Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
It exists for one reason only, and it’s not daft: every reform vote probably sinks the tories into the mire. This has been done previously and will probably be quite effective.
As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
It exists to drag the tories further to the right, so that's far right observed through my overton window.As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
It’s perfectly reasonable for Reform to exist, and their policy agenda is entirely legitimate. People who want much lower taxes, much smaller government, radical welfare cuts, more private sector involvement in healthcare, much lower legal immigration, radical action to tackle illegal immigration, an end to ‘net zero’ policies and pushback against the ‘woke’ agenda should have a party to vote for in a functioning democracy. Particularly as the Tories have abandoned any pretence of supporting a small-government, low-tax economically libertarian agenda.
The problem is that FPTP prevents such parties getting candidates elected in just the same way it prevents Green parties &radical left-wing parties getting elected.
The problem is that FPTP prevents such parties getting candidates elected in just the same way it prevents Green parties &radical left-wing parties getting elected.
t because he’s never going to have to follow through with it and that’s his entire political MO. Using the word ‘woke’ sums it up really. hidetheelephants said:
Ridgemont said:
It exists for one reason only, and it’s not daft: every reform vote probably sinks the tories into the mire. This has been done previously and will probably be quite effective.
As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
It exists to drag the tories further to the right, so that's far right observed through my overton window.As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
‘Viewing politics through the Overton Window reinforces liberal notions about the moderate center, even as that center ground erodes. ... Overton did little more than repackage the basic negotiating principle that if you ask for a lot, you will likely get more than if you ask for a little.’
frisbee said:
Why shouldn't they have a voice? Why shouldn't people be able to vote for people who represent their values?
No reason at all. And nothing wrong with having a clear set of goals and values.However, it would be helpful if they used that voice to explain how they intend to deliver those values. People want all sorts of things when dangled in front of them, but are often less keen when presented with the cost/implications of obtaining them.
They're a neat encapsulation of the democratic deficit - goodness knows the current incumbents are useless, but there is no chance of Reform fielding 640 halfway credible candidates either.
We need to half the number of constituencies (in line with other countries) as a starting point to attract quality representatives.
We need to half the number of constituencies (in line with other countries) as a starting point to attract quality representatives.
Seasonal Hero said:
frisbee said:
Why shouldn't they have a voice? Why shouldn't people be able to vote for people who represent their values?
Not a single person is saying they shouldn’t. Simply that it’s easy to make a wish list when you know you’ll never have to deliver it. 86 said:
If we move to PR parties like this will have a decent voice
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?QJumper said:
frisbee said:
Why shouldn't they have a voice? Why shouldn't people be able to vote for people who represent their values?
No reason at all. And nothing wrong with having a clear set of goals and values.However, it would be helpful if they used that voice to explain how they intend to deliver those values. People want all sorts of things when dangled in front of them, but are often less keen when presented with the cost/implications of obtaining them.
I’m not voting for them or anything but from what I read they aren’t totally insane. Of course you can shoot holes through it but I have never read a manifesto that you couldn’t.
Kermit power said:
I'd never really given much thought to Reform UK before seeing a surprising number of people on the "Voting Intentions" thread saying that they were actually considering voting for them. What's more, it seems from opinion polls that around 10% of the country are actually considering voting for them, so I went to have a look at their policies and found this...
We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
All goodWe live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
Split the Far Right Vote
Deliver a centre left Government
(Reform Uk a Labour mole?
)James6112 said:
Kermit power said:
I'd never really given much thought to Reform UK before seeing a surprising number of people on the "Voting Intentions" thread saying that they were actually considering voting for them. What's more, it seems from opinion polls that around 10% of the country are actually considering voting for them, so I went to have a look at their policies and found this...
We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
All goodWe live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
You might support the policy of net zero immigration or you might not. That is your own personal opinion, and there are surely more than enough other threads on here debating that.
You may also support the idea of zero waiting lists. Nobody likes waiting for medical care, of course, even if it would be very costly to deliver.
Lastly, you might also favour the idea of lower taxation. Who doesn't?
Regardless of your views on those three individual topics, however, surely nobody can truly look at all three together and believe they are any more deliverable than a kosher vegetarian bacon sarnie???
I find it honestly scary that the state of mainstream British politics has reached a point where 10% of the British electorate can actually look at Reform UK's three short, clear, easy to understand yet completely mutually exclusive policies and think "yes, that would be an improvement"!?! You could have all three, of course, but only if you're willing to pursue a ruthless euthanasia policy to cull the sick, elderly or otherwise unproductive in society, and I'd hope not too many people actually want that?
How on earth have we come to this??? Surely something has to change?
Split the Far Right Vote
Deliver a centre left Government
(Reform Uk a Labour mole?
)Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Gecko1978 said:
I have seen some of their adverts on social media and honestly it's like 1939 Germany quite scary.
1) net zero migration (appealing)
2) no waiting lists (a dream)
3) lower taxes (frankly a must)
But what appears to be quite far right ideology.....nah thanks
Which of those 3 policies are "far right"1) net zero migration (appealing)
2) no waiting lists (a dream)
3) lower taxes (frankly a must)
But what appears to be quite far right ideology.....nah thanks
???
hidetheelephants said:
Ridgemont said:
It exists for one reason only, and it’s not daft: every reform vote probably sinks the tories into the mire. This has been done previously and will probably be quite effective.
As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
It exists to drag the tories further to the right, so that's far right observed through my overton window.As to the idea they are ‘far right’. Lol.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff