The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #32683
    David9694

    I posted an earlier version of this a while back – inspired to do update following THAT discussion about all things ULEZ. 

    The “manifesto”, in terms of transport, only mentions stopping HS2, but there’s plenty on the usual right-wing obsessions: Brexit, immigration, veterans and climate change.  I had another look because I worry about the ongoing decline of the two main political parties. 

    If the Cons stay wedded to Brexit, then we will go into the next GE with all the widespread impoverishment Brexit has ushered in – not helped by Covid, Putin, etc. People generally vote according to their pockets.  I don’t get Labour’s current position on Europe either, but let’s see how that evolves, and even the Cons may also evolve, or even pivot, but time is already running out for them.

    Several roads now lead to the horrors of a further lurch to the right in this country.  Let’s hope Labour get the GE landslide the polls are predicting – but we’re still at least a year out from the real campaigning beginning. 

    A cycling angle? With the Reform Party and its ilk, Facebook Steve and Nextdoor Dave attain real political influence. It’s not spelt out in the manifesto, but you can see where this is probably heading and what it is likely to mean for cycling.  You can bet that this lot are very much “on the side of hard working drivers” etc. 

    As you all know, Dave’s going to “sort the traffic” and no doubt show them lazy planners how it’s done: Steve thinks the Council are corrupt, the police blinkered and is, if he can fit it in to his busy schedule he’s going to “teach them Lycra’s a thing or two.” It won’t concern him that his Mondeo is 3 months out of MoT or that Mrs Steve sometimes drives the kids in it uninsured. 

    As vulnerable road users, vulnerable people, we rely a great deal on the rule of law for protection. The rule of law means that we understand what the laws are, they are in general fair, and how they are applied and to whom is even-handed and consistent. 

    The fascist position is broadly the opposite – it’s all off-the-cuff to support today’s particular agenda – that’s why the Iain Duncan-Smith “happy to see ULEZ infra vandalised” comment is, as an example, so very worrying.  In the Conservatives, here is a party happy to send signals to enable the mob to attack RNLI stations, beat up immigrants, shout at teachers, doctors etc. 

    This right-wing stuff works by allowing/enabling significant privileged groups to to think of themselves as the downtrodden underdog and here is a way to fight back.  The pro Brexit campaign played on people’s ignorance, fears and prejudices exactly as this does. 

    It’s all about freedom, innit, less regulation, less tax burden, and damn the climate.  There’s more polar bears now, so it’s fine.  Let’s have open-cast coal mining, lithium mining and fracking. The section on climate change stumbles around like a Friday night drunk, trying to explain he wasn’t being racist to the barman – a denier position emerges, unsurprisingly.

    In places, the mask really slips: “We must keep divisive woke ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology out of the classroom.” – to be honest, I don’t even know what those two are.

    The standard enemies are put up – the civil service, the BBC.  Amid all the thrust and parry, there’s nothing  about making a better, more inclusive and cohesive world to live in; arts, sports and culture don’t feature in this barstool view of the world: a dullard’s grim vision.

    Don’t be a member of the wrong sort of minority would be my advice, should any of this come to pass. 
     

    https://www.reformparty.uk/reformisessential

Viewing 15 replies - 586 through 600 (of 891 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1016959
    0
    ktache

    But he was up against Lord

    But he was up against Lord Halifax, and it was him that couldn’t be prime minister because Halifax was the lord.

    #1016957
    0
    Rendel Harris
    ktache wrote:
    It’s possible, though unlikely. It’s unlikelyness that got Churchill the role.

    Churchill was a sitting MP when he became Prime Minister. The last PM to be appointed when not an MP was Alec Douglas-Home in 1964, but that was only for two weeks while he renounced his peerage and won a hastily-arranged by-election. The last PM to serve full terms when not an MP was the Marquess of Salisbury, whose last government was 1895-1902.

    #1016955
    0
    chrisonabike

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Super majority isn’t a technical term in UK politics and therefore is very unlikely to be misleading as the vast majority (super?) of the British public will be unaware of any potential technical implication.

    That’s right – the term “scarymajority” (cf “Labslide” / “Starmergeddon”) was about to be coined when someone pointed out that could sound like it was just something made up to worry people, hence the use of the technical-sounding but meaningless term…

    TBH apart from a couple of changes (privatise most of the railways rather than just the odd one when the operator fails, give up the “send (a tiny number of) ’em back where they came from – er, to Rwanda”) they are claiming to do much of what was being done before. If you liked the last lot… (Don’t know if you did care for the Westminster folk mind…)

    In fact what was notable for me was just how similar most of the manifestos seemed – but perhaps not surprising as we’re massively in debt, have a backlog of “issues” and recently seen mostly to have been reacting to events.

    #1016953
    0
    Rich_cb

    Didn’t know that.
    Didn’t know that.

    Every day’s a school day!

    #1016951
    0
    Rich_cb

    The bigger the majority, the
    The bigger the majority, the easier it is for the leadership to get their agenda through.

    I can’t think of a single post war government which didn’t struggle to govern with a small majority.

    Super majority isn’t a technical term in UK politics and therefore is very unlikely to be misleading as the vast majority (super?) of the British public will be unaware of any potential technical implication.

    A three figure majority is, on paper, no more potent than a single figure majority.

    In reality they are very different beasts.

    #1016949
    0
    Hirsute

    A turn of phrase deliberately
    A turn of phrase deliberately chosen in the campaign to mislead.
    As before once you get to a certain number of seats you can push your agenda through.

    #1016947
    0
    ktache

    It’s possible, though

    It’s possible, though unlikely. It’s unlikelyness that got Churchill the role.

    #1016945
    0
    hawkinspeter

    chrisonabike wrote:

    chrisonabike wrote:
    Hmm… perhaps the Evil Cycling Lobby should have issued its own: I pledge to: – be “all over the road” including “in the middle of the road” – appear out of nowhere – be garishly clad in hi-vis and lycra, while being invisible – go far too fast – slow everybody down – demand “space for cycling” in an entitled manner while simultaneously using the roads – which are for motor traffic – abolish road tax for cyclists

    I think we should get all drivers to curtsey whenever a cyclist goes past them.

    Also, cake should feature somewhere

    #1016943
    0
    chrisonabike

    Hmm… perhaps the Evil
    Hmm… perhaps the Evil Cycling Lobby should have issued its own:

    I pledge to:
    – be “all over the road” including “in the middle of the road”
    – appear out of nowhere
    – be garishly clad in hi-vis and lycra, while being invisible
    – go far too fast
    – slow everybody down
    – demand “space for cycling” in an entitled manner while simultaneously using the roads – which are for motor traffic
    – abolish road tax for cyclists

    #1016941
    0
    chrisonabike

    mark1a wrote:

    mark1a wrote:

    chrisonabike wrote:
    I note they didn’t bring back Blair’s pledge card!

    They kinda did… different pledges (they called them commitments), and there were six not five (one louder).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/16/labour-six-pledges-how-likely-success


    Nobody sent me one!

    #1016939
    0
    hawkinspeter
    mdavidford wrote:
    hawkinspeter wrote:
    Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

    Depends what you mean by ‘effective’. It allows governments to do more stuff, but that’s not necessarily a good thing, especially when it’s driven by dogma. Arguably, Parliament is often more effective when it’s doing less.

    I suppose it depends on whether they’re working for themselves and their mates or for the people and country.

    #1016937
    0
    mark1a
    chrisonabike wrote:
    I note they didn’t bring back Blair’s pledge card!

    They kinda did… different pledges (they called them commitments), and there were six not five (one louder).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/16/labour-six-pledges-how-likely-success

    #1016935
    0
    chrisonabike

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    The problem arises when policies are enacted that weren’t even mentioned in the manifestos.

    I understand that, but because “events” (or just the shifts of perceived public opinion) that happens all the time. “Stop the boats” would be one, from nothing to a major policy focus (and perhaps would have already been a done deal without the upper chamber saying “what you’ve got here is legally wild”). Wars and military operations another.

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Labour’s manifesto was notoriously light on detail this time round so nobody really knows what Starmer has in store. …

    Some truth there, although one could argue that the more parties have set specific numbers for things in the past the more fudge they’ve have to deploy later to justify they’d somehow “succeeded” (migration numbers are a good way to do that…)

    I note they didn’t bring back Blair’s pledge card!

    There are some specific commitments; however it’s far too light on the transport side for me.

    At some point some government will have to deal with the NHS model hot potato but not yet! Addressing how that ties in with social care is a first step but this is like an even bigger version of the “cars” issue. It’s a “problem of success” and it’s very hard to see people essentially voting for less, or to pay more…

    #1016933
    0
    Rich_cb

    I was referring to the
    I was referring to the possibility of having a prime minister who is not even an elected MP. We’ve seen it several times in recent years with other ministeries and, I believe, it is also possible with the Prime Minister.

    I would also agree that government stability is a key advantage of FPTP, although not, in my opinion, enough of an advantage to outweigh its failings.

    Wales uses a hybrid system of FPTP and PR which seems to work well and retains much of the advantage of each system whilst being a tad less intuitive than either.

    #1016931
    0
    Rich_cb

    Labour did indeed win under
    Labour did indeed win under the rules in place. As did Leave.

    You, and many others, have expended much time and energy attempting to undermine the validity of the referendum result and concentrating on vote share has been a frequent line of attack. Your pie chart earlier in the thread being a prime example.

    Applying those same criteria to Labour’s election victory would only be consistent.

    Personally I think 20 years is the right amount of time between significant referenda. There was about 18 years between the first and second devolution referenda in Wales and that produced a significant change in result so 20 years seems about right.

Viewing 15 replies - 586 through 600 (of 891 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.