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 - 601 through 615 (of 891 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1016929
    0
    Rich_cb

    Nice try Rendel.
    Nice try Rendel.

    Please point out where I said I was unwilling to accept the result?

    I’m not sure why you feel that I shouldn’t be allowed to criticise FPTP under a Labour government when you’ve never once objected to my criticism of it under Conservative governments?

    FPTP has just produced the least representative government in over a century, if now is not the time to discuss electoral reform then when is?

    #1016927
    0
    Rendel Harris

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    The most amusing thing is that the Labour government that’s just been elected is probably closer to me politically than it is to you.

    The most amusing thing for me is watching such a desperate and graceless display, almost Trumpian in its petulance, of sour grapes and unwillingness to accept the result. I guess we all find our amusement where we can.

    Still, we on the left can afford to be gracious now – have a drink on me old son.

    https://road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/Screenshot 2024-07-07 at 07.37.59.png

    #1016925
    0
    mdavidford
    David9694 wrote:
    There are a couple of other variants (Alternative vote, single Transferable Vote) that try to offer a bit of both, but apart from having been rejected in the referendum of 2011, it’s all a bit “add 5 and then divide by the number you originally thought of and then come back next week” complicated.

    It’s not really any more complicated than voting for Strictly, and the Great British Public™ seems to manage that OK.

    #1016923
    0
    mdavidford
    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.

    #1016921
    0
    David9694

    Refendum result = 52/48% of

    Refendum result = 52/48% of voters (NB leavers concentrated at the elderly end) trumpeted as the forever will of the people. Those were the rules of the game so out we came. I might mention the pack of lies Leave told to get us there, but hey. 

    Fair enough about the toddlers, although it’s their future at stake and they grow up so fast it won’t be that long before they are electors. I guess we’ll never know for sure on the “could have voted, but didn’t”, but it (i) further undermines the “will of the people” argument for a major long-term change and (ii)10 years on seems like a reasonable period for a refo re-run. 

    People can then go into it eyes open, in the knowledge and lived experience that leaving that leaving the EU has not benefited them in any way.  There will still be those who vote stay out because their lives are ruled by spite (see: 5 Reform constituencies). 

    Labour won 412 of 650 individual local contests – yet you want to claim this somehow isn’t legitimate because you say it wouldn’t have happened under a different set of rules you’ve come up with – change the rules after the game has been played? legitimate indeed.

    412 MPs is the only result that matters.  

    #1016919
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Unfair to the supporters of smaller parties. How many Green votes did it take to elect each MP? All votes should be equal in an ideal democracy. FPTP makes a mockery of that aspiration.

    I kind of agree with both you and Sriracha on this.

    I’m not a fan of FPTP, but I do think that the ideas/policies are more important than the implementers of those ideas.

    There’s also technical difficulties with trying to balance the “value” of votes which would lead to MPs being elected to areas that hadn’t voted for them i.e. balancing out the number of green votes to the number of MPs.

    Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

    #1016917
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Firstly, kudos for the quote. People do vote for a party based on the leader but that doesn’t change the way the system actually works. Whilst I think it is technically possible to have an unelected Prime Minister we haven’t had one in a rather long time.

    Arguably, we’ve only ever had unelected Prime Ministers though they were elected MPs.

    The major issue I had with the last couple of PMs was that the general public had no say in their promotions and there was no suggestion at the previous general election that they would be handed the keys of power. Well, that and their abysmal performances and general evilness.

    At least with Johnson, a lot of people voted with the belief that he would be a better choice for Prime Minister than Corbyn (not something that I agree with, but I don’t often hold popular opinions).

    #1016915
    0
    Rich_cb

    Firstly, kudos for the quote.
    Firstly, kudos for the quote.

    People do vote for a party based on the leader but that doesn’t change the way the system actually works.

    Whilst I think it is technically possible to have an unelected Prime Minister we haven’t had one in a rather long time.

    #1016913
    0
    Rich_cb

    Unfair to the supporters of
    Unfair to the supporters of smaller parties. How many Green votes did it take to elect each MP?

    All votes should be equal in an ideal democracy.

    FPTP makes a mockery of that aspiration.

    #1016911
    0
    Sriracha

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    I have repeatedly said that FPTP is unfair during Conservative governments.
    Unfair to who, the smaller parties? The system does not owe any duty of fairness to the employment prospects of MPs nor to their parties. Once the ideas espoused by smaller parties gain currency they will be taken up by larger parties. If that means the ideas succeed whilst their original political proponents don’t, so what?

    #1016907
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    We don’t elect Prime Ministers.

    You’re technically correct (the best kind of correct).

    People do vote for Prime Ministers and/or parties though.

    #1016909
    0
    Rich_cb

    You didn’t really answer my
    You didn’t really answer my question.

    What was Labour’s vote as a share of the population?

    There are certain posters on this forum who are sticklers for consistency.

    If you’ve spent a rather long time complaining that certain votes that actually achieved majorities shouldn’t be considered legitimate as there wasn’t 100% turnout and toddlers were disenfranchised I’d love to know how you square that circle with the ridiculously unrepresentative GE result?

    Was it legitimate? If so, why?

    #1016901
    0
    Rich_cb

    I have repeatedly said that
    I have repeatedly said that FPTP is unfair during Conservative governments.

    I voted to change FPTP during a Conservative led government.

    I’m now stating that FPTP is unfair during a Labour government and you’re accusing me of bias?

    I don’t really think you’ve got a point here Rendel, you’re just having a go for the sake of it.

    The most amusing thing is that the Labour government that’s just been elected is probably closer to me politically than it is to you.

    #1016905
    0
    Rich_cb

    We don’t elect Prime
    We don’t elect Prime Ministers.

    #1016903
    0
    Rich_cb

    It’s a turn of phrase in the
    It’s a turn of phrase in the UK not a technical definition as it is elsewhere.

    Thatcher’s majority, whilst still unrepresentative compared to PR, was a lot closer to being representative than the recent result. BBC have said it’s the widest margin in seats-votes in over a century.

    https://cdn.road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/Screenshot_20240706-181042~2.png

Viewing 15 replies - 601 through 615 (of 891 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.