Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
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?
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?
OutInTheShed said:
Foir those people in mortal fear of the 'aging population problem', how does it play out at the end of this century when the 'experts' tell us that world population will stabilise? (or are they lying?)
Will the UK keep importing more and more young people in a ponzi scheme, while the rest of the world ages more?
Will the UK be in denial of aging world population for a decade or two, then have a real crisis as it's forced to catch up?
Are you just wanting to stay in your comfort zone for 20 years or so, or is there a long term plan?
The real reason we have so many pensioners is actually, there's not many jobs. Not much work to be done.
Post the information revolution and all that, we don't need that many drones.
We're not doing much for the wider world, not exporting much, mostly been living off past wealth for a while.
Most of the tax might actually come from 'investors' rather than 'workers'. Who pays the tax now? Is it the young chavs on min wage, or is it the old gits with capital?
I don'treally follow Reform, but it's maybe a symptom that people are seeing through the cosy consensus of Blair-Cameron-Remain orthodoxy and realising that there are real issues we're not dealing with.
I've got 3 sprogs, so I've done my bit! Will the UK keep importing more and more young people in a ponzi scheme, while the rest of the world ages more?
Will the UK be in denial of aging world population for a decade or two, then have a real crisis as it's forced to catch up?
Are you just wanting to stay in your comfort zone for 20 years or so, or is there a long term plan?
The real reason we have so many pensioners is actually, there's not many jobs. Not much work to be done.
Post the information revolution and all that, we don't need that many drones.
We're not doing much for the wider world, not exporting much, mostly been living off past wealth for a while.
Most of the tax might actually come from 'investors' rather than 'workers'. Who pays the tax now? Is it the young chavs on min wage, or is it the old gits with capital?
I don'treally follow Reform, but it's maybe a symptom that people are seeing through the cosy consensus of Blair-Cameron-Remain orthodoxy and realising that there are real issues we're not dealing with.
The reason we've got so many pensioners, however, is not because we don't need workers. The sheer number of them we've imported over the past 25 years shows that.
It's more that life expectancy has massively outstripped state pension age for the past 75 years, making it easier for more people to retire earlier.
E63eeeeee... said:
They're also mutually contradictory, because cutting immigration means fewer workers supporting more non-workers, so higher taxes, and cutting immigration and zero waiting lists are pulling in opposite directions, as are lower taxes and zero waiting lists.
Basically this is transparent and cynical cakeism, based on the fact they know they're never going to have to actually deliver on any of it.
I rather thought that what what I said? Basically this is transparent and cynical cakeism, based on the fact they know they're never going to have to actually deliver on any of it.
Killboy said:
Kermit power said:
There are plenty of people on here making that claim who come across as intelligent, rational people in other respects, so I can only assume they're so disillusioned with the mainstream that they're deliberately suspending their disbelief? Why else would you vote for something so patently impossible?
Bradgate said:
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.
I agree that they should be allowed to exist, and fervently believe that we desperately need to get rid of FPTP so that everyone's vote carries the same weight regardless of where they live and whom they want to vote for, as we certainly don't have anything that can reasonably be called democracy at the moment. 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.
That in no way changes the fact that it is simply not possible to deliver Reform UK's manifesto promises as they are mutually exclusive without either enforced euthanasia or enforced parenthood, hence my amazement that 1 in 10 people are planning to vote for them.
gt_12345 said:
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?
That's a very pertinent question, but it's not a question for me to answer, it's a question for Reform to answer, as they're the ones claiming that they can deliver lower tax and zero waiting lists in the NHS whilst simultaneously overseeing a fall in the number of working people per pensioner and legislating to prevent the resultant gap being plugged with immigrant labour.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?
Your views may differ from mine or other people's as to which of those items we'd like to see, and I'd like to hope that we can have a thread that doesn't just go down that rabbithole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
frisbee said:
86 said:
If we move to PR parties like this will have a decent voice
Why shouldn't they have a voice? Why shouldn't people be able to vote for people who represent their values? At present, the mainstream parties can take everyone for granted and there is little we can do about it. If people feel taken for granted in a PR system, they can vote for more extremist views, and eventually, whether through concessions to secure coalition or concessions in manifestos to show people they're no longer being taken for granted to win votes back from the extremists, a fairer consensus and greater democracy can be achieved.
Hammersia said:
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.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1172438/parlia...
gt_12345 said:
Kermit power said:
gt_12345 said:
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?
That's a very pertinent question, but it's not a question for me to answer, it's a question for Reform to answer, as they're the ones claiming that they can deliver lower tax and zero waiting lists in the NHS whilst simultaneously overseeing a fall in the number of working people per pensioner and legislating to prevent the resultant gap being plugged with immigrant labour.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?
Your views may differ from mine or other people's as to which of those items we'd like to see, and I'd like to hope that we can have a thread that doesn't just go down that rabbit hole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
So please answer the questions.
I am not saying that we absolutely have to have more immigration to address the problems with our ageing population, but it is one option.
Another option would be to immediately increase State retirement age to 75 to restore the link between retirement age and life expectancy, but quite apart from the obvious electoral suicide that might entail, it would also be an increase in taxation, so isn't an option open to Reform UK under their manifesto.
A third, longer-term option might be to significantly increase taxation - maybe another 10% on VAT, for example - then ring-fence it specifically to enable more people to have more babies at a younger age, but again that's not an option open to Reform UK because it increases taxation.
These issues are, of course, compounded if you're going to declare no waiting lists in the NHS, as we all know that demands on the NHS are seasonal - either directly due to weather-sensitive conditions or indirectly due to patients with said conditions taking up bed space, so to ensure no waiting lists at peak times you'd have to factor in significant excess capacity in both people and beds at quieter times of the year at significant extra human and financial cost.
Anyone can suggest and debate a mixture of higher or lower immigration, taxation or waiting list and prioritise them according to their view of the world, but nobody can deliver zero immigration, lower taxation and zero waiting lists all in one because it's simply not possible without making Logan's Run a reality.
The fact that ReformUK are putting those impossible mutually exclusive claims at the heart of their manifesto means that it is for them and them alone to answer the question of "how?", and until they've done that, the question of "why?" is completely irrelevant.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
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.
You missed my point. Everything in your post, combined with FPTP which effectively prevents that from changing is, in my view, what has led to 10% of the British electorate declaring their intention to vote for a party with mutually exclusive dog whistle policies as their manifesto. Would you not agree that the fact this can happen is a very good symptom of all that is 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.
wc98 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?
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.
That doesn't change the fact that those Reform pledges are unachievable. If you could show a genuine way of delivering lower taxes with zero waiting lists in the NHS and zero increase in migration you'd win by a landslide, but you won't because it's simply not possible.
Terminator X said:
Lol'ing at the OP, if Brexit taught us one thing it's that their policies (all parties) aren't even worth the paper they are written on. Politics is fked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.
TX.
In this we are agreed, but at least the other parties at least try to pretend their policies are vaguely achievable. Reform UK might as well promise everyone £5m and a pink fluffy unicorn, yet there are people queueing up with their open wallet in one hand and their unicorn saddle in the other.ked, I'd rather vote for None Of The Above at election time if it was possible.TX.
JagLover said:
Kermit power said:
Another option would be to immediately increase State retirement age to 75 to restore the link between retirement age and life expectancy, but quite apart from the obvious electoral suicide that might entail, it would also be an increase in taxation, so isn't an option open to Reform UK under their manifesto.
.
Why would that be required when the number in receipt of the state pension isn't rising?.
The number in receipt of the state pension now is slightly lower than it was ten years ago. This situation may well change in the future but then there is already a further planned increase in the retirement age to mitigate this.
Killboy said:
JNW1 said:
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?If they can't win a constituency, who would they represent?
One way is to have half of MPs elected based on constituencies and the other half allocated from party lists, so each individual constituency is represented by the party that most people within that constituency voted for, whilst the allocations can then be made to smooth out the current distortion caused by some parties having very localised support and others very widespread support to ensure that every voter's vote carries equal weight at the national level.
Another way is for each party to nominate an MP for each constituency and once the number of MPs each party is entitled to is determined at the national vote, individual seats are allocated based on where they have the strongest level of support.
The notion that an MP has to win a constituency is part of what's so f
ked up about the present system. As soon as one party's candidate in a seat has even just one more vote than the next best candidate, then the voice of all the other voters in that constituency cease to carry any further weight, and the impact of that can be immense.At the 2019 election, 229 out of 649 MPs (the speaker being excluded) were elected with fewer than 50% of the votes cast, and 22 with fewer than 40%. How can anyone justify an electoral system where such huge numbers of people are rendered mute at the national level just to ensure there are local MPs elected in local seats?
If we exclude South Down (sorry, Sinn Fein, but if you're not going to take your seat up anyway and people still vote for you, the loss of that voice isn't just down to FPTP!) then you're looking at the worst example being Sheffield Hallam, where out of 56,885 valid votes, Labour received 19,709 (34.65%), the Lib Dems 18,997 (33.40%) and the Tories 14,696 (25.83%). FPTP will just record that for evermore as "Sheffield Hallam - Labour". :headbang:
This arguably wouldn't be so bad if it all evened out more or less fairly at the national level, but it doesn't. Despite only polling 43.6% of the vote, the Tories won 56.15% of the seats and, bizarre fact for you - there is only ONE person (assuming she hasn't died in the last few months) left alive in Britain who was old enough to vote the last time a British government polled more than 50% of the total vote in a General Election!!!
In 2019, the Tories won one seat in parliament for every 38,264 people who voted for them. Labour needed 50,837 per seat, the SNP a mere 25,883, and the LibDems an utterly insane 336,038!!!
Under no possible definition of the word is that truly democracy.
Wilmslowboy said:
I never really gave much thought to those that were angst over immigration, however this graph I came across today shocked me.
What changed post covid ?
The drop in EU migration is fully understandable as we told people who were largely like us that they weren't welcome here any more.What changed post covid ?
The non-EU line does look a bit weird though! We know that a major contributing factor to the big spike on 2022 was the fact that lots of foreign students had deferred starting their studies when Covid hit, but I would've expected the fall in 2021 to be much larger as well.
JagLover said:
Wilmslowboy said:
I never really gave much thought to those that were angst over immigration, however this graph I came across today shocked me.
What changed post covid ?
Behind the scenes there was a significant relaxation of the rules brought in by Bojo the clown, not only in more VISAs being now available, but in dependent VISAs issued in relation. Student dependents alone increased eight fold. This was at the same time as more HK citizens becoming eligible to move here and refugees from Ukraine. Those crossing the channel were the most visible symbol but not the most significant by number. What changed post covid ?
Net migration of at least 1/2 million a year was virtually inevitable due to decisions taken. Sunak was warned when he came in what was happening, and going to happen, but chose to put all his attention on the boat migrants and only changed course to try and restrict numbers elsewhere when the numbers started coming in.
It's hardly surprising that Sunak concentrated on the boats as having someone to demonise helps to keep a little of the spotlight off the fact that "taking back control" of immigration is and always was an undeliverable lie if you actually took it to mean reducing it!
Mrr T said:
Kermit power said:
Arguably the biggest of which were those taken decades ago which have resulted in a dramatic reduction of the number of children we have in this country, resulting in demographics that make mass immigration inevitable.
It's hardly surprising that Sunak concentrated on the boats as having someone to demonise helps to keep a little of the spotlight off the fact that "taking back control" of immigration is and always was an undeliverable lie if you actually took it to mean reducing it!
Not sure what decisions you mean. Wealth does seem to lead to a fall in birth rate everywhere.It's hardly surprising that Sunak concentrated on the boats as having someone to demonise helps to keep a little of the spotlight off the fact that "taking back control" of immigration is and always was an undeliverable lie if you actually took it to mean reducing it!
It is possible to substantial reduce immigration but only at a cost.
Firstly, going many decades back, you had the decision to develop and market the contraceptive pill and also the decision to stop making women give up work when they got married. Of course you can't suggest that women should've remained tied to the kitchen sink and dependent on men for contraception, but nevertheless those two changes significantly contributed to the number of women staying in work - whether they had children or not - rather than stopping work and becoming a single salary household. That means the average household has significantly more cash available.
Secondly, we had the deregulation of the mortgage industry. When my parents bought their first house, they were offered, iirc, 2.5x my father's annual salary as their maximum borrowing amount for their mortgage. In comparison, at one point my wife and I were offered 7x our joint salaries.
That just creates an insane competition for housing, driving up all the prices, creating the illusion of wealth, and means that where my mother's generation could choose to have children or have a job, we're now in a position where lots of younger people simply do not have the choice any more. They cannot afford to both house themselves and have kids. That's decisions being taken now on an individual scale as a result of decisions taken decades ago on a macro level.
Just think of the people you know who have kids. How many of them only have one? Probably not many, unless it's just because it's their first of intended multiple kids, right? Society seems to have polarised now. You have the wealthier classes at the top who can still afford to have multiple kids and either the mother stops work for a while or they can afford expensive childcare, and at the bottom you've got those pumping them out as benefits claims, but in between the two there's a large chunk of people who would've had kids in the past that just simply cannot manage it now, especially in the South.
crankedup5 said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
andymadmak said:
Anyways, whilst I am pretty sure that there are extremists and xenophobes in the Reform voter cadre, I'm also pretty sure that extremists and xenophobes are present in the voter cadres of all political parties. Reform may or may not have a higher % of such people, but it certainly doesn't run to 100%
unfortunately, that's one of the key problems of modern political debate.As soon as Tony Blair realised that the only way to get the Labour party elected - or more critically, reelected - was to turn it into the Tory Lite party, political debate in this country immediately converged on a very narrow part of the centre ground, with both the main parties knowing they could take for granted the support of huge swathes of the electorate safe in the knowledge that they'd never vote for the other side, yet protected by PR from the possibility of a third party coming up on the outside to take them by surprise.
At the same time, whilst Britain remains something like the 7th largest manufacturing economy in the world, the proportion of that manufacturing which is low value add and labour intensive has dwindled to practically nothing, largely killing the unions in the process, and leaving even more of those traditional Labour voters looking for answers elsewhere because the traditional union-led Labour party no longer really exists, and even if it did, it wouldn't really represent them any more.
Immigration hasn't really caused any of this. It's just, for many, the subject of anger onto which it has directed their gaze.
crankedup5 said:
Kermit power said:
crankedup5 said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
andymadmak said:
Anyways, whilst I am pretty sure that there are extremists and xenophobes in the Reform voter cadre, I'm also pretty sure that extremists and xenophobes are present in the voter cadres of all political parties. Reform may or may not have a higher % of such people, but it certainly doesn't run to 100%
unfortunately, that's one of the key problems of modern political debate.As soon as Tony Blair realised that the only way to get the Labour party elected - or more critically, reelected - was to turn it into the Tory Lite party, political debate in this country immediately converged on a very narrow part of the centre ground, with both the main parties knowing they could take for granted the support of huge swathes of the electorate safe in the knowledge that they'd never vote for the other side, yet protected by PR from the possibility of a third party coming up on the outside to take them by surprise.
At the same time, whilst Britain remains something like the 7th largest manufacturing economy in the world, the proportion of that manufacturing which is low value add and labour intensive has dwindled to practically nothing, largely killing the unions in the process, and leaving even more of those traditional Labour voters looking for answers elsewhere because the traditional union-led Labour party no longer really exists, and even if it did, it wouldn't really represent them any more.
Immigration hasn't really caused any of this. It's just, for many, the subject of anger onto which it has directed their gaze.
"The more we vote, the more things remain the same".
When people feel as though they have nobody they can vote for, of that if they do, the electoral system just tells them to do one anyway, then it surely shouldn't come as any surprise when they become increasingly angry, should it?
Then along comes a spider spinning a web of lies, half truths and impossible promises that plays on their insecurities and it all starts to look increasingly attractive as, like that mythical frog that allows itself to be slowly boiled to death, people's views become gradually more and more extreme, almost without noticing how unreasonable their views are becoming.
I know that probably sounds like a bunch of condescending philosophising, but I really do believe that's largely what's happening. A few utterly unethical geniuses and a bunch of social media at their fingertips and they can get the disaffected believing whatever they want because they're desperate for anything that'll make them believe that things are going to get better.
Stick that on both sides of the divide and watch the hatred grow ever stronger.
crankedup5 said:
Kermit power said:
crankedup5 said:
Kermit power said:
crankedup5 said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
andymadmak said:
Anyways, whilst I am pretty sure that there are extremists and xenophobes in the Reform voter cadre, I'm also pretty sure that extremists and xenophobes are present in the voter cadres of all political parties. Reform may or may not have a higher % of such people, but it certainly doesn't run to 100%
unfortunately, that's one of the key problems of modern political debate.As soon as Tony Blair realised that the only way to get the Labour party elected - or more critically, reelected - was to turn it into the Tory Lite party, political debate in this country immediately converged on a very narrow part of the centre ground, with both the main parties knowing they could take for granted the support of huge swathes of the electorate safe in the knowledge that they'd never vote for the other side, yet protected by PR from the possibility of a third party coming up on the outside to take them by surprise.
At the same time, whilst Britain remains something like the 7th largest manufacturing economy in the world, the proportion of that manufacturing which is low value add and labour intensive has dwindled to practically nothing, largely killing the unions in the process, and leaving even more of those traditional Labour voters looking for answers elsewhere because the traditional union-led Labour party no longer really exists, and even if it did, it wouldn't really represent them any more.
Immigration hasn't really caused any of this. It's just, for many, the subject of anger onto which it has directed their gaze.
"The more we vote, the more things remain the same".
When people feel as though they have nobody they can vote for, of that if they do, the electoral system just tells them to do one anyway, then it surely shouldn't come as any surprise when they become increasingly angry, should it?
Then along comes a spider spinning a web of lies, half truths and impossible promises that plays on their insecurities and it all starts to look increasingly attractive as, like that mythical frog that allows itself to be slowly boiled to death, people's views become gradually more and more extreme, almost without noticing how unreasonable their views are becoming.
I know that probably sounds like a bunch of condescending philosophising, but I really do believe that's largely what's happening. A few utterly unethical geniuses and a bunch of social media at their fingertips and they can get the disaffected believing whatever they want because they're desperate for anything that'll make them believe that things are going to get better.
Stick that on both sides of the divide and watch the hatred grow ever stronger.
Agree that MSM aggregates and grows disatisfaction through awareness.
Problem is of course is that we do not have a better system of democracy, maybe more tolerance of alternative pov, but that will not evolve
When Ethel May Caterham (Born 1909, currently the oldest person in Britain) dies, there will not be a single person left in the country old enough to have voted in the last general election in which the party of government actually received more than 50% of the vote! Whether Ethel herself actually voted and for whom, I couldn't tell you.
There have been 29 General Elections since the end of WW1. In only one of them - 1931 - did any party get more than 50% of the vote, yet there have only been 5 hung parliaments in all that time. That doesn't really sound like a true representation of the democratic will of the people, does it?
My vote is and always has been essentially worthless, as I've always lived in a very strong Tory or Labour seat. The simple fact is that some people's votes count a lot more than others' depending on what seat they're in, and what party they're voting for. Here's a few fascinating little snippets from the 2019 GE...
- A 1.2% swing to the Conservatives saw them gain an additional 48 seats, whereas a 4.2% swing to the LibDems saw them lose a seat!
- The Conservatives were rewarded with 1 MP for every 38,264 voters who voted for them. Labour had it a bit tougher, needing 50,837 people to the ballot box for each MP they won, but that was a walk in the park compared to the LibDems, who were rewarded with just a single MP for every 336,038 voters! The bloody SNP, meanwhile, were sat up North of the border laughing at all of them, having needed just 25,883 votes per MP!
You might love some of those parties, or you might loathe the lot of them, but whatever way you look at it, any system which delivers such absurdly unrepresentative results is simply broken beyond belief! Probably the only reason we've not seemed an armed insurrection is that the LibDems have the biggest cause to rise up, and they're just a little bit too nice!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff