The lack of any definitive policy is a real concern. The constant knee jerk rhetoric from these parties simply isn’t good enough. They need to grow up.
I have to say, that this piece absolutely hits the mark. Great, Pete. Don't stop even though we sometimes moan at you for not being more upbeat. By refusing to bend with the wind, you give greater credence to your points. Disagreement and discourse go hand in hand with a true democracy.
Don't change you are the one that is right so keep doing what you do and I will help support you as best I can with the transfer into your bank - I hope others that support you do the same.
This is all good stuff. You are trying to get Reform and Restore to be more professional. I look at the Tories, Labour and the Greens and ask, what have they done along those lines? Isn’t that why the UK is in such a difficult position today? Before you even get to the position of being able to get to that level of professionalism, you have to get a lot of people subscribing and paying into the coffers. So you need to get people talking about your political views. If you don’t get the people active and riled up then you don’t even get to first base to be in a position to formulate policies at the level you are talking about. The main objective at the moment should be to make the people see the evil of the leftist/muslim alliance.
One of the reasons for the UK's position today is Islam. The other is the soft-feather bed of the last 20 years, where we have been cushioned from all things unpleasant. They go hand-in-hand unfortunately for us. Don't ignore the fact that this is a European-wide problem. We are not unique, we are just more prominent.
It would be more helpful for Benjamin to have a Lotuseaters policy segment every day, where they go through and discuss in detail your proposals, rather than endless culture war slop and "laughing at the libs". They could spend weeks on agriculture alone.
You should collaborate with Academic Agent, he professes to hate slop too.
This is now well past the point of whether or not you are fundamentally correct.
It's clear even to a nobody like me, that you are something of a corrosive element, not a team player. So like Habib, Robinson, Laws, you will be kept at arm's length, which is regrettable given your undoubted abilities.
Such a shame, because you obviously have a rare aptitude for policy detail, scope and consequences, and more besides. Much as you play it down.
You just remind me of the mercurial football player who can win a match with a moment of inspiration, but is just as likely to explode in a fit of pique and get sent off, or headbutt a teammate.
It was great to see you on LotusEaters a while back. While I'm sure you don't give a haughty hoot about being brought 'into the fold', I was optimistic that you'd become a more central figure in the 'online right' and start getting your ideas out to what would later become the Restore 'base', via the LotusEaters platform.
It seems that instead of taking a seat at that table and trying to influence people from there, you've decided to burn all your bridges instead. What a shame.
Ah well, perhaps it really is everyone else and not you?
With any luck you'll be able to look back one day soon and say 'haha, I was right all along!' That'll be nice for you.
Look after yourself Pete. Put your phone down and go for a good long walk in the hills.
I’m not sure if you’ve had dealings with Benjamin before. I sent ‘Sargon of Akkads’’ Substack your articles and said - you’ve got some serious and interesting things to say, he should take note. It’s a real shame if they aren’t listening.
I wonder if politics isn't slop, period. 'Best-laid plans' and all that. Half the country doesn't vote. Half the rest hasn't got the attention span of...let's say, a boiled frog. That's before we consider gifting one's opponents with put-down points, or the Blob having all the time in the world to prepare to thwart and take you down, if, by some weird twist of fate, you 'get into power'. Farage knows this, and he's not the only one with that insight. Politics is here today, gone tomorrow soundbites, with pyrrhic victory to the last one standing when the axe falls, as it does from time to time. Carl mis-steps by coming at you ad hominem, but you are holed up in a bunker of perfection. By all means write policy if you will, because that is your strength, but it's a fact of life that pigs trample pearls. Get over it. The bickering isn't doing anyone any favours
Both Habib and Lowe cited lack of policy as a problem with Reform. On that basis they should take offers of help on policy seriously. My problem with what you are saying though is that you don’t define any of this yourself. You don’t really say what points they are making that are ‘slop’, you don’t define ‘slop’, you don’t state what the Right should avoid putting forward. You don’t say what you think distinguishes worthy policy from slop. You just say it should be ‘serious’ or ‘sensible’. OK, then, be as specific yourself as you are asking them to be. Instead of telling us about your arguments with them, set out the policy you would like to see right here and explain why some things are ‘boilerplate slopulist’ and some things are the kind of policy needed.
In other words, stop telling us that you are more professional, and SHOW us exactly what that professionalism looks like. Otherwise you are being just as vague and pointless as you accuse them of being. I’d be very interested to see your list of policy statements they could make that are serious and have real vision and professionalism.
Thanks I’m just going through it now. What I’ve read looks detailed and pretty good. I think this article should have included examples from that work or links. Especially putting a ‘boilerplate’ statement alongside a ‘this is what proper policy looks like’ example. That would have negated my criticism. You can’t criticise vagueness with vagueness.
You really should consider an approach to a comment other than immediately being an arse. All of my points are valid so far as this piece is concerned. The piece contains none of the good ideas we are supposed to be using, and it would be extremely helpful if they were referenced here rather than elsewhere.
It’s not good politics or good writing to expect people to chase down everything someone has said previously when we really need examples in the text given. The entire piece is about not being vague, and is ITSELF vague. You may be a lot more familiar with this writer than I am. Well done. It doesn’t mean you are much smarter than me, and arrogant condescension isn’t any more convincing than vague articles bitching about Sargon are. If you represent the smugness that was offered, no wonder it was rejected.
Your comment might have been valid (in your mind) to this piece, but you completely ignored over a decade of background before wading in. Writing an essay in response to my pointing this out is just digging your hole deeper. I stand by my comment.
Bullshit. Unless you want an echo chamber, people will read this article who haven’t spent 10 years following this writer. If you want him to spread a message effectively, he’s got to be able to do that for new readers as well as old ones, without some smug prick responding as you have. And this pertains directly to the subject of the piece, because the piece is lamenting both failure to have firm policy and failure to communicate effectively.
Examples were needed in this article.
I hope Pete didn’t present his points in the meeting with Sargon as vaguely as they are given (or rather, not given) in this article, and I hope he didn’t respond to query as you have.
In order to get something useful from this robust exchange, it might be A REALLY good idea for Pete to use a trick from businesses that blog to promote their products - and have a call-to-action at the end of every Substack article.
Just a bold-italic sentence along the lines of:
"If you want to learn more and see our comprehensive policy agenda - covering over 40 policy topics - read our work at [link]The Manifesto Project[/link]."
He could keep it in a Notepad or whatever, and then just copy/paste it at the end of everything he writes, actually anywhere, including social media.
(I think he's got his Manifesto Project link-in-bio on X, so just a prod for readers to click that after every X-post about policy and slop.)
It’s an amusing thought put that way, but it would probably be useful for people like me who haven’t been following for 10 years. I read this one hoping to see what makes the difference between slop and policy at least touched on. I don’t follow Sargon regularly either, I’ve watched a few Lotuseaters episodes and a few of the longer videos he’s done. But I don’t have an animosity or bias here regarding their spat.
The lack of any definitive policy is a real concern. The constant knee jerk rhetoric from these parties simply isn’t good enough. They need to grow up.
I have to say, that this piece absolutely hits the mark. Great, Pete. Don't stop even though we sometimes moan at you for not being more upbeat. By refusing to bend with the wind, you give greater credence to your points. Disagreement and discourse go hand in hand with a true democracy.
Don't change you are the one that is right so keep doing what you do and I will help support you as best I can with the transfer into your bank - I hope others that support you do the same.
This is all good stuff. You are trying to get Reform and Restore to be more professional. I look at the Tories, Labour and the Greens and ask, what have they done along those lines? Isn’t that why the UK is in such a difficult position today? Before you even get to the position of being able to get to that level of professionalism, you have to get a lot of people subscribing and paying into the coffers. So you need to get people talking about your political views. If you don’t get the people active and riled up then you don’t even get to first base to be in a position to formulate policies at the level you are talking about. The main objective at the moment should be to make the people see the evil of the leftist/muslim alliance.
One of the reasons for the UK's position today is Islam. The other is the soft-feather bed of the last 20 years, where we have been cushioned from all things unpleasant. They go hand-in-hand unfortunately for us. Don't ignore the fact that this is a European-wide problem. We are not unique, we are just more prominent.
It would be more helpful for Benjamin to have a Lotuseaters policy segment every day, where they go through and discuss in detail your proposals, rather than endless culture war slop and "laughing at the libs". They could spend weeks on agriculture alone.
You should collaborate with Academic Agent, he professes to hate slop too.
Bloody hell, take a day off mate.
This is now well past the point of whether or not you are fundamentally correct.
It's clear even to a nobody like me, that you are something of a corrosive element, not a team player. So like Habib, Robinson, Laws, you will be kept at arm's length, which is regrettable given your undoubted abilities.
Such a shame, because you obviously have a rare aptitude for policy detail, scope and consequences, and more besides. Much as you play it down.
You just remind me of the mercurial football player who can win a match with a moment of inspiration, but is just as likely to explode in a fit of pique and get sent off, or headbutt a teammate.
It was great to see you on LotusEaters a while back. While I'm sure you don't give a haughty hoot about being brought 'into the fold', I was optimistic that you'd become a more central figure in the 'online right' and start getting your ideas out to what would later become the Restore 'base', via the LotusEaters platform.
It seems that instead of taking a seat at that table and trying to influence people from there, you've decided to burn all your bridges instead. What a shame.
Ah well, perhaps it really is everyone else and not you?
With any luck you'll be able to look back one day soon and say 'haha, I was right all along!' That'll be nice for you.
Look after yourself Pete. Put your phone down and go for a good long walk in the hills.
Well, some plane-spotting and model-making anyway ;-)
I’m not sure if you’ve had dealings with Benjamin before. I sent ‘Sargon of Akkads’’ Substack your articles and said - you’ve got some serious and interesting things to say, he should take note. It’s a real shame if they aren’t listening.
Carl Benjamin is a bit harsh.
I think criticism makes one look at the position to see where weaknesses and strengths lie in our situation.
Picking out weakness and strengths help the objective provided they are accurate and in the right timescale.
Perhaps the ‘weaknesses’ are a little premature but provided there is a timescale to integrate the needs of the party, a good thing to discuss.
If there is no plan to fill blanks in the parties plans, it then becomes a weakness.
The onus was on you to acquaint yourself with the basis of the correspondence. It seems that you're happy to spend time writing but not reading.
I wonder if politics isn't slop, period. 'Best-laid plans' and all that. Half the country doesn't vote. Half the rest hasn't got the attention span of...let's say, a boiled frog. That's before we consider gifting one's opponents with put-down points, or the Blob having all the time in the world to prepare to thwart and take you down, if, by some weird twist of fate, you 'get into power'. Farage knows this, and he's not the only one with that insight. Politics is here today, gone tomorrow soundbites, with pyrrhic victory to the last one standing when the axe falls, as it does from time to time. Carl mis-steps by coming at you ad hominem, but you are holed up in a bunker of perfection. By all means write policy if you will, because that is your strength, but it's a fact of life that pigs trample pearls. Get over it. The bickering isn't doing anyone any favours
Both Habib and Lowe cited lack of policy as a problem with Reform. On that basis they should take offers of help on policy seriously. My problem with what you are saying though is that you don’t define any of this yourself. You don’t really say what points they are making that are ‘slop’, you don’t define ‘slop’, you don’t state what the Right should avoid putting forward. You don’t say what you think distinguishes worthy policy from slop. You just say it should be ‘serious’ or ‘sensible’. OK, then, be as specific yourself as you are asking them to be. Instead of telling us about your arguments with them, set out the policy you would like to see right here and explain why some things are ‘boilerplate slopulist’ and some things are the kind of policy needed.
In other words, stop telling us that you are more professional, and SHOW us exactly what that professionalism looks like. Otherwise you are being just as vague and pointless as you accuse them of being. I’d be very interested to see your list of policy statements they could make that are serious and have real vision and professionalism.
Try reading Pete's work. He has surgically dismantled a lot of the "slop".
Thanks I’m just going through it now. What I’ve read looks detailed and pretty good. I think this article should have included examples from that work or links. Especially putting a ‘boilerplate’ statement alongside a ‘this is what proper policy looks like’ example. That would have negated my criticism. You can’t criticise vagueness with vagueness.
You really should do some research before making yourself look silly...
You really should consider an approach to a comment other than immediately being an arse. All of my points are valid so far as this piece is concerned. The piece contains none of the good ideas we are supposed to be using, and it would be extremely helpful if they were referenced here rather than elsewhere.
It’s not good politics or good writing to expect people to chase down everything someone has said previously when we really need examples in the text given. The entire piece is about not being vague, and is ITSELF vague. You may be a lot more familiar with this writer than I am. Well done. It doesn’t mean you are much smarter than me, and arrogant condescension isn’t any more convincing than vague articles bitching about Sargon are. If you represent the smugness that was offered, no wonder it was rejected.
Your comment might have been valid (in your mind) to this piece, but you completely ignored over a decade of background before wading in. Writing an essay in response to my pointing this out is just digging your hole deeper. I stand by my comment.
Bullshit. Unless you want an echo chamber, people will read this article who haven’t spent 10 years following this writer. If you want him to spread a message effectively, he’s got to be able to do that for new readers as well as old ones, without some smug prick responding as you have. And this pertains directly to the subject of the piece, because the piece is lamenting both failure to have firm policy and failure to communicate effectively.
Examples were needed in this article.
I hope Pete didn’t present his points in the meeting with Sargon as vaguely as they are given (or rather, not given) in this article, and I hope he didn’t respond to query as you have.
In order to get something useful from this robust exchange, it might be A REALLY good idea for Pete to use a trick from businesses that blog to promote their products - and have a call-to-action at the end of every Substack article.
Just a bold-italic sentence along the lines of:
"If you want to learn more and see our comprehensive policy agenda - covering over 40 policy topics - read our work at [link]The Manifesto Project[/link]."
He could keep it in a Notepad or whatever, and then just copy/paste it at the end of everything he writes, actually anywhere, including social media.
(I think he's got his Manifesto Project link-in-bio on X, so just a prod for readers to click that after every X-post about policy and slop.)
It’s an amusing thought put that way, but it would probably be useful for people like me who haven’t been following for 10 years. I read this one hoping to see what makes the difference between slop and policy at least touched on. I don’t follow Sargon regularly either, I’ve watched a few Lotuseaters episodes and a few of the longer videos he’s done. But I don’t have an animosity or bias here regarding their spat.
Thank you, that’s helpful.