National Politics 🟣 Reform UK

Would you vote for Reform under Nigel Farage?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 20.1%

  • Maybe/Undecided

    Votes: 17 9.2%

  • No

    Votes: 130 70.7%
  • Total voters
    184
  • Poll closed .
Last edited:
  • React
Reactions: QR
Farage already claiming a fix in Gorton and Denton I see. Interesting how he's using the word cheating when his own candidate was literally found to have broken rules in the campaign.
 
Burglar Bill said:
Farage already claiming a fix in Gorton and Denton I see. Interesting how he's using the word cheating when his own candidate was literally found to have broken rules in the campaign.
Click to expand...
You'd have thought they'd lost my 4 seats not 4,400!
 
SteMerritt said:
Whoever did that is a bloody idiot - hope they catch the lowlife. And Farage linking that to his party's failure, that's just typical, and straight out of the Trump playbook.
Click to expand...
The far-left strongly dislike Churchill because they insist on judging yesterday's people by today's standards
 
Londox said:
The far-left strongly dislike Churchill because they insist on judging yesterday's people by today's standards
Click to expand...
It is not a 'far-left' thing though. That is Reform creating 'enemies' for people to get angry about. Israel/Palestine just isn't as simple as 'Left' vs 'Right', no matter how some would paint it. This attack has NOTHING to do with the by election result yesterday.
 
SteMerritt said:
It is not a 'far-left' thing though. That is Reform creating 'enemies' for people to get angry about. Israel/Palestine just isn't as simple as 'Left' vs 'Right', no matter how some would paint it. This attack has NOTHING to do with the by election result yesterday.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. I just said Churchill's legacy is called into question by the left.
 
Londox said:
It's questioned by some people, of whom are almost entirely on the left.
Click to expand...
That's probably true, not that you'd have any way of actually proving it. And it wasn't what you said, you said it was 'questioned by the left', which is plainly not the case. A small amount of people, of which there is probably a strong 'left' bias, just doesn't work as an enemy figure I guess.
 
SteMerritt said:
That's probably true, not that you'd have any way of actually proving it. And it wasn't what you said, you said it was 'questioned by the left', which is plainly not the case. A small amount of people, of which there is probably a strong 'left' bias, just doesn't work as an enemy figure I guess.
Click to expand...
I think we are basically agreed. Not everyone on the left is anti-Chuchill, but people who are are almost entirely on the left.
 
Londox said:
It's questioned by some people, of whom are almost entirely on the left.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Historians and people who with critical thinking skills. Like everyone, Churchill had a bad side to him, and there are some things he did which can be called into question. Whether they are valid or not, is for debate, but just because of what he led us through the war (which is rightly applauded), it doesn't make him some demi-god, who we should put on a pedestal and never, ever dare to question. Because that WOULD be Fascism.
 
boogaloo said:
Not necessarily. Historians and people who with critical thinking skills. Like everyone, Churchill had a bad side to him, and there are some things he did which can be called into question. Whether they are valid or not, is for debate, but just because of what he led us through the war (which is rightly applauded), it doesn't make him some demi-god, who we should put on a pedestal and never, ever dare to question. Because that WOULD be Fascism.
Click to expand...
People who *have* critical thinking skills can obviously question Churchill. I don't know what you mean by a "bad side" to him, unless you just mean he was a human so had good and bad within him. Obviously, Gallipolli was a failure and that dogged churchill, he played a role in the Bengali famine, the siege of Sydney street, his views on womens rights, I'm not saying critcising Churchull's decisions isn't worthy of debate. I just think blanket hatred of him and defacing statues etc is a dumb thing to do.

My point was that judging yesterday's people by today's standards in mostly a silly concept.
 
Londox said:
I never said it did. I just said Churchill's legacy is called into question by the left.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with "the left". I've read otherwise admiring books about Churchill that acknowledge his dodgy views on race. Great wartime leader, great orator, but not a very nice man. He expressed views that were pretty repellent even by the standards of the time. The way he phrased this charming observation shows that he knew his views were controversial:

"I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

("In the morning, madam, you will still be ugly. And I will still be a racist.")
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
HayfieldYellow said:
It's nothing to do with "the left". I've read otherwise admiring books about Churchill that acknowledge his dodgy views on race. Great wartime leader, great orator, but not a very nice man. He expressed views that were pretty repellent even by the standards of the time. The way he phrased this charming observation shows that he knew his views were controversial:

"I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

("And in the morning, madam, I will still be an ardent racist.")
Click to expand...
Did you even read my last post?

His views on race were relatively consistent with other Victorian aristocrats. You're judging yesterday's man by today's standards. Which is fine if you want to but I think it's stupid.

Anyway I'll leave you and Sheik to your waffling b*****s.
 
Londox said:
Did you even read my last post?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I was answering it. You seem to be suggesting that Churchill's views were normal for the time and that it's only "the far-left" that discuss his less-than-pleasant views.

They weren't normal, even for the time, and better historians than you or I have pointed out that he held unpleasant views. It's not unpatriotic to dislike a politician, however hard Farage tries to pretend it is.
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
Yes, and I was answering it. You seem to be suggesting (a) that Churchill's views were normal for the time and that (b) it's only "the left" that discuss his less-than-pleasant views.
Click to expand...
Churchill's views on race were normal for the time.

My point isn't to do with discussing his views. Any historian will do that. My point is about condemning yesterday's men by today's standards which is more often done by the left, in my opinion.

This forum used to have opinions before people started demanding every single viewpoint was made in the style of an academic paper.
 
Londox said:
Churchill's views on race were normal for the time.
Click to expand...
So why does that quote start "I do not admit..."? If his views were normal for the time, he wouldn't acknowledge ("admit") that there was any other opinion to be had. It reads to me as explicitly acknowledging that he knows his views were controversial.

Besides - back at the point - some t**t vandalising a statue in London is nothing to do with the Green Party winning a by-election in Manchester, and both you and Farage know it. It's standard Trumpian mud-slinging, trying to tar everybody with the same brush.

Londox said:
Anyway I'll leave you and Sheik to your waffling b*****s.
Click to expand...
LOL.
 
Last edited:
  • React
Reactions: QR
HayfieldYellow said:
Yes, and I was answering it. You seem to be suggesting that Churchill's views were normal for the time and that it's only "the far-left" that discuss his less-than-pleasant views.

They weren't normal, even for the time, and better historians than you or I have pointed out that he held unpleasant views. It's not unpatriotic to dislike a politician, however hard Farage tries to pretend it is.
Click to expand...
You can dislike Churchill if you want, I honestly don't care. I've never said historians don't discuss his "less than pleasant views", my point is there's a trend amongst people I think are usually on the far-left about completely demonising Churchill as a racist, rather than viewing him on context.

He was raised as an ultra wealthy Victorian going to the elite Harrow school and his father was a politician. His views on empire were not out of context with the majority of his peers.

He was an outspoken and bullish man his entire life, but a love of empire and outdated views on race were standard for men of his class born in the 1870s.

I've never made any claim on it being "unpatriotic" to dislike Churchill. Dislike away. I think he stood up to Hitler and was one of the first politicians in this country to not just believe appeasement was the answer but to stand up to Hitler. He foresaw what many did not.

Not many men see the front lines in Cuba and Sudan. Do missions on the western front. Be an unbelievable orator and writer. Win a war. Become PM twice. Hold an astounding number of positions in the government. For me it's not about him being perfect it's about viewing him in his context.

I promise you Hayfield, you or other people like yours views on him are an irrelevance to me. So long as people don't deface his statues or property which I think is ridiculous, you criticise away
 
Londox said:
I promise you Hayfield, you or other people like yours views on him are an irrelevance to me. So long as people don't deface his statues or property which I think is ridiculous, you criticise away
Click to expand...
Londox, it's a public forum. You express your opinions, other people can disagree with you. That's how it works.
 
HayfieldYellow said:
Londox, it's a public forum. You express your opinions, other people can disagree with you. That's how it works.
Click to expand...
Where have I said you can't? I literally told you you're free to dislike Churchill and criticise him.

My opinion is that the kind of person who is completely dismissive of him or vandalises statues or property is an idiot.
 
None of those statements mean I'm not letting you discuss what you want.

You yourself have said "debunking right wing b*****s" is your therapy. When you don't get a rise out of me you try with Basham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom