I think Reform has been advocating PR for a while.
They have been, though like basically their entire policy platform they seem to have little depth in their call for PR. It seems like a headline without an article, I've seen the call many times but very little about why they want PR and how they would see Parliament working with PR (it'll totally destroy two party politics, it will mean the vast majority of governments will be based on less than 50% of MPs with some form of cross-party cooperation - who will Reform consider working with? How does their actions in Councils where they share power reflect their principles on PR and the cooperation that will need?)
I’ve never heard the Lib Dems answer all those questions about their calls for PR either. For that matter I’ve never heard it justified by anyone in terms other than it being fairer.
It’s obvious to me that Reform want PR for the same reason the Lib Dems do - they’d have more MPs, and therefore more power, if it replaced FPTP. In my book that’s also an excellent reason to keep FPTP!
There are multiple arguments for electoral reform (the options for reforming the voting system are more than PR with party lists for the country or regions; including additional member systems and STV in larger multi-member constituencies - that last happens to be my personal favourite option). "It's fairer" would be a short hand statement, but does beg the question of what's meant by "fair", and answering what "fair" means reveals a lot about why parties want electoral reform (and, what sort of reform), what's needed are statements "it fairer because ...". The LibDems don't tend to get much chance to explain their policies in this regard, but LibDems I know do seem to have thought things through a bit - I accept that that may be true of some in Reform, I just don't personally know anyone as involved in Reform (as in, having stood for election or served as councillors, been active in local organisation of campaigns etc).
As you know from previous discussions on electoral reform, I have thought through the topic. So, my summary answer to what "fair" means would include:
Electoral reform would be fairer because the proportion of elected members from each party would more accurately reflect the vote each of those parties got. Electoral reform would be fairer because it reduces the need for tactical voting, and so makes the votes each party gets a more accurate reflection of what support each party has. Electoral reform would be fairer because it stops a single party dominating Parliament, forcing parties to cooperate in forming a government and passing legislation which means government that reflects a wider spectrum of views among the population. Specific to list-based PR, this would be fairer because it (should*) eliminate the option of elected members switching parties so if people vote for a member from party A they have a member from party A rather than find that after a year or two they have a member from party B without voting for that party (conversely, specific just to list based systems, it turns elected members into just drones who vote for the party line with no options to dissent because if they dissent they're out and the next person on the list takes their place - also, no by-elections which can be an important chance for some of the electorate to have their say part way through a session).
I've known some LibDems give their version of my summary above, I've heard Greens do the same (admittedly in that case often within Green events rather than public statements). I've not heard any public statement from Reform to that effect. I accept that generally electoral reform is not a priority for voters (who, by my experience on the doors the last few weeks are concerned with cost of living, schools and health services, the "state of the world" including both the environment and wars, and around here certainly bus services seem to be a big talking point, with in Scotland an ongoing interest in Independence), and so it doesn't actually make for good election campaigning to focus on electoral reform when the voters don't care about it. It's often easier to get parties to talk about such things when there isn't an election campaign - which is, generally speaking, when the media doesn't care enough to report what's been said.
* I say "should" because I do know of an example of an MSP elected on the regional list who left their party to finish the session as an independent, whereas I think they should have been forced out of Parliament to be replaced by another member of their former party from the list.
A bit less of a threat around here. The local Reform candidate (who frankly had no chance anyway, either in the constituency or No 4 on the list) has now quit the party less than a week before the election.
Interestingly the sole Reform flier I received for a local ward councillor election only had their national policies as bullet points so even if I ever considered voting for that party, I would have no idea what their stance would be in local issues.
That seems to be universal. I can see a couple of possible explanations. One is that Reform don't have local groups so don't know the local issues (though, some issues - potholes, bin collection, litter etc are important to voter wherever they are). The other is that Reform don't consider local politics to be important, and are pushing this election as a vote on UK government performance in the (extremely vain) hope of Starmer calling a general election.
Of course, there's always the possibility of simple incompetence.
Farage is really a child. As for as I know you are right Doublethink. On top of that it is not so easy as to just building the detention centres where you want. There are laws and locals may object. Even if they get into number 10 it will be a long time before they could build. This is just a tactic it won’t happen
That seems to be universal. I can see a couple of possible explanations. One is that Reform don't have local groups so don't know the local issues (though, some issues - potholes, bin collection, litter etc are important to voter wherever they are). The other is that Reform don't consider local politics to be important, and are pushing this election as a vote on UK government performance in the (extremely vain) hope of Starmer calling a general election.
Of course, there's always the possibility of simple incompetence.
I guess it depends on whether you think having a migrant detention centre nearby is a bad thing (for reasons other than thinking migrant detention centres shouldn’t exist in the first place).
I guess it depends on whether you think having a migrant detention centre nearby is a bad thing (for reasons other than thinking migrant detention centres shouldn’t exist in the first place).
The proposed usage - "concentrating" people into a single location for a short period before deporting them implies constant mass movement of people, potentially in the thousands weekly, which would be disruptive to whatever settlement it is attached to. It would also involve large numbers of staff, who would require accommodation and other services. Dumping *any* large and badly organised enterprise on a community in a hurry is going to be bad. Doing so with specific punitive intent is going to be worse.
I wonder how happy he would be if Brexit voting areas were made to bear the cost of the financial damage that leaving the EU has caused the UK economy. Its the same principle that he is using.
I guess it depends on whether you think having a migrant detention centre nearby is a bad thing (for reasons other than thinking migrant detention centres shouldn’t exist in the first place).
In terms of intent, what matters is whether the person proposing it thinks it's a bad thing
I guess it depends on whether you think having a migrant detention centre nearby is a bad thing (for reasons other than thinking migrant detention centres shouldn’t exist in the first place).
Yet again a political party committed to cutting public spending makes a proposal that would necessitate additional spending on staff and facilities! You can bet that any spending will go to Friends of Farage,
I think nearly everybody here thinks Farage is untrustworthy and anyone who compares what Starmer said when he was going for the Labour leadership with what he subsequently did knows he is untrustworthy.
To which I'd add their campaign claims that they were going to pay for increased public services from 'growth' without reversing Brexit - that was obvious snake oil and a huge indicator that he and Reeves couldn't be trusted even before they were elected.
The subset of people who think (correctly) that Starmer is untrustworthy but incorrectly that Farage is trustworthy are likely to be reacting to Starmer's ineffectiveness on cost of living/ improving public services while listening to narratives that this is all the fault of 'others' - people who've come from abroad to live and work, minorities, those portrayed as the 'undeserving poor', people with disabilities etc.
Racism and all the isms are the handmaids of Farageism - it's scapegoating others and believing that will magically make economic and social problems go away. Starmer has done his fair share of it - which is why people who reject these narratives mostly also reject him.
The subset who distrust him and trust Farage are likely a combination of the right wing media/ social media poisoned and the low information 'give them a chance the rest have been tried'/ 'let's give them a kicking' vote who've not looked at all beneath the surface and who have no idea what a huge mistake they are making to trust Farage.
I'm not sure that Reform voters think Farage is trustworthy as a person. But they do love the dog whistles that he attracts them with. It's the scapegoating that appeals rather than any promises.
When I try to discuss Reforms policies with their supporters online I most often get "muslim rapists" in response.
I'm not sure 'trustworthy'/'untrustworthy' or 'sincere'/'insincere' etc are binary or able to be 'scientifically' measured. Rather they are a moral judgment we make and exist on a continuum and also are often 'situation specific' . Politics must be a very difficult job with multiple factors determining whether promises can actually be fulfilled, and within what time-frame.
TL /NR : Starmer is unfairly judged and Farage is pretty much untried so we don't yet know how bad he can be!
TL /NR : Starmer is unfairly judged and Farage is pretty much untried so we don't yet know how bad he can be![/]
All that can be accurately said of Farage is that he has a long and consistent record of idleness as a representative while picking up the tab. His pronunciamentos are always in the media or one soapbox or another. He’s getting choosy about media interviews too.
Farage is apparently making £2m a year since he became an MP. An MP's basic salary is... considerably less than that. Whatever he's doing to earn it certainly doesn't include running constituency surgeries in Clacton. They've hardly seen him since the general election.
And if you think that's an unfair thing to judge him on, take a look at his record as an MEP. He got himself into the European Parliament by complaining about fisheries policy, so they put him on the fisheries committee. He attended a grand total of two meetings and did absolutely nothing to promote British interests.
I'm not sure that Reform voters think Farage is trustworthy as a person. But they do love the dog whistles that he attracts them with. It's the scapegoating that appeals rather than any promises.
The factors worth bearing in mind is that the media is not particularly informative on policy matters, and that a lot of people have fairly incoherent politics. See the recent FT article with 6 different Reform supporters, of which at least two were of the opinion that every other party was 'too left wing' but on the other hand wanted managed immigration and felt the net zero switch was quite important.
A reader of the Daily Mail and a viewer of GB News, Burford opposes the scale of immigration. “Our population’s falling, we need other people coming in to work, I’m not stupid,” she said. “But none of us like to see them coming by boat. It’s just the numbers coming in, that is frightening.”
She does not oppose net zero climate policies. “We’ve got to go down that road. It’s costing a lot of money but when we get there it will be a benefit to everybody.”
...
Davis has reservations about Farage but sees him as a welcome break. “I don’t like him as a person, but I do like what he stands for and I think that’s a big thing with Farage,” he said. “I just feel that the others have got so leftwing now, even the Conservatives . . . that we need someone to be strong against what’s going on.”
He is in favour of nationalising water companies and continuing with climate policies. “It really concerns me when I hear ‘drill baby drill’.”
Whatever he's doing to earn it certainly doesn't include running constituency surgeries in Clacton. They've hardly seen him since the general election.
Certain parts of the internet refer to him as the "Clacton clitoris" because he's so hard to find there.
Following the local elections in England and the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, we may get a better understanding of how much of a threat they represent.
Following the local elections in England and the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, we may get a better understanding of how much of a threat they represent.
Yes indeed.
Some commentators are point out that they actually fell % wise from the last locals.
And, in Scotland the total right wing representation fell by two MSPs. There was a shift from Conservative to Reform, but the total is two down. Plus a drop in Labour representation, a poor day for the right.
Someone has built a little web app which keeps track of all the Reform councillors who've left or had to resign since the recent elections- 23 so far. Also if you tap on their names, it gives the reasons for resignatiion which are generally as appalling as you might expect
My favourite reason for leaving was being a porn star, some of the others were deeply disturbing.
NZ has a populist party -NZ First, which is part of the current right -wing coalition Government. In the past they have been part of a Labour led government.
I know there was contact between them and Reform during the pandemic, but haven't heard of any since.
This thread has made me more aware of needing to keep an eye on them, thanks.
My favourite reason for leaving was being a porn star...
In the article I checked, a Labour critic said Mousdell was in the wrong not because he acted in porn, but because he put the videos on a site that could be accessed by children; however, Mousdell said he had followed all relevant laws in uploading the video, and no one contradicted him on that point.
I think if you are going to do that, and run for political office, you need to talk about it during the campaign. It is hugely controversial and voters will want to know. It doesn’t sit well with Reform sounding off about “Christian values” which they represent as socially conservative.
It's the sort of thing that should be covered in vetting (though, that's something that several parties appear to be failing in). The vetting panels I've sat on have all included questions on whether there's anything in the potential candidates past, personal or business life, or social media that might attract attention and cause problems. That's not necessarily because we consider them barriers to standing, but it would allow the party to make preparations to respond if that does become public such as having the press office prepare press releases (and, as @Doublethink said, maybe plan to be open about it during the campaign). Vetting isn't just about whether a potential candidate is suitable, but also determine in advance what support a candidate may need.
Our vetting also includes making sure the potential candidate understands what position they'll be standing for, and if elected what would be expected of them. Which is something for the coming Council Elections next year we're going to need to stress more because with recent election results there's going to be very few wards where a potential candidate will be definitely a paper candidate, for a lot of wards there's a chance of getting elected even without active campaigning. It certainly seems that that's a step lacking in Reform vetting with several elected councillors appearing to be surprised about how much work is involved in being a councillor (and, in England how little pay there is).
Of course, we don't have big donors throwing lots of money at us, so all our vetting is done by volunteers within the party - almost entirely people who are very active in branches and national committees, and those who will themselves be candidates. That has an advantage in that vetting is done by people who know from experience what being a candidate is like, and know how the party works and who to suggest can potentially help a potential candidate if needed. It has a disadvantage in that we don't have resources for professional vetting that should a) be more rigorous and allow scrutiny of social media and public records, and b) more consistent in vetting different potential candidates. The issues with vetting by volunteers have been highlighted in a couple of recent examples, the Green candidate for the coming by-election in England slipped through having shared problematic social media content (and, failure to disclose that during vetting could be the entirely human forgetting that he'd reshared that, we all share content others create almost without thinking as it's just a matter of hitting that share button, and I'd bet none of us remember each and every post we've shared in the last couple of months) and there also appears to be some inconsistency in interpreting rules over eligibility for MSPs here in Scotland (which I have no direct knowledge of, I wasn't on that vetting panel and even if I was I'm not going to say anything about what was said in confidence).
I think if you are going to do that, and run for political office, you need to talk about it during the campaign. It is hugely controversial and voters will want to know. It doesn’t sit well with Reform sounding off about “Christian values” which they represent as socially conservative.
But by that calculation, the only genuine victims are people who voted Reform expecting them to uphold socially conservative values in regards to pornography, and might now sense themselves betrayed. Presumably, that is not the demographic Labour is fighting for in its criticism of Mousdell.
I think if you are going to do that, and run for political office, you need to talk about it during the campaign. It is hugely controversial and voters will want to know. It doesn’t sit well with Reform sounding off about “Christian values” which they represent as socially conservative.
But by that calculation, the only genuine victims are people who voted Reform expecting them to uphold socially conservative values in regards to pornography, and might now sense themselves betrayed. Presumably, that is not the demographic Labour is fighting for in its criticism of Mousdell.
There is a general concern that Reform are misrepresenting to voters what their real agenda is (low tax on on the rich and companies, with low regulations to protect workers) arguably corporate capture of the state, and this is part of that.
Being a child has not prevented trump's destruction of his own country and trying it on as many others as he can find. There are too many similarities here. It is all about enablers and supporters.
Being a child has not prevented trump's destruction of his own country and trying it on as many others as he can find. There are too many similarities here. It is all about enablers and supporters.
Not to mention policies. Reform is really a single issue group, but the policy book is Trumpist.
I think if you are going to do that, and run for political office, you need to talk about it during the campaign. It is hugely controversial and voters will want to know. It doesn’t sit well with Reform sounding off about “Christian values” which they represent as socially conservative.
But by that calculation, the only genuine victims are people who voted Reform expecting them to uphold socially conservative values in regards to pornography, and might now sense themselves betrayed. Presumably, that is not the demographic Labour is fighting for in its criticism of Mousdell.
There is a general concern that Reform are misrepresenting to voters what their real agenda is (low tax on on the rich and companies, with low regulations to protect workers) arguably corporate capture of the state, and this is part of that.
I think there might be a few more insurmountable steps between "Voters hearing about some Reformer contradicting family-values by monetizing his dick-pix on the internet hyuk hyuk hyuk" and "Voters concluding that Reform's economic populism is actually a front for elite interests." See Larry Craig for an older example of conservative hypocrisy over sexual conduct being of little lasting impact on the wider politics.
That said, I certainly think the two conversations can interact with one another in the public square, though I would amorphosize it downward a bit into something like:
The scandal helps contribute, albeit in a mostly non-quantifiable way, to a general aura of sleaze and dishonesty surrounding Reform, which is useful in fueling the narrative that they are not to be trusted on serious economic issues.
(I hesitated to use the word "sleaze", because apart from maybe misleading his vettors a bit, his activities were only really sleazy by the standards of an anti-sex work ideology, plus there's also the risk in this particular case of some of the backlash being anti-lgbqt. But at the end of the day, I can't do anything about it that boom-chicka-wawa humour remains a staple of the discourse around such matters, and most people who go into that sector of the economy are aware of its existing status as a prurient punch-line.)
I am interested in how consistently Trump and his henchmen (notably Vance and Musk) have been apparently undermining Farage over the past year by voicing strong support for even-further-right alternatives such as Rupert Lowe and Tommy Robinson ((latest example here). They do not seem to do this to Euro-fash such as Le Pen, Meloni or AfD. I wonder if some personal beef exists between Trump and Farage that accounts for this.
Well, MAGA types are presumably all monolingual (why can't everyone just speak English?) And will therefore be more aware of prominent English-speaking far-right characters. I doubt that Trump has the capacity any more for Cunning Plans. It's more likely he is randomly spewing approval over anyone saying things he agrees with.
I am interested in how consistently Trump and his henchmen (notably Vance and Musk) have been apparently undermining Farage over the past year by voicing strong support for even-further-right alternatives such as Rupert Lowe and Tommy Robinson ((latest example here). They do not seem to do this to Euro-fash such as Le Pen, Meloni or AfD. I wonder if some personal beef exists between Trump and Farage that accounts for this.
I think it is partly because he walked back support for the attack on Iran and before that criticised Trump for denigrating British troops.
But is Farage therefore less extreme than Meloni / Le Pen / AfD ?
Possibly. It is difficult to compare. What is seen as very right wing in one country may not be seen so in another. Reform are certainly not as right wing as Restore Britain.
But is Farage therefore less extreme than Meloni / Le Pen / AfD ?
I think he is less extreme than those you mention, and less than other Reform MPs like Lee Anderson. He is an old-fashioned reactionary, rather than an ideological fascist. The old Tory party always had a few, like Norman Tebbit, Dame Jill Knight and Sir Bernard Braine (the latter a long serving Essex MP).
But is Farage therefore less extreme than Meloni / Le Pen / AfD ?
Possibly. It is difficult to compare. What is seen as very right wing in one country may not be seen so in another. Reform are certainly not as right wing as Restore Britain.
Here's a test:
If one each of typical Farage, Le Pen, Meloni, and AfD supporters met in an airport lounge between their respective connecting-flights and started discussing the usual hot-button issues, would there be any among them who would think "Holy cow, some of these opinions are WAY too extreme for me!"
My personal guess would be no, EXCEPT in regards to certain historical topics, eg. if the AfDer said "You know, everyone attacks Herr Hitler, and fair enough, but in some cases, he was just doing what needed to be done", it might offend the Reformer, simply because nationalistic Britons have been trained to think of Hitler as an enemy of Britain.
But if it was just the AfDer saying "We really need to just clear all these Muslim scroungers the hell outta Germany", it likely wouldn't set off any alarm-bells for the Reformer.
Would the AfDer not be aware that without Muslim immigrants their Volkswagens would have cost a lot more?
Are you asking me if ethnonationalistic types usually consider the economic drawbacks of their exclusionary policies? Because in my experience, the answer is no.
(I'm open to correction on this. Are AfDers an especially nuanced category of ethnonationalist, who might sincerely think "Well, I'm against the ones who come here and rip off the welfare system, but I'm all for the hard-working who just want to do an honest job"?
(I'm open to correction on this. Are AfDers an especially nuanced category of ethnonationalist, who might sincerely think "Well, I'm against the ones who come here and rip off the welfare system, but I'm all for the hard-working who just want to do an honest job"?
Judging by the rubbish I see on social media, the Reform/Restore/etc type in the UK are firm believers in Schrodingers immigrant - they're here to take our jobs and scrounge off the welfare state at the same time. My experience on the doorstep while canvassing of being told to f-off home was so that a non-immigrant could take my job (though, how many born and bred ethnic Scots would have a nuclear physics PhD and 30 years experience in environmental research wasn't something he answered - mainly because he'd closed the door on me before I could ask that question).
I very much doubt AfD supporters are any different (just swap "Brit" or "Scot" with "German").
Comments
I’ve never heard the Lib Dems answer all those questions about their calls for PR either. For that matter I’ve never heard it justified by anyone in terms other than it being fairer.
It’s obvious to me that Reform want PR for the same reason the Lib Dems do - they’d have more MPs, and therefore more power, if it replaced FPTP. In my book that’s also an excellent reason to keep FPTP!
As you know from previous discussions on electoral reform, I have thought through the topic. So, my summary answer to what "fair" means would include:
Electoral reform would be fairer because the proportion of elected members from each party would more accurately reflect the vote each of those parties got. Electoral reform would be fairer because it reduces the need for tactical voting, and so makes the votes each party gets a more accurate reflection of what support each party has. Electoral reform would be fairer because it stops a single party dominating Parliament, forcing parties to cooperate in forming a government and passing legislation which means government that reflects a wider spectrum of views among the population. Specific to list-based PR, this would be fairer because it (should*) eliminate the option of elected members switching parties so if people vote for a member from party A they have a member from party A rather than find that after a year or two they have a member from party B without voting for that party (conversely, specific just to list based systems, it turns elected members into just drones who vote for the party line with no options to dissent because if they dissent they're out and the next person on the list takes their place - also, no by-elections which can be an important chance for some of the electorate to have their say part way through a session).
I've known some LibDems give their version of my summary above, I've heard Greens do the same (admittedly in that case often within Green events rather than public statements). I've not heard any public statement from Reform to that effect. I accept that generally electoral reform is not a priority for voters (who, by my experience on the doors the last few weeks are concerned with cost of living, schools and health services, the "state of the world" including both the environment and wars, and around here certainly bus services seem to be a big talking point, with in Scotland an ongoing interest in Independence), and so it doesn't actually make for good election campaigning to focus on electoral reform when the voters don't care about it. It's often easier to get parties to talk about such things when there isn't an election campaign - which is, generally speaking, when the media doesn't care enough to report what's been said.
* I say "should" because I do know of an example of an MSP elected on the regional list who left their party to finish the session as an independent, whereas I think they should have been forced out of Parliament to be replaced by another member of their former party from the list.
Of course, there's always the possibility of simple incompetence.
Farage is really a child. As for as I know you are right Doublethink. On top of that it is not so easy as to just building the detention centres where you want. There are laws and locals may object. Even if they get into number 10 it will be a long time before they could build. This is just a tactic it won’t happen
I think it's a mix of all three.
I guess it depends on whether you think having a migrant detention centre nearby is a bad thing (for reasons other than thinking migrant detention centres shouldn’t exist in the first place).
The proposed usage - "concentrating" people into a single location for a short period before deporting them implies constant mass movement of people, potentially in the thousands weekly, which would be disruptive to whatever settlement it is attached to. It would also involve large numbers of staff, who would require accommodation and other services. Dumping *any* large and badly organised enterprise on a community in a hurry is going to be bad. Doing so with specific punitive intent is going to be worse.
I wonder how happy he would be if Brexit voting areas were made to bear the cost of the financial damage that leaving the EU has caused the UK economy. Its the same principle that he is using.
In terms of intent, what matters is whether the person proposing it thinks it's a bad thing
Yet again a political party committed to cutting public spending makes a proposal that would necessitate additional spending on staff and facilities! You can bet that any spending will go to Friends of Farage,
To which I'd add their campaign claims that they were going to pay for increased public services from 'growth' without reversing Brexit - that was obvious snake oil and a huge indicator that he and Reeves couldn't be trusted even before they were elected.
The subset of people who think (correctly) that Starmer is untrustworthy but incorrectly that Farage is trustworthy are likely to be reacting to Starmer's ineffectiveness on cost of living/ improving public services while listening to narratives that this is all the fault of 'others' - people who've come from abroad to live and work, minorities, those portrayed as the 'undeserving poor', people with disabilities etc.
Racism and all the isms are the handmaids of Farageism - it's scapegoating others and believing that will magically make economic and social problems go away. Starmer has done his fair share of it - which is why people who reject these narratives mostly also reject him.
The subset who distrust him and trust Farage are likely a combination of the right wing media/ social media poisoned and the low information 'give them a chance the rest have been tried'/ 'let's give them a kicking' vote who've not looked at all beneath the surface and who have no idea what a huge mistake they are making to trust Farage.
When I try to discuss Reforms policies with their supporters online I most often get "muslim rapists" in response.
TL /NR : Starmer is unfairly judged and Farage is pretty much untried so we don't yet know how bad he can be!
And if you think that's an unfair thing to judge him on, take a look at his record as an MEP. He got himself into the European Parliament by complaining about fisheries policy, so they put him on the fisheries committee. He attended a grand total of two meetings and did absolutely nothing to promote British interests.
The factors worth bearing in mind is that the media is not particularly informative on policy matters, and that a lot of people have fairly incoherent politics. See the recent FT article with 6 different Reform supporters, of which at least two were of the opinion that every other party was 'too left wing' but on the other hand wanted managed immigration and felt the net zero switch was quite important.
https://www.ft.com/content/dbfee971-7728-45c5-be32-ce41aae3965c?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Certain parts of the internet refer to him as the "Clacton clitoris" because he's so hard to find there.
Yes indeed.
Some commentators are point out that they actually fell % wise from the last locals.
https://refukked.lovable.app/
NZ has a populist party -NZ First, which is part of the current right -wing coalition Government. In the past they have been part of a Labour led government.
I know there was contact between them and Reform during the pandemic, but haven't heard of any since.
This thread has made me more aware of needing to keep an eye on them, thanks.
In the article I checked, a Labour critic said Mousdell was in the wrong not because he acted in porn, but because he put the videos on a site that could be accessed by children; however, Mousdell said he had followed all relevant laws in uploading the video, and no one contradicted him on that point.
Our vetting also includes making sure the potential candidate understands what position they'll be standing for, and if elected what would be expected of them. Which is something for the coming Council Elections next year we're going to need to stress more because with recent election results there's going to be very few wards where a potential candidate will be definitely a paper candidate, for a lot of wards there's a chance of getting elected even without active campaigning. It certainly seems that that's a step lacking in Reform vetting with several elected councillors appearing to be surprised about how much work is involved in being a councillor (and, in England how little pay there is).
Of course, we don't have big donors throwing lots of money at us, so all our vetting is done by volunteers within the party - almost entirely people who are very active in branches and national committees, and those who will themselves be candidates. That has an advantage in that vetting is done by people who know from experience what being a candidate is like, and know how the party works and who to suggest can potentially help a potential candidate if needed. It has a disadvantage in that we don't have resources for professional vetting that should a) be more rigorous and allow scrutiny of social media and public records, and b) more consistent in vetting different potential candidates. The issues with vetting by volunteers have been highlighted in a couple of recent examples, the Green candidate for the coming by-election in England slipped through having shared problematic social media content (and, failure to disclose that during vetting could be the entirely human forgetting that he'd reshared that, we all share content others create almost without thinking as it's just a matter of hitting that share button, and I'd bet none of us remember each and every post we've shared in the last couple of months) and there also appears to be some inconsistency in interpreting rules over eligibility for MSPs here in Scotland (which I have no direct knowledge of, I wasn't on that vetting panel and even if I was I'm not going to say anything about what was said in confidence).
But by that calculation, the only genuine victims are people who voted Reform expecting them to uphold socially conservative values in regards to pornography, and might now sense themselves betrayed. Presumably, that is not the demographic Labour is fighting for in its criticism of Mousdell.
There is a general concern that Reform are misrepresenting to voters what their real agenda is (low tax on on the rich and companies, with low regulations to protect workers) arguably corporate capture of the state, and this is part of that.
Being a child has not prevented trump's destruction of his own country and trying it on as many others as he can find. There are too many similarities here. It is all about enablers and supporters.
Not to mention policies. Reform is really a single issue group, but the policy book is Trumpist.
I think there might be a few more insurmountable steps between "Voters hearing about some Reformer contradicting family-values by monetizing his dick-pix on the internet hyuk hyuk hyuk" and "Voters concluding that Reform's economic populism is actually a front for elite interests." See Larry Craig for an older example of conservative hypocrisy over sexual conduct being of little lasting impact on the wider politics.
That said, I certainly think the two conversations can interact with one another in the public square, though I would amorphosize it downward a bit into something like:
The scandal helps contribute, albeit in a mostly non-quantifiable way, to a general aura of sleaze and dishonesty surrounding Reform, which is useful in fueling the narrative that they are not to be trusted on serious economic issues.
(I hesitated to use the word "sleaze", because apart from maybe misleading his vettors a bit, his activities were only really sleazy by the standards of an anti-sex work ideology, plus there's also the risk in this particular case of some of the backlash being anti-lgbqt. But at the end of the day, I can't do anything about it that boom-chicka-wawa humour remains a staple of the discourse around such matters, and most people who go into that sector of the economy are aware of its existing status as a prurient punch-line.)
I think it is partly because he walked back support for the attack on Iran and before that criticised Trump for denigrating British troops.
I've met people who think Farage is too soft.
Possibly. It is difficult to compare. What is seen as very right wing in one country may not be seen so in another. Reform are certainly not as right wing as Restore Britain.
I think he is less extreme than those you mention, and less than other Reform MPs like Lee Anderson. He is an old-fashioned reactionary, rather than an ideological fascist. The old Tory party always had a few, like Norman Tebbit, Dame Jill Knight and Sir Bernard Braine (the latter a long serving Essex MP).
Here's a test:
If one each of typical Farage, Le Pen, Meloni, and AfD supporters met in an airport lounge between their respective connecting-flights and started discussing the usual hot-button issues, would there be any among them who would think "Holy cow, some of these opinions are WAY too extreme for me!"
My personal guess would be no, EXCEPT in regards to certain historical topics, eg. if the AfDer said "You know, everyone attacks Herr Hitler, and fair enough, but in some cases, he was just doing what needed to be done", it might offend the Reformer, simply because nationalistic Britons have been trained to think of Hitler as an enemy of Britain.
But if it was just the AfDer saying "We really need to just clear all these Muslim scroungers the hell outta Germany", it likely wouldn't set off any alarm-bells for the Reformer.
Are you asking me if ethnonationalistic types usually consider the economic drawbacks of their exclusionary policies? Because in my experience, the answer is no.
(I'm open to correction on this. Are AfDers an especially nuanced category of ethnonationalist, who might sincerely think "Well, I'm against the ones who come here and rip off the welfare system, but I'm all for the hard-working who just want to do an honest job"?
No I don't think they would.
I very much doubt AfD supporters are any different (just swap "Brit" or "Scot" with "German").