The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

Tom_77 wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

legitimate grievances

Legitimate grievances is an interesting one. For example Dawn was protesting in Southampton, is "definitely not a racist", but is upset because she "can’t even get a doctor’s appointment". Also something about honour and sovereignty.

Is that a legitimate grievance?

Hmm.  I wonder how Dawn from Southampton would explain why it takes weeks to get a non urgent appointment at the GP surgery in my village, where the non white population can be counted on your fingers and the non English-as-a-first-language population is basically nil (AFAICS).

Because the NHS is rather bigger than one village?

If resources are being used elsewhere then they are not available in your village.

If immigration is placing NHS resources under pressure then the ramifications will be felt even in areas without high levels of immigration.

It's a complex issue but one area with poor NHS service and low immigration isn't really good evidence, in isolation, for either argument.

It's because of all the immigrants coming in and bringing their families and putting pressure on the NHS, which they're working for ... er ... they're filling the care homes, by working there for minimal wages ... er ...

I think it would be great if the government could be open about numbers and costs / benefits.  But I think that's unlikely - while I believe it would show that immigration is still a massive net economic benefit there are some figures that none of our recent governments have been keen to emphasise:

 - some of the costs (asylum stuff) are large sums.  In practice small beer compared to all the other stuff we spend on but for "struggling local people" seeing money spent on "those who are not from here" can be a trigger.  (Bit like "they got rid of ten whole parking spaces for the new cycle lane!")

 - despite the convenient smokescreen trigger issue of "small boats" and "illegal migration" that is a tiny number compared to the legal migration that governments have encouraged for decades both for general economic benefits and simply to cover certain job shortages.

I think that there are some very difficult questions about our growing, ageing population, our increasing consumption, where we get the resources we want to consume (never mind that in the medium term term climate change may drive some massive population movements and other changes) etc.  About how our society is organised and what keeps it together - or how we manage tensions in a multi-ethnic society.

Of course sizeable immigration of people who "look different" / "speak different languages" / "have different religion and culture" is really not new in UK history.  It's why we speak English here! (Rather than something like Welsh or Gaelic, or who-knows-what before that).

See also migrants from the Indian subcontinent, Carribean, Irish immigration the whole time etc.  And large short-term flows aren't new - note the fairly rapid growth of e.g. Edinburgh's second language (now Polish).

David9694 wrote:

That's one of the things that puzzles me - do these people not go in anywhere like hotels, restaurants, care homes, hospitals, public transport??  Who the heck do they thin runs these things? I include my low immigration locality in this.  And that's leaving aside music and sport. 

I imagine the rejoinder for "can't get the staff" is it's in part the employers' unwillingness to provide what seem fair conditions, never mind attractive ones. And if as a youngster the jobs don't look cool you probably don't bother doing training for them.

Then, if the labour is imported that can depress the going rate for locals.

Not an economist so I'm sure it's more complicated (particularly as movement of labour tends to encounter barriers between states). And as you note we as locals also want cheaper / better services (who will do that work? ) etc.

Being unable to access public services would seem to be a legitimate grievance. Whether she is right in blaming that on immigration is another matter.

I read an analysis in The Telegraph which contained the quote "inexcusable but not inexplicable". I thought that was a rather apt way to describe a lot of recent episodes of social unrest.

Not really.

England's health service is in better shape than Wales'.

14 years of Conservative rule hasn't been as bad as the alternatives in Wales and Scotland.

Not everything is Brexit related.

Rich_cb wrote:

Have a read of the link, nice discussion of recent disorder and the groups involved. When you look at measurable metrics like healthcare, education, social mobility etc. the white working class and, in particular, white working class males really do come out amongst the least advantaged groups in the UK. Globally it's obviously a different story but it's quite hard for most people in the UK to consider themselves part of the global elite, hardest of all for those who are far from top of the UK table.

The link may be interesting (view from a child of immigrants) but didn't have things to say about the "white working class" per se?

Nor about (for just one example) the complexities of how sex differences affect how people are doing.  Women - where they work - still almost always earn less than men, and less overall (ONS overview 2023 here, general UK gov report 2024 here).  (With some interesting quirks - and noting that it's complicated because they still tend to take different kinds of work e.g. part-time as they still do the bulk of caring duties).

Not shocking to me though if men particularly - although genuinely not doing well - feel they have by far the worst of it.  Pretty sure that is nothing new under the sun, even allowing for recent trends (e.g. folks making political capital or indeed cash out of that online).

And yet ... AFAIK most "white working class men" (never mind "people") aren't rioting?

(This is a giant topic - essentially "the future" - so that'll do from me!)

I feel tempted to say "Welcome to the Reform Party and the UK's lurch towards fascism" but it's not my thread!

Can't decide whether Reform having a (tiny) foot in the door is fine (now in theory they can't claim to be "shut down by the powers that be" - of course this in fact won't stop them as Farage was decrying that for years while basking in more airtime than almost anyone)

... or concerning, as now they'll have more leverage to worry the socially conservative parties into even more conservative policies?  (I suspect rich_cb's prediction will prove correct - that there will be a Tory Timewarp - "It's just a lurch to the right, then a step to the left, take your head from your hands, and whip MPs in tight..."  Realising that if they moderate the "swivel-eyed loons" a bit (just the odd dog-whistle) they can be back in power once "events" get to the current government / populace grows restive again).

Yes; I think they will.

Remember that Mr Starmer was DPP from 2008-2013, which covered the previous viral riots.

Personally, I'm glad we've got him, not the previous collection of self-serving wazzocks.

Well ... pedantry but I suspect it's "lurch towards autocracy / demagogues / populism" (the latter two need further qualification probably)?

As people point out, the US has phases of more or less internal polarisation and strife, also inward-focus and internationalism.  The latter seeming to depend on whether they think the rest of the world needs help to live up to the example of the US, or all those others are hopeless / barbarians / just a drain on the energy of America.

And of course if your country somehow appears to be in the way an outward-looking US can cause you a similar amount of horror as e.g. Russia - with a similar lack of contrition.  (Pedants may say "but the methods and attitudes differ" - but looking at SE asia / Latin America / Iraq the results look rather similar ...)

From my tiny awareness of things it does at least seem Trump was much moderated from his early pronouncements / the chaos his distate for the system and general approach would otherwise have caused.  Or alternatively he changed his mind so often that many of the troubling things didn't actually happen...

David9694 wrote:

Not sure the recent Trump shooting incident is quite the clincher it's being played as  - like what new supporters does it bring? Sure, if you're already frothing this will play into your narrative. 

The conspiracy theories around it - from both sides - are all quite fun, but unfortunately it scared Jack Black and brought a premature end to the Tenacious D tour in Oz…  Lots of Aussie fans of the D disappointed there, I'd guess.

On Trump and the RNC, did anyone see this story:

Barrage of hate from far-right Trumpists to Sikh prayer at Republican convention

Toxic response to prayer from pro-Trump Harmeet Dhillon, leading figure on Republican national committee

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/republican-natio...

She's a Trump-supporting Sikh, very wealthy and high up in the GOP.  Asking her to make a prayer didn't go down too well with the RNC attendees:

Quote:

… the earliest response to Dhillon’s prayer came from white nationalist and antisemitic activist Nick Fuentes, who said of the prayer in his live stream of the convention’s first night: “This is blasphemy. This is total blasphemy. Oh, fuck off. What a joke.”

…

Fuentes’s acolytes followed suit. As the prayer was ending, an X account associated with the Fuentes-aligned “America First” website posted: “RNC promotes blasphemy and Sikh idolatry moments after Lutheran benediction.”

The far-right podcaster and internet personality Stew Peters took a similar line on X, posting: “Day 1 of the RNC was complete with satanic chants and multiple prayers to FALSE GODS.”

…

Lauren Witzke, meanwhile, posted video of a part of Dhillon’s speech with the caption, “How about you get deported instead, you pagan blasphemer,” adding: “God saves our president and the RNC mocks him with this witchcraft.”

Quote:

...a pdfile warlord...

...subjugating everyone with their army of savage ebooks.

mdavidford wrote:

Quote:

...a pdfile warlord...

...subjugating everyone with their army of savage ebooks.

Adobe-wallah?  Cleaning up people's laundry poorly-laid-out texts?

Most of those comments manage to be sad and funny at the same time. I particularly liked '' it's a faith that conquers and takes over land''. A bit like the christian crusades then. And I wonder how many people who say this is a christian country actually attend church?

lonpfrb wrote:

Whilst one may disagree with NF, there's no suggestion that freedom of speech is at risk in the UK

Well, unless it's your freedom to discuss gender issues or history through a racial lens in schools...

Are they like all those candidates who turned out to be standing as Conservatives without ever mentioning it on their campaign literature*?

*Except for small print saying that it was paid for by CCHQ

David9694 wrote:

fake Reform candidates

Were they actually bots?

David9694 wrote:

Also under 'huge if true" is the growing story of fake Reform candidates standing in some constituencies.  Easily cleared-up, of course. 

The one who's been highlighted on social media near where I live is easy to trace. Sometimes 'paper' candidates are shy, and sometimes parties don't promote them because they're embarassing. So the one near me can be traced, and when you look at their social media there's  not a lot of it, but some of it smells like TERF spirit -  Reform don't want anyone distracting from the cult of Nigel by geetting into debates, so the candidate is simply there to be the peg on which Nigel's persoanl vote can be hung.