Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

Interesting that their view on Trump nay be a negative one yet are so pro reform.

Regarding politics yes they seem to feature reform a lot but maybe they would argue that they are featuring the party in the ascendency and with the highest poll ratings at present.

To be fair to the Beeb, 'They' (the organisation) may not be anti-Trump but may just be too weak to stand up to a producer who is.

[MadAmster]

"...that Turkey was about to join and there would be thousands of Turks migrating into the UK soon, being just the obvious ones."

Again he was sort of right, just that the migrants were generic Moslems rather than just Turks, and staying in might have helped stop it!

The EU offered to keep the agreement whereby we could simply return illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers to the mainland. Good old BoJo said "no thanks, scrap it". Not a verbatim quote of course but that's it in a nutshell.

[MadAmster]

Democrats did well yesterday at the various polls. Now Mamdani is Mayor of New York, will Trump, as he threatened, remove all funding and send the troops in?

[ramAnag]

Probably wouldn't include the BBC who seem to be much more focussed on trying to underplay 11 attempted murders on a train in Huntingdon as a minor kerfuffle just now

I’ll pass on the nonsense you’ve written about Farage and Brexit recently, but can you explain the above comment please.
I know you think I’m nothing more than a left wing, liberal, elitist, rural, retiree, but htf do you reach that conclusion?
At least 90% of the news coverage I’ve seen of this horrible event has probably been via the BBC and it seems to have been fair, responsible and entirely objective imo.

[Geoff Parkstone]

An amusing little AI creation here -

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQFBo...d3bml5YjNoaA==

[MadAmster]

Here in NL we are in stage 1 of the coalition forming process. That is where a "Verkenner" or "Scout", in this case a former government minister who now runs Dutch rail, speaks to the leaders of all 15 parties with seats in Parliament, to ascertain whether they see themselves in the coalition. If so, with which parties would they prefer to be in the coalition. If not, which coalition would they prefer and/or see as the most likely. That will take about a week, at which point, the "scout" reports his findings to Parliament.

A "formation project leader" is then appointed who speaks to the various party leaders looking at which of their chosen policies they insist on and which they are prepared to let slide. His main ally is the head of the largest party, D66, whose leader is the #1 candidate for Prime Minister.

What are the possibilities? D66 want a centre coalition consisting of D66, VVD, CDA and GL/PvdA. D66 and CDA are slightly right of centre, VVD is right and GL/PvdA is left. This coalition holds 86 of the 150 seats and has a workable majority. The problem being that the VVD has been consistent, all through the campaign and since the election, that they see the gap between themselves and GL/PvdA as so huge that it couldn't work.

Next possibility is D66, VVD, CDA and Ja21 (Ja21 is not as far right as the PVV (Wilders) but much farther right than the VVD). They have 75 seats between them so no majority. Added complication here is that Ja21 has now said they would want Wilders PVV to be part of the coalition. D66, VVD and CDA have all said, through the campaign and beyond that they would not join a coalition with PVV in it. Another variant on this could be PVV replacing D66 (both have 26 seats) but, again, VVD and CDA wouldn't join such a coalition.

A 3rd possibility is a minority government of D66, VVD and CDA. They have 66 seats between them. Stronger immigration Laws would get the backing of almost every party in Parliament as they all have that in their manifesto's. For right leaning measures on finance and the economy, they would easily get the backing of enough right leaning parties to get their Bills through. Idem ditto support from left leaning parties for left leaning social and economic Bills.

The current consensus is that it will be towards the summer before a stable coalition is formed. That means that the old cabinet will keep the wheels turning on ongoing policy and action. They can put forward new legislation but that would have to be passed by the new parliament. Parties in Parliament can also put forward proposals and if they get passed in both houses, the old cabinet will implement them. The only problem is that, on most issues, the 2nd chamber (Commons) has slightly more right leaning parties than left whilst the opposite is true in the Senate (Lords).

There are local elections in March 2026. VVD will stick to their "no GL/PvdA" guns until then in the hope that such a stance will improve their chances in the local elections. Once that hurdle has been crossed, they can then point to a softening being "in the country's best interest" and push to have certain of their red lines included in the coalition agreement as well as ensuring that GL/PvdA policy they don't like, such as scrapping tax relief on mortgage interest, aren't in the coalition agreement.

So, I see 1 of 3 things happening.

1. No coalition can be formed and we vote again in March/April

2. Post March VVD "reluctantly" agrees to allow GL/PvdA to join the coalition under strict conditions and we get a coalition in June/July that will last less than a year.

3. If a coalition does prove impossible, Wilders will try, and fail, to put together a majority right wing coalition. That will result in either elections in June/July or, as he is as determined to be PM as Trump was to be President, he launches a minority right wight wing coalition of PVV (26), Ja21 (9), FvD (7), BBB (4) and SGP (3). That's 49 seats. Won't work but that won't stop Wilders striving to be PM.

So, yes, the result has left us in a mess.

[swaledale]

I'd say slightly different, he WAS innocent re the speech but yes, subsequently pardoning the rioters was a bad move

What's not in doubt is that you and I are amongst millions who are paying the BBC to lie to us

Thats ironic coming from someone who posts lies and fails to acknowledge it. But then maybe lies in your view are defined as material that doesn't fit your narrow view and dogma?

Your naïve to think that any media output or indeed social media output isn't edited or in many cases presented from a certain point of view.

Your bias is clear, when you call out the BBC for doing this but then maybe you've been spending too much time watching Geebeebies!

[Geoff Parkstone]

I’ll pass on the nonsense you’ve written about Farage and Brexit recently, but can you explain the above comment please.
I know you think I’m nothing m, Sky and C4ore than a left wing, liberal, elitist, rural, retiree, but htf do you reach that conclusion?
At least 90% of the news coverage I’ve seen of this horrible event has probably been via the BBC and it seems to have been fair, responsible and entirely objective imo.

I tend to source my broadcast news from BBC, Sky and C4. Internet based sources tend to be more inflammatory so I pay less heed to those and social media is something I don't regard as a news source at all but rather a comedy store.

So, to your question, it's hard to answer in specifics but it's an impression I formed when considering the 3 broadcast sources. The BBC coverage seemed less empathetic with the victims and whilst not pro the perpetrator(s,) less "critical" of them. Not just the train incident but ever since Southport I suppose, when we have seen how many similar incidents? 6 or 8?

i suspect the downplaying may stem from the aftermath of Southport and perhaps the BBC trying to not inflamed reactions to yet another mindless act of personal violence committed by an ethnic minority (note I don't say immigrant or illegal here). But that just my interpretation of my perception of differences between reporting.

[swaledale]

"...that Turkey was about to join and there would be thousands of Turks migrating into the UK soon, being just the obvious ones."

Again he was sort of right, just that the migrants were generic Moslems rather than just Turks, and staying in might have helped stop it!

Mm "sort of right" is a bit like being a "little bit pregnant" isn't it. Again he wasn't telling the truth he was promoting lies and falsehoods, this equivocating about Farage being "right" on some issues, is rather the equivalent of giving Hitler credit for reinvigorating the German economy or Mussolini making the trains run on time!

NO he wasn't sort of right, he told an outright lie and not all migrants are Muslims in any case.

Yes Brexit and the lack of a deal on Asylum with the EU is a root cause of the boat crossing issue, as much as it is an issue. That and a Tory government who failed to process asylum claims leaving thousands in limbo and at large in the UK!

You seem also to be happy that somebody who promoted a cause like Brexit, using lies and falsehoods and without stating at anytime what his vision and plan for it was, is now virtually admitting it was a **** up, without admitting his part in that **** up! That I find rather strange for somebody who is keen to knit pick and be pedantic about others posts!

[MadAmster]

An amusing little AI creation here -

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQFBo...d3bml5YjNoaA==

Fortunately, I'm not on Insta so can't see whatever bolleaux that is.