New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

You know there isn't a direct comment that says "Radford is a paedophile" but we all know what you were trying to do.

And unless you are a mod you have no right to tell anyone "end of story"

We would love if you stuck to just talking about GBnews but sadly YOU are the one keeps derailing with talk of paedos and coats

Eh...you do know what the "U" in UFO stands for yeah?

The individual who see's something in the sky and calls it a UFO is calling it that precisely because they dont know what it is!!

Thats because the thing they see in the sky is...

...Unidentified!!!

And off you go again- "they clearly determined that it wasn't as important as other matters that were deemed publishable"- OR- the proposed article went to the lawyers and was deemed unpublishable at it was potentially libellous tittle-tattle. Neither of us know, but you have determined the reason for it not appearing. More spoofing masquerading as fact on your part.

And as for the breathless "who wouldn't?" I will speculate and say that you are almost certainly the only person here who wanted such an article to appear- maybe a possible reason would be that it would provide confirmation for your bias towards that person? The mote in your own eye is stopping you from seeing clearly.

I agree with this to some degree. But, I think there always needs to be somewhat opposing ideologies. It's human nature and no matter what the topic is, there will always be some who argue for more or less of the options available to be implemented. Conservatism in various locations has become pre-occupied with ideologies focused on the extremes of every day life and what society is actually likely to be influenced by.

I don't think that people who are focused on ensuring that these extremes become part of the every day conversation will suddenly decide there is no need for that or that they will move back to the more balanced arguments about governance.

What we are seeing is the ramping up of the extreme positions. In the UK, the government is immediately moving to block potential refugees from a country which they helped to de-stablise within just the last 20 years. In the US, conservatives nationwide are demanding the right to not have any measures implemented to protect against Covid. They have an almost rabid hatred of Government and think any involvement of officialdom in this respect is impinging on their human rights. This, I think has grown in recent years, fueled by extremists in the media rather than being the dying embers of a mindset.

In the UK, whatever the motivation be it reminiscing for their imperialist past, a closeted xenphobia or growing racism emerging for whatever reason, again, we have seen this grow in recent years rather than fade away.

Conservatives worldwide seem to have a fundamental issue with the premise that as there are more and more people on the planet, or in a country then a form of structure and governance is required to give the best opportunity for a safe and secure society for everyone. When the founding fathers in the US wrote the constitution, the population of the country was only 1% of it was today. To think that the rules that applied then (or how they were interpreted then) in terms of every individuals rights superseding that of others or society in general just cannot be countenanced in a much more densely populated world. Aside from the dubious claim that it should ever be this way in any case.

You are right about many of the traits of modern day conservatives (gerrymandering/filibuster/FPTP) but there's plenty Democrats who are capable of participating politics for selfish and corrupt means also. But, as a general rule, they are thinking of society first rather than the individual which is the premise of those on the right.

I can understand if a farmer in North Dakota is wary of politicians in Washington who can arrive and tell them what to do with their land, but what is happening in many cases is the politicians are trying to protect the land from the 'Free Market' Capitalist oil companies who have been granted access to it by Republican politicians at the state level and the anger of the farmer is either misplaced, or focused in the wrong direction. But, given that there will never be enough money for everything a government could do, and invariably a government will not always do things perfectly, then there will always be opportunity for those who hate the idea of someone either telling them what to do, or preventing them make as much money as they could then there will always be a an argument conservatives can use. And they have embraced the dark forces, as you said, to ensure their argument is heard as loudly as possible by as many people as possible.

I see no meaningful examples of 'classic liberal conservatism' or 'common sense' conservatism gaining prominence in todays world and certainly in the last 25 years since I've been paying close attention to politics and current affairs. Conservative voices advocating for reasonable and sustainable government involvement have been quieter and quieter while those looking for reducing regulations, on the one hand while restricting peoples ability to challenge them on the other are what we are seeing more and more of.

TLDR: While the central tenants of Conservatism (less government involvement) are less and less relevant given increasing populations and need for sustainability. Conservative voices ramping up rhetoric to stoke sufficient members of society to become outraged on their behalf have become louder and more prominent. Ultimately I think they will be shown up for what they are but that could take a few generations and they could and will do a lot of damage in the mean time.

TLDR the TLDR: Many currently prominent Conservatives are painfully manipulative and dangerous and will be around for a while yet.

"Not as good as we'd like" puts me in mind of this.