Does anyone believe that even if Farage won, he'd actually want to be PM? He'd wallow in the glory of course, but he's such a workshy bum he'd never be able to stick to the hard graft. He'd find an excuse to duck out and put someone else in, while he swanned around the world at public expense.
Fascinating but horrifying conversation--especially after reading a lot about Lowe & Restore, his following on X, dragging Reform to the right--and makes me curious to read Peter's book "What if Reform Wins?".
Meanwhile it's hard to understand why Labour appears so complacent about FPTP as the electoral system likely to give Reform a majority in the next general election, on less than 30% of the vote...
With even Burnham promising to introduce the Supplementary Vote not only "in the next government" ie TOO LATE, but only after including SV in a manifesto and later putting it to a referendum...
AV+ aka SV was recommended by the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform in 1998. It s needed NOW: for elections at every level.
But Blair and Brown did nothing about it, and Starmer--with a huge majority of 63% of seats BUT on only 34% of the vote--has done nothing about it: despite the Representation of the People bill currently going through Parliament.
And even Burnham seems to be living in a dreamworld: he really thinks Labour under his own magic touch as possible PM--if he wins in Makerfield--will win another general election under FPTP? An election which might have to be called by popular demand a lot sooner than Burnham thinks.
If it weren't all so maddening, it would be very depressing: waiting for a seemingly inevitable Reform government to do its worst.
I have read "What if Reform Win" and it is both humorous in a macabre kind of way and extremely alarming. Should be made compulsory reading for Reform voters, but would it actually make any difference?
Fascinating. Thanks for doing this interview, Sam. So much to draw out from the interview. The two things I was particularly interested to hear were the idea of general election voters in 2029 going elsewhere when considering the mess Reform is making of local government and Falklands oil.
Some of my friends tell me that general election voters are influenced by national issues, not local ones. But I believe that Reform is already demonstrating such a high level of incompetence in local government that, if transposed on national government, it would be ruinous (Truss on steroids-and more than an economic disaster).
The US was against the Falklands War. Alexander Haig, then US Secretary of State and a former General, was the annoying mouthpiece for the US anti-war view. It was reported recently that Trump’s mention of Falkland sovereignty was linked to oil and his cosiness with the current Argentinian leader. It also fits with the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine claims for a sphere of influence across the Americas. National support for the Falkland’s was high in 1983. That might count as nothing with a high proportion of voters in 2029, 46 years on from the conflict.
Does anyone believe that even if Farage won, he'd actually want to be PM? He'd wallow in the glory of course, but he's such a workshy bum he'd never be able to stick to the hard graft. He'd find an excuse to duck out and put someone else in, while he swanned around the world at public expense.
You only have to look at what Trump has done. Very little work, lots of golf, but he’s certainly not walking away from the title.
Johnson managed to do it with no discernible work effort so he’d be fine.
He’ll make himself a Lord and disappear
Fascinating but horrifying conversation--especially after reading a lot about Lowe & Restore, his following on X, dragging Reform to the right--and makes me curious to read Peter's book "What if Reform Wins?".
Meanwhile it's hard to understand why Labour appears so complacent about FPTP as the electoral system likely to give Reform a majority in the next general election, on less than 30% of the vote...
With even Burnham promising to introduce the Supplementary Vote not only "in the next government" ie TOO LATE, but only after including SV in a manifesto and later putting it to a referendum...
AV+ aka SV was recommended by the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform in 1998. It s needed NOW: for elections at every level.
But Blair and Brown did nothing about it, and Starmer--with a huge majority of 63% of seats BUT on only 34% of the vote--has done nothing about it: despite the Representation of the People bill currently going through Parliament.
And even Burnham seems to be living in a dreamworld: he really thinks Labour under his own magic touch as possible PM--if he wins in Makerfield--will win another general election under FPTP? An election which might have to be called by popular demand a lot sooner than Burnham thinks.
If it weren't all so maddening, it would be very depressing: waiting for a seemingly inevitable Reform government to do its worst.
I have read "What if Reform Win" and it is both humorous in a macabre kind of way and extremely alarming. Should be made compulsory reading for Reform voters, but would it actually make any difference?
A quick suggestion:
Can we all please start calling him "Farridge" (to rhyme with the "man in the street" pronunciation of "garage", as suggested by the man himself?)
The Welsh spelling is "Ffarij".
The analogy with "Mrs Bouquet" or "Mrs Bucket" is not lost, particularly on older listeners.
Words matter, and changing the sound of words also matters.
Reform won’t win. But I will read this any way , Sam :o)
Fascinating. Thanks for doing this interview, Sam. So much to draw out from the interview. The two things I was particularly interested to hear were the idea of general election voters in 2029 going elsewhere when considering the mess Reform is making of local government and Falklands oil.
Some of my friends tell me that general election voters are influenced by national issues, not local ones. But I believe that Reform is already demonstrating such a high level of incompetence in local government that, if transposed on national government, it would be ruinous (Truss on steroids-and more than an economic disaster).
The US was against the Falklands War. Alexander Haig, then US Secretary of State and a former General, was the annoying mouthpiece for the US anti-war view. It was reported recently that Trump’s mention of Falkland sovereignty was linked to oil and his cosiness with the current Argentinian leader. It also fits with the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine claims for a sphere of influence across the Americas. National support for the Falkland’s was high in 1983. That might count as nothing with a high proportion of voters in 2029, 46 years on from the conflict.