[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Barnet Seagull]

People will vote Reform because, put bluntly, nothing changes with the other two (or so they'll have you believe) and they are the new kid on the block and deliberately targeting the working class vote.

Unfortunately, they offer nothing - and we'll all suffer the consequences until this is called out. To be clear, their contribution has been so far to hound the Tories into a disastrous Brexit that is costing billions. One of their stupid flagship policies this time round is to "cut public waste" to the tune of £50 billion. This should be a red flag to absolutely anyone considering voting for them.

You're right, it should be. Probably won't be though.

 

[dsr-burnley]

One of their stupid flagship policies this time round is to "cut public waste" to the tune of £50 billion. This should be a red flag to absolutely anyone considering voting for them.

Why?

 

[Simster]

Why?

Jesus Christ.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Every year support for rejoining getting greater and Brexiters are dying off. We will reach a point when we'll be back at 1975 levels of support, at that point it will be a political golden opportunity for someone with the guts to take it and call another referendum. I think will we will get there.

Without a 70/30 mandate Europe don't want to go there, we caused too much trouble. They wasted a lot of energy dealing with our domestic tantrum

Agree 100%. So it will have to be a waiting game for the time being.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You said:



Both myself and @Berty23 did so and you didn't answer either post.

And as for 'occasionally pop on and reply' you mean 'exclusively post on political threads about Labour, Reform and Identity Politics'. Do you even support Brighton?

View attachment 201807

The perverse and partial perspective of the made-up mind.

 

[Eric the meek]

Agree 100%. So it will have to be a waiting game for the time being.

Yes - we have to let a lot of water flow under the bridge (and a lot of Brexiteers die off) before we can realistically think of rejoining.

We also will have to rebuild a few of those bridges with the EU first. Starmer is going some way in fostering close military ties with Macron, Werz and Tusk against Putin.

 

[nevergoagain]

It's almost as if every explanation of the causes and how to address these are totally ignored from those who 'want to have a serious conversation'.

Want to reduce channel crossings ? (it's not illegal, you have to arrive in Britain to claim asylum). - It is illegal if their asylum claim is rejected

Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society. - Agree, I don't have an issue with a UK Asylum facility in France or anywhere else.
Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants - If the above is done then not required ?
Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications (to be fair, this has finally started but could be increased).

Want to reduce overall migration ?

Rejoin the EU, invest more in the sectors that are held together by Immigrants like NHS, Care Homes, Hospitality, Logistics etc etc. - How are you funding this ?

Want a figure for immigration ?

Put some work into understanding how Britain continues to support an ageing population with a reducing working population, the effect reducing migration would have on tax income, services and pensions, and you may have some idea of the impact of any figure you then choose.

Or alternately, just keep repeating Reform rhetoric from the Nigel Farage buzzword bible

Illegal, preferential treatment to natives, being allowed to walk on our streets with no real checks, commits a violent/sexual crime, 5* Hotel, taking over, etc etc etc - I've never mentioned 5* hotels but are you saying the other comments are untrue ?

Condescending as always I see.

 

[nevergoagain]

If you do a little research on this you can easily find out. It's not complicated

Post explaining it is underneath, sorry quoted instead of edited.

We can disagree on that point but assume you agree with the rest then ?

 

[BadFish]

We can disagree on that point but assume you agree with the rest then ?

I wouldn't assume that, just trying to help you out with a bit of research to answer your question.

 

[SouthSaxon]

An important aspect in Barnet Seagull’s post is how people feel about their lives and society around them.

I can absolutely see why people will vote for reform and I expect them to do well at the next election. Politics has lost touch with the vast majority of the people in this country and what they see, feel and experience on a daily basis isn't getting fixed and isn't getting better. Many have already forgotten about brexit - and to many, it was an irrelevance to their day to day life anyway.

What they want is someone to improve their lives.
This means addressing inequality and improving public services. Labour aren't doing it, the Conservatives will never do it, Reform are at least offering a (very lightweight but sounding good) alternative. The greens and lib dems are unfortunately an irrelevance as the media has pushed a narrative of leftie do-gooders that although reasonably able to help fix the issues, just isn't relatable enough.

Unless something significant changes, and fast, Reform may be the least worst option for many.

There’s a significant subset of the population that won’t engage in politics or think deeply about policy options because they find it either boring, or stressful or depressing.

They’re not thick, but it does leave them susceptible to the populist soundbite. Consistently negative media coverage builds a narrative that the country is in the doldrums and that comes with things they experience.

The populist candidate appeals to this sense of grievance and promises “change”, so they vote for them.

People voted for Brexit without understanding what that meant. People (not all the same) are now voting Reform without much more than a surface level knowledge of what the party intends to do in power.

Labour shot itself in the foot early on by making a big fuss about a financial black hole and telling a nation desperate to be told things would be better now that it was going to have to endure more pain. Then the WFA cut, employers NICs and now benefit cuts all confirmed this sense..

They’re really not helped by a hostile right-wing media establishment, but a lot of the damage is self-inflicted. More positivity would have gone a long way. It now needs to deliver tangible improvements to people’s standard of living by reducing inequality, instead they’re now fanning about trying to win headlines about how tough they are on immigration.

Debating the logical rights and wrongs of policy is all well and good, but voters who prioritise how they feel in their decision making are not going to be swayed by a well-constructed technical argument.

I say this as someone who voted Labour, takes an interest in the minutiae of policy and thinks Starmer is still the best available person for the job.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

An important aspect in Barnet Seagull’s post is how people feel about their lives and society around them.



There’s a significant subset of the population that won’t engage in politics or think deeply about policy options because they find it either boring, or stressful or depressing.

They’re not thick, but it does leave them susceptible to the populist soundbite. Consistently negative media coverage builds a narrative that the country is in the doldrums and that comes with things they experience.

The populist candidate appeals to this sense of grievance and promises “change”, so they vote for them.

People voted for Brexit without understanding what that meant. People (not all the same) are now voting Reform without much more than a surface level knowledge of what the party intends to do in power.

Labour shot itself in the foot early on by making a big fuss about a financial black hole and telling a nation desperate to be told things would be better now that it was going to have to endure more pain. Then the WFA cut, employers NICs and now benefit cuts all confirmed this sense..

They’re really not helped by a hostile right-wing media establishment, but a lot of the damage is self-inflicted. More positivity would have gone a long way. It now needs to deliver tangible improvements to people’s standard of living by reducing inequality, instead they’re now fanning about trying to win headlines about how tough they are on immigration.

Debating the logical rights and wrongs of policy is all well and good, but voters who prioritise how they feel in their decision making are not going to be swayed by a well-constructed technical argument.

I say this as someone who voted Labour, takes an interest in the minutiae of policy and thinks Starmer is still the best available person for the job.

I am absolutely in the same shoes. Every point you make resonates with me.
Including the last one.

I would add that being relentlessly positive can be grating.
I love the way Fab always has a positive outlook, but I know it annoys some.
Better, as you say, than dire warnings of tough times and hard choices.
Just make them and get on with it.

 

[Bry Nylon]

An important aspect in Barnet Seagull’s post is how people feel about their lives and society around them.



There’s a significant subset of the population that won’t engage in politics or think deeply about policy options because they find it either boring, or stressful or depressing.

They’re not thick, but it does leave them susceptible to the populist soundbite. Consistently negative media coverage builds a narrative that the country is in the doldrums and that comes with things they experience.

The populist candidate appeals to this sense of grievance and promises “change”, so they vote for them.

People voted for Brexit without understanding what that meant. People (not all the same) are now voting Reform without much more than a surface level knowledge of what the party intends to do in power.

Labour shot itself in the foot early on by making a big fuss about a financial black hole and telling a nation desperate to be told things would be better now that it was going to have to endure more pain. Then the WFA cut, employers NICs and now benefit cuts all confirmed this sense..

They’re really not helped by a hostile right-wing media establishment, but a lot of the damage is self-inflicted. More positivity would have gone a long way. It now needs to deliver tangible improvements to people’s standard of living by reducing inequality, instead they’re now fanning about trying to win headlines about how tough they are on immigration.

Debating the logical rights and wrongs of policy is all well and good, but voters who prioritise how they feel in their decision making are not going to be swayed by a well-constructed technical argument.

I say this as someone who voted Labour, takes an interest in the minutiae of policy and thinks Starmer is still the best available person for the job.

Very true. Around the time Gordon Brown was desperate to take over from Tony Blair, I recall somebody very close to the Blair operation telling me that Brown (as PM) would never win a mandate.

"Gordon is an undoubtedly an intellectual colossus," they said. "He steered the country through the credit crunch and he believes passionately in eradicating child poverty. But all the while he can't relate to the fact that what most people want is a conservatory and a two-week foreign holiday, he'll never win a general election."

 

[dsr-burnley]

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm happy to evangelise if you are.

But instead of evangelising or blaspheming, whichever you prefer, why not answer the question? This thread is full of people explaining that (a) Reform voters are thick, and (b) Reform voters won't answer questions about their policies. So go on, presume I'm thick, and explain why your policy of not cutting public waste is the right one.

 

[SouthSaxon]

I am absolutely in the same shoes. Every point you make resonates with me.
Including the last one.

I would add that being relentlessly positive can be grating.
I love the way Fab always has a positive outlook, but I know it annoys some.
Better, as you say, than dire warnings of tough times and hard choices.
Just make them and get on with it.

Keir Starmer is never going to be guilty of relentless positivity. But that messaging was completely unnecessary - it was obvious they were inheriting a mess. As well as doubling down on how bad things are, it shifted the burden back onto regular people.

As a regular person (my wife may not agree with that description) I tend to think that the Tory mess is not my problem. That’s what Labour has been elected to deal with - reassure me and, as you say, just get on with it.

 

[pb21]

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm happy to evangelise if you are.

But instead of evangelising or blaspheming, whichever you prefer, why not answer the question? This thread is full of people explaining that (a) Reform voters are thick, and (b) Reform voters won't answer questions about their policies. So go on, presume I'm thick, and explain why your policy of not cutting public waste is the right one.

I'll let the OP answer for themselves, but what is the £50 billion of public waste Reform/Farage speaks of?

 

[nicko31]

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm happy to evangelise if you are.

But instead of evangelising or blaspheming, whichever you prefer, why not answer the question? This thread is full of people explaining that (a) Reform voters are thick, and (b) Reform voters won't answer questions about their policies. So go on, presume I'm thick, and explain why your policy of not cutting public waste is the right one.

What we need is more people in government like those good honest folk at the tax payers alliance and maybe get Lizz Truss back

 

[SouthSaxon]

Very true. Around the time Gordon Brown was desperate to take over from Tony Blair, I recall somebody very close to the Blair operation telling me that Brown (as PM) would never win a mandate.

"Gordon is an undoubtedly an intellectual colossus," they said. "He steered the country through the credit crunch and he believes passionately in eradicating child poverty. But all the while he can't relate to the fact that what most people want is a conservatory and a two-week foreign holiday, he'll never win a general election."

Blair in 1997 is a good point of reference. Campbell’s media savvy I’m sure counted for a lot.

Just take the campaign’s anthem - things will only get better. I remember that time period as the most positive the country has been in my lifetime.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I'll let the OP answer for themselves, but what is the £50 billion of public waste Reform/Farage speaks of?

What are the extra 120,000 civil servants appointed since 2016, actually doing?

 

[Lenny Rider]

People will vote Reform because, put bluntly, nothing changes with the other two (or so they'll have you believe) and they are the new kid on the block and deliberately targeting the working class vote.

Unfortunately, they offer nothing - and we'll all suffer the consequences until this is called out. To be clear, their contribution has been so far to hound the Tories into a disastrous Brexit that is costing billions. One of their stupid flagship policies this time round is to "cut public waste" to the tune of £50 billion. This should be a red flag to absolutely anyone considering voting for them.

Wasn't there a one time painter and decorator from Austria that did something similar a few years back?

 

[SouthSaxon]

What are the extra 120,000 civil servants appointed since 2016, actually doing?

There’s some detail on this here.

Civil service staff numbers | Institute for Government

Who exactly are civil servants and how many are there?

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Note that 2016 numbers were the lowest since the war.

Brexit and COVID are cited as the main reasons for the increase.

1) Brexit might be “done” but its effects are not. We are now outside the EU, which means we need people for things like alignment on standards or negotiating trade deals where previously we did not
2) Covid exposed a nation totally unprepared for a major health incident. At the very least, some increase in required civil servants can be justified to avoid a repeat

More people does not necessarily mean all of that is waste. Britain’s circumstances now compared with 2016 are totally different.

There’s nothing wrong with cutting waste, but Reform’s policy simply says that every department will have to save £5 from every £100 spent. That’s not a targeted cut of waste, that’s just indiscriminately cutting spending. There’s no detail on how they will identify waste or how much they are willing to spend in identifying it - it reads like a simplistic promise to spend less money for the sake of it.

Austerity by another name.