Reform UK discussion

[alex397]

Presumably the corner shops of Kent need to board up their windows soon?
Genuinely concerning what will be next.

 

[nw1]

One thing I've genuinely never understood is why Reform are not understood to be far-right, while hard-right parties on the Continent such as the RN in France or the AfD in Germany are generally described as such, and some at least have used the term to describe Meloni's Brothers of Italy.

Are these parties not all more or less the same (except the AfD which seems to be that bit more right-wing)?

Is it just because they sue whenever someone calls them that in the press? While the RN seem happy with the far-right label, Reform do not, and that's something I struggle to understand.

 

[styles]

I think both 'far right' and 'far left' are seen as insults in the UK.

I suspect there's more far left people who would be proud to say they are far left than far right people proud to say they are far right, but the context would still normally have been far left or far right being used as an insult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing I've genuinely never understood is why Reform are not understood to be far-right, while hard-right parties on the Continent such as the RN in France or the AfD in Germany are generally described as such, and some at least have used the term to describe Meloni's Brothers of Italy.

Because the Overton window (what is understood to constitute the centre) has always been a bit further right in the UK than on the mainland?

 

[Electrostar387]

One thing I've genuinely never understood is why Reform are not understood to be far-right, while hard-right parties on the Continent such as the RN in France or the AfD in Germany are generally described as such, and some at least have used the term to describe Meloni's Brothers of Italy.

Are these parties not all more or less the same (except the AfD which seems to be that bit more right-wing)?

Is it just because they sue whenever someone calls them that in the press? While the RN seem happy with the far-right label, Reform do not, and that's something I struggle to understand.

In general, the UK has a more right wing leaning media than peer countries/economies; hence the tendency to not want to label themselves as far-right when reporting.

 

[nw1]

Because the Overton window (what is understood to constitute the centre) has always been a bit further right in the UK than on the mainland?

Could be but Reform do seem to be extraordinarily sensitive to this.

Given the RN's fairly high level of support in France (comparable to Reform AFAIK) is it actually true that the UK is further right? I understand the hard-right (I'll use that term) to be an international problem across Europe.

I will say that Brexit seems to be a uniquely British thing. Even the hard-right/far-right parties on the Continent are not advocating taking their countries out of the EU. Perhaps they have seen what a disaster Brexit is, and even the RN or AfD are not so stupid as to do something similar. Thus, dare I say it, on some matters I would actually place the RN less to the right than Reform - but perhaps that proves your point.

 

[JamesT]

Could be but Reform do seem to be extraordinarily sensitive to this.

Given the RN's fairly high level of support in France (comparable to Reform AFAIK) is it actually true that the UK is further right? I understand the hard-right (I'll use that term) to be an international problem across Europe.

I will say that Brexit seems to be a uniquely British thing. Even the hard-right/far-right parties on the Continent are not advocating taking their countries out of the EU. Perhaps they have seen what a disaster Brexit is, and even the RN or AfD are not so stupid as to do something similar. Thus, dare I say it, on some matters I would actually place the RN less to the right than Reform - but perhaps that proves your point.

I know you like to define things you don't like as right-wing, but Brexit isn't necessarily one of them. I think describing Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn as right-wing would be a bit of a stretch. Protectionism has a long history on the left-wing.
As to those European parties you've mentioned. RN have certainly advocated for Frexit in the past. The AfD leader has done similarly for Germany.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Could be but Reform do seem to be extraordinarily sensitive to this.

Because being "far-right" wouldn't fit their narrative of being "for the people". Their whole thing is based on convincing people that their views are normal and level headed, not extreme in the slightest, and for the benefit of the everyday person. Accepting a "far-right" label would tarnish their reputation among some of their core target audience.

That said, Farage's labeling them as a "centre-right" party does seem to have alienated some of his most vile, proudly far-right support based, who are now claiming support for the more openly "far-right" parties such as Advance, Restore and UKIP.

 

[The exile]

And then of course there is UKIP (yes, it still exists), with it new logo and slogan "The New Right". The logo looking very much like the iron cross/Maltese cross favoured by the Nazis, pierced by what appears to be the Spear of Destiny. As per this picture.

View attachment 198446

To be fair to the poor old Maltese Cross - its use in the form of the Iron Cross dates back to 1813 and it is the current symbol of the Bundeswehr. The nature of the German “army” between 1920-ish and 1933 and constitutional restrictions for much of the post war period mean that its use as a medal in the 20th century at least was confined to periods where it meant “against us”!

 

[35B]

To be fair to the poor old Maltese Cross - its use in the form of the Iron Cross dates back to 1813 and it is the current symbol of the Bundeswehr. The nature of the German “army” between 1920-ish and 1933 and constitutional restrictions for much of the post war period mean that its use as a medal in the 20th century at least was confined to periods where it meant “against us”!

Indeed. After reading the post by @SargeNpton, I was struck by seeing a maltese cross symbol in a church service sheet at every point where it was customary to cross oneself. It reminded me how symbols can be used in various ways, not always their worst form

 

[nw1]

Because being "far-right" wouldn't fit their narrative of being "for the people". Their whole thing is based on convincing people that their views are normal and level headed, not extreme in the slightest, and for the benefit of the everyday person. Accepting a "far-right" label would tarnish their reputation among some of their core target audience.

Presumably the RN in France would think the same too - yet they don't seem to object to the far-right label.

 

[The exile]

Presumably the RN in France would think the same too - yet they don't seem to object to the far-right label.

They’re hardly going to care how they’re described in a foreign language in a foreign state. Once translation gets involved it’s very difficult to draw exact parallels.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Presumably the RN in France would think the same too - yet they don't seem to object to the far-right label.

I don't know, the French are famously quite blunt and direct when it comes to voicing their opinions - it's why they're often mistaken for being rude or offensive. The British, meanwhile, don't like to be seen as rude or offensive - we tend to try and dress things up with fluffy language and say things more subtly or indirectly. Whilst there are some Brits who are happy to be vocally far-right and support the likes of Advance, Restore, UKIP etc, a large chunk of Reform's target audience is the "I'm not racist, but..." brigade.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that Reform, and to some extent the Tories contain a lot of "Little Englanders" who yearn for aspects of the 18th & 19th centuries, when "England" effectively ruled much of the world. To them, the idea that we could be told what to do by "foreigners" including unelected European commissioners was anathema.

They need to recognise that we are a relatively small island, and that our past is "history", with little relevance to current world reality.

Reform claim they want to reduce taxes. What spending are they going to reduce in order to reduce taxes ? And who will benefit most from any tax cuts - you and me - or "big business" beneficiaries ?
And will their tax cits just mean income tax, hoping we will not notice higher VAT, NHS charges, higher rail fares, etc.?

 

[35B]

I think that Reform, and to some extent the Tories contain a lot of "Little Englanders" who yearn for aspects of the 18th & 19th centuries, when "England" effectively ruled much of the world. To them, the idea that we could be told what to do by "foreigners" including unelected European commissioners was anathema.

They need to recognise that we are a relatively small island, and that our past is "history", with little relevance to current world reality.

Reform claim they want to reduce taxes. What spending are they going to reduce in order to reduce taxes ? And who will benefit most from any tax cuts - you and me - or "big business" beneficiaries ?
And will their tax cits just mean income tax, hoping we will not notice higher VAT, NHS charges, higher rail fares, etc.?

That sense of historical uniqueness pervades more than the Brexit right - it's notably obvious in the views of some rejoiners.

 

[martin butler]

That sense of historical uniqueness pervades more than the Brexit right - it's notably obvious in the views of some rejoiners.

Lert, or right, it will make no difference, if you're not one of the high earners we all will suffer cuts in some shape or form, less choice, in what's covered by statuary controls, less things covered by NHS, unregulated fares, higher prices in shops, and of course, wages not keeping up with cost of living,

Brexit, and how people voted is just another side show, Under Reform, the chickens will truthly be coming home to roost. there will be more than a few cries of " I never expected the leopards to eat my face".

 

[317 forever]

They'd be the Campaign For Free Kent.

They might even create a Free United Campaign for Kent

 

[jon0844]

I think that Reform, and to some extent the Tories contain a lot of "Little Englanders" who yearn for aspects of the 18th & 19th centuries, when "England" effectively ruled much of the world. To them, the idea that we could be told what to do by "foreigners" including unelected European commissioners was anathema.

They need to recognise that we are a relatively small island, and that our past is "history", with little relevance to current world reality.

Reform claim they want to reduce taxes. What spending are they going to reduce in order to reduce taxes ? And who will benefit most from any tax cuts - you and me - or "big business" beneficiaries ?
And will their tax cits just mean income tax, hoping we will not notice higher VAT, NHS charges, higher rail fares, etc.?

Richard Tice has stated that he wants to cut minimum wage for young people, and axe all net zero projects (and somehow not being aware that this would lead to tens of thousands of job cuts). Basically, they're quite openly talking about the cuts that will impact the very people they want to vote for them.

But as long as they keep talking about removing non-whites from the country, they seem able to convince people it's a price worth paying. It worked for Trump, yet now a lot of Trump supporters are realising they were conned - and yet Reform still has support here despite it being possible to literally look at how it hasn't worked in another predominantly white, English-speaking, country.

 

[martin butler]

People are sometimes not willing to admit, yes, it's down to my own selfish stupid nature, that I am struggling, yet the people they are told to blame, are also struggling, the ones that are not, are the ones telling them who to blame, Saville row suits, expensive watches, and they claim to be just like you ?

I'm hoping that with the right now fracturing three ways, they will go back to obscurity, as assuming it's at best 30 percent of the voting population, split between Conservative, Reform, and now countless other splinter groups, who will be too busy claiming they're the real voice of the oppressed,

As long as Labour keep chipping away at reducing the number of Asylum seekers awaiting a decision, and keep deporting, legally those who fail, working with other countries to ensure their safe to return, that will undermine the argument of you're doing nothing especially when the numbers start to tally up, and labour can justifiably claim to have returned more than the conservatives did over 14 years, just in one term,

 

[jon0844]

The problem is that there are a lot of people who aren't just after asylum seekers being sent home. They want all foreigners gone, and they've made it quite clear many times that being born here doesn't doubt if you're not white.

 

[JamesT]

Richard Tice has stated that he wants to cut minimum wage for young people, and axe all net zero projects (and somehow not being aware that this would lead to tens of thousands of job cuts). Basically, they're quite openly talking about the cuts that will impact the very people they want to vote for them.

Youth unemployment has been rising. Making it more attractive to hire young people is likely to be an overall benefit for them. The current net zero policies are already leading to thousands of job losses in oil and gas, and other industries affected by our high energy prices.
He may be coming at it from a climate sceptic position, but he’s not wrong that things need to change to get us out of this stagnation we’ve been in for the last two decades.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The problem is that there are a lot of people who aren't just after asylum seekers being sent home. They want all foreigners gone, and they've made it quite clear many times that being born here doesn't doubt if you're not white.

Indeed. Just look at the replies to any of Rupert Lowe’s X posts on the subject

 

[AlterEgo]

Youth unemployment has been rising. Making it more attractive to hire young people is likely to be an overall benefit for them. The current net zero policies are already leading to thousands of job losses in oil and gas, and other industries affected by our high energy prices.
He may be coming at it from a climate sceptic position, but he’s not wrong that things need to change to get us out of this stagnation we’ve been in for the last two decades.

Getting young people to work for even less (young adults are already grossly discriminated against by having a lower minimum wage anyway) in unskilled and low waged roles is not going to kick-start economic growth. They pay hardly any tax as it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

Watched this thread with interest. I have a question to ask.

Caveat for context - I live in the “St Albans bubble” (see also “Cambridge“, “Guildford”, “Bath” etc)

But… I know a number of people from all types of backgrounds, upbringings, colours and creeds, from all over the country. Amongst my closer friends and family I have people ranging from ages of 20s to 80s, from long term unemployed to Chief Execs / Exec level of companies that are (or would be if they were listed) in the FTSE250, people on benefits to people with millions in the bank.

Most of them are unhappy with the current Government, and the last couple before that too. Amongst them are people who openly (and in some cases, proudly) state they support Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, and one of them (until recently!) was very pro SNP. A few of them actively campaign for their preferred party, and two are councillors.

But not one of my friends has said they support Reform.


My question therefore is: Assuming there are the number of reform supporters in the country that the polls suggest there are, why do they seem to be reluctant to say so in public? Are they embarrassed? Do they know deep down it is ‘wrong’ but like what they hear?

Or, is that I have a self selecting group of friends that appear to be reasonably sensible?

 

[JamesT]

Getting young people to work for even less (young adults are already grossly discriminated against by having a lower minimum wage anyway) in unskilled and low waged roles is not going to kick-start economic growth. They pay hardly any tax as it is.

They’ll be far more economically active with some sort of job than none. It’s not gross discrimination, merely an acknowledgment that a young inexperienced person is generally less attractive to hire. Growth doesn’t depend on higher taxes, it’s generally the other way round, we need higher growth to produce those higher taxes.

 

[AlterEgo]

They’ll be far more economically active with some sort of job than none. It’s not gross discrimination, merely an acknowledgment that a young inexperienced person is generally less attractive to hire.

So are 22 year olds who have never had a job, but by sole dint of their age they get paid more than other adults. Employers might also think disabled people or Muslims or women are less attractive to hire too but we don't let them pay those groups less for the same work.

Growth doesn’t depend on higher taxes, it’s generally the other way round, we need higher growth to produce those higher taxes.

Indeed, and good luck getting economic growth by expanding unskilled labour with poor wages. Exactly what has led us to this mess.

 

[Cdd89]

Getting young people to work for even less (young adults are already grossly discriminated against by having a lower minimum wage anyway) in unskilled and low waged roles is not going to kick-start economic growth. They pay hardly any tax as it is.

In a way, they are discriminated in favour of by having a lower minimum wage. It's a long time ago now, but when I first entered the job market in my chosen sector I was willing to accept pretty much any salary to get on the ladder (and I'd have accepted below minimum wage if that were allowed). Many young people are still supported by or living with their parents (obvioulsy there are exceptions) and so the argument for needing a full wage is a weaker.

I agree with you that it doesn't serve much purpose progressive in unskilled jobs / jobs without a pathway to promotion, although it does allow them to gain experience of paid work to put on their CV which is still arguably positive discrimination compared to someone searching for an unskilled job in later life without experience.

 

[AlterEgo]

In a way, they are discriminated in favour of by having a lower minimum wage. It's a long time ago now, but when I first entered the job market in my chosen sector I was willing to accept pretty much any salary to get on the ladder (and I'd have accepted below minimum wage if that were allowed). Many young people are still supported by or living with their parents (obvioulsy there are exceptions) and so the argument for needing a full wage is a weaker.

No, it isn't. That someone lives with their parents is neither here nor there. Adults deserve to be paid the same, regardless of age, for doing the same work, and their pay evaluated on the same basis as their peers in the normal way. And under 18s should only be paid less if, due to their age, they are legally unable to fulfil some parts of the job (eg: some warehousing duties in a store, or alcohol handling etc).

"Yes you're in a wheelchair but in a way we are discriminating positively by paying you less, don't you see? The boss thought you might be lazy or inexperienced or less productive, but thank goodness we can save a pound an hour and give you a job".

I agree with you that it doesn't serve much purpose progressive in unskilled jobs / jobs without a pathway to promotion, although it does allow them to gain experience of paid work to put on their CV which is still arguably positive discrimination compared to someone searching for an unskilled job in later life without experience.

How on earth it can be positive discrimination to pay someone less money than someone else is absurd.

"It was worse in my day/be thankful for what you've got" total guff which riddles our culture here. Under no circumstances would this ever be used to justify paying women less, or black people less, or gay people less, or Muslims less. I've been there and done it and got the T shirt myself, I would not use my own personal experiences of an unjust labour market to justify it after the fact when I'm pushing 40 and doing very nicely.

Or older people for that matter ("but they have a state pension so it's okay to pay them less").

If an 18 year old and a 22 year old are doing the same work, pay them the same. Arguing for an even wider disparity is lunacy. By the way, if the salary for a job is £15 an hour, well above minimum wage - it's illegal to pay the 18yo and the 22yo differently. This affects only the most vulnerable and neediest people - those on or near the minimum wage.

That Reform want to expand the inequality here is founded on the idea that young people are lazy and the idea that businesses would like to pay people less money to work for them.

 

[35B]

No, it isn't. That someone lives with their parents is neither here nor there. Adults deserve to be paid the same, regardless of age, for doing the same work, and their pay evaluated on the same basis as their peers in the normal way. And under 18s should only be paid less if, due to their age, they are legally unable to fulfil some parts of the job (eg: some warehousing duties in a store, or alcohol handling etc).

"Yes you're in a wheelchair but in a way we are discriminating positively by paying you less, don't you see? The boss thought you might be lazy or inexperienced or less productive, but thank goodness we can save a pound an hour and give you a job".


How on earth it can be positive discrimination to pay someone less money than someone else is absurd.

"It was worse in my day/be thankful for what you've got" total guff which riddles our culture here. Under no circumstances would this ever be used to justify paying women less, or black people less, or gay people less, or Muslims less. I've been there and done it and got the T shirt myself, I would not use my own personal experiences of an unjust labour market to justify it after the fact when I'm pushing 40 and doing very nicely.

Or older people for that matter ("but they have a state pension so it's okay to pay them less").

If an 18 year old and a 22 year old are doing the same work, pay them the same. Arguing for an even wider disparity is lunacy. By the way, if the salary for a job is £15 an hour, well above minimum wage - it's illegal to pay the 18yo and the 22yo differently. This affects only the most vulnerable and neediest people - those on or near the minimum wage.

That Reform want to expand the inequality here is founded on the idea that young people are lazy and the idea that businesses would like to pay people less money to work for them.

The other side of this is that, where a job is at minimum wage, the value of the work done by the employee does come into the equation - and the additional hourly cost can be a factor in the availability of a job. I've been there as a charity trustee who's had to confront that choice, and struggled to justify (for a role that was explicitly for training) that cost differential, due to the extra draw down on the grant funding that paid for the role.

While I despise Tice and his attempts to gut protections, the argument about fairness needs to consider carefully what unfairness may result if people can't get jobs in the first place. That balance is difficult, and not helped by excessively robust assertions about fairness.

As customers, we also need to reflect on our own approach to price - many of the jobs in question are low paid because we won't pay enough to get them out of being subsidised (hospitality in particular). Subsidising them through tax lets us off the hook of that choice - while keeping poverty going.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The bigger worry for young adults entering the jobs market would be a significant relaxation of employment legislation meaning that employers can jettison lower skilled workers once they reach a birthday where the cost of employing them goes up