Reform

[CPFCSaturn]

'Moved on'?

He literally stated it yesterday.

Two things can be true at once.

What is the evidence it's BS? Farage is up there with the most attacked political figures.

If the two things are: "this money is an unconditional gift, I can do what I want with it" and "this money is for security and protecting my family" they clearly can't both be true.

The evidence is just a scratch of common sense. Yes, he's a divisive politician - lots of them do and have always existed, and yet none have ever been reliant on a £5m personal gift for the security of their family. It's just obvious, obvious guff.

It would be incredibly easy to prove if he has used the money on security - he'd have a huge contract and invoice from a security firm, expense sheets etc. etc.

The story would go away much quicker if he produced that... and yet...

 

[Stirlingsays]

If the two things are: "this money is an unconditional gift, I can do what I want with it" and "this money is for security and protecting my family" they clearly can't both be true.

What kind of logic is that?

Yes they clearly can.

The evidence is just a scratch of common sense. Yes, he's a divisive politician - lots of them do and have always existed, and yet none have ever been reliant on a £5m personal gift for the security of their family. It's just obvious, obvious guff.

It would be incredibly easy to prove if he has used the money on security - he'd have a huge contract and invoice from a security firm, expense sheets etc. etc.

The story would go away much quicker if he produced that... and yet...

And yet what?

You appear to have judged without the evidence, yet call for evidence from him.

He very obviously is using security.

I can understand an argument for looking into lobbying (though most MPs do this) but unless he has changed laws it's hotair.

If he gains power, then law changes to help lobbyists is always a valid criticism.

 

[palace99]

Answer me this.

How can you break a Parliamentary rule when you haven't decided to run for Parliament?
This is a stitch up plain and simple. That is obvious.

They are all trying to ruin Farage's reputation because they know he will put them out of a job come 2029. And it runs deeper than that. The elite globalist agenda is at risk.

This is clearly wrong and a poor excuse by Farage. The rules ,below, clearly state past interests up to one year, so in the previous 12 months. As the press made a massive deal of say Starmer accepting glasses and a few suits from an existing Labour member of the Lords, which he declared, i think a 'hidden' donation probably 100 times higher is worth some scrutiny.

The rules for parliamentary declarations in the UK operate under a strict framework:

• When to Declare: You must declare relevant interests in almost any situation where someone else might consider them to influence what you say or do. This includes speaking in the House, submitting written or oral questions, joining select committees, and corresponding directly with government officials. [1, 2, 3]
• Scope of Declarations: Declaring interests is different from registering them. The declaration requirement is broader than the official registry and includes expected future interests, past interests up to one year old, and the interests of family members. [1, 2]

 

[CPFCSaturn]

What kind of logic is that?

Yes they clearly can.



And yet what?

You appear to have judged without the evidence, yet call for evidence from him.

He very obviously is using security.

And yet he hasn’t, because it doesn’t exist.

I’ve judged that major politicians receiving £5m personal gifts is incredibly problematic, yes.

I’d imagine almost everyone would have expressed that same view 6m ago.

 

[Stirlingsays]

This is clearly wrong and a poor excuse by Farage. The rules ,below, clearly state past interests up to one year, so in the previous 12 months. As the press made a massive deal of say Starmer accepting glasses and a few suits from an existing Labour member of the Lords, which he declared, i think a 'hidden' donation probably 100 times higher is worth some scrutiny.

The rules for parliamentary declarations in the UK operate under a strict framework:

• When to Declare: You must declare relevant interests in almost any situation where someone else might consider them to influence what you say or do. This includes speaking in the House, submitting written or oral questions, joining select committees, and corresponding directly with government officials. [1, 2, 3]
• Scope of Declarations: Declaring interests is different from registering them. The declaration requirement is broader than the official registry and includes expected future interests, past interests up to one year old, and the interests of family members. [1, 2]

You are missing out the exemption to that 12 months rule.

'Key exemption: Purely personal gifts or benefits (e.g., from family/partners, or those that “could not reasonably be thought by others to relate to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities”) do not normally need registering.'

So those that want to say Farage has broken this rule have to prove that this doesn't apply. I suspect that will be difficult to prove.

 

[Stirlingsays]

And yet he hasn’t, because it doesn’t exist.

I’ve judged that major politicians receiving £5m personal gifts is incredibly problematic, yes.

I’d imagine almost everyone would have expressed that same view 6m ago.

He wasn't a politician at the time.

Your judgement is unlikely to bear fruit.

 

[palace99]

'Moved on'?

He literally stated it yesterday.

Two things can be true at once.

What is the evidence it's BS? Farage is up there with the most attacked political figures.

Is he? Do you mean a couple of milk shakes being thrown at him over the years or actual physical harm?

Well Starmer did get physically attacked outside parliament after Boris tried the old Jimmy Saville non story when under pressure, and only recently a couple of guys got sentenced for fire bombing one of his cars.
If he needs the money for extra security maybe he can now hold surgeries in Clacton which he has previously refused to do stating security concerns.

If you mean the attacks are from the establishment i.e. the Times newspaper that ran the story about the undeclared donation, i notice that this right leaning paper has previously paid Nige over £70k via its owner News Corp.

Who Funds Nigel Farage? Mapping His Millions

 

[silvertop]

No wonder I'm thick.



I don't think commies and fascists are thick at all.....Not that I think they work due to too much statism and violence.

Regardless what is a communist or fascist is situational to the ruling political regime and environment of the time.

They are both reactions to the establishment....and if it's failing then you see a rise in both (or versions of them anyway)....well originally fascism was a reaction to communism but we don't need to get into that.

Aren't you being a bit stereotypical towards these ideologies? What is sensible politics and what is extreme being very much an individual opinion. For example in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia the same thing could have been said in reverse.

I am repeating research I heard and no more.

Do I agree with it? To a point.

There are thinkers and leaders who exist at those fringes who genuinely believed with exhaustively thought out theories that they could work, generally in an environment of horror created by a corrupt ruling class.

Thus, Marx worked in London and he was no thicky. The centre of the planet and a hub of absolute power and manifest success... and desperate poverty, disease, forced child labour etc. He sought to level the resources to ensure the success was spread and the horrors removed. Not a hare's breadth from genuine Christian philosophy.

In theory.

And there are leaders whose minds are forged in the centre but who artificially migrate to the edges as they see an opportunity. Zhukov. Spier. And if you want examples closer to home and time, many of those who jumped on the Leave bandwagon sensing personal progress through a nationalist surge. Michael Gove was such a charlatan. Very clever and able, but no nationalist; and he certainly knew the pitfalls of Brexit.

But hoi poloi who blindly follow extremes are invariably dim and own that dangerous paradox of being both malleable and inflexible.

 

[Glazier#1]

Do you not see the irony in this post?

Let me explain, asking some one to mind their own business in a post that is not your business.

Are you now DanH's minder?

At last!

Someone on here has used the 'irony' tag to good effect. Haha!

I immediately thought of the irony when I posted it. Then I thought that not quite so; he was wanting to find out personal info on a poster whereas I was commenting that this is out of order in my opinion. So I let myself off on that score.

I'm sure Dan needs no minding from me.

So thanks for the condescending reply, HKO. At least you've put the 'irony' charge to good use. No one else did and it took long enough.

Incidentally, do have no problem with the post I was referring to?

 

[Stirlingsays]

I am repeating research I heard and no more.

Do I agree with it? To a point.

There are thinkers and leaders who exist at those fringes who genuinely believed with exhaustively thought out theories that they could work, generally in an environment of horror created by a corrupt ruling class.

Thus, Marx worked in London and he was no thicky. The centre of the planet and a hub of absolute power and manifest success... and desperate poverty, disease, forced child labour etc. He sought to level the resources to ensure the success was spread and the horrors removed. Not a hare's breadth from genuine Christian philosophy.

In theory.

And there are leaders whose minds are forged in the centre but who artificially migrate to the edges as they see an opportunity. Zhukov. Spier. And if you want examples closer to home and time, many of those who jumped on the Leave bandwagon sensing personal progress through a nationalist surge. Michael Gove was such a charlatan. Very clever and able, but no nationalist; and he certainly knew the pitfalls of Brexit.

But hoi poloi who blindly follow extremes are invariably dim and own that dangerous paradox of being both malleable and inflexible.

Aside from what I've already said on the subject, I certainly don't disagree with the idea that every ideology has plenty of dim wits supporting it.

Tribalism (which I regard as the ultimate winning strategy due to numbers) is more associated with ethnic interest and thus is less interested in qualifying characteristics like IQ over an ethnic loyalty. That will lower averages for different groups but it doesn't change the fact that an ideology itself should be judged upon the results of its ideas rather than claims that believing this or that relates to your intelligence.

As you state they also have highly intelligent people supporting what are considered extremes. I recall both Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, one becoming PM and the other could have...both being extremely intelligent people who existed at opposite political positions.....though not on everything and they were quite friendly (probably a class thing).

 

[Stirlingsays]

Is he? Do you mean a couple of milk shakes being thrown at him over the years or actual physical harm?

Apparently throwing containers of liquid at politicians shouldn't be taken seriously because it'll always contain mikshakes.

No, it should be taken seriously for obvious reasons.

You obviously didn't listen to his speech yesterday as he mentioned physical attacks that have occurred.....damage to property and so on.

Well Starmer did get physically attacked outside parliament after Boris tried the old Jimmy Saville non story when under pressure, and only recently a couple of guys got sentenced for fire bombing one of his cars.
If he needs the money for extra security maybe he can now hold surgeries in Clacton which he has previously refused to do stating security concerns.

The attacks against Starmer were taken seriously by the state....as they should have been.
Starmer receives the highest security in the land, which he should as PM, whereas Farage's security funding was reduced by seventy percent apparently.

If you mean the attacks are from the establishment i.e. the Times newspaper that ran the story about the undeclared donation, i notice that this right leaning paper has previously paid Nige over £70k via its owner News Corp.

Who Funds Nigel Farage? Mapping His Millions

No, I have no issues with political attacks and questions about donations.....as long as this applies to everyone. What I am referring to are security costs and considering that we have murders in recent years I think the seriousness shouldn't be understated.

 

[chris123]

Binface for PM!

Binevitable as he says.

So long as his policies are rubbish

 

[Stirlingsays]

So long as his policies are rubbish

I've heard his defence policy will be to chute at first sight.

His green policy will be bigger green bins.

I like his tax policy, where he said that he would lower your personal tax level by increasing everybody else's.

 

[chris123]

I've heard his defence policy will be to chute at first sight.

His green policy will be bigger green bins.

I like his tax policy, where he said that he would lower your personal tax level by increasing everybody else's.

Someone else suggested he might appeal to swing bin voters

 

[Glazier#1]

I refuse to vote for him

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

There is none so dim and full of fck-witedness, as those who speak of allegiance to a political party. Unless you are in the Party , making massive amounts of money for yourself, this allegiance speaks of generational brain-washing.

open your eyes.

 

[Stirlingsays]

There is none so dim and full of fck-witedness, as those who speak of allegiance to a political party. Unless you are in the Party , making massive amounts of money for yourself, this allegiance speaks of generational brain-washing.

open your eyes.

Yep, but it's hard to open your eyes while asleep.

 

[silvertop]

Aside from what I've already said on the subject, I certainly don't disagree with the idea that every ideology has plenty of dim wits supporting it.

Tribalism (which I regard as the ultimate winning strategy due to numbers) is more associated with ethnic interest and thus is less interested in qualifying characteristics like IQ over an ethnic loyalty. That will lower averages for different groups but it doesn't change the fact that an ideology itself should be judged upon the results of its ideas rather than claims that believing this or that relates to your intelligence.

As you state they also have highly intelligent people supporting what are considered extremes. I recall both Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, one becoming PM and the other could have...both being extremely intelligent people who existed at opposite political positions.....though not on everything and they were quite friendly (probably a class thing).

I suspect the empirical studies sourced the followers rather than the leaders.

As you say, largely reflecting tribal instincts seeking to defend/protect common cultural values.

 

[silvertop]

There is none so dim and full of fck-witedness, as those who speak of allegiance to a political party. Unless you are in the Party , making massive amounts of money for yourself, this allegiance speaks of generational brain-washing.

open your eyes.

A little harsh.

You can support a party knowing you only support 60% of its policies as the next best party may only represents 50%.

Someone once told me the secret of what is a "good" job: more good than bad. Those on a constant quest for the "perfect" job will end life disappointed as it is an impossible illusion.

Likewise political parties. You can be both intelligent and follow one party if it is the best fit. The intelligence is knowing the 40% you disagree with. On the other hand...

Those Orwellian characters who blindly follow and believe every policy - including complete reversals - have earned that special seat on the minibus.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Yep, but it's hard to open your eyes while asleep.

indeed. There are many on HOL with massive educations and life experiences. and unlike the BBS, the HOL allows almost total freedom of speech.
What i find difficult to accept is that people get entrenched into a particular political philosophy.

Divide and conquer, an all dat.