Reform UK discussion

[styles]

On the few occasions that he makes himself available for questioning. He spoke to an empty room for his resignation flounce and didn’t attend the resultant declaration.

Indeed (and banning the journo who exposed his £5m donation was straight out of the Trump playbook), I just think when he does get questioned he is unfortunately quite good at speaking so quickly that the reporter doesn't have time to assess what he's said and form a follow-up question.

There are unfortunately a few things I have to give Farage and Reform credit on, and this is one of them.

 

[zero]

For years, the thinking was that Labour wanted to bring in immigrants because they'd vote Labour. Now, unless they come UK citizens (doing the necessary tests) they can't actually vote in a general election, but why let facts get in the way of outrage?

This one is sort of true though, as Commonwealth citizens living in the UK can vote in all elections.

 

[Harpo]

Indeed (and banning the journo who exposed his £5m donation was straight out of the Trump playbook), I just think when he does get questioned he is unfortunately quite good at speaking so quickly that the reporter doesn't have time to assess what he's said and form a follow-up question.

There are unfortunately a few things I have to give Farage and Reform credit on, and this is one of them.

The other Trump play added to speed is to attack the interviewing host. A number of BBC Radio interviews with Usaf and Anderson in recent times have become uninterruptible (and frankly unlistenable) anti-BBC rants.

I’m fairly certain the BBC would not exist in its current form under Reform.

 

[styles]

The other Trump play added to speed is to attack the interviewing host. A number of BBC Radio interviews with Usaf and Anderson in recent times have become uninterruptible (and frankly unlistenable) anti-BBC rants.

I’m fairly certain the BBC would not exist in its current form under Reform.

Yep, and even Jeremy Clarkson got round to this when he was at a protest in Whitehall against the inheritance tax changes for farmers. He was asked something along the lines of, "Didn't you buy this farm to avoid tax?", he replied along the lines of, "See, this is classic BBC.", then BBC's Victoria Derbyshire pointed out that he'd literally said to the Sunday Times years ago he was buying a farm to avoid tax. But his response wasn't to answer the question; it was just to attack the media. Farage and Anderson are awful for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 05:29 ==

This one is sort of true though, as Commonwealth citizens living in the UK can vote in all elections.

It's quite nuanced though.

You have to be a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, which is a Commonwealth citizen who has leave to remain or enter the UK or who doesn't require such leave. Not all Commonwealth citizens are qualifying Commonwealth citizens with the right to vote in elections. Usually it requires the right to abode (conferred through parental rights or being a female married to somebody with the right to abode), or having formal permission to stay through say a visa. In the case of asylum seekers from Commonwealth countries without leave to remain, for example, they cannot vote in all elections. If you have immigration restrictions or your status is pending, then it's a no. It's fairly complicated, but it is an issue I witness as a presiding officer at polling stations at times.

Now in theory, a party like Labour could encourage people to become qualifying Commonwealth citizens in order to then go out and vote for Labour. But in the 2024 general election, 2% of voters were qualifying Commonwealth citizens. Labour got 10% points more than the Tories, so even if every qualifying Commonwealth citizen had voted, that wouldn't have swung it. And we then have to consider how many people would've come to the UK without the suggested intentional policy of coaxing people to the UK in order to land votes - the vast majority of people coming from Commonwealth countries just genuinely want to build a life in the UK, and if they're committed to that, they should get to vote. I do think it should be based on citizenship rather than the odd situation we have with qualifying Commonwealth citizens but it's really unlikely to be swinging general elections. That's before even considering that the majority of migrants are not from Commonwealth countries, or the emmigration.

I think that brings us round to conspiracy theories really, particularly when the parties of government have spent a lot of time and effort into trying to reduce migration and specifically small boat crossings.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't remember who it was who said it but years ago on Radio 4 I remember somebody saying that the interesting thing about conspiracy theorists is that they never just believe one. It stuck with me for years

Yep I’ve noticed that. Someone I know went full anti-vax, Covid is a hoax, etc., concurrently becoming intensely religious (some might argue the greatest conspiracy theory of them all). Her output on social media is unintentionally hilarious (for me) as a result, although I fear for her kids.

 

[Ediswan]

The talking fast thing is interesting because I've noticed it in the US with Ben Shapiro and previously with Charlie Kirk. They talk so fast in response that the person they're debating doesn't quite get time to think. And because frankly they're debating the same issues all the time and they're full-time debaters/speakers up against a college student asking their first public political debate question, those speakers "win". Farage is fairly good at this also, by talking so quickly that it appears to shut down reporters' awkward questions which he doesn't want to answer.

Known as a Gish gallop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

The term "Gish gallop" was coined in 1994 by the anthropologist Eugenie Scott who named it after the creationist Duane Gish, whom she described as the technique's "most avid practitioner".

 

[Tetchytyke]

They say they want an authoritarian state but are voting for a party proposing the smallest state of the lot.

A small state can still be very authoritarian. No welfare, no education, no NHS, but plenty of soldiers and plenty of police.

Oh, and plenty of purchases from the defence supplier which Christopher Harborne part-owns...

I agree it veers from anti-establishment to conspiratorial – problem X (say small boat arrivals) is happening, and it doesn't take a huge leap for them to assert that this is because the state wants it to happen. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it might be a really hard problem

They're so close to the heart of the problem. "The state" does want it to happen, it's just not our state which wants it to happen.

Many of the migrant routes are under the control of far-Eastern Europe organised crime (Russia and Belarus, but also Georgia and Armenia). There is also now a significant crossover between these OCGs and OCGs which are now operating out of Israel- all the dodgy Russians who discovered a Jewish heritage in 2022 and used it as their exit pass from Russia's war have simply continued their business just as before, just now with Israeli citizenship. Dubai also features prominently.

These organised crime groups (OCGs) don't get to operate without the blessing of the Russian secret services, some are under the direct control of the FSB but some operate with more plausible deniability, simply paying a portion of their revenue to the FSB.

 

[Mojo]

For years, the thinking was that Labour wanted to bring in immigrants because they'd vote Labour. Now, unless they come UK citizens (doing the necessary tests) they can't actually vote in a general election, but why let facts get in the way of outrage?

Did I mention that these people can't vote in a general election?

You can repeat the same thing twice, but it doesn’t make it true. Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections with no need to become British citizens, and Commonwealth citizens make up almost half of the 5.6 Million people who have been allowed to move here in the past five years.

 

[AlterEgo]

You can repeat the same thing twice, but it doesn’t make it true. Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections with no need to become British citizens, and Commonwealth citizens make up almost half of the 5.6 Million people who have been allowed to move here in the past five years.

Yep, my wife, a Commonwealth citizen, was able to vote in a General Election on her Tier 2 work visa in 2017. She had been in the UK for 10 months. As it turns out she didn't vote, and was surprised she even had the right to.

 

[sor]

You can repeat the same thing twice, but it doesn’t make it true. Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections with no need to become British citizens, and Commonwealth citizens make up almost half of the 5.6 Million people who have been allowed to move here in the past five years.

and worth noting that this is essentially not reciprocated. New Zealand is closest but they require permanent residency, it's not given to people fresh off the plane. It was utterly insane that they had the right to vote in the EU ref when most resident EU citizens could not.

Even weirder still is the fact that CW citizens can stand for election even if they do not hold British / Irish citizenship.

IMO we should move to a similar approach to Australia. British or Irish citizenship required to vote, dual citizens except British/Irish banned from standing for election.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections with no need to become British citizens

True, but they have to have the legal right to be here in order to vote. The legal migrants obviously can vote, the boat people can't.

I do find it ironic that a party such as Reform simultaneously harks back to the days of the British Empire but also gets upset when those former British subjects are allowed to move here and vote.

Kemi Badenoch makes me laugh, too. She's the ultimate anchor baby. When she was born you automatically became British if you were born here. So her mother, with no links to the UK, simply got on a plane and flew to the UK to make sure Kemi got British citizenship. Interesting how she doesn't intend to apply her policies retrospectively because, if she did, she'd have to deport herself. Ziauddin Yusuf is the same. So, too, is Shabana Mahmood.

 

[AlterEgo]

Kemi Badenoch makes me laugh, too. She's the ultimate anchor baby. When she was born you automatically became British if you were born here. So her mother, with no links to the UK, simply got on a plane and flew to the UK to make sure Kemi got British citizenship. Interesting how she doesn't intend to apply her policies retrospectively because, if she did, she'd have to deport herself. Ziauddin Yusuf is the same. So, too, is Shabana Mahmood.

Has Badenoch proposed a change in the law around birth tourism? It is now the case you can't do what her mother did and claim citizenship, so I'm a bit lost here.

Zia Yusuf is my age and was never a child born to parents practicing birth tourism because that had already been outlawed. His parents had moved and settled here legally. The implication people cannot advocate for restrictions on immigration because of the circumstances of their birth beyond their control can't really stand.

 

[Tetchytyke]

he implication people cannot advocate for restrictions on immigration because of the circumstances of their birth beyond their control can't really stand.

Why not? People who want to pull the drawbridge up behind them are the worst sorts of people.

People like Yusuf or Priti Patel, whose families moved here to escape war in their home countries, lecturing us on how we're full and can't take in anyone else fleeing war in their home country. I have absolutely zero time or respect for that sort of hypocrisy.

Has Badenoch proposed a change in the law around birth tourism? It is now the case you can't do what her mother did and claim citizenship, so I'm a bit lost here.

She's advocating changing the law so that people who move here and legally settle here can never truly become permanent. She's advocating laws which mean that you can be born here and raised here and go to school here but can still be kicked out at any time.

It's only fair to apply that sort of thing retrospectively to anyone who advocates those laws. Goose, gander, etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not? People who want to pull the drawbridge up behind them are the worst sorts of people.

You're talking about someone who was born inside the castle!

People like Yusuf or Priti Patel, whose families moved here to escape war in their home countries, lecturing us on how we're full and can't take in anyone else fleeing war in their home country. I have absolutely zero time or respect for that sort of hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy; they didn't ask to be born here or to have the parents they have. It's different if they'd claimed asylum themselves, but none of them have, and for that matter neither did their parents anyway. Not that it matters a jot as to the worth of the argument. The idea is either good or it is bad. It's not bad just because it's coming from a brown person whose parents gave birth to them in circumstances which means they're British citizens. It's such a terrible idea that immigrants or their children must subscribe to a set of views or be uniquely seen as traitors by apparently liberal people. Is my daughter doomed to be criticised as a hypocrite in the year 2065 if she suggests some work related visas be scrapped?

You don't even live in the UK any more but that fact isn't relevant as to whether your ideas about the place are good or bad or whether anyone should treat you as acting in good faith. (Which, for the avoidance of doubt, they should!)

She's advocating changing the law so that people who move here and legally settle here can never truly become permanent. She's advocating laws which mean that you can be born here and raised here and go to school here but can still be kicked out at any time.

It's only fair to apply that sort of thing retrospectively to anyone who advocates those laws. Goose, gander, etc.

That would still not affect Badenoch, who was born here and was a citizen from birth. It would not affect a baby like Badenoch who was born here to non citizens either, as none of those people can get leave or be citizens as a result of such a birth and haven't been since the 1980s.

Her idea is extremely dumb, but it isn't because she was born to Nigerian parents who exploited a loophole. It's because she's pandering to fools who don't understand how our economy works.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's not hypocrisy; they didn't ask to be born here or to have the parents they have.

Indeed not. But they did actively decide to come out and offer policy positions which would discriminate against people who are in the same position now as they and their family were then.

I don't think people should be held to a higher standard, and her ideas are dumb because they're dumb. But I think there is an inherent hypocrisy behind politicians proposing to abolish something which they themselves benefitted from, especially when they try and frame it in terms of that thing being "bad." Patel's family fled Idi Amin in basically the clothes they were wearing, the UK welcomed them, and her family went on to build themselves back up from nothing. That should be applauded, instead Patel's position is that people in that position now are absolutely not welcome here.

I wouldn't have an issue if they were upfront about it- "I benefitted from the thing but I don't think I should have done"- but they never are. There's always some sort of mental gymnastics involved about why they're special and why it shouldn't apply to them. I get why people do those mental gymnastics, it is human nature, but I do find it distasteful.

You don't even live in the UK any more but that fact isn't relevant as to whether your ideas about the place are good or bad or whether anyone should treat you as acting in good faith. (Which, for the avoidance of doubt, they should!)

Actually, I think it is relevant.

I'm a dual national and I wasn't born in the UK. I acquired my other citizenship through birth because my parents emigrated for economic reasons and had permanent residence (but not citizenship) in that country. That changed not all that long after I was born. I have been able to pass both citizenships on to my own children, although they can only pass it on if they go and live in that country.

I find it amusing that I fall into the demographic that so upsets Reform: I was born in a foreign country to economic migrants and then moved to the UK.

But I think that if I were to now argue that people after me shouldn't be allowed to do that then it would be hypocritical of me. It's also perhaps not surprising that I don't have much of an issue with economic migration.

I now don't live in the UK. Although the Isle of Man has basically the same immigration framework as the UK it is slightly different, for instance I recently renewed my British passport and it doesn't say UK on it, it says Isle of Man. I'm registered to vote in UK elections as an overseas resident. I think overseas residents who are dual nationals should be allowed to vote but, then again, I would say that wouldn't I?

 

[jon0844]

You can repeat the same thing twice, but it doesn’t make it true. Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections with no need to become British citizens, and Commonwealth citizens make up almost half of the 5.6 Million people who have been allowed to move here in the past five years.

I don't think the average Reform voter is as worked up about Commonwealth members, compared to those they see coming on the boats.

I would also still question the assumption that they'd all come in and vote Labour to be given everything for free as was always suggested. It's only now Reform exists that the argument extends to the Conservatives too, making the whole concept so ridiculous.

 

[Three-Nine]

The talking fast thing is interesting because I've noticed it in the US with Ben Shapiro and previously with Charlie Kirk. They talk so fast in response that the person they're debating doesn't quite get time to think. And because frankly they're debating the same issues all the time and they're full-time debaters/speakers up against a college student asking their first public political debate question, those speakers "win". Farage is fairly good at this also, by talking so quickly that it appears to shut down reporters' awkward questions which he doesn't want to answer.

This tactic has a name, the “Gish Gallop” after Duane Gish who was a prominent creationist (and a biochemist) and who used the technique a great deal (he probably didn’t invent it as such as I suspect snake oil salesman and the like have been doing something similar for decades, if not centuries).

It’s worth bearing in mind that it doesn’t matter how great (or fast talking) a debater you are, if - for example - you don’t believe in Gravity yet fall off a cliff (barring exceptional circumstances) Gravity is going to win that argument every time.

Edit: ah, Ediswan, sorry, I didn’t see your post where you already pointed out the “Gish Gallop”.

 

[Cdd89]

I wouldn't have an issue if they were upfront about it- "I benefitted from the thing but I don't think I should have done"- but they never are. There's always some sort of mental gymnastics involved about why they're special and why it shouldn't apply to them. I get why people do those mental gymnastics, it is human nature, but I do find it distasteful.

I mean taken to an extreme, you could argue that anyone who expresses views in favour of abortion is a hypocrite because what are they doing here, alive? (And that debate is extreme enough that I'm sure the argument has been made).

In general I do agree that people are hypocrites based on their actions, not their circumstances. Aside from anything else, the charge has to be narrowly defined if it is to mean something.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't think the average Reform voter is as worked up about Commonwealth members, compared to those they see coming on the boats.

They're not too fond of Pakistani people

 

[styles]

I wouldn't have an issue if they were upfront about it- "I benefitted from the thing but I don't think I should have done"- but they never are. There's always some sort of mental gymnastics involved about why they're special and why it shouldn't apply to them. I get why people do those mental gymnastics, it is human nature, but I do find it distasteful.

I say this quite often about all parties.

Michael Matheson as an SNP MSP let his lad watch football on his Holyrood-issued iPad and the roaming bill was about £10k.

Boris Johnson as a Tory PM accepted a £100k renovation from a company I forget the name of.

Fiona Onasanya as a Labour MP tried to get her partner to take the speeding points on her driving licence (well actually, it was within the range for being offered a speed awareness course even!)

These stories dominated the news for inordinate amount of times, whereas if you just said you know what, sorry, I did 40mph in a 30mph zone or I forgot to connect my work iPad to the hotel Wifi, people would mostly say yeah ok whatever and the story would disappear.

I believe Farage would've been better off in this donation issue just saying this is who I got the donation from, when, and what it actually got spent on.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I say this quite often about all parties.

Michael Matheson as an SNP MSP let his lad watch football on his Holyrood-issued iPad and the roaming bill was about £10k.

Boris Johnson as a Tory PM accepted a £100k renovation from a company I forget the name of.

Fiona Onasanya as a Labour MP tried to get her partner to take the speeding points on her driving licence (well actually, it was within the range for being offered a speed awareness course even!)

These stories dominated the news for inordinate amount of times, whereas if you just said you know what, sorry, I did 40mph in a 30mph zone or I forgot to connect my work iPad to the hotel Wifi, people would mostly say yeah ok whatever and the story would disappear.

I believe Farage would've been better off in this donation issue just saying this is who I got the donation from, when, and what it actually got spent on.

Its certainly true that often the cover-up / denial / whataboutery is worse than the alleged offence, the Farage donation is 50 times bigger than the biggest of the other things you've mentioned, so you'd like to think that even had he been open and honest (I know....) this probably should have dominated the news for a while

 

[BAFRA77]

These stories dominated the news for inordinate amount of times, whereas if you just said you know what, sorry, I did 40mph in a 30mph zone or I forgot to connect my work iPad to the hotel Wifi, people would mostly say yeah ok whatever and the story would disappear.

I believe Farage would've been better off in this donation issue just saying this is who I got the donation from, when, and what it actually got spent on.

I seem to remember (and heard it referenced on radio a few times in the last few weeks) of Blair's tactic when Prime Minister was to front up to the media / MPs and take the coating from them and then move on - get it all out in the open and dealt with (I can't remember the exact term they gave to it)

 

[SuspectUsual]

I seem to remember (and heard it referenced on radio a few times in the last few weeks) of Blair's tactic when Prime Minister was to front up to the media / MPs and take the coating from them and then move on - get it all out in the open and dealt with (I can't remember the exact term they gave to it)

Alastair Campbell has said similar on his podcast with the lesser-spotted relatively sensible Tory, Rory Stewart.

Something along the lines of "in this day and age you have to assume everything will eventually come out, and you can't try and draw a line in the sand until it has done so, so you may as well get it over with"