Farage as PM? Could a Trump-style takeover happen in UK?

[RailWonderer]

The single biggest systemic reform I'd argue for is Proportional Representation: this whole "they're all the same" argument stems for two large parties chasing a handful of swing voters to the detriment of everyone else. With PR the pool of target voters widens significantly, which coupled with more parties standing a chance of representation, allows more variety of offerings and new ideas to come forward. Then the need to collaborate to govern reduces the effectiveness of divide and rule politics, which improves both politics and society. For this reason, I'm part of a grassroots campaign for electoral reform and have done campaign speeches to clubs promoting it as a result, so practise what I preach about the need to fight for something. There are a bunch of other reforms to the system needed, but these are far more likely to succeed under a PR system.

I would support this.

Do you know someone who went through this? How many kids/teens do you know/work with?

I can assure you the young person I know would completely reject your assessment, and having worked with many young people over the years, your claims aren't consistent with the reality that I've encountered.

Just new stories where kids were interviewed regretting their hormone therapy. Kids should be protected from these ideas and while I'd be interested to hear your side I think giving them time is the best solution, given the long term consequences.

 

[Sorcerer]

We are very early on in the parliament and anyone prolific jumping on this is doing so for their own benefit/clickbait. If we were in the final year of the parliament, and/or the government had a slim majority or was in a hung parliament, then yes current polling would matter much more.

While we are early on in the Parliament I don't believe this is a reason to get complacent over polling, especially not when Labour's victory last year was on the back of wide but shallow support. We don't need Britain to be turned into a utopia before 2029, and nobody reasonable expects that, but if they can't deliver results soon so that people genuinely believe the country is heading in a positive direction, that narrow gap in the polls won't widen.

Whether or not Singapore is a well-run country, it is also a microstate. What they do there, whether good or bad, is not necessarily deliverable in a larger country, especially one that is a union of multiple states/countries like the UK or US.

I won't argue that Singapore's success is replicable in the UK, my argument was simply that it's success as a nation is why I don't believe it constitutes a hellhole, and that there are some things about it which make it a more preferable place to live for some people.

The problem is the same populace who are dissatisfied are also very apathetic. They just allow the status quo to continue and hope something better turns up. The reality is the whole system is the problem and nothing good will turn up under a broken system. If you want to change, you have to fight for it long and hard independent of any political party.

The everyday person does not have time to go out and fight for change beyond voting every few years. If you wake up at 7/8am every weekday, go to work from 9-5 before getting home before cooking your dinner before or after you tend to a few daily household tasks, you will want to make the most of the precious hours of free time that you get. Apathy towards politics is completely natural in these circumstances.

The single biggest systemic reform I'd argue for is Proportional Representation: this whole "they're all the same" argument stems for two large parties chasing a handful of swing voters to the detriment of everyone else. With PR the pool of target voters widens significantly, which coupled with more parties standing a chance of representation, allows more variety of offerings and new ideas to come forward. Then the need to collaborate to govern reduces the effectiveness of divide and rule politics, which improves both politics and society. For this reason, I'm part of a grassroots campaign for electoral reform and have done campaign speeches to clubs promoting it as a result, so practise what I preach about the need to fight for something. There are a bunch of other reforms to the system needed, but these are far more likely to succeed under a PR system.

Honestly, more power to you fighting for what you believe in, and as someone who would like to see an implementation of PR in this country I wish you the best in achieving it. But at present Labour's priorities are elsewhere, so if not this Parliament then it will definitely be in their interest to implement in the next one. It might arguably the best thing to come of Reform's increasing influence given their shared goal of implementing proportional representation.

 

[yorkie]

I would support this.

Just new stories where kids were interviewed regretting their hormone therapy. Kids should be protected from these ideas and while I'd be interested to hear your side I think giving them time is the best solution, given the long term consequences.

Ah, I see the problem. I'm arguing from the point of view of actually knowing real people, but you're arguing from the point of view of having read stories (which I note you've not linked to, or quoted from).

 

[Leyland Bus]

We’re down a bit of a tangent here but unisex are different because as long as there is an alternative nearby of safe space availability that’s fine, but when you allow all men into women’s toilets just because they identify with being a woman it’s inviting all sorts of trouble.

You seem (as do others of Reform intention) rather fixated on "men in women's toilets" being a huge issue... what about rape in general, which is, sadly, much more prolific... Doesn't that deserve much more of anyone's time?

I know someone who has transitioned from female to male and let me tell you, doing so was absolute hell for them. You make it out like it's done on a whim (and perhaps for a tiny minority it is?), they're just playing at it. Well that isn't the case. The hoops they have to jump through, the mental trauma of being stigmatised by people like you, nevermind the physical elements they go through, it's not taken lightly. Thankfully, they are now at one with themselves, happy that they are now who they always knew they were... Why you think you should concern yourself so much with other people's (strangers!!!) lives is beyond me. If that's what they want, leave them be.

 

[The_Train]

I could easily see this happening, and not just in the UK, but across Europe as well. I think the next decade could be a very dark time, especially for minority groups. I've only commented in the last 24 hours how Instagram has become another social media app that is now churning out more and more right wing guff, especially via the Reels part of the app. No matter how much blocking I do, no matter how much liking I do of things that actually interest me, I continue to be exposed to far right material, with a lot of it being misinformation. When I first joined Instagram, my Reels was all about trains, football and comedy type videos because that is what I interacted with and the algorithm picked up on this to keep my feed full of this. Funny how now Zuckerberg has sold his soul to Trump, the right wing guff is increasing daily.

You might be thinking "what the hell is he rambling on about here". Well, this is precisely why I believe that Europe is about to see a right wing takeover - because of the power of social media and the fact it has been taken over by the right which means those who are told they are hard done by sink deeper into their echo chambers and become even easier to manipulate into believing all of the misinformation that exists out there at the moment. I agree with the sentiment that the democrats didn't help themselves, but the reality is that once Musk got his hands on Twitter, whoever he backed in an election was destined to win because they have made enough people believe that immigrants, trans people & basically anyone who doesn't fit the narrative and ideology of the "average" white person is the enemy. I mean, we are only on page 1 of this discussion and we've already seen comments about toilets and changing rooms - changing rooms in shops always makes me laugh when the right are crying about that as I don't think I have ever been in any shop where the changing rooms are segregated by gender. Everyone has always just used the same changing area in shops but of course, because the right are now claiming that trans people are waiting in there to molest women.

I genuinely fear for minority groups moving forward. As a gay man, it's safe to say we have seen so much improvement over the last few decades, but it definitely feels like things have taken some strong steps backwards recently and will continue to do so. I'm single and plan to stay that way and one of the reasons for that is because I would never feel safe doing regular things, like going out for a night out somewhere or for a meal.

but when you allow all men into women’s toilets just because they identify with being a woman it’s inviting all sorts of trouble.

We are not talking about allowing men into women's toilets, we are talking about allowing trans women into women's toilets, most of whom will probably have an attraction to men anyway and so wouldn't be interested in what others are doing in the toilets. And this leads me to a question I've asked many times on social media in this debate and have yet to receive an answer........
What about gay men using male toilets and changing rooms or lesbian women using female toilets and changing rooms?

 

[dcbwhaley]

. Building new prisons and offshore detention centres will serve as a deterrant. Deterrance and zero tolerance is the only way forward.

Prisons are not a detterent. If they were there wouldn't be so many prisoners.
making offender's work off their debt to society would make more sense.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2025 ==

pert time work for retired people,

I don't know your age but try getting paid work when you are over seventy

 

[Purple Train]

The current government has a lot of work to do, much of which isn't desperately flashy and can't really be dressed up in marketing speak. Easy answers are not going to help the UK out of the crisis it's in. Unfortunately easy answers are the will of the people.

Some of it totally defies logic, rationality, or the capability of both to understand actions devoid of them. How on earth have immensely privileged men like Farage, Musk, and Trump managed to convince so many people who feel spurned by mythical grey-suits in ivory towers that they are common man, the ordinary, shining knights on eagles' wings to give "the country" (what country? Discuss) "back" [sic] to them? Farage, alone of them, is blessed with a silver tongue: Trump is a cross between Zaphod Beeblebrox's solipsism and a Vogon's oratory, and as for Musk, a friend of mine summed him up best: "Honestly, the fact that he smokes weed is the best thing about him." Between the latter two, there is just about enough capacity to run a bath. But not a country. Yet that's exactly what they're running [sic again].

The fact that one middle-aged, middle-class middle-Englander can cut a swathe through British politics with nothing more than a flat cap and Barbour wellies is quite astounding. If wellies give you armour of political Kevlar, maybe someone needs to tap Starmer on the shoulder. I'm not sure the flat cap would suit him. Social media has provided a double whammy: the village idiot has a platform, means of accessing other village idiots; the pub bores have united in their respective corner tables, while wealthy vested interests pull the strings. The left plays too nice for a post-truth world.

Or does it? Where's the final piece of the puzzle? Why is this political saviour a product of the far right, rather than the far left, perhaps a more traditional figurehead for many of the communities so enamoured with these unsavoury characters? It's because the left-wing political scene doesn't play too nice - it is obsessed with its own internal battles, a constant, confusing mish-mash of a bear fight, where some irreversibly contradictory utopia is the enemy of this broken world, as opposed to the work of Trump et. al. to drive such a vast, yawning chasm through the world that its heart bleeds slowly out of it. It is one constant parade of "I'm more liberal than you", thumbs in ears, waggling fingers, thumbed noses, tongues stuck out, all the playground gestures you can think of. It is so caught up in this equally baffling contradiction of the perfection of its worldview and the baseness of anyone who disagrees with each individual take on this worldview, occasionally squealing some desperate rebuttal of far-right theories and debating tactics, but its dichotomous view of morals and ethics - I'm good, you're evil - providing the perfect excuse for screams of victimisation from those who preach the politics of it. Where is the pragmatic left? Where is the tolerant left? Where, dare I say it, is the truly liberal left?

Liberalism is dead. Intolerance has won. Debate is dead. Insults have won. The fundamentals of left-wing philosophy are dying. The fundamentals of hate are ascendant.

Politics is capitalism - it is a game to be played. It is not who can confront the hardest truths, but who can tell the cleverest lies. Individual thought, individual strength, individual power, individual philosophy is not what's going to reclaim it. But it also happens to be the bedrock of Western civilisation.

How to square that circle is a question for greater minds than I.

 

[brad465]

The current government has a lot of work to do, much of which isn't desperately flashy and can't really be dressed up in marketing speak. Easy answers are not going to help the UK out of the crisis it's in. Unfortunately easy answers are the will of the people.

Some of it totally defies logic, rationality, or the capability of both to understand actions devoid of them. How on earth have immensely privileged men like Farage, Musk, and Trump managed to convince so many people who feel spurned by mythical grey-suits in ivory towers that they are common man, the ordinary, shining knights on eagles' wings to give "the country" (what country? Discuss) "back" [sic] to them? Farage, alone of them, is blessed with a silver tongue: Trump is a cross between Zaphod Beeblebrox's solipsism and a Vogon's oratory, and as for Musk, a friend of mine summed him up best: "Honestly, the fact that he smokes weed is the best thing about him." Between the latter two, there is just about enough capacity to run a bath. But not a country. Yet that's exactly what they're running [sic again].

The fact that one middle-aged, middle-class middle-Englander can cut a swathe through British politics with nothing more than a flat cap and Barbour wellies is quite astounding. If wellies give you armour of political Kevlar, maybe someone needs to tap Starmer on the shoulder. I'm not sure the flat cap would suit him. Social media has provided a double whammy: the village idiot has a platform, means of accessing other village idiots; the pub bores have united in their respective corner tables, while wealthy vested interests pull the strings. The left plays too nice for a post-truth world.

Or does it? Where's the final piece of the puzzle? Why is this political saviour a product of the far right, rather than the far left, perhaps a more traditional figurehead for many of the communities so enamoured with these unsavoury characters? It's because the left-wing political scene doesn't play too nice - it is obsessed with its own internal battles, a constant, confusing mish-mash of a bear fight, where some irreversibly contradictory utopia is the enemy of this broken world, as opposed to the work of Trump et. al. to drive such a vast, yawning chasm through the world that its heart bleeds slowly out of it. It is one constant parade of "I'm more liberal than you", thumbs in ears, waggling fingers, thumbed noses, tongues stuck out, all the playground gestures you can think of. It is so caught up in this equally baffling contradiction of the perfection of its worldview and the baseness of anyone who disagrees with each individual take on this worldview, occasionally squealing some desperate rebuttal of far-right theories and debating tactics, but its dichotomous view of morals and ethics - I'm good, you're evil - providing the perfect excuse for screams of victimisation from those who preach the politics of it. Where is the pragmatic left? Where is the tolerant left? Where, dare I say it, is the truly liberal left?

Liberalism is dead. Intolerance has won. Debate is dead. Insults have won. The fundamentals of left-wing philosophy are dying. The fundamentals of hate are ascendant.

Politics is capitalism - it is a game to be played. It is not who can confront the hardest truths, but who can tell the cleverest lies. Individual thought, individual strength, individual power, individual philosophy is not what's going to reclaim it. But it also happens to be the bedrock of Western civilisation.

How to square that circle is a question for greater minds than I.

A good analysis, there are two things that answer most of these questions that together are the "perfect" cocktail: a dying economic model (as per the 2008 banking crash) that its beneficiaries are desperate to keep alive, and social media. If only one or the other of these was present, what you describe wouldn't be happening.

The beneficiaries of the dying model need to stoke division to distract from this system failure and what they do to protect it (i.e. exploit the masses with tax cuts, market manipulation and taxpayer-funded bailouts); social media allows them to stoke this division very well, either directly or indirectly through extremist grifters having a platform they never used to have.

 

[The_Train]

The beneficiaries of the dying model need to stoke division to distract from this system failure

And to distract from the fact that whilst the vast majority get poorer, the people who are failing us continue to get richer (which is basically why any of them get involved in politics)

 

[Purple Train]

A good analysis, there are two things that answer most of these questions that together are the "perfect" cocktail: a dying economic model (as per the 2008 banking crash) that its beneficiaries are desperate to keep alive, and social media. If only one or the other of these was present, what you describe wouldn't be happening.

The beneficiaries of the dying model need to stoke division to distract from this system failure and what they do to protect it (i.e. exploit the masses with tax cuts, market manipulation and taxpayer-funded bailouts); social media allows them to stoke this division very well, either directly or indirectly through extremist grifters having a platform they never used to have.

Exactly (economics is not my strong point!) - excuse my awful memory, but I recall someone - I think it was you - on the forum comparing the situation we're in now to late 20th-century communism, which I would tend to agree with. Of course, in Russia, communism has given way to oligarchy and dictatorship. What could succeed this dying economic model once it inevitably succumbs? Better, worse, richer, poorer... almost literally a coin-toss, and at the whim of a far greater power than we miserable bipedals. "And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges..." - Twelfth Night

 

[Thirteen]

The big difference between our voting system and the US voting system in terms of the General Election is that you're not voting for a new PM, you're voting for the party itself and as seen in local and mayoral election, Reform haven't done well and if they wanted to gain power nationally, they need to try and gain wins locally.

Regarding Farage though and bearing in mind that he’s a long term smoker, I do wonder how is health is going to hold up as he gets older.

I think he’ll be 65 at the next election and as far as I can see there’s no obvious person with his kind of charisma that would be able to step into his shoes if he were to leave politics. I think the next election may be his one and only shot at getting anywhere near power personally.

I wonder if Holly Valance may end up running as a MP? Her husband is involved in Reform and she considered it at the last election but decided against it. Reform's issue is the party's MP is made up of older, white men which limits their appeal, one way to solve that is having someone who isn't that.

 

[brad465]

Exactly (economics is not my strong point!) - excuse my awful memory, but I recall someone - I think it was you - on the forum comparing the situation we're in now to late 20th-century communism, which I would tend to agree with. Of course, in Russia, communism has given way to oligarchy and dictatorship. What could succeed this dying economic model once it inevitably succumbs? Better, worse, richer, poorer... almost literally a coin-toss, and at the whim of a far greater power than we miserable bipedals. "And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges..." - Twelfth Night

I have said that on this forum before yes, although there were other sources I read that brought me to that realisation. The basic gist being that the cold war was fought between two extreme ideologies both doomed to fail; the fact communism fell first wrongly vindicated full-blown capitalism. The latter arguably fell in 2008 and has been on life support ever since (QE, low interest rates, bailouts, etc.). Populism's rise is a side-effect of the life support medication.

 

[JGurney]

RailWonderer said: Politicians pander to parliament .... and their own cabinets.

Prime ministers*

Prime ministers are elected by Parliament, and can be dismissed by Parliament via a vote of no confidence, or by their party via a leadership election. Naturally PM's will heed the opinions of both Parliament and their party.
A PM who cannot keep the confidence of their Cabinet is similarly doomed to fail. A PM can dismiss one or even a few Cabinet ministers who get out of line, but they cannot ignore a large-scale Cabinet revolt.

 

[cb a1]

Are you referring to genotypical gender or phenotypical gender? Biologists use both concepts. Do you want politicians to override biologists and dictate that only one be applied for legal purposes, and if so which?

For example in the cases of people with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) who are naturally phenotypically female and genotypically male, which do you argue they should be told they are in law?

Do you ever get an answer to this question from anyone who has the 'opinion' that there are only two genders or two sexes?

It is literally a paradox that keeps me awake at night. I have opinions but I am always prepared to change those opinions if they do not fit reality. I don't think my brain could cope with trying to be a 'flat-earther' or 'young earth creationist' or 'binary sex believer'.

 

[JGurney]

Do you ever get an answer to this question from anyone who has the 'opinion' that there are only two genders or two sexes?

Never. I have raised much the same question several times in various fora in response to the 'two biological sexes' line of argument, and the OP has always evaded or ignored it, just as RailWonderer has.

 

[DarloRich]

I think the UK needs a more authoritarian stronghand approach, liberal multiculteralism has failed and unlike the older population I don't carry this post WWII idea that liberalism is the only way forward and the right way.

A one party system like Singapore would be brilliant for the UK, and being able to be tough on crime, aggressive on growth, manufacturing and heavy industry and deregulating will bring the stimulus and confidence in Britain we need. Woke ideology that stems from thinkers like Foucault has spurred on division and hatred and everyone being easily offended which needs to be eliminated in all institutions, the BBC, Ofcom and all aspects of society. As a side note, having more toll roads to raise more road revenue like in Europe would help and shift burdens from govt spending, and more gated commmunities will be needed to prevent Balkans organised crime casing, invading and gassing homes and robbing vehicles at unprecedented rates. Building new prisons and offshore detention centres will serve as a deterrant. Deterrance and zero tolerance is the only way forward.

The civil service neds to be purged to do this and I invite the processes outlined by the OP's linked article.

What happens if the authoritarian one party state is generated from the hard left rather than the hard right? What if YOU are the enemy? What if the zero tolerance is towards your views? What if it is you and your family going off to the offshore detecntion centre? What if the rubber truncheons are for you? Are you Still on side then?

As always with these right wing fantasises the assumption is they will be the ones deciding what's what! What if you are not?

( BTW - I am not from the hard left or the hard right. Whichever wins I will be off to the camps! They will both hate me)

Ah, I see the problem. I'm arguing from the point of view of actually knowing real people, but you're arguing from the point of view of having read stories (which I note you've not linked to, or quoted from).

this is the most accurate posting on this thread.

 

[Severnia333]

I don't think Reform will win a majority or form the government at the next election. I think they'll become the opposition to Labour minority/Lab-Lib coalition that might itself be a minority reliant on confidence and supply, and rout the Tories to become the main party of the right.

Reform are building a mass membership, a 'ground game' and do pretty well on social media, but 5 MPs to the next cabinet is a huge hurdle.

 

[Grecian 1998]

If anyone genuinely believes that a one party state is in any way beneficial, they have clearly never studied history. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely (as Jon Dalbert-Acton once said). For the former, look at some of the interesting shenanigans of the Conservative party in the 1990s after 4 election wins in a row. For the latter, well... there's a steady stream of dictators during the 20th century who became more and more convinced they were gods due to the lack of any checks on their power.

Democracy isn't simply about putting the people's choice in charge. It's about ensuring you can hold them to account, and give them the boot if they aren't up to scratch. If anyone thinks authoritarianism and democracy are compatible, it's noticeable that the heads of state of most 'illiberal democracies' seem to spend a lot of time trying to dismantle the checks and balances of democracy. This is always stated to be because it's necessary to give effect to the will of the people, which can only ever be delivered by one man apparently. Funny that.

Back on topic, in terms of Reform, it seems worthwhile to point out that well into 2020 no-one seriously believed Labour could win the next election. Things can change very quickly, for better or worse. Farage is the only Reform MP with any kind of national profile (although Rupert Lowe is very unpopular in South Hampshire) and he seems to be happy leading a protest movement. Leading a government would be slightly trickier since you have to come up with solutions to issues, rather than just criticise from the sidelines.

The other obvious question which arises is: where are the seats Reform would need to win to form a government? They've done well in places that perceive themselves to be left behind - post-industrial areas and deprived seaside towns - but that isn't going to be enough to win an election. I can't see them gaining any ground in Scotland and they aren't likely to do well anywhere with large university populations. Where are the seats they are going to target and what will be their strategy?

 

[Yew]

As a side note, having more toll roads to raise more road revenue like in Europe would help and shift burdens from govt spending, and more gated commmunities will be needed to prevent Balkans organised crime casing, invading and gassing homes and robbing vehicles at unprecedented rates.

Ah, convenient travel and a secure future for those who who have means, pothole and crime-ridden slums for the rest of us.

I think I'll pass.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2025 ==

We’re down a bit of a tangent here but unisex are different because as long as there is an alternative nearby of safe space availability that’s fine, but when you allow all men into women’s toilets just because they identify with being a woman it’s inviting all sorts of trouble.

You do realise that the cubicles remain private?

 

[FinsburyPark]

Theres still plenty of time for Farage/Reform to fail.

Problems that face the party

1) Nigel is percieved as wanting to privatise the NHS. While we can all agre that the NHS is far from perfect. Most Brits gall at the thought of USA style medical bills

2) The view that Nigel is not such a 'man of the people' as he claims to be. An example is when he made a big media circus about the debanking scandal, but went quiet very quickly on the subject as soon as Coutts (NatWest) reinstated his exclusive bank account.

3) It looks like the public consensus is starting to change in a tangible way on the subject of Brexit. Many more are supporting the idea of being closer with the EU or maybe even rejoining it. Nigel's status as 'the architect of Brexit' might not do a lot to help his cause in the coming months and years.

4) if Trump fails in any grandiose way, this could by proxy affect the reputation of Nigel/Reform.

5) The parliamentary Reform party has only 5 MPs. They are ambitious for this next election, but its a tall ask to expect to go from 5 MPs to election winners in 5 years. Anything is possible though.

There are many variables which could work against them over the passage of time

 

[GusB]

I can't see them gaining any ground in Scotland

I can. In some parts of Scotland there's a strong conservative (small c) following , but much of the (big C) Conservative vote has leaked to Reform. Taking my own area into account:

Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	SNP	Seamus Logan	13,455	35.2	−7.9
	Conservative	Douglas Ross	12,513	32.8	−15.5
	Reform UK	Jo Hart	5,562	14.6	N/A
	Labour	Andy Brown[a]	3,876	10.1	+5.9
	Liberal Democrats	Ian Bailey	2,782	7.3	+2.9
Majority	942	2.4
Turnout	38,188	54.5
	SNPgain from Conservative	Swing

Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	SNP	Graham Leadbitter	14,961	32.1	−14.0
	Conservative	Kathleen Robertson	13,960	30.0	−10.9
	Labour	James Hynam	8,259	17.7	+13.1
	Liberal Democrats	Neil Alexander	3,785	8.1	+2.2
	Reform UK	Steve Skerret	3,490	7.5	+6.9
	Scottish Green	Draeyk Van Der Horn	1,676	3.6	+2.4
	Scottish Family	Euan Morrice	423	0.9	N/A
Majority	1,001	2.1
Turnout	46,554	60.4
	SNP hold	Swing

In both cases the SNP won the seats, but the tory vote wasn't that far behind - if those Reform voters had voted Conservative, the results would have been very different. Obviously I can't assume that those who voted for Reform would have voted Conservative, and what was the Moray consituency was split in two due to boundary changes; however, it'd be foolish to ignore the fact that Reform has significant support. Immigration is a big issue here (even though there isn't much of it), as is/was Brexit. Also, people now have an option to vote for a conservative party that doesn't appear to be posh.

Nigel is percieved as wanting to privatise the NHS. While we can all agre that the NHS is far from perfect. Most Brits gall at the thought of USA style medical bills

My fear is that many people will simply think "nah, that'll never happen" and cast their vote for his party anyway.

 

[Cross City]

The idea that people can identify with whatever they want to be and there are no genders, no man and no woman, transgenderism being taught in school, trans in sports, trans in womens loos, same sex adoption depriving a child a right to mother and father. Forced diverity targets but this is less related but broadly culture related.

Always makes me laugh (and cry) that people with these views don't even know the difference between gender and biological sex yet they try and dictate to trans people what they should shouldn't be allowed to do.

 

[bleeder4]

Always makes me laugh (and cry) that people with these views don't even know the difference between gender and biological sex yet they try and dictate to trans people what they should shouldn't be allowed to do.

The thing is, when I went to school in the late 80s and early 90s I was taught in Biology lessons that gender and sex were the same thing. So that is what I have continued to believe into my adult life. I'm not interested enough in the subject to have read up on what has changed in the scientific world in the last 25 years to have altered that way of thinking. So although I have that belief, I've not dictated to people anything, I'm just choosing not to get involved in that aspect of society as I have no interest in understanding it.

 

[Cross City]

So although I have that belief, I've not dictated to people anything, I'm just choosing not to get involved

If only others could take your stance.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The thing is, when I went to school in the late 80s and early 90s I was taught in Biology lessons that gender and sex were the same thing.

Not to pick on you, I just thought this was an interesting comment.

I think this is part of the problem and where a lot of the anger stems from.

Gender and sex are not the same thing. There is a certain level of biology behind sex. Although it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as there being "two sexes", given the huge complexity of human biology, you can easily draw a venn diagram and most people will be either "male" or "female".

Gender, however, is largely a social construct. People who are "male" are expected to act and behave in a certain way and people who are "female" are expected to act and behave in a certain way.

Gender will often correlate with biological sex, but not always.

I find it fascinating that the right wing ire is on people who transition from a male identity to a female identity. You simply never hear any anger about people who transition from a female identity to a male identity. Ask these people about whether people who have transitioned to a male identity should be using the female toilets and...tumbleweed.

I think the real issue for these people is that they see a female identity as weak and inferior and so they hold an irrational an visceral hatred of people who choose to assume a female identity. It's the same visceral hatred that you see with homophobic people who, seemingly, also see men who are sexually attracted to other men as being weak and inferior. Again, you don't tend to see the same level of hatred being thrown at women who are sexually attracted to other women, with the notable exception of when these women dare to turn down a man's sexual advances.

I also find these people's obsession with toilets fascinating. 99.99% of people in public/semi-public toilets are there because they need a wee or a poo and they just want to have a wee or a poo in peace. Of that 0.01% who are in toilets because they want to sexually assault someone, they just go right ahead and sexually assault someone. They don't put on female clothing first.

Prisons are even easier to deal with: you risk assess prisoners. You have a male-to-female transitioned prisoner who is in prison because of sexual offences. Fine. Treat them as a female but keep them in confinement because their offending history makes them a risk. But, even here, it's fascinating how people get so angry about these prisoners but when we're talking about male prisoners who sexually abuse other male prisoners in a male prison we just get jokes about the showers.

I note there's certainly a correlation between people who are neurodiverse- i.e. autistic- and people who seek to transition. I do actually wonder whether some of this is the autism; an autistic male who wants to live in a female identity decides that this must mean they are biologically female, and vice versa.

Perhaps letting people live in whatever identity they want to live in, and telling people that you can be a very 'girly' boy or a very 'manly' girl and that's fine, might reduce the level of medical interventions. But try and tell this to the right wing whoppers and you just get more visceral hatred.

 

[RailWonderer]

What happens if the authoritarian one party state is generated from the hard left rather than the hard right? What if YOU are the enemy? What if the zero tolerance is towards your views? What if it is you and your family going off to the offshore detecntion centre? What if the rubber truncheons are for you? Are you Still on side then?

As always with these right wing fantasises the assumption is they will be the ones deciding what's what! What if you are not?

( BTW - I am not from the hard left or the hard right. Whichever wins I will be off to the camps! They will both hate me)

I understand what you're saying, that it's easy to support authoritarianism when you agree with it but not when you don't.

I don't see a stronghand approach to certain issues as far right, I just see it as the right thing to do and the structure of UK politics needs to change to the world the the country as it changes. Denmark committed to a zero refugee policy and they are a centre left government. The US and Australia have been tough, over here I think the right are more likely to carry it out than the left but we are past the days of fascism vs communism.

And the UK may not - yet - be authoritarian but it is a surveillance state, it's the only democracy demanding a back door to Apple encrypted communications and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Ah, convenient travel and a secure future for those who who have means, pothole and crime-ridden slums for the rest of us.

I think I'll pass.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2025 ==

I hope it doesn't come to that but I never suggested parts of the country need to be left behind to achieve better safety.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2025 ==

Never. I have raised much the same question several times in various fora in response to the 'two biological sexes' line of argument, and the OP has always evaded or ignored it, just as RailWonderer has.

Science has explained it a century ago, there are only two sexes and the rest are abnormal mutations that less than 0.001% or whatever have. It's just a fact, it's silly to suggest more sexes exist and silly to even justify/explain it.

 

[Cross City]

Science has explained it a century ago, there are only two sexes and the rest are abnormal mutations that less than 0.001% or whatever have. It's just a fact, it's silly to suggest more sexes exist and silly to even justify/explain it.

I’ll be polite.

Seriously, look up the differences between sex and gender and between transsexual and intersexual.

It’ll do you some favours.

 

[contrex]

Indeed. It’s all fine as long as it’s “My Guy” in charge and don’t worry about the huge section of the country that would be appalled by a regime like that.

There does seem to be quite a lot of Authoritarian Curious people around these days, but I’m certainly NOT one of them!

I'm not either; decidedly not. If the horrendous thing outlined in the Independent article ever came to pass, I'd be among the first they'd put in the camps. Some of the posts on this thread, you can almost hear the notes of the Horst Wessel song if you strain your ears. The appeasers of Trump are out in force. I have said for some time this is our Weimar Republic.

 

[bleeder4]

I also find these people's obsession with toilets fascinating. 99.99% of people in public/semi-public toilets are there because they need a wee or a poo and they just want to have a wee or a poo in peace. Of that 0.01% who are in toilets because they want to sexually assault someone, they just go right ahead and sexually assault someone. They don't put on female clothing first.

I'm no expert, as I mentioned, but I would imagine that toilet etiquette plays a large part. Us blokes as a general rule aren't as clean in toilets as women are. We all quite often go into a cubicle and find that we have to clean up from the person before us. There will be wee on the seat, wee on the floor, a mess left in the toilet itself. It is unfortunately part of life of using a gents toilet. We're not all like that of course, I'm not myself, but it's very rare for us blokes to go into a cubicle and not have to clean up first.

I would hazard a guess that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the ladies toilets, so any lady using a cubicle that was previously used by a bloke will be in for a bit of a shock!

 

[Cross City]

There does seem to be quite a lot of Authoritarian Curious people around these days

This isn't a new thing IMO. The average Brit, and certainly when part of a hivemind is far more authoritarian than they'd like to admit.

• Speeding motorist? Should be banned for life.
• "Bring back hanging"
• When discussing surveillance. "Shouldn't be a problem if you've got nothing to hide".
• Companies/people should be forced to do this or that. Accepting cash is an example from this forum recently
• "Police should carry guns"
• "Bring back national service"