Reform UK discussion

[nw1]

It's interesting that the Reform logo is a forward facing arrow, yet they openly go on about returning to the past.

Indeed. I have created an alternative Reform logo including reversing the arrow and some other mods, but I won't post it here as it might be iffy legally.

Statistically yes, those are the years when the UK had particularly high birth rates.

It is the UK statistics that matter for the numbers of UK pensioners, not some cultural wibble imported from the USA, where the post war baby boom wasn't delayed by about 10 years.

Perhaps but there are cultural identity matters to consider, and "boomer" is first and foremost a cultural term referring to those who were teenagers or young adults in the 60s, and were fully immersed, first-hand, in 60s culture. Those born in the latter part of the 1955-73 period would be teenagers and young adults in the late 80s and 90s!

That will deal with all the wicked people flying saltires and flags with dragons on them.

Or the evil councils flying the Ukraine flag. Must be stopped, as it's not British, and all other countries are the enemy!

Absolutely. Keeping the far-right out would be a priority for me, and many others, I'm sure.

Indeed - I have always vowed never to vote Conservative, but I will have to row-back that one.

If I was in a constituency that was a two-horse race between the Tories and Reform, I would vote Tory. The situation is that serious and that bad. Reform must be stopped, at all costs. And I suspect if you get someone like myself, a hardline Remainer and pro-immigrationist with strong anti-austerity views, considering voting Tory in certain circumstances, a lot of softer remainers and lefties will think the same.

(In practice it's unlikely to happen unless I move, as my constituency has always in recent times been a Con/Lib Dem two-horse race - but I can see a number of long-standing Tory constituencies in my area, which I could feasibly move to, could be in that situation).

I note the phrase far-right in your quote; why are Reform not considered "far-right" when their brethren on the continent, such as the RN and the Brothers of Italy, are considered either far-right or at least "right-wing-to-far-right"? Is it British exceptionalism at play again : "we fought the Nazis, we can't be far-right"? Is it Tice's menacing threats of legal action, which in some ways makes them even worse than the RN who appear to accept the label? Or something else?

 

[Magdalia]

Those born in the latter part of the 1955-73 period would be teenagers and young adults in the late 80s and 90s!

Indeed. Which is why youth unemployment was a major political issue at that time.

Perhaps but there are cultural identity matters to consider, and "boomer" is first and foremost a cultural term

For impact on the UK public finances now, the statistics are much more important than the cultural labels. Ignoring migration, the number of older people leaving the UK labour market is going to exceed the number of younger people joining the labour market for at least the next 10-15 years.

 

[Thirteen]

People worry about Reform but I think the fact it's hard to get many things through Parliament so the ideas that a Reform Government would be able to do sweeping reform policies is unlikely but under a coalition, they couldn't and in a minority Government, they'd be pretty much paralysed not to mention the threat of the VONC.

 

[nw1]

For impact on the UK public finances now, the statistics are much more important than the cultural labels. Ignoring migration, the number of older people leaving the UK labour market is going to exceed the number of younger people joining the labour market for at least the next 10-15 years.

Fair point though I'd prefer the term "high birth rate" rather than "boomer", which, whether you like it or not, has strong cultural associations with the next generation back.

But staying on that topic: remember also that GenXers (the term I prefer to use) are likely to work longer, due partly to financial need and partly better health.
As someone born in the latter part of the 1955-73 period I certainly don't intend to leave the labour market until the last possible moment, and indeed, for my own financial and mental well-being might consider even extending that beyond 70.

Those demographics might suggest that might be welcomed. We might see some much-needed respect for older workers in their late 50s and 60s, rather than labelling them as "too old" to do the job.

 

[takno]

Have been trying to stay off the forums for a while (for my own sanity when it comes to politics!) but the recent performance of Reform UK has been giving me more than a little in the way of nerves.

Also worrying is the recent opinion poll which puts Reform on 33 versus Labour on 20 and the Tories on just 18.

There's quite a lot of questions here (sorry) - I tried to create a more specific thread but was asked to post here instead.

What does everyone think about the possibility of them winning the next election, and for those of us who really can't stand them (to put it mildly), the best strategy for fighting them?

On the one hand Labour have slipped up on some policies such as the winter fuel payment in particular. So the results could be construed as an anti-Labour vote rather than a pro-anyone-else, perhaps.
On the other hand, if people wanted to move their vote elsewhere, why not the Tories (for those leaning right) or the Lib Dems (for those on the centre or left)? Or for those more left-minded, the Greens?

It does seem worrying that a party that I would consider hard-right is polling on 33% - that is one third of the population, and far higher than the AfD achieved in Germany, for example. It does say some very disturbing things about the UK. I can understand anti-Labour sentiment but don't understand why people are supporting a hard-right party rather than the still distinctly-right-wing, but in a relatively sane way, Tories or the centrist Lib Dems. Why is the UK (and some other European countries such as France) so enamoured with the hard-right when (say) Canada and Australia, and Ireland, appear not to be, continuing to favour the parties of the centre-left or centre-right?

Furthermore, with Donald Trump, less than four months in, blatantly proving he is not up to the job for all manner of reasons and the chaos in the USA, people still seem to want our own home-grown Donald Trump. That is hard to understand.

But what next? There does seem to be a real risk of Reform winning the next election in some way (more likely as part of a coalition rather than a majority) but what to do about it?

I think Labour are misplaced in going along the hardline anti-immigration, anti-trans route that they seem to have embarked on. The anti-immigrant, anti-trans electorate are going to vote Reform anyway, or perhaps the Conservatives if we're lucky - so appealing to them is misplaced. Labour need to realise that they are also shedding votes on the left from those of us who are pro-immigration and pro-trans-rights, to name two examples of progressive politics. If they think that will win them (Labour) votes, I think they are deluded.

Labour need to instead U-turn on some of their unpopular policies, such as the winter fuel payment cut, to name one. Yes, it's flip-flopping, but if Trump can flip-flop, why not Labour? I think less damage will be done by flip-flopping than keeping this unpopular policy.

Furthermore I think the other parties need to clearly plan some kind of strategy for ensuring Reform does not get into power. I actually think that there's less danger them winning power with PR than with FPTP, in the sense that if they get 30% of the vote under a PR system, they will get 30% of MPs. Under FPTP there's a real danger they could get around 50%, as the small-town Midlands, North and East seems to be very enamoured with them. So I'd say that Labour need to move to change the electoral system before it's too late.

I also think the Conservatives need to change tack and stop trying to be Reform-lite. They need to move back to a position of being right-wing economically but more centrist socially, which is what they always were under the likes of Major, Cameron and May.
Hell, under that scenario we could even have a situation in which Reform could be defeated by a Lab-Lib Dem-Con coalition. This is probably the first time I've ever suggested that a Conservative-containing government might be better than some alternatives - I've been a lifelong critic of the Tories but under the current situation, they seem relatively less bad, and if the likes of Hunt, Stride, etc, maybe even Cleverly, can take over the party it might become semi-palatable.

The other area of discussion is: could they realistically lose popularity in the next 4 years? Could them running councils, and quite possibly messing them up through savage, DOGE-like cuts and MAGA-like attacks on minorities, actually cause people to realise that they are not the solution to their problems after all?

The possibility of a Reform government is giving me many nerves and I don't think the UK will be a good place - at all - if they do win in four years. You can see that just by reading their plans. They are basically, to my mind, Trump UK - a toxic cocktail of MAGA and DOGE policies. A mixture of vacuous patriotism and strident anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-immigrant policy demonstrates an authoritarian and conformist attitude in which little tolerance of those who are different to their perceived "norm" will be displayed. I do wonder then whether authoritarianism will ratchet up by many orders of magnitude, fair elections will come under threat, and we will drift towards something like Orban's Hungary or worse.


1955-73? Really?

Isn't that mostly Gen X? First time I've ever heard of anyone born in the late 60s, early 70s referred to as a baby boomer. What's Gen X then, 1974-1990?
Such a definition would make Liam Gallagher, for example, a baby-boomer. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Describing them as a far-right party doesn't help though - it's not what their supporters are seeing, so it doesn't convince them of anything. Worse in fact, because it mostly just comes across as you calling them extremists. Not that many Reform supporters are remotely extremist, but if you keep telling that that what they believe is extremist then you make extremism seem acceptable to them.

Reform don't have a lot of actual policies beyond picking fights. To elect them would be to deliver a government which was effortlessly stupider and less capable than even that of Liz Truss. Unless you can actually make people believe that a Reform government looks like at least Trump or Orban or worse though, then extremist isn't a useful description. Call it for what it is - an absolute disaster waiting to happen

Reform do victimise minorities, but it does feels like Stonewall have created an environment over the last 10 years though where there's been significant victimisation of majority opinion. There was comfortable and wide-spread acceptance of gay rights 10-15 years ago, which was huge progress from 30 years ago, and was achieved slowly and patiently by talking and empathy. The approach since then of suppressing any form of debate on trans rights, quite aggressively declaring that anything less than full-throated support was bigotry, and refusing to concede that trans rights sometimes impacted on the rights of other people, has created a culture of quiet intolerance.

You can't get to write off a third of the population as extremists, or bigots, or arrogantly declare that they've got it wrong, and then expect to win.

In terms of what Labour "must" do, it seems like particular people at the peripheries of the Labour party are having a great time declaring that people voting for Reform means that Labour "must" u-turn and back whatever policy they were supporting all along. It's got nothing to do with winning back Reform supporters - it's just navel-gazing.

Winter fuel allowance is a great example of this. It's not nearly as unpopular a policy as some on the left are determined to present it, and I've never seen a shred of evidence that it's in the minds of Reform voters, most of whom have defected from the Tories anyway.

Where people have defected to Reform from Labour the disability allowance cuts have likely been far more impactful. Even then, it's not necessarily because people are opposed to the cuts, so much as that they (correctly) identify disability benefits as the only thing propping up a lot of abandoned northern and Welsh towns. An effective regional policy and real jobs would be more popular.

The splits on the left might be partially reduced by backing down on some of the benefits changes, although even then I'm not convinced and a non-means-tested winter fuel allowance is especially high on the lists of Green defectors. A partial walkback on benefits would be more impactful. Overall though I'm just not sure that those voters are likely to come back to Labour, except to keep out Reform.

 

[nw1]

Describing them as a far-right party doesn't help though - it's not what their supporters are seeing, so it doesn't convince them of anything. Worse in fact, because it mostly just comes across as you calling them extremists. Not that many Reform supporters are remotely extremist, but if you keep telling that that what they believe is extremist then you make extremism seem acceptable to them.

Reform don't have a lot of actual policies beyond picking fights. To elect them would be to deliver a government which was effortlessly stupider and less capable than even that of Liz Truss. Unless you can actually make people believe that a Reform government looks like at least Trump or Orban or worse though, then extremist isn't a useful description. Call it for what it is - an absolute disaster waiting to happen

Reform do victimise minorities, but it does feels like Stonewall have created an environment over the last 10 years though where there's been significant victimisation of majority opinion. There was comfortable and wide-spread acceptance of gay rights 10-15 years ago, which was huge progress from 30 years ago, and was achieved slowly and patiently by talking and empathy. The approach since then of suppressing any form of debate on trans rights, quite aggressively declaring that anything less than full-throated support was bigotry, and refusing to concede that trans rights sometimes impacted on the rights of other people, has created a culture of quiet intolerance.

You can't get to write off a third of the population as extremists, or bigots, or arrogantly declare that they've got it wrong, and then expect to win.

In terms of what Labour "must" do, it seems like particular people at the peripheries of the Labour party are having a great time declaring that people voting for Reform means that Labour "must" u-turn and back whatever policy they were supporting all along. It's got nothing to do with winning back Reform supporters - it's just navel-gazing.

Winter fuel allowance is a great example of this. It's not nearly as unpopular a policy as some on the left are determined to present it, and I've never seen a shred of evidence that it's in the minds of Reform voters, most of whom have defected from the Tories anyway.

Where people have defected to Reform from Labour the disability allowance cuts have likely been far more impactful. Even then, it's not necessarily because people are opposed to the cuts, so much as that they (correctly) identify disability benefits as the only thing propping up a lot of abandoned northern and Welsh towns. An effective regional policy and real jobs would be more popular.

The splits on the left might be partially reduced by backing down on some of the benefits changes, although even then I'm not convinced and a non-means-tested winter fuel allowance is especially high on the lists of Green defectors. A partial walkback on benefits would be more impactful. Overall though I'm just not sure that those voters are likely to come back to Labour, except to keep out Reform.

A few things:

1. Why is it OK to call Le Pen's RN far-right, or Meloni's Brothers of Italy "right-wing to far-right", when it's not OK to call Reform the same? Genuinely interested as they all seem to be pushing the same kind of anti-woke, anti-immigrant, nationalist policy. Indeed I wonder whether Meloni is closer to the centre than Farage.

2. It's not necessarily about Labour winning the next election. I don't really care if they do or not. All I care about, and I suspect a lot of people are the same, is keeping Reform out, and ensuring the other parties don't ape their policies. This is why Labour urgently need to look at changing the electoral system before the next election, and indeed work with other parties. They should accept they probably won't get a majority next time.

3. I'm not sure it's "arrogant" to call Reform extremist or hard-right (I didn't directly call them far-right myself, all I did was asked the question why they are not considered far-right). It's an opinion and a valid one in my view; why is it arrogant for calling out certain things the way you see they are? Should we not be calling the MAGA supporters of the USA extremist? I would say that's a fair label. (Trump himself, however, I don't consider extremist as such. I just consider him a rabid power-freak who will go along with the hard-right stuff for the sake of staying in power).

This seems to be an increasingly common put-down of those who criticise the hard-right, use of terms like "arrogance" when in fact all it is is that many of us have lived much of our lives in a relatively stable, relatively sane country (with its ups and downs) and are now staring into the potential abyss of a Reform government which is uncharted territory compared to the Tories, Labour and (in coalition) Lib Dems who are known quantities. Is it any wonder some of us are more than a little alarmed at the prospect?

The real question is: does the number of people who are alarmed at a potential Reform government and would actively vote for a sub-optimal party (including Conservative for left-wing liberals) to keep them out, exceed those who would actively vote for them?

 

[takno]

A couple of things:

1. Why is it OK to call Le Pen's RN far-right, or Meloni's Brothers of Italy "right-wing to far-right", when it's not OK to call Reform the same? Genuinely interested as they all seem to be pushing the same kind of anti-woke, anti-immigrant, nationalist policy. Indeed I wonder whether Meloni is closer to the centre than Farage.

2. It's not necessarily about Labour winning the next election. I don't really care if they do or not. All I care about, and I suspect a lot of people are the same, is keeping Reform out, and ensuring the other parties don't ape their policies.

3. I'm not sure it's "arrogant" to call Reform extremist or hard-right (I didn't directly call them far-right myself, all I did was asked the question why they are not considered far-right). It's an opinion and a valid one in my view; why is it arrogant for calling out certain things the way you see they are? Should we not be calling the MAGA supporters of the USA extremist? I would say that's a fair label. (Trump himself, however, I don't consider extremist as such. I just consider him a rabid power-freak who will go along with the hard-right stuff for the sake of staying in power). This seems to be an increasingly common put-down of those who criticise the hard-right, use of terms like "arrogance" when in fact all it is is that many of us have lived much of our lives in a relatively stable, relatively sane country (with its ups and downs) and are now staring into the potential abyss of a Reform government which is uncharted territory compared to the Tories, Labour and (in coalition) Lib Dems who are known quantities. Is it any wonder some of us are more than a little alarmed at the prospect?

The real question is: does the number of people who are alarmed at a potential Reform government and would actively vote for a sub-optimal party (including Conservative for left-wing liberals) to keep them out, exceed those who would actively vote for them?

I think far-right is a more reasonable label than extremist, since it's largely just a statement of where they are on the political spectrum.

The only reason I mention this is terms of Labour winning is because Labour are the only people at a national level likely to beat them. In terms of voting for a sub-optimal party, I'd vote Lib-Dem or Green to keep Reform or the Tories out. If the Tories came back quite a long way from the precipice they are currently on I could just about imagine voting for them in preference to Reform.

As it stands though I literally can't see any useful difference between the Tories and Reform, and I suspect they'd just form a coalition of chaos between them if the Tories got a minority anyway.

 

[nw1]

I think far-right is a more reasonable label than extremist, since it's largely just a statement of where they are on the political spectrum.

The only reason I mention this is terms of Labour winning is because Labour are the only people at a national level likely to beat them. In terms of voting for a sub-optimal party, I'd vote Lib-Dem or Green to keep Reform or the Tories out. If the Tories came back quite a long way from the precipice they are currently on I could just about imagine voting for them in preference to Reform.

As it stands though I literally can't see any useful difference between the Tories and Reform, and I suspect they'd just form a coalition of chaos between them if the Tories got a minority anyway.

This is why I think the Tories need to move back to the centre-right but I've posted in the Tory thread on that (so won't repeat here).

 

[RailWonderer]

If I was in a constituency that was a two-horse race between the Tories and Reform, I would vote Tory. The situation is that serious and that bad. Reform must be stopped, at all costs. And I suspect if you get someone like myself, a hardline Remainer and pro-immigrationist with strong anti-austerity views, considering voting Tory in certain circumstances, a lot of softer remainers and lefties will think the same.

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

 

[nw1]

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

I'm not getting into an immigration discussion, as these things generally prove fruitless and get nowhere. Suffice to say I am not changing my position on the matter. I am just explaining that there are certain situations when I might consider, though gritted teeth, voting Tory (i.e. in a two-horse race with Reform) even though ideologically I am not a Tory - and I was giving my position on immigration as one example of why I don't normally align with the current Tories.

 

[alex397]

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

Not sure you need to be quite so aggressive towards nw1. It’s possible to have a civil disagreement. I wonder though if we were to severely reduce immigration like Reform want. Let’s see how our society will cope looking after an increasingly ageing population, with a shortage of staff in the NHS and care sector.

Immigration should be controlled, but what I can’t stand is people blaming all our problems on immigration and foreigners. History shows that using foreigners as a scapegoat doesn’t tend to end well….

In regards to Reform being not considered ‘far right’, I think many pussyfoot around this. IMO, they are clearly far-right . I feel Reform are vague about it so they can get away with it. I’d argue they use ‘dog whistle’ politics. Being so ardently anti-‘woke’ is part of this. To me, woke is standing up for minority groups, and I have no issue with that at all, in fact I fully support ‘wokeness’, being part of a minority group myself (disabled).
And they are a party that have blatant connections with the Trump government, AfD, and many others.
We cannot be complacent about the rise of parties such as this. People complain that society was too complacent towards the far-right pre-WW2. Will we learn from the past? Time will tell…

 

[GusB]

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

Eh? What's utterly nonsensical is the idea of the country turning into a giant city state. There is plenty of room to build new housing which we need for the existing population anyway, regardless of whether or not we bring in immigrants.

Also, refusing to vote Reform does not automatically translate into a hatred of Britain, or a lack of concern for younger people.

If a was faced with a similar choice of having to vote Tory to keep Reform out I'd be more inclined to spoil my ballot (if I could be bothered turning out at all); at this moment in time they're two cheeks of the same backside, in my opinion.

 

[The Ham]

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

Do you want to hazard a guess at the percentage of the UK which is built on?

50%, 30%, 10%?

Even in England (which had higher percentages than the rest of the UK) the percentage of land used for residential uses is 1.2.

Look at Figure 1: Land use by land use group, England 2021 on the link below:

Land use statistics: England 2021 - statistical release

www.gov.uk

Also do you want to hazard a guess at what has meant we've needed more housing for population growth since 1980 or shrinking household sizes since 1980?

For every 5 homes needed due both those factors it's a 3:2 split for shrinking household sizes (3) and population increases (2).

 

[uglymonkey]

We have a huge ( and growing ) aging population, who are non- productive. We need every single young boat immigrant to come here , get a job and pay tax to keep the system running- don't we???? (partially in jest).

 

[The Ham]

We have a huge ( and growing ) aging population, who are non- productive. We need every single young boat immigrant to come here , get a job and pay tax to keep the system running- don't we???? (partially in jest).

No it's fine, we can manage by increasing the retirement age, we probably only need to increase it by about 18 months a year to get to work.

We'll save massively on the education budget too (25% of kids have at least one parent not naive born), so that'll help too.

We could also cut the state pension amount, that would also help.

It's not like the ratio of people of working age (16-64) to those over 65 had been shrinking for the last 30 years and will continue to fall even with the current levels of immigration.

 

[nw1]

Not sure you need to be quite so aggressive towards nw1. It’s possible to have a civil disagreement. I wonder though if we were to severely reduce immigration like Reform want. Let’s see how our society will cope looking after an increasingly ageing population, with a shortage of staff in the NHS and care sector.

Thanks. As I said I've had enough discussions on immigration on here to know they basically get nowhere, and it wasn't even the main point I was making - but, to answer one of @RailWonderer's points: a) no I don't hate Britain, though it was clearly better in the 90s and 00s before the populist-right got a stranglehold; b) yes I certainly do live in the UK and c) I live in very close proximity to immigrants from all over the place including Asia, Africa, the USA and continental Europe. Does it bother me? No. The only neighbour I've had a disagreement with has been thoroughly English.

 

[Magdalia]

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population that threatens to flatten this country into one giant city state, or make infrastructure strained and send house prices flying through the roof? This is nonsensical

This is indeed nonsensical. The UK has lots of land to build on without creating a giant city state. For example, in Surrey, close to London, more land is taken up by golf courses than houses.

Building more houses does not send house prices flying through the roof. On the contrary, more houses will exert a downward pressure on prices.

No it's fine, we can manage by increasing the retirement age, we probably only need to increase it by about 18 months a year to get to work.

No it is not fine. Increasing the retirement age isn't very effective because, for lots of people, the official retirement age only has a marginal impact on when they choose to exit the labour force. Many people with good pensions will exit the employment market earlier, and so will those exiting the employment market through ill health. Increasing the retirement age only has a direct impact on people who are still fit to work and don't have a good pension.

We could also cut the state pension amount, that would also help.

Given the fuss about means testing winter fuel allowance, good luck to any politician that tries that.

It's not like the ratio of people of working age (16-64) to those over 65 had been shrinking for the last 30 years and will continue to fall even with the current levels of immigration.

It is like that. The ratio of people of working age to those in retirement has been shrinking and will continue to do so without significant inward migration. The Office for Budget Responsibility set all of this out in their Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report last year, see here:

OBR fiscal risks and sustainability report

Various recent discussions have touched upon the state of the UK public finances, in relation to matters such as pensioners' winter fuel allowance, public sector pay, and public funds available for investment in transport infrastructure. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has published...

www.railforums.co.uk

Chart 1.8 shows that the proportions of under 18s/18-64s/over 65s were 25/61/14 in 1974, 20/62/18 in 2024 and a projected 15/57/27 in 2074.

This is exacerbated by the increasing proportion of people of working age who are not in the employment market.

We have a huge ( and growing ) aging population, who are non- productive. We need every single young boat immigrant to come here , get a job and pay tax to keep the system running- don't we???? (partially in jest).

Many a true word is spoken in jest! Inward migration is mostly young adults and, providing that they are more productive than the existing population, then they are good for the economy and the demography.

 

[nw1]

Building more houses does not send house prices flying through the roof. On the contrary, more houses will exert a downward pressure on prices.

I think they meant that a liberal policy on legal immigration would in their opinion send house prices flying through the roof, not building houses, to be fair.

 

[The Ham]

Gross immigration (which by the way also includes British people returning to the UK) was 1.2 million in 2022, by the time you factor in those leaving net migration was 0.6 million, however the population grew by 0.5 million.

As such, to maintain a stable population the UK would need net migration of 100,000 people a year.

However, without net migration the working age population (16-64) would have shrunk by 0.44 million.

However, those over 65 increased by 1 million

That means that those 437,000 people (the increase in the working population observed) would have each had to support about 2.25 people aged over 65 (yes the retirement age for state pension is 66, but it's easier to find population data on over 65's and the actual number is 2.28, so probably factors in at least some of the 65 year olds) if we don't want to increase the state pension age or reduce the payments paid to pensioners and we don't want to increase the tax burden on "hard working British people".

No it is not fine. Increasing the retirement age isn't very effective because, for lots of people, the official retirement age only has a marginal impact on when they choose to exit the labour force. Many people with good pensions will exit the employment market earlier, and so will those exiting the employment market through ill health. Increasing the retirement age only has a direct impact on people who are still fit to work and don't have a good pension.


Given the fuss about means testing winter fuel allowance, good luck to any politician that tries that.

Indeed, and I said what I said to highlight that effectively if anyone wants to reduce migration then that's likely what they would need to do to make reduced migration work.

It is like that. The ratio of people of working age to those in retirement has been shrinking and will continue to do so without significant inward migration. The Office for Budget Responsibility set all of this out in their Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report last year, see here:

OBR fiscal risks and sustainability report

Various recent discussions have touched upon the state of the UK public finances, in relation to matters such as pensioners' winter fuel allowance, public sector pay, and public funds available for investment in transport infrastructure. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has published...

www.railforums.co.uk

Chart 1.8 shows that the proportions of under 18s/18-64s/over 65s were 25/61/14 in 1974, 20/62/18 in 2024 and a projected 15/57/27 in 2074.

This is exacerbated by the increasing proportion of people of working age who are not in the employment market.

I know (again highlighting the issue).

Although there's some doubt about just how reliable the ONS data on the increases in the working population not in employment due to the data being based on surveys and not having a good data set (including too many in older cohorts).

 

[Yew]

Nothing says

How can you be in favour of a massively booming population

Given our ageing population, increasing numbers of young people is desirable so that we can maintain a good standard of living for the elderly and disabled.

flatten this country into one giant city state,

Have you ever beenn to a city state

or make infrastructure strained and

Hence why we should be continually investing in our infrastructure, instead of sweating Victorian and postwar assets to fund tax cuts to the rich.

send house prices flying through the roof?

That is quite simply due us not building (or converting) enough housing, changes to planning policy in the growing state of Texas recently caused house prices to go down. This current issue is predominantly self-inflicted, due to changes in planning and council house policy.

This is nonsensical - do you hate Britain? Do you even live in it? Do you think about younger people?

I do, hence, advocating for real policies that have been shown to solve the problems that our society is facing - rather than the simplistic, jingoistic pseudopolicy that you so often seem to parrot.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There is nothing progressive about a high level of immigration. The population of England increased by an average of just 100,000 people a year from 46 million to 49 million from 1971 to 2001. This is a sustainable level of population increase but 49 million was already greater than the number of people for which England can provide enough to eat from agriculture within the country.

A lot of new towns were built after World War Two but these were needed to provide housing for the population increase of around five million people between the the end of World War Two and 1971. There is already a severe shortage of housing in England so the 1.5 million houses planned in the current five year Parliament are needed for the existing population. There is no chance of easing the housing shortage unless immigration is greatly reduced.

From 2001 to 2011 the population of England increased by four million to 53 million mostly due to immigration. This totally unsustainable rate of increase continued to 56.5 million in 2021 and was clearly the main reason for the around 53% vote in England to leave the European Union. However the previous Conservative Government failed to get this message from voters and in the last Parliament 2020 to 2024 added around another two million people through a level of immigration far higher than happened when this country was in the European Union.

Ironically the population increase would have been much lower had the country stayed in the European Union and the Dublin Regulation and kept the 20,000 a year cap on work visas. The large number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats after 2020 is a result of the previous Conservative Government's decision to leave the Dublin Regulation.

The vote in the 2025 local elections in England was unprecedented in that voters not only voted against the Labour Government but also the Conservative opposition. Clearly a large part of the reason for the success of the Reform Party in those elections was voters sending a message yet again that they want an end to people crossing the English Channel in small boats and a very big reduction in immigration because they can see that the housing shortage in particular will never be fixed without a very big reduction in immigration.

The Labour Government clearly does understand this and knows that to recover support from the voters they have lost to the Reform Party they have to stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats and greatly reduce net immigration. How successful the Labour Government will be in achieving this remains to be seen.

 

[nw1]

One thing that's a little puzzling to me is why the "Trump effect" wasn't seemingly a factor in these local elections.

I'd have thought that the chaos of the Trump presidency would get people in other countries thinking that voting in Trump wannabes is maybe the way not to go, and that hard-right authoritarian nationalism such as what is currently going on in the US under Trump is maybe not the way to go.

Yet it seems to not have filtered into these local elections at all. Could it be that those who vote Reform are less aware of international affairs than average?

Perhaps it's because it's just a local election, admittedly.

It would be interesting to see whether the Trump effect will have any influence on the 2029 General Election. Will, by then, four years of abject chaos, plus possibly a few months of Vance if we're unlucky, have an effect on the next UK GE in the way that the Trump factor appears to have had an effect in Canada and Australia?

The vote in the 2025 local elections in England was unprecedented in that voters not only voted against the Labour Government but also the Conservative opposition. Clearly a large part of the reason for the success of the Reform Party in those elections was voters sending a message yet again that they want an end to people crossing the English Channel and a very big reduction in immigration because they can see that the housing shortage in particular will never be fixed without this very big reduction in immigration.

Is it about immigration? The anti-immigrationists constantly complain loudly and stamp their feet the loudest, but could it be other factors are more important, such as more people choosing to live alone hence more housing needed? "Immigrants taking our houses" seems to be the currently-fashionable reactionary dog-whistle made by the anti-immigration lobby. It used to be "immigrants taking our jobs" but presumably this was disproved.

As for the elections, hard to understand to be honest because Farage makes even Trump look semi-competent but I suspect it was mostly a reaction to the winter fuel cut, farmers' inheritance tax increases and other unpopular policies.

We've listened way too much to the anti-immigrationists in the past ten years. They constantly complain and we have given them so much; Brexit and restrictions on students bringing family members over, to name but two. Quite frankly I am utterly sick to the back teeth of anti-immigrationists and their constant demands. They need to be happy we gave them Brexit and stop complaining, just a little bit. Even Labour are going down the hardline anti-immigration route. What about the benefits of immigration? What if the best people for a given job are foreigners? What if we're short of skilled workers?

 

[styles]

One thing that's a little puzzling to me is why the "Trump effect" wasn't seemingly a factor in these local elections.

I'd have thought that the chaos of the Trump presidency would get people in other countries thinking that voting in Trump wannabes is maybe the way not to go, and that hard-right authoritarian nationalism such as what is currently going on in the US under Trump is maybe not the way to go.

Yet it seems to not have filtered into these local elections at all. Could it be that those who vote Reform are less aware of international affairs than average?

Perhaps it's because it's just a local election, admittedly.

It would be interesting to see whether the Trump effect will have any influence on the 2029 General Election. Will, by then, four years of abject chaos, plus possibly a few months of Vance if we're unlucky, have an effect on the next UK GE in the way that the Trump factor appears to have had an effect in Canada and Australia?

I suspect that the counter side of the Trump effect is that Trump does indeed have a significant number of supporters who are simply unwavering in their backing of him. For every voter who thinks actually maybe he wasn't a great choice, there's another voter who would support him practically unconditionally.

Farage isn't especially different, albeit less extreme in his views and less erratic in his actions, as Trump's behaviour and personality wouldn't really resonate with a lot of British voters.

Trump is also good at spinning things back around. He can claim that high tariffs are him putting the US first and actually are effectively removing concessions they've been given for years (true or not, doesn't matter). If Ukraine and Russia come to a peace deal, of any sort, he'll laud himself as a peacemaker, and we all know he's gunning for a Nobel Peace Prize. A sufficient number of people will lap up these claims.

Bear in mind that despite the chaos he brought about in his first term, even US citizens have decided they want him for a second term, so he's clearly not wildly unpopular, even if they did have the Biden break in between terms.

Farage and Trump don't actually need to demonstrate many successes. They simply need the party in control, be it Labour or Tories, to continue to not fix things.

Is it about immigration? The anti-immigrationists constantly complain loudly and stamp their feet the loudest, but could it be other factors are more important, such as more people choosing to live alone hence more housing needed? "Immigrants taking our houses" seems to be the currently-fashionable reactionary dog-whistle made by the anti-immigration lobby. It used to be "immigrants taking our jobs" but presumably this was disproved.

As for the elections, hard to understand to be honest because Farage makes even Trump look semi-competent but I suspect it was mostly a reaction to the winter fuel cut, farmers' inheritance tax increases and other unpopular policies.

We've listened way too much to the anti-immigrationists in the past ten years. They constantly complain and we have given them so much; Brexit and restrictions on students bringing family members over, to name but two. Quite frankly I am utterly sick to the back teeth of anti-immigrationists and their constant demands. They need to be happy we gave them Brexit and stop complaining, just a little bit. Even Labour are going down the hardline anti-immigration route. What about the benefits of immigration? What if the best people for a given job are foreigners? What if we're short of skilled workers?

I'm fairly liberal on immigration but even I have to admit that the last 2 years averaging 817,000 net migration per year is likely not sustainable.

Well, not without eye-watering sums of investment anyway.

There is also something to be said for handling rate of change. A few years back I was on the board of a charity with a private company subsid. We received a large increase in funding and decided to nearly double the size of the workforce. But after careful consideration we decided we would simply have to stagger it as the changes required to support services, and indeed the change in culture, would themselves present too great a challenge. This is not dissimilar to immigration policy in my view, where I have no issue with net migration being high, but if you do want to retain community relations and avoid significant culture clashes, as well as to actually build houses and train GPs and nurses and teachers and build schools etc, it has to be carefully controlled.

If net migration is 800k, that's maybe idk 400k homes which need building in addition to the homes which already need building the clear the 'backlog' so to speak. Talking a thousand homes per constituency per year, every year. For context, my council is building a site of 900 homes, largest in the county, and they're not due for a number of years.

 

[takno]

One thing that's a little puzzling to me is why the "Trump effect" wasn't seemingly a factor in these local elections.

I'd have thought that the chaos of the Trump presidency would get people in other countries thinking that voting in Trump wannabes is maybe the way not to go, and that hard-right authoritarian nationalism such as what is currently going on in the US under Trump is maybe not the way to go.

Yet it seems to not have filtered into these local elections at all. Could it be that those who vote Reform are less aware of international affairs than average?

Perhaps it's because it's just a local election, admittedly.

It would be interesting to see whether the Trump effect will have any influence on the 2029 General Election. Will, by then, four years of abject chaos, plus possibly a few months of Vance if we're unlucky, have an effect on the next UK GE in the way that the Trump factor appears to have had an effect in Canada and Australia?

Trump has very directly attacked Canada much more than he has the UK. The reaction there is less a judgement on Trump's competence and more on the ability of the Canadian Conservatives to protect Canada's economy and very existence.

In Australia, as in some other places like Norway, the Trump effect is perhaps being overstated by foreign commentators who always understate domestic issues that they don't understand. Elections are almost always won and lost on domestic issues and judgements on the abilities of domestic politicians.

In any case it's a bit difficult for it to set clear water using Trump in the UK, since the Conservatives have decided that he's a kindred spirit, and the Labour government has decided (probably fairly sensibly) that the best approach for now is to suck up to him a bit, stroke his ego and pretend that he's competent.

 

[Magdalia]

One thing that's a little puzzling to me is why the "Trump effect" wasn't seemingly a factor in these local elections.

I'd have thought that the chaos of the Trump presidency would get people in other countries thinking that voting in Trump wannabes is maybe the way not to go, and that hard-right authoritarian nationalism such as what is currently going on in the US under Trump is maybe not the way to go.

Yet it seems to not have filtered into these local elections at all. Could it be that those who vote Reform are less aware of international affairs than average?

Perhaps it's because it's just a local election, admittedly.

It would be interesting to see whether the Trump effect will have any influence on the 2029 General Election. Will, by then, four years of abject chaos, plus possibly a few months of Vance if we're unlucky, have an effect on the next UK GE in the way that the Trump factor appears to have had an effect in Canada and Australia?

I think that you have answered your own question here. Foreign affairs have next to no impact on local elections. The only international engagement that Reform mayors or council leaders are likely to have is cameo appearances at MAGA rallies.

But in a 2029 General Election the electorate will, indirectly, be electing a government and prime minister, where international affairs will be a much bigger consideration. That will be the case whatever the outcome of the next 4 years in the USA and their 2028 election.

 

[Ant1966]

I think that you have answered your own question here. Foreign affairs have next to no impact on local elections. The only international engagement that Reform mayors or council leaders are likely to have is cameo appearances at MAGA rallies.

But in a 2029 General Election the electorate will, indirectly, be electing a government and prime minister, where international affairs will be a much bigger consideration. That will be the case whatever the outcome of the next 4 years in the USA and their 2028 election.

The Liberal Saviour?

On the "Trump Effect", its reach, and its limitations

open.substack.com

Not sure if the link will work (not very good at linking) but this substack is always worth a read (intelligent and fairly unbiased, both of which are harder to find these days)

 

[Lewisham2221]

One thing that's a little puzzling to me is why the "Trump effect" wasn't seemingly a factor in these local elections.

I'd have thought that the chaos of the Trump presidency would get people in other countries thinking that voting in Trump wannabes is maybe the way not to go, and that hard-right authoritarian nationalism such as what is currently going on in the US under Trump is maybe not the way to go.

Yet it seems to not have filtered into these local elections at all. Could it be that those who vote Reform are less aware of international affairs than average?

Perhaps it's because it's just a local election, admittedly.

It would be interesting to see whether the Trump effect will have any influence on the 2029 General Election. Will, by then, four years of abject chaos, plus possibly a few months of Vance if we're unlucky, have an effect on the next UK GE in the way that the Trump factor appears to have had an effect in Canada and Australia?

I suspect that most UK voters aren't particularly interested in the political goings on in other countries, but the Trump sound bites and social media posts sound good to them and they have no inclination to delve any deeper into the reality of what's actually happening "on the ground"

 

[nw1]

The Liberal Saviour?

On the "Trump Effect", its reach, and its limitations

open.substack.com

Not sure if the link will work (not very good at linking) but this substack is always worth a read (intelligent and fairly unbiased, both of which are harder to find these days)

Thanks for that, can't read the whole thing without subscribing, only the introductory part about Canada and Australia. If it's not breaking the T&Cs can you give a summary of the general conclusion? Thanks.

I suspect that most UK voters aren't particularly interested in the political goings on in other countries, but the Trump sound bites and social media posts sound good to them and they have no inclination to delve any deeper into the reality of what's actually happening "on the ground"

Do the Trump soundbites "sound good" though? I'd have thought they'd sound bad. "Erm... tariffs are good. No, tariffs are bad". "I should be Pope", etc. With respect none of that makes him sound good.

I'm surprised people are not interested in other countries, as to my mind, many of the big issues in politics in recent months, at least until these local elections, have been about international affairs and their possible effect on us. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for one. Netanyahu's bombing of Palestine. India and Pakistan squabbling. Trump (a long list of things). Elon Musk sticking his oar in, and generally not in a good way. The rise of AfD.

Indeed, our own problems are basically (to me) a direct consequence of international events such as the war in Ukraine and Covid. So it seems incredibly short-sighted, and dare I say it, insular to not take an interest in international affairs.

 

[Harpo]

I suspect that most UK voters aren't particularly interested in the political goings on in other countries

Or the politics of the UK either, judging by the absence of real issues in recent voter soundbites such as the economy, law & order and the state of key services and infrastructure. Only the dog whistle blame game.

 

[Ant1966]

Thanks for that, can't read the whole thing without subscribing, only the introductory part about Canada and Australia. If it's not breaking the T&Cs can you give a summary of the general conclusion? Thanks.

Ah sorry, didnt realise that.

Summary: Every country is different, so very hard to generalise. Trump may actually do more harm to the Tories than Reform in the UK.

The appeal of Farage baffles me. It must be more 'heart' than 'head'. This is the same bloke who appealed to (largely) the same audience in 2016, with (largely) the same message. And 'won'. 9 years later, people still feel no better off.
So... "We'll give him another go"
I know that calling people 'stupid' is never to going to win them around. But sometimes it feels very hard not to...