Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How do you convince people who think Covid wasn't real, that 5G is intended to control us, that cities will soon stop allowing people to leave (15 minute cities), EVs and net zero is worse than drilling for more oil because they're not really green and don't save the planet, and so on?
These are people so easily led into believing wild conspiracy theories and then start to believe everything else they're told - like asylum seekers living in 4 star hotels with free phones and cars.
Many of these people could be considered victims because they're being played by not only politicians but the likes of the oil industry and other large powerful companies and corporations that want you to look down and not up.
As I've said before, Reform can't win by relying on rich people voting (and businesses can't vote) so they must get the masses to be convinced.
I'm not sure the main parties need to engage with the more extreme end of reform supporters but they do need to engage with the less extreme end which is probably a larger part of their support.
If Labour is able to demonstrate that small boat arrivals do fall, get the asylum process working faster and by doing so reduce the numbers needing to be housed at any point the more moderate reform supporters may fall away from the party.
It's going to take a while for the policies that labour are using targeting the gangs to take effect but their are encouraging signs it is working in causing them to have to change tactics. The changes to the asylum processes and the increase in staffing to clear the backlog of cases will have more of an effect overtime in reducing numbers needing to be housed. If other things stay the same and we have no increase in the numbers seeking asylum, these should reduce the numbers waiting their application quite considerably over the next few years.
How do you convince people who think Covid wasn't real, that 5G is intended to control us, that cities will soon stop allowing people to leave (15 minute cities), EVs and net zero is worse than drilling for more oil because they're not really green and don't save the planet, and so on?
These are people so easily led into believing wild conspiracy theories and then start to believe everything else they're told - like asylum seekers living in 4 star hotels with free phones and cars.
Many of these people could be considered victims because they're being played by not only politicians but the likes of the oil industry and other large powerful companies and corporations that want you to look down and not up.
As I've said before, Reform can't win by relying on rich people voting (and businesses can't vote) so they must get the masses to be convinced.
This is exactly the kind of stereotyping I was talking about. You have to understand that many people leaning towards Reform do not fit these internet meme stereotypes. Otherwise you're going to be in a for shock, just as we were after the Brexit vote.
If Labour is able to demonstrate that small boat arrivals do fall, get the asylum process working faster and by doing so reduce the numbers needing to be housed at any point the more moderate reform supporters may fall away from the party.
It's going to take a while for the policies that labour are using targeting the gangs to take effect but their are encouraging signs it is working in causing them to have to change tactics. The changes to the asylum processes and the increase in staffing to clear the backlog of cases will have more of an effect overtime in reducing numbers needing to be housed. If other things stay the same and we have no increase in the numbers seeking asylum, these should reduce the numbers waiting their application quite considerably over the next few years.
Let's be honest; if the boat numbers do fall then Reform will simply move on to disabled people and the unemployed for 'scrounging off the state' and being the reason 'hard working Brits' are suffering.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is exactly the kind of stereotyping I was talking about. You have to understand that many people leaning towards Reform do not fit these internet meme stereotypes. Otherwise you're going to be in a for shock, just as we were after the Brexit vote.
It isn't stereotyping. Obviously not every Reform supporter is a wild conspiracy theorist, but you only have to look at the number of Reform related avatars in posts about the things I mentioned (plus stuff like ULEZ and more that I forgot about), or look at other posts from those people, to see that a lot of people who believe nonsense also believe in Reform.
I really can't see how any party can engage with them. How would you suggest they do?
This is exactly the kind of stereotyping I was talking about. You have to understand that many people leaning towards Reform do not fit these internet meme stereotypes. Otherwise you're going to be in a for shock, just as we were after the Brexit vote.
The problem is that Reform policy is, in my opinion, based on mistruths and the fallacy that immigration and ‘wokeness’ is the single most important factor in people’s lives. So I can’t see any reasonable reason to vote for this party.
Other parties need to be doing all they can to fight those mistruths. They certainly need a lot more empathy for ordinary working people, but also explain to them that immigration is really not the most important factor in their lives. The trouble is, any party that does that will have also have to fight the propaganda from the tabloid press and GB News.
Or do the other parties start having a more right-wing approach and agree that immigration is a massive issue that needs to most attention? That would alienate their other voters.
Some people have touched on this, but the wider problem with Reform's rise is that not enough people are asking why they are rapidly gaining in popularity. I don't mean asking amongst their own political peers, then downright dismissing anyone vaguely leaning in the direction of Reform as racist or ignorant. The main parties need to climb down off their high horses and start to engage with the people heading to Reform, and even those shouting at hotels or painting flags on roads.
Whether people want to believe it or not, but there are increasing numbers of people who feel disengaged from the political system and largely ignored by decision makers. It's this perception that Farage has jumped on, again. He did it successfully during the Brexit campaign, and he might just do it again (Trump also did it in 2016 & 2024). Forget opinion polls, politicians and their strategists need to pay more attention to what is happening on social media, because it is there that you will find the true picture of what people are thinking and how they are feeling. As mentioned above Trump's campaign in 2016 tapped right into this, getting a real feel for the mood of the room and even being able to use social media quite legally to lean some undecided voters in their direction.
Any party or supporters who dismiss the impact that Reform might have in coming years, may do so at their peril. The Conservatives made this error at the last general election, they assumed that Labour would make no gains and dismissed the idea of Reform eating into their share, which what really cost them the election. All parties are likely to make the same mistake unless they get out there, park any prejudices and find out why people are unhappy. Otherwise it will be Farage time!
While I agree with he general premise, social media is a royal mess that one cannot actually get a true picture of society via. It's full of echo chambers and algorithms that make sure even a well-intentioned person seeking a broad representation can't see the full picture. Jonathan Pie notably said in 2019 "the real world is not on your Facebook feed." By all means use it to communicate messages and campaign, but this should supplement, not substitute, on the ground campaigns. An example of this is the lead opposition to Viktor Orban in Hungary has been doing large-scale on the ground campaigning, both to get round a government-controlled media landscape and make voters feel engaged.
I'd also go further and have citizens' assemblies to discuss key policy issues, with stratified samples of different professions, regions and other groupings getting together. This will make more of society feel engaged, even those not directly taking part, as long as their own life is represented.
This is exactly the kind of stereotyping I was talking about. You have to understand that many people leaning towards Reform do not fit these internet meme stereotypes. Otherwise you're going to be in a for shock, just as we were after the Brexit vote.
I imagine there are a lot of new Reform voters like my 60 year old cousin. He himself doesn't vote Reform and lives on a modern housing estate in Aycliffe Village. He either votes Labour or doesn't vote at all but probably has similarities with middle aged Reform voters. He has training as a chef but hasn't held down a proper job and been very reckless with money in recent years.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
While I agree with he general premise, social media is a royal mess that one cannot actually get a true picture of society via. It's full of echo chambers and algorithms that make sure even a well-intentioned person seeking a broad representation can't see the full picture. Jonathan Pie notably said in 2019 "the real world is not on your Facebook feed." By all means use it to communicate messages and campaign, but this should supplement, not substitute, on the ground campaigns. An example of this is the lead opposition to Viktor Orban in Hungary has been doing large-scale on the ground campaigning, both to get round a government-controlled media landscape and make voters feel engaged.
I'd also go further and have citizens' assemblies to discuss key policy issues, with stratified samples of different professions, regions and other groupings getting together. This will make more of society feel engaged, even those not directly taking part, as long as their own life is represented.
A lot of older middle class people seem to have had their minds completed melted by X in the past decade or so. Scottish political discourse on X is now completely unhinged as well.
I should probably delete my X account but there are a few LD and Lab supporters who I still interact with on that platform.
The problem is that Reform policy is, in my opinion, based on mistruths and the fallacy that immigration and ‘wokeness’ is the single most important factor in people’s lives. So I can’t see any reasonable reason to vote for this party.
Other parties need to be doing all they can to fight those mistruths. They certainly need a lot more empathy for ordinary working people, but also explain to them that immigration is not the most important factor in their lives. The trouble is, any party that does that will have also have to fight the propaganda from the tabloid press and GB News.
Or do the other parties start having a more right-wing approach and agree that immigration is a massive issue that needs to most attention? That would alienate their other voters.
Yes Reform lead by misinformation, but their rise will only be slowed and reversed when the other parties start to address the issues that Reform have triggered. It doesn't necessarily need a lurch to the right, it means addressing the causes and demonstrating results. So for example improving the efficiency of the whole Asylum process, dealing with claims quicker, either integrating those who are successful or removing those who are not in less time, thus negating the need for the use of so many hotels. I know Labour have pledged this by 2029, but that is a long time in politics and more than enough to allow Reform enough traction to make a real impact at the next General Election.
Additionally there needs to be some honesty about how and why immigrants arrive on our shores by boat. The perception is that they do so to get benefits and free homes, or escape their native countries from persecution. Whilst the former is pretty much a myth, so to a degree is the former. Many of these immigrants are still economic, but being taken advantage of by both people traffickers and the black market economy in this country. I know from some work done by some of my colleagues (which sorry I cannot share at this time), that a theme found time and again is that when either trying to leave their countries or en route, traffickers get them to commit to working off the grid in the UK, often at appalling amounts and given incredibly basic accommodation, often little more than a shipping crate. And they do so to pay back the traffickers for moving them, the boats etc, which can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars depending on the route.
So serious work needs to happen to tackle not only the traffickers, but those driving the black market economy in this country. It's often only when these people spit out the immigrants into the system that these things emerge, but it is a real and ongoing problem. Solve this, and the numbers of boats will fall, traffickers do not do this for the good of the immigrants, they chase profits even in human misery. But to do so will mean some very difficult decisions, and certainly many business that seem legitimate at the public facing end to fail.
Of course this is just in my opinion, but I do honestly believe this is the only way. Polarising the political spectrum further by simply dismissing other people's views because they don't align with yours is not only unhelpful, but could prove to be counter-productive. If we as a country don't want Reform to march into power Trump style, then politicians are going to have to learn to listen to opposing views and where possible find some compromises.
We've moved beyond the ability to ignore social media because everyone is on it in one way or another, whether it is Facebook or the many new platforms that have come since.
This is where most people get their 'news' because most people don't buy newspapers and when you're online, you're presented with content based on algorithms.
That is very much the problem. You only need to watch a few videos showing foreigners committing a crime or something (or like or share one or two) and pretty soon that's all you'll get.
That is very much the problem. You only need to watch a few videos showing foreigners committing a crime or something (or like or share one or two) and pretty soon that's all you'll get.
Once people realise what they watch on those platforms truly influences what they're fed then it's a personal decision for them whether to break the cycle. On YT the 'Not Interested' and / or 'Don't Recommend Channel' options are available to everyone. How often those functions are isn't clear - but judging from the view counts on right-wing flavoured slop YT tries to (very occasionally) send my way there does seem to be a willing audience for it. There are people out there who want to be outraged by this sort of crap and who are happy to let it seep into their everyday lives, opinions and ultimately voting habits.
Social media platforms often ignore your request for 'show me less of this'. Some options are to hide or reduce something for a set period of time, but the algorithm just pushes other random stuff on you (Facebook seems less interested in showing you what friends are doing, but rather stuff from people/companies you don't even follow). I've absolutely had new posts from a poster I've asked to see less of.
A lot of the nasty content you see is on community pages, where people are posting stuff about migrants (or right now, flags in the local area) and - yes you can hide these manually - but I bet most people don't. And every time there's more engagement, it is bumped up the list. You'll also see this stuff if your friends liked it, and over the years I've come to realise that I'm friends with a lot of people that harbour quite horrific views (friends on FB usually include friends, family, work colleagues, people you've met at a party and so on). So at this point, you need to start considering pruning your friends - which I doubt a lot of people do.
Look at how important it is to have lots of friends for some people on social media. You can now follow people without becoming their friend, and you can also find yourself getting bombarded with content because the 'cute cat memes' FB page you liked has been taken over and renamed to 'Send the boats back'. Sure, FB will now show the history of pages but how many people are suitably educated to learn all of these somewhat underhand methods to bombard us with things we probably didn't ask for?
Schools and colleges need to educate the next generation on how it all works, but I guess that would be seen as nannying and woke.
This is exactly the kind of stereotyping I was talking about. You have to understand that many people leaning towards Reform do not fit these internet meme stereotypes. Otherwise you're going to be in a for shock, just as we were after the Brexit vote.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who believe in at least some of the nonsense spouted. They don't have to be drooling Covid deniers to believe rubbish about "15 minute cities", although these are usually the same people who are crying about the loss of local amenities too.
I know one Reform voter who cries constantly about her small town losing the pub, bank, library and more. When you point out that the concept of a 15 minute city involves having all these things within walking distance, they melt down and claim that 15 minute cities are designed to keep us in one place. They cannot comprehend that what they desire (a return to a world where someone had everything in their small town) is completely incompatible with the view that the car is the answer to everything, and they're completely immune to reason and logic.
The problem is that other parties are really finding it hard to find a credible narrative that can break through. It's understandable in a way, because many Reform voters have seen public services gutted, and now Reform are promising them fairytales about how they'll have all of these things without having to pay for them. But I think we also have to point out that Reform are willing to get in there and fight for votes, something that many other parties rarely do.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One other thing: the big parties are all guilty of ignoring working class voters. They won't go to their doorsteps, they won't organise things with them, they're generally ignored and treated as if they're simply to vote in accordance with the popular party of the day.
Part of the problem is that politics has become a very elite profession, so the days of having Paul the firebrand trade unionist at your door are pretty much over. Instead, you've got Louise, the politics graduate from Oxbridge who is the daughter of a donor to (insert party here), and she has nothing in common with the working class truck driver. She turns up and gives the party line because she's aiming to get the nod from the branch for the next General Election, but she won't answer difficult questions about why Truck Driver Paul has to pay for "boat people".
Meanwhile, Reform send some guy with two GCSEs who speaks the language of the street (i.e. whatever's on the front page of The Sun that day) and it's not hard to see who gets a better reception. The parties really have to reconnect with their roots, whether it's working class trade unionists (Labour) or middle class shop owners (Conservatives).
Social media platforms often ignore your request for 'show me less of this'. Some options are to hide or reduce something for a set period of time, but the algorithm just pushes other random stuff on you (Facebook seems less interested in showing you what friends are doing, but rather stuff from people/companies you don't even follow). I've absolutely had new posts from a poster I've asked to see less of.
I must admit I do think the end state of Social Media, assuming we make it that far, is going to be the outlawing or, at least, the very very serious restriction on and requirement to be transparent about algorithmic social media feeds. It seems to me that it all started to go very very wrong when things like Facebook changed from a basically chronological list of stuff your friends/groups had posted or were doing with perhaps clear recommendations (rather than just being mixed into you one feed) for other people or groups that you might be interested in. Into a feed of what Facebook thinks you'll interact with and will keep you on the site the longest whilst also just feeding you people and groups that it thinks will interest you without making it massively clear that this is not a group you've followed. Therefore feeding you stuff that generally encourages anger/fear reactions because it is known that's the way to drive engagement.
For me that's when Social Media turned properly toxic and dangerous and I can't help but suspect that that's where the regulation will eventually end up falling the hardest, on those algorithms that feed us division and hate because the tech companies know that's how they keep us engaged on their websites and keep us valuable to them and their advertisers.
If, as I say, we make it that far. Could all go completely tits up before then (either in some sort of apocalyptic scenario or just the complete collapse of liberal democracy entirely).
But that's probably topic for another thread really!
For me that's when Social Media turned properly toxic and dangerous and I can't help but suspect that that's where the regulation will eventually end up falling the hardest, on those algorithms that feed us division and hate because the tech companies know that's how they keep us engaged on their websites and keep us valuable to them and their advertisers.
Hence why the super-wealthy owners, the nations they are based in and their brown noseing UK mini-mes squeal about ‘free speech’ whenever legislation to protect users is discussed. Disinformation to enable the continuation of er, disinformation.
I must admit I do think the end state of Social Media, assuming we make it that far, is going to be the outlawing or, at least, the very very serious restriction on and requirement to be transparent about algorithmic social media feeds. It seems to me that it all started to go very very wrong when things like Facebook changed from a basically chronological list of stuff your friends/groups had posted or were doing with perhaps clear recommendations (rather than just being mixed into you one feed) for other people or groups that you might be interested in. Into a feed of what Facebook thinks you'll interact with and will keep you on the site the longest whilst also just feeding you people and groups that it thinks will interest you without making it massively clear that this is not a group you've followed. Therefore feeding you stuff that generally encourages anger/fear reactions because it is known that's the way to drive engagement.
For me that's when Social Media turned properly toxic and dangerous and I can't help but suspect that that's where the regulation will eventually end up falling the hardest, on those algorithms that feed us division and hate because the tech companies know that's how they keep us engaged on their websites and keep us valuable to them and their advertisers.
If, as I say, we make it that far. Could all go completely tits up before then (either in some sort of apocalyptic scenario or just the complete collapse of liberal democracy entirely).
But that's probably topic for another thread really!
I don't want to derail the thread further, but very quickly there is a docu-drama over on Netflix called "A Social Dilemma". It looks at the evolution of social media, and how it's changing human interactions and thinking, along with interviews with quite a few early social media devs.
If folk have Netflix, it's well worth a watch and very eye-opening.
I am very dubious. From personal experience, while I answer opinion polls and surveys that come my way, I do not participate in any social media apart from occasionally looking at the local 'NextDoor' page. I know for a fact that social media cannot possibly provide a true picture of my own thought or feelings, while to some extent I do feature in those polls and surveys. I am sure I am not the only one.
At the last local elections, NextDoor was filled with pro-Conservative messages and anti-Lib-Dem vitriol about 20mph limits, and I gather from Facebook users it was much the same there. According to social media, there was a Conservative landslide coming. In reality the Lib-Dems were returned with increased majorities.
Indeed, if social media were to be believed, Londoners were so much in support of 'bladerunners' cutting down ULEZ cameras that Khan would be out of a job. Instead, he increased his majority.
I think most of us know that much of what we see on social media is both false and made up. Whether this be for effect or to influence is neither here or there.
The unfortunate fact is that a) Many believe what they read no matter what it says, b) Many believe what they want to believe no matter what it says. Most of us at one time or another believe the 2nd one. Human nature.
I think most of us know that much of what we see on social media is both false and made up. Whether this be for effect or to influence is neither here or there.
The unfortunate fact is that a) Many believe what they read no matter what it says, b) Many believe what they want to believe no matter what it says. Most of us at one time or another believe the 2nd one. Human nature.
It's going to take a while for the policies that labour are using targeting the gangs to take effect but their are encouraging signs it is working in causing them to have to change tactics. The changes to the asylum processes and the increase in staffing to clear the backlog of cases will have more of an effect overtime in reducing numbers needing to be housed. If other things stay the same and we have no increase in the numbers seeking asylum, these should reduce the numbers waiting their application quite considerably over the next few years.
Nothing about Farage being torn apart by Congress yesterday?
What I want to know is why he's never interviewed in that way by UK journalists? Why is he pretty much always given a free ride?
The bigger question is why the UK media gives Deform such out of proportion publicity? Latest post on the BBC London Facebook page is an article about an interview with Richard Tice. Why? The guy doesn't even live in the UK!
Why isn't anyone asking why the MP for Clacton is thousands of miles away from his constituency, trying to get sanctions imposed on his own country?!
Video he of the speech in Congress with Nigel Farage in attendance to talk about our lack of free speech and even imply the need for stricter trade terms to punish the UK. Sadly the video doesn't cut to Farage's reaction during this drubbing down.
There are other videos that show the entire session for context, but I think is satisfactory for linking here for those who wonder why Nigel spends so much time in the USA and seems to be doing so much to harm our relations, not build them.
If you want to see a different perspective, check the GB News clips.
(Another video of some highlights with commentary by LBC)
In light of the problems faced by Angela Rayner over tax I assume we will soon see a similar expose about Mr Farage and his housing/taxation status in our free and fair press..............................
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
they also benefit form the way twitter, say, works.
Every post by the PM is shown with an army of blue tick negative comments before anything remotely positive is seen by the average user. There were 2 good news stories this week ( Norwegian warship contract/free pre school hours) and the responses on twitter were almost entirely negative and almost entirely by blue tick bot/brainless accounts.
Reform "may" be "good" at social media but the way social social media works/is worked by owners is good for Reform!
I gather that Farage patriotically displayed his Union Jack pin, sorry, GB News pin when speaking to Congress. We must display our true loyalties in public, mustn’t we.
I gather that Farage patriotically displayed his Union Jack pin, sorry, GB News pin when speaking to Congress. We must display our true loyalties in public, mustn’t we.
The mass disorder and violence doesn't seem to have even started yet. The flags and screaming people as you put it, is simply the steam coming out of a kettle. At some point, the kettle will become a pressure cooker and it will inevitably explode. That is the trajectory that I believe the UK is on at the moment.
Looking down and tutting at people painting and hanging the flags is ignorant, dangerous and wrong. A lot of these people will escalate in time, especially if they feel they're being sneered at.
Tinderbox comes to mind.
I am concerned that some people don't seem to appreciate that this is the reality. People I've worked with and known for many years, who I would consider very reasonable and pragmatic, people with previously no hard or fixed views one way or the other have transformed. Visit a GP surgery, and listen to what people in the waiting room are talking about. Listen to neighbours etc. There is genuine hatred towards firstly, the boats and hotels, followed by the Labour party.
Young people, in particular, seem even more polarised than the adults - I believe support for Reform for young adults is high.
Video he of the speech in Congress with Nigel Farage in attendance to talk about our lack of free speech and even imply the need for stricter trade terms to punish the UK. Sadly the video doesn't cut to Farage's reaction during this drubbing down.
There are other videos that show the entire session for context, but I think is satisfactory for linking here for those who wonder why Nigel spends so much time in the USA and seems to be doing so much to harm our relations, not build them.
If you want to see a different perspective, check the GB News clips.
(Another video of some highlights with commentary by LBC)
Why is there such an emphasis on immigrants in hotels?
I can (vaguely) understand concerns about immigrants but if they are all potenial murderers and rapist surely they are better corralled in a hotel than dispersed throughout the community
because they are living in 5 star hotels at taxpayers expense getting free ipads, cars, houses and jobs. That and loads of free cash.
Cynically - it is about getting these people out of hotels and into houses in the poorer communities where the "taking your jobs and homes" narrative can be further whipped up creating further unrest, creating a narrative that the country is out of control, that the government have lost control of the asylum system AND law and order and when "concerned local mothers/fathers" are arrested about how Starmer is a Marxist authoritarian who hates england and loves forgins etc etc etc all in the hope of enthroning Farage as our glorious leader!
The social media bots will hammer these lines, allowing the papers to repat them, allowing Farage to comment, allowing the wider media to report and so on and so on.
EDIT AND forcing these people into houses spread out around the country will make it much harder for the authorities to track, monitor, control and remove them!
Because most people are aware of the fact that Channel crossings are an illegal means of entry in the UK, therefore in the eyes of the public it makes us look like a soft touch when we put them in hotels instead of prison or on a plane to deport them, and when many of our own people are struggling or homeless (veterans are usually the easy go-to for these people) it's unjust that they be left in the cold streets while illegal migrants are given free accommodation.
Nevertheless, claiming asylum is protected by international law regardless of entry, so once here there isn't much else that can be done without either disregarding international law or adapting it so that claims can be made offshore and those who enter via illegal means such as small boats or lorries are not eligible. Hotels, while not ideal, are also better alternatives than refugee camps, but I imagine much of the outrage would still be the same.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
