Forum Topic

Lionel Shriver in her column  in the ‘ Spectator’ explains why so many Americans who dislike Donald Trump are reluctant to vote for Kamala Harris:‘Granted, our friend Kamala is an empty pantsuit, insecure and at least subconsciously aware that she’s in this thing way over her head. So if she wins, her presidency will likely be titular. She will do as she’s told by he same handlers who controlled her senile predecessor, and her administration will pursue four more years of roughly the same progressive policies. That makes her sound like the safer bet. But continuing the same policies is only safe if those policies were ever safe. and there’s nothing safe about four more years of wilful self-destruction.More of this: an effectively open border letting in millions of low-skilled foreigners who will be a net loss to the taxpayer over their lifetimes and are already burdening major American cities such as Chicago and New York with bankrupting bills for free food, healthcare, schooling and accommodation. Whatever Harris claims now to get elected, she will continue to placate the climate change lobby, subsidising costly green energy while denying licences for oil and gas exploration and pipelines, thereby hobbling what had previously constituted an economic miracle and freed the US from Middle East blackmail. Expect more gratuitous net-zero suicide.Harris supports divisive, unaffordable and arbitrary reparations for slavery. In 2019 she committed to ‘equity’ ’ - Marxist equality of outcome, not opportunity. Elements of her current platform pandering to black male voters reflect the heavy-handed racial preference that ‘equity’ demands. They include a promise to provide black entrepreneurs with $20 000 ‘fully forgivable’ loans - which sound awfully like presents to me and which, being race-based, would be unconstitutional.But since when did the Democrats care about the Constitution? Supreme Court packing, Senate packing with new, Democratically controlled states (DC and Puerto RICO) and backhandedly abolishing the Electoral College all happily rattle in their prospective bag of tricks. The party has shamelessly weaponised the judicial system to keep Trump off the ballot or throw him in jail, which is creepy even to people like me who despise the guy. Democratic refusal to prosecute shoplifting abandons the state’s protection of private property.The Biden administration has systematically pressured social media companies to censor or suppress commentary unfriendly to government policy. Harris has never distanced herself from such violations of the First Amendment.’

Steven Rose ● 58d

'But he is self evidently not the most evil politician on the planet. That accolade would go to Putin or XI Jinping or to any one of a number of other murderous dictators.  So it is hard to understand the level of rage and contempt which Trump seems to inspire'.I also think Trump is unworthy of representing such an important and  influential country as is the US and also one that has and does offer so much good to the world (as Russia and China do not).However he was elected democratically by free vote; a process not offered to Russians or the Chinese.But picking on his behaviour especially it is a symptom of what many in this country and some posters to this site suffer from.A mysterious mental defect of essentially 'self-hatred' that is always wanting to decry and attack their own country and its allies that have and do offer them so much.Much akin to masochism.And to compensate for this, take sides with not just dictatorships of Russia and China but also Arabic terrorist organisations, funded by fundamentalist theocratic Islamic states.And furthermore with the supporters of such groups and states that have been responsible for numerous attacks on and deaths of so many innocent British citizens over the last few decades.I have listed these in a post some months ago.Hopefully when the NHS is given more money in the next budget, some will be given to mental health services to help those poor deluded souls that take so much comfort in their lack of patriotism and also their support for those who would seek to harm the rest of us.

John Hawkes ● 59d

Hello Steven,I think you are correct, there is not much political debate on the Forum at the moment.  Thank goodness!There was never a debate but there was snapping if your (in my case, my) views did not coincide with others.There is much more to life than the blinkered "blue and red" - however difficult it is for many to understand.  Or, in the case of the USA, red and blue.I do not think you read Henry Zeffman's article on the BBC which I posted a few days ago.To make it easier for you, I am copy-pasting an extract of the article entitled:"British obsessionThere’s another element to this, too. The British political world is utterly obsessed with American politics, even if it is an almost totally unrequited passion.Every four years, British politicos stream across the Atlantic for a taste of campaigning on a far bigger canvas.There are numerous examples. Earlier this summer Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, was at the Republican convention just days after his election as an MP, as was Liz Truss, the former prime minister, just days after she lost her seat.Penny Mordaunt, the former Conservative cabinet minister, worked for George W Bush before she became an MP. Liam Fox, another ex-Conservative MP, has had ties with senior figures in the Republicans for a number of years.Not that the parties on either side of the Atlantic always match up neatly.In January 2020, I was shadowing a small group of canvassers for Joe Biden in the New Hampshire presidential primary, when I realised that one of them was Sir Simon Burns, the former Conservative MP for Chelmsford.In recent weeks Sir Robert Buckland, who lost his seat as a Conservative at the general election, has been in the US campaigning for Harris."

Ivonne Holliday ● 60d

Surely we all know how pleased Labour supporters must be with the performance of the Government since the election regarding the actions, political and social, listed below.They just don't want to gloat !Regarding immigration which warm hearted Labour supporters  I have no doubt believe it only right to encourage, 'offering residence to a backlog of 100 000 asylum applicants' is somewhat small beer as the total population of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland grew from an estimated 67.6 million in mid-2022 to 68.3 million in mid-2023.Not on Labour's watch of course but I don't recall them calling out the situation as a concern.'The ONS said the extra 662,400 people amounted to an increase of 1%.It is the largest annual numerical and percentage increase since comparable records began in 1971."Net international migration was the main contributor to population increase for all four countries of the UK in the year to mid-2023," the ONS said'.979 'small boat' immigrants arrived week ending 20 October 2024 but if someone knows Labour's plans to curtail this perhaps they could post.Furthermore, what is Labour's manifesto commitment regarding new house building which will obviously be needed ?'Labour’s promise to build 1.5m new homes in England during the next five years would require a level of housebuilding not seen since the 1960s. The job is even harder because we know that in the last 12 months fewer than 150,000 homes were started - far less than the average 300,000 completions required to meet the pledge. The last time England saw that many homes completed was in 1969, when new council housing contributed 45% of the total.'  BBC Analysis.Granny Ange had better get out her trowel and spade smartish !

John Hawkes ● 61d

A very long piece in the Mail online today, basically confirming what I posted earlier but obviously much more eloquently.😽I have copied the most relevant points but the full article is worth reading. Labour's rank amateurishness in its call to arms against Trump is unforgivable. And if he wins the US election there'll be a price to payThere are some basic rules in foreign policy obvious even to the most half-witted politician.One is that you can never be seen to interfere in any way in the elections of a democratic country. You don't state preferences about any of the candidates, and you don't try to influence the outcome.This cardinal rule has been spectacularly broken by the Labour Party, which has enraged Donald Trump by apparently lending support to his rival, Kamala Harris, in the presidential campaign.Labour denies it has done any such thing, pointing out that its activists have often travelled at their own expense to help Democratic Party candidates in previous elections.Maybe. But the Trump camp has unearthed a LinkedIn post from Sofia Patel, Labour's head of operations, encouraging 'party staff' to 'help our friends across the pond elect their first female President'. Activists were invited to send Ms Patel an email. She added that she would be going to America for the final two weeks of the campaign.What is this if not a call to Labour activists to roll up their sleeves on behalf of Kamala Harris? It would matter less if the post – which has been deleted as Labour desperately tries to cover its tracks – had come from an obscure underling.But the head of operations is an important figure. She represents Labour. Ms Patel's message is that activists should do whatever they can to defeat Donald Trump. This looks like a blatant attempt by the governing party to influence the election.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Deborah Mattinson, until recently Starmer's director of strategy, went to Washington last month to tell Ms Harris's team how Labour had won the election. I imagine her key advice was not on any account to tell the electorate what you really intend to do.It's typical of Labour to say it wants one thing, and then act in a way likely to stop that happening. The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, declares that economic growth is a priority. And yet she is reportedly intending to yank up employer's National Insurance contributions by some £15 billion, which will assuredly stifle growth.So it is with Trump. Starmer and Lammy say they would do business with him. They treat him in a friendly way, while doubtless crossing their fingers behind their backs. Even after the brouhaha caused by the head of operations yesterday, the Prime Minister fondly recalled the dinner he had with Trump, and maintained that they had 'a good relationship'.No longer, I suggest – if they ever did. Trump isn't a fool. He can see that the overtures by Labour are essentially insincere, and that its true feelings for him are decidedly antagonistic.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13996199/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Labour-Trump-election.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Sue Hammond ● 63d