[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

Topic

[wycombewheeler]

mdavidford wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

because you’re a feral youth

I don’t think anyone’s buying that I’m a youth.

no objection to being called feral though.

[chrisonabike]

I guess it’s hard to judge

I guess it’s hard to judge from looking at that avatar – OTOH I discover that 1985 was a long time ago now.

[mdavidford]

chrisonabike wrote:

because you’re a feral youth

I don’t think anyone’s buying that I’m a youth.

[chrisonabike]

Well just because you’re a

Well just because you’re a feral youth doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate a roast chicken & herby pea crush sarnie, or a nice tuna niçoise…

(Also – it’s amazing what you can afford if you’re shoplifting: there’s no need to be cheap).

[mdavidford]

I hate to break it to you,

I hate to break it to you, but I’ve been known to cycle to Waitrose and avail of their meal deal.

[Hirsute]

Well said The Daily Telegraph

Well said The Daily Telegraph! [?] Britain is close to ANARCHY. Bunty & I have shopped at Waitrose for years but the rise of Keir Starmer has led to worrying trends: -Meal Deals -Customers with tattoos -Shortages of fennel & Potato Dauphinoise. Vote Labour & this is your FUTURE!

 

 

Sir Michael Take CBE @MichaelTakeMP
The former Conservative MP for Dorset East.

[ktache]

Very much liking the toady

Very much liking the toady avatar.

[chrisonabike]

ROOTminus1 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Voting on strategies. Sounds like a referendum to me. Careful with those, occasionally people don’t vote the way you want them to.

I fully accept that some people will not vote the same as me, I just have unrealistic expectations that the subject of referenda should be at least vaguely defined BEFORE the vote.

We did …  but like the answer to life, the universe and everything* we only realised** after we had the answer that perhaps – for the medium term at least – the details would be at least as important as the principle.

* 42

** Lots of people did – particularly those campaigning for “leave”.  Only for some it turned out that “leave” didn’t mean “leave as much as I wanted” and many thought that when they read “yes – you will be better off” that applied to everyone, not just e.g. those moving their domicile to Monaco and/or part of their business abroad.

[ROOTminus1]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Voting on strategies.

Sounds like a referendum to me.

Careful with those, occasionally people don’t vote the way you want them to.

I fully accept that some people will not vote the same as me, I just have unrealistic expectations that the subject of referenda should be at least vaguely defined BEFORE the vote.

[Rendel Harris]

Steve K wrote:

A slight inconsistency to say that the coalition government wasn’t the will of the people because not all LD voters would have wanted it, and then call first past the post “ridiculous” given the alternatives would pretty much always mean coalition deals being done without a direct say for voters.

Not really, because in systems where coalitions are commonplace – Germany, for instance – parties will say as part of their manifestoes and/or campaigning with whom they would be prepared to go into coalition and with whom they would definitely not countenance going into coalition, so voters have a good idea of what they’re getting. I very much doubt there were many LibDem voters in 2010 who suspected they were voting for a party who would end up collaborating with the Conservatives, and I suspect a substantial number would not have given the LibDems their vote had Clegg indicated during the election campaign that he would be prepared to form a government with the Tories.

[Rich_cb]

Agree that vetting on all
Agree that vetting on all sides appears to be pretty weak.

I think pro-palestine is a convenient figleaf for a lot of antisemites. I also think that what politicians are willing to say publicly if often the tip of the iceberg. If those candidates are straying into antisemitism publicly then one wonders what is being said in private.

[Rich_cb]

It’s a tad naïve to believe
It’s a tad naïve to believe that the Greens have eliminated all the antisemites from their candidate lists.

It looks like the Green’s lurch to the left has coincided with a significant influx of antisemites. We haven’t seen that happen anywhere before have we…

If that candidate is attempting to alienate British Hindus I very much doubt it came with the blessing of, checks notes, Britain’s first Hindu Prime Minister.

[Steve K]

Rendel Harris wrote:

The will of the majority virtually never prevails: the last time more than 50% of voters chose one party in the UK was 1935 (you could say that the LibCon coalition of 2010, with over 50% of the vote between them, was “the will of the people” but that would make the erroneous supposition that all LD voters were happy with the decision to enter coalition with the Tories). Under our ridiculous and outdated parliamentary system, the will of the largest minority will prevail and the majority of the votes cast will essentially count for nothing. Not really democracy in action.

A slight inconsistency to say that the coalition government wasn’t the will of the people because not all LD voters would have wanted it, and then call first past the post “ridiculous” given the alternatives would pretty much always mean coalition deals being done without a direct say for voters.

[SimoninSpalding]

Trying to work out if this is

Trying to work out if this is irony

[chrisonabike]

[ Citation needed – On “keen

[ Citation needed – On “keen to attract that demographic”]

From skim-reading it seems more some candidates belief in “pro palestine” causes has toppled them over into anti-semitism (mind, the “comparing to Hitler” one though…).  Like the other parties they definitely could have been more proactive in checking people (because the media will as standard now) and then quicker to to say “this is not acceptable”.  Even better – do some education and explain exactly why this is out of order!

[Author]

Replies