Reform UK Party Limited Company

I'd love to disagree and offer an alternative view, but sadly can't.
The likes of Galloway and Farage are Russian assets. They are unfit to be MPs.

I'm loving the Tory wipe out but I'm also mindful that some of the alternates are far far worse.

It would be great if the lib dems were to become the official opposition. But if that meant the Reform rabble won a few seats and started to really drag the remaining tories to the far right then that's a big problem. I'd prefer 150 tories and no Reform to 50 tories and a small mob of Farage disciples.
 
The likes of Galloway and Farage are Russian assets. They are unfit to be MPs.

I'm loving the Tory wipe out but I'm also mindful that some of the alternates are far far worse.

It would be great if the lib dems were to become the official opposition. But if that meant the Reform rabble won a few seats and started to really drag the remaining tories to the far right then that's a big problem. I'd prefer 150 tories and no Reform to 50 tories and a small mob of Farage disciples.
I think they just want a figurehead that cuts through, is able to go head to head with Starmer at PMQs and bloody his nose when required, rather than championing Farage and Galloway’s politics, but I may well be wrong.
 
The likes of Galloway and Farage are Russian assets. They are unfit to be MPs.

I'm loving the Tory wipe out but I'm also mindful that some of the alternates are far far worse.

It would be great if the lib dems were to become the official opposition. But if that meant the Reform rabble won a few seats and started to really drag the remaining tories to the far right then that's a big problem. I'd prefer 150 tories and no Reform to 50 tories and a small mob of Farage disciples.
Russia seems to behind everything we don't like or agree with. It reminds me of 50s America when everything people didn't like was blamed on communists, Jews and homosexuals, or indeed Reform scapegoating immigrants.
 
Last edited:
There will still be around 50 Tory MPs, and/or a similar number of Lib Dems. Out of 50 people you ought to be able to find spokespersons enough to cover the various portfolios. If they aren't up to it, why are they MPs? In an extreme case, you might have to have one person speaking to two portfolios, but even that should be manageable.

Though I would love a Tory wipeout, I wouldn't be that surprised if in fact they have over 100 MPs. If they can't organise an opposition with such a number, they're not fit to be in the job.

They will always tend to be outvoted of course, whether Labour has a majority of 20 or 200. The way things work, the opposition can argue against stuff and criticise, but it's rarely in a position to stop something unless the government supporting MPs are divided among themselves.

Size of majority matters, it matters a lot in our democracy. Having a small majority keeps the government to account.

Witness Brexit under May - votes were close, lost etc which would have ultimately resulted in a cross consensus type of Brexit (softer) versus Johnson with a large majority was able to get his version of Brexit through (harder and was done irrespective of it not being properly concluded). A smaller majority would not have allowed this. A smaller Starmer majority means he will have to appeal to all his MPs, although we know he has handpicked to ensure they are broadly all to the right of the party with the odd exception like Abbott and he can rely on the tories to support him.
 
The likes of Galloway and Farage are Russian assets. They are unfit to be MPs.

I'm loving the Tory wipe out but I'm also mindful that some of the alternates are far far worse.

It would be great if the lib dems were to become the official opposition. But if that meant the Reform rabble won a few seats and started to really drag the remaining tories to the far right then that's a big problem. I'd prefer 150 tories and no Reform to 50 tories and a small mob of Farage disciples.

These Russian assets are everywhere apparently. Won’t be because they might have a bit of sympathy for the Palestinians

 
Size of majority matters, it matters a lot in our democracy. Having a small majority keeps the government to account.

Witness Brexit under May - votes were close, lost etc which would have ultimately resulted in a cross consensus type of Brexit (softer) versus Johnson with a large majority was able to get his version of Brexit through (harder and was done irrespective of it not being properly concluded). A smaller majority would not have allowed this. A smaller Starmer majority means he will have to appeal to all his MPs, although we know he has handpicked to ensure they are broadly all to the right of the party with the odd exception like Abbott and he can rely on the tories to support him.
A majority of over 50 is pretty much the same as 500, unless you have a group like the ERG that is bigger than your majority.
 
A majority of over 50 is pretty much the same as 500, unless you have a group like the ERG that is bigger than your majority.

I’d broadly agree that 50 works where a party is united. Starmer has been very studious in ensuring the NEC pick Labour candidates who aren’t “lefties” where he can. Obviously some of the old guard he can’t cull like Abbott and he keeps Rayner around so he can appear like a socialist. To coin, and revise, an old saying. “I’m not a Tory some of my best friends are lefties”
 
I’d broadly agree that 50 works where a party is united. Starmer has been very studious in ensuring the NEC pick Labour candidates who aren’t “lefties” where he can. Obviously some of the old guard he can’t cull like Abbott and he keeps Rayner around so he can appear like a socialist. To coin, and revise, an old saying. “I’m not a Tory some of my best friends are lefties”
I think where it might get an issue is if Starmer sets up lots of committees and inquiries. There won’t be many opposition MPs to spread around if it is a huge majority.

Time will tell what he actually is. He seems a man for all seasons at the moment. If he gets his wish of power, then we will see which season he chooses.
 
I used to work reasonably closely with him so probably know him better than most people. I can only speak to how he was then (not in politics) and he was a decent bloke who I wouldn’t have called a racist by any metric. Yeah he had a picture of himself on the wall in Union Jack swimming trunks so a bit of a flag waver but so what?

That said when he questioned Sunak’s Britishness when he left the D-Day celebrations early he crossed the line for me into racist territory.
What about that disgusting immigration poster he did ? He is racist
 
These Russian assets are everywhere apparently. Won’t be because they might have a bit of sympathy for the Palestinians

Russian money and support finds its way to many useful idiot politicians with a range of political views. One thing they all have in common is they are damaging to us as a nation. Farage as an example would not give a toss about Palestinians but he is mad keen on brexit and brexit is massively popular in the kremlin.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.