The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

David9694 wrote:

I see we have a running mate now - brilliant.

Who proclaimed last week that since Labour won the election the UK is now the world's premier nuclear-armed Islamist power. VP Pence wasn't exactly a model of reason but by all accounts did mitigate and moderate some of the Donald's wilder ideas, looks like Vance will be an encourager and an enabler for them.

Rendel Harris wrote:

David9694 wrote:

I see we have a running mate now - brilliant.

Who proclaimed last week that since Labour won the election the UK is now the world's premier nuclear-armed Islamist power. VP Pence wasn't exactly a model of reason but by all accounts did mitigate and moderate some of the Donald's wilder ideas, looks like Vance will be an encourager and an enabler for them.

I read that Vance was rabidly opposed to Trump a couple of short years ago, said he was an American Hitler, that sort of thing. 

brooksby wrote:

I read that Vance was rabidly opposed to Trump a couple of short years ago, said he was an American Hitler, that sort of thing. 

Yep, also called Trump an "idiot", "reprehensible" and described himself as a "never Trumper".

Rendel Harris wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I read that Vance was rabidly opposed to Trump a couple of short years ago, said he was an American Hitler, that sort of thing. 

Yep, also called Trump an "idiot", "reprehensible" and described himself as a "never Trumper".

Why, it's almost as if Vance has no principles at all and will go wherever he can sniff the possibility of power…* 

*See also "Farage"

Free speech innit?  And surely smart and industrious people should benefit from their labours?  Or are you some kind of commie who wants to requisition all the stored nuts for the collective drey?  That will just drag everyone down down to a subsistence level while rewarding a small cadre of squirrels who devote their time to getting ahead in the committees and keeping everyone else fighting.

We know how that ends - increasingly cynical and apathetic squirrels, growing corruption, worsening leaders, until the system falls apart.  And then the capitalists will pick the bones clean anyway!

chrisonabike wrote:

Free speech innit?  And surely smart and industrious people should benefit from their labours?  Or are you some kind of commie who wants to requisition all the stored nuts for the collective drey?  That will just drag everyone down down to a subsistence level while rewarding a small cadre of squirrels who devote their time to getting ahead in the committees and keeping everyone else fighting.

We know how that ends - increasingly cynical and apathetic squirrels, growing corruption, worsening leaders, until the system falls apart.  And then the capitalists will pick the bones clean anyway!

Smart and industrious? Sounds like you're a believer in meritocracies, but I think we're in more of a hereditary aristocracy.

I pity the poor squirrels that have to hunt for acorns in trees that "belong" to the squirrel lords and pay their tithe of tasty treats over to them

With all that money, he could wipe out hunger/homelessness/diseases  buy a pair of KOM hubs

Anybody got one? -especially interested in the rear

ErnieC wrote:

that is what unfortunately happens with protests, they almost always turn violent. 

Really absolutely the opposite, there are thousands of protests every year in the UK and very few turn violent, and even when violence does occur it's usually on a small scale involving a tiny minority of protesters. It's a moot as to whether the current events should really even be described as protests, they are effectively groups of people whose intention from the outset is to riot, it's hardly a case of peaceful protest turning violent.

brooksby wrote:

It doesn't even have to be done as satire, which is the scary thing.

As far as I can see, you have a bunch of self-described patriots who demonstrate their patriotism by looting shops, burning buildings and throwing bricks at policemen.

Policemen who are probably about as right wing as the rioters in general. In the states they would just stand back and let the "protesters" storm the capital, but here in the UK they are a lot more professional and will actually defend the mosques etc, even if deep down they sympathise with some of the protestors concerns

David9694 wrote:

Not sure the recent Trump shooting incident is quite the clincher it's being played as  - like what new supporters does it bring? Sure, if you're already frothing this will play into your narrative. 

lets say there are 4 camps of voters

• Trump fanatics
• Republicans who dislike trump
• Democrats not keen on Biden
• Biden supporters

The attempt may push group 2 to be more likely to vote, which could swing the numbers

I think you've just taken something you don't like - riots - and blamed it on other things you don't like.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the other recent instances of violent disorder.

This article was in The Times today, it raises some interesting points about how our society reacts to violent disorder.

https://unherd.com/2024/08/how-britain-ignored-its-ethnic-conflict/

FWIW I think if you marginalise any group for long enough you'll get riots.

The white working class get a pretty terrible deal on just about any measurable metric. That leads to anger which is often, as in these recent riots, horribly misdirected.

David9694 wrote:

A Patriotic Curriculum in Primary and Secondary Schools

Any teaching about a period or example of British or European imperialism or slavery must be paired with the teaching of a non-European occurrence of the same to ensure balance. History and social science curriculum to be reviewed and audited regularly to ensure balance. Our children must be taught about their heritage.

I don't know where to begin to state just how much I disagree with every single point of those policies.

However, the screwing around with education is a classic fascists' trick. They claim that they want to "ensure balance", but will then ignore all non-white, non-male contributions to art, science, music, politics, philosophy etc.

Basically, they're just a bunch of nasty, racist, white supremacists.

Rich_cb wrote:

FWIW I think if you marginalise any group for long enough you'll get riots. The white working class get a pretty terrible deal on just about any measurable metric. That leads to anger which is often, as in these recent riots, horribly misdirected.

At least it wasn't statues this time, right?

I am not a sociologist and I'm sure this is a vast oversimplification ... but I suspect the white working class (especially white working class men) isn't actually at the bottom of the pile.

It often seems to be it's actually not those who really are at the bottom who get the most punchy. (Reasons easy to guess at).

"Disadvantage" is an inherently relative perception (because humans) unless you're an academic.  Of course "doing well relative to most of the world and indeed history" has almost no effect on people's feelings.  (Mind you - if we all were suddenly starving that might generate some action).

I think pretty much all human societies / systems are built around some inequality.  I suspect our current system (current strain of "businessism") has contributed to multiplying the distances between top and bottom.  At the same time as it has given many lower down a bit more power e.g. being able to look up incorrect news on the internet then drive to a riot...

Talking of that - is this a bit "hard-working-drivers" (to link the topic back to transport)?

Was thinking that every few years - going back in my memory - there seem to be sporadic riots over what to outside observers seems "not very much".  I was wondering about the correlation between unseasonal weather (especially heat) and the same?

What other recent instances of violent disorder are you thinking of? (Hoping to avoid the danger of getting into a "these ones are worse than that one" which is likely pointless).

Have a read of the link, nice discussion of recent disorder and the groups involved.

When you look at measurable metrics like healthcare, education, social mobility etc. the white working class and, in particular, white working class males really do come out amongst the least advantaged groups in the UK.

Globally it's obviously a different story but it's quite hard for most people in the UK to consider themselves part of the global elite, hardest of all for those who are far from top of the UK table.

We all know how are you love a graph or chart, so try this one from the government in 2020: white British people are the ethnicity least likely to live in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods apart from Chinese, Indian and white Irish/white other ethnicities. People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity are three times more likely to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods than white British. If people of Pakistani ethnicity were rioting and trying to burn down synagogues on the basis of an erroneous belief that a Jewish person had committed some awful crime, would you be so understanding of that as you appear to be of the current situation?

Neatly lumping all white people together.

When we are specifically discussing the white working class that sort of statistic is meaningless. Have a look at the statistics for deprived white educational attainment.

"Access to higher education: The proportion of White British pupils who were FSM-eligible starting higher education by the age of 19 in 2018/19 was 16%, the lowest of any ethnic group other than traveller of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Roma."

Interestingly the link I posted discussed rioting involving people of Pakistani heritage attacking people of different ethnic backgrounds. Have a read. Compare and contrast the coverage with that of the current rioting.

I don't approve of the riots btw. If we don't try and understand the underlying causes then preventing recurrence becomes significantly more difficult.

Oh really, Rich, you are a funny old sausage. Clearly in that metric it is going to be the white working class referred to - middle class people don't tend to live in the 10% most deprived areas, in my experience.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that you approve of the riots. What you are saying though is that they are understandable because if people are given a raw deal for a long time they get angry and will riot, I reject that as an explanation or excuse. The current rioting is specifically confined to a small minority of hate-filled racist far right thugs who are in no way representative of the wider white working class; anecdotally mates in Liverpool and Bristol have told me there are more white working class people out on the streets opposing the rioters (who have often come from outside the area) than there are joining in with them. One of the most heartening aspects of the whole sorry business was the way working class people in Southport came out the morning after the riots to help clean up and repair the mosque that was attacked. Saying oh it must be frustrated white working class males ignores the fact that many of these people are simply fascists seizing their opportunity. I should not be in the least surprised if many of them, like the travelling football hooligans of yore, turn out to have reasonable jobs and relatively comfortable lifestyles.

The point I was making was that you are looking at the percentage of white people overall who live in deprived areas. That is irrelevant. We are specifically looking at white working class people.

Overall, off the top of my head, there are about 45m white British people, so 4.5m live in deprived areas. There are about 1.5m of Pakistani heritage so about 500k live in deprived areas.

So overall white people make up a very large proportion of those in deprived areas and white people in deprived areas do worse than almost any other ethnic group in the same areas when you look at things like educational attainment, access to university etc.

Riots are obviously multifactorial but denying there are systemic factors at play is a bit naïve.

How did you feel about the Tottenham riots? Was that just violent thugs? Or were there multiple factors that drove it, including some completely legitimate longstanding grievances that had affected the local community?

Rich_cb wrote:

The point I was making was that you are looking at the percentage of white people overall who live in deprived areas. That is irrelevant. We are specifically looking at white working class people.

Oh lord. Straightforward question, how many white middle class people do you think live in the 10% most deprived areas of the country?

The Tottenham riots and the ensuing riots elsewhere were indeed driven by multiple factors, although certainly my experience living in an affected area (Peckham) was that the majority of participants were indeed violent thugs and the vast majority of the local black working-class population, who might well have had as you say, "some completely legitimate long-standing grievances", did not participate and were horrified at what happened. However, even if one set of riots might have been driven by social injustice does not mean that all riots are. If the current rioters were protesting about unfair treatment of the white working-class and the protests spilled over into violence, that would be one matter, these are people who are specifically targeting people of other ethnicities and trying to burn down their places of worship, set fire to hostels in which they are staying and so on. They are motivated by racial hatred and fascist ideology, not "legitimate long-standing grievances".

You've misunderstood my point Rendel. Again.

Your 10% statistic is irrelevant to the discussion about the difficulties faced by the white working class. All it tells us is that overall white people suffer lower levels of deprivation than other groups. It doesn't tell us anything about the experience of the white working class. It doesn't even tell us, directly, what percentage of people in deprived areas are white. It's likely to be a large percentage though based on those quick calculations before.

It's the thugs who attack people, places of worship, local businesses etc but they are opportunists. The riot is the opportunity. The cause of the riot is multifactorial and, often but not always, includes legitimate grievances.

Those grievances don't have to be mentioned specifically to be an underlying cause. The grievances are the kindling, the spark can be anything.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's the thugs who attack people, places of worship, local businesses etc but they are opportunists. The riot is the opportunity. The cause of the riot is multifactorial and, often but not always, includes legitimate grievances. Those grievances don't have to be mentioned specifically to be an underlying cause. The grievances are the kindling, the spark can be anything.

I think I get what you're saying (protests, sometimes get out of hand / have a "noisy minority" being a magnet for both local smash-and-grab enterainment types and more-or-less organised travelling bovver boys?) but some sounds a bit "no true Scotsman" - so if the riot is the opportunity the rioters ... aren't the thugs?

Agree "it's complicated" though.  (Again - anyone got plots of weather changes...?)

The media is currently chewing over the apparent novelty of "seems it's not as centrally organised as we'd expect these things".

However something which certainly isn't new is politicians, demagogues or simply those seeking power (or to build a business e.g. the "new misogynists") noting a group "lower down the hog" with grievances.  Then stoking those grievances - telling them that they don't even know how oppressed they are / the contempt others have for them.  Then comes "Are you going to step up and do something?"  Which rather often turns out to involve attacking those further down the pecking order.

I suppose it boils down to semantics, a protest turns violent, when does it become a riot?

There are definitions but they don't appear to be strictly adhered to.

I think a tipping point is probably reached when the police are deemed to have lost control and then the opportunists take their opportunity.

The lack of evident central planning does, in my opinion, hint that the underlying disillusion with the status quo is more widely shared than many seem willing to admit.

Rich_cb wrote:

The lack of evident central planning does, in my opinion, hint that the underlying disillusion with the status quo is more widely shared than many seem willing to admit.

Or is it just that the current online environment can be an incubator of more "extreme" opinion and excellent way of both spreading that and polarising people?

That seems to be one of the theories for e.g. the expansion of Islamic extremism?

As for "underlying disillusion" - have we any other metric for that (otherwise it's circular "well there were riots so...")?  In my estimation many folks I've known have been more or less dissilusioned from whenever, often more so when economics get more difficult.  Most of them tend to express that via disengaging from the "mainstream" or via non-violent protest, art etc.

I guess for this exercise I know the wrong people!

David9694 wrote:

"Tinderbox Britain" it says on the front of the Daily Mail today

Their new advertising campaign? After all, kindling seems about as good a use for it as anything.

David9694 wrote:

"Tinderbox Britain" it says on the front of the Daily Mail today;

Sounds like media imitating comics. "In their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand [...] Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Rich_cb wrote:

legitimate grievances

Legitimate grievances is an interesting one. For example Dawn was protesting in Southampton, is "definitely not a racist", but is upset because she "can’t even get a doctor’s appointment". Also something about honour and sovereignty.

Is that a legitimate grievance?