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 - 616 through 630 (of 891 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1016899
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Sriracha wrote:

    Sriracha wrote:
    I think you’re right. Major parties have to look over their shoulder and steal the ideas of up and coming parties, and weave them into the compromise they present to the voters. Smaller parties complain that they never get any representation under FPTP, but as long as their ideas advance on their merits, regardless of who advances them, then democracy is served. The system exists not for the benefit of the parties, but for the electorate.

    I agree. Here in Bristol, a lot of us are voting Green not necessarily because we think that they’ll become our MP (congrats to Bristol Centre voters though for achieving just that), but in order to send a message to whoever is in power. I prefer voting for ideas/policies rather than personalities.

    #1016897
    0
    Sriracha

    I think you’re right. Major
    I think you’re right. Major parties have to look over their shoulder and steal the ideas of up and coming parties, and weave them into the compromise they present to the voters.

    Smaller parties complain that they never get any representation under FPTP, but as long as their ideas advance on their merits, regardless of who advances them, then democracy is served. The system exists not for the benefit of the parties, but for the electorate.

    #1016895
    0
    Sriracha

    Government is inevitably the
    Government is inevitably the art of compromise between competing interests and factions. We can’t all get everything we want.

    FPTP tends to push the voters themselves into deliberating upon those compromises, and in return obliges the parties to appeal to a broad church.

    PR tends to allow parties to prosper on much narrower single issues, which leaves the compromises to be worked out far away from the voters, by horse trading between coalition partners and King makers behind the scenes, exacting a price that few voters voted for.

    In this election we saw another aspect of FPTP – the ability to vote a government out. That’s very hard in PR – there is a tendency for the new government to be just a rearrangement of the old pieces. Whereas under our system, constituency by constituency the winner seems to have often been whichever party was best placed to unseat a Tory incumbent. The country got what it wanted – Tories Out – and achieved this success despite only limited agreement over who should replace them.

    #1016893
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Sriracha wrote:

    Sriracha wrote:
    hawkinspeter wrote:
    It’s a darn sight better than having two unelected prime ministers that weren’t even mentioned in the manifestos…
    You seem to be confusing ours for a presidential system. The only people who voted for Starmer were the good people of Holborn and St Pancras

    In a general election, a lot of people vote for the party that they want in power rather than just specifically for their local MP, although the ballot sheet does only list MPs.

    #1016891
    0
    David9694

    Gonna repeat myself here –

    Gonna repeat myself here – FPTP is the system we use – that is 650 individual contests for each constituency to decide its local MP.  Those 650 individual results give rise to party political groupings in Parliament.

    If you are adding up all the “lost” votes cast for 2nd / 3rd place / unsuccessful candidates, then you are substituting the results given by the system we use for a completely different set. You try to pass this off as insignificant, but it isn’t. 

    Under the purest form of PR, the Party List* system, the choice of local representative aspect is largely lost.  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.  In the mis-trust put about by the Reforms of this world (“take a ball pen”) there is something to be said for a simple, relatively easy to follow system. 

    I get that FPTP is brutal on most small parties – it usually only helps geographic / nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland, not that either has done especially well this time.

    I get that FPTP can do strange things when more than 3 serious candidates stand; I highlighted the example of Wellingborough & Rushden elsewhere in this thread.  That point takes me all the way back to the main premise of this thread – disillusioned people kicked the cat by voting Leave, and now they’re even more disillusioned and are lurching towards the chancers of the Reform party. 
     

    * Party List – let’s say for simplicity that there are 6,500,000 votes cast in total. Every 10,000 votes your party gets earns you a seat.  I guess you devise a way of saying where each party was most prevalent, perhaps using the old constituency boundaries, and the party allocates local representatives according to its judgement. 
     

     

     

    #1016889
    0
    Rendel Harris

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    I have consistently been opposed to FPTP, that hasn’t changed with previous Conservatives majorities.

    I’ll take your word for that, but the fact remains that you didn’t whine that the majorities achieved by the Tories in 2015, 2017 or 2019 were unfair, indeed you rather celebrated and crowed about them, but all of a sudden Labour wins under the same rules and the system’s sooo wrong. Enjoy the next five years chap x

    #1016887
    0
    Sriracha

    hawkinspeter wrote:

    hawkinspeter wrote:
    It’s a darn sight better than having two unelected prime ministers that weren’t even mentioned in the manifestos…
    You seem to be confusing ours for a presidential system. The only people who voted for Starmer were the good people of Holborn and St Pancras

    #1016885
    0
    Hirsute

    Just like thatcher then.
    Just like thatcher then.

    #1016883
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    The problem arises when policies are enacted that weren’t even mentioned in the manifestos. Labour’s manifesto was notoriously light on detail this time round so nobody really knows what Starmer has in store. I’m secretly hopeful for significant NHS reform but given Labour’s position on private education I don’t think I’m going to get anything that I might actually be able to support. Time will tell though.

    It’s a darn sight better than having two unelected prime ministers that weren’t even mentioned in the manifestos…

    #1016881
    0
    Hirsute

    No such thing as a super
    No such thing as a super majority in UK parliament.
    Thatcher got 144 seat majority in 83 with 42.4 % with a turn out of 72.7 %.
    Once you get a certain number of seats you can pretty much push through anything.

    I’m more concerned about the turnout this week – only 60%. No one can claim a mandate on that level. It would be interesting to see some demographics in the voting.

    #1016879
    0
    Rich_cb

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

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

    I’m secretly hopeful for significant NHS reform but given Labour’s position on private education I don’t think I’m going to get anything that I might actually be able to support.

    Time will tell though.

    #1016877
    0
    chrisonabike

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Large majorities usually means the cabinet can impose policies despite opposition from their own party, the larger the majority the more ‘by decree’ it becomes.

    Well … yeah? The thing is we vote for a candidate but in practice for a party’s policies (at best…) Lack of PR can be an issue here – but your representative is still not going to set their own policy agenda (unless your MP is the PM).

    If you (mostly) like the policies then I imagine you’ll favour a government which can enact them – rather than one that eg. could only “get Brexit done” in principle. If you don’t, you’ll probably be worried about “rule by decree”.

    The tricky thing is that where more “politics” is needed (eg. coalitions) this can look like exactly the “back room deals” and “lack of accountability” that people may be concerned about. I think the Bute House agreements were good on balance due to the active travel / environmental portions mainly. Others clearly feel this was terrible because they might not have been enthusiastic about those but the gender parts were beyond the pale – they “certainly didn’t vote for that”!

    #1016875
    0
    Rich_cb

    I can’t think of any small
    I can’t think of any small minorities in recent memory that have behaved in that way!

    You will get factions in a large majority but they can mostly be ignored, see Corbyn et al under Blair/Brown. They repeatedly defied the whip and created mischief but the cabinet just ploughed on regardless.

    #1016873
    0
    mdavidford

    That works in theory, but not

    That works in theory, but not always in practice. Often, having a fragile majority can encourage even critical backbenchers to be more compliant, for fear of the potential danger of causing trouble, whereas those with large majorities can end up getting distracted by trying to manage their diverse and fractious coalitions.

    #1016871
    0
    Rich_cb

    Small majorities mean that
    Small majorities mean that you need consensus in your own party/group. When that isn’t achievable, see Theresa May & John Major, the cabinet are limited as to the policies they can introduce.

    The same holds true for a formal coalition, see Cameron/Clegg.

    Large majorities usually means the cabinet can impose policies despite opposition from their own party, the larger the majority the more ‘by decree’ it becomes.

Viewing 15 replies - 616 through 630 (of 891 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.