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 - 796 through 810 (of 891 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1016539
    0
    chrisonabike

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    I’m not aware of any 20th century democracies that committed Communist level atrocities against their own citizens?

    You’re right, of course, that democracies have still engaged in awful behaviour oth at home and abroad but that’s not a fundamental feature of a democracy, plenty of democracies don’t.

    All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

    Not wanting whataboutery – and I’m quite happy to remain under the devil I know – but I’m not sure a *lack* of violence is a fundamental feature of democracy either!

    I’d certainly agree that there are no shortage of explicit bloodthirsty (or showing indifference of interest in human suffering) quotes available from the likes of Lenin and Mao.

    I don’t see anything particular to stop any state getting heavy-handed when it feels insecure, or if you’re in the way of some powerful functionary. Just stop paying tax, or try to secede!

    We may just debate definitions again but to your first point – the Nazis emerged from democracy and democratically won the largest number of seats in the Parliament (before seizing power, not being democrats…). They notably killed a large chunk of their own population. Perhaps it might be fair to say that democracies are maybe not as stable as we might hope? (Rwanda being another notable example here – the killing happened after it had reverted to a dictatorship though)?

    South Africa – democracy (but only if you were white).

    The UK – orders of magnitude below a Soviet Union but large scale human rights abuses? Absolutely, just less locally or less directly. Hence why we’re now compensating eg. people now no longer “ours” in Kenya. (Perhaps we’ll be doing similar in Iraq / Afghanistan in the future? )

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-22800194

    #1016537
    0
    Rich_cb

    It’s not a binary choice
    It’s not a binary choice between far right and communism is it.

    We have to compare communism as a system to liberal democracy as a system.

    Communism as a system results in atrocities. Anyone who promotes or defends communism as an alternative to democracy must account for that.

    I’ve yet to see you do that.

    Communism has a far worse environmental track record than capitalism does. I dread to think what state the environment would be in had communism won the cold war.

    I believe that if we have to use fossil fuels we should choose the least harmful versions.

    We are nowhere near ready to run our society without fossil fuels so the least bad option is fossil fuels with the lowest carbon footprint.

    You want to continue using fossil fuels with carbon footprints 2-3 times higher than available alternatives and then portray my position as environmentally damaging. It’s laughable.

    #1016535
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible. The advantage of prehistory is that we don’t really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era. Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn’t a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

    How convenient – just ignore all the atrocities that are committed by far-right states and only see a problem with communism. Honestly, I’m bored with your whataboutism and continual justification and simping for the evil Tories, who delight in ensuring that only their mates benefit.

    You do realise that Capitalism is about to render huge swathes of our planet uninhabitable, right? As long as your Tory mates are making money, then I expect you’re okay with that, like you’re okay with them exploring for more oil to dig out of the ground.

    FFS.

    #1016533
    0
    pockstone

    Perfect example of…

    Perfect example of…’enabling significant privileged groups to think of themselves as the downtrodden underdog.’

    #1016529
    0
    Rich_cb

    The issue I have is that, at
    The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible.

    The advantage of prehistory is that we don’t really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era.

    Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn’t a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

    #1016531
    0
    Rich_cb

    Yep. They probably should
    Yep. They probably should have cut it further. It had only been at 50% for a few years anyway.

    A high tax rate does not always produce a high tax take.

    Income taxes have been cut much more for low earners than for high earners.

    #1016527
    0
    hawkinspeter
    Rendel Harris wrote:
    Rich_cb wrote:
    All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

    So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

    I think he’s trying to link communism and authoritarianism together. There’s certainly issues with trying to centralise control of resources and it’s a non-trivial problem – money is a very effective way to allocate resources. However, there’s major intrinsic problems with Capitalism – without strict governmental controls, you allow unrestricted growth of the robber-barons and their power increases exponentially at the expense of the people that actually do and create things. This is the modern curse of the billionaires that hoard wealth seemingly just to ensure that other people suffer. It’s inherent in Capitalism that the divide between the rich and poor will always get wider and unfortunately, wars are inevitable due to the amount of money involved and the profits that a small minority will make from people’s suffering.

    #1016521
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    That Communism is not a benign ideology.

    What specific part of the ideology do you have issues with?

    Whilst modern communism is relatively new (i.e. Marxism), the principles have been put into practise in many religious institutions such as monasteries for a long time. Certainly, prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were organised around collective ownership and they didn’t have parasitic landlords demanding rent for imaginary possessed land.

    #1016525
    0
    Hirsute

    The 45% that was reduced from

    The 45% that was reduced from 50% ?

    #1016523
    0
    brooksby

    It doesn’t matter who you

    It doesn’t matter who you vote for: the Government always gets in.

    #1016519
    0
    Rich_cb

    That Communism is not a
    That Communism is not a benign ideology.

    #1016517
    0
    Rich_cb

    National insurance isn’t the
    National insurance isn’t the only tax applied to income.

    Child allowance was removed for those earning above £50k so the effective tax rate for someone with children earning above that threshold went up significantly.

    Similar increases occurred at £100k due to the loss of personal allowance and the tax rate is 45% above £125k.

    #1016515
    0
    Cugel
    Rendel Harris wrote:
    Rich_cb wrote:
    All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

    So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

    No. ‘e don’t. Wot a surprise.

    How about Cuba, though? A one party state but often found by various independent and disinterested observers to have, for example, the best health service in the world, despite the economic punishments arranged for the Cubans by the USA and other kleptocracies frustrated in their previous efforts to exploit the bejasus out of that nearby isle.

    Gaw, even I have been successfully whatabouted!

    ************

    Perhaps Rich is actually rich, perhaps from renting or shareholding?  If so, one can understand his liking for the Toryspiv, who are great supporters of all kinds of exploitation of other humans for vast profits. There are all kinds of satanic mills these days!

    But perhaps not. Perhaps Rich is just another bog-standard member of the hoi-polloi like the rest of us. This makes his fannery of Toryspiv less easy to grasp but …. he may suffer from that seemingly installed-at-birth Bwitish meme from our greater memeplex of the Bwitish class system.

    Toryspiv – just a better class of people. ( See the pinstripe suit, pearls & twinset and certificate of empathy-removal from one public skool or another). And they are so successful, innit! Lookit their wads of bung, rent & bribe.

    #1016513
    0
    Hirsute

    You claimed tax threshold

    You claimed tax threshold reform yet those who earn well continued with the 2% rate. So helping the well off again, not the whole scale reform required.

    #1016511
    0
    Rendel Harris

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

    So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

Viewing 15 replies - 796 through 810 (of 891 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.