The Medway at Maidstone

Superb wide angle view. Have you used a stitch method?

Thanks. Yes and no - it's two shots stitched together, yes, but manually in Photoshop, with a section omitted in the middle to bring the buildings closer together.

If I'd had my other camera with me (with wide-angle lens) and a tripod, I could have done it better, but I was lucky to get even this during a single, very brief sunny spell on a dull, wet afternoon.

Awesome shot!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

epic speech at Maidstone
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T2Qsz8DRrc

I cannot contradict or disagree with a word he says. In a way, he makes me feel glad that I'm close to the end of my life.

He gives me hope for a better future.

For those of us that have a future, that is.

He certainly knows and is, for a politician, uniquely honest and outspoken about the most serious problems today, immigration and defense especially. But I doubt his ability (or that of anyone within our present political system) to do much about them.

County Durham
www.youtube.com/watch?v=berJJiBU6zQ

Blackpool
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ccKonjwYE

Newton Abbot
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXiVy1pxYEA

Plymouth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO56Rff-aaA

Good old Widders! I once had the honour of shaking hands with her.

Abundant and very vital commonsense in what she says. If only it were possible to achieve what she advocates. A vote for Reform would (because of our electoral system) cause an even worse Labour majority and hence be counterproductive, but let's at least hope that Reform with its huge support will nonetheless influence government policy.

False logic. Fear of voting Reform will mean that we never get out of the two-party trap.
Vote for the one you like, rather than the lesser of the two evils (cheeks of the same arse)

As much as I agree with Reform and (most of) its aims and policies, it's not false logic, but psephological fact, that voting Reform will in most constituencies split the Conservative vote and lead to a larger Labour majority - the worst outcome. That this is the case illustrates how our first-past-the-post electoral system fails to reflect the wishes, opinions and interests of much of the electorate, in the case of this election particularly.

If voting Reform would split the Labour vote, then I'd be the first to do so. But that's not the reality.

The fact is that whoever we vote for, none of the parties (even Reform), whatever they preach or promise, can solve the huge problems that they agree we face at present, like mass immigration, government debt, defense, crime, corruption and the NHS, and do not even think about the longer-term ones - the decline and fall of Western civilisation and the threat of China.

I think we have reached the stage where splitting the Conservative vote doesn't matter anymore, as the Conservatives are no longer conservative and the two main parties are just two cheeks of the same arse.

We voted Conservative in 2019 to save us from the Labour threat, but Boris squandered his 80-seat majority by acting as a Liberal Green, which was not what his electorate wanted.

If you like Reform, then vote for them.

1. Agree, but we'll need as large an opposition as possible, and Reform, even if it wins a few seats, won't have the numbers to form an effective one.
2. Agree. Nor did a majority of better-informed voters want Brexit.
3. I agree with their (Reform's) sentiments and objectives, but I don't particularly like THEM, as they (Farage in particular) smack too much of unprincipled, Alf Garnet populism.

1, You won't get an effective opposition from the Tories, because they're basically the same as Labour on many issues. As I said, they're two cheeks of the same arse.

2. Those who didn't want Brexit were clearly NOT better-informed, but liked to think they were, being mostly students and Liberals, or people taken in by the MSM.

3. Your final statement suggests that you too are overly influenced by the MSM, particularly with your use of the word 'populism' as a dergatory term. Farage & Co are mostly very principled people, compared to other politicians who are just in it for career and money.

The Alf Garnett impersonation was done by an actor.

-
1. Yes, but the Conservatives are willing to turn the other cheek.

2. Although Brexit has had both pros and cons (in my view more of the latter), in the Referendum approximately 74% of people with degrees voted Remain, compared with 26% who voted Leave. Of those without qualifications, 65% voted Leave, and 35% Remain. This suggests to me that the Remainers were as well-informed as the Brexiteers.

3. I only read the Sunday Times, and in the lead-up to the Referendum its columnists and leader writers were divided near 50/50 on the issue, so I wasn't influenced either way by the MSM. Yes, I do use "Populism" as a derogatory term, in the same way that you use "Liberals". Not all Liberals are leftists, woke, or even Remainers. And as much as I agree with Farage on the main issues, and don't doubt his conviction, I do doubt that he is unique among politicians in his motivation, both public and personal.

Go on! I always thought Garnett was a real person.

1. I haven't noticed much evidence of that.

2. This bears out what I was saying: that Remainers were not better informed but liked to think they were (because of their degrees and professional status etc.). How we Brexit voters laughed when they told us we were uneducated and didn't know what we were voting for!

Have you considered the dumb politics that are prevalent amongst university students AND their professors? Are they all "better informed" because they have degrees or are on their way to attaining them? Many unqualified people have a wider knowledge and experience of life, and more common sense.

3. When I say Liberals, I'm referring to the modern-day Liberals, who are generally most ill-liberal in their thinking. I appreciate that traditional Liberals might be different, but modern-day liberalism is dangerous. Ronald Reagan is reputed to have said, "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism."

A definition of populism is "a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite." Exactly what is needed in today's arena.

Alf Garnett was a real person who lived in East London and supported West Ham.
But he was recently impersonated by an undercover actor in Clacton.

2. Fair point. For example, the mass-support by academics for the genocidal terrorists who rule Gaza shows not just ignorance but a blatant willingness to disregard truth. But I think that the majority of Leave voters, had they been tested on their knowledge and understanding of the (principally economic) advantages of EU membership, would not have scored highly, and that they were unduly influenced by the emotive but ill-understood notion of "sovereignty" and the false belief that EU membership was principally responsible for mass immigration (which in fact, since Brexit, has become far worse).

3. I come round to that view. My understanding of "Liberal" was the traditional one, and very different from Reagan's.

Another definition of Populism is Demagoguery, which it can all too easily become. Oswald Mosley and Adolph Hitler were arch-Populists, as are leaders of the Klu Klux Clan.

Clacton is full of Alf Garnetts.

2. I doubt that there were any economic advantages, but the real issue was to escape from a communist-style tyranny where we had no say in laws that were being made by unelected bureaucrats, as well as to stop open borders.

It's not a false belief that the EU has been responsible for mass migration. The fact that this has increased since we left has been down to traitorous politicians who've encouraged it, and their failure to leave the ECHR.

3. It's dangerous thinking to start comparing Farage with demagogues like Mosley and Hitler, and suggests that you have been influenced by MSM propaganda.

I know that you don't have a television. But do you listen to the radio?

2. There were obvious advantages to our being able to trade and travel within a single market and customs union, and like other EU member countries we had our say in shaping those laws. But I accept that there were drawbacks to membership which did impose unwanted restrictions on us. It is the relative importance of these pros and cons which are debatable, as was the future direction of the EU, and it wasn't and isn't at all clear-cut. The majority of British MPs of all parties were Remainers for reasons beyond the influence of the MSM and of academics knowing little outside their specialised subjects. A principal reason would have been that 60% of our trade was with the EU and that we'd need to sustain this, and to do so most of our existing (EU-dictated) laws would have to remain in step with the EU's, and hence that leaving would have few tangible and probably no net benefits.

The EU wasn't soley responsible for mass immigration and was a resource for the skills and type of labour that we needed. But I agree that the overwhelming avalanche since of non-European migrants and their dependents is due to treachery by our politicians and our egregious failure to leave the ECHR.

Farange cannot be compared to the demagogues you name, nor his doctrine to theirs, but his Populist style and direct appeal to the proletariat does bear similarities to theirs.

I haven't a television and I rarely listen to the radio because I find the bad English irritating and - more seriously - the left-wing bias of the BBC too upsetting.
________________________________________________________

All this has brought on a wave of nostalgia and I am temporally taking one of my old film cameras, which I last used in 2019 - www.flickr.com/photos/byhowardsomerville/2989396236
out of retirement. It's an identical replacement for the camera I had in Shirley's day, which was stolen, but I can make-believe that it's that one.

I'm glad that at least you recognise the left-wing bias of the BBC, though more subtle biases may be found with other channels, by their emphasis on certain stories and their failure to report others.

You also concede that Farage is no hitler. So what is so bad about appealing to the proletariat? Are you really such a snob that you think we don't matter?

I cannot argue with you about economics, but to my simple mind there doesn't seem much benefit in paying into an organisation, which then hands you a little back to fund projects of their choice. And what happened to our fishing industry?

The EU seems to be very protectionist, and we certainly didn't have much say in shaping their laws, with MEPs being told what they had to vote for, As Farage said, "A complete sham masquerading as democracy."

The Real Face of the European Union
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0WeURiShfU

1. Agreed.

2. I'm not a snob and proletarian lives do matter, but pick at random one of the crowd cheering and applauding Farage and question him or her to find out the depth of his knowledge (if any) and understanding of the issues involved. Do this a few times and you'll realise what's bad about Populism. Utilising the Crowd Effect is a form of demagoguery which can warp the thinking even of the better-informed.

3. The EU is very far from perfect and if it were to mutate into a superstate then Britain certainly wouldn't belong in it. But it hasn't. Democracy is essential for freedom but can operate at different levels (too low and we'd be at the polls 24/7) and there's an optimum level. For all its faults the EU must confer some benefits for its member states and their populations, otherwise it would by now have ceased to exist.

Love the emotive music. Now show me an equally-emotive and stirring clip presenting the opposite view, and I'll decide between them.

So we've gone full circle, where you're back to talking about the "better informed" again. But the sad fact is that the people who think they're better informed usually aren't and are more prone to groupthink. (Look what happened during the so-called pandemic.)

Oxford demagogue using the crowd effect on intellectuals:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GbW8SH5CdQ

Groupthink: Why it's Rising and How to Stop it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSc9SMlh0GA
________________________________________

Hope you like this equally emotive music for remainers:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=waQAPRtOoXI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlk6peWjic

We haven't.

Before, we were talking about better educated, which (as we've agreed) is very different from better informed, especially under the influence of groupthink.

We were talking about both.

The ones who think they're better informed (because they're better educated) are often the least well informed and rather prone to groupthink. Whereas the types who attend Reform rallies are generally the ones with more common sense, who've been schooled in the university of life and retained their individuality. They're not going to suffer demagogues telling them what to do, and Farage is no demagogue.

"Populism is the pursuit of popular policies."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=spLfX2XFlrA

Yes and no. Even people with common sense and individuality aren't immune from groupthink and don't always recognise a demagogue, least of all when they're being flattered by a charming, "one of us" one.

In this instance, about wokeness and mass immigration, populist instincts are right, but they can also be wrong (Mosley, Hitler, Farrakhan; the list is long) and dangerously so.

"Call me Dave" Cameron was quite charming, and Little Rishi goes around pretending to be a man of the people, so I don't know why you single Farage out to be a demagogue. It smacks of reading too much media hype.

1. What I said was that he's a populist. Not all populists are demagogues.

2. In the Sunday Times there's been little if anything written about Farage, and I'm capable of recognising media bias.

I hope that he'll win his seat in parliament and, as I said, that he'll be heard by those in power, even though a lot of unsuitable and dangerous people soon will be.

Conservative Failings and the Reform UK Party
www.youtube.com/watch?v=al0yjeXj8d4

Very interesting, and I agree with most of it. I wish Reform every success.

I only disagree with Farage about:

1. Rewilding of agricultural, especially industrial-farm, land (a desirable thing, surely).

2. The realisticness of trying to return British society to its roots - Judeo-Christian values, family, local community, and nation state. Very desirable but with today's atomised, multi-cultural and multi-national population, impossible.

But today I will be voting for my local Conservative candidate. A futile gesture but a loyal one.

I have now come round to becoming 50/50 Remain/Brexit, but still deplore the way in which Brexit was decided. I am all for issues like abortion, assisted dying, the death penalty and transgender rights to be decided by referendum, but not major political and economic issues about which the majority of the electorate know and understand little.

1. Rewilding of agricultural land desirable? So you're not well informed about
WEF technocommunism and will be happy to live on bugs and synthetic meat?
And will you also be happy about the countryside being out of bounds?

2. Prior to this conversation, I would have assumed you to be a Brexit supporter, but
now place you in the category of those who think they are "better informed" but aren't.

1. Yes, it is. Rewilding goes hand-in-hand with GREATER public access to the countryside, and has nothing to do with WEF techno communism.

2. I have been open-minded enough to move from my previous position (Remain) towards that of Reform UK, but obviously that was due to my not being one of the better informed.

1. Rewilding is part of their climate scam and goes hand in hand with their aim of having us herded into digitally-controlled smart cities, and the countryside will be out of bounds if the driverless cars are programmed not to take us there.

2. Good to know that you are possibly becoming better informed!

Perhaps the problem is that I believe everything I read and see online, but it's reassuring that I'm not alone in this.

If that's a snide suggestion that this is a conspiracy theory, then you couldn't be more wrong.

If it were a conspiracy theory, I'd believe it.

More fool you.

Than whom? (I could say the same.)

The one silver lining to this massive cloud (any middle-class person or property owner, and there were many, who voted Labour will soon live to regret it, as will any who value the Green Belt) is that Farage has won his seat. I wish him well.

1. Than the people who don't believe in conspiracy theories.

2. Many middle-class people love Labour. It makes them feel self-righteous
to think they're helping the disadvantaged (which of course they aren't).

1. That's what I believe.

2. Many middle-class people are fools (hasn't this just been proved?) and only too willing, in order to feel self-righteous, to betray the interests of other middle-class people - friends, neighbours, colleagues and family - and in the process are (as you say) helping no one. Except, perhaps, the nastier, Corbynite elements in the Labour party, who, now in power, will soon start crawling out of the woodwork.

Agreed.

Biriminham
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nULxeAx35_w

Biriminham? Sounds an interesting place.

Or even BirminGham.