4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Except of course those voting for Reform UK Ltd and Restore UK believe they know what they are cork voting for.

Parties not in power have the privilege of making promises that don’t get tested against the necessary wheeling and dealing that is a feature of Governmening.

Budget constraints are the best example of where ‘political deals’ are forced on a Government while not impacting parties not in power.

Regardless, manifesto commitments are absolutely significant, they are what Governments are elected on and they play an important role in the democratic process, refer ‘Salisbury Convention’.

Well Reform have yet to be proved liars or failures on the basis of their performance , and the last time I checked the "kier starmer anthem" sung with such gusto by nearly the entire UK population has not had nigel farage's name slipped into it. Why not let reform actually fail, like you say they will, before you criticise , or is that a privilege that should only be extended to your chosen party?

Parties not in power obviously do not need to face the same scrutiny, so they can sat what they want, however they need to realise that if elected they will be held to account and as Farage stands a good chance of winning the next election reforms manifesto should be binding too of course,

Manifesto's should become in some way legally binding ,and belated additions to manifestos added after elections should be subject to a referendum especially something as intrusive as digital ID or restricted internet access regardless of whatever your "Salisbury convention" suggests

27 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

its irrelevant whether their manifesto was read or unread or even etched into stone tablets, for public review, Until these manifestos become legally binding in some way they are totally meaningless Its notable that digital id was not mentioned for example, how might that have affected the vote ?

Am I missing something here? , people can only vote for someone on the basis of what that person says they will do for them. How can it be permissible for aspiring politicians to lie? or withhold the truth?

The end result is that nobody knows what they might be voting for these days, and as we can't believe their promises, the only thing people can do with any degree of confidence is vote on the basis of the past governments invariably poor performance, The promises of the wannabees are worthless Its not a case of who one likes its a case of who one dislikes the least , All very negative

Is this the result of the increasingly polarized nature of political discussion in life and certainly ahead of any election?

It appears if one disagrees with the slightest aspect of their favorite politicians "manifesto", then you must be, can only be from the very, very extreme opposite end of the political spectrum.

For example, if you like Farage or Lowe, then you MUST be a screaming, Islamophobic racist who wants to deport all non-whites, citizens or otherwise. On the other hand, if you think that ethnicity should not be the primary determinant of one's nationality, then one MUST be in favour of illegal immigration, and the collapse of society.

The same misguided assumption of being polar opposites is also being applied to discussion about Trump and Israel. If one dislikes Trump, one must support Iran having nuclear weapons. If one deplores the wanton murder of innocent Palestinians, then one must be an anti-Semite.

The whole world appears to have lost the middle ground. Or maybe it's only social media that's leading a certain noisome minority demographic by the nose? Maybe it's "bad actors" using social media to sew discontent in that certain demographic?

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Is this the result of the increasingly polarized nature of political discussion in life and certainly ahead of any election?

It appears if one disagrees with the slightest aspect of their favorite politicians "manifesto", then you must be, can only be from the very, very extreme opposite end of the political spectrum.

For example, if you like Farage or Lowe, then you MUST be a screaming, Islamophobic racist who wants to deport all non-whites, citizens or otherwise. On the other hand, if you think that ethnicity should not be the primary determinant of one's nationality, then one MUST be in favour of illegal immigration, and the collapse of society.

The same misguided assumption of being polar opposites is also being applied to discussion about Trump and Israel. If one dislikes Trump, one must support Iran having nuclear weapons. If one deplores the wanton murder of innocent Palestinians, then one must be an anti-Semite.

The whole world appears to have lost the middle ground. Or maybe it's only social media that's leading a certain noisome minority demographic by the nose? Maybe it's "bad actors" using social media to sew discontent in that certain demographic?

You pretty much nailed it, I would add that people need to accept that whilst others may have opposing political views they are not inherently "evil" and it is no reason to seek to "destroy" or"cancel" them The left seem to me to be much more guilty of intolerance than the right ,

Look the reactions to Tommy Robinson, in general, and specifically when he was invited to speak at the university or the shooting of Charlie Kirk there are very few if any , comparable extreme, right wing, reactions Same goes for the name calling , Fascists Racists etc there is no right wing equivalent , even the placards "SMASH" The far right" when did we ever see "SMASH The far left" ? are they driven by the hatred they claim to oppose ? or are they in fear? if so what of ?

Edited June 22Jun 22 by Bday Prang

57 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

You pretty much nailed it, I would add that people need to accept that whilst others may have opposing political views they are not inherently "evil" and it is no reason to seek to "destroy" or"cancel" them The left seem to me to be much more guilty of intolerance than the right ,

Look the reactions to Tommy Robinson, in general, and specifically when he was invited to speak at the university or the shooting of Charlie Kirk there are very few if any , comparable extreme, right wing, reactions Same goes for the name calling , Fascists Racists etc there is no right wing equivalent , even the placards "SMASH" The far right" when did we ever see "SMASH The far left" ? are they driven by the hatred they claim to oppose ? or are they in fear? if so what of ?

Have a word with Jonny then. Every single post is littered with "fascist racist" insults. So your argument kind of falls down there.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Well Reform have yet to be proved liars or failures on the basis of their performance , and the last time I checked the "kier starmer anthem" sung with such gusto by nearly the entire UK population has not had nigel farage's name slipped into it. Why not let reform actually fail, like you say they will, before you criticise , or is that a privilege that should only be extended to your chosen party?

Parties not in power obviously do not need to face the same scrutiny, so they can sat what they want, however they need to realise that if elected they will be held to account and as Farage stands a good chance of winning the next election reforms manifesto should be binding too of course,

Manifesto's should become in some way legally binding ,and belated additions to manifestos added after elections should be subject to a referendum especially something as intrusive as digital ID or restricted internet access regardless of whatever your "Salisbury convention" suggests

Reform UK Ltd absolutely have lied, failed and reneged on election promises, refer the litany of lies, failures and U-turns from Reform UK Ltd run councils up and down the country, let alone councilors resigning soon after election.

It would be wonderful if Manifesto commitments could be made legally binding but obviously Governments face emerging challenges after election, example idiots starting wars that play havoc with the world economy and drive energy prices through the roof.

Likewise Governments often need to respond to emerging situations that require action not included in the manifesto.

I agree parties and politicians who are not in power but like be so should face detailed scrutiny, Farage being an example. He gets an extreme lenient ride when failing to provide answers to back up the frequent claims he makes.

His frequent resort to ‘I don’t know’ ought to be followed by a grilling on why he makes claims he can’t back up.

Edited June 22Jun 22 by Chomper Higgot

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Is this the result of the increasingly polarized nature of political discussion in life and certainly ahead of any election?

It appears if one disagrees with the slightest aspect of their favorite politicians "manifesto", then you must be, can only be from the very, very extreme opposite end of the political spectrum.

For example, if you like Farage or Lowe, then you MUST be a screaming, Islamophobic racist who wants to deport all non-whites, citizens or otherwise. On the other hand, if you think that ethnicity should not be the primary determinant of one's nationality, then one MUST be in favour of illegal immigration, and the collapse of society.

The same misguided assumption of being polar opposites is also being applied to discussion about Trump and Israel. If one dislikes Trump, one must support Iran having nuclear weapons. If one deplores the wanton murder of innocent Palestinians, then one must be an anti-Semite.

The whole world appears to have lost the middle ground. Or maybe it's only social media that's leading a certain noisome minority demographic by the nose? Maybe it's "bad actors" using social media to sew discontent in that certain demographic?

There is much truth in what you say.

However, while imo Farage is not a racist - at least, not a willing one - I have severe doubts about Lowe. When asked the directly if he was a racist, he refused to answer (Why not adopt Farage's stance? 'No I'm not a racist but you are not going to believe me'). More importantly, imo Restore's stated policies on immigration are racist/ xenophobic in nature.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

There is much truth in what you say.

However, while imo Farage is not a racist - at least, not a willing one - I have severe doubts about Lowe. When asked the directly if he was a racist, he refused to answer (Why not adopt Farage's stance? 'No I'm not a racist but you are not going to believe me'). More importantly, imo Restore's stated policies on immigration are racist/ xenophobic in nature.

Yes, and fortunately neither Lowe nor Restore are a serious political force. Farage is more dangerous.

2 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Yes, and fortunately neither Lowe nor Restore are a serious political force. Farage is more dangerous.

I love them both to bits for splitting the vote.

You notice how, after failing to gain any significant foothold in Makerfield, they've pivoted to labelling the Greens as an existential threat?

5 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Yes, and fortunately neither Lowe nor Restore are a serious political force. Farage is more dangerous.

"dangerous" ? for gods sake , dangerous to who exactly ?

On 6/19/2026 at 7:45 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

I tend to agree that the result was a referendum on Starmer's leadership, and perhaps unsurprising due to the hatred whipped up on social media. That said, I'm sure he'll stand against Burnham and, depending on who else stands and how the votes are split, he may still have a chance.

As a Labour supporter I want whoever is best for the party and has a chance of defeating the forces of the extreme Right. That looks like Burnham. I'd like to see Starmer stay around as he's a decent man who has made good progress in the 2 years he's been in office, despite what the extremists say. But Burnham offers the best hope for the future.

On 6/19/2026 at 7:45 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

I tend to agree that the result was a referendum on Starmer's leadership, and perhaps unsurprising due to the hatred whipped up on social media. That said, I'm sure he'll stand against Burnham and, depending on who else stands and how the votes are split, he may still have a chance.

As a Labour supporter I want whoever is best for the party and has a chance of defeating the forces of the extreme Right. That looks like Burnham. I'd like to see Starmer stay around as he's a decent man who has made good progress in the 2 years he's been in office, despite what the extremists say. But Burnham offers the best hope for the future.

Well done Makerfield.

Brought down the fascist tyrant by holding their nose and voting Burnham.

Been a long time since such a small number of people made such a big difference.

Reminds me of the Saddam Hussein statue toppling.

So long Starmer. Off to Davos with you. F U.

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well done Makerfield.

Brought down the fascist tyrant by holding their nose and voting Burnham.

Been a long time since such a small number of people made such a big difference.

Reminds me of the Saddam Hussein statue toppling.

So long Starmer. Off to Davos with you. F U.

You gotta have sympathy with the Greens..... Surely?

.... and the Lib Dems.

They must have thought that at least their deposit was safe.

2 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

You gotta have sympathy with the Greens..... Surely?

.... and the Lib Dems.

They must have thought that at least their deposit was safe.

Back to tit whispering for creepy Dave Paulden.

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

I love them both to bits for splitting the vote.

You notice how, after failing to gain any significant foothold in Makerfield, they've pivoted to labelling the Greens as an existential threat?

Reform 15,900

Greens 308 😁 😁 😁

Lib Dems 169 😁 😁 😁

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Well done Makerfield.

Brought down the fascist tyrant by holding their nose and voting Burnham.

Been a long time since such a small number of people made such a big difference.

Reminds me of the Saddam Hussein statue toppling.

So long Starmer. Off to Davos with you. F U.

Not bitter then Jonny?!

15 hours ago, baansgr said:

Reform 15,900

Greens 308 😁 😁 😁

Lib Dems 169 😁 😁 😁

As I said, nothing significant.

If Farage is a racist bigot as some on this thread say why is his Spokesman for home affairs a Muslim. The fact of the matter on here is they see a threat to labour and will not say anything good about any other party's that could threaten them. W e see it in every thread from them Reform and farage , and Tommy Robinson and noew Lowe is on there target list. Ask them about why Reform smashed them in the local elections and why were they succesfull and you will ge a deflection or be classed as right wing Facists because thats what there leader told the country that voting for Reform will bring down the country. Well we in the UK Voted with our feet to remove Starmer in the local Elections in May. Last week Starmers own members told him he was not wanted anymore.

Never mind posting a silly emoji joebloggs, why dont you answer the question.

Edited June 23Jun 23 by BarraMarra

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not bitter then Jonny?!

Bitter? About the people of Makerfield forcing the tyrant Starmer to quit ? 😀

Ecstatic would be a better description Higgot.

22 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

If Farage is a racist bigot as some on this thread say why is his Spokesman for home affairs a Muslim.

Farage is another City of London / UK Financeial Industrial Complex plant.
Reform are tory light - full of failed tories too - bringing in that bald iraqi with the heated horse stables was a clear message.

Farage pushed lockdowns, mass jabbings etc and even suggested Blair as vaccine czar).
He's also been on recoed as saying he doesn't support mass deportations.

The powers that be have this sewn up.

The British State hates the natives - esp the whites
Explained by David Starkey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q8RTczj2zo

To be fair, the same playbook is being run accross white nations.
And all the Brits on here cheering this situation should be very careful if they rely on their State and Public Sector Pensions!!!

Whoosh!

Edited June 23Jun 23 by Tourist2

7 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Never mind posting a silly emoji joebloggs, why dont you answer the question.

1. I read your post when I didn't have time to reply as I was working. Now I have just got home and am catching up with things.

2. Emojis are there to express agreement, disagreement, or whether you find something funny or sad.

3. I found your post funny so I clicked on it.

4. I don't have to explain myself to you. I even gave you a thumbs up a few days ago, you didn't post to ask me to explain why.

5. If you have a problem with people reacting by the buttons which are there for people to react to posts then take it up with the mods.

6. You actually believe Farage, Lowe, Yaxley-Lennon are not right wing. That in itself is funny.

7. You believe whenever anyone criticises any of the above people it is because they are scared. Nope, it is because they have pulled the wool over your eyes and continue to do so.

8. Whenever I do reply to you in detail you either complain it is too long, you tell me to "F.O.", call me a disruptor, and then flounce off. So no point anymore really.