Are The Reform Party Actually a Threat
So we don’t take up space on other threads I will start one here. Are Reform actually that much of a threat. The press talks as though they are but I am not sure.
Do they have enough funds to stand enough candidates? After their disaster in local politics are we able to trust them nationally?
I have never seen Farage as charismatic. He is a rich idiot.
Do they have enough funds to stand enough candidates? After their disaster in local politics are we able to trust them nationally?
I have never seen Farage as charismatic. He is a rich idiot.
Comments
I suppose in some places they could split the conservative vote and allow another party to win, but that also has the unfortunate effect of pulling the Tories to the right, to keep those voters on side.
I am of the opinion, though, that the PCs would have evolved into what they are now, regardless of whether Reform had ever come about, as that's been the direction of conservative parties the world over.
The poll of polls (usual caveat that there’s a long way to go, people say differently to what they actually do, etc) which dives into voting by constituency etc to try and be as confident as possible gives a most likely Reform majority of 44 at the next election. With lower confidence it goes much higher and lower:
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
I’m no psephologist, but those people are, and they’re not saying what you’re saying.
Right, and under these conditions psephology can struggle with accuracy (as we saw in a small way in 2017).
Which is why a significant percentage of the establishment appear to be bigging up Reform, to the point of keeping actual discussion of their policy platform out of the media while ginning up the threat from things like 'the boats'.
Well, in factual history, Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Caroline Mulroney endorsed Poilievre in the last federal election, and said her PC father would have done the same. Her PC premier Doug Ford, while otherwise proclaiming himself too busy to campaign, responded to her endorsement with "good for her". And I'm gonna guess they don't exactly represent a tiny minority of opinion in the Ontario PCs.
Just to clarify, you mean the establishment likes Reform, but realizes that most of Reform's policies, if widely publicized, would be unpopular, so they encourage discussion of the supposed threat from immigration, because that's a popular Reform policy?
Yes more or less; though to be clear Reform don't have a particularly clear policy on immigration, but the press lets them run as insurgents, so just keeping immigration salient plays to their strengths.
Reform have won a few councils, and their councillors tend to be a mix of older former-Tories and younger edgelord's who are in love with Musk and the prospect of a UK-style DOGE.
[At a council someone I know works at they have ruled that social workers can no longer sign off care themselves, and all care has to be approved at departmental meetings. They have also been directed to stop spending so much time in meetings. This means there is now a limited number of slots to present and approve care every week. The care packages are often what allows a hospital to discharge someone into the community, so the end result is crippling local hospitals (who are then having to discharge them into emergency care, which they then bill back to the social services).]
Finally, Reform themselves are somewhat split, Rupert Lowe was suspended from the party on the charge of harassment, though it could equally be down to Farage's personal comfort level as Lowe endorses remigration, i.e the sending back of even legal migrants, including - presumably - second generation communities. It's Lowe's wider movement that parts of the Conservative party have been playing footsie with (and large part of the blame for the state of the current state of the Conservative Party is down to Johnson's de-capitation of their One Nation tendency).
You’re slightly in wishful thinking land with much of this. They’ve got more than enough cash and almost certainly will stand in every constituency.
Secondly, and again this is emphatically not an endorsement, but I do live in an authority which is now Reform controlled with an absolute majority so have a ground level interest in following what is actually going on, If you look at how many councillors they suddenly gained this year then even with all the stories of the ones that have crashed and burned (and there’s still plenty of time for more to join them) it remains the case that the overwhelming, overwhelming majority have so far neither messed up nor ‘simply just resigned’
To be honest I think you’re right to be worried *and* you’re not worried enough. I don’t think (based on posts on here) you take this threat anywhere near seriously enough.
In any case, relying on a party crashing and burning locally to hold it back at Westminster feels like a high stakes game when you’re talking about a protest party who can use SNP style arguments about how much they’re held back by Westminster centralisation.
Fair enough. I have only the dimmest impressions of British politics right now. I will say that summer polling, at least in Canada, traditionally has a reputation for overselling bumps and trends.
Where we are there’s basically no discernible difference good or bad (yet) day to day. It’s a hard one though because (as I think I said after the May elections on here) I don’t want a Reform government yet I’m not sure I’m willing to torch all my roads, schools, bins and leisure centres as part of encouraging the rest of the country not to vote for them!
Ie, it would be much better for us locally if (locally) they weren’t a failure or a horrific nightmare, if that makes sense? Though success would then be something they could point to…
When it comes down to it I don’t actually want to be part of the petri-dish warning to the rest of the country not to vote for them because ‘point and look at the nightmare in that council’
I think a couple of clown shoes screw ups with little practical impact would probably be best. Day-to-day, councils are run by officers so councillors have to try quite hard to actually break things, like those at the council @chrisstiles describes. Most likely, I think, are the usual sort of bickering one gets among councils. I suspect a fair few of the Reform council groups will split before the next election, whether that is into Lowite and Faragist factions, or simply personal fallings out that lead some councillors to resign from the party. The performance of BNP-led local councils gives a fair idea, I suspect.
ISTM that Reform are more a consequence than a cause: a product of the decline of the Conservative and Labour Parties that has been going on for a generation. If that be the case then the fortunes of Reform are not the 'threat' but the trajectory of underlying socio-political change is. Furthermore, the descent into populism seems to be a major characteristic of politics in the western world, so there is no reason to see the emergence of Reform as an aberration. In my more pessimistic moments I fear a situation in the late 2020s where the Labour government with its weak popular mandate has become discredited, a Conservative opposition has failed to recover, and Reform has crashed and burned. Then what? To quote Yeats: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;............ The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Conversely, Reform are a threat because the UK has followed the US in allowing the "sport" of politics and the logic of client politics to overtake the concept of government entirely. This means that the government behaves like a supermarket, producing what it thinks its clients, i.e.. those who fund it and marginally vote for it, want, rather than what the country actually needs. There is no way the country needs millions of people living in complete penury, or a de facto privatised NHS, but that is what we are on the way to getting, or have right now, because that is what client politics produces. It also fits Starmer's instincts, which is why he is so comfortable with having the Labour party funded by a small number of rich donors, rather than a large membership base.
Believe me I am well aware of how Reform are doing. I wanted to get conversation moving. They are doing well at the moment but things are in a bit of flux. Corbyn and Sultana are starting to break through. The left still has enough power. At least one union has pulled funding from Labour. The yet unnamed party are being seen as the Reform of the left.
Apart from what seems to me misplaced romanticism, what reason is there to think that Corbyn and Sultana are the solution? What reason is there to think they will not trash the public finances through fiscal irresponsibility any less than Reform? To misquote Harold Wilson, the notion that "The Labour Party is nothing if not a demo," demonstrates an absence of seriousness that borders on despair. A more apt quotation for our times, perhaps, is Dryden's comment on his generation: "God’s pampered people, whom, debauched with ease,/ No king could govern, nor no God could please."
How would you define 'populism' here? Because since at least the 2008 crisis we've had a series of protest movements across the "western world" of different political stripes, and as they have received varying support from the media and other institutions it would be a mistake to view all of them as a purely organic phenomena.
Let's take a very simple example from the last few days, The Times is now heralding a 'wave of protests'
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3lwxu353ga22s
As even Sunder says here, the protests have - to date - attracted less than 2000 people, and have fallen far short of previous predictions:
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3lwxuftyqpk2s
There's a case for the media ginning up certain ideas here - and this is a tendency that that even the 'sainted BBC' haven't been immune to, witness Simon Jones barking questions at desperate people as they try not to drown.
Even in the US, Trump may have a majority, but there's no majority for the Heritage Foundation incubated policies - courtesy of their rich backers - that are being rolled out now. How 'populist' is a party whose intellectual core is a Cambridge don who hobnobs with the Vice President of the US and regularly gets favourable coverage from some of the more stupid and credulous journalists ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5pl7r11z0o - forcing "the nasty cough medicine down the country's throat" doesn't sound like a particularly populist program ) ?
We can always look at previous manifestos, examine at the plans they announce, and ignore the shrieks of people who called for austerity in the 2010s I suppose.
Well they're not planning to chuck out a significant fraction of the labour force, for starters. It seems to me that 15 years of trying to cut our way to growth haven't fixed the public finances in any case. Not being terrified of increasing taxes is an excellent starting point for restoring sanity.
I think the answer to that would be that if you look at percentage of the vote, rather than seats, a lot of people voted for them. Reform got 14.3% of the total UK vote, the LibDems got just over 12%. We (LibDems) got 70-odd seats. Reform got 5.
Well that’s a point of view isn’t it? Put some numbers behind it and argue the case… otherwise it’s opinion, whether or not I agree with it. The corollary is presumably also potentially true - the more people saw of Reform the fewer would actually vote for them - so might we expect the same for the Lib Dems and Greens?
In hard numbers though, which is presumably the only fair way going forward(?), the Scottish Greens got 3.8% of the Scottish vote, and Reform got 7%. So on reserved matters should we ensure (in Scotland) that we hear from Reform nearly twice as much as the Scottish Greens?
There are two separate arguments here; you don't need to think that the Lib Dems/Greens would benefit from media coverage in order to argue that media coverage for Reform preceded support for Reform (and actual policies and council fuckups are definitely *not* being covered).
Reform are receiving an inordinate amount of coverage and their supporters simply go 'La la la la! We're not listening!' when anyone calls them out on their lies and misinformation.
The sad fact is that Reform are doing well because they are saying what a lot of people want to hear.
Also, whilst a lot of their current candidates and councillors are complete clowns they'll soon learn how the system works and crow about apparent 'successes' at a local level.
Farage made a big thing about them using the very good Lib Dem textbook on how to win local elections and build capacity at a local level.
If they do what's written in that book it will take them a long way.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Corbyn and Co won't save us. The future looks gammon unless something goes badly wrong on the populist right.
@betjemaniac is right @Hugal, although I wish he wasn't.
You are underestimating the threat. It's very, very real.
I've fought Reform at a local level. I've seen how they operate. I despise Reform and hold it in utter contempt but I don't underestimate them.
I agree actually, although note alternative media and social media word of mouth both talking up/getting overexcited about a Corbyn party with no name or policies!
Seriously, I don’t mean that as a tit for tat point. You’ve got the media talking up Farage’s mob, and a much more organic talking up of frankly who knows on the left.
What that really looks like is both the left and right getting their tummies tickled with some wish fulfilment tbh.
This is true of a minority of their supporters who will view any critique as coming from 'woke gay traitors', however there's no systematic coverage of their policies, the public at large (from which the majority of their 30+% current support is drawn) remains fairly ignorant of their actual policies.
Yes, politics is just like the weather, there is no agency and nothing structural and we can only hope that Farage has a heart attack, I am a centrist and I've been kicked in the head.
Except we have a pretty good idea of what Corbyn and Sultana stand for, and Corbyn has in the past produced workable, costed policies. Farage and co are wholly vibes-based.
I’d agree with ‘costed’ for a given definition of ‘costed’ - ie I don’t believe in the certifications of ‘costed’ you get from anyone, so it’s costed on the basis of ‘here’s some chip paper that was broadly believable the minute we signed it within some parameters that it suits no one to read, because it makes it worthless for the proponent, and causes the same problems for the approach of the opponents.’
On the other hand, workable is something no one afaik is in the business of independently signing off on?
Workable in the sense that when John McDonnell discussed economic policy with the business lobby they didn't like the policies but they didn't claim it would put them out of business or bankrupt the country. The thing about the SCG types is that they're not revolutionaries, they're gradualists, they're not looking to burn everything down and rule the ashes, nor are they in the habit of promising one big single solution to the country's woes. The astonishing thing about Farage is that he made those promises about Brexit, they never materialised, and now he's making the same promises about immigration and is still taken seriously.
Right, at best it was social democracy of the post-Hartz German variety, it recognised that the 2008 financial crisis had left an economic hangover that needed at least some amelioration.
But 'workable' in the British context was set by people who were performatively confused ("Will you nationalise sausages?" "Is this broadband communism" "How is it possible to plant a tree?")