Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
StevieBee said:
I don't think he does. His objective all along has been to force the Tories further to the right. He's achieved this. Reform is about maintaining that position.
Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
Don't think this is a dig at the far right. Should Labour win the next election, we can expect the weight of media support to swing to the left, as they did at the beginning of Blair's tenure.
Good tinfoil and mostly agreed. I also think client journalism exists on this forum. Nobody could be that stupid unless their wage depended on it.Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
Don't think this is a dig at the far right. Should Labour win the next election, we can expect the weight of media support to swing to the left, as they did at the beginning of Blair's tenure.
I could elaborate but won't feed.
I disagree that a huge number of the electorate lack the capacity for independent thought. Arrogance like that achieves exactly where you are right now. A bit of humility in the face of the electorate is needed. Reform play on that without presenting solutions. But arrogance gives them plenty of play room (with soft walls).
Skeptisk said:
Have people forgotten what happens when you these f
kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’. kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit. It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
105.4 said:
Skeptisk said:
Have people forgotten what happens when you these fkwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’. kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit. It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
105.4 said:
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’.
It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
It wasn't. It was ruined by people interpreting and asserting positions that weren't voted for. Brexit has been abused to mean more than it ever did and has suffered as a consequence. (I can accept the vote, I can't accept some of the interpretations).It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
Democracy is not tyranny of the majority.
It's true to say the extremists wish to claim they're the centre ground. They aren't so they can f
k off for all I care. I won't be fooled into thinking they represent majority opinion. But I have to wake up in the morning and deal with people who do.Truss was and still is a stooge for people with more brains but they're not out to help me. She's far right by manipulation as she wasn't in her earlier career. How the not very mighty have fallen for posing for pictures.
gt_12345 said:
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
???
Oh Reform are absolutely everything that's wrong.
Britain is a beacon of good government, characterised by honest politicians who are modest and cautious with their promises, while being frank and open about their limitations.
My adult life has been split roughly evenly between Tory and Labour governments with a smattering of Lib Dem coalition in the middle and every single one of them have stuck rigidly to the letter and spirit of their manifestos, which in turn are crafted with rigor and diligence to be free from any conflicting objectives or unrealistic promises.
Our established main parties form an intricate ecosystem where a delicate balance of power stops any ego becoming too large in a framework of constructive opposition based on mutual respect.
That's why we have had balanced budgets, stable prices, controlled immigration, good public services, low crime and a coherent foreign policy.
Britain is a beacon of good government, characterised by honest politicians who are modest and cautious with their promises, while being frank and open about their limitations.
My adult life has been split roughly evenly between Tory and Labour governments with a smattering of Lib Dem coalition in the middle and every single one of them have stuck rigidly to the letter and spirit of their manifestos, which in turn are crafted with rigor and diligence to be free from any conflicting objectives or unrealistic promises.
Our established main parties form an intricate ecosystem where a delicate balance of power stops any ego becoming too large in a framework of constructive opposition based on mutual respect.
That's why we have had balanced budgets, stable prices, controlled immigration, good public services, low crime and a coherent foreign policy.
gt_12345 said:
otolith said:
520TORQUES said:
Those countries are either piss poor, have enormous wealth from natural resources, or import criminal money whilst having easy methods to wash said money into a spendable asset.
How many of Tesco’s employees earn more than 40k? How much tax is paid as a result of Tesco’s operations?And therefore no population increase and no requirement to increase public infrastructure due to people who consume more than they contribute.
cheesejunkie said:
StevieBee said:
<slight snip>
Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
I disagree that a huge number of the electorate lack the capacity for independent thought. Arrogance like that achieves exactly where you are right now. A bit of humility in the face of the electorate is needed. Reform play on that without presenting solutions. But arrogance gives them plenty of play room (with soft walls).Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
The 'centre line of sensible governance' has not worked for an increasing number of people as the concerns of those people have increasingly got squeezed out in favour of chasing voters in that 'centre ground' that the politicians depend on to get elected. Until that is addressed in better way than calling people thick racists, it is only something that will continue to increase.
Skeptisk said:
105.4 said:
Skeptisk said:
Have people forgotten what happens when you these fkwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’. kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit. It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
isaldiri said:
cheesejunkie said:
StevieBee said:
<slight snip>
Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
I disagree that a huge number of the electorate lack the capacity for independent thought. Arrogance like that achieves exactly where you are right now. A bit of humility in the face of the electorate is needed. Reform play on that without presenting solutions. But arrogance gives them plenty of play room (with soft walls).Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
The 'centre line of sensible governance' has not worked for an increasing number of people as the concerns of those people have increasingly got squeezed out in favour of chasing voters in that 'centre ground' that the politicians depend on to get elected. Until that is addressed in better way than calling people thick racists, it is only something that will continue to increase.
isaldiri said:
The 'centre line of sensible governance' has not worked for an increasing number of people as the concerns of those people have increasingly got squeezed out in favour of chasing voters in that 'centre ground' that the politicians depend on to get elected. Until that is addressed in better way than calling people thick racists, it is only something that will continue to increase.
As seen on this thread as well terms such as "centre", "left" and "right" have become increasingly meaningless. A more significant divide has opened up between "globalist" and those who either have reservations or are outright opposed.Globalist is defined by many as centrist but is not the absence of ideology or political alignment, but rather a set of governing principles with a very clear economic and political agenda. It is also typified by much higher support among the governing class than among ordinary voters, who are becoming increasingly disenchanted with the economic and political settlement.
PurplePenguin said:
Skeptisk said:
105.4 said:
Skeptisk said:
Have people forgotten what happens when you these fkwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’. kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit. It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
Perhaps you should follow Mark Twain’s advice about opening your mouth.
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?
While i would rather poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick than vote Reform i find it strange that anyone would dismiss those aims out of hand. Unachievable ? In your mind maybe and given the trajectory of the nation maybe that lack of ambition exists in too many people. What i would like to see change is people voting for the same old sWe 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?
te expecting a different result.Anyone that has cast a vote several times must surely see the current choices of s
t soup vs a st sandwich or raving lunatics, not of the monster variety, really isn't a good way of doing things. Red or Blue the main aim is extract as much from those that pay their wages for the benefit of themselves and the people that bankroll them.The only vote i will be casting any time soon will be none of the above right across the ballot paper.
Skeptisk said:
isaldiri said:
cheesejunkie said:
StevieBee said:
<slight snip>
Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
I disagree that a huge number of the electorate lack the capacity for independent thought. Arrogance like that achieves exactly where you are right now. A bit of humility in the face of the electorate is needed. Reform play on that without presenting solutions. But arrogance gives them plenty of play room (with soft walls).Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
The 'centre line of sensible governance' has not worked for an increasing number of people as the concerns of those people have increasingly got squeezed out in favour of chasing voters in that 'centre ground' that the politicians depend on to get elected. Until that is addressed in better way than calling people thick racists, it is only something that will continue to increase.
Whilst there's some justification for saying centralist government hasn't worked, it remains that it should be where the UK is. Historically, we've long been a centralist country, it's an exceptionally strong virtue; slightly right but with a social conscience. It's what (or should) set us apart from other nations. We don't do huge swings either way. We don't do multi-party coalitions. We offer stability and decency which makes us a safe pair of hands on many aspects of global governance. There is a risk that this is being eroded as a result of counter arguments to important topics being suppressed, skewed or ignored.
Skeptisk said:
The architects of Brexit were and are on the far right.
The architects of Brexit were the fkwits suffering a level of hubris rarely seen outside of Corporate America. Too wrapped up in their own bullst in a social circle the diameter of a pinhead (similar to some on here going by some of the utter pish written in this forum) to see the little people were getting sick to the back teeth of being told what was best for them as opposed to being asked their opinion on serious matters such as the maastricht treaty.nb, yes i am prone to writing some of that pish. at least i have the excuse of being a poorly educated a
hole 
I would never vote for something associated with Farage however, like industry, you need disruptors to break the monopolies of the big boys. With crumbling support for the conservatives, mass apathy towards Starmer and Labour, SNP going down the pan at a rate of knots and lib dems still offensive to most people, they have probably the best opportunity they will ever have to make an impact although that will only be in votes cast not seats.
Many comments about them taking votes from the Tories however in 2015 and 19 they were more damaging to labour than the tories due to brexit and immigration cited as main reasons.
Many comments about them taking votes from the Tories however in 2015 and 19 they were more damaging to labour than the tories due to brexit and immigration cited as main reasons.
I have posted this before but now Reform has it's own tread I will do so again.
I looked at Reform a while ago. Was never likely to vote for them considering the leaders but did think I should look. I mean lower taxes, cheaper energy, no waiting lists.
Most of the presentations where the usual waffle but they did have one policy, I use the word loosely, which was very detailed. It's there flagship policy to raise income to pay for the promises.
I checked today to make sure it's still there. The presentation has been improved but it is.
To save you looking it up here is the page. It's on the right.
Paragraph 1 means little. Reorganizing QE does nothing.
Paragraph 2 is the key note policy to raise 20/40bn. The problem is it means nothing, I mean the words actually have no meaning.
QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
I can only assume some one at Reform thinks they know more than they do.
I looked at Reform a while ago. Was never likely to vote for them considering the leaders but did think I should look. I mean lower taxes, cheaper energy, no waiting lists.
Most of the presentations where the usual waffle but they did have one policy, I use the word loosely, which was very detailed. It's there flagship policy to raise income to pay for the promises.
I checked today to make sure it's still there. The presentation has been improved but it is.
To save you looking it up here is the page. It's on the right.
Paragraph 1 means little. Reorganizing QE does nothing.
Paragraph 2 is the key note policy to raise 20/40bn. The problem is it means nothing, I mean the words actually have no meaning.
QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
I can only assume some one at Reform thinks they know more than they do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff