I spoke to someone who had been canvassing for the Green party in rural Wiltshire. She had met lots of angry older men, who were fed up that they couldn't get through to their GP surgery, couldn't speak to anyone at their bank etc.
I think Reform is being very clever at making Immigration the reason that people can't get GP appointments etc rather than considering if it had anything to do with ten plus years of Tory austerity.
I do wish Labour would start to seize the agenda and that news outlets wouldn't give Farage so much airtime and column inches.
It's very difficult to win a war of ideas when the other side blatantly lies. I don't know who is telling people that asylum seekers get luxury accommodation with gourmet meals, are given iPhones and hundreds of quid a week but some bastard is.
Not all Brits are being specifically targeted as undesirables.
And the Reform-voters are probably not depressed about the party's championing of their causes. Quite the opposite.
They are, however, convinced that Starmer is trying to destroy the country by letting it be overrun by brown and trans people. Stupid lies can be just as depressing for those who believe them as the truth.
Overrun.... by trans people.
I am unable to comprehend the stupidity in that statement. There aren't enough trans people to overrun anything. Unless, of course, this is the fascist bigot definition of overrun that means "exist in public".
I have professionally qualified relatives currently advocating for a Reform Government. I know for sure their middle-class backsides would fall out if they met any of the flag waving crowds we see outside refugee accommodation on TV.
I have professionally qualified relatives currently advocating for a Reform Government. I know for sure their middle-class backsides would fall out if they met any of the flag waving crowds we see outside refugee accommodation on TV.
There is always a middle and upper class coterie looking to benefit from fascism being whipped up in the lower classes.
I have professionally qualified relatives currently advocating for a Reform Government. I know for sure their middle-class backsides would fall out if they met any of the flag waving crowds we see outside refugee accommodation on TV.
There is always a middle and upper class coterie looking to benefit from fascism being whipped up in the lower classes.
Hmmm. Maybe I won't name the first person who came to mind to save the legal bill, but his dad was chummy with Adolf and funded the private venture aircraft that became the Bristol Blenheim.
I have professionally qualified relatives currently advocating for a Reform Government. I know for sure their middle-class backsides would fall out if they met any of the flag waving crowds we see outside refugee accommodation on TV.
Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
One Refirm council has forced libraries to put any kids books on gender that doesn’t fit what they want in adult sections when someone calls out Reform they claim free speech. It appears only to be for what they want to say. Fascists they are
Do you have a source for this? Not because I'm doubting you, I'm just interested to look at the facts of the case as it sounds legally questionable.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs", Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder.
So, Mr Webb, what are you doing to protect young people from exposure to definitely harmful ideologies and beliefs, such as the fiction that immigrants are "illegal" or a greater danger to people? or that it's OK to shout abuse at vulnerable people crammed into former hotels with no amenities? or, that being gay is wrong? or, that giving money to the rich helps the poor? or, any of the other ideologies and beliefs that Reform UK leaders and supporters routinely spout?
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs", Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder.
So, Mr Webb, what are you doing to protect young people from exposure to definitely harmful ideologies and beliefs, such as the fiction that immigrants are "illegal" or a greater danger to people? or that it's OK to shout abuse at vulnerable people crammed into former hotels with no amenities? or, that being gay is wrong? or, that giving money to the rich helps the poor? or, any of the other ideologies and beliefs that Reform UK leaders and supporters routinely spout?
Well, in his mind, there's probably no contradiction, since he likely considers all those ideas in the second paragraph to be true and hence not harmful.
Of course the self described (in the opening) political nerd doesn't get around to discussing actual policies, or - say - a health spokesperson claiming the King and Princess of Wales developed cancer due to the Covid vaccine or even a woman convicted of incitement getting a standing ovation.
And I thought that five years ago racism was a terrible scourge that needed to be driven out of public life?
Of course the self described (in the opening) political nerd doesn't get around to discussing actual policies, or - say - a health spokesperson claiming the King and Princess of Wales developed cancer due to the Covid vaccine or even a woman convicted of incitement getting a standing ovation.
And I thought that five years ago racism was a terrible scourge that needed to be driven out of public life?
Yes - those are both terrifying. Especially the latter. Whatever your view of the whole free speech aspect, this is someone who advocated arson attacks against people's temporary homes.
Well, we are discussing what to do, when that time arrives. The only possibility for old gits like us is keep your head down. Don't go on demonstrations, don't raise a peep. It may be cowardly, but I can't see an alternative. And I remember the poem, they came for the asylum seekers, and I did nothing ...
Well, we are discussing what to do, when that time arrives. The only possibility for old gits like us is keep your head down. Don't go on demonstrations, don't raise a peep. It may be cowardly, but I can't see an alternative. And I remember the poem, they came for the asylum seekers, and I did nothing ...
Who is the "us" here? And such a stance makes you (general you) complicit in such a Kristallnacht - to not speak up makes you an accomplice to evil. We have many examples of the alternative. If they could do it, why couldn't you? Why can't you go on demonstrations and speak up?
Well, we are discussing what to do, when that time arrives. The only possibility for old gits like us is keep your head down. Don't go on demonstrations, don't raise a peep. It may be cowardly, but I can't see an alternative. And I remember the poem, they came for the asylum seekers, and I did nothing ...
I did something.
I spoke up to our charity about a local leader who was spouting this hate online.
The charity made all the right noises then did nothing. The person is still saying the same things and still leads the local branch. S/he found out it was me who reported them, even though I had asked for the complaint to be kept entirely anonymous. S/he is now bad-mouthing me.
I left the charity. In all its blurb it talks about diversity and inclusion.
Lip service.
I'm doing and saying nothing else.
Luckily I have built a good reputation in the three years I've been here so haven't lost any friends.
Yes, s/he joined Reform last year and I'm sure feels emboldened by it.
Well, we are discussing what to do, when that time arrives. The only possibility for old gits like us is keep your head down. Don't go on demonstrations, don't raise a peep. It may be cowardly, but I can't see an alternative. And I remember the poem, they came for the asylum seekers, and I did nothing ...
Who is the "us" here? And such a stance makes you (general you) complicit in such a Kristallnacht - to not speak up makes you an accomplice to evil. We have many examples of the alternative. If they could do it, why couldn't you? Why can't you go on demonstrations and speak up?
An accomplice to evil? Fucking hell, I haven't been so honoured since the sixth form.
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
I'm not a coward, far from it. But my resistance would be (will be?) quiet and in the background, under the radar. Sheltering those in need and giving to causes which care. Not shouting at the shouters - that's pointless.
I'd challenge that, a lot of the current noise from the shouters is premised on the belief that they actually represent the majority, and vocal opposition challenges that notion.
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
Genuinely interested, in what way are friends and family affected if you join a group of people peacefully putting themselves between a racist mob and a hotel housing vulnerable people? In what way are they affected if you join a demonstration outside the Reform conference or when Nigel visits your town?
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
Genuinely interested, in what way are friends and family affected if you join a group of people peacefully putting themselves between a racist mob and a hotel housing vulnerable people? In what way are they affected if you join a demonstration outside the Reform conference or when Nigel visits your town?
Well in my case I'm politically restricted so could lose my job, but I recognise I'm an exception there.
However, even free of that restriction, putting yourself bodily in the way of a murderous mob carries risks: that you're seriously injured and can't work (and therefore lose the ability to support family); that you have a racist boss who'll decide you're 'bringing the company into disrepute' and fire you; that the fash doxx you and your home/family get attacked; or that you get arrested and persecuted by complicit police.
I thought the last two could happen. A friend of mine was identified and assailed by searchlights and megaphones at midnight by right wing thugs.
It used to be a badge of honour as an anti-fascist to get your photo put on Red Watch, but the risks of being identified offline are now much greater (and we're no longer students with no dependents).
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
I'm not a coward, far from it. But my resistance would be (will be?) quiet and in the background, under the radar. Sheltering those in need and giving to causes which care. Not shouting at the shouters - that's pointless.
Where did I ever suggest that speaking up only involved "shouting at the shouters"? I don't think quieter forms of resistance are at all the same thing as not doing anything at all in order to save your neck. I'm not physically capable of going to a protest right now, so I myself have to do other quieter things. But I also don't think that showing the local fash that they're not welcome in your town is pointless. Cable Street involved a lot of shouting at shouters.
Well, we are discussing what to do, when that time arrives. The only possibility for old gits like us is keep your head down. Don't go on demonstrations, don't raise a peep. It may be cowardly, but I can't see an alternative. And I remember the poem, they came for the asylum seekers, and I did nothing ...
Who is the "us" here? And such a stance makes you (general you) complicit in such a Kristallnacht - to not speak up makes you an accomplice to evil. We have many examples of the alternative. If they could do it, why couldn't you? Why can't you go on demonstrations and speak up?
An accomplice to evil? Fucking hell, I haven't been so honoured since the sixth form.
I thought I made it clear enough that I was using the general you and not talking about you as an individual - I sincerely apologise that it wasn't that clear. I think that speaking up against evil can take many forms, but eg civil resistance isn't the same thing as "keeping your head down". People resisted 30s fascism in all kinds of ways.
Why do you think that ordinary people with lives similar to yours didn't speak up against fascism in the 30s? Plenty did. I don't mean that demonstrations are the only way to resist, but it's also not a huge ask.
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
Genuinely interested, in what way are friends and family affected if you join a group of people peacefully putting themselves between a racist mob and a hotel housing vulnerable people? In what way are they affected if you join a demonstration outside the Reform conference or when Nigel visits your town?
Well in my case I'm politically restricted so could lose my job, but I recognise I'm an exception there.
However, even free of that restriction, putting yourself bodily in the way of a murderous mob carries risks: that you're seriously injured and can't work (and therefore lose the ability to support family); that you have a racist boss who'll decide you're 'bringing the company into disrepute' and fire you; that the fash doxx you and your home/family get attacked; or that you get arrested and persecuted by complicit police.
I don't think that every form of resistance needs to involve physical conflict, but being eg a middle-class white person being arrested in the UK is still vastly more comfortable than being an asylum seeker in a country where people are cheered for wanting your temporary home burned down with you inside it.
I thought the last two could happen. A friend of mine was identified and assailed by searchlights and megaphones at midnight by right wing thugs.
It used to be a badge of honour as an anti-fascist to get your photo put on Red Watch, but the risks of being identified offline are now much greater (and we're no longer students with no dependents).
It's definitely a balancing act in terms of safety vs a need to be physically at protests etc. I definitely don't think that resistance has to be in-person for eg. But I interpreted "head down, don't make a peep" as more than just not going to in-person protests but doing other things eg supporting bail funds.
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
I'm not a coward, far from it. But my resistance would be (will be?) quiet and in the background, under the radar. Sheltering those in need and giving to causes which care. Not shouting at the shouters - that's pointless.
Where did I ever suggest that speaking up only involved "shouting at the shouters"? I don't think quieter forms of resistance are at all the same thing as not doing anything at all in order to save your neck. I'm not physically capable of going to a protest right now, so I myself have to do other quieter things. But I also don't think that showing the local fash that they're not welcome in your town is pointless. Cable Street involved a lot of shouting at shouters.
Shouting at shouters might not make much difference to the shouters, but there's something psychologically powerful about joining with others to shout about your grievances (of course, the same goes for the other side).
More importantly, for those trapped inside hotels to hear shouts in support of your rights must be heartening. Especially if those shouting for them are between the hotel and the scum so that what the scum are shouting is partially drowned out.
You don't need to shout to drown out the scum either - as the group of motorcyclists in Edinburgh on Saturday who kept on revving their engines when some fash tried to address a rally outside Parliament.
I was broght up in 1960s South Africa.. My Dad worked in Soweto and travelled in every day with a special pass. (He was a Church Minister) We went with him on Sundays.
My parents broke the racist laws all the time, every day.
But they did it quietly and under the radar, a subversive resistance. My Dad was only arrested twice - and then pleaded ignorance and promised never to do it again, they let him go. As soon as he was home he continued as before.
He had a wife and three young children. He chose the right path imo.
Farage has said there is no point in him going to Parliament, particularly PMQs because it is no good for him. He is supposed to go to represent his constituents. He sits in on discussions so he can do what is best for them, not himself. After getting a drubbing in the US he is still smarting. Lots of negative feeling around after the conference. A journalist who asked a proper question got an angry reaction from him and was pushed so hard by one of his goons she almost ended up on her back.
I was broght up in 1960s South Africa.. My Dad worked in Soweto and travelled in every day with a special pass. (He was a Church Minister) We went with him on Sundays.
My parents broke the racist laws all the time, every day.
But they did it quietly and under the radar, a subversive resistance. My Dad was only arrested twice - and then pleaded ignorance and promised never to do it again, they let him go. As soon as he was home he continued as before.
He had a wife and three young children. He chose the right path imo.
I don't think any of that contradicts anything I've said.
My daughter works in administration of UK government research grants. Without spelling it out here, if you know what that means you know.
Anyway, you'll all be pleased to know that not only is there some worry about Labour freezing funds in the next few years (largely, it seems, to funnel money away from stuff and towards AI), there's also a ghastly view of a horizon where Reform has power or increased influence.
I hope we won't get there, but if Farage takes a leaf out of Trumps destruction, the UK university sector as a whole would be under threat. It certainly seems that those administering the funding system see this as a distinct possibility.
Without wishing to create a diversion, my son works in the funding of university research too. A far greater threat to universities at the moment is the drop in foreign students caused by changing visa rules, and the consequent drop in income as they pay much higher fees than UK students.
As someone working in university research, the current funding issues related to Brexit and the general anti-migrant idiocy mostly relate to university teaching rather than research. Although, those aren't disconnected because undergraduate teaching produces the postgrads who then go onto become researchers (as well as contributing to society in myriad other ways). Also, many staff have their salaries met mostly through teaching, with leading research projects only a part of their work, so loss of teaching income makes supporting the same number of staff that much harder.
The threat to research would be from a government that significantly cuts research funds available, and/or puts conditions on receiving research (or teaching) funds based on political ideology rather than quality of research. The experience from the US over the last few months isn't good in that regard, I know several people who are considering if they can continue to work in the US with funds they'd already been awarded being cut and chances of funding greatly reduced - most in my areas of research which are generally environmental. Political tinkering with the research funding process has always happened, of course, with governments finding funds to support work they consider a priority or in the last couple of decades an increasing emphasis on "impact" (benefit beyond the immediate academic community). But, the actions of the current US Administration have gone well beyond tinkering to whole-sale gutting of much of government supported research. Noises from Reform suggest that they would seriously consider similar destruction of the UK research base.
Without wishing to create a diversion, my son works in the funding of university research too. A far greater threat to universities at the moment is the drop in foreign students caused by changing visa rules, and the consequent drop in income as they pay much higher fees than UK students.
Yes, I also have knowledge of that side too. The stupidity of limiting international students will certainly make many universities non-viable. However the top research universities generally think they've weathered that storm. One course I know at one RG university was down by 30 international students so added another 50 home students to make it up. Something that only the top universities can do, and it only works on courses where home students cover costs.
Anyway, the end result is a bigger class and extra strain on staff, in particular because there is a recruitment freeze on teaching staff.
Mix in extra strain from the research grant system and even the top universities will find life extremely difficult.
I noticed Alan's phrase "anti-migrant idiocy", and I wonder how far it will go. Are we talking about a white England? Of course, Reform won't state that, but I wonder if we are heading that way, incrementally, from illegal migrants to legal ones.
I noticed Alan's phrase "anti-migrant idiocy", and I wonder how far it will go. Are we talking about a white England? Of course, Reform won't state that, but I wonder if we are heading that way, incrementally, from illegal migrants to legal ones.
I can't remember if I said it here, but I suspect that the Reform goal in the short to medium term is chaos. They seem to be actively trying to cause dysfunction in local government, if they ever got to national government it seems like they'd be trying to break the NHS and other services.
Do they have a long-term goal? I'm not sure. Maybe they think that a beautiful new country will emerge from the ruins of the last, but I'm not sure they even have the intelligence to imagine that far ahead.
I think their dysfunction in local government is more to do with incompetence than design.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
I saw some discussion a few weeks ago about whether Reform administrations in local government were planning to put together budgets. As I recall, and my memory for detail isn't great, the point was that the process of putting together a budget is hard work and that there were indications in some authorities that the Reform councillors were not putting in the sustained effort needed over the months to do it.
No workable budget leads to bankruptcy which leads to other undesirable things.
I don't live in a Reform led council area so I'd suggest you read whatever tea-leaves are available locally to you to see if this rings true.
Also I will try to find the article I was reading. I don't think I imagined it, but I can't be sure.
I suspect I've said before that a lot of work that local councils do is down to officials, and mucking it up in the short term takes conscious effort rather than incompetence. Budget setting is an area I could see things starting to come unstuck. It's generally a process of trying to slice off as much as possible without it becoming noticeable, and involves a certain amount of finessing from councillors but not much by way of strategic decision making. I could see inexperienced councillors coming in with a DOGE mindset endorsing deep cuts that leave services dysfunctional, or simply endorsing blunt-instrument recommendations without the usual finessing. The antipathy to expertise and boneheaded believe in the cure-all powers of common sense are likely to prove problematic in the medium term.
My original point wasn't about efficiency but degree of whiteness which Reform aspire to. I don't think there is an answer forthcoming, let's say, whiter than we are at present. It's a short step from deporting illegal migrants to legal ones. They may find heart in ICE, after all.
Comments
I do wish Labour would start to seize the agenda and that news outlets wouldn't give Farage so much airtime and column inches.
https://bsky.app/profile/scotnational.bsky.social/post/3lxrpyzxidz25
https://bsky.app/profile/implausibleblog.bsky.social/post/3lxp2htmdxk2u
Overrun.... by trans people.
I am unable to comprehend the stupidity in that statement. There aren't enough trans people to overrun anything. Unless, of course, this is the fascist bigot definition of overrun that means "exist in public".
It is. Same sort of logic that sees a panel of 5 men and 1 woman as "balanced".
There is always a middle and upper class coterie looking to benefit from fascism being whipped up in the lower classes.
Hmmm. Maybe I won't name the first person who came to mind to save the legal bill, but his dad was chummy with Adolf and funded the private venture aircraft that became the Bristol Blenheim.
Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
Been busy. Here is a link to the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o
So, Mr Webb, what are you doing to protect young people from exposure to definitely harmful ideologies and beliefs, such as the fiction that immigrants are "illegal" or a greater danger to people? or that it's OK to shout abuse at vulnerable people crammed into former hotels with no amenities? or, that being gay is wrong? or, that giving money to the rich helps the poor? or, any of the other ideologies and beliefs that Reform UK leaders and supporters routinely spout?
Well, in his mind, there's probably no contradiction, since he likely considers all those ideas in the second paragraph to be true and hence not harmful.
Of course the self described (in the opening) political nerd doesn't get around to discussing actual policies, or - say - a health spokesperson claiming the King and Princess of Wales developed cancer due to the Covid vaccine or even a woman convicted of incitement getting a standing ovation.
And I thought that five years ago racism was a terrible scourge that needed to be driven out of public life?
Yes - those are both terrifying. Especially the latter. Whatever your view of the whole free speech aspect, this is someone who advocated arson attacks against people's temporary homes.
How many steps are we now from Kristallnacht?
Well, Labour keep moving in a direction that makes even more radical steps ever easier:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/07/military-sites-house-asylum-seekers-labour
Who is the "us" here? And such a stance makes you (general you) complicit in such a Kristallnacht - to not speak up makes you an accomplice to evil. We have many examples of the alternative. If they could do it, why couldn't you? Why can't you go on demonstrations and speak up?
I did something.
I spoke up to our charity about a local leader who was spouting this hate online.
The charity made all the right noises then did nothing. The person is still saying the same things and still leads the local branch. S/he found out it was me who reported them, even though I had asked for the complaint to be kept entirely anonymous. S/he is now bad-mouthing me.
I left the charity. In all its blurb it talks about diversity and inclusion.
Lip service.
I'm doing and saying nothing else.
Luckily I have built a good reputation in the three years I've been here so haven't lost any friends.
Yes, s/he joined Reform last year and I'm sure feels emboldened by it.
An accomplice to evil? Fucking hell, I haven't been so honoured since the sixth form.
Because it's not just ourselves who are affected by our actions. It's our family and friends too.
I'm not a coward, far from it. But my resistance would be (will be?) quiet and in the background, under the radar. Sheltering those in need and giving to causes which care. Not shouting at the shouters - that's pointless.
I'd challenge that, a lot of the current noise from the shouters is premised on the belief that they actually represent the majority, and vocal opposition challenges that notion.
Well in my case I'm politically restricted so could lose my job, but I recognise I'm an exception there.
However, even free of that restriction, putting yourself bodily in the way of a murderous mob carries risks: that you're seriously injured and can't work (and therefore lose the ability to support family); that you have a racist boss who'll decide you're 'bringing the company into disrepute' and fire you; that the fash doxx you and your home/family get attacked; or that you get arrested and persecuted by complicit police.
It used to be a badge of honour as an anti-fascist to get your photo put on Red Watch, but the risks of being identified offline are now much greater (and we're no longer students with no dependents).
Where did I ever suggest that speaking up only involved "shouting at the shouters"? I don't think quieter forms of resistance are at all the same thing as not doing anything at all in order to save your neck. I'm not physically capable of going to a protest right now, so I myself have to do other quieter things. But I also don't think that showing the local fash that they're not welcome in your town is pointless. Cable Street involved a lot of shouting at shouters.
I thought I made it clear enough that I was using the general you and not talking about you as an individual - I sincerely apologise that it wasn't that clear. I think that speaking up against evil can take many forms, but eg civil resistance isn't the same thing as "keeping your head down". People resisted 30s fascism in all kinds of ways.
Why do you think that ordinary people with lives similar to yours didn't speak up against fascism in the 30s? Plenty did. I don't mean that demonstrations are the only way to resist, but it's also not a huge ask.
I don't think that every form of resistance needs to involve physical conflict, but being eg a middle-class white person being arrested in the UK is still vastly more comfortable than being an asylum seeker in a country where people are cheered for wanting your temporary home burned down with you inside it.
It's definitely a balancing act in terms of safety vs a need to be physically at protests etc. I definitely don't think that resistance has to be in-person for eg. But I interpreted "head down, don't make a peep" as more than just not going to in-person protests but doing other things eg supporting bail funds.
More importantly, for those trapped inside hotels to hear shouts in support of your rights must be heartening. Especially if those shouting for them are between the hotel and the scum so that what the scum are shouting is partially drowned out.
You don't need to shout to drown out the scum either - as the group of motorcyclists in Edinburgh on Saturday who kept on revving their engines when some fash tried to address a rally outside Parliament.
My parents broke the racist laws all the time, every day.
But they did it quietly and under the radar, a subversive resistance. My Dad was only arrested twice - and then pleaded ignorance and promised never to do it again, they let him go. As soon as he was home he continued as before.
He had a wife and three young children. He chose the right path imo.
I don't think any of that contradicts anything I've said.
Anyway, you'll all be pleased to know that not only is there some worry about Labour freezing funds in the next few years (largely, it seems, to funnel money away from stuff and towards AI), there's also a ghastly view of a horizon where Reform has power or increased influence.
I hope we won't get there, but if Farage takes a leaf out of Trumps destruction, the UK university sector as a whole would be under threat. It certainly seems that those administering the funding system see this as a distinct possibility.
The threat to research would be from a government that significantly cuts research funds available, and/or puts conditions on receiving research (or teaching) funds based on political ideology rather than quality of research. The experience from the US over the last few months isn't good in that regard, I know several people who are considering if they can continue to work in the US with funds they'd already been awarded being cut and chances of funding greatly reduced - most in my areas of research which are generally environmental. Political tinkering with the research funding process has always happened, of course, with governments finding funds to support work they consider a priority or in the last couple of decades an increasing emphasis on "impact" (benefit beyond the immediate academic community). But, the actions of the current US Administration have gone well beyond tinkering to whole-sale gutting of much of government supported research. Noises from Reform suggest that they would seriously consider similar destruction of the UK research base.
Yes, I also have knowledge of that side too. The stupidity of limiting international students will certainly make many universities non-viable. However the top research universities generally think they've weathered that storm. One course I know at one RG university was down by 30 international students so added another 50 home students to make it up. Something that only the top universities can do, and it only works on courses where home students cover costs.
Anyway, the end result is a bigger class and extra strain on staff, in particular because there is a recruitment freeze on teaching staff.
Mix in extra strain from the research grant system and even the top universities will find life extremely difficult.
I can't remember if I said it here, but I suspect that the Reform goal in the short to medium term is chaos. They seem to be actively trying to cause dysfunction in local government, if they ever got to national government it seems like they'd be trying to break the NHS and other services.
Do they have a long-term goal? I'm not sure. Maybe they think that a beautiful new country will emerge from the ruins of the last, but I'm not sure they even have the intelligence to imagine that far ahead.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
No workable budget leads to bankruptcy which leads to other undesirable things.
I don't live in a Reform led council area so I'd suggest you read whatever tea-leaves are available locally to you to see if this rings true.
Also I will try to find the article I was reading. I don't think I imagined it, but I can't be sure.