Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
uk66fastback said:
Vasco said:
If Reform isn't a concern to most other voters why have we got thousands of PH posts on the subject?
And most by the usual suspects who are on this thread at 7-8am and still posting on it late into the evening - bizarre.
Vanden Saab said:
Dave200 said:
Elysium said:
President Merkin said:
Not in the real world they're not. They won't form a government, their economic policy is fantasy.
Reform are talking to people about issues that the two main parties are not addressing. One of which is taxation.I think people generally understand that Reform won’t be able to do enact their policies. But they want to do two things:
1. Send a clear message about what they want
2. Encourage whatever emerges from the wreckage of the Conservative Party to listen to them.
They don't have the luxury of making stuff up to con older and less intellectually curious voters.
Starmer also knows that this is likely to be deeply unpopular. With such a massive lead in the polls, who can blame him for deciding not to alienate a chunk of his support pre-election?
Meanwhile, in la-la-land, we've got Reform 'promising' (in inverted commas, because they've been very clear they don't intend to implement their manifesto) not to increase taxes on individuals, which leaves a £30bn hole in their 'promise'.
When one side, who get a disproportionate amount of media attention, has reduced politics to promising money-crapping unicorns, why on earth would the runaway election winners jeopardise their support by telling voters the cold, hard reality of our economy?
turbobloke said:
p1stonhead said:
Jeez.uk66fastback said:
Vasco said:
If Reform isn't a concern to most other voters why have we got thousands of PH posts on the subject?
And most by the usual suspects who are on this thread at 7-8am and still posting on it late into the evening - bizarre.President Merkin said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh yes, the IFS have now confirmed that neither the tory or Labour manifesto adds up
No they haven't. They've said specifically that both parties are omitting to spell out how they will square off spending in the context of a moribund economy & rising welfare, defence & debt.Vanden Saab said:
. So just pick your preferred fag packet fairy tale spend and tax plans or as you are doing don your rose tinted specs and pretend that somehow there is a difference.
If you want rose tinted fairynomics, vote Reform. Then you too will be able to join the NHS & pay no tax for two years while magicking up a £35bn interest rate jackpot from the BoE.
https://www.ft.com/content/2fbe1549-33d4-472a-9cc0...
Vanden Saab said:
President Merkin said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh yes, the IFS have now confirmed that neither the tory or Labour manifesto adds up
No they haven't. They've said specifically that both parties are omitting to spell out how they will square off spending in the context of a moribund economy & rising welfare, defence & debt.Vanden Saab said:
. So just pick your preferred fag packet fairy tale spend and tax plans or as you are doing don your rose tinted specs and pretend that somehow there is a difference.
If you want rose tinted fairynomics, vote Reform. Then you too will be able to join the NHS & pay no tax for two years while magicking up a £35bn interest rate jackpot from the BoE.https://www.ft.com/content/2fbe1549-33d4-472a-9cc0...
Chances? That goes against the control and spend gunny sack around Labour's neck.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Andy I think you might be conflating “blind panic” with highlighting the fascist following habits and racist tendencies of quite a few of their candidates.
Possibly, but it does genuinely feel as though SOME (for Mr Merkin) posters who one might reasonably assume are more left leaning than not have a greater bee in their bonnet about Reform than others. Reform is doing damage (mostly but not exclusively) to the Conservatives, so why are they bothered? bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Reform should be allowed to run (obviously) and at the end of it all they’ll probably have a handful of seats.
That’s how a democracy works.
Agree they should be allowed to run (unless they break the law) Also agree that that's how democracy works. In fact it works best precisely because in running they get to have who they are and what they stand for put under the microscope. But there needs to be meaningful examination and deconstruction of Reforms policies rather than simply abuse and smears (even when the allegations are true it can come across as simply abuse) - look how well that tactic went for Remain during the Brexit campaign!That’s how a democracy works.
I personally hope they get zero seats, but share your view that they could get a handful of seats. My ONLY concern with that is that unless they are thoroughly debunked rather than eternally victims of media attacks (as they see it) and if (say) they end up with mid to late teens % of the vote, and no or very few MPs, it gives Farage a mighty platform to campaign for electoral reform - a campaign that it will be hard to argue against by many on the left who have been stalwart campaigners for such reform for so many years.
If that gained traction and we ended up with PR for the 2029 election then unless SKS pulls off a wonder act over the next 5 years, we could be facing the prospect of 100+ Reform MPs in 2029 - THAT would be something worth panicking over imho!
Vanden Saab said:
President Merkin said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh yes, the IFS have now confirmed that neither the tory or Labour manifesto adds up
No they haven't. They've said specifically that both parties are omitting to spell out how they will square off spending in the context of a moribund economy & rising welfare, defence & debt.Vanden Saab said:
. So just pick your preferred fag packet fairy tale spend and tax plans or as you are doing don your rose tinted specs and pretend that somehow there is a difference.
If you want rose tinted fairynomics, vote Reform. Then you too will be able to join the NHS & pay no tax for two years while magicking up a £35bn interest rate jackpot from the BoE.https://www.ft.com/content/2fbe1549-33d4-472a-9cc0...
https://x.com/pjtheeconomist/status/18055239299828...
andymadmak said:
Reform is doing damage (mostly but not exclusively) to the Conservatives, so why are they bothered?
Frankly the Conservatives deserve the damage being done to them. Their approach for 14 years has been to promote and to amplify vacuous right wing populist nonentities at the expense of those who could actually govern in the interests of the country. This has given us staggeringly inept, wasteful and in some cases corrupt government, with the inevitable collapse in services, public trust and national reputation, while they whine on about culture war nonsense.Certain people have become so invested in the culture war stuff that they see Reform, with their collection of Facebook idiot candidates, dog whistle racism and magic money tree promises as some sort of logical continuation - if only the Tories had more culture warriors in charge we wouldn't be in this mess! Let's elect Farage, Lee Anderson and that bloke who wants to drown migrants - that'll show 'em!!
More people should be 'bothered' by the direction of national travel TBH.
smn159 said:
andymadmak said:
Reform is doing damage (mostly but not exclusively) to the Conservatives, so why are they bothered?
Frankly the Conservatives deserve the damage being done to them. Their approach for 14 years has been to promote and to amplify vacuous right wing populist nonentities at the expense of those who could actually govern in the interests of the country. This has given us staggeringly inept, wasteful and in some cases corrupt government, with the inevitable collapse in services, public trust and national reputation, while they whine on about culture war nonsense.Certain people have become so invested in the culture war stuff that they see Reform, with their collection of Facebook idiot candidates, dog whistle racism and magic money tree promises as some sort of logical continuation
As I haven't looked into the small print of Reform economics, I can but make the point that their policy on Net Zero will pay for lots of things, including 911 Turbos for S600BSB to redistribute (see earlier post).
HS2 offers a useful comparison for the Net Zero fantasy as adopted by Conservatives and Labour. If completed. the minimum total cost of HS2 would have been £72 billion, some costings had the total approaching £100bn. On the basis of £72 billion, achieving Net Zero's minimum cost of £3 trillion (Climate Change Committee & Oxford) is more than one HS2 project every year for 31 years, starting with Theresa May's 2019 commitment through to 2050. Only one HS2 was seen as unaffordable as a one-off. The easy calculation is (3 / 0.072) / 31 which is 1.3 HS2 per year.
Given the lack of necessary astronomical spending from 2019 to date (non shock as it's unaffordable) it's more like 25 years to go, which is closer to 2x HS2 every year to 2050. What could Reform spend 1 to 2 HST invoices per year on...
Craig Mackinlay MP, as Chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, has said that this state of affairs is “scandalous” and that Parliament has been “misled” when considering Net Zero legislation.
Ipsos voter key issue polling puts climate change at the bottom of their priority issues list. Only 3% regard it as top priority, which is hardly surpriing given this (below) from an IPCC chap, not a 'denier' and formerly University of East Anglia now Cambridge. MSM are light years behind reality, politicians in a different universe. There's little change of any change of course, until reality hits a PM, Starmer or his successor, in the coconuts.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-c...
turbobloke said:
Can't help but notice that your link is to a picture of a headline with no source or context - you given up with the deliberately misleading loon group stuff?Dave200 said:
turbobloke said:
As I haven't looked into the small print of Reform economics
An odd, but not entirely unexpected, position from someone who spends his day on the internet arguing in their favour. Fairly representative, I'd say.They are just saying what a foolish portion of the population wants to hear.
That portion won't worry about it being total nonsense.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff