On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 23:06:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:34:33 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:02:02 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:20:38 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:21:48 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:12:59 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here are some key things to look out for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. A racist bastard on the stage spewing far right bile
>>>>>>and promising populist policies he hasn't a hope in
>>>>>>hell of delivering, simply because he has no chance
>>>>>>of forming a government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. A ghastly old boiler egging him on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3. A fawning audience consisting entirely of geriatric
>>>>>>Little-Englander gammons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>4. No black faces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5. A bloke going round with a mop clearing up the leaked piss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good point. We can't possibly have policies that are popular with the
>>>>>public, can we? I'll bet you can't imagine anything worse. Instead we
>>>>>need policies that will impoverish the voters, raise their taxes in
>>>>>exchange for poorer and poorer public services and swamp them with
>>>>>enormous numbers of illegal immigrants who will further add to the
>>>>>burden on those services. That lot's a sure-fire vote-winner (and it
>>>>>demonstrably must be as people keep on voting for more of it!)
>>>>>Now grab your mop and get back to cleaning up the piss.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you so bothered about this? You're a foreigner so it won't
>>>>affect you.
>>>
>>>I said: "GRAB YOUR MOP AND GET BACK TO CLEANING UP THE PISS." No
>>>wonder the country's in the state it is with foreigners like you who
>>>just don't want to work.
>>
>>As a foreigner, why are you so worried about the state of my country?
>>
>>For what it's worth I work and pay taxes in the UK. Do you?
>
>Not any more, no. You seem to think that if you work and pay taxes in
>Britain, that makes you British!
Of course it does, you half witted imbecile. If you don't think so
feel free to come up with a better definition. I know you can't.
Foreigners who avoid taxes in the UK have no right to comment on UK
affairs.
> Wot a nutter you are. Now grab that
>fucking mop like I said and clean up that piss. For the last time!

On 01/03/2024 23:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:32:49 +0000, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to get a
>>>> new party started. They had the backing of the Trade Unions and the
>>>> Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered for giving
>>>> some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over the age of 21 or
>>>> over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great War. That was a
>>>> massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for them. However, it took
>>>> them more than 20 years simply to become the largest opposition party.
>>>> If Reform UK, which has less support and won't get the same boost in
>>>> voters, takes no longer, supporting it is likely to result in one of
>>>> the longest Labour governments in history.
>>>
>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with the
>>> situation now?
>>
>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new party
>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them that
>> helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in opposition.
>
> The biggest asset of smaller parties and Independents is that they're
> not Lab/Lib/Con and tainted by decades of failure. Theyr'e thinking
> and saying things that the main parties would much rather were left
> ignorned and undiscussed. And those are the things that people are
> most concerned about: the quality of their daily lives being No.1 on
> the list.

That is not asset if, despite what its supporters may think, that is a
minority view.

The current situation is that Reform UK has support from 10.2% of the
electorate, which puts them slightly ahead of the LibDems, on 9.9%,but
well behind the Conservatives on an unusually low 25.2% and Labour on
43.1%. If we had proportional representation, that would give Reform UK
more seats than the LibDems, but, with fpp, they are not expected to win
any seats in the general election, while the LibDems could get 40 and
even the Greens, on 5.9%, could get a couple of seats.

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 01 Mar 24 14:08:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>
>In article <-72dnekbPa7VRHz4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/03/2024 12:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> > On 01/03/2024 12:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> >> On 01/03/2024 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >>> On 01/03/2024 10:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> >>>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >>>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> >>>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to
>> >>>>>> get a new party started. They had the backing of the Trade Unions
>> >>>>>> and the Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered
>> >>>>>> for giving some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over the
>> >>>>>> age of 21 or over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great
>> >>>>>> War. That was a massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for
>> >>>>>> them. However, it took them more than 20 years simply to become
>> >>>>>> the largest opposition party. If Reform UK, which has less support
>> >>>>>> and won't get the same boost in voters, takes no longer,
>> >>>>>> supporting it is likely to result in one of the longest Labour
>> >>>>>> governments in history.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with the
>> >>>>> situation now?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new party
>> >>>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them
>> >>>> that helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in
>> >>>> opposition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> Hi Ostrich. How about Mr Galloway then?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> He took a Labour seat where Labour did not put up a candidate.
>> >>
>> > And why was that, then?
>> >
>
>> You would have to ask them. However, one far left swallow does not a
>> right wing summer make, particularly not in an election year by-election
>> with a turnout of under 40%.
>
>They had one, but he was Anti-semitic, so dropped, but too late to put up
>another candidate.

Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
Hamas gunmen on 7 October.

Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.

On 01/03/2024 21:09, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 01/03/2024 14:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 01/03/2024 14:55, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2024 14:08, charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <-72dnekbPa7VRHz4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>     Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/03/2024 12:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/03/2024 12:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/03/2024 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/03/2024 10:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to
>>>>>>>>>>> get a new party started. They had the backing of the Trade
>>>>>>>>>>> Unions
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered
>>>>>>>>>>> for giving some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> age of 21 or over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great
>>>>>>>>>>> War. That was a massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for
>>>>>>>>>>> them. However, it took them more than 20 years simply to become
>>>>>>>>>>> the largest opposition party. If Reform UK, which has less
>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>> and won't get the same boost in voters, takes no longer,
>>>>>>>>>>> supporting it is likely to result in one of the longest Labour
>>>>>>>>>>> governments in history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> situation now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new
>>>>>>>>> party
>>>>>>>>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them
>>>>>>>>> that helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in
>>>>>>>>> opposition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ostrich. How about Mr Galloway then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He took a Labour seat where Labour did not put up a candidate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why was that, then?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You would have to ask them. However, one far left swallow does not a
>>>>> right wing summer make, particularly not in an election year
>>>>> by-election
>>>>> with a turnout of under 40%.
>>>>
>>>> They had one, but he was Anti-semitic, so dropped, but too late to
>>>> put up
>>>> another candidate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, that explains a lot.
>>>
>>
>> The anti-semites got over 50% of the vote.
>> Call me Adolf...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Mohammed is more probable in that constituency.
>
I have trouble telling them apart...

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 01/03/2024 23:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>
> The biggest asset of smaller parties and Independents is that they're
> not Lab/Lib/Con and tainted by decades of failure.
And not already fully compromised blacmaikled and bribed into being
agents of big corporations or foreign powers.

> Theyr'e thinking
> and saying things that the main parties would much rather were left
> ignorned and undiscussed. And those are the things that people are
> most concerned about: the quality of their daily lives being No.1 on
> the list.

Well, yes. How much they can be trusted to either remain independnet or
carry out the wishes of the electorate once they get anywhere near power
is a moot point.

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On 02/03/2024 10:08, Colin Bignell wrote:

> The current situation is that Reform UK has support from 10.2% of the
> electorate,

13-14%by most polls..

which puts them slightly ahead of the LibDems,

well ahead
> on 9.9%,but
> well behind
Still behind
> the Conservatives on an unusually low 25.2%
Nearer 20% by most polls
> and Labour on
> 43.1%. If we had proportional representation, that would give Reform UK
> more seats than the LibDems, but, with fpp, they are not expected to win
> any seats in the general election, while the LibDems could get 40 and
> even the Greens, on 5.9%, could get a couple of seats.
>
But at the current rate of increase they are likely to match the
conservative vote by election time.

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:07:18 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 23:06:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:34:33 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:02:02 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:20:38 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:21:48 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:12:59 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here are some key things to look out for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. A racist bastard on the stage spewing far right bile
>>>>>>>and promising populist policies he hasn't a hope in
>>>>>>>hell of delivering, simply because he has no chance
>>>>>>>of forming a government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2. A ghastly old boiler egging him on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>3. A fawning audience consisting entirely of geriatric
>>>>>>>Little-Englander gammons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>4. No black faces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>5. A bloke going round with a mop clearing up the leaked piss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good point. We can't possibly have policies that are popular with the
>>>>>>public, can we? I'll bet you can't imagine anything worse. Instead we
>>>>>>need policies that will impoverish the voters, raise their taxes in
>>>>>>exchange for poorer and poorer public services and swamp them with
>>>>>>enormous numbers of illegal immigrants who will further add to the
>>>>>>burden on those services. That lot's a sure-fire vote-winner (and it
>>>>>>demonstrably must be as people keep on voting for more of it!)
>>>>>>Now grab your mop and get back to cleaning up the piss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why are you so bothered about this? You're a foreigner so it won't
>>>>>affect you.
>>>>
>>>>I said: "GRAB YOUR MOP AND GET BACK TO CLEANING UP THE PISS." No
>>>>wonder the country's in the state it is with foreigners like you who
>>>>just don't want to work.
>>>
>>>As a foreigner, why are you so worried about the state of my country?
>>>
>>>For what it's worth I work and pay taxes in the UK. Do you?
>>
>>Not any more, no. You seem to think that if you work and pay taxes in
>>Britain, that makes you British!

>Of course it does, you half witted imbecile.

OMG! He's serious! You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:17:05 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyb@aol.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 24 14:08:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <-72dnekbPa7VRHz4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2024 12:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> > On 01/03/2024 12:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> >> On 01/03/2024 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> >>> On 01/03/2024 10:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> >>>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> >>>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to
>>> >>>>>> get a new party started. They had the backing of the Trade Unions
>>> >>>>>> and the Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered
>>> >>>>>> for giving some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over the
>>> >>>>>> age of 21 or over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great
>>> >>>>>> War. That was a massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for
>>> >>>>>> them. However, it took them more than 20 years simply to become
>>> >>>>>> the largest opposition party. If Reform UK, which has less support
>>> >>>>>> and won't get the same boost in voters, takes no longer,
>>> >>>>>> supporting it is likely to result in one of the longest Labour
>>> >>>>>> governments in history.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with the
>>> >>>>> situation now?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new party
>>> >>>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them
>>> >>>> that helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in
>>> >>>> opposition.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> Hi Ostrich. How about Mr Galloway then?
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> He took a Labour seat where Labour did not put up a candidate.
>>> >>
>>> > And why was that, then?
>>> >
>>
>>> You would have to ask them. However, one far left swallow does not a
>>> right wing summer make, particularly not in an election year by-election
>>> with a turnout of under 40%.
>>
>>They had one, but he was Anti-semitic, so dropped, but too late to put up
>>another candidate.
>
>Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
>Hamas gunmen on 7 October.
>
>Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.

If it's factual then it's not necessarily either. Depends on the
context like everything else.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:08:14 +0000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:

>On 01/03/2024 23:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:32:49 +0000, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to get a
>>>>> new party started. They had the backing of the Trade Unions and the
>>>>> Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered for giving
>>>>> some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over the age of 21 or
>>>>> over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great War. That was a
>>>>> massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for them. However, it took
>>>>> them more than 20 years simply to become the largest opposition party.
>>>>> If Reform UK, which has less support and won't get the same boost in
>>>>> voters, takes no longer, supporting it is likely to result in one of
>>>>> the longest Labour governments in history.
>>>>
>>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with the
>>>> situation now?
>>>
>>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new party
>>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them that
>>> helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in opposition.
>>
>> The biggest asset of smaller parties and Independents is that they're
>> not Lab/Lib/Con and tainted by decades of failure. Theyr'e thinking
>> and saying things that the main parties would much rather were left
>> ignorned and undiscussed. And those are the things that people are
>> most concerned about: the quality of their daily lives being No.1 on
>> the list.
>
>That is not asset if, despite what its supporters may think, that is a
>minority view.
>
>The current situation is that Reform UK has support from 10.2% of the
>electorate, which puts them slightly ahead of the LibDems, on 9.9%,but
>well behind the Conservatives on an unusually low 25.2% and Labour on
>43.1%. If we had proportional representation, that would give Reform UK
>more seats than the LibDems, but, with fpp, they are not expected to win
>any seats in the general election, while the LibDems could get 40 and
>even the Greens, on 5.9%, could get a couple of seats.

Quite so, and Reform are well aware of that. Hence the best course of
action for them is to simply hold the "Conservative Party" to ransom.
If the rump of the Party can be convinced their best interests lie in
dumping their leadership and joining up in lock-step with Reform, the
boot's then on the other foot. Just because Reform don't have any hope
of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
things that ordinary people are *truly* concerned about. Yay!
Populism!

On 02/03/2024 10:17, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
....
> Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
> Hamas gunmen on 7 October.
>
> Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.

The Israeli government has been trying to get the two equated for a very
long time.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:02:02 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:20:38 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:21:48 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:12:59 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here are some key things to look out for.
>>>>
>>>>1. A racist bastard on the stage spewing far right bile
>>>>and promising populist policies he hasn't a hope in
>>>>hell of delivering, simply because he has no chance
>>>>of forming a government.
>>>>
>>>>2. A ghastly old boiler egging him on.
>>>>
>>>>3. A fawning audience consisting entirely of geriatric
>>>>Little-Englander gammons.
>>>>
>>>>4. No black faces.
>>>>
>>>>5. A bloke going round with a mop clearing up the leaked piss.
>>>
>>>Good point. We can't possibly have policies that are popular with the
>>>public, can we? I'll bet you can't imagine anything worse. Instead we
>>>need policies that will impoverish the voters, raise their taxes in
>>>exchange for poorer and poorer public services and swamp them with
>>>enormous numbers of illegal immigrants who will further add to the
>>>burden on those services. That lot's a sure-fire vote-winner (and it
>>>demonstrably must be as people keep on voting for more of it!)
>>>Now grab your mop and get back to cleaning up the piss.
>>
>>Why are you so bothered about this? You're a foreigner so it won't
>>affect you.
>
>I said: "GRAB YOUR MOP AND GET BACK TO CLEANING UP THE PISS." No
>wonder the country's in the state it is with foreigners like you who
>just don't want to work.

Blimey! You poor old bugger!

Not only do you suffer from senility, now you've got bladder problems.

On 02/03/2024 10:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Just because Reform don't have any hope
> of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
> effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
> their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
> things that ordinary people are*truly* concerned about. Yay!
> Populism!

And that is precisely how UKIP achieved what Brexit it did

The Tories had a choice - to grant a referendum or see some other party
do it. They chose to grant it in the hope they could control it. Well
they have, partially, but they botched even that.

Now the thought of Thir Queer Harmer, bumbling his way to furthher
national decline looms, there needs to be an effective opposition and
the current establishment remoaner Tories are not it.

The choice is between the Queer Harmer and a tory party completely
routed and unelectable for a generation, and the Queer Harmer faced with
a competent array of libertarian *new* conservatives with some good
policy ideas and public support is very marked.

democratic socialism has failed, and the Queer will only introduce yet
more of it. Or worse, turn it into autocratic socialism.

We need parties to refute the dinsoaurian ideology of Marx and friends.
Currently Reform and about half the tory party are where that voice lies.

We are faced with 5 years of labour misery, fine words, utter
incompetence, and the rule of the gormless ginger slut and friends.

The tories have no chance of regaining credibility, The only viable
opposition will be from new political blood and new political ideas, not
old political ideals.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 02/03/2024 11:25, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 02/03/2024 10:17, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
> ...
>> Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
>> Hamas gunmen on 7 October.
>>
>> Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.
>
> The Israeli government has been trying to get the two equated for a very
> long time.
>
Aided and abetted by Hamas and Iran.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 11:58:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/03/2024 10:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> Just because Reform don't have any hope
>> of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
>> effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
>> their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
>> things that ordinary people are*truly* concerned about. Yay!
>> Populism!
>
>And that is precisely how UKIP achieved what Brexit it did
>
>The Tories had a choice - to grant a referendum or see some other party
>do it. They chose to grant it in the hope they could control it. Well
>they have, partially, but they botched even that.
>
>Now the thought of Thir Queer Harmer, bumbling his way to furthher
>national decline looms, there needs to be an effective opposition and
>the current establishment remoaner Tories are not it.
>
>The choice is between the Queer Harmer and a tory party completely
>routed and unelectable for a generation, and the Queer Harmer faced with
>a competent array of libertarian *new* conservatives with some good
>policy ideas and public support is very marked.
>
>democratic socialism has failed, and the Queer will only introduce yet
>more of it. Or worse, turn it into autocratic socialism.
>
>We need parties to refute the dinsoaurian ideology of Marx and friends.
>Currently Reform and about half the tory party are where that voice lies.
>
>We are faced with 5 years of labour misery, fine words, utter
>incompetence, and the rule of the gormless ginger slut and friends.
>
>The tories have no chance of regaining credibility, The only viable
>opposition will be from new political blood and new political ideas, not
>old political ideals.

Are you still pissed from last night's session?

On 02/03/2024 10:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>> Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
>> Hamas gunmen on 7 October.
>>
>> Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.
>
> If it's factual then it's not necessarily either. Depends on the
> context like everything else.

Suspicions are good. We don't know, but we should have the right to
hypothesise.

A typical hypothesis when I was young was that Churchill (or even FDR)
knew about the Pearl Harbour attack in advance, but chose not to stop it
because they wanted to mobilise US public opinion to enter WW2. I can't
remember anyone having to resign for shooting the breeze with that one.

One wonders if Labour dropped Ali because they knew he would lose to
Galloway, and wanted to shift responsibility.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 11:58:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/03/2024 10:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> Just because Reform don't have any hope
>> of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
>> effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
>> their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
>> things that ordinary people are*truly* concerned about. Yay!
>> Populism!
>
>And that is precisely how UKIP achieved what Brexit it did
>
>The Tories had a choice - to grant a referendum or see some other party
>do it. They chose to grant it in the hope they could control it. Well
>they have, partially, but they botched even that.
>
>Now the thought of Thir Queer Harmer, bumbling his way to furthher
>national decline looms, there needs to be an effective opposition and
>the current establishment remoaner Tories are not it.
>
>The choice is between the Queer Harmer and a tory party completely
>routed and unelectable for a generation, and the Queer Harmer faced with
>a competent array of libertarian *new* conservatives with some good
>policy ideas and public support is very marked.
>
>democratic socialism has failed, and the Queer will only introduce yet
>more of it. Or worse, turn it into autocratic socialism.
>
>We need parties to refute the dinsoaurian ideology of Marx and friends.
>Currently Reform and about half the tory party are where that voice lies.
>
>We are faced with 5 years of labour misery, fine words, utter
>incompetence, and the rule of the gormless ginger slut and friends.
>
>The tories have no chance of regaining credibility, The only viable
>opposition will be from new political blood and new political ideas, not
>old political ideals.

Quite so. And that will involve discussing all the 'uncomfortable
stuff' the main parties have shied away from dealing with for far too
long. All those boils need to be lanced or we'll never move on with a
firm foundation. I can't wait to see the resulting snowflake
mega-meltdown. :-)

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 21:28:32 +1100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 02/03/2024 10:08, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> The current situation is that Reform UK has support from 10.2% of the
>> electorate,
>
> 13-14%by most polls..
>
> which puts them slightly ahead of the LibDems,
>
> well ahead
>> on 9.9%,but well behind
> Still behind
>> the Conservatives on an unusually low 25.2%
> Nearer 20% by most polls
> > and Labour on
>> 43.1%. If we had proportional representation, that would give Reform UK
>> more seats than the LibDems, but, with fpp, they are not expected to
>> win any seats in the general election, while the LibDems could get 40
>> and even the Greens, on 5.9%, could get a couple of seats.
>>
> But at the current rate of increase they are likely to match the
> conservative vote by election time.

Fantasy

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 21:44:40 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:08:14 +0000, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2024 23:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:32:49 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/03/2024 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/03/2024 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>> The early years of the Labour Party show how difficult it is to get
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> new party started. They had the backing of the Trade Unions and the
>>>>>> Representation of the People Act 1918, better remembered for giving
>>>>>> some women the vote, gave the vote to all men over the age of 21 or
>>>>>> over the age of 19, if they had fought in the Great War. That was a
>>>>>> massive boost in the numbers likely to vote for them. However, it
>>>>>> took
>>>>>> them more than 20 years simply to become the largest opposition
>>>>>> party.
>>>>>> If Reform UK, which has less support and won't get the same boost in
>>>>>> voters, takes no longer, supporting it is likely to result in one of
>>>>>> the longest Labour governments in history.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what about the situation then, is remotely comparable with the
>>>>> situation now?
>>>>
>>>> That is the problem for Reform UK. Apart from also being a new party
>>>> trying to gain power, they have none of the things going for them that
>>>> helped Labour eventually to become the largest party in opposition.
>>>
>>> The biggest asset of smaller parties and Independents is that they're
>>> not Lab/Lib/Con and tainted by decades of failure. Theyr'e thinking
>>> and saying things that the main parties would much rather were left
>>> ignorned and undiscussed. And those are the things that people are
>>> most concerned about: the quality of their daily lives being No.1 on
>>> the list.
>>
>> That is not asset if, despite what its supporters may think, that is a
>> minority view.
>>
>> The current situation is that Reform UK has support from 10.2% of the
>> electorate, which puts them slightly ahead of the LibDems, on 9.9%,but
>> well behind the Conservatives on an unusually low 25.2% and Labour on
>> 43.1%. If we had proportional representation, that would give Reform UK
>> more seats than the LibDems, but, with fpp, they are not expected to win
>> any seats in the general election, while the LibDems could get 40 and
>> even the Greens, on 5.9%, could get a couple of seats.
>
> Quite so, and Reform are well aware of that. Hence the best course of
> action for them is to simply hold the "Conservative Party" to ransom.
> If the rump of the Party can be convinced their best interests lie in
> dumping their leadership and joining up in lock-step with Reform,

No chance of that given that by definition the rump are the
rusted on who will never even consider giving up on the Torys.

> the boot's then on the other foot. Just because Reform don't have any
> hope
> of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
> effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
> their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
> things that ordinary people are *truly* concerned about. Yay!
> Populism!

No chance of that either.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 00:23:08 +1100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> On 02/03/2024 10:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>>> Azhar Ali reportedly said Israel had "allowed" the deadly attack by
>>> Hamas gunmen on 7 October.
>>>
>>> Is that anti-semitic, or anti Israel? The two aren't the same thing.
>> If it's factual then it's not necessarily either. Depends on the
>> context like everything else.
>
> Suspicions are good. We don't know, but we should have the right to
> hypothesise.

> A typical hypothesis when I was young was that Churchill (or even FDR)
> knew about the Pearl Harbour attack in advance, but chose not to stop it
> because they wanted to mobilise US public opinion to enter WW2.

Mindless conspiracy theory and Churchill was never
in any position to be able to stop the attack anyway.

> I can't remember anyone having to resignfor shooting the breeze with
> that one.

No one who mattered ever ran that line.

> One wonders if Labour dropped Ali because they knew hewould lose to
> Galloway, and wanted to shift responsibility.

Another mindless conspiracy theory.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 04:10:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <XnsA97071CF43E3Fadmin127001@85.214.115.223>

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 03:54:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihlaFh5p5U2@mid.individual.net>

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 03:59:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
MrTurnip@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 01:52:53 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 11:58:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2024 10:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> Just because Reform don't have any hope
>>> of forming a government as they are currently doesn't mean they can't
>>> effect major political change and force the nominal "Tories" to ditch
>>> their neo-Liberal agenda and get real and start dealing with the
>>> things that ordinary people are*truly* concerned about. Yay!
>>> Populism!
>>
>> And that is precisely how UKIP achieved what Brexit it did
>>
>> The Tories had a choice - to grant a referendum or see some other party
>> do it. They chose to grant it in the hope they could control it. Well
>> they have, partially, but they botched even that.
>>
>> Now the thought of Thir Queer Harmer, bumbling his way to furthher
>> national decline looms, there needs to be an effective opposition and
>> the current establishment remoaner Tories are not it.
>>
>> The choice is between the Queer Harmer and a tory party completely
>> routed and unelectable for a generation, and the Queer Harmer faced with
>> a competent array of libertarian *new* conservatives with some good
>> policy ideas and public support is very marked.
>>
>> democratic socialism has failed, and the Queer will only introduce yet
>> more of it. Or worse, turn it into autocratic socialism.
>>
>> We need parties to refute the dinsoaurian ideology of Marx and friends.
>> Currently Reform and about half the tory party are where that voice
>> lies.
>>
>> We are faced with 5 years of labour misery, fine words, utter
>> incompetence, and the rule of the gormless ginger slut and friends.
>>
>> The tories have no chance of regaining credibility, The only viable
>> opposition will be from new political blood and new political ideas, not
>> old political ideals.
>
> Quite so. And that will involve discussing all the 'uncomfortable
> stuff' the main parties have shied away from dealing with for far too
> long. All those boils need to be lanced or we'll never move on with a
> firm foundation. I can't wait to see the resulting snowflake
> mega-meltdown. :-)

Reality never produces mega meltdowns. We bumble along
and even the great depression and world wars work out.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 04:43:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-8118292c547e@googlegroups.com>

On 2 Mar 2024 at 10:07:18 GMT, "R Souls" <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 23:06:12 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:34:33 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:02:02 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:20:38 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:21:48 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:12:59 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some key things to look out for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. A racist bastard on the stage spewing far right bile
>>>>>>> and promising populist policies he hasn't a hope in
>>>>>>> hell of delivering, simply because he has no chance
>>>>>>> of forming a government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. A ghastly old boiler egging him on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. A fawning audience consisting entirely of geriatric
>>>>>>> Little-Englander gammons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. No black faces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. A bloke going round with a mop clearing up the leaked piss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point. We can't possibly have policies that are popular with the
>>>>>> public, can we? I'll bet you can't imagine anything worse. Instead we
>>>>>> need policies that will impoverish the voters, raise their taxes in
>>>>>> exchange for poorer and poorer public services and swamp them with
>>>>>> enormous numbers of illegal immigrants who will further add to the
>>>>>> burden on those services. That lot's a sure-fire vote-winner (and it
>>>>>> demonstrably must be as people keep on voting for more of it!)
>>>>>> Now grab your mop and get back to cleaning up the piss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you so bothered about this? You're a foreigner so it won't
>>>>> affect you.
>>>>
>>>> I said: "GRAB YOUR MOP AND GET BACK TO CLEANING UP THE PISS." No
>>>> wonder the country's in the state it is with foreigners like you who
>>>> just don't want to work.
>>>
>>> As a foreigner, why are you so worried about the state of my country?
>>>
>>> For what it's worth I work and pay taxes in the UK. Do you?
>>
>> Not any more, no. You seem to think that if you work and pay taxes in
>> Britain, that makes you British!
> Of course it does, you half witted imbecile. If you don't think so
> feel free to come up with a better definition. I know you can't.
> Foreigners who avoid taxes in the UK have no right to comment on UK
> affairs.

He's not avoiding taxes, Piss Cleaner, as he'd have to be submitting a tax
return and claiming this that and the other off it, net amount owed zero. As a
foreign resident he has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to submit a tax
return. Just like me for the 25 years I was overseas.

--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison."
Churchill: "If you were my wife, I'd drink it."