Reform, and the death of the Tory Party
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Beebo
Legendary Member
I suspect most journalists and presenters will be only to happy to name check all candidates at every possible opportunity.
midlandsgrimpeur
Prostrate Member
The amount of complexity/controversy over what is essentially several blokes wearing receptacles on their heads. This is the real England I want to see 😂
Beebo
Legendary Member
Zelensky was a comedian who won an election.
He’s doing reasonably well.
The guy under the bin is an Oxford graduate, so he’s got a reasonable level of intelligence.
Beebo
Legendary Member
icowden
Pharaoh
Absolutely brilliant. Count Binface is pretty sharp. I do hope he wins.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
A few policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party actually came to pass, like longer pub hours, so you never know.
icowden
Pharaoh
The latest from Henry Morris on Reform:
The Reform guide to climate change
The secret manual that tells you how to debunk stupid Net Zero and annoy posh people with dreadlocks
Henry Morris
Jul 07, 2026
While scientists say this is the hottest year on record, climate sceptics still insist the summer of 1976 was hotter.
Here at Reform, we submit our candidates to some of the most stringent vetting procedures of any political party in the world. So, if you’re not reading this from a prison cell, congratulations: you’ve passed.
When you first go out to campaign for our silent majority, you might be surprised to discover that the United Kingdom is also full of leftists, snowflakes and women. And when it comes to the hotly contested issue of global warming, these people will stop at nothing – physics, maths, dogshit through your letterbox – to further their insidious campaign to put great British employers like Chevron, CNPC and Saudi Aramco out of business.
That is why it is time to fight back. Not just for our donors (a full eight per cent of whom actually are not petrochemical interests, highly polluting industries or climate-science deniers) but for our children, some of whom might never know the joy of filling up a Nissan Navara with a tank of diesel that’s jumped in price from £90 to £167.52 inside a week.
Written by esteemed academics Dr David Bull, Dr Gillian McKeith, Master Darren Grimes, Major Ant Middleton, and Miner Lee Anderson, peer reviewed by our donors and subject to minor revisions from Saudi Aramco’s legal department, this is your comprehensive primer for the doorstep.
The context
Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that gives us quaint notions such as that energy can’t be created or destroyed, heat flows from hot things to cold things, and burning fuel releases energy. The theory is over a century old and obsolete.
Despite this, scientists have had the audacity to apply these laws to the Earth’s climate, arguing that the extraction and burning of colossal quantities of fossil fuel has dramatically modified our planet’s energy balance and led to global warming at an unmanageable rate.
The foundational laws of physics are a front invented by scientists as part of an international conspiracy of the global elite, and their foot soldiers – posh people with dreadlocks – designed to curtail our liberties and tax us out of driving Range Rover Evoques.
In short, they expect us to believe that burning things makes them hotter. No wonder Darren Grimes is banned from buying matches in every shop in County Durham.
How to debunk the ‘facts’
What they say:
The last decade was the warmest in human history. 2024 was the warmest year on record.
What Reform says:
While scientists claim to have used millions of cross-checked data points from NASA’s satellites and the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service, you only need to take a quick glance at Facebook to see that the summer of 1976 was much hotter. Meanwhile, the mercury thermometers that were used to record those higher temperatures in 1976 have since been phased out. Coincidence?
What they say:
There’s a 99% consensus among climate scientists that global warming, driven by human activity, is happening.
What Reform says:
There’s a 110% consensus among Reform members that it isn’t. You do the maths. (We win by 12%.)
What they say:
The warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.
What Reform says:
In the Bible, God tells us in plain English that the planet is only 6,500 years old. Fossils are supposed to be tens of millions of years old. They can’t even get their lies straight.
What the World Economic Forum says:
Ice is melting. Crucial polar ice sheets, along with glaciers worldwide, are melting faster than ever. The Sphinx in Scotland used to have snow all year-round. Now it melts every year.
What Reform says:
Again, it doesn’t stack up: poles imply the Earth is round. And the Sphinx is probably melting because scientists keep going up there to take photos.
What they say:
Sea levels are rising: levels have risen globally by 20cm since 1900, with the current rate of increase accelerating.
What Reform says:
According to extensive research conducted by Darren Grimes and Lee Anderson at Filey, high tide is often followed by a low tide. Have the scientists factored this in?
What they say:
The hockey stick graph shows two thousand years of temperature fluctuations within a narrow range, followed by a steep rise beginning in the late 19th century and accelerating through the 20th. They call this the global surface temperature anomaly.
What Reform says:
Graphs are just opinions with axes.
What they say:
A super El Niño is under way. 2026 could be the hottest year ever recorded.
What we say:
Nonsense. According to Nigel Farage’s well-placed sources, it rained twice in Clacton last week.
What they say:
Insurers and actuaries warn that as warming increases so do extreme weather events like floods, droughts and wildfires. Extreme weather is real, poses major financial and societal risks, and is being underestimated.
What we say:
Insurers have been predicting disasters for years. If they were any good at it, premiums would be lower.
What they say:
Renewable energy is an endless supply of cheap, clean energy that could lower bills, revitalise the economy and decouple us from reliance on Putin and Arab petrostates.
What we say:
This is a pernicious argument, framed to make it look like we’re self-interested maniacs who would sacrifice our children’s future for a quick buck. The best response here is to go nuclear. Ask: “Did you come in a car to get here?”
This handy little regulation – you’re not allowed to object to anthropogenic climate change if you’ve ever used a car – conveniently precludes 100% of people from complaining about global warming.
What they say:
Extremely well-funded petrochemical interests are fuelling disinformation about Net Zero
What Reform says:
Net Zero equals net stupid
What they say:
Net Zero is fuelling growth and generating clean energy, hundreds of millions of pounds and tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs.
What we say:
Yeah, but what’s the point if China isn’t doing anything?
What they say:
China is the world leader in renewables growth.
What we say:
Oh, fark off.
Conclusion
The primary goal of science is to acquire a deep understanding of the mechanisms and patterns in the world around us, using empirical evidence gathered through rigorous methodology, to scare people into Quorn-fuelled joyless lifestyles.
Because of this, science is a highly oiled propaganda machine, so don’t worry if you sometimes find yourselves on the back foot. In such situations, buy yourself some time before changing the subject back to immigrants, and deploy the ExxonMobil DEESA protocols:
If we are living on a magnificent and abundant planet, which after billions of years of reproduction has become the only place in the known universe capable of sustaining life, then it is beholden on us to protect all life – even the sociopaths fighting over the most profitable position on the track while the freight train of global warming bears down on us all.
The Reform guide to climate change
The secret manual that tells you how to debunk stupid Net Zero and annoy posh people with dreadlocks
Henry Morris
Jul 07, 2026
While scientists say this is the hottest year on record, climate sceptics still insist the summer of 1976 was hotter.
Here at Reform, we submit our candidates to some of the most stringent vetting procedures of any political party in the world. So, if you’re not reading this from a prison cell, congratulations: you’ve passed.
When you first go out to campaign for our silent majority, you might be surprised to discover that the United Kingdom is also full of leftists, snowflakes and women. And when it comes to the hotly contested issue of global warming, these people will stop at nothing – physics, maths, dogshit through your letterbox – to further their insidious campaign to put great British employers like Chevron, CNPC and Saudi Aramco out of business.
That is why it is time to fight back. Not just for our donors (a full eight per cent of whom actually are not petrochemical interests, highly polluting industries or climate-science deniers) but for our children, some of whom might never know the joy of filling up a Nissan Navara with a tank of diesel that’s jumped in price from £90 to £167.52 inside a week.
Written by esteemed academics Dr David Bull, Dr Gillian McKeith, Master Darren Grimes, Major Ant Middleton, and Miner Lee Anderson, peer reviewed by our donors and subject to minor revisions from Saudi Aramco’s legal department, this is your comprehensive primer for the doorstep.
The context
Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that gives us quaint notions such as that energy can’t be created or destroyed, heat flows from hot things to cold things, and burning fuel releases energy. The theory is over a century old and obsolete.Despite this, scientists have had the audacity to apply these laws to the Earth’s climate, arguing that the extraction and burning of colossal quantities of fossil fuel has dramatically modified our planet’s energy balance and led to global warming at an unmanageable rate.
The foundational laws of physics are a front invented by scientists as part of an international conspiracy of the global elite, and their foot soldiers – posh people with dreadlocks – designed to curtail our liberties and tax us out of driving Range Rover Evoques.
In short, they expect us to believe that burning things makes them hotter. No wonder Darren Grimes is banned from buying matches in every shop in County Durham.
How to debunk the ‘facts’
What they say:The last decade was the warmest in human history. 2024 was the warmest year on record.
What Reform says:
While scientists claim to have used millions of cross-checked data points from NASA’s satellites and the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service, you only need to take a quick glance at Facebook to see that the summer of 1976 was much hotter. Meanwhile, the mercury thermometers that were used to record those higher temperatures in 1976 have since been phased out. Coincidence?
What they say:
There’s a 99% consensus among climate scientists that global warming, driven by human activity, is happening.
What Reform says:
There’s a 110% consensus among Reform members that it isn’t. You do the maths. (We win by 12%.)
What they say:
The warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.
What Reform says:
In the Bible, God tells us in plain English that the planet is only 6,500 years old. Fossils are supposed to be tens of millions of years old. They can’t even get their lies straight.
What the World Economic Forum says:
Ice is melting. Crucial polar ice sheets, along with glaciers worldwide, are melting faster than ever. The Sphinx in Scotland used to have snow all year-round. Now it melts every year.
What Reform says:
Again, it doesn’t stack up: poles imply the Earth is round. And the Sphinx is probably melting because scientists keep going up there to take photos.
What they say:
Sea levels are rising: levels have risen globally by 20cm since 1900, with the current rate of increase accelerating.
What Reform says:
According to extensive research conducted by Darren Grimes and Lee Anderson at Filey, high tide is often followed by a low tide. Have the scientists factored this in?
What they say:
The hockey stick graph shows two thousand years of temperature fluctuations within a narrow range, followed by a steep rise beginning in the late 19th century and accelerating through the 20th. They call this the global surface temperature anomaly.
What Reform says:
Graphs are just opinions with axes.
What they say:
A super El Niño is under way. 2026 could be the hottest year ever recorded.
What we say:
Nonsense. According to Nigel Farage’s well-placed sources, it rained twice in Clacton last week.
What they say:
Insurers and actuaries warn that as warming increases so do extreme weather events like floods, droughts and wildfires. Extreme weather is real, poses major financial and societal risks, and is being underestimated.
What we say:
Insurers have been predicting disasters for years. If they were any good at it, premiums would be lower.
What they say:
Renewable energy is an endless supply of cheap, clean energy that could lower bills, revitalise the economy and decouple us from reliance on Putin and Arab petrostates.
What we say:
This is a pernicious argument, framed to make it look like we’re self-interested maniacs who would sacrifice our children’s future for a quick buck. The best response here is to go nuclear. Ask: “Did you come in a car to get here?”
This handy little regulation – you’re not allowed to object to anthropogenic climate change if you’ve ever used a car – conveniently precludes 100% of people from complaining about global warming.
What they say:
Extremely well-funded petrochemical interests are fuelling disinformation about Net Zero
What Reform says:
Net Zero equals net stupid
What they say:
Net Zero is fuelling growth and generating clean energy, hundreds of millions of pounds and tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs.
What we say:
Yeah, but what’s the point if China isn’t doing anything?
What they say:
China is the world leader in renewables growth.
What we say:
Oh, fark off.
Conclusion
The primary goal of science is to acquire a deep understanding of the mechanisms and patterns in the world around us, using empirical evidence gathered through rigorous methodology, to scare people into Quorn-fuelled joyless lifestyles.
Because of this, science is a highly oiled propaganda machine, so don’t worry if you sometimes find yourselves on the back foot. In such situations, buy yourself some time before changing the subject back to immigrants, and deploy the ExxonMobil DEESA protocols:
- Deny it’s happening
- Emphasise the uncertainty
- Engage in economic scaremongering
- Say it’s your fault, not ours
- Agree that we all need to work together as part of the solution
If we are living on a magnificent and abundant planet, which after billions of years of reproduction has become the only place in the known universe capable of sustaining life, then it is beholden on us to protect all life – even the sociopaths fighting over the most profitable position on the track while the freight train of global warming bears down on us all.
midlandsgrimpeur
Prostrate Member
Someone may have already posted this, but the article below is well worth a read. They are all so crooked (which anyone with a brain knew) but we are now staring to see some proper journalism piecing it all together.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-scrutiny-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The other thing of note, is that we are not the USA and certain parts of our media are not scared to rigorously investigate this stuff. If Farage/Reform get into power the scrutiny will get worse for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-scrutiny-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The other thing of note, is that we are not the USA and certain parts of our media are not scared to rigorously investigate this stuff. If Farage/Reform get into power the scrutiny will get worse for them.
Pross
Veteran
Sure but I don't think he has ever had any intention of actually getting elected. If he found himself in that position would he take the role seriously? I assume he'd have to work under his actual name (although dodgy names and costumes are a Parliamentary tradition - see Blackrod etc.)
Edit - my initial query is covered in the the Newsnight clip above, if elected as Count Bin Face he has to be Count Bin Face in Parliament!
Last edited:
icowden
Pharaoh
There is somewhat of a conversation going on if Newsnight is to be believed. You see, if the people of Clacton elect Count Binface then it is Count Binface who should represent them in parliament - not Jonathan David Harvey. Thussly - the logic is that Count Binface should be allowed to appear in Parliament, not Harvey.
Beebo
Legendary Member
Stevo 666
Guru
I don't think any party wants to be Reform, but clearly they want to beat them. Hence the policies that they think appeal to enough of the electorate to do that.
Stevo 666
Guru
I asked first to show me that it is the case. Go on.
Last edited:
