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 - 106 through 120 (of 891 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1156495
    0
    David9694

    The patriotism / national

    The patriotism / national pride fig leaf for lamp post flags has well and truly shrivelled-up and dropped-off:

    Faversham Against Racism campaigners organise plans to de-flag town while anti-immigration demo occurs in Canterbury

    Harry Hilden, who helped organise the flying of the flags in Faversham and the recent protest, took to Facebook to criticise the planned “clean-up”.

    “Do you know what those flags represent? That this is England, we are not letting our culture get erased and we are not becoming a minority in our own country,” he said in a video posted to the site.

    “There are many, many more of us than you,” he continued.

    “Try to take down our flags and other towns are going to get together and put them all back up, in this town and flag the s**t out of it and put them all back up.”

    https://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/plan-to-de-flag-town-while-protest-takes-place-in-city-330050/

    Police called as argument breaks out over lamppost flags

    He claimed that a woman, who had expressed her disagreement with the flags being put up, said she had been followed and that two people attempted to put flags up outside her home.

    Tom Conway has strongly refuted this claim, saying they had already planned to put flags up in the area, prior to encountering the woman.

    “We were putting flags in that street because someone in the street requested them and put a donation towards it,” he said.

    In a video that has been widely circulated on social media, a woman is seen attempting to block a lamppost.

    A man is also seen repeatedly trying to lean a ladder against the lamppost to put a flag up. On two occasions, the woman pushes the ladder onto the ground.

    “The lady in question had come onto the estate and said we don’t want the flags here, which she’s entitled to do,” Cllr Mace said.

    “If it is about love and unity, they can move on and put the flags elsewhere.”

    https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/25476998.police-called-argument-breaks-lamppost-flags/

    #1156493
    0
    David9694

    StevenCrook wrote:

    StevenCrook wrote:
    No, it’s a target marker for the massive orbital space laser they’re going to use to vapourise people who drive over the white dot.

    that explains all the car fires/ EV fires  

    #1156491
    0
    mdavidford
    David9694 wrote:
    Hirsute wrote:

    shouldn’t it be a no 7 – right winger? 

    And in black? 

    #1156489
    0
    David9694
    Hirsute wrote:

    shouldn’t it be a no 7 – right winger? 

    #1156487
    0
    StevenCrook

    No, it’s a target marker for
    No, it’s a target marker for the massive orbital space laser they’re going to use to vapourise people who drive over the white dot.

    #1156485
    0
    Hirsute

    Brain wash ’em young

    Brain wash ’em young

    https://www.localauthority.news/p/farage-football-shirt-offered-as

    #1156481
    0
    chrisonabike

    Well Reform (the leaders)
    Well Reform (the leaders) clearly think that we should be much more like the US. “Winners”, you see. People of faith – and positive mental attitude.
    And in the US immigrants are (apparently) very happy to deploy Old Glory themselves, as of course are the locals.

    Aspirational immigration. You’re happy to work 14 hour shifts in the kitchens because it’s the country where you can make it – if you work!

    That’s the dream the place has always sold anyway. And apparently the poor don’t despise the billionaires – they admire them and aspire to be likewise.

    David9694 wrote:
    who the heck do you think is filling the train with water so the toilets flush, emptying the station bins and serving in the Starbucks?

    Ah – but they (again higher up the party) would say that they’re perfectly happy with the *legal* ones…

    And in fact people doing low-grade service jobs do become invisible – we may have few direct interactions with them and we very quickly forget many of those.

    #1156479
    0
    David9694

    A real cop-out from the

    A real cop-out from the leader of Hampshire CC here.

    Hampshire council leader says ‘if flags are safe, they stay’

    https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/25472856.hampshire-council-leader-says-if-flags-safe-stay/?ref=cprfa

    So it’s virtually free rein for the racists who put these things up as a way to claim territory.  

    There’s plenty of comments excusing it as a sort of patriotism or national pride, which we all know it is not – it’s claiming territory and saying as much to minorities.  

    I read one guy who was, and I don’t blame him for trying, putting a brave face on it and saying he felt secure in his own Britishness and his contribution, so was OK with it.  But it moves along in stages – once people feel emboldened to do this passive stuff, what comes next what else are we going to excuse as banter, high spirits?  You’re allowed to threaten someone as long as it’s all done in good humour, you’re allowed to strike them so long as you don’t draw blood? 

    I hope it is just an unfortunate fad that will pass. 

    They say that  if someone has arrived at a position, i.e hate, not through reason then no amount of reason will ever move them from it, so I guess there’s not much point in my saying “here’s 10 reasons why you shouldn’t hate people who’ve done nothing to you”. 

    But here goes anyway: I’ve been on my travels in the last few days and encountered in another part of the country a whole load of flags on lamp posts – there’s no doubt in my mind about the impact of this when you see it for the first time. We haven’t had much of it around my way, you see.  My related point, about the contribution aspect, which I only make it because it’s visible to anyone who looks is who the heck do you think is filling the train with water so the toilets flush, emptying the station bins and serving in the Starbucks? 

    #1156397
    0
    chrisonabike

    the little onion wrote:

    the little onion wrote:

    Well, that’s the point. You can publically debate all you like, and that does work to some extent. You can criticise the free speech hypocrisy, but that doesn’t work (Daily Mail “Enemy of the People” type stuff!). But as we know, Trump etc are breaking the law faster and further than the law can catch up with them, and then they seek to ignore or change the law. Which is – and I genuinely don’t think the comparison is exaggerated – is what happened in 1930s Europe. 


    Well I think we maybe agree more – but the issue (extremely simplified) would be *how* to combat the proto-autocrats without becoming them (by behaving likewise), just under a different banner?

    I bet few folks in the UK (myself included) had heard of Mr. Kirk previously. That’s not the case now.

    Also: just seen there are a lot of folks who need convincing but who are prepared to march with a chap who’s still happy using his fists with multiple previous (not to continue the 1930s parallel too much though…)

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydezxl0xlo

    #1156391
    0
    the little onion

    chrisonabike wrote:

    chrisonabike wrote:
    But as noted this chap did in fact go and speak with people – that’s what seems to have distinguished him from other pundits. Isn’t that part of the appeal for people – direct connection? The question is how you deal effectively with those who you feel are leading us down the path away from polite debate into the realms of no debate allowed – especially if they aren’t actually stepping beyond the current law? And of course those you (rightly) criticise also claim they’re defending free speech! They’ve very vocal about it! Isn’t one of the claims exactly that *they* (often rather wealthy men it seems) and their followers are somehow being excluded because they don’t have the current “right viewpoint”? “Just ignore them” doesn’t seem to have worked. Going down to their level (or beyond) will probably see you beaten by those with much more practice in the game. And of course that changes the game. (Now harassing your opponent is standard). ( I agree that Trump and Co of course have gone beyond the law as well).

     

    Well, that’s the point. You can publically debate all you like, and that does work to some extent. You can criticise the free speech hypocrisy, but that doesn’t work (Daily Mail “Enemy of the People” type stuff!). But as we know, Trump etc are breaking the law faster and further than the law can catch up with them, and then they seek to ignore or change the law. Which is – and I genuinely don’t think the comparison is exaggerated – is what happened in 1930s Europe. 

     

    Of course, the Fascists didn’t come into power promising death camps and dictatorships. They came promising to restore national pride, defeat the enemy within, to restore order to institutions, that they as emodiment of the will of the people could ignore all of the niceties of the law.

    #1156389
    0
    ktache

    But, it’s DEFINITELY not

    But, it’s DEFINITELY not about guns…

    #1156387
    0
    chrisonabike

    But the question is how you
    But as noted this chap did in fact go and speak with people – that’s what seems to have distinguished him from other pundits. Isn’t that part of the appeal for people – direct connection?

    The question is how you deal effectively with those who you feel are leading us down the path away from polite debate into the realms of no debate allowed – especially if they aren’t actually stepping beyond the current law?

    And of course those you (rightly) criticise also claim they’re defending free speech! They’ve very vocal about it! Isn’t one of the claims exactly that *they* (often rather wealthy men it seems) and their followers are somehow being excluded because they don’t have the current “right viewpoint”?

    “Just ignore them” doesn’t seem to have worked. Going down to their level (or beyond) will probably see you beaten by those with much more practice in the game. And of course that changes the game. (Now harassing your opponent is standard).

    ( I agree that Trump and Co of course have gone beyond the law as well).

    #1156385
    0
    the little onion

    I’m up for a good old polite

    I’m up for a good old polite public debate.

     

    My point is that the idea that Charlie Kirk was about good old polite public debate is simply not true. He encouraged his followers to identify and intimidate academics whose research or views was considered un-American. He did not believe that women should have the same freedom as speech as their husbands. His UK spinoff – Turning Point UK – similarly maintains an “Education Watch” of supposedly dodgy professors who should be identified and intimidated. It’s up there with Reform’s ideas about a “patriotic curriculum”, where educators without the right viewpoints get intimidated or excluded.

    #1156383
    0
    chrisonabike

    I don’t believe I would have
    I don’t believe I would have enjoyed listening to the chap or approve of his actions.

    But what would be your approved type of free speech and your method for maintaining it?

    You’ve said you aren’t – so I’m sure you’re not suggesting that the counter to those who you deem a threat to that (for freedom! For justice! For a safer place for all! ) is violence?

    EDIT – it does concern me just how completely Farage seems to want to import the US MAGA- style – or rather that it seems to be popular over here and not just among a handful of loons.

    #1156381
    0
    the little onion

    He was NOT engaging with

    He was NOT engaging with people. You don’t get to run a website called Professor Watch List, aiming to intimidate academics and their academic freedom, and claim you are free speech. You don’t get to say that women should be subservient to their husbands, and say their husbands should decide their political ideas, and claim you are free speech. You don’t get to suggest crowdfunding for bail for someone who tried to assassinate Nancy Pelosi and claim free speech. Those things are anti free speech.

Viewing 15 replies - 106 through 120 (of 891 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.