I don't think he has any uncertainty or diminution in sureness. I think it's briefly dawned on him that professing love, support and admiration for Trump only plays well at the moment with the sort of morons who actually support him and join his party, and not with many of those whose disgruntled votes he needs to win the forthcoming local elections.
Someone posted a reply to one of our local election posts on Facebook with a picture of Farage saying vote on the 4th July. I'm very tempted to agree that is a very good idea. Local elections are on the 1st May.....
Someone posted a reply to one of our local election posts on Facebook with a picture of Farage saying vote on the 4th July. I'm very tempted to agree that is a very good idea. Local elections are on the 1st May.....
Farage has gone quiet about Trump because the two of them have broadly the same approach - move in with a lot of sound and wind, get the popular vote and then, if you're lucky enough to gain power, start by just breaking things up and seeing where and how the dust settles. Looking across the Pond even someone as blinkered as Farage can see this not only doesn't work but can back-fire spectacularly.
The other issue is that Farage likes to wrap himself in the union flag and declare himself a great patriot, and he is now faced with the fact that not only is his great hero damaging the USA, he's also damaging us as well, which leaves poor Nigel with a bit of a problem.
Good. Maybe that great, cavernous mouth will close for a bit while he figures out what the reality of MAGA is and the massive harms caused by it.
The candidates (now councillors) round here were waiting for Farage to tell them what their police’s will be. I hope they like them when they find out.
@Doublethink , According to a Green candidate who’s a friend of mine who talked to them I don’t need to worry about climate change as it doesn’t exist and they’ll roll back any local policies. They also seem keen to, according to Farage, to sacking equalities staff and making everyone working from home go into the office.
All that and much more besides. Our local Reform candidate is standing on a platform of disposing of town council assets so that private businesses can run them instead and of somehow taking the Highways budget allocation from the Borough authority so that the town councils can hire its own contractors to fill the pot-holes.
There is no mechanism for this but voters don't know that.
They out do the Tories when it comes to ludicrous promises at local election time.
They also want to stop the town council giving grants to local community groups. Again, they think that individuals and business people should pay for that instead.
According to them people are going to foodbanks because the town council is 'communist' and setting the precept too high in order to pay for things that philanthropists should pay for.
They also want to stop the town council giving grants to local community groups. Again, they think that individuals and business people should pay for that instead.
According to them people are going to foodbanks because the town council is 'communist' and setting the precept too high in order to pay for things that philanthropists should pay for.
What philanthropists?
Where are they?
Yep right wing policies. Small government, business is the answer only it isn’t. There is probably very little profit in running council stuff. It doesn’t work.
Thing is, as someone who as of yesterday is living in a Reform controlled council (which I didn’t vote for), I’ve really got to hope they don’t turn out to be useless. I’m not so keen for them to be hounded out of politics that I’ll cheer on the torching of my local area.
There are a number of things that are very likely to coalesce. At this point most councils are a large social care budget, a few smaller budgets and (if they are lucky) one or two sources of revenue under their direct control. A number of them are close to going bust, or about to reap the consequences of bad investment decisions that they thought would plug a funding hole.
Those two things on their own are going to be a major source of worry - especially if you've just got a new crop of councillors who given to grifting and fighting.
Then there are universities and the areas dependent on them as a source of primary and secondary economic activity. I've wondered for a while if some of the noises coming from 'Blue Labour' mean that Philipson is likely to allow one or two universities to go to the wall just to test the waters (given the self imposed fiscal rules she going to be constrained on the amounts of support she has available), and well if a couple of those are in now Reform controlled areas who already complain about levels of 'immigration' ..
@betjemaniac - yes, that's a dilemma. They will 'improve' over time, in experience at least.
One hopes that they'll soon find out that their rhetoric does not reflect reality. Although I'm sure many of them know that already and don't care two hoots in that regard.
Well that didn’t take long. One of the county councillors unexpectedly elected for Reform in our town had resigned. Top tip don’t stand for election for anything unless you are prepared to actually do the job. A party that puts great store on saving money has just cost the council a fair few thousand in by-election costs.
According to the local rag, it’s because he was “not in a position to represent the people of Newark West in the way they deserve, while at the same time continuing his career in social care”
In other words, he had no idea of the work or responsibility (or low pay) of a councillor
In other words, he had no idea of the work or responsibility (or low pay) of a councillor
There was an article somewhere that mentioned this; namely a number of people who stood for Reform not realising the work involved and never looking into it further as they assumed they wouldn't win
A reform politician working in social care ? I am going to guess he runs a private social care provider then, rather than being a social worker. I am also going to guess the reception to him running for Reform from his business perspective was, shall we say, not universally positive.
In other words, he had no idea of the work or responsibility (or low pay) of a councillor
There was an article somewhere that mentioned this; namely a number of people who stood for Reform not realising the work involved and never looking into it further as they assumed they wouldn't win
I can well believe that - and having spent time canvassing with local councillors - it is a decent amount of work, focus and physical effort. Just the sheer amount of walking most politicians do in the course of a local campaign is demanding. And the amount working councillors know about their areas - that these streets are concerned about drug dealers in that location, or development proposals for a housing complex, or when their potholes are scheduled to be repaired etc etc
Our candidate for that Division was local, already a District Councillor and knew what was needed for the area. Mr Clarke wasn’t even sure if he needed to be at the count. Someone told me another couple of Reform councillors were in tears when they realised they’d won. Maybe the party ought to get all those who aren’t sure they’re up to it to stand down now before they actually start to try and run things.
I'm trying not to be smug about such things because, for the people who didn't vote for them and have them as their councillors, it's going to be horrid.
For the people who did vote or them, on the other hand...
According to the local rag, it’s because he was “not in a position to represent the people of Newark West in the way they deserve, while at the same time continuing his career in social care”
In other words, he had no idea of the work or responsibility (or low pay) of a councillor
If he was working in social care paid from the council (rather fully private) he was probably not allowed to be a councillor without immediately quitting his job - there was a local by-election recently in Glasgow where the elected councillor failed to get their resignation letter in soon enough after being elected and had to stand down triggering another by-election. The rules regarding conflicts of interest and councillors not allowed to do other work paid for by that council are clearly laid out in the information packs provided to all candidates, and IME the council election office will put on information sessions before nominations close for potential candidates, and then during the campaign period, so that all candidates have plenty of opportunity to check what the rules are if they are uncertain about anything (or, a phone call or email will get that information very quickly. Though obviously if there's something which has legal implications then consulting your own lawyer is advised, the election office isn't there to advice on legal issues just explain the rules.
There are two things that candidates need to be (potentially) eligible for.
1. They need to be eligible to stand (that includes being old enough, having a nationality allowed for that election etc).
2. They need to be aware of the requirements to serve in that position should they be elected - which includes any conflicts of interest (eg: a councillor can't be an employee of that council, though they can work for another council) and the time requirements (especially important if you intend to also maintain current employment - it's highly advisable to check with your employer before putting yourself forward whether they'd accept you reducing your hours) and it's amazing how many MPs and MSPs (I assume also equivalent positions in Wales) don't seem to realise it's a full time job and you can't do it while also holding down another job.
None of these are secret, any candidate or potential candidate can check up on these quite easily. If standing for a party then a half-decent vetting process would include checking to make sure the potential candidate is aware of these, and that if elected they would be quitting their job (or reducing to part time for a councillor, though a full time councillor is more effective the pay isn't sufficient for that without other support). The Reform vetting process isn't renowned for being very good at both helping potential candidates understand what they're letting themselves in for and identifying support the party might need to provide, and checking that the candidates aren't complete loons (assuming, that is, Reform want to exclude complete loons from representing them).
An acquaintance's Reform councillor is someone whose main claim to fame is that he was caught masturbating in class at school, and tried (and failed) to sue someone who pointed this out on twitter. Thus making sure that the entire twitterverse knew he was a Jodrell Banker.
To be fair, I've known of candidates from other parties or none who have dropped out very quickly once elected or who hadn't checked their eligibility properly.
I won't single Labour out for that but oh, what a give-away ...
In my area Labour drop-outs and/or dismissals have opened the way up for Reform to stand in several by-elections. Get your act together, Labour!
But in my experience Reform's predecessor, UKIP, was the worst for this sort of thing.
At least with the Labour and Conservative instances I can think of, there were either genuine oversights or errors or the candidates hadn't clocked the time commitment involved and were in demanding jobs or starting new ones.
I'm not saying that Reform are less capable than other parties of making genuine oversights or errors but I think it's fair to say that they generally attract candidates who don't have the first idea about what is involved or who have fallen out or been thrown out by other parties.
They also attract opportunists and those who think it's going to be some kind of fast-track to the House of Commons without having to do any actual work.
I expect to see more Reform drop-outs soon, but they are gaining critical mass and even if the bulk of them are buffoons - and I believe they are - there are enough of them now to begin to gain valuable experience at town and borough level.
Some of the more capable ones are fiendishly Machiavellian and very, very driven.
Scarily so.
We must underestimate them. They've had a whiff of blood.
There is a weird lacuna in all coverage of Farage, in that the press are strangely reluctant to actually spell out his policies and explain why he's worse than the alternatives. Once you've noticed that, it's impossible to unsee.
As Farage tried to get on the discussion program for the Senedd election next year here in Wales and was not allowed to as he was not on the ballot that leads to a question. Does he think his Welsh candidates are up to snuff? He obviously doesn’t understand the situation here.
Farage has said he won't visit Scotland, after he had a police escort out of a pub. I'm not certain we'll see more than just his frog faced visage from bill boards in the coming election. Certainly at the various community events in Stonehouse this morning Labour, SNP and SGP all turned up with their candidates plus assorted MSPs. No sign of the other parties, but they may have simply been in other parts of the constituency.
Comments
I expected nothing better
The other issue is that Farage likes to wrap himself in the union flag and declare himself a great patriot, and he is now faced with the fact that not only is his great hero damaging the USA, he's also damaging us as well, which leaves poor Nigel with a bit of a problem.
Good. Maybe that great, cavernous mouth will close for a bit while he figures out what the reality of MAGA is and the massive harms caused by it.
There is no mechanism for this but voters don't know that.
They out do the Tories when it comes to ludicrous promises at local election time.
According to them people are going to foodbanks because the town council is 'communist' and setting the precept too high in order to pay for things that philanthropists should pay for.
What philanthropists?
Where are they?
Yep right wing policies. Small government, business is the answer only it isn’t. There is probably very little profit in running council stuff. It doesn’t work.
If they aren't there to serve the local community in some way then what's the point of them?
Thing is, the local Reform group is run by business people. I don't see them putting their hands in their pockets to finance any of this stuff.
It's all moonshine and, as @Arethosemyfeet observes, porcine aerial acrobatics.
Those two things on their own are going to be a major source of worry - especially if you've just got a new crop of councillors who given to grifting and fighting.
Then there are universities and the areas dependent on them as a source of primary and secondary economic activity. I've wondered for a while if some of the noises coming from 'Blue Labour' mean that Philipson is likely to allow one or two universities to go to the wall just to test the waters (given the self imposed fiscal rules she going to be constrained on the amounts of support she has available), and well if a couple of those are in now Reform controlled areas who already complain about levels of 'immigration' ..
Not me. @Alan Cresswell
Sorry. My bad.
@betjemaniac - yes, that's a dilemma. They will 'improve' over time, in experience at least.
One hopes that they'll soon find out that their rhetoric does not reflect reality. Although I'm sure many of them know that already and don't care two hoots in that regard.
BBC News Article
In other words, he had no idea of the work or responsibility (or low pay) of a councillor
There was an article somewhere that mentioned this; namely a number of people who stood for Reform not realising the work involved and never looking into it further as they assumed they wouldn't win
I can well believe that - and having spent time canvassing with local councillors - it is a decent amount of work, focus and physical effort. Just the sheer amount of walking most politicians do in the course of a local campaign is demanding. And the amount working councillors know about their areas - that these streets are concerned about drug dealers in that location, or development proposals for a housing complex, or when their potholes are scheduled to be repaired etc etc
For the people who did vote or them, on the other hand...
1. They need to be eligible to stand (that includes being old enough, having a nationality allowed for that election etc).
2. They need to be aware of the requirements to serve in that position should they be elected - which includes any conflicts of interest (eg: a councillor can't be an employee of that council, though they can work for another council) and the time requirements (especially important if you intend to also maintain current employment - it's highly advisable to check with your employer before putting yourself forward whether they'd accept you reducing your hours) and it's amazing how many MPs and MSPs (I assume also equivalent positions in Wales) don't seem to realise it's a full time job and you can't do it while also holding down another job.
None of these are secret, any candidate or potential candidate can check up on these quite easily. If standing for a party then a half-decent vetting process would include checking to make sure the potential candidate is aware of these, and that if elected they would be quitting their job (or reducing to part time for a councillor, though a full time councillor is more effective the pay isn't sufficient for that without other support). The Reform vetting process isn't renowned for being very good at both helping potential candidates understand what they're letting themselves in for and identifying support the party might need to provide, and checking that the candidates aren't complete loons (assuming, that is, Reform want to exclude complete loons from representing them).
I think that is already a lost cause.
I won't single Labour out for that but oh, what a give-away ...
In my area Labour drop-outs and/or dismissals have opened the way up for Reform to stand in several by-elections. Get your act together, Labour!
But in my experience Reform's predecessor, UKIP, was the worst for this sort of thing.
At least with the Labour and Conservative instances I can think of, there were either genuine oversights or errors or the candidates hadn't clocked the time commitment involved and were in demanding jobs or starting new ones.
I'm not saying that Reform are less capable than other parties of making genuine oversights or errors but I think it's fair to say that they generally attract candidates who don't have the first idea about what is involved or who have fallen out or been thrown out by other parties.
They also attract opportunists and those who think it's going to be some kind of fast-track to the House of Commons without having to do any actual work.
I expect to see more Reform drop-outs soon, but they are gaining critical mass and even if the bulk of them are buffoons - and I believe they are - there are enough of them now to begin to gain valuable experience at town and borough level.
Some of the more capable ones are fiendishly Machiavellian and very, very driven.
Scarily so.
We must underestimate them. They've had a whiff of blood.
Unfortunately there's a strand within Scottish Unionism that really likes the taste of boot.
Depends when you consider fascism to be lunacy or just evil.