same with slashing funds for the British Council, which promotes UK interests abroad: language, and the arts. Whereas similar institutions in Spain, France and Germany are considered paramount in promoting cultural interests on an international scale, and so are well-funded, the UK government is blind, deaf, and dumb to any reason. I can't find any other reason for it than the government and its spporters are petty Brexity Englanders!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nationalising oil and gas sounds simple, but it’s not just about “using it solely for UK interests.” We’re part of a global energy market, so even if we nationalised everything, prices would still be influenced by global demand. Plus, we export a lot of what we produce. Nationalisation could help with control, but it wouldn’t automatically shield us from global price fluctuations or energy shortages. The real question is: how do we balance national interests with global realities?
Take Norway as an example; they’ve nationalised their oil and gas industry, but they still sell oil on the international market, and global prices still impact their economy. It’s a country that uses its resources wisely, investing in a sovereign wealth fund to protect its future, but they can’t fully escape the global energy market.
By the way, the electricity market among privatised companies is a domestic market, primarily regulated by national policies, while the global market for oil and gas is driven by international supply and demand, meaning nationalisation wouldn't shield us from global price fluctuations in that sector.
If the UK nationalised its oil and gas, how do you think that would affect the prices we pay for energy, especially with global demand still influencing the market ?
1
-
@markmanc-zw3td That’s a good question! Even though the oil and gas are "ours," the global market still determines the prices. We’re not part of OPEC, but their decisions impact global supply and, in turn, the prices we pay. Oil is a globally traded commodity, so even if we nationalised everything, we’d still be subject to international demand and market fluctuations.
Norway doesn’t just sell its surplus – it sells all of its oil on the global commodity market and then buys it back, because prices are set internationally. Even though they produce significant quantities, they still operate within the global market for the energy they consume. What sets Norway apart is how it uses the profits: instead of short-term gain, they channel earnings into a sovereign wealth fund, building long-term economic resilience .
We can’t “Brexit” the global oil market; trying to isolate national markets from global forces would lead to shortages and higher costs, as shown by shocks like the OPEC oil crisis and the Ukraine war. While the UK doesn’t need to copy Norway’s model exactly, they’ve shown how to turn oil wealth into a sustainable future – investing in renewables and green technologies through their fund to prepare for a world beyond fossil fuels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bwilliams572 This sounds like confirmation bias on your part. Richard Tice and Rupert Lowe’s investments go far beyond a simple solar panel on a caravan. As CEO of Quidnet Capital Partners LLP, Tice has overseen the installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging points across his company's properties. Despite his public criticism of net-zero policies and renewable energy, Tice’s company has actively embraced green technologies, including plans for additional solar panels on their roofs.
Similarly, Rupert Lowe owns Alto Energy, a company specializing in air and ground source heat pumps, and holds shares in Kona Energy, which focuses on battery energy storage. Despite these investments, Lowe has publicly criticized net-zero policies, called climate change a "scam," and advocated for abolishing the UK’s net-zero targets. He also installed solar panels on his farm to reduce energy costs, even though his party, Reform UK, plans to tax solar energy and has referred to renewable energy as a "massive con."
It is true that Tice and Lowe are not directly forcing anyone to pay, yet they are profiting from renewable investments while simultaneously receiving donations from fossil fuel investors, all while promoting the narrative of "scam" climate science and opposing net-zero policies.
In light of these contradictions, it’s clear that their actions don’t align with the rhetoric they promote, revealing a deeper agenda that benefits from both fossil fuels and renewable investments, despite their public opposition to climate policies.
One could say, the work of grifters.
1
-
@bwilliams572 This sounds like confirmation bias on your part. Richard Tice and Rupert Lowe’s investments go far beyond a simple solar panel on a caravan. As CEO of Quidnet Capital Partners LLP, Tice has overseen the installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging points across his company's properties. Despite his public criticism of net-zero policies and renewable energy, Tice’s company has actively embraced green technologies, including plans for additional solar panels on their roofs.
Similarly, Rupert Lowe owns Alto Energy, a company specializing in air and ground source heat pumps, and holds shares in Kona Energy, which focuses on battery energy storage. Despite these investments, Lowe has publicly criticized net-zero policies, called climate change a "scam," and advocated for abolishing the UK’s net-zero targets. He also installed solar panels on his farm to reduce energy costs, even though his party, Reform UK, plans to tax solar energy and has referred to renewable energy as a "massive con."
It is true that Tice and Lowe are not directly forcing anyone to pay, yet they are profiting from renewable investments while simultaneously receiving donations from fossil fuel investors, all while promoting the narrative of "scam" climate science and opposing net-zero policies.
In light of these contradictions, it’s clear that their actions don’t align with the rhetoric they promote, revealing a deeper agenda that benefits from both fossil fuels and renewable investments, despite their public opposition to climate policies.
1
-
This sounds like confirmation bias on your part. Richard Tice and Rupert Lowe’s investments go far beyond a simple solar panel on a caravan. As CEO of Quidnet Capital Partners LLP, Tice has overseen the installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging points across his company's properties. Despite his public criticism of net-zero policies and renewable energy, Tice’s company has actively embraced green technologies, including plans for additional solar panels on their roofs.
Similarly, Rupert Lowe owns Alto Energy, a company specializing in air and ground source heat pumps, and holds shares in Kona Energy, which focuses on battery energy storage. Despite these investments, Lowe has publicly criticized net-zero policies, called climate change a "scam," and advocated for abolishing the UK’s net-zero targets. He also installed solar panels on his farm to reduce energy costs, even though his party, Reform UK, plans to tax solar energy and has referred to renewable energy as a "massive con."
It is true that Tice and Lowe are not directly forcing anyone to pay, yet they are profiting from renewable investments while simultaneously receiving donations from fossil fuel investors, all while promoting the narrative of "scam" climate science and opposing net-zero policies.
In light of these contradictions, it’s clear that their actions don’t align with the rhetoric they promote, revealing a deeper agenda that benefits from both fossil fuels and renewable investments, despite their public opposition to climate policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulhank7967 A few more thoughts. the French being the French . Thanks to the the French being the French, the state has higher worker protection than the UK, therefore, there were 800 British job losses and 0 - ZERO - French job losses! I do not blame THAT on Brexit, I blame that on a UK state that eschews workers rights and their enforcers, such as GB News darlings like Calvin Robinson who are basically anti-union scabs!
I have given specific examples, such as the cheese maker that pays £1,000 more per consignment and the UK and you, and the like for like comparison of France, Germany, and the UK, afterall, it was a global pandemic. What do you give? Pie in the sky, and condescension. You seem to think "let's agree to disagree" lets you off the hook. We are not in an "ivory tower" so opinions are not equal when in a debate such as this there is a need to substantiate arguments with grounded facts and not shoot off on a "whataboutism". You have not tackled the very practicalities that people in this cost of living crisis are facing. How often are global downturns? Every 10-15 years? Do you not think that national economies need protection? You are a supporter of capitalism, I am a socialist: it is you that wants to see the UK economy weakened by for a promise of a better future .
You're just a bitter, sad man who's (sic) glass is half empty . I am inclined towards Gramsci idea of "the pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the spirit" . When you have authoritarian populists running the country, propped up by Farage and his supporters, what other way is there? What strikes me is that you don't seem very intelligent, but you have found the internet and have found an identity, and a calling. Good on you! But as I have alluded to, a cultist who is willing to sacrifice the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for promise of a better future is derranged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondwoods2304
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s interesting to compare the first six months of the 2010 UK coalition government with the 2024 Labour government regarding public service investment. The coalition, facing a post-crisis economy, prioritised austerity measures, cutting public spending to reduce the deficit. This led to significant reductions in investment across public services like healthcare, education, and local government, with long-term consequences still felt today.
In contrast, the 2024 Labour government has taken a markedly different approach. Early signs indicate a commitment to reversing years of underfunding, with increased allocations for the NHS, social care, and education. While critics question the sustainability of Labour's spending plans, proponents argue that this focus on investment is essential to address systemic issues exacerbated by over a decade of cuts.
The key difference lies in philosophy: austerity versus investment-led recovery. Whether Labour’s approach will yield the desired outcomes remains to be seen, but the shift in priorities is clear.
Given the contrasting approaches of austerity and investment-led recovery, how might the differing political ideologies behind the 2010 UK coalition and the 2024 Labour government influence their policies on public service investment, and what are the potential long-term effects on the public sector ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mehallica666 Not interested in discussing Gary Neville, but I’d genuinely like to understand why a “globalist” capitalist society, as envisioned by the WEF – focused on regulation, investment, and recognising trade unions as key stakeholders in fostering social dialogue and inclusive growth – is inherently a bad thing? It also advocates for modernisation and adaptability to align with evolving labour markets, so why is this problematic?
Also, many of the capitalists you support align with Ayn Rand-style anarcho-capitalists, who push for deregulation, trade union-busting, wage suppression, tax avoidance, and prioritising profits over environmental responsibility. Why is this unrestrained capitalism preferable, especially when it undermines workers' rights, fair wages, and the health of the planet?
What confuses me is how anarcho-capitalism fits with the economic interests of right-wing populists, who often champion strong communities, fair opportunities, and traditional values. These ideals seem at odds with a system that dismantles unions, social safety nets, and protections that support community cohesion and fairness. Can you explain?
1
-
Not interested in discussing Gary Neville, but I’d genuinely like to understand why a “globalist” capitalist society, as envisioned by the WEF – focused on regulation, investment, and recognising trade unions as key stakeholders in fostering social dialogue and inclusive growth – is inherently a bad thing? It also advocates for modernisation and adaptability to align with evolving labour markets, so why is this problematic?
Also, many of the capitalists you support align with Ayn Rand-style anarcho-capitalists, who push for deregulation, trade union-busting, wage suppression, tax avoidance, and prioritising profits over environmental responsibility. Why is this unrestrained capitalism preferable, especially when it undermines workers' rights, fair wages, and the health of the planet?
What confuses me is how anarcho-capitalism fits with the economic interests of right-wing populists, who often champion strong communities, fair opportunities, and traditional values. These ideals seem at odds with a system that dismantles unions, social safety nets, and protections that support community cohesion and fairness. Can you explain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidedbrooke9324 It is difficult to assert an argument when people are not willing to listen . Bias is a value judgement and not Left/Right division as you are probably thinking. You also seem to now blame teachers for not listening. Teachers are an easy target for you lot on the Right. State school teachers in the UK are blamed by the government of engendering racism, when the government itself denies institutional racism, as they consider in the police force there are only individual racists. Independent schools are not even inspected by OFSTED.
As a teacher, I can encourage true discussion as much as I can but if you students don't have the outside knowledge of the world, we have to focus on more shallow matters. Who do you blame for this? Do you blame teachers, or is it a wider malaise in which a philistine political class engenders an anti-intellectual culture? I don't know when you were educated, but it seems to me that the teacher was the authority and the pupils were willing subjects to listen, and to be compliant, Wanting to reassert that authoritarian structure cannot and should not work. Attempting to revert to a golden age never works. Look at the pre-1973 project the UK is attempting. Anyway, now can I slag off your profession now?
BTW, One former student of mine is working in the the Hague on the war crimes tribunal, so I cannot have been that bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonymitchell6216 I will ignore double negatives.
You seem to have a sectarian way of thinking: that anyone taking a diametrically opposed position to yours must mean supporting policies that are callous, uncaring, and downright ignorant towards people in the UK. It may come as a shock to you people that you voted for, and won with a slim majority a Referendum in 2016 to control borders, and voted for a purged Conservative Party in order to “get Brexit done”. “Your” party has been in government and able to change the immigration policy. What is more, Brexit was based on a lie that there is one-size-fits all immigration policy for all EU countries. Until 2020, it said on the EU website, the UK and Ireland choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies . “Your” party kept that from you. So from your sectarian position, it seems implausible that anyone that disagrees with you might support fair immigration policies that work for the UK economy, and for UK people . The present system is not fair, and frankly absurd when more asylum seekers have been accepted from Rwandans in the UK than refugees have been flown to Kigali.
After all the waste of money, the incompetence, and idiocy, there are two simple solutions. Firstly, open up safe and legal routes. The government has said it’s inappropriate and counterproductive to provide safe and legal routes for migrants who make unauthorised journeys to Europe and want to come to the UK. Advocates of safe and legal routes argue that doing so could help to reduce small boat crossings and other forms of illegal migration . The second would be to open a processing office in France , as the French government has repeatedly suggested. But if the UK government want to keep racists and bigots angry and voting for right-wing parties, easing the pressure of immigration is the last thing you want to be doing .
In 2019, your votes gave the Tories carte blanche to screw the country. Now your solution is to vote for dodgier f+ckwits! You lot have “common sense” do a lot of heavy lifting. Is it "common sense" to vote for a party backed by off-shore billionaires, oligarchs, and fossil fuel investors? Serious investment in Reform UK's business model because it is a business, not a political party: they want a numptocracy : derrugulation for the capitalists, regulation for workers . Now you can tell me I am wrong!
1
-
@seewhatifound You’ve made some fair points – but you also clearly haven’t been reading. Gas prices spiked, especially from 2021 onwards, due to global market volatility and major geopolitical shocks – most notably Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has been confirmed by Ofgem, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and virtually every credible energy analyst. Prices reached record highs in 2022, but have been gradually falling since mid-2023, and are projected to continue declining into 2025 as markets stabilise.
As for the idea that renewable subsidies are the main cause of high bills , that’s a popular narrative pushed by outlets like GB News – but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. GB News' anti–Net Zero stance just happens to align with its funding sources , including the Legatum Group , whose founder was a major investor in Gazprom . No surprise then that their coverage leans heavily toward fossil fuel interests.
And yes, standing charges and curtailment payments are worth examining – but these issues reflect a failure to invest in storage and infrastructure , not a fundamental flaw in renewables. When managed properly, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of new energy in the UK, and they reduce our dependence on volatile fossil markets.
Honestly, it’s starting to look like capitalism is a rigged game . Fossil fuel companies continue to receive billions in subsidies , lobby against climate action, and manipulate media narratives – all while pushing the idea that clean energy is “unrealistic.” Meanwhile, we pay the price: in bills, in lost jobs, and in climate breakdown.
So yes, let’s debate – but let’s also ask: who benefits when you blame renewables instead of the industries that got us into this mess ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thetruth9210 Regarding the trade deals, while many are based on “copy and paste” agreements with the EU, those deals with countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan were negotiated post-Brexit and have received criticism for not securing the best terms for the UK. The prediction of 1 million job losses post-Brexit did not materialise, but the UK has experienced job creation alongside significant labour shortages in certain sectors, particularly agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare, partly due to reduced immigration from the EU. However, Brexit-related disruptions, such as new trade barriers, customs checks, and supply chain issues, have caused ongoing economic challenges.
While the immediate economic crisis predicted after Brexit, like an emergency budget or a severe recession, did not materialise, the UK has still faced slower economic growth, trade difficulties, and uncertainty in investment, particularly in sectors dependent on EU trade. There was no housing crash, but house prices have fluctuated, and some car manufacturers, like Nissan and Honda, have reduced production or delayed investments due to the new trade barriers, while others have shifted production to mainland Europe. Other major companies, including Nissan and Honda, have continued operations, but the UK has seen increased uncertainty, especially in industries that were previously integrated within EU supply chains. Over time, issues like supply chain disruptions, labour shortages, and increased costs have become more apparent, particularly after the end of the transition period, revealing some of the delayed effects of Brexit.
Dismissing the concept of the working class overlooks the ongoing exploitation of the labour force, where the majority of people still rely on selling their labour for wages to survive. Despite changes in society, the working class remains a critical force in capitalist economies, as they are the producers of value, yet they continue to face economic inequality, job insecurity, and alienation. Just because workers are increasingly in precarious or service sector jobs, or lack strong union representation, doesn’t mean their issues should be ignored or disregarded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mw89181 How unkind! Mind you, you got a “like”. I thought the mid-sixties – when I was born – was a Golden Age for you Boomers. It seems would fall for the lies of the grifters: that it was the Blair government that was the beginning of “open borders”. OK, I am very far from being a Blair fan. However, I take issue with liars and those lied to. Remember that by 2016 the Tories had been in government six years. To put that in perspective, the same length of time that from 1945-51 the Atlee government nationalised about 20% of the economy, including coal, railways, road transport, the Bank of England, civil aviation, electricity and gas, and steel, and established the NHS. But the Cameron government could not even change the immigration laws in those six years. If you are saying “we couldn’t because the EU wouldn’t let us”, you are repeating the lies of your favourite grifters: Farage, Johnson, J. R–M, etc.*Every EU country is sovereign and can establish its own immigration laws* . Yes, there is freedom of movement, but every country establishes the parameters of restrictions. The UK was far more relaxed with its immigrations laws than Belgium was and is now. After the accession of the central-eastern European countries in 2004, the Blair government immediately lifted visa controls – as a post-1989 promise to integrate these European countries. But Austria did not. Many other EU countries did not. The problem is that the grifters encourage you to see the EU much like we were encouraged to see the “Eastern bloc” during the Cold War as a homogenous mass of corruption and anti-democratic institutions. The problem is that people that think like you: that fall for the lies and grifts of the right are seen as much like those whose minds were shaped by the ideology of state communism in the Soviet Union, and the Eastern bloc, and national socialism in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Did you think people fools during the Cold War era for falling for an obvious corrupt system? That is how many people saw Trump supporters and how they see many Brexitists that block out the reality in the way you block out the sun when temperatures soar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
After your extensive research on the history of the Middle East, what have you concluded? That the 1947 forced displacement and dispossession.of Palestinians - the an-Nakbah - was right? That the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur, the 1979 agreement in Camp David; the subsequent breaking of the agreement by Israel's Sharron was not peaceful co-existence now, was it? Then the first Intifada didn't come out of nothing, did it? Neither did the acts of 2023. So you maybe can find a neutral position, but when the people of Palestine are considered an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of rights, is that to be considered balanced? What about where there is discriminatory underinvestment in their communities? What about the threats, of torture? What about their homes being bombed and deprived of land? The colonial settlements? The denial of right to return to their homeland? Not having the right to self-determination nor sovereignty and not being recognised by many countries, including the USA, UK and 16 EU countries? Are you now able to find a balanced position?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB News is mainstream news is both revealing and problematic.
GB News claims to offer an alternative to traditional media, but let’s not be fooled. Despite its veneer of independence, it is deeply entrenched in the capitalist system it purports to critique. Owned and operated by wealthy elites, GB News serves the interests of the ruling class, just like BBC or Sky News.
Mainstream media, whether "alternative" or not, perpetuates the status quo by controlling the narrative and distracting us from systemic issues like economic inequality, worker exploitation, and social injustice. GB News is no exception. It may use different rhetoric, but its ultimate goal is the same: to maintain the power structures that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
True revolutionary change requires media that genuinely represents the working class and challenges capitalist hegemony, not just a rebranding of existing power dynamics. Let’s stay critical and always question who benefits from the media we consume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlieleedham5265 So your argument is that protecting workers' rights somehow destroys businesses, while removing those rights helps the working class? That’s some mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic medal.
Businesses don’t fail because workers have sick days or fair conditions – they fail because of poor management, financial mismanagement, or an economy rigged in favour of rentiers and speculators. Funny how the most successful economies in the world have strong worker protections, high wages, and thriving businesses.
Reform UK isn't “for” the working class; it’s for the class that profits off the working class. That’s why it opposes strong wages, backs landlords over tenants, and wants workers to be easier to fire. If making life harder for workers created more jobs, why isn’t every sweatshop economy booming? The reality is, good wages and rights create stability , which in turn drives sustainable business.
And as for millionaires “leaving” the country – good riddance to the ones who only stick around when taxes are low. They’re not “job creators”; they’re wealth extractors. A functioning economy needs workers more than it needs billionaires hoarding capital.
1
-
@charlieleedham5265 If reducing workers' rights led to more businesses and jobs, why do countries with stronger labour protections (e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) often have more stable economies and successful businesses ?
Who actually benefits when worker protections are weakened – employees, small business owners, or large corporations and wealthy investors? Why ?
If "millionaires leaving the country" is a sign that the economy is failing, why do high-tax, high-wage economies like Norway or Denmark continue to thrive, while low-tax, low-regulation economies often struggle with poverty and instability ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah yes, the classic “just get another job” argument – because in your world, workers have unlimited job options, no financial pressures, and every employer is a benevolent genius just waiting to reward the hardest worker. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way.
Labour rights exist precisely because the employer-employee relationship is not one of equals. An individual worker has far less power than a company, especially in industries where alternatives are scarce or where 3xpl0it@ti0n is the norm. Telling workers to just “leave” ignores the fact that bad employers thrive when there are no protections forcing them to treat people fairly.
Also, funny how you think the government should “stay out” of businesses – except when it’s passing laws to keep wages low, weaken unions, or scrap protections. The idea that “red tape” is what’s holding businesses back is a tired myth; strong economies are built on well-paid, secure workforces, not on cutting corners and squeezing workers dry.
If businesses can’t function unless they pay poverty wages and ignore basic standards, then maybe they’re just bad businesses . And if they can function fairly but refuse to do so, then regulation isn’t the problem – greed is.
Typical Reform UK voter: convinced that making life worse for workers will somehow make life better for workers .
1
-
@disband_thebbc5933 Ah yes, the classic “just get another job” argument – because in your world, workers have unlimited job options, no financial pressures, and every employer is a benevolent genius just waiting to reward the hardest worker. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way.
Labour rights exist precisely because the employer-employee relationship is not one of equals. An individual worker has far less power than a company, especially in industries where alternatives are scarce or where profiteering is the norm. Telling workers to just “leave” ignores the fact that bad employers thrive when there are no protections making them to treat people fairly.
Also, funny how you think the government should “stay out” of businesses – except when it’s passing laws to keep wages low, weaken unions, or scrap protections. The idea that “red tape” is what’s holding businesses back is a tired myth; strong economies are built on well-paid, secure workforces, not on cutting corners and squeezing workers dry.
If businesses can’t function unless they pay poverty wages and ignore basic standards, then maybe they’re just bad businesses . And if they can function fairly but refuse to do so, then regulation isn’t the problem – greed is.
Typical Reform UK voter: convinced that making life worse for workers will somehow make life better for workers .
1
-
Ah yes, the classic “just get another job” argument – because in your world, workers have unlimited job options, no financial pressures, and every employer is a benevolent genius just waiting to reward the hardest worker. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way.
Labour rights exist precisely because the employer-employee relationship is not one of equals. An individual worker has far less power than a company, especially in industries where alternatives are scarce or where profiteering is the norm. Telling workers to just “leave” ignores the fact that bad employers thrive when there are no protections making them to treat people fairly.
Also, funny how you think the government should “stay out” of businesses – except when it’s passing laws to keep wages low, weaken unions, or scrap protections. The idea that “red tape” is what’s holding businesses back is a tired myth; strong economies are built on well-paid, secure workforces, not on cutting corners and squeezing workers dry.
If businesses can’t function unless they pay poverty wages and ignore basic standards, then maybe they’re just bad businesses . And if they can function fairly but refuse to do so, then regulation isn’t the problem – greed is.
Typical Reform UK voter: convinced that making life worse for workers will somehow make life better for workers .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ You say, “THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE FFS.” What exactly are you basing this on? Personal belief? Empirical evidence? Or what you've been told by fossil fuel-funded media and political parties?
Here’s a question to start with:
Does carbon from burning coal have the same effect as carbon released through photosynthesis (like from trees) ?
They’re not the same. Natural carbon and fossil fuel carbon have different isotopic signatures. Scientists can literally trace the source – and the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is directly linked to fossil fuels.
Back in 1896, Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact of doubling atmospheric CO₂. He predicted it would raise global temperatures by 5–6°C – a prediction that’s proved remarkably accurate.
At the time (1895), atmospheric CO₂ was around 295 ppm. As of February 2024, it’s 426 ppm. In the UK, average temperatures have risen by 1.6°C since then.
You and others on channels like GB News talk about “climate changes” millions of years ago – but the span from 1895 to today is just 4.3 climate cycles (a climate being a 30-year period). So no, we’re not just in another natural swing.
Even Exxon’s own scientists knew about the dangers of fossil fuels 70 years ago. Instead of warning the public, they buried the research and pushed denial for profit.
So I’d like to know: why are you repeating talking points first crafted by oil executives to mislead the public ?
And while we're asking questions, why support parties like Reform UK, which are funded by fossil fuel interests and climate denial think tanks like the IEA and the GWPF?
Reform's plan to scrap Net Zero and cut renewables flies in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus – over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities.
As Carl Sagan once said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
So here are a few for you to consider:
How do you account for the consistency across datasets and methods supporting human-driven climate change ?
What evidence supports your claim that recent warming is purely natural, despite being unmatched in geological records ?
How do you explain the speed of recent temperature increases, if not due to human influence ?
Are you open to reviewing peer-reviewed science, or do you prefer non-expert sources ?
Even if you doubt the cause, what’s your plan to protect communities and ecosystems from the consequences of inaction ?
This isn’t about politics – it’s about facts. So let’s have that conversation. But if you’re making extraordinary claims like “there is no climate change,” then I’d ask:
Where’s your evidence ?
1
-
You say, “THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE FFS.” What exactly are you basing this on? Personal belief? Empirical evidence? Or what you've been told by fossil fuel-funded media and political parties?
Here’s a question to start with:
Does carbon from burning coal have the same effect as carbon released through photosynthesis (like from trees) ?
They’re not the same. Natural carbon and fossil fuel carbon have different isotopic signatures. Scientists can literally trace the source – and the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is directly linked to fossil fuels.
Back in 1896, Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact of doubling atmospheric CO₂. He predicted it would raise global temperatures by 5–6°C – a prediction that’s proved remarkably accurate.
At the time (1895), atmospheric CO₂ was around 295 ppm. As of February 2024, it’s 426 ppm. In the UK, average temperatures have risen by 1.6°C since then.
You and others on channels like GB News talk about “climate changes” millions of years ago – but the span from 1895 to today is just 4.3 climate cycles (a climate being a 30-year period). So no, we’re not just in another natural swing.
Even Exxon’s own scientists knew about the dangers of fossil fuels 70 years ago. Instead of warning the public, they buried the research and pushed denial for profit.
So I’d like to know: why are you repeating talking points first crafted by oil executives to mislead the public ?
And while we're asking questions, why support parties like Reform UK, which are funded by fossil fuel interests and climate denial think tanks like the IEA and the GWPF?
Reform's plan to scrap Net Zero and cut renewables flies in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus – over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities.
As Carl Sagan once said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
So here are a few for you to consider:
How do you account for the consistency across datasets and methods supporting human-driven climate change ?
What evidence supports your claim that recent warming is purely natural, despite being unmatched in geological records ?
How do you explain the speed of recent temperature increases, if not due to human influence ?
Are you open to reviewing peer-reviewed science, or do you prefer non-expert sources ?
Even if you doubt the cause, what’s your plan to protect communities and ecosystems from the consequences of inaction ?
This isn’t about politics – it’s about facts. So let’s have that conversation. But if you’re making extraordinary claims like “there is no climate change,” then I’d ask:
Where’s your evidence ?
1
-
You say, “THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE FFS.” What exactly are you basing this on? Personal belief? Empirical evidence? Or what you've been told by fossil fuel-funded media and political parties?
Here’s a question to start with:
Does carbon from burning coal have the same effect as carbon released through photosynthesis (like from trees) ?
They’re not the same. Natural carbon and fossil fuel carbon have different isotopic signatures. Scientists can literally trace the source – and the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is directly linked to fossil fuels.
Back in 1896, Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact of doubling atmospheric CO₂. He predicted it would raise global temperatures by 5–6°C – a prediction that’s proved remarkably accurate.
At the time (1895), atmospheric CO₂ was around 295 ppm. As of February 2024, it’s 426 ppm. In the UK, average temperatures have risen by 1.6°C since then.
You and others on channels like GB News talk about “climate changes” millions of years ago – but the span from 1895 to today is just 4.3 climate cycles (a climate being a 30-year period). So no, we’re not just in another natural swing.
Even Exxon’s own scientists knew about the dangers of fossil fuels 70 years ago. Instead of warning the public, they buried the research and pushed denial for profit.
So I’d like to know: why are you repeating talking points first crafted by oil executives to mislead the public ?
And while we're asking questions, why support parties like Reform UK, which are funded by fossil fuel interests and climate denial think tanks like the IEA and the GWPF?
Reform's plan to scrap Net Zero and cut renewables flies in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus – over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities.
As Carl Sagan once said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
So here are a few for you to consider:
How do you account for the consistency across datasets and methods supporting human-driven climate change ?
What evidence supports your claim that recent warming is purely natural, despite being unmatched in geological records ?
How do you explain the speed of recent temperature increases, if not due to human influence ?
Are you open to reviewing peer-reviewed science, or do you prefer non-expert sources ?
Even if you doubt the cause, what’s your plan to protect communities and ecosystems from the consequences of inaction ?
This isn’t about politics – it’s about facts. So let’s have that conversation. But if you’re making extraordinary claims like “there is no climate change,” then I’d ask:
Where’s your evidence ?
1
-
You’ve said, “ THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE “. But I’m genuinely curious – what are you basing that on? Is it personal belief, scientific evidence, or information from media outlets and political groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry?
Here’s a question to consider:
_Does carbon released from burning coal have the same effect as carbon from natural sources like trees_?
The answer is no. Carbon from fossil fuels carries a different isotopic signature than naturally recycled carbon. Scientists can identify the source – and the increase in atmospheric CO₂ has been clearly linked to fossil fuel emissions.
As far back as 1896, Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO₂ could raise global temperatures by 5–6°C – a remarkably accurate projection.
Back then (1895), CO₂ levels were around 295 ppm. As of February 2024, they’re at 426 ppm. In the UK, average temperatures have already risen by 1.6°C.
Some argue this is part of Earth’s natural cycles, referencing changes that occurred millions of years ago. But consider this: from 1895 to now is just over four climate periods (each being roughly 30 years). That’s not ancient history — that’s well within human-recorded data. This current spike doesn’t match known natural fluctuations.
Even major fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, had internal research in the 1970s warning about the risks of continued emissions. That data wasn’t shared with the public at the time – it was downplayed while counter-narratives were promoted.
So here’s an honest question: Why repeat narratives that originated in fossil fuel-funded lobbying campaigns ?
And why support political parties, such as Reform UK, that have received backing from organisations known for promoting climate scepticism, like the IEA and GWPF? Reform’s pledge to dismantle Net Zero policies and cut investment in renewables contradicts the position held by over 97% of climate scientists – that human activity is the primary driver of climate change.
Carl Sagan once said: “ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .” So if you’re claiming that climate change isn’t happening, or that it’s not human-caused, let’s look at the evidence.
Here are a few questions worth reflecting on:
How do you account for the consistent global temperature rise shown across multiple independent data sets ?
What scientific evidence supports the idea that current warming is purely natural, especially given its speed and intensity ?
Are you open to peer-reviewed research, or do you rely on sources with limited scientific credibility ?
Even if you’re uncertain about the causes, what’s your plan to protect communities and ecosystems from rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather ?
This isn’t about ideology – it’s about understanding the facts and acting responsibly. So if you’re going to argue against the overwhelming scientific consensus, let’s see the data you're working from.
What’s your evidence ?
1
-
You’ve said, “There is no climate change.” That’s a big statement – and I’d really like to understand where that belief comes from.
Is it based on scientific studies, personal experience, or things you’ve heard in the media?
Here’s a question to start with:
Does carbon from burning fossil fuels act the same way in the atmosphere as carbon from natural processes like photosynthesis ?
They’re not quite the same. Carbon from fossil fuels has a different isotopic “signature,” which scientists can trace. The rise in atmospheric CO₂ over the past century closely matches the increase in fossil fuel use.
In fact, back in 1896, scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO₂ could raise global temperatures significantly — a prediction that’s been supported by later research.
At that time, CO₂ levels were around 295 parts per million (ppm). As of February 2024, they’ve reached 426 ppm. And in the UK, average temperatures have risen by about 1.6°C since then.
Some people point to natural climate shifts from millions of years ago. But the changes we’re seeing now have happened within just over four “climate periods” (about 30 years each). The rate of change is much faster than in most historical records.
Even internal research from fossil fuel companies in the 1970s recognised the potential risks of continued carbon emissions. Yet public awareness lagged behind for decades.
So here are some questions I think are worth asking:
What evidence supports the idea that recent climate changes are entirely natural ?
How do we explain the speed and consistency of current temperature increases across different datasets ?
Are we open to reviewing peer-reviewed science, or are we relying mostly on media opinions ?
Even if there’s uncertainty, what steps can we take to protect people, homes, and ecosystems from extreme weather and other climate-related risks ?
This isn’t about blame or politics – it’s about trying to understand what’s happening around us, and how to respond wisely. If we’re going to question the science, let’s do it with evidence, not just opinion.
So I’m curious: what’s the strongest evidence you’ve seen that suggests climate change isn’t real or isn’t human-caused ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
loveday bebe. Thank you for your post. When we speak of fears, I believe the fear isn’t sown by the WEF but rather by those who profit from spreading fear and stoking anger. This makes people more susceptible to the agendas of these individuals and groups. The idea that the WEF wants to implant microchips in brains is pure nonsense, and frankly absurd. Instead, it’s the right-wing media fuelling these fears to push their own narratives. They create a climate of distrust and division, which ultimately serves their interests rather than fostering informed debate.
Put simply, the WEF is often used as a scapegoat for the country’s problems, distracting from the real parties responsible and shifting the focus away from those who should be held accountable.
The libertarian capitalism promoted by WEF’s opponents seeks to drive down wages, food standards, and environmental protections. However, the narrative is pushed that unregulated capitalism is more acceptable, while sustainable forms of living are portrayed as the real threat. This is how outlets like GB News can afford to lose £76 million if they can convince people of this.
I hope your son gets well soon. All the best!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marketsolutionsdigital1238 In the early days of youtube, one could have a really good discussion on issues of economics, and culture. One could have a knock around and people would be respectful. Nowadays, people call others stupid and there is name calling and a general decline in the civility and intellectual engagement. Throwing around terms like ''ultra woke brigade'' will no doubt keep connected to your filter bubble and others will ''like'' your comments. However, is that the atomised world you want to live in? This kind of argumentation doesn't help people to see why you think the way you do and it doesn't help that you are blind to the reasoning of many that you opposed. GB News support this polarisation because it is the agenda of their off-shore billionaire backers. Yes, there are people on both side so far down the rabbit hole that they disappear up their own recta (to mix metaphors). But that is no reason to follow!!
As Einstein said, ''This world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.''
Next time, before calling people names, think how. you can intellectually challenge arguments with reasons and evidence, and not simply throwing around idiotic phrases like ''ultra woke brigade'', and how you can also be civil. Have a good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cartwright8920 There are four main reasons for this.
Firstly, anti-intellectualism. Those in favour of reasoned arguments with substantiated claims will no doubt find GB News a hostile environment. Like social media, it is a quick fix rather than long-form. There are several guests, such as Douglas Murray that have intellectual heft, the rest are wanting. Tabloid journalism is always ‚‘tell me what to think!!‘ and there is a lot of that here. Making a complex issue simple, rather than understanding the complexity is the GB News agenda.
Secondly, GB News does indeed rely on a captive audience. By captive, I mean there is a Stockholm Syndrome element to this. This partisan attitude is unable to see a reasoned argument or are unable to see another viewpoint. This is a‚‘‘footballisation of politics.‘‘ This includes you saying that I was not smart.
Thirdly, GB News is the self-stated main opponent of cancel culture, However, recently, I included a comment that consisted of six headlines from the Daily Express, which all contained the words ‚‘Brexit‘ and ‚‘nightmare‘. The self-proclaimed purveyor of ant-woke cancel culture deleted the comment. What is more, there is no real agreement of what woke is. To prarphrase the famous quote from the 1964 Lady Chatterley obcenity trial ‚‘I don’t know what woke is, but I know it when I see it.‘ There is moral crusade in the Mary Whitehouse line here, which would be distasteful to the ‚‘free speech‘ faction. Isn’t woke another form of ‚‘respect people and don’t be an a**hole.‘? A fine philosophy of life.
Finally, the idea that GB News is not mainstream media is laudable though not strictly true. When a channel begins with £60 million seed money from billionaire financiers in an attempt to re-callibrate a cultural rightwards drift, it is in the forefront of right-wing mainstream media such as The Sun, Fox News in the US.
I would normally not answer people who have an anonymous troll profile, but since you seem to be held captive, I might as well waste my time encouraging some meaningless factionalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GolfingInParadise783 My point was not really property, so you can’t project your vitriol onto me. First of all, did I say property prices is linked to the lack of social housing ? You will have to up your game and improve your reading skills. I said there is a lack of investment in social housing that increases rental prices. Am I wrong in saying this? My claim is supported by a spokesperson for Shelter that said: : The severe lack of social homes means swathes of people are barely scraping by as they’re forced to compete for grossly expensive private rentals, because there is nothing else. With food and household bills continuing to surge, the situation is precarious for thousands of renters who are one paycheck away from losing their home, and the spectre of homelessness .
I also said that bigger profits means less investment, lower wages and more inflation . This has been called “greedflation”. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that during the pandemic profits were up 34% at the end of 2021 compared with pre-pandemic levels and that nearly all of that increase in profits was due to just 25 companies. As the IPPR has recently said: It’s time for policymakers to look at ‘greedflation’ and prioritise reining in corporate profits, instead of blaming workers’ wages for driving up inflation .
Wouldn’t you say that there problems of the UK are not merely the influx of refugees? Certainly the UK government has allowed the refugee situation to get out of hand, and has further exacerbate the problems with a lack of investment in social housing, and the public sector, and allowed “greedflation”.
Finally, you give me stats on how many homes need to be built. I don’t dispute these. But building 300,000 houses is one thing, but would these houses be affordable ? Research from the Heritage Foundation has found that the average deposit is £50,000 which would take many first-time buyers 14 years to save for a deposit. Even those with a mortgage are seeing their re-payments rise from 27% of income to 37% since 2020 (Nationwide).
As for your slight: money doesn’t grow on trees… we can’t build 120,000 new homes at the expense of Johnny tax payer . In 2019, the Conservative Party pledge that in government it would: supply of new social housing and empowering tenants. It will also aim to include measures to provide greater redress, better regulation and improve the quality of social housing .
Have they done this? It is a pledge from the Conservative Party, not the “loony left” Corbyn Labour Party.
Money doesn’t grow on trees . You are really a Daily Express reader and not the professed expert on the housing market. Teresa May said that there was “no magic money tree” when justifying austerity, but suddenly during the pandemic the money tree magically appeared! In total £881 million was awarded to individuals who had donated a total of £8.2 million to the Conservative Party in the years leading up to the pandemic, and during Covid the Government contracts worth some £18 billion had been outsourced to the private sector in less than 12 months.
BTW I respect expertise: I don’t respect shittalking shysters! So decide if you are an expert or a shittalking shyster, and adopt an appropriate tone!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LondonSteveLee It’s true that overall public spending didn’t fall in cash terms during "Austerity" – but that’s not the full picture. What mattered was where the cuts landed. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK saw deep real-terms cuts to local councils, social care, policing, legal aid, disability benefits, housing, and mental health services . At the same time, debt rose partly because austerity slowed economic recovery and reduced tax revenues.
I notice you use the term "the blob" – the dismissive term used by disgraced former PM Liz Truss to describe civil servants, experts, and institutions that challenged her policies. Ironically, many of those she criticised were later proven right – and her rapid downfall became a cautionary tale about what happens when ideology trumps economic reality.
If austerity didn’t reduce debt – and instead weakened public services – was it really an economic strategy, or an ideological one ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your comment reflects a common narrative among populist-right circles, but it overlooks several key facts and misrepresents the UK's economic situation.
Firstly, the claim that the UK government spends about 35% of GDP is inaccurate. According to the International Monetary Fund, UK government spending was approximately 44.17% of GDP in 2023 . This level of spending is comparable to other developed economies and does not constitute a "command economy," which involves state control over production and pricing. The UK remains a market-based economy with significant private sector involvement.
Regarding the assertion that the UK was close to a fiscal surplus before New Labour took office in 1997, historical data tells a different story. Public sector net debt was 42.5% of GDP in 1996–97 and decreased to 30.7% by 2000–01 under Chancellor Gordon Brown, aided by budget surpluses and one-off revenues like the sale of 3G mobile licenses. The significant increase in public debt occurred after the 2008 global financial crisis, necessitating government intervention to stabilise the economy.
The denial of austerity's effects is an ideological stance that ignores its tangible impact on the economy. Austerity measures implemented post-2010 led to underinvestment in public services and infrastructure, contributing to slower economic growth and increased inequality. The Office for Budget Responsibility has noted that austerity policies had a dampening effect on economic recovery following the financial crisis.
The claim that the UK has "run out of taxpayers" and that immigration is a net loss to the economy is not supported by evidence. Studies from the Migration Observatory indicate that the fiscal impact of migration is less than 1% of GDP, with recent migrants often contributing more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Moreover, migrants play a crucial role in sectors like healthcare, education, and technology, helping to address labour shortages and support economic growth.
It's essential to base discussions on accurate data and comprehensive analysis rather than right-wing narratives. Misrepresenting economic facts and ignoring the multifaceted causes of fiscal challenges does a disservice to constructive debate. A nuanced understanding of government spending, debt, and immigration is crucial for developing effective policies that address the UK's economic needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DorisDay-lw4xs "My lot"? Speaking personally, I am binary because you GBers hate ambiguity, and you hate gender fluidity. Plus the fact that viewers voted Tory in 2010, 2015, Brexit in 2016, and Tory in 2017, and 2019, and as a result the country is repeaping the impacts of austerity, and managed decline.
Given the economic challenges, public service cuts, and international uncertainties resulting from these policies, can we confidently say that the government's approach over the last 14 years has strengthened the UK, or has it created long-term vulnerabilities that will take years to address?
By the way, I hope you like this "grown up" question rather than calling Starmer a "bell end".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please given examples. Unless you can give examples of how the EU seeks to oblitereate national cultures, I can safely say you are talking out of your backside. On the other points, for one thing, you clearly do not understand how the UK state works: three branches of the state: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The European Court of Justice is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law . The Judiciary part of the state is the Royal Court of Justice. If you support the Rwanda debacle, you no doubt would support giving more power to government. In 1978 a Select Commitee said, The balance of advantage between Parliament and Government is so weighted in favour of Government that it is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy . Now you want more power to the government to erode the civil liberties of all .
As for standards, should you not be concerned about those lower than the EU standards? Take employment rights. Do you think that employment rights and standards are at the heart of Tory policy? Do you seriously think that workers rights was even a consideration of Mogg, of IDS, of Redwood? In fact, Brexiteers in the Conservative Party voted against the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill that would have protected P&O ferry workers. It is illegal to fire and rehire in Spain, France and Ireland. The deregulation of labour laws was one major reason for Mogg, Redwood etc. to support Brexit. For the rest, who were those voting against their interests, you had your sacred sovereignty .
Boris Johnson said in 2013, that leaving the EU would end the sterile debate and that we must face up to the fact that “most of our problems” are of our own making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As CEO of Quidnet Capital Partners LLP, Tice has overseen the installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging points across his company's properties. Despite his public criticism of net-zero policies and renewable energy, Tice’s company has actively embraced green technologies, including plans for additional solar panels on their roofs.
Similarly, Rupert Lowe owns Alto Energy, a company specializing in air and ground source heat pumps, and holds shares in Kona Energy, which focuses on battery energy storage. Despite these investments, Lowe has publicly criticized net-zero policies, called climate change a "scam," and advocated for abolishing the UK’s net-zero targets. He also installed solar panels on his farm to reduce energy costs, even though his party, Reform UK, plans to tax solar energy and has referred to renewable energy as a "massive con."
It is true that Tice and Lowe are not directly forcing anyone to pay, yet they are profiting from renewable investments while simultaneously receiving donations from fossil fuel investors, all while promoting the narrative of "scam" climate science and opposing net-zero policies.
In light of these contradictions, it’s clear that their actions don’t align with the rhetoric they promote, revealing a deeper agenda that benefits from both fossil fuels and renewable investments, despite their public opposition to climate policies.
1
-
1
-
@ruthiruthhausen5912 Thank you for that, but I have not said otherwise. But what are you basing this on? Belief? Empirical evidence? What the fossil fuel-funded media and political parties misinform you? Maybe you can answer this question: does the carbon from coal burning have the same or different effect to carbon released by photosynthesis, such as trees ? GBbees are of the assumption that they are. Natural carbon and fossil burning carbon have different carbon isotopes.
In 1896 the Swedish Nobel-laureate, Svante Arrhenius made astonishingly accurate predictions. He calculated the effect of carbon dioxide doubling in the atmosphere. He predicted that this would increase surface temperatures by 5–6 degrees Celsius. In 1895 it was 295 ppm (parts per million in dry air). In May 2023 it was 424 ppm. In the UK, the average temperature has risen 1.6 degrees Celsius in the intervening years. As I pointed out before, the time period from 1895 to now is only 4.3 “climates”. Some of your trusted GB bees are talking of climate changes 833, 333 “climates ago”.
Even the scientists at fossil fuel companies like Exxon knew of the effects of fuel burning 70 years ago, but instead pushed a climate change denial narrative to preserve profits. I’d like to know why you are denying the undeniable evidence that Exxon suppresses . What is more, right-wing parties like Reform UK, and the “think tanks” like the IEA are funded by the “dirty money” of these polluters, and exploiters. I’d like to know why you are considering voting for parties that deny reality: of the undeniable damage that deregulation of the economy and the environment will have on the country .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's important to differentiate between weather and climate, as they are not the same:
Weather refers to short-term atmospheric conditions in a specific place at a specific time. It includes daily changes in temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns.
Climate, on the other hand, refers to long-term patterns and averages of weather over extended periods, typically decades or more, in a specific region or globally.
Why climate change Is not "Just the Weather"
Scientific Consensus: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is a significant and ongoing change in global and regional climate patterns, primarily caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. This is not a matter of day-to-day weather variations but long-term changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events.
Long-Term Data: Climate change is observed through long-term data collection. For example:
Rising global temperatures: The Earth's average surface temperature has risen about 1.1°C (2°F) since the late 19th century.
Melting ice caps and glaciers: Significant ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Sea-level rise: Global sea levels have risen about 8-9 inches (20-23 cm) since 1880, with the rate accelerating in recent decades.
Increased frequency of extreme weather events: More frequent and severe heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes, and heavy rainfall.
Scientific Evidence: Thousands of peer-reviewed studies document these changes. Organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provide extensive research and evidence on the impact of human activities on global climate.
Climate change is a long-term shift in global or regional climate patterns, not a scam or a simple rebranding of "the weather." It's a scientifically documented phenomenon with profound implications for ecosystems, human health, and economies worldwide. Denying or downplaying the reality of climate change does not change the overwhelming evidence and the urgent need to address it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a common myth, but the idea that asylum seekers in the UK enjoy central heating, luxury hotels, or "four-star treatment" just doesn't reflect reality. Most asylum seekers are housed in basic accommodation, often in old hotels or repurposed buildings chosen by private contractors – not the government – for being cheap and available, not comfortable.
Many of these buildings are overcrowded, poorly maintained, and in isolated areas. Asylum seekers are given around £6 per day for all their needs if they’re not in full-board accommodation. They are not allowed to work while their claims are being processed, which can take months or even years – meaning they’re effectively trapped in limbo, not enjoying privileges, but waiting in difficult conditions.
In short: they don’t get to skip the housing queue, they don’t get lavish benefits, and they certainly aren’t living a life of luxury. If anything, they’re scapegoated by a system that uses their hardship to distract from real problems like housing shortages and inequality – which affect us all.
If we’re serious about fairness, we need to aim our frustration at those who profit from division – not the people at the bottom who are just trying to survive
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dunholm1 You voted to take back control and trusted the good ol' boys like Johnson and Gove, and that gentleman Mr Rees-Mogg who promised sunlit uplands that await us. ... there will be broad, sunlit uplands (2019). But where are the sunlit uplands? Is that what you voted for?
I shall deal with two main issues you raise: the failure to stand up to the EU on the NI protocol, and the failure to leave the ECHR. Firstly, the NI protocol. Some context: now when the UK joined the Common Market in 1973, there was the “Troubles” or irregular warfare between the two communities. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement was miraculous for someone like me growing up in the 1970’s. This agreement was signed by the governments of the Irish Republic, and the UK, it was underwritten by the EU, and chaired by the US. Powerful vested interests! Who would renege on this agreement? Surely not the Ulster Unionists who saw it as a betrayal? Surely not the opportunist Boris Johnson, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party? How does the EU deal with states that are divided into four countries and there is an international peace agreement between one of those counties and an EU country? In the unlikely event of Germany exiting and there was an international peace agreement between Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg, as the latter borders Poland (EU country), again it would be honoured! You can surely see what a bizarrely unique position that the UK is in. It was pointed out by those responsible for the GFA.
Now remember you Brexiters were made three promises. (i) To leave the Single Market and Customs Union; (ii) that there would be no border between NI and GB; (iii) that there would be border between NI and Ireland (thereby honouring the 1998 GFA).
It soon became clear that only TWO of these promises could be kept. To have all three is “cakism”, pie in the sky, it is the Brexit unicorn. Several options have been tried.
Now (iii) and (i) is the Johnson “oven ready deal”, of course broke promise (ii), though of course Johnson denies this!!
Another was to keep promises (i) and (ii) is what you want that reneges on the promise (iii) tears up the EU-UK trade as well as the Good Friday agreements, certainly no trade deal with the US, and it might possibly if done badly spark a trade war with EU. Is there a government that is ready to suffer the economic and political fallout from such a move? Truss could have been the PM foolish enough to do it!
Finally, option to honour promises (ii) and (iii) was May’s 2018 deal with the “Irish backstop” thereby keeping the UK in the EU Customs Union and Single Market. This, of course, was rejected by the Commons and by more hardline Brexiters.
Simply put, your Brexit delusions do not fit reality.
As for the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Do you just want to accept UK legal decisions as final? For example, do you wish to accept the Hillsborough, 1989 accept the cover up rather than use the HRA to bring about a second inquiry? This government wants to strip you of your rights whilst using your hatred of the EU and the ECHR as a cover. GB News, Farage etc. legitimate this unspeakable tyranny. Don't say you were not warned. And anyway, was this even mentioned in the referendum campaign: moving the goalposts is part of a democratic mandate, is it?
1
-
@dunholm1 Well done there; I admire you commitment to the cause.
As for “foreign bureaucrats”, they are like civil servants and are not unelected, as they are in the UK! Is it because they are “foreign”? You mention _ foreign courts overturning laws made by our own Supreme Court_ , but the UK still has three judges in the ECJ and it still plays a role in UK justice. But rest assured that only Bahrain strips more of its citizens of their rights than the UK. I am glad that you’d _ happily live on bread and water_ for the rest of your days, especially with food shortages and the coming rationing. However, most people voted for Brexit to improve their lives. Not everyone has the mind of a Soviet willing to eats grubs if it brings the eventual Utopia; or the “Sunlit Uplands”, but you clearly have. As Jacob Rees-Mogg said recently in his Moggcast the British people didn't know what they were voting for in 2016. In 1975, people knew they were voting on the Treaty of Rome, whereas in 2016 they had no such treaty or agreement; it was a "jump in the dark"
I hope people are starting to realise that you cannot deliver democracy from a top-down model of the state controlling people: it is authoritarian. As Thoreau said, the best government is no government! Getting passionate about creating real democracy from the bottom up: co-operatives, mutual aid is more exhilarating than being bitter about a "Brexit in name only". The Brexit revolution was delivered from above - not democratic by certain people in GB Towers and funded by Russian money. How democratic was that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ I don’t expect any reasoning or critical thinking from you, but you can’t even explain how I supposedly proved I have no understanding of what the right or “far right” actually means.
I don’t know what you mean by “far-left”, but I don’t mean authoritarianism, state overreach, or identity politics – I mean grassroots democracy, collective ownership of essential resources, and a sustainable, people-centred economy free from oligarchic control. It’s about communities organising from the bottom up, ensuring that decisions affecting our lives are made by us, not handed down by elites or dictated by profit. In contrast, far-right populism thrives on fear, division, and scapegoating, while quietly reinforcing the very hierarchies it claims to oppose. Real freedom means dismantling both corporate and state domination, and building a society where power truly belongs to the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OranageFlash Since you haven’t stated which university you attended, we can reasonably assume you didn’t attend one. You’ve shown no evidence of knowledge or critical reasoning. You make claims but fail to support them –suggesting an inability to engage in debate, provide evidence, or demonstrate any academic credibility.
You seem to believe that someone who relies on reason and evidence has "no understanding." That’s not only ironic, it’s intellectually bankrupt. Either back up your claims or stop pretending you know more than those who’ve actually done the research. I presume you’ve done no academic work on this subject – so on what basis do you imagine yourself better informed than I am?
And then there's the line about people needing to “know [their] place” – that says far more about your worldview than mine. It reveals a far-right fixation on rigid hierarchies, where people are expected to stay in their assigned roles and power is maintained through submission.
Voters who support far-right populist parties often show low tolerance for ambiguity, a strong need for order and authority, and a deep loyalty to their in-group – traits that foster suspicion of “outsiders” and make them especially vulnerable to intolerant ideologies and emotionally manipulative, unreliable narratives.
You may think you understand the world, but you show little compassion – and frankly, not much understanding either.
1
-
@OranageFlash Mate, all that shouting and finger (or toe?)-wagging doesn’t cover up the fact that you haven’t actually made a coherent argument. You say I’ve “used no evidence or reason,” but all you've offered in return is… metaphorical toes and angry analogies about chairs. If you want to debate definitions, fine – let’s do that. But saying “this could also apply to the left” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just hand-waving.
Also, claiming everything is the same as everything else – “centrist groups do it too!” – just proves you’re not interested in the why, the context, or the outcomes. That’s what matters when we label ideologies. Otherwise, why bother using any words at all?
You keep calling my points “dribble,” but never actually say why they’re wrong. That’s not argument – it’s noise. If you want to talk like an adult, I’m game. If not, enjoy yelling at furniture.🤣
1
-
1
-
@OranageFlash Oh, the classic “you just don't understand me” defence – usually the last resort when someone can’t back up their own claims. You keep saying I used no evidence, but I’m still waiting for your evidence that anything I said was wrong. Repeating “dribble” doesn’t make it true.
You rightly define communism as far-left. Using the same logic, many analysts associate things like strong nationalism, anti-immigration stances, and rigid traditionalism with far-right politics. It’s not about exclusivity – just recognising patterns in political behaviour.
Your chair analogy only works if you're trying to prove you don’t know what specificity is. Yes, lots of things have four legs. That’s why you don’t stop there – you add context , which is what political labels do – unless we just want to throw all language in the bin.
Also, if you want people to “talk like an adult,” maybe drop the playground tone. Until then, you’re just another bloke shouting “I’m right!” and hoping volume replaces clarity.
1
-
Oh, the classic “you just don't understand me” defence – usually the last resort when someone can’t back up their own claims. You keep saying I used no evidence, but I’m still waiting for your evidence that anything I said was wrong. Repeating “dribble” doesn’t make it true.
You rightly define communism as far-left. Using the same logic, many analysts associate things like strong nationalism, anti-immigration stances, and rigid traditionalism with far-right politics. It’s not about exclusivity – just recognising patterns in political behaviour.
Your chair analogy only works if you're trying to prove you don’t know what specificity is. Yes, lots of things have four legs. That’s why you don’t stop there – you add context , which is what political labels do – unless we just want to throw all language in the bin.
Also, if you want people to “talk like an adult,” maybe drop the playground tone. Until then, you’re just another bloke shouting “I’m right!” and hoping volume replaces clarity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ How many of you voted for the many not the few in 2019? By advocating for a society that benefits the many, not the few, you're supporting a vision rooted in social democracy, where the public sector is well-funded and works to protect the interests of everyone. This includes key services like the NHS, which should remain free at the point of access, and an education system that serves all, regardless of background. It's important to be cautious about parties like Reform UK, who may promise these things but also push for tax cuts, which could undermine the very public services we rely on. Their budgeting, in particular, has been criticised for being out by billions, which raises concerns about how they plan to fund their promises. If you're truly committed to a society that puts people first, I would suggest looking at the Green Party. They are one of the few parties prioritising the well-being of the many and seeking to build a sustainable, equitable future. The other parties often seem more focused on profit and privatization, moving towards a model where essential services are paid for at the point of access.
1
-
1
-
@ The radical right consistently undermines democracy, whether through actions like the Tories proroguing Parliament or the divisive rhetoric of groups like Tommy's boys. The Tories have imposed austerity, forced Brexit, and mismanaged the decline of public services, yet you continue to scapegoat and deflect blame at every turn. These tactics distract public attention from systemic issues and elite decision-makers, redirecting frustration toward immigrants, international organizations, or political opponents. While this may rally short-term support, it exacerbates societal divisions and fails to address root problems. Ultimately, you enable capitalists who exploit societal crises for profit, rather than advocating for meaningful and equitable reform.
How do you propose improving democratic systems to ensure greater accountability and public influence over political decisions, rather than dismissing all political actors and institutions as inherently untrustworthy ?
1
-
@ The hard right consistently undermines democracy, whether through actions like the Tories proroguing Parliament or the divisive rhetoric of groups like Tommy's boys. The Tories have imposed austerity, forced Brexit, and mismanaged the decline of public services, yet you continue to scapegoat and deflect blame at every turn. These tactics distract public attention from systemic issues and elite decision-makers, redirecting frustration toward immigrants, international organizations, or political opponents. While this may rally short-term support, it exacerbates societal divisions and fails to address root problems. Ultimately, you enable capitalists who exploit societal crises for profit, rather than advocating for meaningful and equitable reform.
How do you propose improving democratic systems to ensure greater accountability and public influence over political decisions, rather than dismissing all political actors and institutions as inherently untrustworthy ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guto Bebb, Richard Benyon, Steve Brine, Alistair Burt, Greg Clark, Ken Clarke, David Gauke, Justine Greening, Dominic Grieve, Sam Gyimah, Philip Hammond, Stephen Hammond, Richard Harrington, Margot James, Oliver , Anne Milton, Caroline Nokes, Antoinette Sandbach, Nicholas Soames, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey. Aren't most if not all of these real conservatives ? These MP's were sacrificed for Johnson's reputation and career. And people wonder how the Tory Party have become a bunch of sychophants and right-wing libertarian extremist nutjobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benstern310 The problem with social care is the underfunding, and workforce shortages, and disparities in care quality. But that is a result of 14 years of Tory government. I suppose you voted Tory in 2019 on a commitment to improve social care. After a parliamentary term, how is that going?
Japan has more respect for its elderly, and a strong tradition of familial responsibility. However, demographic shifts, such as declining birth rates and an aging population, have strained this system. As a result, there has been an increased demand for institutional care and community-based services. The Japanese government has introduced long-term care insurance to help cover the costs of care, with individuals required to pay premiums based on their income and age. Additionally, there has been a growing focus on robotics and technology to assist with caregiving tasks and alleviate the burden on caregivers.
While both countries face similar challenges related to aging populations, their approaches to social care reflect different cultural values, economic structures, and policy priorities. Japan's emphasis on familial support and innovation in technology contrasts with the UK's mixed public-private system and debates over funding and provision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wadoryujujutsukempo6289 We were talking about a referendum on leaving the ECHR. And I suppose if you think it is a good idea to withdraw, I challenge you to provide a single valid reason for why leaving the ECHR is a good idea.
Johnson and Farage pushing to leave the ECHR is a huge red flag. Populism and stripping people of their human rights often go hand-in-hand. The ECHR protects basic freedoms - like fair trials, privacy, and freedom from discrimination. Leaving it could seriously undermine our rights and make it easier for the government to act without checks and balances. This isn't about 'taking back control'; it's about giving those in power more control over us.
Russia and Belarus are the only European countries not in the ECHR, and it's no coincidence that they both have serious human rights abuses. In these countries, freedom of expression and assembly have been completely shut down. People who speak out against the government are silenced, jailed, or worse. Without the ECHR, there's no safeguard for individual rights, and that’s exactly the kind of unchecked power we should be worried about if we leave.
What is the primary purpose of the ECHR, and how does it aim to protect human rights in member states?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gdfggggg My country had the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, the Diggers, the International Workingmen's Association, Winstanley, Shelley, Blake, Morris, Marx, Kropotkin, the men and women who did the graft for the ruling class to exploit workers' labour for the capitalist class to profit. For people from all around the world to wave flags and sing in joyous unison Jerusalem Blake's words to the music of Parry. Blake would have been heartened
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisgermann6658 From working class man to metropolitan elite, what a journey I've been on! You also assume that all teachers have the same methodology - the ones I am sure you like - fill their little minds with fairy tales of our "island nation". As a libertarian socialist or anarchist, I am against the indoctrination of what you call education . You Michael Gove, me Paulo Freire. and A.S. Neill. As for the ideological conditioning coming out of GB News Towers, why should I simply change to another channel? For one thing, I do watch other things, I don't know if think this is possible. Anyway, GB News has been backed by off-shore billionaires and is by now shadowy funders, and it gives a platform to corrupt former politicians, to former students turned presenters able to donate hundreds of thousands of pounds to Vote Leave, to a cheerleading little guy that thinks people that won't fight in Ukraine are "woke". It is to news what North Korean State TV is to a balanced media. GB News is not and has so far never been representative of the British people, merely the opinions of the vested interests of a small billionaire elite
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After nearly 8 years after Brexit. Nigel Farage argued that leaving the EU would restore the UK's sovereignty, allowing for complete control over its laws, borders, and trade policies. He suggested that this independence would enable the UK to make decisions that best serve its national interest, rather than being subject to EU bureaucracy. Farage also emphasised reducing immigration to manage pressures on public services and create opportunities for British workers.
How has that gone?
🚨 #BrexitRealityCheck 🚨
As we face the consequences of Brexit, let's not forget the warnings from leaders like Michael Heseltine.
🗣 Heseltine has consistently critiqued Nigel Farage's push for Brexit, highlighting how it's impacting our economy, reducing our global influence, and threatening the unity of the UK.
💼 Economy: Investment down, job losses up. Leaving the EU means leaving the world’s largest trading bloc.
🌍 Global Influence: We’ve lost our seat at the table in decisions that shape Europe and the UK.
🏴 National Unity: Scotland and Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, are reconsidering their place in the UK.
👶 Future Generations: The youth voted to remain for a reason—Brexit limits their opportunities and prospects.
📜 Historical Context: The EU has been a pillar of peace and stability in Europe post-WWII. Brexit is a step backwards.
Nigel Farage sold Brexit as a dream, but the reality is proving far different. It's time we reconsider the path we’re on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At least that is what she keeps saying. Truss's brief term as PM caused serious economic and political fallout. Her "mini-budget" proposed £45 billion in unfunded tax cuts, like abolishing the top 45% tax rate and reversing the National Insurance increase, aiming to stimulate growth. However, markets reacted badly: the pound dropped to historic lows, and government bond yields soared, forcing the Bank of England to step in to protect pension funds. Politically, her party and the public criticised the policies as favouring the wealthy amid a cost-of-living crisis. After firing her Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, and reversing most of her policies, she lost authority and resigned. Her leadership highlighted issues of fiscal responsibility, market confidence, and Conservative Party unity.
As for the claim of Blairite capture, the Tory government from 2010 shifted away from Blair’s policies, so making the “takeover” claim is an exaggeration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uniquevideosUk You really are patronising, aren’t you? People like you make unsubstantiated claims and yet have unbelievable confidence in your own reason/rationality. You have such a lack of knowledge and expertise; it is the Duning-Kruger effect in action. You refer to making “better air quality by doing small steps to make big changes that are also fun”, and your appeal to “common sense”. What these “fun steps” are you do not outline. As for the “common sense”, according to Gramsci, common sense is a chaotic aggregate of disparate conceptions, and one can find there anything one likes . Or in other words, misinformation! He thought people who promoted "common sense" were fearful of change and conservative. This is in contrast to good sense . I am also not sure what your "common sense" understands about global industrial production, the burning of fossil fuels, the cutting down of forests, and intensive farming methods, and the adverse effect of these on global warming. It seems your "common sense" comes from right-wing conformity to a GB News grift. But your "common sense" will also ignore the vested interests of the grifters, and ignore GB News’ and IEA funding model.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markdaniels2200 Confronting these loons with facts is always entertaining. / The fact that leaving the EU pisses people like this lot off so much made it worth doing 😂 / Every time a rejoiner crys it makes me very very happy. / Ah yes, the anti democracy lot 🤡/ Over privileged traitors / Seems they think we are not European anymore? / a hilarious glimpse into the most ignorant & empty skulls our country has to offer / Who’s deluded (?) / Lord Haws Haws the lot of them
So this is not bigotry ? By the way, Billy Britain is a Viz character.
GB News is more balanced than any of the other stations
Well if you consider spreading disinformation is balanced; having Tory MPs that goes again Ofcom’s due impartiality rules; has shills for right-wing interests; the constant platforming of right-wing Think Tanks that played a major role in wrecking the economy; putting front and centre the interests of disaster capitalists (Mogg, IEA); the off-shore investors willing to sh!t in the pool of public and political discourse (in media and politics) in order to profit from it. On issues such as trans rights, immigration, and the environment, to say that GB News is impartial is for the birds!
*The honest, decent British people were lied to, deceived, conned by populist politicians that had only their own interests at heart*! I am honest, I am decent and I am British, but I also question the shower of b@st@rds who were clearly dodgy, and asked why would they do anything if it wasn’t in their economic interests? Guess who benefitted from Brexit? Not the honest, decent British people but the shower of b@st@rds!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let’s look at this list a bit more carefully. It’s often repeated, but many of these “offers” were far from straightforward or fair, and ignoring the details can distort the picture.
1937 Peel Commission proposed giving over 80% of historic Palestine to a minority Jewish population, with most Palestinians displaced—would you accept that if the roles were reversed?
1947 UN Partition Plan allocated 55% of the land to Jews (who were one-third of the population and owned less than 10% of the land). Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states rejected it largely due to that imbalance.
1967 Khartoum Summit came after Israel had just occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—countries don’t usually negotiate under occupation.
2000 Camp David & 2008 Realignment Plan included fragmented, non-contiguous territories under heavy Israeli control, with no genuine sovereignty. Even top Israeli negotiators later admitted they wouldn't have accepted those terms if they were Palestinian.
2005 Gaza disengagement wasn’t a peace offer – it was a unilateral withdrawal, while Israel kept control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and maritime access.
Trump’s 2020 ‘peace plan’ was widely seen as legitimising annexation and offering no meaningful Palestinian state at all.
Repeating a list of failed or one-sided “offers” doesn’t prove Palestinians don’t want peace – it shows how complex and unequal the negotiations have been .
And on a side note: This channel was flooded with people passionately defending UK sovereignty in the post-Brexit referendum years – yet now many of those same voices mock or ignore the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood . Why the double standard? Sovereignty either matters, or it doesn’t.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Petal4822 Research? Well I read the declaration, so please tell me what I need to get angry about. What I see is nothing other than an international decree of co-operation to improve cities and countries in the region by strengthening social, economic and political factors to create stability and peace in the area. These include combating social problems, transport networks, and to free the Middle East of WMDs. As for the economic factors, there are proposals to increase economic growth of the area by promoting free trade and co-operation. Is improving the living and working conditions and increasing the employment level of the population such a bad thing? As for migration, it is important for all the countries in the region (Mediterranean) and there was a proposal for closer co-operation later. As for illegal immigration, officials will meet periodically to discuss practical measures which can be taken to improve cooperation among police, judicial, customs, administrative and other authorities in order to combat illegal immigration . Please point out where the “smoking gun” is in this declaration .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattg56 Nonsense! 😆😆😆You are repeating right-wing conspiracist tropes. You clearly know very little about the politics and culture of Hungary, or Central Europe. I would also take issue with your “interesting”, though biased views on education! Are you by any chance employed by a university? If so you then you have first-hand evidence of this “indoctrination”. If not, then how do you know? Maybe you can explain what “critical thinking” involves. Nigel Farage has said on GB News that the people need to use critical thinking. Oh the irony! If people used critical thinking more, then the country wouldn’t be ravaged by misinformation perpetrated by political extremists, by liars in power, and Brexit cultists.
As for Orbán Viktor, he studied at Oxford on a Soros scholarship in the late 1980's and soon became part of the opposition to the rule of the communists (MKP). He was the most liberal of the liberals. He much later met with Netanyahu of Israel who told Orbán that he had to find "an enemy without" to scapegoat. Orbán duly chose Soros! He took the populist's rulebook and ran with it, including portraying himself as an "outsider" and then holding the liberal élite responsible for problems in society. Who though is more élite than Orbán? Or Johnson and Farage, for that matter? He relies on the support of less educated people, as the voting shows (Orbán won only two of eighteen seats in Budapest in the last election). He has simple messages of Christianity, and family which win you support. Although his support for families is good, it is not a good environment for young people. Many young people leave for jobs abroad which leaves Hungary with a skills shortage. It is a country that is being strangled by a self-serving, opportunistic leader.
Orbán’s premiership includes, as I’ve mentioned shutting down a private university (Central European University) that promoted liberal ideas; a total control of the media landscape; outlawing trans-gender and LGBT+ rights; election rigging. Although, Hungary by replacing the head of state with a party member is something not even Johnson was able to do. Much as I love Hungary, and for me it is a neighbouring country, in times of turmoil people vote for the strong man, much to their detriment and independence. Populists only tell people what they want to hear! That’s why the Tories continually lie and deceive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattg56 Ooooh … using a bit of philosophy yerself:
All politics is idealism . Do you mean unrealistic, or utopian or the Kantian ideal - of practical politics? As in everything is practical that is possible through freedom - Kant, Critique of Pure Reason .
I am not going to bother unpacking all your anti-semitic right-wing tropes, and conspiracy theories. Do you call this substantiating claims about universities? OK,
The UK could not make or follow the majority of its laws when we were in the EU . Absolute bunkum! From 1973 until 2020, the UK was an active member in drawing up legislation, voting for it, and it even had a veto to prevent laws it could not approve. Why didn’t you know that? What is more, there are hundreds of acts passed during this period: the Education Act, and Housing Act of 1973. Which EU Regulations from 1973 to 2020 that became UK law do you think was so bad for the UK?
Open borders: conspiracy! Soros & “border integrity” = unsubstantiated anti-semitic trope. Diluting patriotic tendencies? “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” (oooh! Samuel Johnson!). Soros is a simplistic thinker with no overarching grasp of world history . I have clearly missed the complexity in your thinking. Once again, this is unsubstantiated. It also begs the question: must one have an overarching grasp of world history ?
About 30 years ago when I was an undergrad at Bristol, a lecturer said that after the end of Communism in Europe, there will be a need to find a new enemy, and that it will be Islam. This was 6/7 years before 9/11. It is your collective anger, conspiracies, and paranoia that fuels hatred and wars.
The capitalist class of Soros, etc. is another issue. globalist liberal forces which believe it can end all future wars through commerce and mass integration made possible through mass immigration, and have a hatred for European nation state identity . A bundle of anti-semitic tropes and conspiracy theories, Your … ahem … analysis of Soros and Hungary lacks any substantive content. Soros left Hungary in 1947 just as the Communists were taking over, so his cultural homeland was cut off from him for 42 years! Especially painful would have been 1956. Communism came to an end just over 33 years ago. He also believes the right as 'bad' and the left as 'good' . Soros was a student of Karl Popper; who was vehemently anti-left and wrote a book, Open Society and it’s Enemies ; hence Soros’s name for his foundation. This was a diatribe again all totalitarian “closed” societies, and for a Thatcher style “free society”, or a liberal democracy, and a strong civil society that many were proposing before, during, and after the revolutions in central/eastern Europe. Soros, Orbán, and our own Roger Scruton were involved in these discussions. “Crap” university? A thriving global university in the heart of Europe with a major public intellectual – Michael Ignatieff as its director, and ranked the highest in Austria in Philosophy, and Politics. Mmmm …
If you had been living in the 19th century, you would’ve been repeating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the basis for your belief system; in the 1930’s you would have been concerned with Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy; in the 1940’s, you’d have been raging against Zionism and ‘bourgeois cosmopolitanism’. Today you consider everything to be controlled by “globalists”: Jews like Soros, WEF. This was considered the “socialism of fools” (_Der Antisemitismus ist der Sozialismus der dummen Kerle_ ). Marxist analysis of class struggle, and the economic basis of capitalist society would be completely ignored. Sure, the WEF appears shadowy, yet this unelected powerful cult is merely an interest group for global capitalists. Now is the problem regulation to capitalism, or is it the capitalist system itself that puts profits before human needs? It is capitalists: global capitalists (property investors, investment bankers, disaster capitalists, the media capitalists, fossil fuel capitalists, off-shore oligarchs, political party hacks, plutocrats) that are the profit grinders that deal with commodities, the hate merchants – such as the conspiracist media deal with their consumers – you the right-wingers!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are wanted for the Army,
Do you know what you’ll have to do?
They will tell you to murder your brothers,
As they have been told to kill you.
You are wanted for the Army,
Do you know what you’ll have to do?
Just murder to save your country
From men who are workers, like You.
Your country! Who says you’ve a country?
You live in another man’s flat,
You haven’t even a back yard,
So why should you murder for THAT?
You haven’t a hut or a building,
No flower, no garden, it’s true,
The landlords have grabbed all the country,
Let THEM do the fighting – NOT YOU.
Does GB News support THEM or YOU? Does Reform UK support THEM or YOU? Tories? Parliamentary Labour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''Blair should be stripped of the honour.'' He has not even been enobled yet. He has to go to St George's Chapel, Windsor for the ceremony to receive the Noble Order of the Garter. It’s also time to remind ourselves of who voted for military action in Iraq in February 2003. Those 434 MPs were all complicit in ‘’Blair's War’’. Now apart from the usual suspects (yes, predictably Mandelson etc.), there are respected parliamentarians (Harriet Harman, Dominic Grieve, yes even David Lammy!); a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (David Trimble), the ‘’libertarians’’ (Desi Swain, Tim Loughton) who seek to protect your freedom whilst voting to destroy the lives of many hundred of thousands of lives. Then there are the frankly sociopathic (Redwood, I.D.S. etc.).
An estimated 288,000 died in this conflict, and gave rise to further instability and ISIS.
Those complicit should also not be forgotten for their role in this war .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phillipliggins1549 A rule of thumb: anyone who says “wake up” is usually misguided and have gone down the rabbit hole of “doing my own research”. For them, disinformation and conspiracy is a motivating force. It is interesting that you proto-Stalinists – capitalism in one country – want to turn the clock back and bring about economic ruin to a country that is entangled in the web of global capitalism. What is more, you see global capitalism not as a system of exploitation, with a relentless demand for more resources, cheap labour, and optimal profiteering, but as a system headed by wealthy, shady individuals. The profit system must go – it will probably outlive Soros, and all those masterminds you oppose. Seek change of a fundamentally exploitative global system, not the people that lead them. So anyway, how does Soros mastermind the global conspiracy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christinaedwards5084 You are clearly stuck with the obstacles to renewable energy sources of energy: a cloudy day!! First of all, the price of electricity from renewables is now falling below the running costs of old coal-fired or nuclear power stations.
If there was a concerted effort to shift from old types of power generation to consider future development of carbon neutral forms of energy production that harness nature, such as the sun. One such as fusion that uses hydrogen.
Facilities that can harness nuclear fusion should provide a cheap source of carbon-free energy from abundant fuel sources, substantially derived from water. Crucially, fusion would generate a constant, steady stream of electricity, filling in the gaps during the hours, days, or even weeks when solar and wind sources flag. In doing so, it would simplify the path to zero-emissions electricity, eliminating the need for energy storage breakthroughs, exorbitant banks of batteries, or continued reliance on coal and natural-gas plants to keep the lights on and companies humming .
Source: MIT Technology Review
1
-
@christinaedwards5084 Isn't the idea to create a cleaner, energy efficient sources? I live in the EU, and there is commitment to design appropriate green taxes that can raise much-needed revenue and remove fossil-fuel subsidies, while making sure that it is those who pollute or waste the most that bear the consequences of their actions. There are countries such as Denmark that are making great advances on this issue in terms of lowering emissions and a carbon tax on polluters (Latvia contributes over 11 percent of taxation from Green tax; UK, 7 percent). Now that the UK is out of the EU, it is “free” to deregulate, pollute and dump waste.
From a wider context, isn't the problem that where there is no profit there is no production? From the point of view of satisfying the needs of human beings, capitalism is a quite irrational system. Within this society, houses are not built primarily to be lived in, or indeed energy is not generated merely to warm our homes. Everything is produced for sale, not for use. The aim of production, far from being the natural one of producing useful things to satisfy human needs, is to maximise profits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John-uh8kl Well the UK has a dreadful reactionary Brexit government, and there is a large aggressive, paranoid section of the electorate that has a predictable set of enemies: human rights laws, trans rights, the BBC, immigration and woke. Alone one cannot change this, but suppression of people rights will certainly not work. Only liberation from the institutions that bind us: yes, the Church, government, the land owning aristocracy, the oligarchs, the “fifth column” – the media that feed the idea that people with nothing are your enemy. These are the powers and people that seek to restrict freedoms rather than allow people to promote human liberation. Choose life!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The claim that Britain's struggles are primarily due to migration, rather than Brexit or government policy, oversimplifies the issue. While it’s true that migration puts pressure on public services, it's essential to consider the broader context of austerity policies, which have reduced funding for public services like healthcare, housing, and education. According to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, austerity measures have led to significant cuts in local government funding, exacerbating service shortages and making it harder to accommodate both migrants and the general population. Furthermore, Brexit has caused disruptions in trade, labour shortages, and rising costs, which have added to the economic strain.
Demonising asylum seekers, who are often fleeing conflict or persecution, overlooks the responsibility of governments to manage these challenges through inclusive policies. Austerity and Brexit-related economic disruption are key factors in the current difficulties, with evidence suggesting that these long-term policies, rather than migration alone, have contributed to the nation's ongoing struggles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MariaHopwood Populism often offers simplistic solutions to complex problems, which can lead to more division and instability in the long run. While Nigel Farage may resonate with certain voters, his approach tends to focus on short-term gains and emotional appeals rather than workable, sustainable policies. He hasn’t proven himself capable of tackling the UK’s broader issues, such as economic recovery, NHS reform, or climate change, with depth and foresight. While Keir Starmer may not be universally popular or seen as fostering unity, he still brings more experience in policymaking and governance than Farage. Neither leader is without their flaws, but Farage's populism risks undermining the UK's need for well-rounded, practical leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sidnotvicious8442 I was a secondary school History teacher for five years, so I am not ‘’historically illiterate’’!! As for ''tropical Britain'', this was based on fossil finds can be dated to 210 million years ago, rather a long time before the industrial revolution that was discussed in the interview. Yes, the so-called 'mini Ice Age', a period of lower global temperatures ended around 1800. Since then the global temperatures have been rising, due to demographics as well as mass industrial production and waste. The global population in 1800 was around 1 billion people, in 2021 it is 7.9 billion.
I see zealots on both sides: climate change denial began with Exxon around 1980 to serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry. As for your ''New World Order zealots'' that wish to ''enslave the world''. I don't buy into that conspiracy theory, simply an update of the bullshit contained in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' I do, however, see capitalism as a global economic system that is exploitative and yes enslaving us to the profit system. We are up against a well-entrenched economic and social system based on class and property and governed by coercive economic laws. Reforms under capitalism, however well-meaning or determined, can never solve the environmental crisis - the most they can do is to palliate some aspect of it on a precarious temporary basis. They can certainly never turn capitalism into a democratic, ecological society.
1
-
1
-
@dareyou2 What are YOUR vested interests? To do nothing and allow the global eco-system to perish under an unsustainable global economic system? It comes to something that someone like you should claim to understand global climate change by doing your own research and to encourage people to watch the same youtube videos as you. Your Tony Heller is making a tidy wad whoring himself for the Koch brothers (Koch Industries / Cato Institute) that promote climate change denial. Afterall, this is a petro-chemical industry. Why would they ever support climate change? Instead, they pay off academics that compromise their career to rub up against the Kochs, so to speak. You simply fall down on the first rule of critical thinking: who is supporting them – follow the money, as you might say.
Klaus Hasselmann on the other hand has been modelling climate and meterology since the 1960’s, and this year won the Nobel Prize for Physics together with Syukuro Manabe and Giorgio Parisi. Together they have been a combined research careers of over 150 years of modelling climate change. Are you going dismiss this as nonsense by weaponing the issue as the those Kochs do? Their Nobel Prize is for physical modeling of earth's climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming, They are credited with ‘’understanding of complex systems’’. Contrarians on GB News fora with little understanding make simplicity out of complexity.
As to your question regarding the elitist prophets of doom keep buying up property right by the ocean at the same time as they tell us the sea is irreversibly rising , I simply don’t give a nat’s chuff about Gates, Bezos, and Musk. Capitalism and the money system must go. Don’t assume that those that disagree with you are elitist because that is simply reductionist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you think everyone that doesn't actually say they condemn the horrendous bombing by Hamas is a psychopath? No reponse? So I am correct in thinking you have twisted logic.
Did everyone who supported a united Ireland support the IRA? Did everyone who didn't want a united Ireland support the Ulster's UDA? Does anyone who thinks war crimes including the deaths of 10,000 Palestinian people, most of whom were non-combatant men, women and children, the relentless bombing of Gaza by genocidal Israeli forces and is a violation of humanity by a psychopathic political regime, is therefore a supporter of Hamas?
why are they only protesting against Israel ?
You clearly don’t understand the geo-political situation. Hamas governs Gaza but is not recognised by international law. Israel can be held to observe the laws of the Geneva Convention, the UN, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), whereas Gaza cannot. Hamas and Israel have both committed unspeakable atrocities, but when it comes to international law, who can be exerted to cease these atrocities and be brought to account, or even to justice?
1
-
@andrewclark3236 Hamas was freely elected? According to Freedom House, the Palestinian Authority has not held elections for the 132-seat PLC since 2006, when Hamas won 74 seats and Fatah took 45. The subsequent Fatah-Hamas schism and Israel’s detention of many lawmakers left the full PLC unable to function, and the body’s electoral mandate expired in 2010. Nonetheless, a Hamas-led rump legislature continued to operate in the Gaza Strip. In 2018, President Abbas ordered the formal dissolution of the PLC, backed by a Supreme Constitutional Court ruling that also called for legislative elections within six months. Hamas rejected the decision.
The cancellation of the planned 2021 election process again left Gaza residents without an elected legislature. In March 2022, the PA held the second phase of its municipal council elections in the West Bank, but Hamas continued to boycotted the balloting and renewed its call for comprehensive presidential, legislative, and municipal elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Explain why you think I am in the Dark Ages? After all, had I lived in the Dark Ages, I would have spent my time crafting illuminated manuscripts, meticulously hand-painting each letter and page with intricate designs and vibrant colours. Instead of posting wry comments on social media, I would have been immersed in the quiet, reflective work of preserving knowledge and creating art that would endure through the centuries. My words would have been carefully chosen, not for quick replies or reactions, but for lasting significance, captured in the delicate strokes of a quill on parchment. The world would have known me through my craftsmanship and devotion to the written word, rather than the fleeting nature of modern digital communication.
Voting Reform UK is not a vote for deep reflection or a commitment to thoughtful communication, reminiscent of the meticulous craftsmanship of the Dark Ages. Instead, it represents a preference for simplistic answers and quick-fix solutions to complex issues - answers that are unlikely to address the root causes or lead to lasting, meaningful change. It’s a choice for convenience over contemplation, and for immediate satisfaction rather than long-term progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lollyng3ms It seems you believe you have expert knowledge but are withholding information from me. However, shouldn’t you be asking why people fail to see capitalism as the problem? Capitalism and neoliberalism are broader systems of oppression closely tied to systemic exploitation. These systems erode identity, undermine collective action, and strip civil and labour rights in pursuit of cheaper resources and labour to maximize profits. Immigration is part of this cycle of exploitation, and further measures – like leaving the ECHR – are presented as solutions to this exploitation.
In contrast, a truly democratic society emphasises participatory democracy, where citizens are directly involved in decision-making through mechanisms like citizen assemblies, referendums, and participatory budgeting. Such approaches, like the UK's Climate Assembly and local participatory budgeting initiatives, can increase trust and legitimacy, improve decision-making, and foster accountability and social cohesion.
1
-
1
-
What about the role of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)? The IEA significantly influenced Liz Truss’s government, evident in her advocacy for deregulation, tax cuts, and a general market-oriented economic policy. This alignment suggests that the IEA's positions on climate change, energy, and economic issues likely shaped her government's approach. Here are the key points to consider:
Climate Change: The IEA is sceptical about the urgency and impact of human-caused climate change, arguing that aggressive climate policies could be economically harmful.
Renewable Energy: The organisation criticises government subsidies for renewable energy, advocating instead for market-driven innovation.
Net Zero: The IEA contends that Net Zero targets could be too costly and detrimental to the economy, recommending a more gradual approach that relies on market mechanisms.
Funding: The IEA receives funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, corporations, and foundations, with notable contributions coming from the energy sector.
What specific actions or policies of Truss do you think best revealed the realities of the economic system, and how do you think her approach compares to other options that balance market principles with social responsibility
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is vicious about he, you, he, she, it, they, herself, mine, yours, his, hers? Which ones are vicious? We can remove them from the dictionary if it offends you !!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your chains are easily yanked. Here we go: what do you think of WEF, Net Zero, UK rejoining EU, Sadiq Khan, feminists, transwomen, ECHR, Algerians, drag queens, 4-star hotels hosting "illegals"? The sooner you realise you are being groomed by the right-wing twatosphere, the better!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The evidence is before our eyes. The truth is revealed and many find it hard to look at . Neil “Eeyore” Oliver. His evidence? World leaders buying up property “on a beach”. Is this conclusive evidence for climate change not being a thing? No, he goes on. Oliver is basing entire monologue on evidence from the Clintel Climate Intelligence Foundation. This institute wants a plurality of views on climate change. It wants The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to include their alternative views. Climate change is not an opinion . And since we are considering “greed” in a capitalist profit system, let’s consider Clintel’s greed. The Clintel Intelligence Foundation is funded by the fossil fuel industry, and it has links with right-wing libertarian think tanks also funded by fossil fuels, such as Cato Institute and other think tanks under the Koch industries. The UK think tanks include Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance. For GB News to say this is IPCC is biased and error-prone whilst continually platforming climate change denial is all part of its agenda. In spite of the supposed free speech attitude of GB News, several things must never be questioned. Firstly, the vested interests of the fossil fuel industries due to the Dubai based billionaire backers’ economic interests. Then one must always play down the seriousness of climate change by ridiculing activists like the Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain as ‘dinosaur Marxists’ which has the dual aim of leaving the those vested interests untouched thereby continuing the influx of funding, and also appealing to populist right-wingers. Finally, that the capitalist class is not responsible for the problems of capitalism, No, it is the Left, those ‘dinosaur Marxists’ that are responsible for undermining the freedom in capitalism. The sooner people realise that the profit system is to failing them , the sooner they’ll realise that life is beautiful, it is the system that corrupts us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lunarwuffy5299 This all comes down to truth and lies and we are considering the veracity of statements. That the BBC reports the lies grifters like Johnson, and Farage, it is therefore the job of honest politicians and journalists to call out these politicians for what they are. In the great words of Jonathan Swift:
Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect …
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TonyToning-ne7uq WHICH MUPPET DO YOU HAVE IN MIND? I HOPE IT IS THE COOKIE MONSTER THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST BELOVED MUPPETS FROM THE FAMOUS CHILDREN'S SHOW SESAME STREET. WITH HIS BLUE FUR, GOOGLY EYES, AND INSATIABLE LOVE FOR COOKIES, HE HAS CAPTURED THE HEARTS OF VIEWERS FOR GENERATIONS. BUT WHY IS COOKIE MONSTER CONSIDERED THE BEST MUPPET? THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS, FROM HIS MEMORABLE PERSONALITY TO THE IMPORTANT LESSONS HE TEACHES YOUNG AUDIENCES.
1. UNFORGETTABLE PERSONALITY COOKIE MONSTER IS INSTANTLY RECOGNISABLE, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF HIS APPEARANCE BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF HIS UNIQUE PERSONALITY. HIS DEEP, GRAVELLY VOICE AND ENTHUSIASTIC, OFTEN CHAOTIC APPROACH TO EATING COOKIES MAKE HIM STAND OUT FROM THE OTHER MUPPETS. HIS SIGNATURE PHRASE, "ME WANT COOKIE!" HAS BECOME ICONIC. WHILE SOME MUPPETS ARE CALM OR THOUGHTFUL, COOKIE MONSTER’S EXUBERANCE BRINGS ENERGY AND EXCITEMENT TO EVERY SCENE HE’S IN. THIS LOVABLE MESSINESS IS WHAT MAKES HIM RELATABLE TO KIDS, WHO CAN SOMETIMES BE JUST AS ENTHUSIASTIC AND MESSY WHEN ENJOYING THEIR FAVORITE TREATS.
2. TEACHES MODERATION IN RECENT YEARS, SESAME STREET HAS EVOLVED COOKIE MONSTER’S CHARACTER TO REFLECT HEALTHIER HABITS, WHILE MAINTAINING HIS LOVE FOR COOKIES. HE NOW TEACHES CHILDREN ABOUT MODERATION. FOR EXAMPLE, HE HAS SAID THAT "COOKIES ARE A SOMETIMES FOOD," MEANING THEY SHOULD BE ENJOYED IN MODERATION ALONGSIDE A BALANCED DIET. THIS SHIFT HAS ALLOWED COOKIE MONSTER TO MAINTAIN HIS APPEAL WHILE PROMOTING A POSITIVE, HEALTHY MESSAGE FOR KIDS. BY MODELING MODERATION, COOKIE MONSTER HELPS CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE IT’S OKAY TO LOVE CERTAIN FOODS, BALANCE IS IMPORTANT.
3. PLAYFUL LEARNING ONE OF COOKIE MONSTER’S KEY STRENGTHS IS HIS ABILITY TO MAKE LEARNING FUN. WHILE MANY OF THE OTHER MUPPETS ARE GREAT AT TEACHING LITERACY OR NUMBERS, COOKIE MONSTER OFTEN USES HUMOR AND SILLINESS TO ENGAGE CHILDREN IN LESSONS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN TEACHING CHILDREN HOW TO COUNT OR RECOGNISE LETTERS, COOKIE MONSTER MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY EAT THE LETTER OF THE DAY, CAUSING A HILARIOUS MOMENT THAT KIDS REMEMBER. HIS LOVE FOR COOKIES IS OFTEN WOVEN INTO THE SHOW’S EDUCATIONAL CONTENT, MAKING IT MORE ENGAGING AND RELATABLE FOR YOUNG LEARNERS.
4. EMPHASIZES EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE DESPITE HIS OBSESSION WITH COOKIES, COOKIE MONSTER IS ALSO A CHARACTER THAT TEACHES EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. HE OFTEN EXPRESSES HIS FEELINGS OPENLY, WHETHER HE’S FEELING HAPPY, FRUSTRATED, OR DISAPPOINTED WHEN COOKIES AREN’T AVAILABLE. THIS HELPS CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S OKAY TO FEEL STRONG EMOTIONS AND THAT EXPRESSING THOSE EMOTIONS IS A NATURAL PART OF LIFE. HIS CHARACTER OFTEN DEALS WITH WAITING OR BEING PATIENT, WHICH ARE IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WHO ARE STILL LEARNING HOW TO REGULATE THEIR EMOTIONS AND IMPULSES.
5. INCLUSIVE AND RELATABLE ONE OF THE REASONS COOKIE MONSTER RESONATES WITH SO MANY PEOPLE IS BECAUSE OF HIS SIMPLICITY AND INCLUSIVITY. HE IS NOT PERFECT - HE IS MESSY, IMPULSIVE, AND DRIVEN BY HIS LOVE FOR COOKIES - BUT THAT’S WHAT MAKES HIM RELATABLE. KIDS SEE THEMSELVES IN COOKIE MONSTER, ESPECIALLY IN MOMENTS WHEN THEY ARE EXCITED ABOUT SOMETHING THEY LOVE. HIS IMPERFECTIONS MAKE HIM MORE APPROACHABLE, AND HIS LESSONS ABOUT PATIENCE AND MODERATION ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE HE, TOO, IS LEARNING THEM.
IN CONCLUSION , COOKIE MONSTER’S UNIQUE BLEND OF HUMOR, ENTHUSIASM, AND RELATABLE FLAWS MAKE HIM THE BEST MUPPET. HE TEACHES VALUABLE LESSONS ABOUT MODERATION, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE JOY OF LEARNING, ALL WHILE MAINTAINING HIS SIGNATURE CHARM. FOR THESE REASONS, HE REMAINS A FAVOURITE AMONG SESAME STREET FANS OF ALL AGES.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Reform UK really our only hope ? Reform UK may present itself as a beacon of change, but its agenda poses a serious threat to civil rights and public welfare. By advocating for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), they would strip citizens of vital legal protections, weakening fundamental freedoms for everyone.
Their alignment with the capitalist class speaks volumes about their priorities – deregulating critical areas like labour laws, environmental protections, and consumer safety standards. Reform UK MPs have consistently voted against crucial protections, including the Employment Rights Bill, which offers fair pay, sick leave from day one, and stronger rights against unfair dismissal. They also opposed limits on zero-hours contracts and efforts to enhance protections against workplace harassment. This pattern echoes their track record during Brexit, when they pushed to weaken workers' rights, dismantle environmental safeguards, and reduce food and safety standards. Their record truly speaks for itself!
These policies are not just reckless; they are a clear reflection of a party more concerned with protecting corporate interests and maximising short-term profits than with ensuring the long-term health, safety, and stability of society.
Reform UK may claim to offer hope, but their vision undermines fairness, sustainability, and equality – values that should be the bedrock of any reformist movement. Supporting such a party risks deepening inequality, exacerbating environmental damage, and putting ordinary people at the mercy of deregulation and corporate greed.
Real hope lies in a genuine alternative that represents the interests of ordinary citizens, not the few at the top. We don’t need more of the same failed policies or divisive rhetoric; we need a movement that puts people before profit, where the voices of the many, not the few, drive the change. The real question isn’t whether to vote Reform UK – it’s whether we will organise for a fairer, more sustainable future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MarmaLloyd The British Empire's colonial activities included various forms of oppression and exploitation. This encompassed economic exploitation (e.g., extracting resources, imposing unfair trade practices), cultural suppression (e.g., imposing British education, language, and customs while devaluing or erasing local traditions), and direct oppression (e.g., violent conquests, slavery, forced labour, concentration camps, and racial discrimination).
It's important to recognise that historical perspectives can change over time. While the British Empire was once celebrated, modern scholarship highlights its reliance on exploitation and oppression. This isn't about taking talking points from zealots, but about acknowledging the complex and often painful realities of colonial history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Woody, the kiwi anchor shows once again that GB News has very little commitment to Ofcom's due impartiality . This supposed news channel seems more like a plaything of oligarchs and off-shore billionaires to platform propagandists of disaster capitalism.
As for Lee “30p” Anderson who likes to see himself as a “working class hero” and a representative of “the people”, is in fact someone who does not care much for the freedom and civil rights nor for the quality of life and working conditions of those people. After all since 2019, he has voted against equality and human rights; against measures to alleviate climate change; and against freedom of movement. He has also voted for the restriction of trade unions. On the other hand, he has voted to restrict legal aid, and for companies he has voted to reduce corporate taxes, and voted against higher taxes on banks; he voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance. He is also a man that can criticise people for using food banks, claiming they can make “nutritious meals” for 30p, whist he himself eats subsidised meals in the Commons and last year claimed £186,000 in expenses.
It is clear who Lee Anderson is working for, and it is not for the majority of people, it is in the interests of the capitalist class .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hate march! I know what those who sacrificed their lives must be thinking: 5,000 dead children, over 11,000 deaths is a war crime. You stand by Israel - a state commiting atrocities on a far greater scale than Hamas: this is genocide. So please consider these questions. How would you react if you were treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of your rights? How would you react if you there was discriminatory underinvestment in your communities? How would you react if you, your family and community were threatened, and tortured? How would you react if your home was bombed, and you were deprived of your land? How would you feel when your deprived homeland was built on by colonial settlers? And were you to leave, how would you feel about the denial of your right to return to your homeland? How would you react if your country’s right to self-determination and sovereignty was not recognised by many countries, including the USA, UK and 16 EU countries? Seriously, how would you react? Would resist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CapTally Clarifying is an extreme left wing tactic , is it? And so loving classical music is also an extreme left wing tactic ? Not doubt, being shocked by the shoddiness of spelling and grammar of GBers is an extreme left wing tactic ??? May I also add a lack of historical and musical knowledge is an extreme left wing tactic , is it?
You numpties are concerned only with the Truth , which you alone claim to have the monopoly on. As a result, you are ready to wage culture wars on everything that doesn’t match your narrowly defined notions of “traditional music”. I love the music of Bartók, who as a man was an omnivore; he collected traditional music from his native Hungary, from Slovakia, Romania, and Algeria. And another great composer Gustav Mahler believed that tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire .
For you it seems culture wars is the opium of the numpties .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Before "whitewashing" the Tories reputation, just a reminder of the Top 10 scandals from the last 2019-2024 Tory government.
Proroguing Parliament (2019): Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit crisis, an act deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court.
Partygate (2020-2022): Boris Johnson and senior officials were found to have attended multiple parties at 10 Downing Street during COVID-19 lockdowns, violating the government's own pandemic restrictions. This led to fines and Johnson's eventual resignation.
PPE Contracts Scandal (2020): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government was criticized for awarding billions of pounds in contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) without proper oversight, often to companies with little relevant experience but with political connections.
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick and Richard Desmond (2020): Jenrick was accused of intervening in a property development project to benefit billionaire Richard Desmond after receiving donations. This raised concerns over potential corruption.
Greensill Scandal (2021): Former Prime Minister David Cameron lobbied on behalf of Greensill Capital, a financial services firm, using private access to senior ministers. The collapse of Greensill left questions about the blurring of lines between public service and private gain.
Owen Paterson Lobbying Scandal (2021): Conservative MP Owen Paterson was found guilty of lobbying on behalf of companies that paid him, leading to his suspension from Parliament. The government's attempt to protect him caused public outrage.
VIP Lane for COVID Contracts (2021): The National Audit Office revealed a "VIP lane" for COVID-related contracts, where companies with government connections were fast-tracked, raising concerns over cronyism and transparency.
Northern Ireland Protocol Issues (2021): The implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol caused significant political tension and economic disruption, with accusations that the government misled the public about the impacts of Brexit.
Liz Truss Economic Crisis (2022): Liz Truss's short tenure as Prime Minister ended in disaster after her economic policies, including large tax cuts without funding, caused financial turmoil, crashing the pound and increasing mortgage rates.
Rishi Sunak's Tax and Residency Issues (2022): Sunak's wife was found to have non-domiciled tax status, allowing her to avoid paying UK taxes on overseas income. Sunak himself faced scrutiny over his US green card while serving as Chancellor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@herc20000 It is absurd to use the false equivalence of telling me who I should invite into my home. To all you right-wingers out there, how many times must I remind you: a house is not a country! I admire your faith in government and the legal system, but I, for one, do not share such faith. Just remember the last government that failed to clean up the mess your lot created with Brexit. Brexit significantly impacted how the UK handles migrant crossings, as the country lost access to EU cooperation mechanisms like the Dublin Regulation, which had facilitated the return of asylum seekers who passed through other EU nations. With Brexit, the UK had to renegotiate agreements and manage its border controls independently, making it more difficult to handle and return migrants crossing the Channel.
Now, it seems the very people who caused these issues with Brexit are proposing a solution by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), stripping you of your own human rights in the process. Why is Reform UK seen as the party for the people when, in reality, it represents oligarchical power and control?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@julienewman1761 Thank you Julie for the advice. Since you've done your research, then we could drill down into a few question about the "WEF agenda". You say Sunak, Starmer, and Labour are working for the WEF – but what does that actually mean? The WEF is a networking forum, not a shadow government. It doesn’t pass laws or command armies. Do you have any solid evidence – actual policies, funding trails, or leaked communications – that show Labour is taking orders from the WEF?
Or is it just that they occasionally attend the same global conferences as other leaders who are trying to deal with massive, shared problems like climate breakdown, automation, or inequality?
Also, let’s be honest – if the WEF is pushing for things like sustainable energy, digital access, and economic reform, why is that instantly suspicious? Are we supposed to reject any idea just because it comes from a global platform?
Critical question: If we don't pursue some form of international cooperation to tackle issues like climate change or global inequality, what's the alternative? More nationalism, more division, and everyone pretending the world isn't interconnected ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonybartlett6924 You make many points here. Firstly, temperature records go back well over 80 years, with scientists using ice cores and tree rings to study past climates. Secondly, wildfires occur on both public and private land, but poor forest management isn’t the only factor – rising temperatures and droughts play a major role. Next, while hurricane frequency hasn’t increased significantly, their intensity and damage have due to warmer oceans and more coastal development. River dredging has decreased, but modern flood management focuses on restoring natural floodplains. As for climate science funding, research goes through rigorous peer review, and the overwhelming consensus is based on decades of evidence, not just financial incentives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewreynolds2647 For the last 12 years, large swathes of the electorate have consistently voted for the promise being better off, only to see their real living standards falling. What is more, areas receiving EU Structural and Investment Funds lose both the funds and investment. And with Truss as PM, there is according to reports from the FT, “no expectation of extra cash from central government”. As for being "sold out" to the WEF, the very people and politicians that entice you to vote against your interests also divert your attention from the real powers. How can you possibly arrive at the stance that a steering committee of capitalists is responsible for loss of freedom rather than the exploitation of capitalism itself? I’ve no doubt that you have a narrow conception of freedom, as a right-wing libertarian you probably think that freedom is being free from paying tax, interference etc. Yet the freedom to act according to your conscience, to demonstrate is threatened by the authoritarian UK government. Take the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which is a civil liberty that no one at GB News is interested in. It is more interested in masks, Meghan and the monarch; propagandising fossil fuel capitalism is “good” and pharma capitalism is “bad”. Who is being sold the big lie?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sounds like a fair point – finding a party that genuinely represents the people does seem increasingly difficult. However, there is more to be said about Farage than just being “petty.” His selective framing raises questions about his motives. While he criticises policies like Net Zero, it’s worth considering whether this stance truly reflects the interests of the British people or rather the interests of his party’s backers – particularly fossil fuel investors who prioritise short-term profits from coal, oil, and gas over long-term investments in renewables.
Reform UK’s commitment to deregulation is also telling. Their agenda includes rolling back workers’ rights, consumer protections, and environmental safeguards under the guise of freeing businesses from “red tape.” However, this approach appears to disproportionately benefit corporate donors and wealthy elites rather than ordinary citizens. Eroding workers' rights, such as protections against unfair dismissal and safe working conditions, seems more about enhancing profits than empowering workers. Similarly, weakening consumer rights – like regulations that ensure product safety and fair treatment – could leave the public more vulnerable to profiteering. On environmental protections, stripping back regulations risks exacerbating pollution and climate impacts, undermining the very quality of life they claim to defend.
Moreover, Reform UK’s alignment with the austerity-driven wing of the Tory right seems to serve a clear agenda: benefiting those who stand to profit from the privatisation of public services, particularly healthcare. While Farage criticises EU social policies, why doesn’t he mention successful examples like Finland’s education system or Sweden’s childcare, which highlight the benefits of robust public services?
The drive to shrink the state and slash public services ultimately paves the way for a fully privatised healthcare system – an outcome that serves the few while disadvantaging the many. Shouldn’t we question whether this is about ideological consistency or simply catering to wealthy backers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RuneRelic Fair analogy? Remember this: a country and national state is not like a house . It is not a useful analogy to use in a debate as it obfuscates rather than elucidates. Issues such as freedom and coercion, labour rights and civil rights, property rights, public spaces, public services, and many other are so different that it is hardly worth discussing. What’s more, borders are not like garden gates or front doors, as citizenship rights and human rights come into it.
As for what is refugee status , it is defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention as a person who: owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country .
As I said, no one is illegal just as you are not guilty until proven innocent. If your claim for refugee status has been rejected then you are residing in the country illegally, and will be deported .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RuneRelic Your analogy is only useful to an extent, once you stretch it beyond comprehensibility, it is useless. It cannot explain "settled status", "refugee status" "citizenship rights", "labour rights" etc. I repeat a house is not a nation state, and no person is “illegal” until the law declares them to be. How much of England do you own?
Benedict Anderson wrote of the state as an “imagined community” as the origin of nationalism. Once people thought in terms of a country as a “home and hearth”, but states grew bigger with communication and infrastructure, you begin to realise you will never know all the people living there but you accept the solidarity of “being English” so it became an imagined community. So this can be useful for understanding the nation state. However, citizenship, for example, is not analogous to living in a house other than the simplistic. Afterall, we are dealing with the complexity of national and international legal frameworks, not the simplistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The suspect, a 53-year-old British businessman and father of three from West Derby, Liverpool, was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving, and driving under the influence of drugs after allegedly driving a Ford Galaxy into a crowd during a Liverpool FC parade, injuring 79 people. Neighbours described the suspect as a quiet and respectful family man. Legal restrictions currently prevent the press from naming the suspect unless he is formally charged, in accordance with privacy laws and a 2022 Supreme Court ruling.
If you're looking for speculation, then it’s far more likely he's a Daily Mail reader than someone studying the Qur'an – a GB News viewer who scapegoats asylum seekers, casts suspicion on entire communities based on their faith, cheers on the destruction of Gaza, and supports stripping away environmental and social protections. The kind of person that thrives on division, fear, and stirring up hatred.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Farage and his ilk aren’t patriots – they’re pawns of billionaire oligarchs, defending a system where 57 UK billionaires thrive while millions suffer. Austerity gutted our communities: over 1,400 children’s centres, 800 libraries, and 8,000 bus routes gone. Meanwhile, billionaire fortunes grew 3x faster in 2024, deepening inequality. This isn’t merit – it’s cronyism and systemic exploitation. We need leaders who’ll tax the super-rich, rebuild public services, and prioritise people over profit. Inequality isn’t inevitable – it’s a choice. Let’s choose a fairer future, not the billionaire agenda.
Why do politicians like Farage, who claim to represent “ordinary people”, often align their policies with the interests of billionaire oligarchs, and how does this alignment impact democratic decision-making and the distribution of wealth in society ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leohoddle7203 Macbeth: It is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
So many things. First: ‘Do we dismiss the will of the people?’
You are parroting the words of Mrs May here and you seem unaware of how limited representative democracy works in the UK, which is in complete contrast to direct democracy that May referred.
Second: ‘should we become like the EU and have an unelected unaccountable commission …?’
Well, you must be referring to the European Union generally as the Commission is one of the three legislative bodies, which includes a representative elected by each member state. I assume that you are also thinking of how undemocratic the European Parliament is. Here I take issue. After the 2019 European elections, the Brexit Party had 29 MEPs, thanks to the proportional representation which is more indicative of ‘the will of the people’ than FPTP. Anyway, this caucus of 29 MEPs was three times larger than the total number of MEPs of Slovakia, yet they still peddled the narrative that the EP was undemocratic. Also by unelected officials, I also assume you are unaware of how the civil service works in the UK. By the way, Farage’s election record on FPTP in UK: 7 times stood: 7 not elected; European parliament using PR: 6 times stood: 5 elected. Another case of 'killing the goose that lays the golden eggs'.
I am not out to change people’s minds, but if you make a claim, you should support it with facts, with evidence and without constant virtue signalling by calling things ‘woke’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DLC-sy7pp Who are my masters? Please tell, it’d be nice to know. You though have your Prophets, your Saviours of Freedom and Growth that will lead you to the sunlit uplands, Leave EU, reject human, rights, push down environmental standards and workers’ wages that is otherwise known as deregulation . Generally, the broad sunlit uplands promised by your "glorious" leaders have not "arrived". But like the cultists described in the book, When Prophecy Fails , you still hold firm to the belief. You must either discard the now disconfirmed belief or justify why it has not actually been disconfirmed. Let's face it, you are a Brexit cultist, and like all cultists are spiteful and vicious little twerps when they feel wronged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinreed5964 Predictable response from a right-wing nutjob when you have no comeback: to refer to medication! About 15 years ago, there were libertarians on youtube that one could engage with, but for the last seven years people are still engaged with the ideology, but it has none of the intellectual grounding: you just take the viciousness and bigotry. You cannot refer to any Brexit benefits – for the UK, not for the ROI, neither can you give evidence of the EU “crumbling”. My claim is that Brexit, a widening and deepening of austerity, was a two-pronged attack on living standards and promoting profit accumulation of the capitalist class whilst getting working class voters on board with the promise of prosperity, jobs, and higher standards of living .
Case number one: AUSTERITY. The austerity measures from 2010 onwards was a political choice for which the electorate voted for more of the same in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Basically, the right-wing parties like UKIP, Brexit Party and Reform UK sided with the essentially "MORE AUSTERITY" wing of the Conservative Party in the Brexit debate, as it continues to side with them on and the billionaire oligarchs on promoting deregulation, misinformation and climate change denial. It is nothing less than sadistic populism to keep voting for a government that cuts public services, and not expect a crumbling broken Britain. Nigel Farage's question is pertinent: how did we get into this mess ? But he potions blame elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For those that only watch GB News and read the Daily Mail and Express for their erm… “insight”, you might have missed the continual recommendation, and reports that the UK government fail to heed. You would be foolish to think a sniper from the side-lines like Tice would act any different to shambles of a government.
France has urged Britain to act quickly to solve a visa blockage stopping some Ukrainian refugees from reaching the UK from Calais, as France’s interior minister Gérald Darmanin called the situation “inhumane” .
The Economist , March, 6 2022.
The UK government should develop safe and legal means for migrants in France, elsewhere in the European Union, and other countries to seek safe haven, reunification with family members, and for work or study .
Human Rights Watch , October 7, 2021.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rees-Mogg read History, and Truss read Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. The number of MPs with a PPE degree, particularly from Oxford, has historically been significant, as PPE has been a common pathway into British politics. However, recent analyses do not provide precise counts for Labour MPs in the current government holding this degree. As of earlier assessments, roughly 9% of MPs had PPE degrees, mostly from Oxford. This proportion is notable given the influence of such graduates, especially within the major political parties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnnHoyle-h1f Human rights protections actually play a crucial role in ensuring justice for everyone, including victims, and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could risk essential protections for both. In the UK, organisations like Liberty and Amnesty work to hold the system accountable, ensuring fair treatment while also protecting victims' rights. For example, human rights laws have strengthened protections against domestic abuse and trafficking, with laws like the Modern Slavery Act, which was influenced by ECHR standards. These safeguards help prevent wrongful convictions and abuse of power, benefiting society as a whole.
Leaving the ECHR could weaken these protections and leave more people vulnerable. For instance, cases like the Hillsborough disaster, where families of victims sought justice for decades, highlight how human rights law can help hold authorities accountable and ensure transparency. Upholding these rights ensures a balanced, fair system that protects everyone’s fundamental rights, especially victims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LionsThunder Which of those peace deals do you consider fair? Many of them offered fragmented, non-sovereign land under Israeli control, with no right of return or true independence. Would you accept that if you were in their position?
Also, saying Palestinians want “total control” ignores the reality – they’ve lived under occupation, siege, and displacement for decades. It’s not about dominance; it’s about basic freedom, dignity, and rights.
And the idea that they don’t flee to neighbouring countries is a false comparison. Millions of Palestinians have been displaced to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt – many living in refugee camps for generations. But why should people have to abandon their homeland just to be seen as “deserving” of peace?
1
-
1
-
@LionsThunder Let’s look at this list a bit more carefully. It’s often repeated, but many of these “offers” were far from straightforward or fair, and ignoring the details can distort the picture.
1937 Peel Commission proposed giving over 80% of historic Palestine to a minority Jewish population, with most Palestinians displaced—would you accept that if the roles were reversed?
1947 UN Partition Plan allocated 55% of the land to Jews (who were one-third of the population and owned less than 10% of the land). Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states rejected it largely due to that imbalance.
1967 Khartoum Summit came after Israel had just occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—countries don’t usually negotiate under occupation.
2000 Camp David & 2008 Realignment Plan included fragmented, non-contiguous territories under heavy Israeli control, with no genuine sovereignty. Even top Israeli negotiators later admitted they wouldn't have accepted those terms if they were Palestinian.
2005 Gaza disengagement wasn’t a peace offer – it was a unilateral withdrawal, while Israel kept control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and maritime access.
Trump’s 2020 ‘peace plan’ was widely seen as legitimising annexation and offering no meaningful Palestinian state at all.
Repeating a list of failed or one-sided “offers” doesn’t prove Palestinians don’t want peace – it shows how complex and unequal the negotiations have been .
1
-
Let’s look at this list a bit more carefully. It’s often repeated, but many of these “offers” were far from straightforward or fair, and ignoring the details can distort the picture.
1937 Peel Commission proposed giving over 80% of historic Palestine to a minority Jewish population, with most Palestinians displaced—would you accept that if the roles were reversed?
1947 UN Partition Plan allocated 55% of the land to Jews (who were one-third of the population and owned less than 10% of the land). Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states rejected it largely due to that imbalance.
1967 Khartoum Summit came after Israel had just occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—countries don’t usually negotiate under occupation.
2000 Camp David & 2008 Realignment Plan included fragmented, non-contiguous territories under heavy Israeli control, with no genuine sovereignty. Even top Israeli negotiators later admitted they wouldn't have accepted those terms if they were Palestinian.
2005 Gaza disengagement wasn’t a peace offer – it was a unilateral withdrawal, while Israel kept control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and maritime access.
Trump’s 2020 ‘peace plan’ was widely seen as legitimising annexation and offering no meaningful Palestinian state at all.
Repeating a list of failed or one-sided “offers” doesn’t prove Palestinians don’t want peace – it shows how complex and unequal the negotiations have been .
1
-
@avacigar5502 I’m sure someone like you has “done their own research,” but you’re overlooking several key issues.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan gave 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that made up only a third of the population and owned less than 10% of the land. Would you have accepted that if the roles were reversed? Does rejecting an unfair deal mean you deserve to lose your home forever ?
Palestinians didn’t act as a unified group – there was no real government at the time, and the region was still under British control. Yes, conflict broke out, but saying they “chose war” is a massive oversimplification. Have you considered how many people were forced to flee or were expelled in the chaos that followed ?
Blaming all of their suffering on one decision in 1947 ignores decades of occupation, displacement, and blockade. Is it fair to say that people born in refugee camps today deserve misery because of something that happened before they were even alive ?
Sometimes “doing your own research” means asking deeper questions – not just repeating the same old talking points.
As a parallel: if “Brussels” had taken parts of the UK, denied UK citizens their citizenship, and controlled their borders, would people really accept the excuse, “Well, the 1975 referendum justified it”?
If you think I’ve misunderstood something, I genuinely invite you to reply and explain – ignoring this helps no one learn, and I’m open to hearing your perspective.
To what extent can a just and lasting peace be achieved if historical injustices are ignored, one side’s security is prioritised over the other’s freedom, and the narratives of millions of displaced people are dismissed as political inconvenience ?
P.S. I repeat what I had written in a previous post: Repeating a list of failed or one-sided “offers” doesn’t prove Palestinians don’t want peace – it shows how complex and unequal the negotiations have been .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ It may not have been “their land” in the sense of a recognised Palestinian state, but it was their land in terms of centuries of habitation, cultural ties, and identity. Just because it was under British or Ottoman rule doesn’t mean it didn’t belong to the people who lived there. The Palestinians didn’t “stupidly” turn it down – they rejected a plan that gave away 55% of their land to a Jewish minority who made up one-third of the population, with no real say in the matter.
It’s easy to dismiss the past as irrelevant, but ignoring the history of displacement, colonisation, and occupation only perpetuates the same injustices today.
Maybe growing up means acknowledging the complexity of the situation and considering the human cost of these historical decisions. It's not just about “accepting offers” – it’s about justice, fairness, and recognising the rights of people who’ve been oppressed for generations.
You’re repeating the same surface-level talking points without addressing the actual critical thinking questions being raised. If you can’t engage with those questions – about fairness, land ownership, and what you would accept in the same situation – it suggests you haven’t seriously considered the historical context or the human reality behind it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Many people who voted for Brexit did so not purely because of the EU itself, but because they felt unheard, overlooked, and unprotected in their own country. They saw decisions being made far away in Brussels, felt local voices didn’t matter, and believed their sovereignty, identity, or economic security were being ignored. Whether or not those perceptions were accurate, the emotional and political reality was powerful – and dismissing those voters as simply “stupid” or “misled” only made the divide worse.
That same principle applies when looking at why Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition Plan. When people feel an external power is carving up their homeland, giving them less control over their future, and handing over land without their full consent, it isn’t “greed” to reject it – it’s a demand for dignity, justice, and a voice.
Would you accept a deal about your future that you had no say in, just because refusing it might make people call you unreasonable later ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because the government wants more cars, more fuel, fuel, fuel, fuel, gas, coal, oil, fuel, gas, fuel, oil, coal, fuel, fuel, fuel, fuel, gas, coal, oil, fuel, gas, fuel, oil, coal,. Simple question : why do you think the government wants more fuel, fuel, fuel, fuel, gas?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your post contains some inaccuracies about the EEC. Firstly, you did not vote to EEC, but rather you voted in a referendum in 1975 to join the European Community. Additionally, Beethoven’s "Ode to Joy" was adopted as the EU's anthem in 1972, but the EU flag was introduced much earlier, in 1955, as a symbol of unity. Contrary to the perception of the EEC as a mere "trading bloc," the Treaty of Rome, which established the EEC in 1957, outlined broader goals of fostering political and economic integration, emphasising "ever-closer union" among member states, far beyond just trade. This laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the European Union.
The myth of the EEC as solely a "trading bloc" is often propagated by groups like UKIP?Reform UK and you Brexit supporters to downplay the political and institutional aspects of the European project.
How does the misconception of the EEC as merely a "trading bloc" influence public understanding of the European Union's broader political and economic goals, and what impact might this have on the debate surrounding Brexit ?
1
-
Your observation that the political implications of the EEC were not emphasised enough to the public is worth considering, but it overlooks the depth of the discussions at the time. The 1975 referendum debates between figures like Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn (as he was known then) clearly addressed these political dimensions. Jenkins, supporting membership, underscored Britain's role in shaping Europe’s future and the economic advantages of collaboration. Benn, in contrast, argued passionately against the EEC, warning about threats to sovereignty, democratic accountability, and the erosion of protections for workers under what he referred to as a “siege economy”.
As a nine-year-old in primary school, I even took part in a debate, advocating for the "No" side, aligning with the view that Britain as a social democracy would be better served with protections outside the EEC. This shows that the political stakes were widely understood, even if framed differently depending on one's perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's not forget that since taking office in July 2024, the Labour government has initiated several measures in response to the recommendations of the 2022 Jay Report on child sexual abuse:
Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse :
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to introduce mandatory reporting laws, making it a criminal offense for professionals working with children to fail to report instances of sexual abuse. This measure is set to be included in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill scheduled for the spring of 2025. Sky News
Enhanced Sentencing for Grooming-Related Offences :
The government has committed to implementing tougher sentencing for grooming-related child sexual abuse cases, aligning with the Jay Report's recommendations to treat grooming as an aggravating factor in such offences. Financial Times
Establishment of a Victims and Survivors Panel :
A new "victims and survivors" panel has been announced to assist with work related to child sexual exploitation and abuse, ensuring that the voices of those affected are central to policy development and implementation. Sky News
Data Collection and Analysis :
Efforts are underway to improve the accuracy and robustness of data concerning child sexual abuse, including better recording of the age, sex, and ethnicity of victims and perpetrators, as well as the contexts in which abuse occurs. BBC
Consideration of a National Child Protection Authority :
The government is engaging in discussions regarding the establishment of a national child protection authority for England and Wales, as recommended by the Jay Report, to provide oversight and ensure consistent standards in child protection across the country. BBC
While these steps indicate progress, many of the Jay Report's 20 recommendations remain in various stages of consideration and implementation. The government has expressed a commitment to working at pace to address these recommendations comprehensively .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dandare2586 I live in the EU, and there is commitment to design appropriate green taxes that can raise much-needed revenue and remove fossil-fuel subsidies, while making sure that it is those who pollute or waste the most that bear the consequences of their actions. There are countries such as Denmark that are making great advances on this issue in terms of lowering emissions and a carbon tax on polluters (Latvia contributes over 11 percent of taxation from Green tax; UK, 7 percent). Now that the UK is out of the EU, it is “free” to deregulate, pollute and dump waste.
From a wider context, isn't the problem that where there is no profit there is no production? From the point of view of satisfying the needs of human beings, capitalism is a quite irrational system. Within this society, houses are not built primarily to be lived in, or indeed energy is not generated merely to warm our homes. Everything is produced for sale, not for use. The aim of production, far from being the natural one of producing useful things to satisfy human needs, is to maximise profits.
1
-
@dandare2586 Capitalism is capitalism, whether the profit is made from the capitalist class or the landed aristocracy, it is the same exploitation of land and labour. So you want to regulate capitalism? Capitalism is, of course, about maximising profit at the expense of workers needs and rights. Just a reminder, deregulation was the highest priority of the Brexiteers in the capitalist class and those politicians that were supportive of it.
The means of production is the ownership and control of the means of living. From the post-war years, coal was a nationalised industry. Was it in the hands of the workers? No, but there was investment of profit into the maintaining the industry. One of the main energy suppliers, EDF is owned by the French state. Recent energy increases: France - 4 percent energy; UK - 54 percent. France energy state owned; UK French state owned! As for oil, Shell paid no tax to the UK government last year ! In fact, the UK government paid Shell £92 million . Compare this to Norway : Shell paid £4 billion in tax . This contributes to a green investment.
The land of England has been sold from under our feet. The leadership campaign once again demonstrates that the government more intent on keeping media moguls, Russian oligarchs, and bigots on board than helping people in genuine need. Politicians promise freedom for people, but are instead deceiving them. They are destroying the potential of a better future with promises of a false future.
1
-
1
-
It’s ironic that Brexiteers like Alex Phillips and Isobel Oakshott, who pushed for the economic self-harm of Brexit, are now claiming the UK is in a dire state. The NHS is struggling, young people can’t afford mortgages, and public services are suffering after 14 years of austerity. Yet, they criticise the Labour government for trying to stabilise the country and even suggest that we should become economic migrants. We ended the freedom of movement for both UK citizens and EU citizens, resulting in Polish, Hungarian, and Czech nationals leaving. Now, Phillips suggests we could have a better standard of living by moving to these countries, which, according to her, have not been "r++ped" by other cultures. The irony is not lost on anyone! Phillips, of course, will never take responsibility for the consequences of her campaign and vote as an MEP. It’s always someone else’s fault - Labour, the Tories, the EU, "Remainers".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TPT6148 Having done your own research you will not have been surprised by the economic impact of Brexit: investment down, job losses up as leaving the EU means leaving the world’s largest trading bloc. You will not have been surprised by the UK having lost our seat at the table that we can no longer make decisions that shape Europe and the UK, on issues such as immigration and security. You we also not be surprised that Brexit undermined the union of the UK, and that Scotland and Northern Ireland, which voted to Remain, are reconsidering their place in the UK. I am sure having done your research you will not be surprised by the impact Brexit has had on the youth who voted to remain for a reason, as Brexit limits their opportunities and prospects. Having considered our position in the union, why do you not understand that people in Romania, Slovakia, and Latvia who experienced dictatorships cannot understand people like you who have experience peace, democracy, and stability and yet see the European Union as a dictatorship . And you wonder why Europeans who had lived in a divided Europe see you Brexitists as having voted for the UK to become complete pathetic joke of the world .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marccherry3184 Bloody ‘ell, who’s got a sore arse now? A commentator of your calibre ! 😆 You clearly do not have the humility of an intelligent person. Really it is Duning-Kruger in action. How did I mistake a Brexit cultist for a profound, well-informed researcher that provides substantiated evidence and rigorous veracity to their comments? Imagine still having a sore arse about this . My first thought was not this fella is a genius, I had better whip out my sabres to cut his argument to shreds. Out of my depth . 😆You clearly think you are an intellectual heavyweight like Ben Shapiro! 🤣🤣Someone who calls me clueless clearly doesn’t seem to realise it was a response to a comment, and not a well-constructed argument with a thesis, hypothesis, researched and corroborated evidence, and discussion of findings. I would sincerely hope you hold your fellow posters, but more importantly, your leaders to the same high standards of scrutiny. Because if you had done, and so many others like you had also, the country wouldn’t be ravaged by misinformation perpetrated by political extremists, by liars in power, and Brexit cultists. Have a laugh, you might like it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brexit: nine years on - still waiting for the celebration ?
It’s been nine years since the Brexit referendum – a moment hailed as the UK “taking back control.” And yet, where are the street parties? Where are the proud celebrations from those who “won”? For something so supposedly historic and empowering, the silence speaks volumes.
So here’s a serious question for those still defending it:
Can you point to a single, clear way in which leaving the EU has improved life for ordinary people ?
Have your wages gone up? Are your bills lower? Is the NHS stronger? Have your freedoms expanded, or your public services improved?
Supporters of Brexit promised sovereignty would deliver better trade deals, more control over our borders, and more money for public services. Instead, we've had economic stagnation, workforce shortages, higher costs, and weakened international alliances. So again – how exactly has this new “sovereignty” helped you or your community ?
And let’s be honest about democracy. Just 37% of the total electorate voted to leave – that’s not an overwhelming “will of the people.” 64% didn’t vote for Brexit at all . Yet some continue to frame it as a national consensus. Shouldn’t we be reflecting on how this narrow, deeply divisive vote became weaponised to reshape the entire country?
If you now feel the UK is “a laughing stock” or “run like a banana republic,” perhaps it’s worth asking: Did you help create the very conditions you now despair of ?
By voting for isolationist policies and leaders like Johnson, Farage, or Rees-Mogg – members of the very elite they claimed to fight – you helped empower a government with no real plan for post-EU Britain. Even Tory leader Kemi Badenoch – when Trade Secretary – admitted it: “We announced we would leave before we had a plan for growth.”
So if Brexit has failed, maybe it’s not because it was betrayed by the “wrong people,” but because it was never a fully thought-out project in the first place .
Ask yourself:
If sovereignty doesn’t deliver tangible benefits, is it really sovereignty that we’ve gained – or just a slogan we were sold ?
And if you're still defending this outcome, is it really about facts – or just about defending a vote you can’t quite admit went wrong ?
Nine years later, the rest of us are still waiting to see what exactly we “took back.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You could say that it is the problem of marginalising class in academia at the expense of intersectionality. It is still class that determines life chances. It is only referenced here as working class men, but it is the ruling class who has the best education, who owns the media, and the means of production. It is the political class (media and politicians) that shape the ideological thinking: we are merely subject to it. GBbees banging on about “woke” and “illegals” are subject to the ideological conditioning of the right-wing media and politicians.
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance .*Marx & Engels* , The German Ideology (1844)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckwallace9831 You're making a lot of assumptions about me – including my religion. What exactly is my faith, and more importantly, why do you think it’s any of your business?
You talk about respecting Britain’s Christian foundations, but only when it suits your argument. Genuine religious freedom doesn’t mean “_freedom for my beliefs, but not yours_ .” That’s not respect – it’s double standards.
The hijab, like a cross or a kippah, is a personal religious expression. In the UK, freedom of religion is a legal right , not a privilege handed out only to Christians.
Yes, the UK has a Christian cultural tradition – one that includes values like compassion, humility, and welcoming the stranger . Telling people to “go elsewhere” because they don’t conform to your narrow view is a rejection of those very values.
And using “mo” as a slur for Muslim? That’s not patriotism – it’s cowardice. It reduces a global faith to a playground insult. You claim to defend British values – so what value is there in bigotry, mockery, and exclusion?
One final thought:
Those who try to restrict freedom of religion, expression, or conscience are never satisfied – because their worldview depends on control, not understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckwallace9831 Interesting how you accuse me of lying while repeating claims you can’t back up. You say I deleted parts of the thread – but I can’t delete your comments. Only you can. So if anything is missing, that’s on your end, not mine!
You keep calling me a liar, yet your own logic doesn’t add up. And then you accuse me of flannel and obfuscation?
Also, you keep saying “I’m done here,” but keep replying. If you don’t want a conversation, that’s your right – but don’t pretend it’s because I lack evidence. The record is here for anyone to see.
Surely Reform UK needs people like you – not just to vote for them, but to echo their style: shout accusations, ignore evidence, gaslight people, dodge accountability, and call it "telling it like it is." If this is the level of political discourse they inspire, it says a lot about the movement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckwallace9831 Let’s be clear: defending religious freedom is not the same as defending sectarianism . It’s about upholding the principle that people have the right to express their beliefs peacefully – whether that’s wearing a cross, a kippah, a hijab, or nothing at all. That’s what secular democracy actually means: freedom of belief and freedom from compulsion .
Using violent extremists to generalise about 1.9 billion Muslims is not an argument – it’s scapegoating. You don’t define Christianity by the IRA or the Crusades. You don’t define Judaism by the actions of extremists either. So why do it with Islam?
As for banning religious dress like the hijab “for secularism” – who exactly decides which beliefs are allowed to be visible in public? That’s not secularism; that’s authoritarianism dressed up as neutrality.
And yes, I’m an atheist – not because I hate religion, but because I believe people should be free to believe or not believe. That includes the right to dress according to their conscience – not yours.
Also, for the record: I haven’t taken any comments down. If youtube moderates replies, that’s not under my control. But if you’re still convinced I’ve deleted anything, go to the main message board, switch to “newest comments first,” and scroll down – you’ll find all 82 replies still visible, including the ones you’ve accused me of removing. In fact, there are eleven versions of “You throw enough labels around you” alone. If your argument is strong, it should stand on its own – not depend on false claims and conspiracies about “narratives.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisbow1776 Let’s begin by saying I am not pro-EU, to put it simply, I am against all institutions that are oppressive, and the Tory controlled UK government is far more oppressive than anything the EU has done . I am also against the liars and the charlatans and challenge the lies perpetrated by those that repeat the lies of their masters. This together with the drip-feed of GB News, a propaganda channel that pumps out bilious culture war content by venal presenters in the economic interests of their investors.
So firstly, you mentioned that you want the UK controlled by elected representatives. Well around 70 percent of the UK Parliament is unelected (788 in the House of Lords; 650 elected to the Commons), which accounts for more unelected representatives than any other country, including China, and - of course - the EU.
As for the economic cost/benefit of Brexit. Just because the Covid pandemic, and the war in Ukraine happened after Brexit, these are seen as more of a cause of negative growth and inflation. Indeed all three are contributing causes for the cost of capitalism crisis, but the thing is the government and Brexiteers deny the role of Brexit. This very morning I spend an inordinate amount of time, paperwork and money getting a blazer I had bought from the UK into an EU country where I live. If I were a small business, I simply wouldn’t be able to trade with the UK. Is that good for UK trade?
You also mentioned in another post the withdrawal of the ECHR. It is ironic that many self-professed “conservatives” crave this when it has been for decades the centrepiece of the conservative idea of liberty and the rule of law. What possible benefit would it serve for the people of the UK? And as for the repeal of the Human Rights Act, do you really want to accept UK legal decisions as the final arbiter? Do you wish to accept the outcome of the first Hillsborough 1989 football stadium trial as final and accept the cover up, rather than use the HRA to bring about a second inquiry? This government wants to strip you of your rights whilst using your hatred of the EU and the ECJ as a cover .
Finally, as for the EU Migration Pact, I have read parts of the document. It seems to me that it is seeking to make dealing with refugee status claims quicker and more efficient. So it is surely a step forward, but there are concerns from those countries that rejected the deal: Poland, Hungary, Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Germany which abstained. These issues include the “solidarity and fairness” clause that seeks to distribute the responsibility throughout the 27 countries. When it comes to the UK the government has certainly allowed the refugee situation to get out of hand, and has further exacerbate the problems with a lack of investment in social housing, and the public sector, and allowed “greedflation”. When it comes to how it affects Ireland as the country currently chooses, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blaming only the Tories or defending Brexit misses the bigger picture – they’re both part of the same problem. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted that the British public “didn’t know what they were voting for” in 2016, describing it as “a jump in the dark.” That uncertainty was fuelled by promises that were never kept: Gove and Johnson claimed they’d scrap VAT on energy bills just before the referendum, Johnson promised a better NHS, schools, and infrastructure, only to purge 21 MPs who questioned a hard Brexit and push through an agenda that benefitted the few, not the many.
Brexit wasn’t a clean break for national renewal, but rather a political strategy driven by power and backed by right-wing media outlets. Since Brexit, support for leaving the EU has actually dropped across Europe, as the UK serves as a cautionary tale rather than a successful example. This isn't the Brexit some imagined – it's austerity in disguise, deregulation, and an emboldened corporate class looking to reduce rights and push down wages.
Calling the EU “doomed” doesn’t change the reality: the UK has become poorer and more isolated since Brexit, with long-term GDP losses of up to 4% and reduced investment and exports, as detailed by the OBR.
If Brexit was meant to restore control and empower everyday people, why have its outcomes – like weaker workers' rights, economic decline, and greater inequality – mainly benefited the political and corporate elites who championed it ?
(censored version)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504 Dismissing questions as based on “false premises” without addressing a single one of them isn’t a rebuttal – it’s just avoidance. If you're confident in your views, they should stand up to scrutiny. “Not inclined to waste [your] time”? Declaring yourself above the conversation doesn’t make the argument stronger; it just avoids having one. This is typical Reform UK thinking: assuming populists have simple answers to complex problems, while following Nigel Farage – a chancer who offers slogans, not solutions. The key isn’t thinking any one person has all the answers but working collectively to address systemic issues. As Dylan said, “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking meters.” Instead of kowtowing to billionaire oligarchs or letting right-wing populists distract, divide, and divert us, we should unite, raise class consciousness, and focus on our shared interests. Through class action, we can challenge the exploitation inherent in capitalism. Don’t punch down – punch up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrJohnnyseven Yes, it's true that we had rights before the ECHR, but it’s essential to understand why the ECHR was established. It was created in the aftermath of World War II as a direct response to the atrocities and human rights violations that occurred during that time, including mass deportations and the absence of fundamental protections. It was a commitment to ensure that such horrors would never happen again.
For instance, the ECHR has provided vital protections against torture, inhumane treatment, and unlawful detention. It has also upheld the rights of individuals in cases of discrimination and freedom of expression. Without the ECHR, there would be a significant risk of eroding these protections, which are designed to safeguard the rights of all individuals, particularly the most vulnerable in our society. Ignoring this history means disregarding the lessons learned from our past.
What specific rights did you have before the ECHR that you believe would still be protected without it, and how do you think those rights would be enforced in today's context ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By "traitor," do you mean opposing fracking? Are you aware of the consequences of fracking? If so, you probably don’t not care about water contamination, where harmful chemicals leak into groundwater, threatening drinking water supplies. Or perhaps you're unconcerned about earthquakes, despite wastewater injection being linked to increased seismic activity, even in areas not prone to quakes. Maybe methane emissions don't bother you, despite fracking releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas driving climate change. Or housing subsidence, as seen in the Dutch village of Overschild. If you label anyone opposing your fossil-fuel capitalist agenda a "traitor," perhaps you should consider what the right is selling you before voting against your economic and environmental interests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@somebloke13 And your shocking lack of knowledge of Hitler, Mussolini leads to the same ends. People like you are the bores in the pub that rant on, making references to leaflets they’ve read from UKIP, the BNP, or the latest guff from GBN. GBN’s brand of populism is an outlet (sewage pipe) for the emotional repsonses of a group of citizens that present themselves as the ‘’voice of reason” and nasty (outright or cloaked) libertarian types like Baker, Mogg and this Grimes fella are celebrated as “common sense”.
The fact is, people are born neither good nor bad, it is society that shapes them. And since capitalism may be fatally maladaptive, the problem is that we are born into a nasty, competitive society that puts profit and the needs of the economy before human needs. We work for a system rather than a system working to serve our needs. If you want the rat-race, so be it. Keep on supporting those Tories and the establishment media that will never have you interests at heart . If you get stuck on hate, I will get stuck on my hatred for the capitalist system and how it is distorting the hearts and minds of people. But just remember, people like me have your interests more at heart they they do, even though we are despised! Good night.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@golfbulldog The right-wing media (Talk TV, GB News, Daily Mail, Daily Express) are demanding answers as to why Prevent failed to “prevent” recent criminal acts, with Mike Graham claiming that “Prevent is not fit for purpose.” Prevent has suffered significant funding cuts under successive Conservative governments, including a reported (in March 2024) reduction in London boroughs receiving funding from 22 to seven by April 2025, effectively halving its budget in the capital. Despite this, these outlets absurdly blame Keir Starmer, just three weeks after taking office, for failing to address the issue – a classic right-wing tactic of managed decline followed by claims of it not being "fit for purpose". While Graham is correct that Rudakubana was charged with producing ricin in October 2024, after the Southport attack on 29th July 2024, and pleaded guilty to all charges on 20th January 2025, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
* How might the framing of Prevent’s effectiveness by right-wing media outlets influence public perception of the programme, and to what extent could this shift accountability away from the long-term policy decisions of successive governments* ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@audreyblack8629 What is an immoral salary? Presenting a sports programme ? So footballers are thick, are they? So I am not as intelligent as you since I don’t share your opinions! Yes anyone can read an auto-cue, but it takes someone who has 80 caps, and scored 48 goals for England, and played for Spurs and Barcelona. Doesn’t that account for more than reading ability? The 1966 England team got a bonus of £1,000 not 55 pence!
You are “playing the man not the ball”. Now after that diatribe on Lineker, don’t you think you should stick to the issue he addressed rather than talk about his “immoral earnings”? This is what I wrote elsewere:
Why is it that rarely anyone really ever adressess the issue? That is why when Gary Lineker addresses the genocide in Gaza or the demonisation of asylum seekers, and numpties immediately attack Lineker: too rich, out of touch, stick to football, etc. Lineker is the perfect vessel of hate and diversion. As a result, no one addresses the real issues: that GBers support murder and the genocide of 26,000 people in Gaza, and are seemingly also indifferent to genocides in Cambodia (1.5 to 2 million dead); Rwanda (at least 1 million); and 45,000 (Bosnia). GBbees hatred of Lineker is cathartic: letting out their hatred onto their despised pundit whilst ignoring the real issues .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play! Yeah, fair play! Fair play!
Nasty little right-wingers will never accept that it's not fair play to humiliate women, to objectify them. It is open season to them. To small-minded little misogynist bigots they are fair game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianthomas4568 It's a common misconception that the increase in immigration is proof that the UK "never left" the EU. However, you overlook several key points:
Brexit and Immigration Policy : The UK did leave the EU, and this significantly changed its relationship with EU member states, including in areas like immigration. Post-Brexit, the UK has had the autonomy to craft its own immigration policies, which are no longer dictated by EU regulations.
The Dublin Accord : This EU regulation allowed the UK to return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. After Brexit, the UK lost this privilege, which actually makes managing immigration more complex, not simpler.
European Convention on Human Rights ECHR : The ECHR is under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe, a separate institution from the EU. The referendum was specifically about leaving the EU, not the Council of Europe. If you support withdrawing from the ECHR, it indicates your desire for the UK to further diverge from European frameworks. However, it’s important to note that the ECHR deals with human rights protections and isn’t directly related to EU membership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB News' entire agenda is to push the media discourse to the right. So the main reason for having a right-wing propaganda channel is to direct your anger and disaffection away from those responsible. No it is not the government and the capitalist class that is responsible they say. Don't look here, look there: direct your anger onto the less vulnerable and less powerful. In the government spring, the government, the right-wing media and yes GB News blamed train drivers, and nurses, they blamed the homeless, and the charities, and of course they blamed refugees. GB News viewers then fall in line to blame these groups of workers and vulnerable people. Is this what many of you are thinking? But look at the real culprits rather than demonising people, and make demands on the government to act. Government policy should provide safe and legal routes and to process applications by setting up processing centres in France, and set up a bilateral policy with France. Currently, the French government says any deal must be at an EU level. The UK government is held hostage by the right: by their MPs, by the media, and by Brexit ideology, and on top of that corruption and incompetence of the highest level. Ironically, Brexit means less control over the borders because the agreement you had with your nearest neighbours was effectively torn up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Patrick got just the reponse he wanted. Anyone that pushes you around – calling you hate marchers, anti-semites, terrorists, Hamas sympathisers – will expect to be given at the very least a frosty welcome at a march. Patrick can then say "see, they are hate marchers!" GB News cultists were then able to call this reaction to lil’ Paddy "fascist". GB News continues to treat the Israel / Gaza war abominably. But what is most galling is the indifference to the loss of over 11,000 human lives. It is callous! GB News and its cultist viewers are cheerleaders for ethnic cleansing and genocide.
That which besets me is indifference. I can't be bothered about people. Or rather, won't. For I avoid, carefully, all occasions for being bothered... Indifference is a form of sloth, and sloth in its turn is one of the symptoms of loveless-ness. One isn't lazy about what one loves. The problem is: how to love ? Aldous Huxley, Eyeless in Gaza
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you voted for Brexit to “take back control”, and now farming subsidies are decided by Westminster instead of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. The Conservative government had years to create a stable system, yet instead of delivering certainty, they rolled out chaotic policies like ELMS, leaving farmers struggling with confusion and financial insecurity. Now that Labour took office, you're blaming them for a crisis that has been brewing since Brexit?
The reality is that by shifting power from Brussels to Westminster, you handed control to politicians whose priorities don’t always align with farmers' needs. While Labour’s policies aim to tackle broader societal and environmental issues, they’ve introduced new financial and regulatory challenges that further strain the agricultural sector. The combined effects of Brexit-related disruptions and recent policy changes have increased economic pressure on farmers, worsened their standard of living, and fuelled widespread protests. Instead of pointing fingers at the latest government, it’s time to acknowledge that the root of the problem lies in the decisions made long before Labour took charge.
1
-
No wonder you get no support from trade uniions, Reform UK is anti-worker, pro-capitalist. Twenty years ago, Bernie Sanders warned that populist parties, like the Republicans, had a hidden agenda to undermine key social protections. He argued that they aimed to abolish the minimum wage, privatise healthcare, offer tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, cut and privatise social security, and even privatise education. However, these policies could not be openly discussed, because they were unpopular with the majority of voters. In fact, such measures would only appeal to the richest 1%, making it impossible for these parties to win elections if they were upfront about their true intentions.
Instead, Sanders pointed out, they resorted to deceitful tactics. These parties began to implement policies designed to divide the working class along lines of race, immigration status, and other social issues – "indigenous" vs immigrants, blacks vs whites, abortion rights, gun rights, feminism, and so on. The strategy was clear: divide and rule. By stoking cultural and social divisions, they distracted people from the real economic issues that were undermining their interests. This is what Farage and Reform UK are doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ENGLISHMURPHY It's important to recognize that the systematic oppression you're referring to is deeply intertwined with broader systems of exploitation, such as capitalism and neoliberalism. These systems aim to hollow out identity, destroy collective action, and strip civil and labor rights in pursuit of cheaper resources and labour to maximize profits.
In contrast, a truly democratic society emphasises participatory democracy, where citizens are directly involved in decision-making through mechanisms like citizen assemblies, referendums, and participatory budgeting. Such approaches, like the UK's Climate Assembly and local participatory budgeting initiatives, can increase trust and legitimacy, improve decision-making, and foster accountability and social cohesion.
While challenges remain in ensuring inclusivity and effective integration with existing structures, participatory democracy revitalises governance, making it more transparent, accountable, and responsive to citizens' needs. This approach addresses the underlying issues contributing to oppression by empowering people and promoting equitable involvement in shaping their society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CatherineRichards-z1x Once again, the saying holds true: Empty vessels make the loudest sound . You shout “HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER” like it's an insult, but offer zero substance in return. This is the problem with right-wing populist rhetoric – it’s all noise, no vision.
You offer no credible solutions, just endless anger, resentment, and vague blame. While Keir Starmer actually prosecuted grooming gangs and reformed a broken justice system , your contribution is shouting in all caps.
Real change takes more than rage – it takes principles, facts, and a commitment to justice. If you truly cared about making Britain better, you'd be demanding policies – not memes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattsutton8665 That's why you people seek out populist leaders, as they have simple answers to complex issues. OK, here is a simple answer to your simple question, but you have to first consider these questions. How would you react if you were treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of your rights? How would you react if you there was discriminatory underinvestment in your communities? How would you react if you, your family and community were threatened, and tortured? How would you react if your home was bombed, and you were deprived of your land? How would you feel when your deprived homeland was built on by colonial settlers? And were you to leave, how would you feel about the denial of your right to return to your homeland? How would you react if your country’s right to self-determination and sovereignty was not recognised by many countries, including the USA, UK and 16 EU countries? Seriously, how would you react? Would you resist? A resistance movement to Israel’s state violence is entirely justified. However, the heinous act of terrorism of 7th October was neither proportionate nor justifiable. So how is it a justifiable response to a heinous act of terrorism to indiscriminate bomb heavily populated areas killing so far over 33,000 people?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jkwmyplace1254 That’s a common claim, but it misunderstands how climate science actually works. Yes, direct temperature records go back around 150 years – but scientists don’t rely only on that. We also have paleoclimate data from ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers, and other natural records that give us a picture of Earth’s climate going back hundreds of thousands of years.
As for cities and heat retention (the urban heat island effect), climate scientists do adjust for that in their data. The trend of global warming remains clear even in rural and oceanic measurements, far from cities and concrete. The overwhelming evidence, reviewed across independent datasets from different parts of the world, still points to one conclusion: the planet is warming, and human activity is the main driver.
If you're sceptical, fair enough – science invites questions. But let’s base the conversation on what peer-reviewed data actually shows, not just assumptions about bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In terms of equality, the UK legal system is designed to treat all individuals equally, regardless of their background, race, or ethnicity. Laws are applied uniformly, and the justice system aims to ensure that everyone, including minorities, is held accountable for their actions. However, there are disparities in the Criminal Justice System. There is evidence to suggest that people from minority backgrounds may face discrimination within the criminal justice system. Reports and studies have shown that Black and other ethnic minority groups are more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested, and receive harsher sentences compared to their white counterparts. However, this does not imply that they are exempt from consequences for crimes; rather, it suggests that they may be treated more harshly or unfairly in some cases.
As for prisons, there is an over representation of minorities in prisons.Ethnic minorities are over represented in the UK prison population compared to their proportion in the general population. This over representation is often cited as evidence of systemic bias rather than a lack of consequences for crimes.
While there are significant concerns about racial bias and inequality in the criminal justice system, these issues generally point to minorities being treated more harshly, not less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisstokie2361 How did I insult you? And how is Brethren an insult? Is even right-wing an insult? Should I have said, over 1,200 "free-thinkers" that think exactly the same as you, without a shred of evidence to support such your claim . Anyway, enough of your attempts to divert, distract, and divide! It is not too late to provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, admit you have nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@htlein As I wrote on GB News post in October 2022:
The Public Order Bill that is going through Parliament seeks to take away your freedom of assembly .
No one took any notice .
As I wrote, again on GB News post in December 2021:
You can always demonstrate. Oh no, you won't be able to if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is passed into law. If you do demonstrate, you could face a four-year prison sentence. GB News is not interested in this
No one took any notice .
People are only now taking notice when their freedom to demonstrate is now curtailed, but were not paying attention to the fact the previous government’s zealous attempts to crush environmental activism is now being used against political demonstration .
Again, as I wrote in June 2021, again on GB News post:
Because of class society, there is a need for dictators of some form, actual or corporate (economic, political or corporate media). There is a need to change the conditions of class divided society .
_No one will take any notice_.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soot.2146 Dealing with your first point, the UK does indeed have oil and gas resources, especially in the North Sea, but these reserves are expected to last only around 10-20 more years at current production rates. Even if tapped, UK fossil fuels are sold on the global market, so they wouldn’t lower domestic prices. To ensure long-term energy security and meet climate goals, many argue that investment in renewable energy is a smarter approach, providing stable jobs and reducing dependency on finite fossil fuels
Funding from fossil fuel investors supports Reform UK, and media platforms such as GB News, and TalkTV, which can shape public narratives by emphasising the benefits of fossil fuels and downplaying renewables.
If the UK’s fossil fuel reserves are limited and don’t directly lower domestic energy costs, what are the economic, environmental, and social arguments for continuing to invest in fossil fuel industries versus accelerating investment in renewable energy ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShaiMarlin Let’s clarify something. What exactly is my claim here ? I haven’t actually made one –I’ve been asking questions. What I am doing is challenging others who make claims about the WEF to provide evidence. If you’re asserting that the WEF is the root of the problem, then it’s reasonable to ask: what’s your evidence ?
Now, if I do have an argument, it’s this: The real question isn’t whether the WEF is to blame – it’s whether the problem lies deeper, in the capitalist system itself, which persistently prioritises profit over human needs .
This is where I take issue with the narratives pushed by right-wing populists like Nigel Farage and Richard Tice. They rail against "elites" like those at the WEF, but they leave the economic system – the very one that generates these inequalities – completely untouched. It’s smoke and mirrors. The same pattern is evident in Hungary under Viktor Orbán: strongman rhetoric against global elites, all while preserving and benefiting from the very economic structures that cause the inequality people are angry about.
So, again, I’m asking an honest question – one I’ve yet to receive a clear answer to: how, exactly, would abolishing the WEF improve your everyday life ? What would change for you? Your job? Your rent? Your energy bills? Your access to healthcare or education?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@odin741 Interesting you mention coal and tin - but shouldn’t we be asking whether doubling down on finite , polluting resources is a serious long-term plan, or just a nostalgic fantasy? Coal might be “untapped”, but it’s also outdated, high-emissions, and economically uncompetitive compared to renewables and advanced energy storage. Britain was once a world leader in innovation - so why not invest in that again, instead of letting those without vision or creativity dictate our future? We should be leading in clean tech, not chasing the ghosts of the past. Investing in renewables and alternative materials (including lithium alternatives) would create jobs and energy security - without wrecking the climate or our international credibility.
If we have the skills, land, and innovation capacity to lead in clean energy, why would we choose to fall behind by investing in dying industries instead ?
1
-
@odin741 It's telling that instead of engaging with the question of long-term sustainability, investment in innovation, or the global race for clean tech, you've doubled down on right-wing talking points that deflect responsibility and demonise vulnerable people. Yes, the UK is responsible for less than 1% of current emissions - but cumulatively , we’re one of the top historical emitters. Leadership means taking responsibility, not hiding behind worse offenders.
If everyone used the “we're only 1%” excuse, no one would act – and nothing would change. Yes, the UK’s current emissions are relatively small, especially compared to countries like China with over 1,161 coal-fired power plants. But using their environmental failures to justify lowering our own standards is both irresponsible and self-defeating. Climate change is a collective crisis: if every country waits for others to move first, we all lose. The UK has historically contributed significantly to global emissions and still benefits from a high-carbon lifestyle. Real leadership means acting now, not passing the buck. Shouldn’t we be part of the solution, not part of the problem?
Rebuilding old polluting industries isn’t a forward-thinking plan – it’s a distraction. Reviving coal or turning asylum seekers into forced labour isn’t just morally repugnant, it’s economically short-sighted. Britain used to lead the world in innovation – why settle now for dirty shortcuts and populist scapegoating?
If we know the future lies in green innovation, global cooperation, and sustainable industries, why are some so determined to drag Britain backwards – and who really stands to gain from that ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@odin741 Are you seriously saying a British citizen can’t “interfere” in British politics just because they weren’t born in the UK? That’s a deeply revealing attitude. I was born in the UK, lived there most of my life, paid taxes, have family there, and hold British citizenship - so yes, I have every right to speak on UK politics.
What you’re really saying is that immigrants - even those who live, work, contribute, and vote here - should be silent. You want to disenfranchise them entirely. That’s not democracy; that’s exclusion.
The irony is you’re fine with Reform UK whipping up culture wars about immigration, but the moment someone challenges the narrative, it’s “stay in your lane.” No - democracy is for everyone who’s part of society, not just those who tick your boxes.
Instead of addressing what I actually said - about long-term sustainability, investment in innovation, or the global race for clean tech - you’ve fallen back on mockery and scapegoating. This isn’t about patriotism or policy - it’s about rage. If you had better arguments, you’d be making them. Trying to shut people up isn’t strength - it’s impotence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Swift BMF That's the thing, there is not much to misunderstand but you have succeeded. Nuance? You seem to see no contradiction between freedom and authoritarianism. But then neither could the Stalinists. How is Galloway an authoritarian? Because he appeals to the spiteful reactionary; the Sun reader, the GB News viewer, the kind of semi-literate guy that calls someone "a muppet" and a "f*cking cabbage" on message boards. Chrisopher Hitchens saId of Galloway, the man’s search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends . Galloway is a Leninist who admired the well-fed "revolutionaries" of the USSR, though it's not much of a leap to adopt a Stalinist "people's liberation" now is it? Here is a man that describes rape as "just bad sexual etiquette". Not forgetting the toadying address to Saddam Hussein:
Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem] .
How then is Galloway not an authoritarian, and a defender of freedom and democracy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By "research", do you mean publishing in a peer-reviewed journal? Do you mean selecting the accusation Trump is accused of, and conducting an initial literature review, and then developing specific research questions and hypotheses, then writing a research proposal and getting it approved? Do you also mean conducting a thorough literature review, designing your research methodology, and collecting your data systematically? Do you mean analysing the data, interpreting the results, and writing your thesis, seeking feedback and revising as needed? Do you also mean defending your thesis and making revisions, identifying target journals and preparing your thesis according to their guidelines? Whe you have done all this, do you mean submitting your thesis, responding to peer review feedback, and, once accepted, finalising it for publication? Finally, do you mean sharing it with the academic community? Or do you mean watching a couple of youtube videos that have been watched by 54 people ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bazcrav How would I solve the world's problems? First, I'd stop treating politics like a football match, where people align themselves with "Team Trump" or "Team Musk." This kind of tribalism oversimplifies complex issues and shifts the focus away from real solutions. Instead, we need to dig deeper into the root causes of problems and address them directly. We'd then see that the "cost of living crisis" could more accurately be called the "cost of capitalism crisis," as it stems from systemic inequalities and exploitative practices inherent in unchecked capitalist systems..
Billionaire oligarchs, along with their client right-wing populist parties and media, want you to view immigration as the source of your problems rather than addressing the role billionaires play in making your life harder. These ultra-wealthy individuals accumulate vast fortunes, fuelling wealth inflation – a process where their disproportionate control of resources and capital distorts the economy. This leads to rising living costs, stagnant wages, and economic policies that favour the rich while leaving ordinary people struggling to get by.
By blaming immigrants, they create a convenient scapegoat to distract from the real issue: a system rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many. The more we focus on these distractions, the less we question how this wealth-hoarding deepens inequality and erodes opportunities for everyone else. Isn't it time we stopped falling for these divisive tactics and started addressing the root causes of economic injustice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you’ve had enough of experts? So you need a former comedian presenter of “Ball of Steel” to give you economic analysis of the budget, or “fiscal event” as the government prefers to call it. This GB News propaganda that would make Josef Goebbels blush.
This budget was putting into policy the Britannia Unchained ideas: low tax, high productivity, low regulation (erosion of labour rights). A tax haven; a Singapore on Thames. If Leavers were paying attention, it was what they knew they were voting for. As Mark Littlewood (Institute for Economic Affairs) said, You're not gonna like this package if you care about the poor
Many think this is a Conservative government at last. I prefer to see this budget, as real conservative Peter Oborne does, as being for the seedy amoral tax dodgers that despise the poor . He called the current Conservative and Unionist Party, a client party for international capital .
Well basically, this budget is not for you unless you are super-rich. You may be £600 better off if you are on average wage, but the tax cuts means cuts in public services. What does that mean to losses in jobs and community cohesion? If you ear £10 million a year, you will be £617,720. Is this what the Tories mean by levelling up?
Don’t take my word for it: share prices on the FTSE250 fell by 20%, the £stirling fell by 16% against the $ollar and 4% against €uro.
So this fiscal event will lead not lead to high growth in the long term, but:
- low growth
- higher inflation
- increasingly high public debt
- soaring mortgage repayments
- balance of payments deficit
- more industrial action
- worsening relations with the EU
- pollution of our rivers and seas
- cuts to public sector – the NHS and education
Anyone wishing to dismiss this as “running Britain down” is clearly deluded: the sort of person Goebbels thought was dumb enough to swallow the big lie. I am sure there also are those who have an unstinting support for capitalism because it is “British”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edthompson9337 Claiming to be a “realist” while dismissing serious arguments with mockery isn’t realism – it’s evasion. Mocking government, police, migrants, or anyone with a different view doesn’t solve anything – it just avoids having to engage with actual ideas. You’ve also misunderstood the core point: we want cheaper energy and real security . But that won’t come from a system where private companies take public subsidies, deliver the bare minimum, and rake in record profits. Big infrastructure like wind, storage, and grid upgrades needs public planning and ownership , not market chaos. You also misunderstood – or ignored – my point about marginal pricing – it’s a system designed under privatisation that links everyone’s bills to the most expensive energy (gas), even when we have cheaper renewables available. That’s not realism – it’s a broken system. If we invested publicly, we’d all see the returns. Isn’t that the kind of realism worth fighting for?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK is the most unequal society in the Europe, with the exception of Bulgaria. Is this what Tory voting GB News viewers wanted for their country? In the 1970's it was one of the most equal, now it is one of the most unequal. Why might that be? It is also interesting that Woody Wootton's wordy diatribe was an ad hominem attack on Ms Thunberg rather than to attack her arguments with actual evidence to the contrary. Her latest book is a collection of 100 writers and researchers on climate change. I would be interested in GB Newers providing sound evidence, rather than trying to discredit. Fallacy on top of fallacy. Again, the bottom feeders at GB News think all their followers want is their entitled opinions on war, climate change, WEF, masks and monarchy. Dolling out bullshite to the hard of thinking! So if we have a world with lower carbon emissions, life expectancy would fall from 70 to 30, would it? Do you seriously think that? Woody Wooton thinks a future world beyond capitalism that embraces technology would lead to regression. Remember, that the UK is regressing to the 1880's in terms of its inequality, so the Woody Woodster thinks that less capitalism and more technology that embrace a a future of carbon neutrality and without the profit system would lead the UK back to the 1700's?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xeeni87 Gbnews is supportive of putin ? For example, Darren Grimes gives this "Why Aye Man", "I am from a mining town in County Durham", "Why Aye Man, have I told you I'm working class?" Yet as a 22 year old, he was able to donate £270,000. Russian money, to sway the Referendum result by any chance? Farage is a Putin supporter. Early in the RU-UA war, the GB News "narrative" was pretty much in line with RT. What's more, the opinion was mooted that in the war, you don't know “who the good guys are”. KGB News is a propaganda media that promotes the issues that Putin cares about, and some of the broadcasters have benefited from .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK's industrial decline began post-WWII, but it accelerated significantly during the 1970s and 1980s. Manufacturing started moving abroad as globalisation took off and industries chased cheaper labour costs overseas. Under Margaret Thatcher (PM from 1979-1990), policies prioritised deregulation, privatisation, and a shift towards a service-based economy, while coal mines, steelworks, and factories faced closures. While it boosted finance and services (especially in London), it devastated traditional industrial areas like the North, Midlands, and Wales, causing unemployment, economic disparity, and lasting regional inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thetruth9210 Yes, the UK could have stayed in Horizon as a “third country”, but the EU has to agree to it: not being an EU member doesn’t automatically make you part of Horizon. That is the nature of being a “third country" . Switzerland is an associate member, but it is not a “third country”, as it is in the Single Market, Customs Union, and Schengen. I don’t see how Galsworthy saying this makes him “deluded”. As for car production: the UK produced 1.72 million cars in 2016, gradual increase from 1 million in 2009. From the peak of 1.72 million in 2016 it has gradually declined to 775 thousand in 2022 – the lowest since 1956! Employment has also declined. Honda in Swindon, Jaguar Land Rover moving production to Slovakia, Mike’s parroted line about car production has, contrary to your opinion, come to pass. Simply, your Brexit delusions do not fit reality.
As for the Brexitees, Truss had the zeal of a convert. As for Johnson, Mogg, and Farage: why the hell would anyone trust these people in 2016, let alone in 2019 or now? OK, you didn’t get the Brexit you think you voted for but this is the Brexit I voted against . As far as I’m concerned, Brexit is the legacy of the Tory government’s austerity measures, as well as a two-pronged attack on living standards and promoting profit accumulation of the capitalist class. Basically Brexit is part of the class struggle to deregulate, push down standards and squeeze wages and slash civil and workers’ rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB News is mainstream news is both revealing and problematic.
GB News claims to offer an alternative to traditional media, but let’s not be fooled. Despite its veneer of independence, it is deeply entrenched in the capitalist system it purports to critique. Owned and operated by wealthy elites, GB News serves the interests of the ruling class, just like BBC or Sky News.
Mainstream media, whether "alternative" or not, perpetuates the status quo by controlling the narrative and distracting us from systemic issues like economic inequality, worker exploitation, and social injustice. GB News is no exception. It may use different rhetoric, but its ultimate goal is the same: to maintain the power structures that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
True revolutionary change requires media that genuinely represents the working class and challenges capitalist hegemony, not just a rebranding of existing power dynamics. Let’s stay critical and always question who benefits from the media we consume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Signing a petition to remove the government after just four months seems like populism in action, driven by the same opportunistic tactics we saw during Brexit. Instead of reacting emotionally, let's examine the facts: which promises made by this government in the past four months have been broken? It's worth asking whether a government, any government, can realistically implement significant changes or resolve deep-seated issues in such a short time. If there are genuine grievances, they deserve to be articulated with clarity and backed by evidence, rather than resorting to knee-jerk reactions that undermine democratic processes. To give you some help, I have chosen just ten of choice policy commitments:
🔹 NHS Improvements: Reduce waiting times by adding 40,000 more appointments weekly, doubling cancer scanners, and implementing a dentistry rescue plan
🔹 Mental Health Reform: Employ 8,500 more mental health staff and develop the first whole-government plan for improved mental health outcomes
🔹 Neighbourhood Policing: Recruit 13,000 additional police officers and introduce a Domestic Abuse Register to track offenders
🔹 Green Economy Initiatives: Create a publicly owned energy company (GB Energy) to ensure energy independence and support the transition to clean power
🔹 Education Commitments: Free breakfast clubs for every primary school and increased investment in teachers and support staff
🔹 Housing Plans: Build 1.5 million new homes through planning reforms and help first-time buyers with a mortgage guarantee scheme
🔹 Social Care Overhaul: Develop a world-class National Care Service to mirror the NHS's success
🔹 Economic Reforms: Establish a National Wealth Fund and legislate a New Deal for Working People
🔹 Constitutional Reforms: Establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission, reform the House of Lords, and lower the voting age to 16
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertkelleher1639 What you say is quite inconsequential, as with the EU, you join as a block and leave as a block. Now you claim that everything you stated was fact . First off, saying that all trade other than with Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands is inconsequential. This is not a fact, it is a value judgement, as it is based on the notion that we should trade with some and we shouldn’t trade with the “inconsequential” Bulgaria, Latvia etc. So let’s go through your other “facts”.
If the UK never does any trade whatsoever with at least 15 of the current 27 it would not matter a jot . Is this a FACT? Or is this mere speculation? And what is this based on? Can you provide data? Maybe you should have done more research .
Shackling the country economically and politically to Eastern Europe in particular via a supranational organisation laughingly still called by some (remainers) a trade group was absolute madness … Is this a FACT? Or again is this a matter of opinion? Or is you’re your reasoning based on an anti-EU ideology? Firstly, define your terms, and be specific in what you mean by “shackling”? If you want to discuss the matter of EU integration for the East-Central European region, I have insight as I have lived in the region for over twenty years, so please explain what you mean by “shackling”.
What is more your anti-EU ideology even makes the projection of my ideological view of the EU. OK, I will put it out there: in 2016 I didn’t vote for the EU, I voted against the liars and the chaos and massive economic, social and political impact that includes fall in GDP, the loss of free movement, and ERASMUS.
Finally, I will address this purple passage: unless of course you're a globalist on the take whose dream is the abolition of the nation state. 27 members but only 9 net contributors that leaves 18 who have been members for at least 10 to more than 40 years and all are still net beneficiaries as I said absolute madness . Deep breath! Did you even think about what you were writing? Are these really FACTS ? There is certainly no evidence to support such deranged rantings of a desperate man clinging to an impossible dream that is fading. Almost as if the arguments are negated to the level of idiocy. Here’s to a “lack of reasoning” on my part. By the way, I always think that do some research : is a dog whistle coming from tedious conspiracists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some great critical thinking going on here, I think . Do you know anything about electoral history, about the Chartists, about the rioting leading to the 1832 Reform Act, about the Suffragettes, or anything about universal suffrage? Put simply, in parliamentary history, the ''common man'' has never represented the common man, or woman. The FPTP system makes marginal constituencies the only arbiter in General Elections. The only other country using FPTP in Europe is Belarus. Quite ironic therefore, that the European Parliament was considered "undemocratic". As for the House of Lords, you want more representation by more billionaires? There are currently 783 Peers and 650 in the Commons, meaning that about 70% of the UK parliament is unelected. That is highest percentage of unelected delegates, even including North Korea. How then is it that in the Democracy Index the UK is considered a full democracy ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 Laugh all you like - but if a serious point makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s because it hits too close to home. Just out of curiosity, have your leaders ever actually defined what they mean by “fighting age”? How is that different from “working age”?
Using someone’s age as the sole basis for suspicion is a weak metric - especially when most people aged 18 - 40 are students, workers, or parents. Are we applying this same logic to tourists, expats, or European migrants in that same bracket? Or is this selective outrage?
If the real concern were national security, we’d be talking about evidence, intent, and due process. Instead, we get fear-driven soundbites. So the question remains: is this about safety, or is it about scapegoating ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding Blair’s knighthood, it’s time to remind ourselves of who voted for military action in Iraq in February 2003. Those 434 MPs were all complicit in ‘’Blair's War’’. Now apart from the usual suspects (yes, predictably Mandelson etc.), there are respected parliamentarians (Harriet Harman, Dominic Grieve, yes even David Lammy!); a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (David Trimble), the ‘’libertarians’’ (Desi Swain, Tim Loughton) who seek to protect your freedom whilst voting to destroy the lives of many hundred of thousands of lives. Then there are the frankly sociopathic (Redwood, I.D.S. etc.).
An estimated 288,000 died in this conflict, and gave rise to further instability and ISIS..
Those complicit should also not be forgotten for their role in this war .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trouble is people like you have not known dictatorship, and you are too ready to term it "dictatorship" willy nilly without any evidence for this. And too many people "Like" the comments unquestioningly. So in Britain today, is ...
🔹Is power concentrated in the hands of one leader or a small group with minimal checks and balances?
🔹Are elections in the country free, fair, and genuinely competitive?
🔹Is political opposition systematically silenced, harassed, jailed, or exiled?
🔹Is the media tightly controlled by the state, with significant censorship and propaganda?
🔹Is the legal system manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling party or leader, lacking judicial independence?
🔹Are there widespread human rights violations, such as arbitrary arrests, torture, or extrajudicial killings?
🔹Do citizens lack fundamental civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly, expression, and religion?
🔹Does the state use secret police, militias, or paramilitary groups to maintain control through fear and intimidation?
🔹Are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and independent civil society groups restricted, harassed, or banned?
🔹Is there a personality cult around the leader, with state propaganda portraying them as infallible and essential to the nation’s survival?
How many "YESES" did the UK score for Starmer's Britain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, government is bad for, so why is there no discussion of anarchy? In an anarchist society, there would be no centralised government or formal hierarchy. Instead, communities would self-organise through voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and decentralised decision-making. People would collectively manage resources and services through local assemblies, cooperatives, or federations, with a focus on equality and direct participation. Dispute resolution would be based on consensus, restorative justice, or community-based systems rather than state-imposed laws. The goal is a society based on autonomy, freedom, and solidarity without coercive authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnbrereton5229 The Johnson government promised that Northern Ireland border would remain ‘’absolutely unchanged’’. Now Brexit purists say it’s not Brexit unless NI trading is destroyed!! There was no plan, no thought given to the peace agreement that had been finalised in 1998. Sir John Major was a not a minor actor in bringing the two sides of the NI community together. He and Blair understood more than the Vote Leave campaigners, or UKIP. The Brexiteers gave not a damn and would sooner throw NI under that campaign bus.
Now, Northern Ireland, In the words of the Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole, is being used to try to solve the great political dilemma of Brexit: who do you blame when you’ve killed the scapegoat ? To say that it was the only solution to ‘’get Brexit done’’ just supports my point that it was a dodged job with no plan, flying by the seat of Johnson’s pants on a wing and a prayer. Johnson strategy is always simple: agree and then renege, cheat and lie. At the moment, NI is doing fine as part of the customs union. Now you, together with Brexit hardliners including the DUP, want to revoke article 16, to put up borders and to make it more difficult for businesses in NI to trade with their customers over the border. It is ideological lunacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lsd8497 The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has notable connections with the UK government, the Conservative Party, and Reform UK, demonstrated through various interactions and affiliations.
Links with the UK Government and the Conservative Party
🔹 Policy Influence and Connections : The IEA has been found to have significant influence on policy and high-level connections within the Conservative Party. For instance, recordings revealed by The Observer in 2018 showed the IEA's Director General, Mark Littlewood, claiming that funders could gain access to ministers and influence policy, specifically mentioning the IEA's involvement in Brexit-related advocacy (Wikipedia). This incident led to a Charity Commission investigation due to concerns about the IEA's political independence.
🔹 Events and Conferences : The IEA hosts and participates in events that feature prominent Conservative politicians. For example, the ThinkTent events at Conservative Party conferences have included discussions chaired or attended by senior Conservative MPs such as Chris Loder, Huw Merriman, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, and Michael Gove (Institute of Economic Affairs) (Institute of Economic Affairs).
🔹 Public Health Policies : The IEA's stance on public health policies, particularly its opposition to minimum unit pricing for alcohol, aligns with the views of some Conservative politicians. Health Secretary Matt Hancock's positions on such policies have shown alignment with the IEA’s perspectives, although this alignment has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest given the IEA's opaque funding sources, including possible contributions from the alcohol and tobacco industries (BMJ).
Links with Reform UK
Reform UK, initially known as the Brexit Party, has also shown ideological alignment with the IEA's free-market principles. The IEA’s advocacy for deregulation and free trade resonates with the positions often championed by Reform UK, particularly its focus on economic liberalism and minimal government intervention. While specific direct interactions between the IEA and Reform UK are less documented compared to those with the Conservative Party, the shared ideological space suggests a supportive relationship.
Overall, the IEA's connections with key political figures and its involvement in policy discussions underscore its influential role in shaping UK political discourse, especially within right-leaning parties such as the Conservative Party and Reform UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lsd8497 The XXX has notable connections with the UK government, the Conservative Party, and Reform UK, demonstrated through various interactions and affiliations. Links with the UK Government and the Conservative Party
Policy Influence and Connections : The XXX has been found to have significant influence on policy and high-level connections within the Conservative Party. For instance, recordings revealed by The Observer in 2018 showed the XXX’s Director General, Mark Littlewood, claiming that funders could gain access to ministers and influence policy, specifically mentioning the XXX’s involvement in Brexit-related advocacy (Wikipedia). This incident led to a Charity Commission investigation due to concerns about the XXX’s political independence.
Events and Conferences : The XXX hosts and participates in events that feature prominent Conservative politicians. For example, the ThinkTent events at Conservative Party conferences have included discussions chaired or attended by senior Conservative MPs such as Chris Loder, Huw Merriman, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, and Michael Gove (XXX).
Public Health Policies : The XXX’s stance on public health policies, particularly its opposition to minimum unit pricing for alcohol, aligns with the views of some Conservative politicians. Health Secretary Matt Hancock's positions on such policies have shown alignment with the XXX’s perspectives, although this alignment has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest given the XXX’s opaque funding sources, including possible contributions from the alcohol and tobacco industries (BMJ). Links with Reform UK Reform UK, initially known as the Brexit Party, has also shown ideological alignment with the XXX’s free-market principles. The XXX’s advocacy for deregulation and free trade resonates with the positions often championed by Reform UK, particularly its focus on economic liberalism and minimal government intervention. While specific direct interactions between the XXX and Reform UK are less documented compared to those with the Conservative Party, the shared ideological space suggests a supportive relationship.
Overall, the XXX’s connections with key political figures and its involvement in policy discussions underscore its influential role in shaping UK political discourse, especially within right-leaning parties such as the Conservative Party and Reform UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakeman9902 Well that's right, but surely you have heard the news about Brexit's impact. Since COVID hit in 2020, economies worldwide have been on different recovery paths. For the UK, though, it’s been a bit tougher – not just because of COVID but also due to Brexit. Trade barriers, labour shortages, and higher inflation have slowed things down compared to countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands, which didn’t have those extra Brexit challenges. So, while the pandemic shook up everyone, Brexit added a layer to the UK’s struggle to bounce back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakeman9902 It seems even eight years after the referendum, and there’s still confusion. The EU and the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, are completely separate institutions. The Brexit vote was about leaving the EU, not ditching human rights protections . By pushing to leave the ECHR, you're moving the goalposts to reject anything “European”, even protections that safeguard your own rights. For example, the ECHR has defended workers’ rights, prevented unlawful surveillance, and upheld the right to a fair trial. Why would we want to strip these protections away from ourselves?
As for _ we still allowed certain people in, and they increased_ , are you referring to EU citizens, or people from outside the EU? If from outside, what has that got to do with Brexit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakeman9902 To sum up, since COVID-19 hit, the UK has faced a tougher recovery than countries like Germany and France, primarily due to Brexit's impact, which has brought trade barriers, labour shortages, and inflation. Leaving the EU resulted in significant labour shortages in key sectors, contradicting claims that the UK hasn’t experienced a "real Brexit." Blaming asylum seekers for economic issues overlooks the more significant effects of Brexit.
The UK has fully implemented Brexit, and while some EU agreements remain in place, managing these complexities required compromises. Sovereignty is intact, but total withdrawal from EU regulations could harm businesses and consumers. Additionally, confusion persists about the differences between the EU and the Council of Europe regarding human rights protections, which are crucial for safeguarding rights. Ultimately, true sovereignty is about balancing independence with meaningful cooperation to tackle shared challenges effectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakeman9902 Finally, my opinion, If Brexit has shown us anything, it’s that “sovereignty” can often be used as a cover to disguise deeper class divides and inequalities. While the rhetoric focuses on “taking back control,” who has truly benefited? The answer isn’t the average worker but rather the wealthy, whose interests are served by reduced regulation and an economy that prioritizes profit over public good. Reform UK talks about sovereignty, but who funds their campaigns, and who really shapes their policies? It’s not the everyday people; it’s the oligarchs who stand to gain from deregulation and weakened worker protections.
When it comes to asylum seekers arriving in boats, it’s worth considering whether this is a real threat to your economic security, or just a convenient distraction. The real issue is policies that enrich a few at the expense of the many. Reform UK may talk about “freedom” from the EU and controlling borders, but ask yourself – are they fighting for your economic interests, or just using sovereignty as a tool to keep workers divided?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alansbinnie1446 Are you so contemptible as to defend your glorious leader? Yes I did make stupid mistakes, but the difference is my mine have not had such a devastating effect on the country. Burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person in the 1980's, Johnson is now forty years later sadistically attacking the most vulnerable in society. Because he can. He has enablers, the media, fellow Tories, and people like you who forgive his mistakes because ‘he is trying his best.’
On the day that Johnson boasts of levelling up the country, he makes 5.5 million families £1,040 a year worse off, thereby increasing child poverty. Why? Because he can: to make the likes of you feel good about yourselves. Rising fuel and gas prices, food shortages, Does this man care? No. Brexit was done to make the likes of you repeat that tired abstract noun: GOREY INVEST (work it out).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The increasing inequality in the UK is alarming. In the last year alone, billionaire oligarchs have amassed even greater fortunes, fuelling wealth inflation – a process where their disproportionate control of resources distorts the economy. This doesn’t just mean they get richer; it drives up living costs, suppresses wages, and shapes economic policies that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy, leaving ordinary people struggling.
The UK now has 57 billionaires (4 more than last year), and a 2025 Oxfam report highlights that billionaire fortunes grew three times faster in 2024 than the previous year. This growing concentration of wealth entrenches inequality and deepens the economic divide. Meanwhile, the country continues to bear the scars of 14 years of austerity, which slashed public services to the bone.
Consider what we’ve lost:
🔹200 museums
🔹244 courts and tribunals
🔹279 playing fields
🔹451 homeless services
🔹600 police stations
🔹673 public toilets
🔹750 youth centres
🔹793 playgrounds
🔹800 libraries
🔹926 football pitches
🔹1,086 swimming pools
🔹1,416 Sure Start children’s centres
🔹8,000 bus routes
🔹25,000 NHS beds
And then we wonder why the economy is in such a state! Austerity has gutted the infrastructure that supports communities, stifling opportunity and hope.
What we need are leaders who are truly patriotic—those who will look after the interests of the people, not false patriots like Reform UK, who are only interested in serving billionaire oligarchs.
It’s time for a government bold enough to properly fund public services by taxing the super-wealthy, ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders contribute their fair share. The last thing we need is more privatisation, selling off what’s left of our public services to private interests.
Inequality isn’t inevitable – it’s a political choice. Let’s choose people over profit and invest in the common good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cultists, conspiracists, numpties 🤡🤡🤡 or serious spokesperson for a political force in society? That is the question!
You are clearly at a deeper level than understanding that the UK left 31 Jan 2020 and left the transition period at the end of 2020. To find out, whether you are 🤡🤡🤡or someone who takes society seriously, who will use substantive arguments supported by reasoning and evidence or you are simply 🤡🤡🤡, a couple of questions:
Firstly, a question about regulatory divergence:
After Brexit, the UK began diverging from EU regulations in areas like financial services and data protection. So my question is are the changes in regulatory policies substantial enough to signify true independence, or are they more superficial adjustments ?
Secondly, on the subject of you beloved sovereignty: do you believe that Brexit has achieved its goals of full sovereignty and independence for the UK, or do you think more radical changes are needed to fulfill the promise of Brexit ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Calling this deal a “betrayal” ignores the fact that it's a review and reset of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal - one that many businesses, farmers, and young people have been calling for since it came into force. It's not about reversing Brexit or rejoining the EU, but fixing what clearly hasn’t worked in practice.
Take trade, for example: under Johnson’s deal, small UK food exporters lost access to EU markets due to red tape. This agreement reduces SPS checks, helping small producers export again – particularly crucial for Northern Ireland and rural England. That’s not betrayal, it’s supporting British business.
On fisheries, UK quotas aren’t changing, but in return for temporary EU access, our seafood can be sold into Europe without burdensome veterinary checks. That’s a practical trade-off to keep jobs and exports alive.
The Erasmus+ scheme and youth mobility allow young Brits to study, work, and travel – boosting education, life experience, and future earning power. Again, this benefits us, not the EU.
Even on security and the environment, regaining Europol access and linking carbon markets means stronger protection at home and fairer competition abroad (e.g. no tariffs on steel).
If Boris Johnson’s deal was truly “done” and working, why have so many sectors - from farming to manufacturing to education - demanded change? Isn’t responding to that reality just good governance ?
This is about repairing damage, not reversing democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@verindictus3639 Origins of free speech was in publication of material_ . Was there social media when Milton wrote Areopagitica in 1644? Also do I have to explain the difference between a social media post and a publication? Do you not know the difference? There is a whole world of difference between the kind of paranoid, unsubstantiated nonsense you conspiracist dezinformators post on social media and a publication that goes through the process of editing, review, and in the case of journals, peer review, in order to overcome legal issues, biases, and unsubstantiated claims. There are stakeholders involved in seeing this is done accurately: editors, publishers, printers, etc. Only when this process is completed is the book “published”. Failure to do this will result in books being pulped as the Dutch edition of the Harry and Meghan book was recently. A post is merely shared. As for hate speech, as I said it is the law that defines it. I also said that living in a country outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR – Russia and Belarus will give you the freedom you crave!
You claim that the establishment labels any speech as “hate” that threatens its power. Unfortunately, like many GBers you cannot substantiate it with evidence or examples. Instead you make massive generalisations that hang there for right-wing numpties to “Like”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Has Brexit really been a success? And if not, why is any call to improve or review it labelled a “betrayal”? If a “hard” Brexit has caused real economic and diplomatic damage, how exactly would an even harder version be any more successful?
Take Switzerland as a comparison. It’s often cited as a successful non-EU country – but what’s rarely mentioned is that it reached its current position after decades of careful negotiation, including 12 public referenda to refine its relationship with the EU. That’s democratic engagement, not a one-off protest vote.
The UK, by contrast, rushed into a vague “Leave” outcome from a single, simplistic referendum. There was no clear plan, no roadmap, and no effort to build broad, lasting consent. As a result, the UK now has a distant and damaging relationship with its biggest trading partner - and very little to show for it.
If improving Brexit to better serve the public is “betrayal,” what does that say about who really benefited from the version we got ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Amanda Hughes What have I learned? That You have such hatred for the EU, you cannot even be reasoned enough to support your HATE by actually reading this f++king thing!! There is no Daily Express gloss on this. A few points you need to give me answers to . Why is "loss of sovereignty" in inverted commas? Why is there an emphasis on essential sovereignty, of which the UK has lost none? Afterall, the UK continued to use common law. One phrase jumped out at me: restraint but not restriction we can freely make laws but we cannot freely trade because there is a binding contract. There is the internal and external aspects of sovereignty. The external aspect: the UK is no different - we are still on a permanent member of the UN Security Council. And as the KGB News love national identity – your fascist Hitler lover Nancy Mitford said Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends . On this it is why I have spent most of the last three decades outside of Britain: the narrow-minded, arrogant, and a sense of entitlement of the British. And nowhere is this narrower and nastier than at GB News!!! In the central and eastern I feel freer in a post –Soviet society than the UK.
What do you think of: Loss of Sovereignty” may be a euphemism for fear of change and of the unknown . (the spelling in this document is atrocious)
There should be what I consider practical (non-essential) – sovereignty, of which we have lost so much of since leaving the customs union in 2020. It seems Brexiteers seem to ignore this or dress it up as a victory. This is the restrain not the restriction . That is the main thing I take away from this document.
As for ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ – the UK is the most bloated and anti-democratic! The House of Lords has over 800 unelected members, the most in the world – more than Russia, China or North Korea, yet the argument is that the EU Parliament using PR is not as democratic as the UK parliament that uses -FPTP (only Belarus in Europe uses this)
There was six days of debate in October 1971(356 in favour: 244 against). There was not even one day in 2016, the government didn’t want discussion, they wanted you people who really had no idea of the consequences to decide.
national identity, opposition to change, mistrust of bureaucracy and a belief that Britain standing alone should control its destiny. these may be at the source of much anxiety about and instinctive opposition to British entry . What did you learn that you didn’t know in 1975? Conclusion: the British people were not misled, they were not lied to by Heath and Wilson.
Answer this: why would the government release this when people don’t even read the political party manifestoes? You have proved this.
As a reasonable question considering the claim you make: can you point to what exactly Edward Heath lied about to the British public from 1971-5? Specifically what aspect of sovereignty did he mislead the people?
NO WHATABOUTISM
1
-
@Amanda Hughes I repeat I am not pro-EU, to put it simply, I am against all institutions that are oppressive, and the Tory controlled UK government is far more oppressive than anything the EU has done . Anyway, it seems that you have not read the very document that “proves” your case. And the argument that it was not published in 1971 as evidence of collusion does not hold water. If you had wanted to read it in 1971, you would have had to gone to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office to buy a copy. Nowadays, the document is freely available to read, but have not read it! . Surely, this supports my “lack of interest” position. Not knowing the difference between restraint and restriction, between essential and practical sovereignty (no real change in the former, decline in the latter due to a decrease in trade leverage). Why do you need to read it anyway, seeing as you are unreasonably attached to your beliefs and opinions and are antagonistic towards the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How would you respond to someone who suggests scrapping food standards, mandatory holidays, or health and safety policies in the UK? These are protections that many take for granted, ensuring quality, well-being, and fair treatment. Now, consider a similar call: “Vote for Reform UK!”– a party that has promoted deregulation and limited government oversight in several areas. When you examine these positions closely, they share a common thread: the drive to reduce or remove standards and protections. In essence, a vote for sweeping deregulation could mean eroding safeguards that impact public health, workplace fairness, and safety. Is this truly the direction we want to go?
Do you think removing protections like food standards, holiday entitlements, or health and safety policies would improve life in the UK? Or do you feel these safeguards are essential for fairness, quality, and well-being?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garrywynne1218 You clearly have a lack of intellectual humility. Or is it a case of classic Duning-Kruger effect? In other words, those with the most confidence are those with the least knowledge: confidence in their conative ( sic ) abilities. Or just stunning arrogance! Which is it? As for the reports, weren't these published after 2016, so information was unavailable before the Referendum? This is counter-factual evidence to say if people know this in 2023, they would have voted differently in 2016. I am sure if Germans knew what they knew in 1945 many would have voted differently in 1933. What is done is done and cannot be undone (Macbeth). People voted the way they did because they were conned, they were lied to, they were taken in my liars and charlatans, and of a survey of 1,077 people in 2016, those with a degree vote 26/74% leave, those with no qualifications voted 65/35% leave. The take away is that those with a higher level of education are less likely to be fooled by politicians. As Trump said, “I love the uneducated!”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The claim that Hitler was "far-left" is a myth perpetuated by you people but it's not supported by historical evidence. In fact, Hitler and the Nazi Party were ideologically aligned with the far-right. Here's some evidence to support this claim:
Nationalism: Hitler's ideology was centred around extreme nationalism, which is a hallmark of far-right politics. He promoted the idea of a racially pure German nation (Aryan race) and sought to expand its territory through conquest.
Authoritarianism: Hitler's regime was highly authoritarian, with power centralized in his hands. Far-left ideologies typically advocate for equality and decentralization of power, which is the opposite of Hitler's autocratic rule.
Anti-communism: Hitler and the Nazis were vehemently anti-communist. They viewed communism as a threat to their vision of a racially homogeneous society and sought to eradicate it. This aligns with far-right ideologies, which often oppose leftist movements and advocate for preserving traditional social hierarchies.
Corporate ties: Hitler's regime had close ties to big business and corporate interests. Far-left ideologies typically oppose capitalism and advocate for worker control of the means of production. However, Hitler's regime actively supported and collaborated with large corporations, which is more characteristic of far-right economic policies.
Social hierarchy: The Nazis promoted a hierarchical social order based on race, with Aryans at the top and other ethnic and minority groups subjected to discrimination and persecution. Far-left ideologies, such as socialism and communism, typically aim to dismantle social hierarchies and promote equality among all people.
Cultural conservatism: Hitler and the Nazis were culturally conservative, promoting traditional gender roles, family values, and censorship of art and literature deemed degenerate. Far-left ideologies often advocate for social progressivism and cultural liberalism, which are at odds with Hitler's conservative agenda.
By examining these factors, it becomes clear that Hitler's ideology and policies were aligned with the far-right rather than the far-left. So it is important to stop spreading such false information and so have a more accurate understanding of history and politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddiecalderone
That is not a source! You are distracting from the fact that the UK has a gr0ssly c0rrupt electoral system. Out of 1,438, only 650 are elected, which means that only 45 percent of representatives are elected. The Tories now have a working majority of 55 in the Commons, and 100 in the Lords. How is that democratic? What is more, since you voted to Leave the “undemocr@tic” EU, successive PMs have ennobled 171 Life Peers (including 30 from Truss, which works out an average of 223 per year!). Compare this to 705 MEP voted for by PR, and 27 Commissioners voted for by the 705 MEPs (100 percent elected). The UK is the only parliamentary system in Europe, apart from Belarus, which uses FPTP. The Tories got 365 seat (56% of the seats) with just 43.6% share of the vote, whereas Labour got 202 (31% of the seats) with 32.1% of the vote. When Brexit Party won the 2019 election to the European Parliament, which uses PR, it won 29 seats, three times more than all the MEPs for Slovakia. And it is BP who were complaining of how undemocratic it is!
The Vote Leave statement: "L3aving the EU is a great opportunity for us to take b@ck control of our borders, our economy and our democracy” has a hollow ring to it! Gove and Johnson were the ones that promised that Br3xit would make you much better off. Has it taken b@ck control of bord3rs? Has it taken back control of our democracy? It seems to me that the right-wing lib3rt@rian billion@ires funding news channels and think t@nks are using the @nger and @lienation of working class @uthoritarians. As with Brexit, who benefitted the most from this alliance? Who will continue to benefit most?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chamberpot969 While I understand the concern that perceived repression of ordinary people could lead to a rise in fascism, I think it's crucial to look at the broader context. The rise of populist and far-right movements in the UK isn't just a reaction to left-wing politics or any single political figure. Instead, it's a response to long-standing socio-economic issues, especially after the 2008 financial crisis, the austerity measures that followed, and the disillusionment surrounding Brexit.
For the last 14 years, the Tory government has failed to address the needs and concerns of many in the population, particularly those who feel left behind by globalisation and economic changes. This failure has led to widespread frustration and disillusionment with the political establishment, creating fertile ground for more extreme ideologies to take root.
These conditions created a breeding ground for extreme ideologies, not because people are repressed, but because they are frustrated and feel voiceless. The answer isn't to embrace more authoritarian responses but to push for a society that truly represents the needs of everyone - something that traditional parties have failed to do. By focusing on grassroots, democratic change, we can address these issues without falling into the trap of far-right extremism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LennyCole96 It’s important to challenge narratives that are heavily influenced by certain media outlets. While I am no fan of Starmer, it's worth digging deeper to understand the policies and reforms they've been implementing. Mainstream outlets like GB News, Talk TV, and the Daily Mail often focus on sensationalism rather than balanced reporting. So here are a few things that the Labour government has been doing that the media has not been reporting.
Summary of Labour Government Reforms (December 2024)
Anti-Corruption and Legal Reforms
🔹Anti-Corruption Unit: A new Domestic Corruption Unit established by the Home Office and City of London Police.
🔹Legal Aid Funding: Increased funding for criminal legal aid (+12%) and fees for police station and youth court work (+£24 million). Plans to consult on civil legal aid fees.
🔹Court Backlog: 2,000 additional Crown Court sitting days planned, the highest in a decade.
Local Government and Housing
🔹Council Funding: A £69 billion funding package with a real-terms increase of 3.5%, including a £600 million Recovery Grant and £3.7 billion for social care.
🔹Military Housing: Re-nationalisation of 36,347 military homes to address chronic underinvestment and improve conditions.
🔹Dangerous Cladding: New targets for cladding removal on high-rise buildings by 2029, with accelerated developer repairs by 2027.
🔹Homelessness Support: £10 million emergency fund for rough sleepers and 32 new Homebuilding Skills Hubs for apprenticeships.
Support for Veterans and Vulnerable Groups
🔹Veteran Compensation: Up to £70,000 for LGBT+ veterans dismissed due to discrimination (1967–2000).
Veteran Housing: Prioritised social housing access and £3.5 million for homeless veteran support.
Education and Workforce
🔹School Support: Reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to boost wages and union involvement.
🔹Green Schools: £2 million energy-efficiency pilot in London schools.
🔹Music Opportunities: A scheme for disadvantaged children offering singing and music lessons.
Environment and Energy
🔹Clean Power Plan: A roadmap to 95% renewable electricity grid welcomed by environmental groups.
🔹Global Clean Power Alliance: Initiative launched at G20 to accelerate clean energy worldwide.
🔹Zero-Emission Vehicles: £88 million fund for clean vehicle technology.
Economic and Social Spending
🔹Business Support: New Business Growth Service launching in 2025 for SMEs. Business rates reduced for small high-street businesses.
🔹Military Pay: Largest pay increase in decades for military personnel.
🔹Mineworker Pensions: Increases to rectify historical pension injustices.
Health and Social Care
🔹Hospice Funding: £100 million allocated for buildings, equipment, and accommodation over two years.
Justice and Policing
🔹Women’s Justice Board: Established to address gender-specific issues in the justice system.
🔹Police Reforms: Creation of a Police Performance Unit and National Centre of Policing.
🔹Intimate Image Abuse: Strengthened laws to combat abuse.
International Policy
🔹Sanctions on Russia: New measures targeting illicit oil vessels.
🔹UK-Germany Defence Pact: Signed to enhance bilateral cooperation.
These reforms span a range of areas, addressing social justice, environmental sustainability, and public sector investment. They reflect a shift towards increased government intervention and public ownership in key sectors.
How can we make sure we understand what the government is really doing, instead of only believing what the media tells us ?
1
-
1
-
Clearly you cannot support you claim with any shred of evidence for what Anderson has done for the people of Ashfield. If he is listening to constituents, then it is those who think they have too many human rights, and that there is too much equality. They are the people who said ”Hey Lee, vote to allow water companies to continue dumping raw sewage into our rivers and seas!” “Sh!t in our rivers, you da man!” Are there really people like this? Maybe Geebeebies that couldn’t give a shite about the environment, and despise the unions; those that think there is an undeserving poor that can’t budget and so want more food banks. But these constituents also love the wealthy because one day they could be wealthy too. So yeah Lee, cut corporate tax, cut taxes on banks, also allow wealthy people to continue avoid paying tax. Also “keep your nose in the trough Lee, ol’ boy, you do the people of Ashfield proud!” Now those are the constituents to listen to!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timg1246 Elon Musk has recently been making public pronouncements about UK politicians and engaging in discussions that influence UK politics. However, his knowledge of the UK’s political landscape appears limited, and his interventions often serve to seduce populist audiences into believing he has the nation's best interests at heart. This is a misconception. Musk's primary motivations, like those of many influential billionaires, are likely aligned with his business interests and personal ideology rather than the well-being of the UK populace.
It is worth noting that many of us would strongly oppose interference in UK politics by foreign billionaires under ordinary circumstances. Why, then, should Elon Musk be an exception? His wealth and global influence should not grant him an uncritical platform to shape public opinion or political discourse in a country where he has no democratic accountability. Musk’s track record in other regions demonstrates a tendency to prioritise his business ventures, such as Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), over the broader public good.
For instance, Musk’s purchase of Twitter and subsequent policy changes have sparked debates over freedom of speech and the platform’s role in amplifying divisive rhetoric. His engagement with politicians and governments often appears opportunistic, as seen in his interactions with U.S. and international leaders where he has lobbied for regulatory changes or tax breaks favourable to his companies.
Ultimately, allowing Musk or any foreign billionaire to exert influence on UK politics sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines democratic processes and shifts power further into the hands of an unelected elite. British citizens should remain vigilant against such interventions and question the motivations behind them, ensuring that decisions affecting the UK remain grounded in the democratic will of its people rather than the interests of a global elite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markohenry5891 You have a scattergun approach to argumentation. You think I am telling you what to think. Well you are free to think what you will. However, it is the thought processes of people like you that needs to be worked on. I am not going for the cheap ad hominem attack argument. Well I will be unable to tell you what to think as it appears there is an emptiness of thought , that does not, of course, foster any dialogue, any conversation. There also appears to be a lot of anger and paranoia, or indeed “paranoia in reverse”: since it is the paranoid, supposedly, the one who feels persecuted. Just remember that freedom is relational and can only be “activated” when working in solidarity with those with similar aims. An anarchist will no doubt tell you to never do or support what seems to work against the goals you are striving for, just because the ends justifies the means, or that we must dirty our hands to achieve progress, or bomb civilians, or dehumanise foreigners, or witness poverty in the name of economic growth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ It’s important to understand exactly what you voted for – and what you didn’t. Who was even talking about the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2016? The referendum was about leaving the European Union and the jurisdiction of its court, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), not about withdrawing from the Council of Europe and its court, the ECHR. At that time, the only European country outside the Council of Europe was Belarus.
Brexit was ultimately a ruse orchestrated by a faction of the capitalist class eager to maximise profits by dismantling protections – labour rights, consumer protections, and environmental regulations. They struck a deal with working people, persuading them to vote against their own interests. If you supported that, then you’re apparently happy to forgo labour protections, a clean environment, and safe food standards. But not everyone is willing to stand by as human and civil rights are eroded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaywhy245 O kay, I’ll make it simple for you: when I said French_, you could just as easily read _Czech, Danish, Slovak , or Slovene . It’s called rhetoric – using a familiar example to illustrate a broader point. The fact that you fixate on that one word suggests you’re avoiding the core issue.
And as for “there can be no statistics until this experiment has happened,” that’s not how responsible policymaking works. We make informed decisions by looking at similar schemes, available data, and setting clear goals. Waiting and seeing isn’t a plan – it’s an abdication of critical thinking. If you’re genuinely open to being wrong, then engage with the facts and arguments, not just your fears.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So David, explain how this would actually help the people of the UK. Reform UK is a party funded by dirty money, as is the Reclaim Party: all bank-rolled by the fossil fuel investor and climate change denier, Jeremy Hosking. Imagine what Reform and Reclaim could get up to: corruption at the very heart of their business model ; not a political model: they are running the party in the interests of big business!
Reform UK is at heart the party of the rentier class. Tice is a representative of the capitalist class getting people to rise up as a movement with all-absorbing power to demand a world not in their interests, but in the interests of the minority capitalist class: low regulation, low taxes. Keynes once proclaimed "the euthanasia of the rentier". That would take care of Reform UK and the Tories. To return to low rates of interest would mean:
the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital .
Apart from Tice, who is the talent and intellectual core of the party? What policies do they have - apart from stopping immigration, revoking people's human rights, and isolating the UK? I'd love to know!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TyleeBrowne You have again and again questioned my intelligence. Now it is time to question your relentless devotion to a populist party … erm … business model. Are you pushing for Reform UK – for more privatisation, more tax cuts that only benefit the wealthy, while ignoring the poor and vulnerable? Politicians like Farage and parties such as Reform UK don't actually fight for working-class people. Instead their focus tends to serve the interests of wealthy donors, not everyday workers. Farage himself has been criticised for spreading divisive rhetoric rather than offering real solutions to help the working class. For example, what are the specific measures Reform UK proposes to improve the NHS ? Could the NHS possibly be safe in the hands of someone who said:
I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently, I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare. Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the market place of an insurance company than just us trustingly giving £100bn a year to central government and expecting them to organise the healthcare service from cradle to grave for us . Nigel Farage (2012)
Whose interests might be served by moving to an insurance-based healthcare system, and who would potentially benefit or lose out from this change ?
Privatising our healthcare system is not the answer! Introducing complex contracts and deregulating crucial health standards only puts patients at risk. The proposed radical changes, like abolishing licensing for medical professionals and lifting drug regulations, prioritise profits over patient safety. We need to strengthen the NHS, not sideline it.
What is more, Farage pushing to leave the ECHR is a huge red flag. Populism and stripping people of their human rights often go hand-in-hand. The ECHR protects basic freedoms – like fair trials, privacy, and freedom from discrimination. Leaving it could seriously undermine our rights and make it easier for the government to act without checks and balances. This isn't about 'taking back control'; it's about giving those in power more control over us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB News saying the BBC propagandises is pretty rich! GB News neither informs nor educates, lest entertains, merely propagandises in the interests of those that support disaster capitalism .
As for the report in question, there are four programmes are treated as case studies. They ’cover some of the most sensitive topics that feature in public debate, including slavery, race, empire, Ireland, war and Sir Winston Churchill’ . They are either “comedy travel documentaries” in the case of Ranganathan’s programme, or celebrity Samuel L. Jackson’s or they are journalism. How much historiographical research that went into these programmes is clear from the report. It was a case of making a complex issue simple rather than understanding the complexity. GB News is also never shy of making an issue simple for its viewing public.
The report states, the BBC programmes in question ’give a voice only to one side of a disputed past, even presenting false history as uncontested fact. Furthermore, those presenting or being interviewed as experts generally have little or no expertise in the subjects on which they are making pronouncements, even though these are often complex and controversial matters’ .
There are four recommendations:
To clarify that historical and current affairs documentaries and news reports on historical matters need to be accurate
To commit to reviewing all content produced by its history department.
To update its guidance to independent production companies that history programmes need to be accurate in all significant areas and need to demonstrate a commitment to diversity of opinion amongst programme contributors.
To establish an advisory panel of properly qualified historians that reflects the diversity of scholarly opinion to help reduce group think amongst programme makers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You mean Powell wasn't racist? You can argue 'til the cows come home as to whether he was or not. What Powell was, was an elitist in the ruling class scapegoating migrants, and thereby looking to the working class for support. As has always been the case! As Aneurin Bevan said, how can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century . Farage and Tice are the latest to demonise immigrants and they are using Reform UK as a vehicle to galvanise working class support to demonise, and to reinforce the power of the capitalist class through the “libertarian” agenda: deregulate, strip civil liberties, and push down food standards, and put profit before the needs of people and the environment. What is more, those who will benefit most will include those who already benefit most from a failed immigration policy. For example, Graham Ian King made a £3,000 donation to the Conservative party and makes £26 million a year for his company Clearspring to profit from a dysfunctional asylum system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s great that you feel confident in the choice you made to vote for Brexit, but I’d genuinely love to hear what tangible benefits you’ve experienced as a result. Brexit was sold to us with the promise of taking back control, improving the economy, and empowering communities – but has it delivered on these promises for you personally, or for the country as a whole?
Consider this: the political party driving Brexit has increasingly been funded by companies and individuals who prioritise deregulation. This often means weakening protections for workers, lowering food standards, and privatising essential public services like the NHS. Meanwhile, trade deficits have grown, and many of the UK’s poorest areas – places that were promised investment and revitalisation – are worse off than before. Studies and reports consistently show that working-class people have borne the brunt of these economic challenges.
So, I’d like to know – do you believe these consequences align with what you hoped for when you cast your vote? And if not, do you think there’s still time to address them? Genuine discussion is vital as we all try to make sense of the decisions that shape our lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voting reform in the UK and leaving the ECHR won't "stop the boats." Instead, these changes risk benefiting multi-millionaire oligarchs by deregulating workers' rights and stripping civil liberties.
First, addressing irregular migration requires comprehensive policies tackling root causes, not just legal reforms. For example, focusing on international cooperation and support for countries facing crises would be more effective.
Second, deregulation can lead to exploitation of workers, allowing corporations to prioritise profit over fair wages and safe conditions. This further widens the wealth gap, benefiting the wealthy while harming ordinary workers.
Lastly, leaving the ECHR could weaken protections for vulnerable groups, eroding civil liberties. This would disproportionately affect those who rely on these protections, rather than solving the immigration issue.
In short, these reforms may distract from real solutions and empower those who profit from inequality. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's face it: since Brexit, the UK has not been controlling its borders, whilst the EU has. So as there are no UK border checks, it is possible to import sub-standard food, and allowing unprecedented amounts of smuggling. Rees-Mogg said it would be economic self-harm to carry out checks. The EU is keeping its side of the trade agreement that makes checks on goods an important element of the agreement. As a result, it has been more difficult for farmers to export since Brexit, more red tape, delays, and more expensive. There is nothing about Brexit that has made things cheaper, easier, or more pleasant !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nine years on from Brexit – where is Daniel Hannan’s promised “national renewal”, booming global trade bloc, or deregulated economic miracle? Instead, we’ve got lower growth, higher red tape for exporters, workforce shortages, and a shrinking global influence.
Brexit was sold as a democratic revival – but delivered instability, broken promises, and declining public trust. And now, the very same people who sold us this failed vision – Farage included – are still here, pushing even more extreme versions of what already hasn’t worked.
If Brexit was meant to “take back control,” why do so many now feel they’ve lost it? Maybe it’s time to stop blaming imaginary enemies and start holding the architects of this mess accountable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
@ If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Net-zero policies may involve short-term costs, particularly during the transition away from fossil fuels, but the long-term benefits are substantial: cleaner air, improved public health, and a more sustainable planet. Additionally, renewable energy technologies like solar and wind are becoming increasingly affordable, potentially reducing energy costs over time. To ensure a just transition, governments must prioritise equity and avoid placing undue burdens on low-income communities.
It's important to note that oil and gas prices are determined by global markets, meaning domestic production does not shield us from international price fluctuations. How can we achieve the lowest energy costs when fossil fuel prices are beyond government control? The real solution lies in investing in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which offer the potential for lower long-term costs and a more secure energy future.
Could investing in renewable energy help British factories in the future by giving them cheaper and more stable energy? Why or why not ?
If the UK uses more fossil fuels, how will it deal with changes in global prices and problems like pollution or climate change ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Grymbaldknight Since you seem to like WS Gilbert, you might like the Anglicised Utopia :
Society has quite forsaken all her wicked courses,
Which empties our police courts, and abolishes divorces.
(Divorce is nearly obsolete in England.)
No tolerance we show to undeserving rank and splendour;
For the higher his position is, the greater the offender.
(That's a maxim that is prevalent in England.)
No Peeress at our Drawing-Room before the Presence passes
Who wouldn't be accepted by the lower-middle classes;
Each shady dame, whatever be her rank, is bowed out neatly.
In short, this happy country has been Anglicised completely!
It really is surprising
What a thorough Anglicising
We've brought about - Utopia's quite another land;
In her enterprising movements,
She is England - with improvements,
Which we dutifully offer to our mother-land!
Our city we have beautified - we've done it willy-nilly -
And all that isn't Belgrave Square is Strand and Piccadilly.
(They haven't any slummeries in England.)
We have solved the labour question with discrimination polished,
So poverty is obsolete and hunger is abolished -
(They are going to abolish it in England.)
The Chamberlain our native stage has purged, beyond a question,
Of "risky" situation and indelicate suggestion;
No piece is tolerated if it's costumed indiscreetly -
In short, this happy country has been Anglicised completely!
It really is surprising
What a thorough Anglicising
We've brought about - Utopia's quite another land;
In her enterprising movements,
She is England - with improvements,
Which we dutifully offer to our mother-land!
Our Peerage we've remodelled on an intellectual basis,
Which certainly is rough on our hereditary races -
(They are going to remodel it in England.)
The Brewers and the Cotton Lords no longer seek admission,
And Literary Merit meets with proper recognition -
(As Literary Merit does in England!)
Who knows but we may count among our intellectual chickens
Like them an Earl of Thackeray and p'raps a Duke of Dickens -
Lord Fildes and Viscount Millais (when they come) we'll welcome
sweetly -
And then, this happy country will be Anglicised completely!
It really is surprising
What a thorough Anglicising
We've brought about - Utopia's quite another land;
In her enterprising movements,
She is England - with improvements,
Which we dutifully offer to our mother-land!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just Stop Oil is being vindicated :
In summation the District Judge stated:
“It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.”
“When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.”
“No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.”
“Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.”
“I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.”
“You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wedge5896 Tommy Robinson did knowingly violate court orders, repeatedly and deliberately – not to reveal some hidden truth, but in full awareness of the consequences. Here's what the record shows:
In May 2018, he filmed and livestreamed outside Leeds Crown Court during an active grooming trial, explicitly defying reporting restrictions meant to protect the integrity of the process;
In October 2024, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for multiple injunction breaches—airing a documentary that repeated false claims about a Syrian refugee, despite clear warnings that doing so would constitute contempt of court;
The judge described these breaches as “*planned, deliberate, [and] flagrant* ”, emphasizing Robinson’s disregard for legal boundaries.
So no, it wasn’t about “telling the truth” or defending a vulnerable witness – it was a calculated decision to defy legal restrictions and court authority.
If Robinson truly believed he was exposing wrongdoing, why did he continue publicly breaking court orders after being formally warned – rather than pursuing a lawful appeal or submitting evidence through the legal process ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonya-business77 You're right that the term “phobia” in a clinical sense refers to an anxiety disorder, but in social and political discussions, words often evolve beyond their strict medical definitions. “Islamophobia” isn't about literally being afraid of Islam as a religion – it's about harbouring prejudice, discrimination , or hostility towards people because they are Muslim, or are perceived to be. It's the same logic behind terms like “homophobia” or “xenophobia” – the “phobia” suffix points to irrational dislike or hatred, not necessarily a medical condition.
You say you treat all religions with disdain, which I can respect in principle as a fellow atheist. Critiquing ideas is absolutely legitimate and necessary in a free society. But Islamophobia isn't about criticising Islam as a set of ideas – it's about treating Muslims as people with suspicion, contempt, or second-class status. That crosses the line into prejudice, just like antisemitism is not just about criticising Judaism but targeting Jewish people unfairly.
I agree with you that governments – and other malevolent forces operating behind the scenes – often exploit identity issues to divide and rule. Fear and anger are powerful tools. But I would argue that ordinary people need to be careful not to do their dirty work for them by lumping together millions of individuals just because they follow a religion. That kind of division doesn't hurt the powerful – it serves them. It weakens solidarity among ordinary people, who should be standing together against the real sources of injustice and manipulation.
You’re right to be suspicious of how governments manage public debate. But real solidarity means fighting prejudice – not by protecting ideas from criticism, but by protecting people from being scapegoated.
1
-
You're right that the term “phobia” in a clinical sense refers to an anxiety disorder, but in social and political discussions, words often evolve beyond their strict medical definitions. “Islamophobia” isn't about literally being afraid of Islam as a religion – it's about harbouring prejudice, discrimination , or hostility towards people because they are Muslim, or are perceived to be. It's the same logic behind terms like “homophobia” or “xenophobia” – the “phobia” suffix points to irrational dislike or hatred, not necessarily a medical condition.
You say you treat all religions with disdain, which I can respect in principle as a fellow atheist. Critiquing ideas is absolutely legitimate and necessary in a free society. But Islamophobia isn't about criticising Islam as a set of ideas – it's about treating Muslims as people with suspicion, contempt, or second-class status. That crosses the line into prejudice, just like antisemitism is not just about criticising Judaism but targeting Jewish people unfairly.
I agree with you that governments – and other malevolent forces operating behind the scenes – often exploit identity issues to divide and rule. Fear and anger are powerful tools. But I would argue that ordinary people need to be careful not to do their dirty work for them by lumping together millions of individuals just because they follow a religion. That kind of division doesn't hurt the powerful – it serves them. It weakens solidarity among ordinary people, who should be standing together against the real sources of injustice and manipulation.
You’re right to be suspicious of how governments manage public debate. But real solidarity means fighting prejudice – not by protecting ideas from criticism, but by protecting people from being scapegoated.
1
-
@110hutch Let’s be honest - when you use the term “grooming gangs,” it’s a dog-whistle . Everyone knows you're not referring to equestrian sport. You frame it as a “problem of Islam,” but the UK Home Office’s own data shows that 87% of CSE offenders are white men . So why isn’t this ever called a “Christian problem”? The inconsistency shows that you’re not actually concerned about abuse - you’re trying to weaponise CSE to stigmatise a minority group.
Yes, you can criticise Islam - just like you can criticise any religion, ideology, or worldview in a free society. As John Stuart Mill put it:
“_He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that_ .”
A healthy democracy depends on open debate. But criticism of ideas must be distinguished from prejudice against people .
What’s often called “Islamophobia” isn’t someone saying, “I disagree with this tenet of Islam.” It’s treating Muslims as inherently suspect , dangerous, or backward - not because of their beliefs, but because of who they are . That's not a debate. That’s bigotry.
Yes, the term “Islamophobia” can be misused. But its real purpose is to describe the hostility, fear, and discrimination Muslims face - often racialised , regardless of whether religion is even the main issue. So rather than throwing out the word entirely, maybe we should be calling for more precise language - and a little more intellectual honesty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pr0ject2 When people talk about being "held accountable" for past injustices, it’s not about blaming individuals today for what their ancestors did, but about recognising how those actions still shape the present - through inherited wealth, systemic inequalities, or unearned advantages. It’s about acknowledging and addressing the impact, not assigning personal guilt.
By contrast, claiming the “good” things our ancestors did - inventions, victories, or cultural achievements - is more about pride than justice. But here’s the issue: if you want to feel pride in the past, you have to accept the whole of it . Otherwise, yes - that is a double standard.
The real problem is that this kind of selective memory is exactly what the so-called “patriotic curriculum” promoted by people like Trump and Farage is designed to produce: a feel-good history that boosts national pride while dodging accountability. It encourages people to inherit the glory but disown the guilt. That’s not education - it’s propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ There are several points I’d take issue with.
Firstly, regarding “cynical slogans,” given your aversion to cynicism, I assume you weren’t taken in by slogans such as “Breaking Point,” “We Send the EU £350 Million a Week – Let's Fund Our NHS Instead,” and “Take Back Control.”
Secondly, and more seriously, you claim that I have selective priorities and disdain for certain issues . Explain what these are, please. How exactly have I shown “disdain”? Or are you simply adopting the usual “us vs. them” populist rhetoric?
Thirdly, what independent reports or investigations confirm Labour’s role in enabling or ignoring grooming gangs, and how do other political parties compare in their responses? It's important to remember that there was an inquiry – the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham , among others. However, the Tory government failed to implement many of the recommendations from these inquiries, leaving systemic issues unaddressed. Focusing solely on who voted for what risks ignoring the real question: Why haven’t the recommendations been acted on to protect children ? Accountability must go beyond party politics.
As for your claim that issues were known but ignored, in January 2025, Labour MPs voted against a proposed national inquiry into grooming gangs, arguing that existing investigations were sufficient and raising concerns about the political motivations behind the new proposal.
If you see this as a problem of religion and ethnicity, the 2020 Home Office report found that the majority of group-based CSE (Child Sexual Exploitation) offenders in the UK are white – approximately 80%, reflecting the country's demographics. While some studies suggest an overrepresentation of Asian offenders relative to their population size, the report highlights data quality issues and biases in recording, making definitive conclusions difficult. Instead of reducing this complex issue to ethnicity, the focus should be on protecting victims and addressing systemic failures.
While there is evidence of mishandling and reluctance to address grooming gang issues within certain Labour-led councils, it is an oversimplification to attribute these failures solely to the party as a whole. The situation involves systemic failures across various institutions. Labour has faced internal and external criticism, leading to resignations and calls for further investigations. However, the claim that the entire party deliberately sacrificed children's welfare for political gain is not supported by available evidence.
Finally, you are targeting Zarah Sultana, who was only 18 years old when the scandal first broke on the front page of The Times . Your argument relies on guilt by association without any evidence of her complicity in any cover-up.
Your post is full of finger-pointing without any substantiated evidence – almost as if your views are shaped by right-wing YouTube channels rather than credible sources.
1
-
1
-
@andrew3347 It is a matter of public record that Wikileaks released the membership list of BNP members in 2009. Unbeknownst to Reform UK’s vetting process, many of these members later appeared on candidate lists for the 2024 General Election. Several newspaper reports have covered this issue, and in June 2024, The Spectator – hardly Searchlight – published an article titled “Full list: Every controversial Reform candidate,” highlighting several Reform UK parliamentary candidates involved in controversies during the election campaign. These controversies ranged from offensive remarks to associations with f+r-right ideologies.
One notable incident involved a candidate suggesting that the UK should have remained neutral during World War II, implying non-intervention against Hilter. This statement drew widespread criticism and raised questions about the candidate's historical perspective and suitability for public office.
Another controversy emerged when it was revealed that some Reform UK candidates were Facebook “friends” with a known f+scist leader. This association prompted concerns about the candidates' affiliations and the party's vetting processes.
In response to these and other issues, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, acknowledged on 18th June that the party had faced challenges with candidate vetting. He claimed that the party had been “stitched up” by an external vetting company, vetting.com, which countered that there hadn't been sufficient time to complete their work due to the unexpectedly early election call.
To sum up, Zarah Sultana's claims are easily supported by the public record, which clearly shows the overlap between Reform UK and the BNP. The exposé in The Spectator in June 2024 provides undeniable evidence of the party's controversial candidates, many of whom are linked to f+r-right ideologies and have made offensive remarks. Additionally, Reform UK's rhetoric on immigration and nationalism mirrors themes often associated with the BNP, further cementing the overlap between the two parties. As the events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the party's vetting process is deeply flawed, with many candidates exhibiting problematic views that should not be overlooked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrew3347 It is a matter of public record that Wikileaks released the membership list of BNP members in 2009. Unbeknownst to Reform UK’s vetting process, many of these members later appeared on candidate lists for the 2024 General Election. Several newspaper reports have covered this issue, and in June 2024, The Spectator – hardly Searchlight – published an article titled “Full list: Every controversial Reform candidate,” highlighting several Reform UK parliamentary candidates involved in controversies during the election campaign. These controversies ranged from offensive remarks to associations with right-wing groups.
One notable incident involved a candidate suggesting that the UK should have remained neutral during World War II, implying non-intervention against Hilter. This statement drew widespread criticism and raised questions about the candidate's historical perspective and suitability for public office.
Another controversy emerged when it was revealed that some Reform UK candidates were Facebook “friends” with a known f+r-right leader. This association prompted concerns about the candidates' affiliations and the party's vetting processes.
In response to these and other issues, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, acknowledged on 18th June that the party had faced challenges with candidate vetting. He claimed that the party had been “set up” by an external vetting company, vetting.com, which countered that there hadn't been sufficient time to complete their work due to the unexpectedly early election call.
To sum up, Zarah Sultana's claims are easily supported by the public record, which clearly shows the overlap between Reform UK and the BNP. The expose in The Spectator in June 2024 provides undeniable evidence of the party's controversial candidates, many of whom are linked to right-wing groups and have made offensive remarks. Additionally, Reform UK's rhetoric on immigration and nationalism mirrors themes often associated with the BNP, further cementing the overlap between the two parties. As the events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the party's vetting process is deeply flawed, with many candidates exhibiting problematic views that should not be overlooked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The implication is that this government that is curbing people's ability to protest and interfering with a verdict reached by a jury simply because they don't like it.
The case is not so cut and dried from a legal point of view. From a culture war point of view it is: there are biased opinions on both sides. There are those that wish to overtun the decision. and so interfere with what is the cornerstone of the justice system. The implication for a government to undermine the checks and balances and the rule of law is to undermine Britain as a democratic society.
With the charge under the Criminal Damage Act 1971:
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence .
You need to unpack this. There are four issues here, and a key one in this case is without lawful excuse . So the defendants did not have a lawful excuse for damaging the property. The question to the jury must have been, did they have lawful reason or excuse for this ? And remember, a decision of ''guilty'' must be ''beyond reasonable doubt.'' As for, the property would be destroyed or damaged , the defence point out that the statue is now worth now 50 times more in terms of its monetary value and has increased its cultural value. So if you increase an object's market value, how then have you damaged it as a commodity? People can still go to the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, and prostrate themselves in front of Bristol's most virtuous and wise son if they so wish.
Another issue is free speech . GB Newsers love their free speech just as long as it agrees with them. Yet another issue is that the statue of Edward Colston itself constituted a crime. That the statue, under the Public Order Act 1986, caused 'harassment, alarm or distress', and that it was 'indecent' (under the Indecent Displays Act 1981).
Finally, as Prof Olusoga, who was witness for the defence, told the BBC,
An English jury… has come to the conclusion that the real offence was that a statue to a mass murderer was able to stand for 125 years, not that that statue was toppled in the summer of 2020 .
Just remember GB Newsers, ‘the rule of law’ does not mean ‘an outcome I agree with’. Neither does this set a precedence, as decisions made by juries are never used as a basis for later judicial proceedings. Nor will it legitimate future cases of vandalism. as there is never a guaranteed outcome with a jury trial. Hooray for that!!
1
-
1
-
Rod Liddle on Times Radio with all gravy, and...soup or something on his...His sleeve's gone in the soup, hasn't it?... Er, sort of suet or something on his...on his collar. Suet, splat, on there. With...like a sort of mackerel fish kind of... like a paste that's on the...bits gone on his jacket. He would have the... gravy, soup, suet. Like a...Angel Delight or... Not...not...not mixed up, not with milk, just with the...the powder sort of...and all the powder's gone on his...in the folds of his neck, all like in lines in the folds of his neck. Er...Angel Delight... Rod Liddle from Times with the...the jelly from a pork pie. Not the meat or the crust - just the jelly's been, like, sort of scooped out and then he's, like, rubbed it all on there, and then he's put his shirt on and you can see he's got, like, pie jelly under his shirt, you know ? Stewart Lee!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FreeMcSpeech Perhaps they are. The UK is not included in the Dublin Accord, the EU regulation which allowed the UK to return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. After Brexit, the UK lost this privilege, which actually makes managing immigration more complex, not simpler.
The UK needed to establish new bilateral agreements with EU countries to manage the return of migrants. Negotiating these agreements and ensuring they are effective can be complex and time-consuming. Without these agreements, returning migrants who have travelled through multiple countries became more challenging.
Do I believe they are asylum seekers? I honestly don't know. Does that make me gullible or naive for admitting uncertainty? I don't think so. I don't view them as a homogenous group or make sweeping generalisations. Instead, consider each case is assessed on an individual basis.
The previous government was slow to establish bilateral agreements, did not set up processing centre(s) in France, and the processing has been migrants has been shockingly slow. The current Labour government's Border Security Bill , announced in July, suggests a shift towards stricter border control. It focuses on cracking down on people-smuggling gangs, increasing penalties for immigration crimes, and fast-tracking deportations for those from "safe countries." While this bill takes a tougher stance on illegal immigration, time will tell whether it will be effective or create further challenges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincekerrigan8300 For one thing, how was Dresden a strategic target? Hamburg, yes! Cities on the Ruhr like Essen or on the Rhine like Düsseldorf, yes! But Dresden on the Elbe was not an industrial town. The Luftwaffe targeted Bristol, and Liverpool, Rotterdam as they were/are centres for shipping. Why was Dresden a strategic target? As for your propaganda dig, you share the common characteristics of right-wing conspiracists: intolerable condescension mixed with a heightened sense of your own superiority. Anyone that sees the bombing of Dresden as an aberration, of senseless slaughter – yes at least 25,000 civilians, you cannot see as a war crime or even a crime against humanity. Seemingly, you are not a person with a shred of humanity, but instead sees this mass slaughter as collateral damage, as “what happens” in war. Dresden’s population dropped by 35 percent from 566,768 in 1944 to 368, 519 in 1945 so the deaths and displacement of almost 200,000 people (557,075 in 2019). Also it seems you can only see the world through your lens of British exceptionalism and Nazi evil and that it is me that is distorted by propaganda . Anyone that doesn’t share you view is a Nazi sympathiser: Germans were no saintlier than the Allies . Ludicrous statement that totally negates your entire argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauljackson2409 Another KGB flat-earther! When you guys make claims, you rarely support it, but when you do, the evidence is just ludicrous!! This is what you get when you parrot your leaders: tired clichés "Go and live in ... (Soviet Union, etc.). Fossil fuels? Child labour, canaries down coal mines, pneumoconiosis, all a blessing? Greatly extending their lives? Throughout the 100 years of the 19th century extended the life expectancy by 6 years. Considering the medical advances, that is not a great deal. Finally, when it comes to the regime you support: neo-liberalism, were the 500,000 deaths of Iraqis the result of Friedrich Hayek’s philosophy? Of course not. Mind you, Friedman was indirectly responsible for the 30,000 deaths under Chile’s neoliberal dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grannyannie2948
As for the capitalist system, it goes back centuries even, we could include the industrial capitalism (18th to 19th centuries). But disaster started with the 1973 Chilean coup After overthrowing the democratically elected President Salvador Allende, Augusto Pinochet implemented sweeping neoliberal economic reforms advised by economists known as the "Chicago Boys." These included privatisation of state-owned enterprises, deregulation, and cuts to social spending. These policies benefited foreign corporations and the wealthy elite while increasing inequality and poverty. We could also include the Falklands War (1982), Tiananmen Square Massacre (1989), and economic reforms in post-Soviet Russia (1990s), and the Iraq War (2003).
Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable .
― Milton Friedman
When it comes to paying contractors, the sky is the limit; when it comes to financing the basic functions of the state, the coffers are empty .
Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007)
1
-
1
-
@arranmelaugh5606 No fan of Starmer, but here are a few things that the Labour government has been doing that the media has not been reporting:
Summary of Labour Government Reforms (December 2024)
Anti-Corruption and Legal Reforms
🔹Anti-Corruption Unit: A new Domestic Corruption Unit established by the Home Office and City of London Police.
🔹Legal Aid Funding: Increased funding for criminal legal aid (+12%) and fees for police station and youth court work (+£24 million). Plans to consult on civil legal aid fees.
🔹Court Backlog: 2,000 additional Crown Court sitting days planned, the highest in a decade.
Local Government and Housing
🔹Council Funding: A £69 billion funding package with a real-terms increase of 3.5%, including a £600 million Recovery Grant and £3.7 billion for social care.
🔹Military Housing: Re-nationalisation of 36,347 military homes to address chronic underinvestment and improve conditions.
🔹Dangerous Cladding: New targets for cladding removal on high-rise buildings by 2029, with accelerated developer repairs by 2027.
🔹Homelessness Support: £10 million emergency fund for rough sleepers and 32 new Homebuilding Skills Hubs for apprenticeships.
Support for Veterans and Vulnerable Groups
🔹Veteran Compensation: Up to £70,000 for LGBT+ veterans dismissed due to discrimination (1967–2000).
Veteran Housing: Prioritised social housing access and £3.5 million for homeless veteran support.
Education and Workforce
🔹School Support: Reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to boost wages and union involvement.
🔹Green Schools: £2 million energy-efficiency pilot in London schools.
🔹Music Opportunities: A scheme for disadvantaged children offering singing and music lessons.
Environment and Energy
🔹Clean Power Plan: A roadmap to 95% renewable electricity grid welcomed by environmental groups.
🔹Global Clean Power Alliance: Initiative launched at G20 to accelerate clean energy worldwide.
🔹Zero-Emission Vehicles: £88 million fund for clean vehicle technology.
Economic and Social Spending
🔹Business Support: New Business Growth Service launching in 2025 for SMEs. Business rates reduced for small high-street businesses.
🔹Military Pay: Largest pay increase in decades for military personnel.
🔹Mineworker Pensions: Increases to rectify historical pension injustices.
Health and Social Care
🔹Hospice Funding: £100 million allocated for buildings, equipment, and accommodation over two years.
Justice and Policing
🔹Women’s Justice Board: Established to address gender-specific issues in the justice system.
🔹Police Reforms: Creation of a Police Performance Unit and National Centre of Policing.
🔹Intimate Image Abuse: Strengthened laws to combat abuse.
International Policy
🔹Sanctions on Russia: New measures targeting illicit oil vessels.
🔹UK-Germany Defence Pact: Signed to enhance bilateral cooperation.
These reforms span a range of areas, addressing social justice, environmental sustainability, and public sector investment. They reflect a shift towards increased government intervention and public ownership in key sectors.
How can we make sure we understand what the government is really doing, instead of only believing what the media tells us ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK now has 57 billionaires (4 more than last year), and a 2025 Oxfam report highlights that billionaire fortunes grew three times faster in 2024 than the previous year. This growing concentration of wealth entrenches inequality and deepens the economic divide. Meanwhile, the country continues to bear the scars of 14 years of austerity, which slashed public services to the bone.
Consider what we’ve lost:
🔹200 museums
🔹244 courts and tribunals
🔹279 playing fields
🔹451 homeless services
🔹600 police stations
🔹673 public toilets
🔹750 youth centres
🔹793 playgrounds
🔹800 libraries
🔹926 football pitches
🔹1,086 swimming pools
🔹1,416 Sure Start children’s centres
🔹8,000 bus routes
🔹25,000 NHS beds
And then we wonder why the economy is in such a state! Austerity has gutted the infrastructure that supports communities, stifling opportunity and hope.
What we need are leaders who are truly patriotic - those who will look after the interests of the people, not false patriots like Reform UK, who are only interested in serving billionaire oligarchs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anti-citixen_98 If the Human Rights Act (HRA) was scrapped, as proposed by Robert Jenrick and Reform UK, then leaving the ECHR would strip away a key legal safeguard that currently allows UK citizens to challenge abuses in court – both domestically and, if needed, at a higher level. The idea that the ECHR enforces only "liberal nonsense" ignores its actual function: preventing torture, unlawful detention, discrimination, and protecting free expression. Would you consider justice for the Hillsborough 96 to be "liberal nonsense"? The Hillsborough disaster in 1989, which led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, exposed grave failures in accountability and state responsibility. It was through human rights principles – particularly Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR – that families were able to demand proper investigation and pursue justice. These aren't empty liberal optics – they are legal safeguards that help prevent the state from ignoring or covering up its failures.
And as for the death penalty – the UK remained under ECHR jurisdiction when it still had capital punishment; it wasn't the ECHR that banned it here, but domestic political and social change. What the ECHR does is help ensure that no government, regardless of political leaning, can easily roll back fundamental rights. So the real question is: why remove those protections now – and who exactly benefits when those rights are no longer guaranteed ?
I didn’t ignore your example, but I do think it’s important to consider the broader context of international human rights standards and accountability. While the desire for national sovereignty is understandable, the ECHR court plays a crucial role in ensuring that governments uphold their duty to protect citizens’ rights – not just in principle, but in practice. Withdrawing from it could dismantle vital checks on state power, weakening protections that apply to everyone , not just asylum seekers. The ECHR has upheld rights in areas such as freedom of expression, protection from torture, fair trials, and justice for victims of state failure – as seen in the Hillsborough case. Once those safeguards are stripped from one group, they become easier to strip from others. Human rights are not a luxury or a partisan issue; they are the foundation of a free, fair, and accountable society. Politicians pushing to leave the ECHR are not defending liberty – they’re removing the legal barriers that prevent abuse of power. This isn’t about “taking back control” – it’s about giving those in power more control over us.
1
-
1
-
If the Human Rights Act (HRA) were scrapped, as proposed by Robert Jenrick and Reform UK, then leaving the ECHR would strip away a key legal safeguard that currently allows UK citizens to challenge abuses in court – both domestically and, if needed, at a higher level. The idea that the ECHR enforces only "liberal nonsense" ignores its actual function: preventing torture, unlawful detention, discrimination, and protecting free expression. Would you consider justice for the Hillsborough 96 to be "liberal nonsense"? The Hillsborough disaster in 1989, which led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, exposed grave failures in accountability and state responsibility. It was through human rights principles – particularly Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR – that families were able to demand proper investigation and pursue justice. These aren't empty liberal optics – they are legal safeguards that help prevent the state from ignoring or covering up its failures.
And as for the death penalty – the UK remained under ECHR jurisdiction when it still had capital punishment; it wasn't the ECHR that banned it here, but domestic political and social change. What the ECHR does is help ensure that no government, regardless of political leaning, can easily roll back fundamental rights. So the real question is: why remove those protections now – and who exactly benefits when those rights are no longer guaranteed ?
I didn’t ignore your example, but I do think it’s important to consider the broader context of international human rights standards and accountability. While the desire for national sovereignty is understandable, the ECHR court plays a crucial role in ensuring that governments uphold their duty to protect citizens’ rights – not just in principle, but in practice. Withdrawing from it could dismantle vital checks on state power, weakening protections that apply to everyone , not just asylum seekers. The ECHR has upheld rights in areas such as freedom of expression, protection from torture, fair trials, and justice for victims of state failure – as seen in the Hillsborough case. Once those safeguards are stripped from one group, they become easier to strip from others. Human rights are not a luxury or a partisan issue; they are the foundation of a free, fair, and accountable society. Politicians pushing to leave the ECHR are not defending liberty – they’re removing the legal barriers that prevent abuse of power. This isn’t about “taking back control” – it’s about giving those in power more control over us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anti-citixen_98 I didn’t ignore your example, but I do think it’s important to consider the broader context of international human rights standards and accountability. While the desire for national sovereignty is understandable, the ECHR court plays a crucial role in ensuring that governments uphold their duty to protect citizens’ rights – not just in principle, but in practice. Withdrawing from it could dismantle vital checks on state power, weakening protections that apply to everyone , not just asylum seekers. The ECHR has upheld rights in areas such as freedom of expression, protection from torture, fair trials, and justice for victims of state failure – as seen in the Hillsborough case. Once those safeguards are stripped from one group, they become easier to strip from others. Human rights are not a luxury or a partisan issue; they are the foundation of a free, fair, and accountable society. Politicians pushing to leave the ECHR are not defending liberty – they’re removing the legal barriers that prevent abuse of power. This isn’t about “taking back control” – it’s about giving those in power more control over us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobsocks7575 As for the "dubious links", it is a matter of public record that Wikileaks released the membership list of BNP members in 2009. Unbeknownst to Reform UK’s vetting process, many of these members later appeared on candidate lists for the 2024 General Election. Several newspaper reports have covered this issue, and in June 2024, The Spectator – hardly Searchlight – published an article titled “Full list: Every controversial Reform candidate,” highlighting several Reform UK parliamentary candidates involved in controversies during the election campaign. These controversies ranged from offensive remarks to associations with f+r right-wing groups.
One notable incident involved a candidate suggesting that the UK should have remained neutral during World War II, implying non-intervention against Hilter. This statement drew widespread criticism and raised questions about the candidate's historical perspective and suitability for public office.
Another controversy emerged when it was revealed that some Reform UK candidates were Facebook “friends” with a known f+r-right leader. This association prompted concerns about the candidates' affiliations and the party's vetting processes.
In response to these and other issues, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, acknowledged on 18th June that the party had faced challenges with candidate vetting. He claimed that the party had been “set up” by an external vetting company, vetting.com, which countered that there hadn't been sufficient time to complete their work due to the unexpectedly early election call.
To sum up, Zarah Sultana's claims are easily supported by the public record, which clearly shows the overlap between Reform UK and the BNP. The expose in The Spectator in June 2024 provides undeniable evidence of the party's controversial candidates, many of whom are linked to right-wing groups and have made offensive remarks. Additionally, Reform UK's rhetoric on immigration and nationalism mirrors themes often associated with the BNP, further cementing the overlap between the two parties. As the events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the party's vetting process is deeply flawed, with many candidates exhibiting problematic views that should not be overlooked.
1
-
@bobsocks7575 It is a matter of public record that Wikileaks released the membership list of BNP members in 2009. Unbeknownst to Reform UK’s vetting process, many of these members later appeared on candidate lists for the 2024 General Election. Several newspaper reports have covered this issue, and in June 2024, The Spectator – hardly Searchlight – published an article titled “Full list: Every controversial Reform candidate,” highlighting several Reform UK parliamentary candidates involved in controversies during the election campaign. These controversies ranged from offensive remarks to associations with right-wing groups.
One notable incident involved a candidate suggesting that the UK should have remained neutral during World War II, implying non-intervention against Hilter. This statement drew widespread criticism and raised questions about the candidate's historical perspective and suitability for public office.
Another controversy emerged when it was revealed that some Reform UK candidates were Facebook “friends” with a known f+r-right leader. This association prompted concerns about the candidates' affiliations and the party's vetting processes.
In response to these and other issues, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, acknowledged on 18th June that the party had faced challenges with candidate vetting. He claimed that the party had been “set up” by an external vetting company, vetting.com, which countered that there hadn't been sufficient time to complete their work due to the unexpectedly early election call.
To sum up, Zarah Sultana's claims are easily supported by the public record, which clearly shows the overlap between Reform UK and the BNP. The expose in The Spectator in June 2024 provides undeniable evidence of the party's controversial candidates, many of whom are linked to right-wing groups and have made offensive remarks. Additionally, Reform UK's rhetoric on immigration and nationalism mirrors themes often associated with the BNP, further cementing the overlap between the two parties. As the events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the party's vetting process is deeply flawed, with many candidates exhibiting problematic views that should not be overlooked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You need a stong man, a leader, a Führer , you need to demonise vulnerable groups to make you look strong. Petty small-minded people voting to "Make Britain Great Against". Clearly desperate.
You differ from a great man in only one respect: the great man was once a very little man, but he developed one important quality: he recognized the smallness and narrowness of his thoughts and actions. Under the pressure of some task that meant a great deal to him, he learned to see how his smallness, his pettiness endangered his happiness. In other words, a great man knows when and in what way he is a little man. A little man does not know he is little and is afraid to know. He hides his pettiness and narrowness behind illusions of strength and greatness, someone else's strength and greatness. He's proud of his great generals but not of himself. He admires an idea he has not had, not one he has had. The less he understands something, the more firmly he believes in it. And the better he understands an idea, the less he believes in it .
― Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man
1
-
In 2008, the average disposable income of a UK household was around £22,000 — slightly below Germany’s average of £23,000. But by 2023, German households had surged ahead to over £30,000, while UK households lagged behind at around £26,000. That’s a gap of £4,000 per year and growing. Why the difference? Germany invested in manufacturing, green energy, and skills, while the UK cut public spending, froze wages, and suffered from Brexit uncertainty. If we want better living standards, we need to rethink the failed economic model that’s left so many behind.
If a party blames the system but supports the same economic model – is it really offering change, or just repackaging the status quo ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauldrake1858 I'm not entirely sure what you mean by “organising”. Organising what, exactly? Are you referring to the idea of creating a system based on common ownership and democratic control of resources? A system where goods and services are produced directly for use rather than for profit? Such a structure would eliminate the market, money, and class divisions, replacing them with a society rooted in cooperation, equality, and shared decision-making.
Or are you as I suspect, suggesting something entirely different – perhaps a hostile oligarchical takeover orchestrated by Reform UK? Or worse, an anti-democratic seizure of power by the f@r-r!ght? If so, we’re talking about something profoundly dangerous, with the potential to erode freedoms, deepen inequalities, and undermine democracy itself.
Could you clarify your position
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We should also not forget that Mogg’s monologue is a polemic, an opinion piece against ULEZ. There are several points to consider, Firstly, when has Mogg ever considered the needs of the poor. Let’s face it, Mogg is not looking after the needs of the poor, but the interests of fossil fuel tycoons. Secondly, that London has 1/40 of the air pollution of the 19th century (!) does not in any way undermine the environmental research by Imperial College. The IC research is based on more specific findings of air pollution. This includes evidence of low fertility, by lowering sperm count and motility. Air pollution can also impair normal foetal development in the womb, increasing the risk of miscarriage, low birth weight and pre-term births. As for children, it can lead to developing lifelong, chronic conditions, including poorly developed lungs, asthma, high blood pressure, inattention and hyperactivity, and mental illness. Thirdly, that Mogg makes the claim that the reduction in air pollution is due to innovation rather than the reduction in the use of coal and oil – fossil fuels – is an understandable bluff when you consider he receives large donations from fossil fuel magnates like Jeremy Hosking. Finally, the RAC stated that 90 percent of cars and 80 percent of vans are not affected by ULEZ. Where Mogg got the figure that it had dropped to 1/3, who knows? So what do we learn from the Moggologue? Worthy of a medal? Or futile attempts to blind viewers with whatever he has at hand: science, poshness, smugness, intellectual superiority .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dawn is not so disgusted that she condones the crimes against humanity that the IDF has comitted: murder, intentional targeting of civilians, killing prisoners of war and surrendered combatants, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment, starvation, the use of human shields, sexual violence and rape, torture, pillage, forced transfer, breach of medical neutrality, targeting journalists, attacking civilian and protected objects, wanton destruction, incitement to genocide, and genocide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wonderkid44 I'd claim is that Brexit is a widening and deepening of Tory austerity. It was a two-pronged attack on living standards and promoting profit accumulation of the capitalist class whilst getting working class voters on board with the promise of prosperity, jobs, and higher standards of living . What is the evidence for increase prosperity, jobs, and higher standards of living?
AUSTERITY. The austerity measures from 2010 onwards was a political choice for which the electorate voted for more of the same in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Basically, the right-wing parties like UKIP, Brexit Party and Reform UK sided with the essentially "MORE AUSTERITY" wing of the Conservative Party in the Brexit debate, as it continues to side with them on and the billionaire oligarchs on promoting deregulation, misinformation and climate change denial. It is nothing less than sadistic populism to keep voting for a government that cuts public services, and not expect a crumbling broken Britain. Nigel Farage's question is pertinent: how did we get into this mess ? But he potions blame elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Grimes claims "due to the UK's pursuit of Net Zero energy prices are getting more expensive". This is totally unsubstantiated opinion of his paymasters, Where is the evidence Daz? A report by the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) found that the cost of renewable energy, particularly offshore wind, has decreased, making it a cost-effective source of energy in the long term. Blaming Net Zero for rising energy prices ignores bigger global factors. The surge in energy costs is largely driven by post-pandemic demand, supply chain issues, and geopolitical events like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not just green policies. In fact, renewable energy can reduce long-term costs once infrastructure is built, and energy prices were rising before Net Zero policies were even fully enforced. Renewables help shield us from volatile fossil fuel prices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@remoanersrknts6736 Yes it is fairly obvious that I live outside the UK when I have just told you ! You would have surmised it. Why is it fairly obvious that I don’t watch GB News? I didn’t tell you that , did I? You are wrong! I watch it because I am open to opinions other than my own. In fact I watch it more than the BBC. I guess you are not a regular viewer of Open Democracy, Byline Times, or Novara Media: why would you: you want your opinions validated. As for GB News presenters, Andrew Doyle is an excellent presenter. Farage is not so bad.The worst: Rees-Mogg and Anderson, but they are not paid for their journalistic insights, are they? As for Christys, Wootton, and Dolan, they are shock jocks paid to push reactionary buttons. GAMMONS – YEAH!!!
Trolls are just people that come across arrogant opinionated and small-minded people that think they have “the TRUTH”, and all others are “brainwashed” “morons”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stuartannetts300 U.N. Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (1978)
Article 2
1. Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.
2. Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalized practices resulting in racial inequality as well as the fallacious notion that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and scientifically justifiable; it is reflected in discriminatory provisions in legislation or regulations and discriminatory practices as well as in anti-social beliefs and acts; it hinders the development of its victims, perverts those who practise it, divides nations internally, impedes international co-operation and gives rise to political tensions between peoples; it is contrary to the fundamental principles of international law and, consequently, seriously disturbs international peace and security.
3. Racial prejudice, historically linked with inequalities in power, reinforced by economic and social differences between individuals and groups, and still seeking today to justify such inequalities, is totally without justification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tobias9859 Sure, but Kremlinology seeks to understand the 'enigma wrapped in a Chinese puzzle'. Yes, Russia is a kleptocracy that uses surveillance on people and governments. But there are clear limits to what you can infer from actions, everything else is speculation. Therefore, one should not base one's world-view on speculation, as one shouldn't believe anymore in fairies, tarot cards, seances and other mumbo-jumbo. As William Blake said, I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's. As long as you deal with speculation rather than attacking the very foundations of power, the ruling class will continue as before. That way, you don't have to deal with encumbering things such as evidence, facts and reasoned explanations. There are many things in the open to deal with without speculating on those that are not. GB News is a nice distraction to make you angry about things you have little control over instead of getting angry over those things which you have. Instead of speculating about secret meetings, take seriously issues that Mr. Oliver intentionally plays down: the seriousness of climate change. You should also take seriously that the profit system is to failing people all over the world. Capitalism is a system that corrupts us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewjack31 As Nietzsche said, truth never clings to the arm of an inflexile man.
Since you have not come up with ANY evidence to substantiate your claim. I will state that in no way was Lockdown more deadly than Covid . I will briefly explain why.
A report published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on 16 March 2020 (available online: Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand).
Considering this was before the UK lockdown, the report estimates that there would be 250,000 deaths in the UK unless _ non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)_ were followed. These include social distancing, mask wearing, and quarantining. To date, there have been around 170,500 deaths from Covid. NPIs certainly contributed to suppressing the spread of the virus.
Quote: Once interventions are relaxed (from September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year . CORRECT.
Quote: we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic . ONS (April 2022): 71% of the UK population. CORRECT.
This is, of course, public health issue, and is here dealt with as such. Some governments dealt with the pandemic better than others if the criteria are suppressing the virus and minimising the numbers of deaths. As for the notion that freedom and government are somehow compatible, this is the problem of government. Nothing less than the abolition of the State will there be a free society.
BTW, what do you mean by “people like me”? That I “believe in the fairytale”. It seems anyone that challenges your unfounded claims you dismiss as an “MSM” dolt. With knowledge comes humility, not arrogance: maybe something you should consider .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that Brexit could have been fully successful overlooks several significant challenges, including the "Brexit Trilemma," which points out the difficulty of reconciling control over borders, maintaining access to the EU single market, and avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which ensured peace between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, further complicated Brexit, as any changes to border arrangements could jeopardise that peace. These structural and political issues, alongside economic disruptions and trade barriers, made it clear that a simple "full" Brexit could not resolve all the complex problems.
Before Brexit, how did you expect the UK to resolve the challenges posed by the "Brexit Trilemma" of balancing control over borders, access to the EU market, and Northern Ireland's status?
What solutions did you foresee for maintaining peace in Northern Ireland while addressing Brexit-related border issues and respecting the Good Friday Agreement?
Looking back, how do you think the UK government could have better managed the economic and logistical challenges that arose post-Brexit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the war in Ukraine started there were many Putin apologists. Farage is a Putin apologist, though he is quiet about it these days. You can tell who they are: Putinistas love the fossil fuel industries – sucking up to the Koch Industries – Koch suckers! And GB News has been paid handsomely to follow the anti-climate change agenda! Early in the RU-UA war, the news channel’s "narrative" was pretty much in line with RT. What's more, the opinion was mooted that in the war, you don't know “who the good guys are”. GB News is a propaganda media that promotes the issues that Putin cares about, and some of the broadcasters have benefited from . For example, over two years ago I asked Nigel Farage, whose support for Putin had been unquestionable in the past, why as an MEP in 2015, he voted together with far-right Euro parties (France's FN, Hungary's Jobbik, Germany's AfD) to vote against an attempt to prevent Russian interference . This was after the occupation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014. Answer this question please Nigel : Why did you support Putin ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OldEnglish Ale Sure the WEF appears shadowy, yet this unelected powerful cult is merely an interest group for global capitalists. Isn’t the _real problem global capitalism itself, rather than just this group_ ? Multinationals: Nestlé, Cocoa Cola, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Shell, BP are global players for a reason! Is it any wonder that they are more powerful than most if not all governments of nation states of the world? Many of the members of the WEF have been appointed and are a powerful NGO, a group that seeks to promote a form of what Schwab calls ‘stakeholder capitalism’ where states cannot override global capitalist regulations. Now is the problem regulation to capitalism, or is it the capitalist system itself that puts profits before human needs? The problem with the right – your men Farage and Tice – is they need to scapegoat elites and keep the existing economic system in place, which is what Orbán Viktor does next door.
1
-
1
-
@youtubeyoutube936 Another Geebee that fails to understand how representative democracy works! Did you vote for the legislation made by the Commons? Were you angry at the independence of the judiciary when they ruled that Brexit could not be triggered without a Westminster vote?
I am not a fervently pro-EU, I am fervently against the lies and disinformation that has led to a sclerotic UK. Simply put, Geebees even nearly seven years after the Referendum have little grasp what the role is of the EU. Anyway, you say that the EU influence the markets as if that is a bad thing. The EU was originally set up as a coal and steel “common market”, it is a protectionist market. It is done to maintain food standards, environmental protection, and workers’ rights. The key thing is if you want to be outside the market then it is fine. But if you want to trade with the trading bloc, then you have to abide by standards set by the EU. Simple.
You want frictionless trade with the EU? Then you have to have regulatory alignment .
You want regulatory freedom? Then you can't have frictionless trade with the EU .
You may not want regulated trade. You might think that dumping sewage in rivers and coasts is fine if you get to pay less for your waterbill, or you agree with Rees-Mogg that four weeks paid holiday is not a human right and no one needs that much time off! Food standards? The less regulation, the better, you may think. Is this deregulation “race to the bottom” what you voted for in 2016? I am pretty sure not everyone who voted “leave” then had this in mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you mean the Brexit you voted the Tories to deliver, that Lord Frost negotiated, that Brexiteers voted for, that Tice and Farage voted for? Who is to blame for this? We need an answer to this. Yet you 🐑🐑will vote for the very people that are making your lives worse off!
🚨 #BrexitRealityCheck 🚨
As we face the consequences of Brexit, let's not forget the warnings from leaders like Heseltine, and Major.
🗣 The Tory critics consistently critiqued Nigel Farage's push for Brexit, highlighting how it's impacting our economy, reducing our global influence, and threatening the unity of the UK.
💼 Economy: Investment down, job losses up. Leaving the EU meant leaving the world’s largest trading bloc.
🌍 Global Influence: We’ve lost our seat at the table in decisions that shape Europe and the UK.
🏴 National Unity: Scotland and Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, are reconsidering their place in the UK.
👶 Future Generations: The youth voted to remain for a reason—Brexit limits their opportunities and prospects.
📜 Historical Context: The EU has been a pillar of peace and stability in Europe post-WWII. Brexit is a step backwards.
Nigel Farage sold Brexit as a dream, but the reality is proving far different. It's time we reconsider the path we’re on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogerbennett9641 With that level of analysis, how can you be so sure? Do you even know what socialism is? How can you justify capitalism being said to be “good”? What is your definition of capitalism? When we have had unfettered free market capitalism, the price of "unfettering" has been disastrous: Chile, Liz Truss. In the case of Truss this meant principles of lower taxes and deregulation, the implementation leading to severe economic repercussions. I suppose you will argue on the side of “Trickle-down” economics, also known as supply-side economics, which states that benefits provided to the wealthy or businesses will eventually “trickle down” to the rest of the economy through investment, job creation, and economic growth. However, evidence and analysis over the years have suggested that this theory does not effectively achieve its intended outcomes.
It's important to recognise that even though capitalism has brought many great things, that there is the broader systems of capitalist exploitation, and capitalism “on steroids” – neo-liberalism. These systems aim to hollow out identity, destroy collective action, and strip civil and labour rights in pursuit of cheaper resources and labour to maximize profits. In contrast, a truly democratic society emphasises participatory democracy, where citizens are directly involved in decision-making through mechanisms like citizen assemblies, referendums, and participatory budgeting. Such approaches, like the UK's Climate Assembly and local participatory budgeting initiatives, can increase trust and legitimacy, improve decision-making, and foster accountability and social cohesion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@B0M83R25 What Nigel Farage has said himself, as well as the donors to the party. Reform UK’s stance on moving towards an insurance-based system, like Nigel Farage suggested in 2012, raises some serious concerns. Farage himself said, "I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently... move to an insurance-based system of healthcare," because he felt more comfortable trusting insurance companies over the government to manage healthcare funds.
However, whose interests would be served by shifting to such a system, and who would lose out? Privatising healthcare may benefit insurance companies and private providers, but it could leave vulnerable populations, especially those who can't afford private coverage, at a severe disadvantage. As for the NHS, while it needs reform, introducing radical changes like deregulating medical standards or abolishing professional licensing only risks patient safety and could undermine the very values the NHS was built on. Reform UK's health policy, with its focus on efficiency and private sector expansion, may address some NHS inefficiencies, but we must ask whether these reforms will truly benefit patients or prioritise profits. We need to strengthen the NHS, not replace it with a system that could make healthcare less accessible for many.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lyndamayfield1913 As I wrote on GB News post in October 2022:
The Public Order Bill that is going through Parliament seeks to take away your freedom of assembly .
No one took any notice .
As I wrote, again on GB News post in December 2021:
You can always demonstrate. Oh no, you won't be able to if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is passed into law. If you do demonstrate, you could face a four-year prison sentence. GB News is not interested in this
No one took any notice .
People are only now taking notice when their freedom to demonstrate is now curtailed, but were not paying attention to the fact the previous government’s zealous attempts to crush environmental activism is now being used against political demonstration .
Again, as I wrote in June 2021, again on GB News post:
Because of class society, there is a need for dictators of some form, actual or corporate (economic, political or corporate media). There is a need to change the conditions of class divided society .
No one will take any notice .
1
-
@chrismaddock5790 I totally get where you're coming from, especially if it feels like the current budget may be discouraging individual success and comfort. However, it’s worth considering that a balanced budget, even one with certain tax increases, doesn’t necessarily mean punishing hard work or success. Historically, there are strong examples where raising taxes in strategic ways has actually strengthened economies, improved public services, and fostered a society where more people can succeed.
Take, for example, the New Deal in the U.S. during the 1930s, where increased taxes on the wealthiest funded infrastructure projects and job programs. This approach not only pulled the country out of the Great Depression but laid the groundwork for long-term economic resilience. Similarly, in post-1945 Britain, higher taxes supported the creation of the welfare state, introducing universal healthcare, education, and social security. These initiatives enabled generations to access quality healthcare and education, empowering more people to lead comfortable lives.
In Sweden, progressive tax policies have consistently funded high-quality public services like healthcare and education, contributing to a strong middle class. And in post-reunification Germany, tax policies helped bring East Germany up to a comparable standard with the West, leading to a unified, prosperous country. These successful examples demonstrate that a commitment to a better society for all can harness taxation to fuel inclusive growth and societal progress. These weren’t quick fixes, but they eventually helped create a more secure and fair society.
It’s fair to be critical and demand transparency in how funds are used. Taxes should genuinely work for the public’s benefit, addressing long-term needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure that will pay off over time. And yes, people need to see that their hard work can still lead to a stable, comfortable life. That’s a fundamental part of trust in the system.
While it might not feel like it today, the hope is that by strengthening the social fabric, these investments will help build a foundation for a fairer, more resilient society. It’s not a fast track, and the government has to deliver real results to earn back people’s confidence. But ideally, these efforts aim to create a future where success isn't limited to a few but accessible to anyone willing to work for it – without losing sight of those who need help along the way.
And take it from me as someone who neither supports nor voted for this Labour government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackjohnson6230 Also the idea that most tax revenue goes to people who don't work is a common misconception. In reality, a significant portion of taxes funds infrastructure, healthcare, education, and services that benefit everyone, including roads, public transport, emergency services, and more. Additionally, many people who rely on social support are either working low-wage jobs, unable to work due to disability, or temporarily between jobs. Rather than supporting “dole bludgers,” social safety nets help ensure that all members of society can contribute and thrive, which ultimately strengthens the economy and community as a whole.
1
-
Also the idea that most tax revenue goes to people who don't work is a common misconception. In reality, a significant portion of taxes funds infrastructure, healthcare, education, and services that benefit everyone, including roads, public transport, emergency services, and more. Additionally, many people who rely on social support are either working low-wage jobs, unable to work due to disability, or temporarily between jobs. Rather than supporting “dole-bludgers,” social safety nets help ensure that all members of society can contribute and thrive, which ultimately strengthens the economy and community as a whole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grahamflaherty9278 Yes. I was 13 when Thatcher came to power. From your question, I assume you are of the view that the Labour government of 1974-1979 as "socialist," but in reality, it marked a significant shift towards neo-liberalism, paving the way for Thatcherism. Under Prime Minister James Callaghan, the government abandoned Keynesian economics, which emphasised government spending to maintain full employment. Instead, they focused on controlling inflation, reducing public spending, and implementing wage controls - policies more aligned with neo-liberal thinking. For instance, the 1976 IMF loan led to austerity measures that prioritised monetary stability over social welfare. These actions began a transformation in British economic policy that continued under Margaret Thatcher.
If the Labour government was genuinely "socialist," why did its policies of austerity, wage controls, and reduced public spending align so closely with the neo-liberal agenda that Thatcherism later intensified?
1
-
@shinkansenshinkansend8316 It seems like we’re approaching this from very different angles, but I think it’s important to clarify a few things. The idea that “capitalism has produced the best quality of life” is definitely a popular one, but it’s worth asking: what do we mean by capitalism? Are we talking about a truly free market, or are we overlooking the role of state intervention, corporate monopolies, and historical factors like colonialism?
On the flip side, the “socialist” economies often pointed to as failures, like the Soviet Union, were more like state-controlled capitalism—where the state played the role of the capitalist rather than eliminating the capitalist structure altogether. The kind of socialism I’m talking about—a society with democratic control of resources and communal ownership—has never really been tried.
I get that it can be frustrating to feel like someone’s never satisfied, but for me, this isn’t about rejecting ideas for the sake of it. It’s about digging deeper into what these terms really mean and considering what kind of system truly benefits the majority of people. I’m open to discussion, and I think we might find more common ground if we look beyond the surface of these labels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Is Reform UK really the future? According to lat year's "Contract with the People," there are concerns about the impact of their policies on certain groups. For example, their approach to welfare reform could lead to stricter conditions for benefit claimants, which some fear might disadvantage vulnerable individuals. Their pledge to cut taxes for the middle class could be seen as beneficial for economic growth, but there are worries that it might reduce funding for essential public services. While the party aims to cut NHS waiting lists, some are concerned this could open the door to more private sector involvement in healthcare, potentially affecting the public NHS system. In addition, Reform UK's stance on labour rights and their commitment to leave the ECHR has raised questions about the future of worker protections and human rights in the UK. Finally, the party's funding, including from individuals like Jeremy Hosking, who has connections to the fossil fuel industry, raises concerns for some about potential conflicts of interest. Hosking, who has donated £2.2 million to the party. It's worth considering how this financial backing might influence their stance on climate issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mzzm5919 It's important to approach this question with an understanding of the diversity within Muslim-majority countries and their legal systems. There are examples of countries where minority rights, including religious freedoms, are protected by law. For instance:
Indonesia : While it is the world's largest Muslim-majority country, its constitution guarantees religious freedom. Recognised religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, have legal protections. However, the implementation of these rights can vary regionally.
Jordan : Its constitution ensures freedom of religion and protects minority groups. Christians, for example, have representation in parliament and can practice their faith openly.
Tunisia : Since its 2014 constitution, Tunisia has made strides in protecting religious freedoms and ensuring equality. Its legal framework supports freedom of conscience and belief.
Senegal : Known for its religious tolerance, Senegal has a majority-Muslim population but also protects the rights of its Christian minority and promotes interfaith harmony.
However, it's essential to acknowledge that challenges remain in many regions, and the protection of minority rights often depends on a combination of legal frameworks, cultural attitudes, and political contexts. Comparing this with the diversity in other religious-majority countries can highlight that no single tradition has a monopoly on inclusivity or exclusivity.
Your question underscores the need for nuanced discussions that go beyond stereotypes to explore how various factors – legal, cultural, and historical – shape the lived experiences of minorities in any context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PiecesMissing Divert, distract, divide – that’s exactly what you’re doing here. Instead of addressing either of my points, you've deflected, which is a common tactic. Like many right-wing voices, you're quick to play the victim. You either lack the humility to admit you're wrong, or worse, you're deliberately spreading misinformation.
Let’s address the facts. You claim that leaving the EU meant leaving the Council of Europe (CoE). That’s simply untrue. Nowhere on the 2016 referendum ballot did it suggest such a thing. This misunderstanding just shows that perhaps you didn’t fully grasp what you were voting for.
As for Brexit's impact on immigration, particularly the boat crossings, let’s clear that up as well. Prior to Brexit, the Dublin Regulation allowed the UK to return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. But after leaving the EU on January 31, 2020, the UK no longer benefits from that framework. The government planned to negotiate new treaties to handle asylum claims but has faced delays in establishing them. As a result, managing asylum claims has become more difficult, and the number of crossings has increased. The loss of the Dublin Regulation has undoubtedly worsened the immigration situation, making control much more challenging than before Brexit.
1
-
@PiecesMissing While the idea of leaving the ECHR was discussed by some, it wasn’t a central issue in the official Brexit campaigns. UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, did make leaving the ECHR a part of their broader agenda, focusing on regaining full control of UK laws, especially in areas like deportation and human rights rulings. But UKIP’s stance didn’t make it into the main Brexit debate in 2016.
The two major Leave campaigns – Vote Leave (backed by figures like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) and Leave.EU (supported by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks) - focused almost entirely on the EU itself. Their key arguments were about immigration control, economic sovereignty, and reducing EU regulations. Vote Leave in particular avoided discussing the ECHR much and kept the focus on reclaiming control from Brussels, not from Strasbourg (where the ECHR is based).
Some of the public and commentators did conflate the EU with the ECHR, thinking they were closely linked, but they are two distinct institutions. The confusion probably stemmed from the general narrative of "taking back control" and sovereignty. While leaving the ECHR is a possibility post-Brexit, it wasn’t directly connected to the EU referendum. So, in reality, the idea of leaving the ECHR wasn’t a formal part of the Brexit campaigns - it was more about disentangling from the EU, not human rights law specifically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JWNOSNHOJ Thank you for your reply. First of all you should remember what a reasoned amendment is. It is an objection to a bill's second reading that explains why it should not proceed, highlighting specific concerns rather than rejecting it outright. It’s a way for MPs to critique a bill and suggest changes. But as you can see from the Tories' critique it was not an attempt to improve the Bill, but simply to kill the Bill. As you can see from the Laura Trott's opening:
this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs .
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Hansard, Vol. 759: debated on Wednesday 8 January 2025.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NigelHatcherN Having an opinion not grounded in fact makes you either misinformed or misled; tis the difference betwixt fact and opinion . You make two main points: that alignment with European legal system is wrong, and that leaving the ECHR is not a solution for illegal immigration . Even using the term illegal immigration you are not recognising the legal status of refugees, which is recognised by international law: the framework of protections. It is what it is: a legal fact. You are looking at the perception rather than the reality and the legal framework. There are asylum seekers, and they are not illegal until their claim for refugee status is rejected. International law made by the United Nations. Repeating right-wing talking points doesn't make it right now, does it? Just your opinion.
So your first point that alignment with European legal system is wrong. And you are basing this on what? An advisory referendum result in 2016? Interestingly, the ECHR is the centrepiece of the conservative idea of liberty and the rule of law. What possible benefit would it serve for the people of the UK to withdrawal from the ECHR? What is more, leaving the ECHR would effectively tear up the Belfast agreement. Not forgetting how this would impact the rights of British citizens. The ECHR is based on the legal framework of the Council of Europe which has 46 members and a completely different institution to the EU. Who voted for the UK to join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR? Who voted for a government to weaken human rights in the UK? The Rights Removal Bill (that would replace a repealed HRA, 1998) will make it much harder for people to get justice if their rights have been abused. So on this point, no credible explanation from the government as to how not honouring the obligations might be handled. So what would be the reasoning for such a move? Many GBers even think erroneously – to say the least – that withdrawing from the ECHR the UK would revert back to the 1689 Bill of Rights or even the 1215 Magna Carta!! 😆😆
The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed . Simone de Beauvoir
As for your point that leaving the ECHR is not a solution for illegal immigration, there is a simple solution but the government refuses to take rational action . Instead, its solution is to spend £290 million on a policy of deporting refugees to Rwanda without a single one being deported! This is an action by a sado-populist party rather than a government ; it’s aim is “performative cruelty” rather than an attempt to govern. After all the waste of money, the incompetence, idiocy and cruelty, there are two simple solutions. Firstly, open up safe and legal routes. The government has said it’s inappropriate and counterproductive to provide safe and legal routes for migrants who make unauthorised journeys to Europe and want to come to the UK. Advocates of safe and legal routes argue that doing so could help to reduce small boat crossings and other forms of illegal migration . The second would be open a processing office in France, as the French government has repeatedly suggested. But if you want to keep racists and bigots angry and voting for right-wing parties, easing the pressure of immigration is the last thing you want to be doing .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s telling that the most substantive part of Ms Sultana's post comes when Martin stops saying, “oh dear, oh dear.” She highlights that Reform UK is “bankrolled by billionaires, led by ex-bankers and public schoolboys” and that Farage wants to “keep the Thatcher legacy alive.” Which part of that is untrue?
Farage recently claimed in the House of Commons that he supports healthcare being free at the point of delivery. Yet, this contradicts his past statements. In 2012, he openly advocated for moving towards an insurance-based system, saying, “I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently... move to an insurance-based system of healthcare”, because he preferred trusting insurance companies over the government to manage healthcare funds.
But who would benefit from such a shift, and who would lose out? Privatising healthcare might serve the interests of insurance companies and private providers, but it risks leaving vulnerable populations – especially those unable to afford private coverage – at a severe disadvantage. The NHS undoubtedly needs reform, but radical changes like deregulating medical standards or abolishing professional licensing could undermine patient safety and the very values the NHS was built on.
Reform UK's emphasis on efficiency and private sector expansion may address some inefficiencies, but will these reforms genuinely improve patient care or merely prioritise profits? Strengthening the NHS should be the goal, not replacing it with a system that could make healthcare even less accessible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prospero is a seeker of knowledge and truth, using his intellect and mastery of magic to manipulate events and seek justice. However this Prospero’s account of the WEF is relying on speculative claims rather than evidence-based analysis. The WEF does not advocate for a "One World Government" or communism. Their Agenda 2030 discussions align with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, focusing on sustainability, reducing inequality, and partnerships between governments and businesses.
Climate change is backed by scientific consensus, with measures aimed at sustainability, not economic destruction. Immigration is addressed as a humanitarian and economic issue, not a tool for global domination. Finally, DEI initiatives aim to promote fairness and inclusivity, and claims about moral bankruptcy are subjective, not evidence-based.
Critique is important, but it should be rooted in facts, not speculation.
1
-
Prospero is a seeker of knowledge and truth, using his intellect and mastery of magic to manipulate events and seek justice. However this Prospero’s account of the WEF is relying on speculative claims rather than evidence-based analysis. The WEF does not advocate for a "One World Government" or communism. Their Agenda 2030 discussions align with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, focusing on sustainability, reducing inequality, and partnerships between governments and businesses.
Climate change is backed by scientific consensus, with measures aimed at sustainability, not economic destruction. Immigration is addressed as a humanitarian and economic issue, not a tool for global government. Finally, DEI initiatives aim to promote fairness and inclusivity, and claims about moral bankruptcy are subjective, not evidence-based.
Critique is important, but it should be rooted in facts, not speculation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't comprehend your understanding of democracy . As I understand it it means participatory, or more radically as a form of democratic control of the productive resources. You might see "democracy" as a form of public execution. Fashos like this: "deport, deport", "leave WHO, UN. ECHR, UN, NATO", "earth is flat, no such thing as climate" etc. The Bolsheviks used to have the slogan "all power to the Soviets", you have pretty much the same slogan: "all power to Tice and Farage". Screw the checks and balances, which are the mechanisms which distribute power throughout a political system – preventing any one institution or individual from exercising total control. This principle is core to all modern democracies. You fashos want to dismantle it and give power to your Führer .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Charlie Mullins has been a vocal opponent of strong workers' rights protections, advocating for a flexible labour market that favours businesses. He has consistently supported self-employment models, arguing that they provide workers with greater freedom while also allowing businesses to avoid obligations such as sick pay, holiday pay, and pension contributions. His stance has frequently put him at odds with trade unions and employment rights campaigners.
One of the most significant moments in Mullins' career regarding workers' rights came in 2018, when the UK Supreme Court ruled against Pimlico Plumbers in a landmark case. The court found that a former plumber, Gary Smith, was not a self-employed contractor but a "worker" and was therefore entitled to rights such as paid holidays and protection from unfair dismissal. This case had far-reaching consequences for the gig economy, reinforcing the principle that companies cannot simply label workers as self-employed to avoid legal responsibilities.
Mullins has also been critical of government intervention in employment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was outspoken against furlough schemes and workplace protections, insisting that employees should continue working. He also controversially supported firing unvaccinated workers, arguing that businesses should have the right to dismiss employees who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.
Despite his opposition to stronger employment protections, Mullins has consistently portrayed himself as a champion of hard work and business success. However, his views align closely with the push for deregulation and reduced worker protections, which have become central themes in discussions about the gig economy and labour rights in the UK. Given that Reform UK shares a similar stance – advocating for a more flexible, deregulated economy that prioritises businesses over employment protections – it is hardly surprising that Mullins supports the party. His endorsement reflects a broader trend among business figures who see labour regulations as an obstacle to economic growth rather than a safeguard for workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@professormcclaine5738 You say Brexit wasn't implemented properly. Do you mean the Brexit you voted the Tories to deliver, that Lord Frost negotiated, that Brexiteers voted for, that Tice and Farage voted for? Who is to blame for this? We need an answer to this. Yet you will vote for the very people that are making your lives worse off!
🚨 #BrexitRealityCheck 🚨
As we face the consequences of Brexit, let's not forget the warnings.
🗣 People like Major and Heseltine consistently critiqued Nigel Farage's push for Brexit, highlighting how it's impacting our economy, reducing our global influence, and threatening the unity of the UK.
💼 Economy: Investment down, job losses up. Leaving the EU means leaving the world’s largest trading bloc.
🌍 Global Influence: We’ve lost our seat at the table in decisions that shape Europe and the UK.
🏴 National Unity: Scotland and Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, are reconsidering their place in the UK.
👶 Future Generations: The youth voted to remain for a reason—Brexit limits their opportunities and prospects.
📜 Historical Context: The EU has been a pillar of peace and stability in Europe post-WWII. Brexit is a step backwards.
Nigel Farage sold Brexit as a dream, but the reality is proving far different. It's time we reconsider the path we’re on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@talbenavraham1478 Thank you for the background. You say that change in demographics has changed the UK for the worst . I entirely agree with you that things have got worse in the 58 years of my life. I wouldn’t however entirely lay the blame with demographic change. After all, the difficulties we face today are much more about inequality and systemic issues than demographic shifts. The real problems stem from massive socio-economic factors that have created a society marked by stagnant wages, rocketing house prices, and stark disparities in wealth distribution. Cuts to and underfunding of public services have left many communities struggling, while the privatisation of these services reduces investment in the areas that need it most.
Instead of addressing these systemic inequalities, society often resorts to scapegoating vulnerable groups, diverting attention from the fact that wealth continues to flow into the hands of the richest. We see a focus on issues like “stop the boats”, framing them as a problem, when in reality, the true enemies are those arriving in yachts – individuals who benefit from an oligarchical grip on our political parties and media, including Reform UK.
This dynamic creates a Kulturkrieg that acts as a disguise for the real class struggle. While the narrative may highlight cultural differences, it obscures the critical need to confront the economic disparities that are fundamentally shaping our lives. By recognising that the Kulturkrieg is a distraction, we can shift our focus back to the pressing issues of inequality and systemic injustice that require our urgent attention and collective action.
All the best to you.
RS
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stoicsceptic8420 Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m not dismissing the need for credible evidence or open debate – science absolutely thrives on questioning and evidence-based discussion. But it’s important to differentiate genuine scientific consensus from misinformation or denial rooted in ideology. The vast majority of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change based on extensive data, peer-reviewed research, and observable impacts.
Calling it a “Malthusian ideology” or a “globalist control” strategy often diverts from the real issue: our environment and future. If you truly have deeper knowledge, I’d welcome a respectful, evidence-based dialogue rather than assumptions or personal attacks. Let’s focus on facts and solutions, not dismissive labels or conspiracy narratives.
And as for vaccines, I’d rather rely on credible science and peer-reviewed research than the misinformation people like you often peddle. If you're calling for critical thinking, it should apply to your own sources too – not just the ones you oppose.
Because when strong evidence is met with deflection, ideology, and outrage instead of engagement, that’s a textbook case of counterwill – resisting not because of reason, but because of how the truth makes you feel.
1
-
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m not dismissing the need for credible evidence or open debate – science absolutely thrives on questioning and evidence-based discussion. But it’s important to differentiate genuine scientific consensus from misinformation or denial rooted in ideology. The vast majority of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change based on extensive data, peer-reviewed research, and observable impacts.
Calling it a “Malthusian ideology” or a “globalist control” strategy often diverts from the real issue: our environment and future. If you truly have deeper knowledge, I’d welcome a respectful, evidence-based dialogue rather than assumptions or personal attacks. Let’s focus on facts and solutions, not dismissive labels or conspiracy narratives.
And as for vaccines, I’d rather rely on credible science and peer-reviewed research than the misinformation people like you often peddle. If you're calling for critical thinking, it should apply to your own sources too – not just the ones you oppose.
Because when strong evidence is met with deflection, ideology, and outrage instead of engagement, that’s a textbook case of counterwill – resisting not because of reason, but because of how the truth makes you feel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stoicsceptic8420 The idea that “consensus isn’t science” is often used to dismiss overwhelming expert agreement – but it misunderstands what scientific consensus actually means. No one is saying consensus equals truth; rather, consensus emerges because of decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research that independently arrives at the same conclusions. In this case: that human activity is driving climate change .
The 97% figure isn’t a “trope” – it comes from multiple independent studies, including one published in Environmental Research Letters analysing over 11,000 peer-reviewed climate papers. If that’s bogus, where is the equivalent peer-reviewed research disproving it?
And while questioning is healthy in science, dismissing consensus without evidence doesn’t make you a critical thinker – it just puts you outside the conversation that scientists are actually having. So here’s the challenge: if the consensus is so flawed, cite the studies – real, peer-reviewed ones – that show otherwise . If you want to question the science, do so with better science, not just suspicion.
1
-
1
-
@stoicsceptic8420 Thanks for expanding on that – you’re absolutely right that water vapour plays a huge role in the greenhouse effect. But here’s the key thing science shows: water vapour acts as a feedback , not a driver . It increases because the atmosphere warms, amplifying the warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO₂), which sticks around much longer and actually initiates the temperature rise. That’s why climate scientists focus on CO₂ – think of it as the thermostat, while water vapour is the response turning up the heat.
The overlap in absorption bands between water vapour and CO₂ is well studied in plenty of peer-reviewed research (NASA, Royal Society, IPCC), and CO₂ remains a critical long-term driver of global warming. So yes – absolutely look at the science, but make sure it’s from credible, peer-reviewed sources, not just selective blogs or videos that cherry-pick facts to push a particular narrative.
True scientific research challenges all assumptions. When you call yourself “Stoic Sceptic,” shouldn’t that scepticism also apply to your own assumptions – not just the ones you disagree with?
1
-
Thanks for expanding on that – you’re absolutely right that water vapour plays a huge role in the greenhouse effect. But here’s the key thing science shows: water vapour acts as a feedback , not a driver . It increases because the atmosphere warms, amplifying the warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO₂), which sticks around much longer and actually initiates the temperature rise. That’s why climate scientists focus on CO₂ – think of it as the thermostat, while water vapour is the response turning up the heat.
The overlap in absorption bands between water vapour and CO₂ is well studied in plenty of peer-reviewed research (NASA, Royal Society, IPCC), and CO₂ remains a critical long-term driver of global warming. So yes – absolutely look at the science, but make sure it’s from credible, peer-reviewed sources, not just selective blogs or videos that cherry-pick facts to push a particular narrative.
True scientific research challenges all assumptions. When you call yourself “Stoic Sceptic,” shouldn’t that scepticism also apply to your own assumptions – not just the ones you disagree with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nigel – and Reform UK supporters – if Brexit was really about “taking back control,” why has immigration gone up , not down? Isn’t the real goal clearer now – not to reduce numbers, but to strip rights from immigrant workers and eventually all workers ?
And now with talk of leaving the ECHR , isn’t this just another ruse – not to secure borders, but to weaken British citizens’ own rights : labour protections, consumer rights, access to justice, clean air, and safe food?
While you're busy fighting culture war distractions – burqas, pronouns, statues – who's benefitting? Because it certainly isn’t the working class.
So the real question is:
Are you fighting for British people – or just helping the elite strip away the rights and protections that stand in the way of their profits ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A Reform UK government would pose serious risks to workers’ rights, public services, and environmental protections. Despite its populist appeal to working-class voters, the party is heavily funded by fossil fuel interests and climate change deniers, including major donors like Jeremy Hosking and Terence Mordaunt, and consistently supports policies that benefit elites over ordinary people. Reform UK MPs have opposed banning zero-hours contracts, day-one sick pay, and basic worker protections – even though these are supported by a majority of their own constituents. Their welfare proposals are punitive, and their economic plans would likely lead to underfunding of key public services like the NHS. Leaders such as Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have also expressed support for increased privatisation and deregulation, undermining social protections and public health. On climate, Reform UK openly rejects net-zero targets and environmental safeguards, prioritising polluting industries over future sustainability. In practice, a Reform UK government would mean fewer rights for workers, deeper inequality, and weakened democratic accountability – all while empowering the very elites it claims to oppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichaelCook84 The censorious youtube algorithm doesn’t allow me to state that, but that is what you are. People like you often make claims about the WEF without providing any substantiated evidence. It seems you view regulated and sustainable capitalism as a step toward a controlled, authoritarian world. However, at the same time, you support political parties like Reform UK, which advocate for oligarchies led by billionaires who are intent on deregulating the economy and stripping you of both your labour rights and civil liberties. In reality, these threats are far more dangerous than anything the WEF could potentially enact. 😂
How do you reconcile a populist right-wing support for Elon Musk, a billionaire who benefits from government subsidies and the global economic system, with your criticism of the WEF, which aims to promote global cooperation and sustainable development, particularly when Musk's actions often align with the very interests you believe the WEF represents ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2019, the Conservatives promised to "Get Brexit Done," recruit 50,000 more nurses, and build 40 new hospitals. While Brexit was achieved, key healthcare and infrastructure pledges remained largely unfulfilled, with delays in staff recruitment and hospital construction. Over half of their promises were either completed or on track, but significant gaps persist.
In 2024, Labour pledged change, including better public services, but critics highlighted a lack of funding detail and underwhelming fiscal commitments. With only a few months in power, the Tory media are concerned over plans to raise taxes on wealthy landowners and means-testing winter fuel payments. Given the Conservatives had five years to deliver and Labour has had just months, these debates underscore public frustration over unkept promises.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themossad In actual fact, there was a growing sense of Palestinian identity in the 19th century, even if it wasn't fully organised under one leader. As the Ottoman Empire centralised control during the Tanzimat reforms, Palestinians started feeling a distinct identity linked to their land. Arab nationalism was rising too, and intellectuals in places like Beirut and Damascus influenced Palestinians. The 1858 land reforms, foreign influence, and early Zionist settlements all contributed to a local awakening, with Palestinians beginning to resist foreign land purchases and settler activity. While there may not have been a "national leader," the groundwork for a national identity was already being laid.
One cannot deny the history and identity of the Palestinian people simply because they didn't have a singular, centralised leader. History is after all shaped by collective experiences, not just by individual figures. Not Great Men , as the great post-punk band the Gang of Four put it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The betrayal narrative: you have to BELIEVE in it . From your way of thinking, the Referendum in 2016 was not a democratic plebiscite, it was an existential question. A democratic vote was 52/48, Sunak voted to Leave, May, Cameron, Truss voted to Remain, who knows how Johnson voted? For Brexiteers like you, Truss is a believer; Sunak is not a believer. It is like a religion, and Brexit is the original sin: the lies, the corruption, the gaslighting all follows from this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oliver again using right-wing sources as evidence. Institute of Economic Affairs. Reliable? In November 2022, the funding transparency website Who Funds You ? rated the IEA as the lowest transparency rating. Should we consider the evidence of the IEA as reliable? The IEA and GB News are mouthpieces of the oligarchs and the off-shore billionaires that promote deregulated disaster capitalism, and the ones that will benefit most from the crises that they bring about. After all, it is the IEA that is proud of their advice to Liz Truss, and Kwasi Kwarteng which led to them blowing a £30 billion hole in the economy. Did this lead to more democratic participation?
Relying on ideas of a think tank that is:
funded by the tobacco industry
funded by fossil fuel industry and therefore climate deniers
offering "cash for access "
its agenda is in line with corporate interests
virulently ANTI-WORKING CLASS
Now Neil, your monologue is based on evidence the IEA, less a think tank more a brainwashing organ; and the writings on democracy, such as the 1776 Declaration, the 1863 Gettysberg Address, and Francis Hutcheson, writing in the 1740’s. Not to mention Robert the Bruce. Do you notice a pattern? No notable writing about democracy in the last 160 years.
We seem to accept misinformation and conspiracy theories from Oliver. How can we accept his narrative of liars in the government when GB News pays “Sir” Jacob £800 per hour to give the channel some semblance of legitimacy; it pays Lee Anderthal £100,000 per year to spout bullshit to reactionaries. You are amongst the snakes in the pit. Now Neil, are you ready to call them out as liars?
On lockdowns: whilst I disagreed with government policy that was creeping authoritarianism, essentially I supported the public health actions. Nevertheless, I find liars and those spreading misinformation most despicable. And Oliver is a despicable SHOCK JOCK. He is using a string of lies. Never once does he substantiate any of these claims. I am sure he rests in the knowledge that GB News viewers will swallow them unquestionably and regurgitate them.
Essentially, society should not be organised on state-centred basis, but democratic organisation.
N.B. It seems if I had said Well said Neil. Governments have failed us , I'd have over 700 LIKES showered on me, but speak the truth and get NONE. Argumentation, and evidence is not respected by right-wing reactionaries that crave culture war rhetoric. Oliver once a respected historian has sold his soul to the gammonati for clicks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterWalker-on5kj It is injustice that causes social unrest is a truism, meaning it is a statement so obviously true that it hardly requires explanation. Social unrest, whether in the form of protests, riots, or other forms of collective action, is typically a reaction to perceived wrongs or inequalities within a society. When people feel they have been treated unfairly or denied their rights, this can lead to frustration, anger, and ultimately, social unrest as they seek to address these grievances.
However, while the link between injustice and social unrest is widely acknowledged, it's crucial to recognize that the perception of injustice can be subjective and influenced by various factors, including misinformation, prejudice, and emotions. Not all unrest stems from a clear or "righteous" cause. Sometimes, social unrest is driven by misunderstandings, misinformation, or even malevolent intentions.
The riots in England serve as a case in point. These riots were not primarily driven by a noble pursuit of justice but rather by a combination of misinformation, opportunism, and underlying social tensions. The riots were marked by acts of violence, looting, and destruction, which many would argue were not rooted in a legitimate sense of injustice but rather in harmful motives such as greed, anger, and hate.
In such cases, the unrest does not come from a "good place," meaning it is not rooted in a genuine desire for positive social change or the rectification of wrongs. Instead, it may be the product of negative emotions, social decay, or manipulation. This complicates the relationship between injustice and social unrest, as not all unrest is a clear or justified response to real injustice. Instead, some unrest may exacerbate social harm rather than address legitimate grievances.
Therefore, while it is true that injustice often causes social unrest, it is equally important to consider the nature of the perceived injustice and the motivations behind the unrest. Not all who protest or riot are fighting for a just cause, and in some instances, social unrest can be more destructive than constructive. Understanding this nuance is key to addressing the root causes of unrest and effectively responding to it in ways that promote greater unity and justice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billsticker It seems you have already reached your conclusions without weighing up the evidence. Questioning and critically analysing scientific claims are essential, but it's also crucial to consider the weight of evidence supporting a particular conclusion. To conclude, as you have done, that as far as evidence is concerned there is none whatsoever , you must address the following evidence, and explain why you dismiss it. You cannot ignore the following.
Over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by human activities. Why do you think such a vast majority of experts support this conclusion?
Have you considered the significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since the Industrial Revolution, largely due to human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation? How might these emissions contribute to climate change?
Have you examined the temperature records over the past century? Data from NASA and NOAA show a clear warming trend, with the last decade being the warmest on record. What factors do you think could explain this trend if not human activities?
How do you explain the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, and wildfires? Could human activities be influencing these patterns?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of thousands of scientists worldwide, regularly assesses the latest research on climate change. Their reports consistently highlight the role of human activities in driving global warming. Why do you think such a broad and diverse body of experts would reach this conclusion if there were no evidence to support it?
SOURCES: NASA's Climate Change Website; IPCC Assessment Reports
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Save Britain? And you think Reform UK can do this? Because Reform UK would destroy the UK economy in order to pay back its donors? Like Truss 2.0. The party is funded by dirty money, as is the Reclaim Party: all bank-rolled by the fossil fuel investor and climate change denier, Jeremy Hosking. Imagine what Reform and Reclaim could get up to: corruption at the very heart of their business model ; not political model: they are running the party in the interests of big business!
Reform UK is at heart the party of the rentier class. Tice is a representative of the capitalist class getting people to rise up as a movement with all-absorbing power to demand a world not in their interests, but in the interests of the minority capitalist class: low regulation, low taxes. Keynes once proclaimed "the euthanasia of the rentier". That would take care of Reform UK and the Tories. To return to low rates of interest would mean:
the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital .
Apart from Tice, who is the talent and intellectual core of the party? What policies do they have - apart from stopping immigration, revoking people's human rights, and isolating the UK? I'd love to know!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodpimps The legacy of Tony Blair's relationship with Europe and its implications for the UK has been a subject of significant debate.
Firstly, while there was considerable speculation and some evidence that Tony Blair might have been interested in the role, there is no concrete, public statement from him confirming that he actively sought to become "President of Europe." Therefore, it is accurate to say that it was a widely discussed possibility rather than a confirmed fact. Secondly, although Tony Blair did make the UK more amenable to the European Project by actively engaging with the EU, adopting EU policies, and promoting the UK's role within the union, his approach was pragmatic, as he did not push for full integration (e.g., joining the Eurozone), balancing European engagement with national interests. Thirdly, the statement that Blair's policies and Brexit have "created a significant mess" is a subjective interpretation. It reflects the view that the pro-European policies of Blair contributed to the conditions leading to Brexit, and that Brexit itself has resulted in significant challenges for the UK. However, whether this constitutes a "mess" depends on one's perspective on both Blair's legacy and the impact of Brexit. This is a matter of political opinion rather than an objective fact. Finally, the possibility of the UK being "elevated to greatness" outside the EU, the Council of Europe, and the ECHR is contingent on various factors, including economic performance, diplomatic strategy, legal frameworks, and public perception. While some argue that independence could allow the UK to pursue a more distinct and potentially powerful role on the world stage, others caution that isolation from European institutions could lead to economic, legal, and diplomatic challenges that might hinder such aspirations.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the decisions made by future UK leaders and their ability to navigate these complex challenges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is narcissistic. He often exhibits an exaggerated sense of self-importance. He has repeatedly claimed that he is uniquely capable of solving complex problems and has often boasted about his achievements and intelligence. This trait is consistent with the grandiosity seen in narcissistic personalities.
Trump’s craving for constant praise and admiration is well-documented. He frequently seeks validation from crowds, rallies, and through social media, showcasing his accomplishments and demanding loyalty and admiration from his supporters and associates .
Critics argue that Trump often shows a lack of empathy for others, focusing instead on his own needs and desires. This has been evident in his responses to various crises, where his focus on personal praise and deflection of criticism often overshadowed expressions of genuine concern for those affected .
Trump has demonstrated a strong sense of entitlement, believing that he deserves special treatment and unquestioned loyalty. This is seen in his expectations of how others should treat him, including his demands from political allies and even governmental institutions .
His interactions often suggest a tendency to exploit others for personal gain. He has been accused of using people to advance his own interests and discarding them when they no longer serve his purposes .
Trump has a knack for drawing attention to himself, often using controversial statements and actions to remain in the public eye. His extensive use of social media, especially Twitter during his presidency, is a prime example of his need to be the centre of attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uingaeoc3905 Thanks for your questions. By “equity” I mean fairness and justice in society – ensuring resources and opportunities are shared in ways that promote well-being for all, not just a privileged few. I don’t actually have a garden, so it’s a moot point in my case, but this isn’t about individuals’ gardens.
A possible solution to the land ownership issue would be shifting from private possession to communal stewardship. This means managing land for the collective good – prioritising sustainable use and meeting environmental and societal needs, not simply maximising profits. Given that only 8% of England’s land is publicly accessible, it’s concerning that we have to import essentials like two-thirds of our cheese, considering the farmland we could utilise. “That is”, as Ms Truss put it, “a disgrace!”
How do you think our current system of land ownership affects access to resources and fairness in society ?
Given the fact that so much land is privately owned and inaccessible, how would you suggest we increase public access to natural spaces in a way that benefits everyone ?
Do you believe land should primarily serve private interests, or do you see any value in a system where land management prioritises environmental sustainability and community needs over profit ?
1
-
@uingaeoc3905 Thanks for your questions. By “equity” I mean fairness and justice in society – ensuring resources and opportunities are shared in ways that promote well-being for all, not just a privileged few. I don’t actually have a garden, so it’s a moot point in my case, but this isn’t about individuals’ gardens.
A possible solution to the land ownership issue would be shifting from private possession to communal stewardship. This means managing land for the collective good – prioritising sustainable use and meeting environmental and societal needs, not simply maximising profits. Given that only 8% of England’s land is publicly accessible, it’s concerning that we have to import essentials like two-thirds of our cheese, considering the farmland we could utilise. “That is”, as Ms Truss put it, “a disgrace!”
How do you think our current system of land ownership affects access to resources and fairness in society ?
Given the fact that so much land is privately owned and inaccessible, how would you suggest we increase public access to natural spaces in a way that benefits everyone ?
Do you believe land should primarily serve private interests, or do you see any value in a system where land management prioritises environmental sustainability and community needs over profit ?
1
-
You have yet to demonstrate why it is fair or just to charge rent and profit from land used by the army, navy, hospitals, schools, the prison service, and local councils in England – simply because an individual’s ancestors seized that land during the medieval period. This practice implies that the privilege of profiting from essential services rests not on merit, public service, or societal need, but solely on an inherited claim dating back centuries. Given the modern context, where public funds sustain these services, how can this be reconciled with principles of fairness and justice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Explain how Project 2025 will benefit ordinary people in the USA. If you want to centralise executive power, embed conservative ideology into the federal bureaucracy, and compromise the neutrality of the civil service then how will this be beneficial? There is a concern that it could lead to regulatory rollbacks, undermining protections for the environment, public health, and worker safety.
While voting for Trump might influence policies related to global trade and international agreements, it's unlikely to completely end globalism. Globalism is driven by complex economic, technological, and social factors that go beyond the actions of any single president. Countries and economies are deeply interconnected, and these connections can't be easily undone. Additionally, global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and security threats require international cooperation, making complete isolation impractical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SoMuchFacepalm The idea that the Nazis were socialist is a far-right trope often used to distort historical facts. While the term "National Socialism" was part of the Nazi Party's name, their ideology was fundamentally opposed to socialist principles. Actually, Hitler and the Nazis promoted extreme nationalist, authoritarian, and ultra-conservative policies, all classic far-right traits. They pushed for racial “purity”, anti-Marxism, and the idea of a strong state over individual freedoms. This isn't just opinion – it's well-documented history.
What source do you have for this claim? Actually, Hitler wasn’t fond of Marx or his ideas; he was strongly opposed to Marxism and Communism, seeing them as anti-German and internationalist ideologies that clashed with his extreme nationalism. Hitler publicly rejected Marxist ideas, including the concept of class unity, focusing instead on a racial and nationalist agenda. The Nazi Party’s “National Socialism” was very different from Marxist socialism, as it rejected class struggle in favour of an ethnically defined Volksgemeinschaft (“people’s community”).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WielkiResetWEF Can you actually explain what specifically the WEF is doing that makes your life worse? I keep seeing vague slogans about the “Great Reset” and globalist agendas, but never any concrete evidence of harm.
Let’s be clear: the World Economic Forum (WEF) is not a governing body. It doesn’t make laws, it doesn’t have enforcement power, and politicians don’t “join” it – they attend to speak, debate, or network. Its “Great Reset” initiative, launched post-COVID, is about adapting capitalism to be more sustainable and inclusive. That might sound threatening if you’ve been told that cooperation = control, but where’s the actual danger?
In fact, WEF discussions support recognising trade unions , promoting regulation and investing in long-term, green and equitable growth – things that many on the left (including me) have fought for for decades. So what exactly is the threat here? That they want to plan for the future rather than gamble on deregulated markets?
Ask yourself:
What specific WEF-backed policy has harmed people in your country ?
If your country’s leader attends Davos, does that mean they serve Klaus Schwab – or are they just doing their job in a globalised world ?
Have you looked at WEF’s goals from a range of sources – or just ones that confirm your suspicions ?
If we abolished the WEF tomorrow, would anything in your daily life actually improve? Your job? Wages? Bills ?
Let’s be honest. The fear isn’t coming from the WEF – it’s coming from those who profit off your fear. Right-wing media pushes absurdities like microchips and “one world government” to stir outrage while ignoring the real culprits behind inequality: the unchecked capitalism they themselves support.
Ironically, the populist right keeps the current economic system intact. They rail against “elites” but then defend deregulation, fossil fuel subsidies, and low taxes for the rich – while scapegoating immigrants and global cooperation.
If you really want to challenge global capitalism, ask harder questions:
Why is profit always prioritised over people?
Who benefits when we attack global cooperation and unions?
Why is sustainable, regulated capitalism portrayed as a threat – but not the climate crisis or rising inequality?
In short, don’t let media outlets (like GB News, which loses tens of millions to push anti-WEF narratives) tell you who to blame. Think critically. Ask for evidence. And question all forms of elite power – not just the ones convenient to your political tribe.
1
-
Can you actually explain what specifically the WEF is doing that makes your life worse? I keep seeing vague slogans about the “Great Reset” and globalist agendas, but never any concrete evidence of harm.
Let’s be clear: the World Economic Forum (WEF) is not a governing body. It doesn’t make laws, it doesn’t have enforcement power, and politicians don’t “join” it – they attend to speak, debate, or network. Its “Great Reset” initiative, launched post-COVID, is about adapting capitalism to be more sustainable and inclusive. That might sound threatening if you’ve been told that cooperation = control, but where’s the actual danger?
In fact, WEF discussions support recognising trade unions , promoting regulation and investing in long-term, green and equitable growth – things that many on the left (including me) have fought for for decades. So what exactly is the threat here? That they want to plan for the future rather than gamble on deregulated markets?
Ask yourself:
What specific WEF-backed policy has harmed people in your country ?
If your country’s leader attends Davos, does that mean they serve Klaus Schwab – or are they just doing their job in a globalised world ?
Have you looked at WEF’s goals from a range of sources – or just ones that confirm your suspicions ?
If we abolished the WEF tomorrow, would anything in your daily life actually improve? Your job? Wages? Bills ?
Let’s be honest. The fear isn’t coming from the WEF – it’s coming from those who profit off your fear. Right-wing media pushes absurdities like microchips and “one world government” to stir outrage while ignoring the real culprits behind inequality: the unchecked capitalism they themselves support.
Ironically, the populist right keeps the current economic system intact. They rail against “elites” but then defend deregulation, fossil fuel subsidies, and low taxes for the rich – while scapegoating immigrants and global cooperation.
If you really want to challenge global capitalism, ask harder questions:
Why is profit always prioritised over people?
Who benefits when we attack global cooperation and unions?
Why is sustainable, regulated capitalism portrayed as a threat – but not the climate crisis or rising inequality?
In short, don’t let media outlets (like GB News, which loses tens of millions to push anti-WEF narratives) tell you who to blame. Think critically. Ask for evidence. And question all forms of elite power – not just the ones convenient to your political tribe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ It’s interesting that you trace Marxist and communist ideologies through such a broad historical lens, but there are a few points worth unpacking. Equating intellectualism with disdain for populism oversimplifies both perspectives. Emotional intelligence is certainly valuable, but so is critical thinking and informed debate – qualities that come from education, not just at Harvard but at any institution that encourages analysis and dialogue.
You also use the phrase “all fur coat and no knickers”, which implies appearance without substance. Isn’t it fair to ask if such accusations could apply to any political ideology, including populism, which often relies on emotional appeals over practical solutions? Rather than painting groups with broad strokes, wouldn’t it be more productive to focus on specific policies and their impacts?
On the topic of emotional intelligence, supporting wars in Gaza and Ukraine isn’t exactly evidence of it. If anything, it reflects a disturbing lack of humanity and a tendency toward dehumanisation. It’s ironic that you claim emotional superiority while promoting narrow, divisive thinking.
Since you seem to value nationalism so highly, let me share my background: I was born and raised in England, and my family has a proud history of service. My uncle fought with Monty’s Eighth Army, and my grandfather served alongside Kitchener at Omdurman and in the First World War.
What I can’t stand are false patriots – those who claim to love their country but harm it by pushing parochial views that divide and weaken us. Real patriotism is about striving for the best for everyone in the nation, not clinging to outdated, insular ideas that isolate us from the world and undermine our progress as a country.
1
-
@janicebirch7522 You seem to be missing the point, and your reading abilities appear to be quite limited. What does it matter where I was born? Would you like to see my birth certificate to validate my argument? The focus should be on the ideas and perspectives being discussed, not on irrelevant personal details. I’m more interested in engaging with the substance of the conversation rather than getting caught up in such distractions.
I never stated I fought in the army; I simply mentioned that my uncle and grandfather served, which is part of my family history. As for whether my parents were English, they were. However, I believe it’s important to separate one’s heritage from the ideas and values they hold.
Regarding your point about lived experience, I don’t see why living in England currently would invalidate my perspective on the country’s future or the issues we face. Many of us, no matter where we live, care deeply about the well-being of our nation. It’s about considering ideas and policies with an open mind, not just geography. Shouldn’t the strength of an argument lie in its merit, rather than where someone happens to live?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frusciantesplectrum7980 It’s important to recognise that cultures are dynamic, not static. British culture, like all cultures, has always evolved, influenced by a wide range of factors, including immigration. In fact, immigration has historically enriched British culture, bringing in new ideas, traditions, and ways of thinking. The blending of different cultures doesn’t dilute a culture, it can enhance it, making it more diverse, adaptable, and vibrant.
The idea that British identity is solely tied to a single racial or cultural group overlooks the long history of immigration and multiculturalism that has shaped the UK. The UK’s identity has always been built on diversity – from the Anglo-Saxons and Romans to more recent waves of immigrants. It’s not about “preserving” a singular identity, but rather allowing for a more inclusive, evolving society that reflects the experiences of all its people.
As for the notion of "tribalism," human societies have always had diverse groups, but that doesn't mean we can’t find common ground and shared values. The challenge isn’t in embracing diversity, but in ensuring that everyone feels equal, respected, and able to contribute to society. Embracing this diversity doesn’t threaten the culture; it can help it grow and evolve in a way that reflects the world we live in today.
Finally, the idea of "preserving" a culture should not mean excluding others, but ensuring that the values of respect, fairness, and inclusion continue to thrive. Change is inevitable, and rather than fearing it, we should see it as an opportunity for growth and mutual understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You’re calling for the WEF to be disbanded and even calling its members psychopaths – but you’ve provided no clear evidence, no chain of reasoning, and certainly no explanation of how that would actually make life better for ordinary people. The WEF is just one visible forum within a much larger capitalist system that prioritises profit over people – it doesn’t make laws, it doesn’t hold power like corporations or governments do, and yet somehow it’s your main target?
Ask yourself honestly: is the WEF really the problem, or is it just a scapegoat? You ignore the financial systems, trade agreements, deregulation, and austerity that do the real damage – because challenging those would mean facing up to capitalism itself, not just booing at the most public face of it. If you want to talk about élite power, fine – but at least be consistent. So far, all I’ve seen is outrage with no substance.
Still waiting for someone to answer this: How exactly would getting rid of the WEF improve your life – beyond giving you a villain to shout at ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariannestuart4398 OK, so firstly tell me what I have wrong in this summary of Bridgen's speech?
Concerns about Excess Deaths: Bridgen argues that the UK is facing a significant medical scandal due to excess deaths in 2022 and 2023, which he attributes in part to the COVID-19 vaccines.
Personal Position on Vaccines: He clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, having been double vaccinated himself, but claims to have been harmed by vaccines. He argues that his stance is based on scientific skepticism rather than ideology.
Critique of Vaccine Safety and Efficacy: Bridgen questions the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, criticizing their effectiveness in preventing infections and transmission. He accuses officials of downplaying vaccine-related adverse effects and calls for transparency in vaccine data.
Allegations of Mismanagement: He alleges mismanagement during the pandemic response, including concerns about the use of "do not resuscitate" orders and treatment protocols that he claims led to unnecessary deaths.
Calls for Inquiry: Bridgen urges the COVID-19 inquiry to move forward with investigating vaccines and therapeutics (module 4) promptly. He emphasizes the need for independent analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy data.
Scientific Oversight: He advocates for more independent scientific research in policymaking and criticizes what he perceives as a lack of transparency and accountability in healthcare decision-making.
Regulatory Concerns: Bridgen raises concerns about conflicts of interest in regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical companies, alleging improper influence over vaccine approvals and oversight.
In summary, Bridgen's speech is a critique of the UK government's pandemic response, particularly its handling of COVID-19 vaccines. He calls for greater transparency, independent investigation, and a re-evaluation of vaccine safety and efficacy claims. His stance reflects scepticism towards current medical and regulatory practices related to COVID-19 vaccines.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@remoanersrknts6736 unelected foreign politicians . Twenty-seven countries elect these politicians.
Does it make sense to accept control of our domestic affairs from Brussels as price of free trade ?
Next, you'll be saying that the UK had no control over its own laws. Ludicrous and has no basis in reality. The only reason for the “bonfire of EU laws” is to deregulate the labour market and trade, thereby stripping away standards for a post-brexit disaster capitalism that is intent on eroding civil liberties and workers’ rights on the premise that deregulation is a good thing like "freedom" and "sovereignty". According to the OBR, Brexit will slash productivity by 4%; it has delivered a 15% drop in trade; there will be a 14% drop in investment; it will increase food prices by 6%; and it will deliver lower wages, workforce shortages and the highest inflation in the G7. If there was something that is so damaging, why wouldn’t the government want to change it?
Does it make sense to give control of our fishing waters to unelected foreign politicians as price of free trade ?
I am sure you know all about sovereignty and the differences between “internal”, “territorial” waters, “exclusive economic zone”, and “international waters”. So can you give instances where the UK was not in control of its territorial waters?
Does it make sense to accept uncontrolled immigration from Europe as price of free trade ?
Yes Blair allowed equality of access after the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries in 2004, as it was the promise of 1989. Anyway, the Cameron government did not change the ruling. The big lie of 2016 is that there is a unified immigration law. There is none. Each country sets its own immigration law. We talk of European migration policy, but the migration regime is defined far more by the actions of individual states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maralynmitchell8261 It seems to me that had Brexit been going swimmingly well, the government wouldn’t had to keep lying to you! Truss is a case in point. As of 2020 the EU had around 70 free trade agreements (FTAs) with countries around the world. So leaving the EU the trade agreements between the UK and these countries were a cut ‘n’ paste job of trade deals that they UK had already had in the EU. As for the deal with Australia signed in December 2021, this has had a big impact on UK faming. The UK has accepted less regulation in areas such as food safety and animal welfare, in order to allow imports from Australian producers who don’t adhere to stricter domestic rules. DEFRA estimated a £278 million loss in UK agriculture, food and drink exports from the UK-Australia FTA due to cheaper, less-regulated produce undercutting UK producers. A win for Australian farmers, but not for UK farmers.
As for Free Ports, these were presented as a benefit of leaving the EU. That we would not have been able to have Free Ports had we been in the EU. Lies again!! The UK operated several Free Ports as recently as 2012 when the government stopped renewing their licenses. These Free Ports were introduced in the 1980’s by Thatcher to counter de-industrialisation, and included sites in Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff, Liverpool, Prestwick and Southampton. So from the 1980’s until 2012: what do you notice? Would Free Ports have been allowed in the EU? History shows that they definitely were!
You may think I am showing my ignorance, in which case please correct my errors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ICER-71 I get where you're coming from, but when it comes to healthcare, Reform UK’s stance on moving towards an insurance-based system, like Nigel Farage suggested in 2012, raises some serious concerns. Farage himself said, "I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently... move to an insurance-based system of healthcare," because he felt more comfortable trusting insurance companies over the government to manage healthcare funds.
However, whose interests would be served by shifting to such a system, and who would lose out? Privatising healthcare may benefit insurance companies and private providers, but it could leave vulnerable people, especially those who can't afford private coverage, at a severe disadvantage. As for the NHS, while it needs reform, introducing radical changes like deregulating medical standards or abolishing professional licensing only risks patient safety and could undermine the very values the NHS was built on. Reform UK's health policy, with its focus on efficiency and private sector expansion, may address some NHS inefficiencies, but we must ask whether these reforms will truly benefit patients or prioritise profits. We need to strengthen the NHS, not replace it with a system that could make healthcare less accessible for many.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ICER-71 You mentioned a key debate at the UK Labour Party Conference in 2024, which centred on the role of private sector involvement in the NHS. Starmer and Streeting’s proposals, outlined in Labour's manifesto "Change," focused on reducing waiting times and modernising the NHS by collaborating with private healthcare providers. This included using private hospitals for additional beds and surgeries, as well as expanding community diagnostic centres and surgical hubs. The aim was pragmatic : to address immediate challenges without ideological constraints while preserving the NHS’s principle of free care for all.
Critics within Labour and from health unions raised valid concerns that such reliance on private providers might undermine the NHS’s public nature, risking a slippery slope towards privatisation. Supporters, however, argued this approach was necessary to tackle the NHS’s long waiting lists and resource issues without abandoning its core values.
I’m not a Starmer supporter or a Labour voter, but I think it’s worth comparing this pragmatic stance with Reform UK’s policies. If Reform UK's approach increases reliance on private providers and encourages more people to pay for healthcare, how does that align with protecting the NHS’s founding principle of free care for all? Wouldn’t that risk creating a two-tier system where only those who can afford it get timely treatment?
Labour’s proposals, while controversial, aim to use private sector partnerships as a stopgap measure rather than a systemic shift. If Reform’s policies lead to more privatisation by stealth , doesn’t that raise bigger questions about equity and accessibility in healthcare? Addressing these issues is critical to any meaningful debate about the future of the NHS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wundurra24 Once again, it’s time to remind ourselves of who voted for military action in Iraq in February 2003. Those 434 MPs were all complicit in ‘’Blair's War’’. Now apart from the usual suspects (yes, predictably Mandelson etc.), there are respected parliamentarians (Harriet Harman, Dominic Grieve, yes even David Lammy!); a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (David Trimble), the ‘’libertarians’’ (Desi Swain, Tim Loughton) who seek to protect your freedom whilst voting to destroy the lives of many hundred of thousands of lives . Then there are the frankly sociopathic (Redwood, I.D.S. etc.).
An estimated 288,000 died in this conflict, and gave rise to further instability and ISIS..
Those complicit should also not be forgotten for their role in this war .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tell the Tories, this is the proud United Kingdom of Great Britain and the other one, and we want all our human rights taken away. The Chartists, The Suffragettes, William Blake, Shelley, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, were all bloody wokey lefties we want real traditional values , like child labour concentration camps, and slave labour. Drudgery for all the working poor, tax breaks and exploitative labour relations and deregulated landlordship the rest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
This enthusiastic account of how modernity had revolutionised the world is from the Manifesto by Marx and Engels. They understood that capitalism was revolutionary, but there was need to revolutionise the world so that profit is not the sole factor of production but that it should be based on needs. A world in which there is resources based economy can work. This can create new era of co-operation in which innovation and technology solves the crises that is inherent in the capitalist quest for profit and selfish ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondwoods2304
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
@raymondwoods2304 William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reform UK might claim to champion freedom and democracy, but their actions often tell a different story. They oppose progressive policies like abortion rights and LGBT protections, which undermines the very idea of “liberation.” On top of that, the party’s lack of internal democracy is striking – they’ve excluded members who challenge the leadership, yet allowed someone with a criminal conviction for assault to serve as an MP. With Farage at the helm, much like his control over UKIP, the party lacks a genuine democratic structure or active membership. It’s less about collective decision-making and more about avoiding any challenges to his authority.
This lack of accountability was on full display when Farage completely avoided addressing the critical question about Biden's speech on the dangers of concentrated wealth and power in the tech industry. Instead of engaging meaningfully, he sidestepped, leaving a gaping hole in his argument.
So, if Reform UK is truly about freedom and democracy, why does it seem more like a vehicle for personal power and evasion rather than real principles? Is this the leadership we should respect, or should we demand more?
If Reform UK claims to stand for freedom and democracy, how can this be reconciled with their opposition to progressive policies, lack of internal democratic structures, and Farage’s avoidance of addressing critical issues like wealth concentration and power in the tech industry? Does this suggest a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the war in Ukraine started there were many Putin apologists. Farage is a Putin apologist, though he is quiet about it these days. Oliver claims to be against neo-liberalism, but he and GB News promote its central tenets: the Friedman doctrine of f++k social responsibility, responsibility should be to shareholders; f++k the climate, promote the vested interests of fossil fuel multi-nationals. Neo-liberalism is a free market form of capitalism and is about deregulation of the economy. Yes, neo-liberalism is an economic doctrine, not a social or cultural one . Oliver surely knows this, doesn’t he ?
The artist's question is still apt: If people like Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Marine LePen, and ISIS want Britain to Leave the E.U. Where does that put you ? (W. Tillmans, 2016)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well done GB News, it’s good for the UK economy that negotiations have started for an East Asian trade deal. However, a word of balance. It would seem that the UK will benefit to the tune of £9 trillion, but in terms of exports this will be more like 37 billion by 2030. To put that into perspective, in 2019 exports to the EU was to the tune of 294 billion, amounting to 43% of all exports. A constant 294 billion over the next nine years would total 2, 646 billion (2,6 trillion) which compared to 37 billion is over 70 times more in terms of exports.
In January 2021, the value of good exported to the European Union fell from £13.6 billion to £7.88 billion pounds, while the value of imports fell from £22.7 billion to £15.8 billion. Leaving the EU, approximately 5.72 billion loss in exports, whilst a potential 4.11 billion is in the offing. A 1.61 billion per year shortfall in exports. So IF this trade deal is finalised it will not make up for the losses that have been made by leaving the EU customs union.
Good news on the one hand, but a burnt offering. Brexit was always going to be a pyrrhic victory.
1
-
Let’s face it: fossil fuels are a relic of the past, and renewable energy is undeniably the future, not just in terms of environmental impact, but also in job creation and economic growth. The global shift towards renewables is already creating millions of jobs in industries like solar, wind, and battery storage, with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reporting that the renewable energy sector employed 12 million people worldwide in 2020, and that number is projected to rise to 42 million by 2050. Meanwhile, fossil fuel industries are seeing declining employment opportunities as automation and the transition to cleaner energy sources reduce the demand for coal, oil, and gas workers. In terms of scale, wind and solar energy are increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and technological advancements continue to make renewable energy more efficient and affordable. With countries and corporations alike committing to Net Zero goals, the economic advantages of transitioning to a green economy are becoming clearer. Fossil fuels may have powered the past, but renewable energy is positioning itself to drive the future.
And when that shift happens, many who once dismissed climate action will suddenly embrace it – not because the facts changed, but because the profits did. However, his shift wouldn’t be about enlightenment or “common sense” at all – but about capital protecting itself. When fossil fuel giants pivot to renewables, it won't be out of concern for the planet, but to maintain profit and control. The media narrative will follow not because the truth has changed, but because the ruling class has adjusted its interests. True sustainability requires democratic control of energy – not just swapping one set of capitalist owners for another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for that. I understand there's a lot of debate around organizations like the WEF, and it’s easy to see why questions about their influence get attention. To clarify, my point is that government policies are typically shaped by a range of domestic considerations, elected representatives, and public consultations – not by directives from external forums (/fora). I’m open to discussing specific evidence if you have any credible sources to share that show the WEF is directly controlling UK policy decisions. This kind of evidence would help to create a more grounded conversation about real influence vs. speculation.
There’s actually no substantive evidence that the WEF directly influences or dictates UK government policies. The WEF hosts annual forums where global leaders discuss shared challenges, but it has no legislative or governing power. Decisions on UK policy are made within its own government, involving Parliament, advisors, and public consultations. In practice, policies that may overlap with WEF topics, like environmental or economic reforms, reflect common global concerns rather than ‘orders’ from the WEF. Numerous independent reviews and political analyses confirm that there’s no mechanism through which the WEF could enforce its views on the UK – or any country. This makes it more likely that claims of 'WEF control' stem from misinterpretations or a misunderstanding rather than documented facts.
Were you to actually substantiate your claim instead of resorting to name-calling, it would help put the matter to bed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mertonsardeen2242 GB News claims to offer an alternative to traditional media, but let’s not be fooled. Despite its veneer of independence, it is deeply entrenched in the capitalist system it purports to critique. Owned and operated by wealthy elites, GB News serves the interests of the ruling class, just like BBC or Sky News.
Mainstream media, whether "alternative" or not, perpetuates the status quo by controlling the narrative and distracting us from systemic issues like economic inequality, worker exploitation, and social injustice. GB News is no exception. It may use different rhetoric, but its ultimate goal is the same: to maintain the power structures that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
As an example of this, GB News has consistently platformed climate change deniers and presenting climate science as open to debate, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. This is because GB News is funded by climate change deniers, and it is part of its agenda. In spite of the supposed free speech attitude of GB News, several things must never be questioned. Firstly, the vested interests of the fossil fuel industries due to the Dubai based billionaire backers’ economic interests. Then one must always play down the seriousness of climate change by ridiculing activists like the Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain as ‘dinosaur Marxists’ which has the dual aim of leaving the those vested interests untouched thereby continuing the influx of funding, and also appealing to populist right-wingers. Finally, that the capitalist class is not responsible for the problems of capitalism, No, it is the Left, those ‘dinosaur Marxists’ that are responsible for undermining the freedom in capitalism. The sooner people realise that the profit system is to failing them , the sooner they’ll realise that life is beautiful, it is the system that corrupts us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakedaemongaming6590 Since you have never had trust in Labour and Tories, here are a few questions to consider:
Track Record: Given that Reform UK is a relatively new party, what evidence do you have of their ability to deliver on their promises compared to the track records of the Tories and Labour, even if you find those records lacking?
Policy Viability: Many of Reform UK's policies, such as tax cuts or stricter immigration controls, require significant funding and resources. How do you evaluate whether their proposed policies are economically and socially viable without causing unintended consequences?
Accountability: If you distrust the traditional parties due to perceived corruption or broken promises, what mechanisms does Reform UK have in place to ensure they remain accountable and avoid falling into the same patterns?
Broader Representation: Reform UK often focuses on specific issues, such as Brexit and immigration. How do you assess their ability to govern across a wide range of complex domestic and international issues, including education, healthcare, and climate change?
Trust vs. Popularity: Many smaller parties rise to prominence by capitalising on dissatisfaction with major parties. How do you separate Reform UK's popularity as a protest vote from their actual trustworthiness or capacity to lead effectively?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Compare the waiting times of the UK compared to some European "former partners" (Tice). In 2023, the average waiting times for processing refugee status applications varied significantly across European countries due to differences in administrative processes, case loads, and policies.
Germany : The average processing time for first instance asylum applications was about 7.6 months, with variations depending on the type of procedure and the applicant's country of origin. Fast-track procedures, applied in specific cases, aimed to provide decisions within a few days to a few weeks (AID-ECRE) (European Union Agency for Asylum).
United Kingdom : The UK faced substantial delays, with only 12% of applications receiving an initial decision within six months by the second quarter of 2023. Many applicants waited over a year and a half for their initial decisions, reflecting a significant backlog and administrative challenges (Migration Observatory).
Sweden : The average processing time for asylum applications was around 199 days (approximately 6.5 months) in 2023. This included applications for renewing temporary protection permits (AID-ECRE).
Cyprus : Cyprus experienced a high rate of asylum applications relative to its population size, contributing to longer processing times. However, specific average waiting times were not detailed (European Union Agency for Asylum).
These variations highlight the differing capacities and efficiencies of asylum processing systems across Europe, influenced by factors such as administrative infrastructure, legal frameworks, and the volume of applications received.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Isn't it ironic that the UKIPy people are saying the Conservative Party has changed when the party has been struggling for years to transform itself into a Nigel Farage party by appealing to a small reactionary section of the electorate? The very solid basis of the Conservative Party - the "blue rinse" ladies and the golf club gentlemen are no longer their core constituent. They now appeal to, on the one hand, millionaire donors that seek to seek to deregulate by pushing down standards, wages, and slashing workers’ rights, and on the other, appealing to right-wing electorate that are more nationalist, anti-immigration, and anti-EU.
In making this shift, it has alienated many of the party's traditional supporters, who valued stability, law, and order, and moderate economic policies. Instead of strengthening conservative values, this shift has often undermined them in favour of a deregulated, socially fragmented society. So, the critique from UKIP-like voices feels contradictory when the party has arguably embraced their core ideologies in practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andyetheridge The typical right-wing response to serious issues is often to distract, divert, and divide. Let’s look at the facts. In 2016, you likely voted to leave the EU, including withdrawing from political agreements like the Dublin Agreement with France, which coordinated how asylum seekers were handled. You did this, I presume, to "protect our borders." But what many didn’t realise is that France is also focused on protecting its own borders. By stepping away from these agreements, we lost a cooperative system for managing asylum seekers effectively.
Then in 2019, I presume you supported “Boris” Johnson’s promise to "Get Brexit Done." Yet after that, the government failed to follow through on key aspects of handling immigration. They didn’t negotiate a proper bilateral treaty with France to manage asylum claims or set up processing centres for asylum seekers before they reach UK shores. Instead of addressing the situation they helped create, they had done nothing meaningful to fix it.
Populist politicians thrive on shifting the blame when their promises fall flat. They turn the attention away from their own failings and point fingers at the most vulnerable – whether that’s immigrants or asylum seekers. Another right-wing tactic is to individualise the issue, as you've done here – shifting responsibility onto others, instead of holding your leaders accountable for their lack of action. This problem isn’t about individuals but about the responsibility of those in power to follow through on their promises and protect both our borders and our values in a fair, humane way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Iazzaboyce I thought the analogy to a referendum on pop music in Afghanistan was complete nonsense, but nothing compares to this!
The 'Brexit Deal' was negotiated by lifelong pro-EU political activists :
Actually, the Conservative Party was purged of MPs who didn't support Brexit in July 2019, when Boris Johnson expelled 21 MPs who opposed his position. As for the Brexit negotiators, none of them were "lifelong pro-EU political activists." In fact, many were prominent figures in the Leave campaign, like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. So, it's misleading to suggest that the Brexit deal was negotiated by pro-EU figures. The truth is, the individuals involved were largely in favour of leaving the EU, not supporting it.
Today probably 85% of MPs are pro-EU political activists :
After the 2024 General Election, the political landscape shifted significantly. While many MPs are indeed pro-EU, the Tory party was decisively rejected by voters, and Reform UK, despite media hype, ended up with only 5 MPs. This shows that even with heavy media presence, their message didn’t resonate with the majority. The pro-EU sentiment among MPs is strong, but the election results tell a you at least something about the trust voters place in certain parties and their positions.
The 2024 'National Rejoin March' was attended by 500 people :
Even your estimations are “Trumpian,” as reports suggest that tens of thousands attended the National Rejoin March in London in October 2024.
We have the 'wrong people' in power :
"While it's easy to say we have the "wrong people" in power, it's important to consider the complexity of the situation. The Tory government did implement policies like the points-based immigration system, but the unintended consequences - like labour shortages – show that even well-intentioned policies can have unexpected outcomes. As for Brexit, it was fully implemented by a pro-Brexit government under Boris Johnson, and the resulting trade barriers, supply chain issues, and worker shortages were predictable outcomes of the hard break from the EU. Blaming “remain” governments ignores the reality that the Brexiteers created these challenges.
If you're looking to right-wing populism as the answer, it’s crucial to recognise that populism often brings its own set of problems, including deepened divisions and potential erosion of rights. The push to leave the ECHR, for example, could seriously undermine our basic freedoms and checks on government power. It's not just about “taking back control” – it's about giving those in power more control over us. The idea of having the “wrong people” in power is subjective, but it’s worth questioning whether the alternative truly addresses the root problems or just adds to the polarisation.
Why not explain what you think is “complete nonsense,” and provide evidence to support your position?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1