u/Chance-Chard-2540

“The local businessman, a thirty something father of three, explained to Chan that it was getting harder to run a small business. He worried if the day was coming when he wouldn't be able to support his children properly. He didn't trust Farage but he was going to vote for him anyway, a sentiment I had heard thousands of times. Besides, Binface made him angry. It was demoralising for a grown man, who sometimes lay awake at night worrying about the bills, to be asked to vote for a Radio 4 comedian in fancy dress.”

My thoughts were similar when this Binface stuff began. The considerable number of MPs and the chattering classes (Alastair) think so little of democracy in this country they want the people of Clacton to vote for a man with a bin on his head.

Thoughts?

Burnham is having all these radical ideas. Can anyone explain to me his mandate for this?

Someone stepped down in an existing Labour seat to give him an easy ride to parliament. He ran unopposed to Labour premiership. I get everyone’s excited and people want him to think big, but is this a healthy precedent to set?

Imagine if say Farage says he retires from politics. Reform take a centrist line and win the election. He then leaves retirement, runs in Clacton, and then they appoint him PM. Would this be treated as lightly as Burnham coming to power?

Please disagree agreeably below!

Personal thoughts on this episode:

- Why is the Clacton election a joke, but Josh Simons standing down in Makerfield for the heir-apparent to have an easy run a serious enterprise?

From the devil’s advocate perspective, I will put forward the Farage argument after I saw a recent interview. A strange fellow has given him money for security which in light of Ann Widdecombe’s murder isn’t as silly a claim as it looked. He is to face a standards committee with 4 Labour MPs, 2 Conservative and 1 Lib Dem (aka the infamous “uniparty”). So he has called an election since he sees the above as a sham anyway.

So his argument is he is the insurgent candidate against the uniparty. Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens have seen this and they have all stood down to run a bin for the election, in his view evidencing the contempt they have for the electorate.

- Rory clamouring for greater international aid spending, I know he has vested interests in this with his wife, but if we put our serious hat on, is it wise for a country that is borrowing money to pay off debt to give it away abroad? Sophistry aside this is the position we’re in with foreign aid, is this wise?

Interesting, what are people’s thoughts? Disagree agreeably!

Interesting back and forth here that encapsulates the encounter for myself. Not a fantastic outing for Alastair.

Alastair hasn’t actually read the material referenced and dismisses it out of hand, presumably as it does not fit his narrative? The material referenced by the Triggernometry host is actually real and not fake at all.

The below is from the (police race action plan 2025:)[https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/our-work/race-action-plan/police-race-action-plan-update-report.pdf]

“Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm.

It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial
equality).”

How do we break out of this raw tribalism in politics? How hard is it to say I actually haven’t a clue about what you’re talking about, please inform me? I my opinion this keeps us from having honest conversations with issues such as the above, as influential characters like Alastair will just ignore that which is politically embarrassing.

This is unfortunately what happens when you take your eye off domestic politics (what a time to do so) and keep sharp.

Thoughts on the interview? Did Alastair drop the ball? How can we reduce this tribalistic behaviour?

Disagree agreeably!

Interesting episode. Note that the Novak incident is not even the title discussion point.

What I would like to comment on is Alastair’s thoughts on the incident and the public’s general views on immigration.

There’s a theme in predominantly his but partially Rory’s commentary that the concerns expressed by the public are only present because prominent figures and “the media”(?) whip up a fervour.

I appreciate he is an ideological man and therefore somewhat blinkered, but will the realisation ever dawn that perhaps Farage, Yusuf, Musk or the media (implies there is a right wing media conspiracy on occasion?) contribute, but people are being angered by reality?

First of all the Novak case, here are two of the largest news stories this week:

[Belfast man almost beheaded by economic migrant](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39356227/man-charged-belfast-beheading-attempt/)

[The Bristol Afghan incident](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx7rxj57zyo)

I mean it doesn’t really matter in terms of stopping things like the Belfast scenes, the demographics are set, this is Britain now. There will be sectarian violence (aka community tensions to the enlightened among you) going forwards in Britain following the mass immigration programme of the 21st century. Can we admit the issue so we can move forwards like adults and sort it?

What do people think about Alastair’s and by extension large swathes of the British elite’s opinions of the proletarian thoughts on the immigration issue?

Feel free to disagree agreeably!