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

[gg1]

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"

With the possible exception of accepting cash, I don't think 'the average Brit' would support any of those, they're all minority viewpoints.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Science has explained it a century ago, there are only two sexes

Merely asserting something doesn't make it true.

Sex and gender aren't the same thing either.

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.

Oh I get why you wouldn't want to be in the next cubicle next to some hairy bloke having a big smelly dump. I don't either!

But, being serious, wouldn't you say that toilet etiquette is simply learned behaviour? Men who pee everywhere do so because they were never made to clean it up as children. Women poo the same as men, the difference is they were taught it is "un-ladylike" and so they disguise it and clean up after themselves.

I don't think 'the average Brit' would support any of those, they're all minority viewpoints.

I don't think they are minority viewpoints (with the exception of speeding, which is always "a war on the motorist"), but as with all these surveys, it depends how you ask the question.

If you ask people if Axel Rudakubana should be strung up, you won't find many people who disagree.

But the Sentencing Council did some research a few years ago through a project called You Be The Judge. They found that in 80% of cases, members of the public gave a sentence which was more lenient or the equal of the sentence the judge gave.

Sentencing is sometimes portrayed as too lenient but evidence reveals that members of the public who take part in a sentencing exercise are often more lenient than judges, and are surprised when they see how severe the true sentence was.

 

[DarloRich]

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 note you haven't answered the question. Would you like another go?

I would also suggest you look at how authoritarian governments actually work. At some point you might become the enemy. Even if you are the most loyal brownshirt you can still become the enemy. Even if you are the most loyal comrade you can still become the enemy.

I bet Ernst Röhm thought he was a top fella and well in with the leader. I bet Leon Trotsky thought he was a top fella and well in with the leader. Both became the enemy. Both executed.

You don't even need to be near the top of the tree. Look at the Kulaks in revolutionary Russia. Look at what Mao or Pol Pot did to thier own people!

Of course, it doesn't START like that. It starts with chucking people you don't like out of the country and cracking down on pinko liberals and the "woke". The problem is where it ends and what it costs. it is always worth considering that you might not be the one calling the shots. Then what?

​

​

 

[Magdalia]

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.

All science is provisional. What science explained a century ago has been supplanted by new knowledge. Of particular relevance here is that the structure of DNA was only discovered in 1953, which is less than a century ago. There is a huge amount of knowledge of genetics now that was not known as recently as 1953, so the scientific explanations of differences in sexual development have changed as new knowledge is discovered. In Cambridge, where the structure of DNA was first discovered, and all over the world, scientists are discovering new things all of the time.

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.

All science taught at school is a simplification. For example lots of GCSE students get taught Newtonian physics but only some of them advance to Einstein and relativity. I wasn't one of them.

 

[SteveP29]

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.

And for every 1 person who regretted it, there are likely hundreds who didn't.

In the words of Mike Muir in Suicidal Tendencies You Can't Bring me Down:
'Just cos you don't like it,
Don't mean it ain't no good'

So just because one person has regrets, that doesn't mean everyone does

 

[Three-Nine]

A century ago you could have asked a physicist how sure they were the “luminiferous ether“ (the medium through which it was thought light propagated) existed, and its very likely they would have replied they were virtually certain it did. The experiment that pretty much demolished the concept had originally been intended to prove its existence. To a degree, no science is ever 100% absolutely dead proven, though at a certain point it would take absolutely remarkable evidence to overturn some “proven” science (as the biologist JBS Haldane replied when asked what it would take to overturn the theory of Evolution - “(finding) Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian!”).

I’m pretty sure that even a hundred years ago when “science” had “proven” there were only two genders, gay, trans and intersex people still existed and had done for a long time before.

Edit: as I’m sure will be pointed out, the Michelson-Morley experiment that put the boot into the luminiferous ether was carried out in the late 19th Century, so a bit more than a “hundred” years ago; being a child of the late 70s and early 80s I still tend to think of that far-off future Year 2000 as being the benchmark for how long ago something occurred, despite the fact that the year itself is now twenty-five years distant…

 

[RailWonderer]

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.

I'm not a fascist but any meaningful change is prohibited by our structures of power - the house of lords, the judges, red tape and local authority around planning, the commissioner of public appointments, our ECHR membership. We don't need a revolution but a few changes to how the system functions.

I note you haven't answered the question. Would you like another go?

I would also suggest you look at how authoritarian governments actually work. At some point you might become the enemy. Even if you are the most loyal brownshirt you can still become the enemy. Even if you are the most loyal comrade you can still become the enemy.

I bet Ernst Röhm thought he was a top fella and well in with the leader. I bet Leon Trotsky thought he was a top fella and well in with the leader. Both became the enemy. Both executed.

You don't even need to be near the top of the tree. Look at the Kulaks in revolutionary Russia. Look at what Mao or Pol Pot did to thier own people!

Of course, it doesn't START like that. It starts with chucking people you don't like out of the country and cracking down on pinko liberals and the "woke". The problem is where it ends and what it costs. it is always worth considering that you might not be the one calling the shots. Then what?

Changing our laws to bring about meaningful change doesn't mean turning into a dictatorship, it means rolling back liberal ideas that have gone too far. Decolonisation in universities and schools has to end becasue students are being taught (or at least believing) we are all systemically racist and all our history was bad and we are the villain and then the young start hating their country. Not that I support propaganda the opposite way but there needs to be a balanced contextual look at history rather than spurring on hatred and division like these iberal 'progressivist' theories do.

Diversity targets also need to go, which are like South Africa's black economic empowerment laws where certain races are privileged rather than merit based selection. Rolling back these doesn't mean becoming authoritarian, parliament will still need to vote on many issues and law amendments.

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

And for every 1 person who regretted it, there are likely hundreds who didn't.

In the words of Mike Muir in Suicidal Tendencies You Can't Bring me Down:
'Just cos you don't like it,
Don't mean it ain't no good'

So just because one person has regrets, that doesn't mean everyone does

It's also about parental consent. Kids should not be offered anything like this without knowledge, consent and approval of the parents. It's cold hard manipulation to me and it's an insult to the parents and undermines parental authority and parental rights. Laws aside, I feel genuinely ashamed to be a part of a nation that doesn't value any traditional rights and ideas and I think on a personal level it's very sad.

 

[GusB]

I'm not a fascist but any meaningful change is prohibited by our structures of power - the house of lords, the judges, red tape and local authority around planning, the commissioner of public appointments, our ECHR membership. We don't need a revolution but a few changes to how

In other words, you want to remove everything that stops those in charge abusing their power. That's the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Changing our laws to bring about meaningful change doesn't mean turning into a dictatorship, it means rolling back liberal ideas that have gone too far. Decolonisation in universities and schools has to end becasue students are being taught (or at least believing) we are all systemically racist and all our history was bad and we are the villain and then the young start hating their country. Not that I support propaganda the opposite way but there needs to be a balanced contextual look at history rather than spurring on hatred and division like these iberal 'progressivist' theories do.

We can easily learn about the mistakes that our country made in the past without hating the country as it is now. It certainly doesn't mean that we're "systemically racist".

Diversity targets also need to go, which are like South Africa's black economic empowerment laws where certain races are privileged rather than merit based selection. Rolling back these doesn't mean becoming authoritarian, parliament will still need to vote on many issues and law amendments.

What's wrong with ensuring that people have equal opportunities? Such policies ensure that people are employed on merit, regardless of any minority characteristics.

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


It's also about parental consent. Kids should not be offered anything like this without knowledge, consent and approval of the parents. It's cold hard manipulation to me and it's an insult to the parents and undermines parental authority and parental rights. Laws aside, I feel genuinely ashamed to be a part of a nation that doesn't value any traditional rights and ideas and I think on a personal level it's very sad.

What exactly are these traditional rights and ideas? It's like the old "British values" chestnut - it's meaningless, really.

 

[JGurney]

The biological scientific fact of two genders only should be in law,

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?

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.

Not really answering the questions. Are you referring to genotypical sex or phenotypical sex? Do you think people with CAIS should be classified as men or as women under the law you are calling for?

 

[YorkshireBear]

If after changing gender was banned and everyone had to stay the same gender no matter what use the 'correct' toilets, and the country was still considered broken, economy was still bad, crime was still high. Then would those so against these things finally accept it isn't leading to the destruction of humanity.

 

[Cross City]

I'm not a fascist but… our ECHR membership.

You’re either on the wind up or painfully self unaware.

 

[JGurney]

Decolonisation in universities and schools has to end

Has it actually happened much in the first place, outside a few university departments?

"Responses to freedom of information (FoI) requests from 128 universities found only 24 said they were committed to decolonising the curriculum. Of those, 11 were committed to reform across the whole institution, with most efforts confined to a few departments, or just one, or a handful of academics and students." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ies-have-said-they-will-decolonise-curriculum

becasue students are being taught (or at least believing) we are all systemically racist and all our history was bad and we are the villain and then the young start hating their country.

Do you have any data demonstrating that many young people hate the country, and if so whether alleged indoctrination in schools was the cause of that?

 

[DarloRich]

Do you have any data demonstrating that many young people hate the country, and if so whether alleged indoctrination in schools was the cause of that?

It will be the survey Farage has been wittering on about in the last few days.

 

[styles]

I've already got a line on for Farage to win - 14:1 on a £20 bet.

The public are tired of the farce of the past few Conservative governments; it doesn't really matter who they elect as leader right now, the party itself is tainted. Kier appears ineffectual and bland, and seems to prioritise politically-unpopular things like the winter fuel payments. Ed Davey is literally out there joking around, like the Lib Dems have given up trying to be taken seriously; I know he makes some decent arguments in a sincere tone, but the media coverage of that is overshadowed by him bungee jumping or whatever.

Corbyn was popular among Labour supporters not necessarily because of his policies, but because he spoke and acted like a normal person, not some PR bod with no personality, and didn't seem to flip-flop at every corner. Farage is the same - he garners support as much because he's portrayed down the boozer with a pint and speaks in a way which doesn't come across overly scripted or rehearsed. Of course Reform's policies on immigration (mainly) come in to play, but the leader makes a big difference.

Frankly the only reason he hasn't been PM yet is imo only down to FPTP. UKIP in 2015 got as many votes as the Lib Dems and the SNP combined. Had we had a different voting system, tactical voting would have been far less prevalent and I imagine a lot of Conservative and Labour voters would've plucked for UKIP. Farage ticks the boxes for social conservatives and for working class anti-immigration voters. Couple that with not speaking like a robot and he's, unfortunately, quite popular.

And frankly I think even quite socially liberal folk are coming to the realisation that, even if you're pro-immigration, there has to be sustainability. Migration for YE June 2023 was 906,000. If you want to accommodate a 1.5% population increase in a single year, you need to be far better prepared than the UK has been - you need to be extremely proactive when it comes to housing, healthcare, education. We weren't, and as a result immigrants get demonised for the demise of public services. Even if I disagree with the principle of Reform's immigration policies, I also criticise the other mainstream parties for not planning for the alternative. Either you restrict immigration, or you expand it but plan for it. It seems we've been doing neither.

The real question is - will Labour manage to swing things around in the next 4.5 years? With Starmer, I doubt it.

 

[Thirteen]

People are forgetting yet again that in the UK, you vote for parties not PMs and the chances of a party with 5 MPs forming a Government in 2029 are pretty slim. If Reform want to make gains, they need to win councils, Mayors, one of the Nations etc because trying to become a National Government without having experience in running anything else is only going to end baly.

 

[Ghostbus]

The four way split is already taking shape it seems.

The Faragio is seemingly inserting himself between the mainstream Party of Labour and the more hateful Tories, forcing Labour to acknowledge they might have a point on some key issues, in the process sending other Labour voters over to the Greens and Lib Dems.

It's still basically going to be Tories+Reform against Labour+Lib Dems+Greens. But we're seeing elsewhere that in such a scenario it can actually be beneficial for Reform to be the dominant half of a coalition in opposition, biding their time until the rainbow coalition has a falling out over climate or gender or both.

The choice of light blue as their party colour now seems quite apt.

Labour shelves plans to make gender change easier

Government appears to abandon manifesto pledge with one insider reportedly describing policy as ‘can of worms’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Labour has dropped plans to make it easier for people to legally change their gender in an about-turn on a manifesto pledge.

The Times quoted Labour insiders saying they expected the plans to “go away” and describing the issue of gender identity as a “can of worms".

Sources at the Department for Education, which has responsibility for the equalities brief, did not deny the report.

It was reported on Sunday that the apparent climbdown on the manifesto commitment was in response to the rise of Reform, which led national opinion polls for the first time last month.

It’s shameful that it has taken Nigel Farage to kill off Labour’s trans obsession

Starmer has dropped his ridiculous gender-change plans just as Reform overtakes his party in the polls

www.telegraph.co.uk

All Reform had to do was say they too are not going along with this patent idiocy for Labour to run scared. Reform membership is growing.

The Government has to deal with this reality: that pragmatism is more important than seeking the dwindling votes of far-Left trans activists.

Part of me is glad that Labour has seen the light. Or rather, taken off its ideological blindfold. But that this is being done to stop voters drifting off to the Right appals me.

There is no way that I think that Reform – or indeed Trump and his merry band of neanderthal sex pests – cares two hoots about women’s rights. But they have an eye on the main chance.

We should have been listened to. Or is Nigel Farage more important than all the women who have stood up and lost their livelihoods for pointing out that the emperor was naked? Talk about flashing male entitlement in our faces.

 

[Harpo]

Farage is a one topic politician with no clear policies on anything other than immigration.

He’s climbed onto the farmer IHT bandwagon but in the first protest managed to bring race into it (‘North London thinks farming is too white’) and is obviously viewed with suspicion over his US links and the damage that an American import deal would do to UK farming. (Sky interview with a farmers’ group leader Monday.)

Farage has four years to make his case, the same time Labour has to become competent, Badenoch has to stop being Mini-Nige & become a leader, and Vasey has to appear serious about politics.

 

[Yew]

People are forgetting yet again that in the UK, you vote for parties not PMs and the chances of a party with 5 MPs forming a Government in 2029 are pretty slim. If Reform want to make gains, they need to win councils, Mayors, one of the Nations etc because trying to become a National Government without having experience in running anything else is only going to end baly.

Whilst this is true, over the past years it does seem like we are increasingly obsessed with personality over policy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2025 ==

Farage has four years to make his case, the same time Labour has to become competent,

My worry is that the ultimate cause of the problems that Nigel blames on immigrants, are a feature of the neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher and Regan, and it seems that Kier doesn't seem to be departing from them or have credible ideas to mitigate their downsides.

 

[Harpo]

Whilst this is true, over the past years it does seem like we are increasingly obsessed with personality over policy.

With politicians amplifying this themselves, such as Johnson insisting (when all optics were saying FO) that he should not go as the public had given him a mandate, ignoring that we don’t have a presidential-style of democracy.

 

[nlogax]

The ongoing noisy support from some quarters for Farage and his grift is proof that some portions of the UK electorate have given up on basic research and critical thinking. Believing this nicotine-stained, dentally suspect con artist is going to save the country from (insert stuff they don't like here) is one of the more foolish notions out there right now.

To those wanting authoritarian leadership..if you get what you wish for there's no way back for the country. It's a one way door. The US is now firmly on that journey and it's too late to be stopped. Learn from it.

 

[RailWonderer]

The ongoing noisy support from some quarters for Farage and his grift is proof that some portions of the UK electorate have given up on basic research and critical thinking. Believing this nicotine-stained, dentally suspect con artist is going to save the country from (insert stuff they don't like here) is one of the more foolish notions out there right now.

Yes, because before Nigel Farage, no British politican has ever lied and they were all very honest people...

In other words, you want to remove everything that stops those in charge abusing their power. That's the beginning of a very slippery slope.

This idea more government power means an authoritarian regime is a misonomer. A sizeable amount of Trump's electorate was the libertarian vote which also votes Democrat. You can protect people's freedoms, say so and do so with more power to act without being authoritarian - running the nation like a business in that sense where workers rights are protected but management at the top can do a lot more.

What's wrong with ensuring that people have equal opportunities? Such policies ensure that people are employed on merit, regardless of any minority characteristics.

Forced equalisation comes at the cost of another group. When you have 30% of whatever target of new roles that can only be given to minorities, that is completely unfair. This govt could save millions on firing all DEI people in the civil service, the BBC and the NHS, they do very little for the money they take in salaries and consultancy fees. Then you have DEI service industries that have spread like ticks relying on contracts from large organisations and govt arms that spend on them.

What exactly are these traditional rights and ideas? It's like the old "British values" chestnut - it's meaningless, really.

It's only meaningless when everyone believes these ideas are meaningless which unfortunately I think a lot of people do nowadays in the UK. Good parenting, instilling good manners, values and virtues ( like don't steal, clean up after yourself etc) are important but from what I've heard in places of work and school, parents seem to leave their kids to their own devices these days. Parents also have the right to be aware of that their kids are getting up to but then again if they don't even care about that, I despair for the future.

To those wanting authoritarian leadership..if you get what you wish for there's no way back for the country. It's a one way door. The US is now firmly on that journey and it's too late to be stopped. Learn from it.

If that's what it takes, I'm all for it. I don't believe either it will go too far without huge backlash.

 

[ChrisC]

I've already got a line on for Farage to win - 14:1 on a £20 bet.

The public are tired of the farce of the past few Conservative governments; it doesn't really matter who they elect as leader right now, the party itself is tainted. Kier appears ineffectual and bland, and seems to prioritise politically-unpopular things like the winter fuel payments. Ed Davey is literally out there joking around, like the Lib Dems have given up trying to be taken seriously; I know he makes some decent arguments in a sincere tone, but the media coverage of that is overshadowed by him bungee jumping or whatever.

Corbyn was popular among Labour supporters not necessarily because of his policies, but because he spoke and acted like a normal person, not some PR bod with no personality, and didn't seem to flip-flop at every corner. Farage is the same - he garners support as much because he's portrayed down the boozer with a pint and speaks in a way which doesn't come across overly scripted or rehearsed. Of course Reform's policies on immigration (mainly) come in to play, but the leader makes a big difference.

Frankly the only reason he hasn't been PM yet is imo only down to FPTP. UKIP in 2015 got as many votes as the Lib Dems and the SNP combined. Had we had a different voting system, tactical voting would have been far less prevalent and I imagine a lot of Conservative and Labour voters would've plucked for UKIP. Farage ticks the boxes for social conservatives and for working class anti-immigration voters. Couple that with not speaking like a robot and he's, unfortunately, quite popular.

And frankly I think even quite socially liberal folk are coming to the realisation that, even if you're pro-immigration, there has to be sustainability. Migration for YE June 2023 was 906,000. If you want to accommodate a 1.5% population increase in a single year, you need to be far better prepared than the UK has been - you need to be extremely proactive when it comes to housing, healthcare, education. We weren't, and as a result immigrants get demonised for the demise of public services. Even if I disagree with the principle of Reform's immigration policies, I also criticise the other mainstream parties for not planning for the alternative. Either you restrict immigration, or you expand it but plan for it. It seems we've been doing neither.

The real question is - will Labour manage to swing things around in the next 4.5 years? With Starmer, I doubt it.

I certainly hope that Farage would never become our Prime Minister. What worries me just as much is if Reform do end with a large number of MPs how little experience they will all have.

I think a big problem which Labour has is winning back many of the traditional, old style, working class voters in areas outside of London and the SE. Keir Starmer is certainly not doing that, and in some ways seems to be actually alienating them even more. Around here in the ex mining areas of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Labour are losing support to Reform. As much as I dislike Lee Anderson, in his Ashfield constituency, it is the traditional working class Labour voters who are supporting him because unfortunately he’s speaking their language. People I know who have been Labour voters all of their lives, and absolutely hated the Conservatives, are now turning to Reform. I’m afraid the Lee Anderson “I want my country back” type of people are growing in numbers around here. Reform won the Ashfield seat and I can see Mansfield, Sherwood Forest and many others going the same way if Keir Starmer doesn’t begin to appeal more to them in the next 4 years. However, can Labour any longer appeal to both the London style of Labour voters and the traditional working class voters in the Midlands and the North?

 

[The_Train]

And for every 1 person who regretted it, there are likely hundreds who didn't.

In the words of Mike Muir in Suicidal Tendencies You Can't Bring me Down:
'Just cos you don't like it,
Don't mean it ain't no good'

So just because one person has regrets, that doesn't mean everyone does

We also need to remember that irrelevant of which side of the coin people think news channels are on, all news stories are developed with an agenda. So in this case that agenda is to find kids with regrets so they will likely interview 25 trans kids and then only show the interviews with the 2 kids who said they regretted it!

If after changing gender was banned and everyone had to stay the same gender no matter what use the 'correct' toilets, and the country was still considered broken, economy was still bad, crime was still high. Then would those so against these things finally accept it isn't leading to the destruction of humanity.

I commented something similar on another forum recently, albeit I commented that in a weird way, I'd like to see one of the politicians with the "grand plan" of removing all migrants because it is this that is causing everyone's lives to be rubbish actually go through with it just to see the reaction of the far right when they realise that nothing has changed post cull.

Of course, we all know that there isn't actually any sort of such plan that will ever be implemented because a) the politicians know this is not the root cause of the issues in this country and b) because it gives people like Farage a platform for hate and division which their entire political mantra is built on and which enables them to keep the peasants occupied whilst they continue to build their own fortune

 

[AlterEgo]

A sizeable amount of Trump's electorate was the libertarian vote which also votes Democrat. You can protect people's freedoms, say so and do so with more power to act without being authoritarian

Agreed - you can, by increasing state capacity; rights are meaningless without the individual's capacity to take advantage of them and without the state's capacity to protect them. For example, in this country, trans people have the same putative rights to healthcare like the rest of us, but often face discrimination in attempting to access it, or very long waits of many years caused by a lack of resource and institutional transphobia.

Therefore, they, in practice, don't have the same rights even if there isn't a piece of paper on the statute books saying "no you are not allowed". The state hasn't the capacity to allow them to access that right nor protect that right. The right therefore doesn't exist in any real sense.

Trump is diminishing state capacity, not extending it.

running the nation like a business in that sense where workers rights are protected

The USA, famous for workers' rights...

but management at the top can do a lot more.

Management in business can do a heck of a lot less and have less free rein than the governments of large countries. Countries should be fiscally responsible but should not be run like a business. No business runs for the benefit of every person, not even a worker's cooperative.

Forced equalisation comes at the cost of another group.

It does! Do you feel bad when "another group" means you and a cost is imposed on you? How about you take this feeling and apply it to protected minorities? You've already proposed the wholesale removal of state recognition for an entire class of people in this thread, which you'd simply get on with in your dream "benevolent" dictatorship instead of even seeing if democracy delivered it naturally.

When you have 30% of whatever target of new roles that can only be given to minorities, that is completely unfair.

There is likely to be some DEI overreach in this country, but I'd point out there are some circumstances where demographic quotas are good, particularly in the civil service, which has to reflect society in the diversity of its thought process. You probably wouldn't object to DEI so much if there was a quota for "people on the right with 'traditional values'" but there really does not need to be a quota for that - those people are self selecting; Britain is a small-c conservative country, as evidenced by its glacial movement compared to its European cousins on a range of social issues, and the retention of its class system which means people like *you* don't get the voice you feel you deserve.

This govt could save millions on firing all DEI people in the civil service

That would be pretty stupid and this really has all the hallmarks of something a Musk acolyte would say. "Fire everyone" is really just a very reductive way of dealing with a complex issue and the preserve of either someone who hasn't thought very hard about it, or someone who thinks they have the same generational intelligence as a Roman Emperor.

Good parenting, instilling good manners, values and virtues ( like don't steal, clean up after yourself etc) are important

"...eternal overview of child's gender and sexuality and the state acting as a panopticon and reporting on this to me, never questioning that if my child felt the need to conceal from me either of those that it would reveal more about me as a parent than anything else..."

Most children are well parented and most parents are good parents who love their children very much. I'd also add one of the last bastions of the most damaging homophobia in this country was what I call "loving homophobia" - a sincere belief that being gay or lesbian was not in itself bad, but such a fate - and the ensuing unhappiness, loneliness and social ostracision - was not what they would want for their child whom they loved and cared about. The solution to that - and indeed the solution to a group you claim to care about: most people who have some regretful thoughts about gender transition - is simply to have a more accepting and inclusive society. That LGBTQ+ people feel they can have meaningful relationships, form family groups if they want, can access employment, healthcare and be recognised as full and valued citizens in the same way the state recognises me as one.

I did used to think trans people were self-absorbed and were seeking privileges they were not entitled to, but I've met a few and now have some in my friend group. They are normal, decent people with the same things to offer society as anyone else; they want to work, contribute, pay taxes, find love and happiness. What conservative will say no to these things?

from what I've heard in places of work and school

So no direct experience then.

parents seem to leave their kids to their own devices these days.

That is absolutely untrue; parents now are much less likely to just leave kids to their own devices. I am 38 and my parents let me cycle around town and go 2 miles from home with a friend when I was ten; this just does not happen at the same scale now. Parents are much more present and more prone to "helicoptering" than the other way around.

Parents also have the right to be aware of that their kids are getting up to

Only if they're getting into trouble. If a teenager is trying to access healthcare that they feel their parents would disapprove of, this says so much more about the parents.

If that's what it takes, I'm all for it. I don't believe either it will go too far without huge backlash.

The leopard will absolutely eat your face, as well as everyone else's.

 

[The_Train]

I certainly hope that Farage would never become our Prime Minister. What worries me just as much is if Reform do end with a large number of MPs how little experience they will all have.

It's not just experience, it is their lack of desire to actually do anything for the constituency they have stood in. Most of these people only have a focus on national issues and just attach themselves to a constituency where they think that national issues will win them votes. It's the aftermath of this when that local area remains run down because their MP doesn't actually care about the area that the locals endure problems. This was proven recently when the people of Clacton were questioned about workers rights only to be told at the end of the questioning that everything they believed to be right was what Farage had voted against.

Unfortunately too many people bury their heads in the sand and continue to believe that a very rich man like Farage actually gives a stuff about them

 

[GusB]

This idea more government power means an authoritarian regime is a misonomer. A sizeable amount of Trump's electorate was the libertarian vote which also votes Democrat. You can protect people's freedoms, say so and do so with more power to act without being authoritarian - running the nation like a business in that sense where workers rights are protected but management at the top can do a lot more.

More government power doesn't mean that we have to have an authoritarian regime, until we do. All the things that previously prevented someone abusing that power have gone. Then what?

To go back to your earlier post, we have a second chamber in parliament for good reason (although I'd rather it wasn't in its current form, but that's a separate topic); it provides a useful check against governments trying to force through policies that may be not be in the best interests of the country. We have red tape to stop unscrupulous businesses dumping toxic waste near your home and poisoning your water supply. Planning laws prevent your neighbour from building a castle in their back garden and turning it into a nightclub. The European Court of Human Rights is there to help you if you feel that your human rights have been infringed and you've exhausted all other avenues.

It's all well and good wishing for a benevolent dictator (which is essentially what you're doing), but what happens when the dictator turns into a tyrant? You're assuming that such a dictator is going to act within your interests, but what happens when they don't? By then it's too late.

Be very careful what you wish for.

 

[Sorcerer]

The ongoing noisy support from some quarters for Farage and his grift is proof that some portions of the UK electorate have given up on basic research and critical thinking. Believing this nicotine-stained, dentally suspect con artist is going to save the country from (insert stuff they don't like here) is one of the more foolish notions out there right now.

Obviously Farage isn't a messiah, but if we want any hope of neutering his influence then we can start with not calling people foolish and lacking in critical thinking skills, because nobody has ever been swayed simply because they were called an idiot. Especially not when Farage has straight up said the opposite (I can't find the video right now, but it was on the subject of Elon Musk's influence on UK politics and he said "the British people aren't stupid").

Unlike the Tories who've had a fresh legacy of 14 years of austerity, scandal, cronyism and failure, Reform have no such baggage since they have never held political office, so Labour's weaknesses are their strengths. Controversial as it may be, releasing videos of deportations as they have done might not be such a bad idea for any politically homeless moderates concerned about immigration who could be swayed back.

 

[styles]

Obviously Farage isn't a messiah, but if we want any hope of neutering his influence then we can start with not calling people foolish and lacking in critical thinking skills, because nobody has ever been swayed simply because they were called an idiot. Especially not when Farage has straight up said the opposite (I can't find the video right now, but it was on the subject of Elon Musk's influence on UK politics and he said "the British people aren't stupid").

100%. In fact I'd argue that Farage has remained so popular because people have brushed his supporters off as idiots, rather than taking seriously their resolve and the breadth of support his positions has. If somebody called me an idiot for voting the way I do, it would quite possibly strengthen my resolve if anything!

 

[geoffk]

In the 1930s, the German people didn't have a historical parallel to look back on as a warning of what was being done to their country, by a leader who was democratically elected. In 2025 we know what happened and we have a parallel to look back on, 90 years ago. Just saying.........

 

[The_Train]

In the 1930s, the German people didn't have a historical parallel to look back on as a warning of what was being done to their country, by a leader who was democratically elected. In 2025 we know what happened and we have a parallel to look back on, 90 years ago. Just saying.........

The problem is, most Reform supporters would support this parallel.........