Reform UK discussion

[SuspectUsual]

Never ceases to amaze me the strength of opinion about flags.

I have no real opinion about flags, but I have very strong opinions about most of the people with strong opinions about flags

It’s the worst kind of populist nonsense

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'm glad they're addressing the important issues that make peoples day-to-day lives better.

I mean flegs dominate political debate in Northern Ireland, so why not some flaggy nonsense in GB too?

 

[Yew]

Has anyone else noticed the tendency of Reformers to mispronounce the words 'asylum seeker' as 'fighting age migrant'?

 

[styles]

Has anyone else noticed the tendency of Reformers to mispronounce the words 'asylum seeker' as 'fighting age migrant'?

I think that's a bit niche, to the point I'm not sure I've heard that exact phrase. I more often hear asylum seekers referred to as 'illegal (something)'.

But yes, I suspect Reform politicians are deliberately bending their words knowing they're incorrect terms or too broad a term. Nothing new mind - UKIP used to have those posters about the 29 million Bulgarians and Ukrainians who would come to the UK because of the EU. All the Bulgarians and Romanians I know are either hard working or can't stand the UK's attitude.

 

[Howardh]

What are Reform's plans for the railways? Renationalisation? Privatisation?? More/fewer lines/stations? Bring back steam trains??

 

[styles]

What are Reform's plans for the railways? Renationalisation? Privatisation?? More/fewer lines/stations? Bring back steam trains??

On a serious note, I'm not aware of them having any policy on rail at a national level.

At a local level where they've had most of their success, it doesn't matter much. I mean, I know a councillor who supports extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle. He can shout about it all he wants but it's not happening and his position as a councillor contributes zero to that outcome.

Edit: I should clarify - councillors can have some influence in rail decisions, e.g. opening new stations or reopening old lines. But they are frankly not going to effect change at the level of e.g. nationalisation across the whole of England.

 

[PGAT]

What are Reform's plans for the railways? Renationalisation? Privatisation?? More/fewer lines/stations? Bring back steam trains??

No plans as far as I'm aware, they are pretty low down on Reform's agenda. Though I'm willing to bet they view public transport as a whole as a wasteful subsidy

 

[styles]

No plans as far as I'm aware, they are pretty low down on Reform's agenda. Though I'm willing to bet they view public transport as a whole as a wasteful subsidy

Well it's a funny one really isn't it.

A lot of our train operating companies are owned (usually indirectly) by foreign states. This should be prime territory for Reform to promote bringing it back in UK hands.

On the flip side they believe in a smaller state with lower taxes.

One may assume that their policy, if they had one, would be to maintain a privatised structure but limit bidders to wholly UK entities or something.

 

[Howardh]

No plans as far as I'm aware, they are pretty low down on Reform's agenda. Though I'm willing to bet they view public transport as a whole as a wasteful subsidy

Frightens me that they - if they get in - will decimate all the good work Burnham has done with the Greater Manchester network. On a wider issue I often wonder if Burnham should be an independent and disassociate himself from the current Labour leadership! But he shows what can be done at local level given the will.

 

[brad465]

No plans as far as I'm aware, they are pretty low down on Reform's agenda. Though I'm willing to bet they view public transport as a whole as a wasteful subsidy

I can fully see them opposing most public transport, but at the same time if they are winning working class voters who depend on it somewhat, then they will commit electoral suicide cutting public transport back.

Also, if they did want to reopen mines in these communities, how do they propose getting the coal, etc. out of there to export or industry without railways? I strongly suspect road transport would pile more lorries onto roads and annoy locals.

The reality is though none of their plans need to make sense, all they need is to force the major parties to bend to their will as part of a grifting operation. Actual power will expose them, hence why, as others have said, the council and mayoral wins could long term cause Reform UK trouble.

 

[SuspectUsual]

What are Reform's plans for the railways? Renationalisation? Privatisation?? More/fewer lines/stations? Bring back steam trains??

New all over livery and renamed as portable flags

 

[Thirteen]

Frightens me that they - if they get in - will decimate all the good work Burnham has done with the Greater Manchester network. On a wider issue I often wonder if Burnham should be an independent and disassociate himself from the current Labour leadership! But he shows what can be done at local level given the will.

Reform aren't going to decimate anything that is controlled locally. It didn't happen under the last Government so it's unlikely to happen under a fantasy Reform Government.

I can fully see them opposing most public transport, but at the same time if they are winning working class voters who depend on it somewhat, then they will commit electoral suicide cutting public transport back.

Also, if they did want to reopen mines in these communities, how do they propose getting the coal, etc. out of there to export or industry without railways? I strongly suspect road transport would pile more lorries onto roads and annoy locals.

The reality is though none of their plans need to make sense, all they need is to force the major parties to bend to their will as part of a grifting operation. Actual power will expose them, hence why, as others have said, the council and mayoral wins could long term cause Reform UK trouble.

To be honest, getting rid of public transport is not a vote winner, no party is insane enough to promise that.

 

[PeterC]

Looks like Kent County Council will have to remove their Kent Invicta flag then - it’s made very clear above that it wouldn’t be permitted now.
It’s so unlike Reform members not to think things through….

They had already U turned their official policy over county flags.

 

[alex397]

They had already U turned their official policy over county flags.

What a shocker. Obviously it’s just the ‘woke’ flags they want to ban then.

To be honest, getting rid of public transport is not a vote winner, no party is insane enough to promise that.

But a vote winner for the vocal car users would be more roads, cheaper city centre parking, and getting rid of bus priority measures. I can imagine the Daily Mail headline celebrating the ‘end of the war on the motorist’ or some such nonsense.

 

[MP33]

I did read that, when the Coal Mines were closed. Although the buildings on the surface were demolished, the workings were mothballed with a possibility of being brought back into use.

It may, as with track on long closed lines. After this length of time, there has been too much deterioration.

 

[ainsworth74]

I did read that, when the Coal Mines were closed. Although the buildings on the surface were demolished, the workings were mothballed with a possibility of being brought back into use.

It may, as with track on long closed lines. After this length of time, there has been too much deterioration.

Well yes, they didn't typically go back and fill in the mine working which could extend for miles and miles and miles. Typically they'd put a whacking great concrete plug at the top of any shafts and call it good.

But reality is that within a very short period of time many of those workings would have been flooded out quite extensively causing all sorts of damage to props and supports as well as any other equipment underground. Draining them out would be a mammoth undertaking by itself quite apart from them going in and rehabilitating the shafts and workings. Even mines in areas where perhaps water ingress was not a major concern there would still be significant work required below ground to secure the tunnels and workings and make them safe for mining activities.

This all assumes, of course, that the existing shafts can even be accessed. Many of these mines have since been redeveloped on the surface so you'd also have to re-purchase the land to access the shafts or sink new shafts to intercept the original workings.

Bringing old mines back into production could certainly be done, anything can be done with enough will and money, but it ain't going to happen. Coal, deep level coal mining anyway, in this country is done. There are perhaps a handful of edge cases where it could be possible to restart deep level mining again, the proposed mine in Cumbria where they intend to go after coking coal and are proposing to reuse some old workings for instance, but it's going to be a handful of edge cases.

Even there the number of employees probably won't be all that great. Modern mining is pretty damn efficient. You don't need thousands of men to extract large amounts of coal (or other materials) anymore. Few hundred is all you'll need to extract thousands and thousands of tonnes of coal a year.

Any political party which tries to suggest that "Vote for us to re-open the pit/steel plant/factory/chemical works/[insert other industry here]" is selling snake oil. Many of those industries closed for good reasons when they did. The failure was the writing off of those areas where those industries did close, an issue which has persisted for decades. Trusting that the "market" would sort out the towns and/or regions that had their guts ripped out when the traditional local industries went away was always ludicrous.

I get the frustration and sense of pain, loss and grief (I have lived on Teesside my whole life, we're a bit of a poster child for the issue and close to plenty of other areas that could be poster children). But pretending that if only the politicians did x (whatever x might be) we'd be back at full employment with everyone having secure well paid jobs working in real industries making stuff is actively harmful to trying to help these areas recover.

Of course part of the problem is persuading HM Treasury to invest in these areas but that's another topic (my signature refers to my feelings on the Treasury )

 

[Welly]

I did read that, when the Coal Mines were closed. Although the buildings on the surface were demolished, the workings were mothballed with a possibility of being brought back into use.

It may, as with track on long closed lines. After this length of time, there has been too much deterioration.

Yep either flooded or caved in.

 

[Purple Train]

Any political party which tries to suggest that "Vote for us to re-open the pit/steel plant/factory/chemical works/[insert other industry here]" is selling snake oil. Many of those industries closed for good reasons when they did. The failure was the writing off of those areas where those industries did close, an issue which has persisted for decades. Trusting that the "market" would sort out the towns and/or regions that had their guts ripped out when the traditional local industries went away was always ludicrous.

I get the frustration and sense of pain, loss and grief (I have lived on Teesside my whole life, we're a bit of a poster child for the issue and close to plenty of other areas that could be poster children). But pretending that if only the politicians did x (whatever x might be) we'd be back at full employment with everyone having secure well paid jobs working in real industries making stuff is actively harmful to trying to help these areas recover.

Agreed 100%.

 

[JonathanH]

What are Reform's plans for the railways?

Full cancellation of HS2 was high up in their plans.

Basically anything which is populist.

 

[takno]

Well yes, they didn't typically go back and fill in the mine working which could extend for miles and miles and miles. Typically they'd put a whacking great concrete plug at the top of any shafts and call it good.

But reality is that within a very short period of time many of those workings would have been flooded out quite extensively causing all sorts of damage to props and supports as well as any other equipment underground. Draining them out would be a mammoth undertaking by itself quite apart from them going in and rehabilitating the shafts and workings. Even mines in areas where perhaps water ingress was not a major concern there would still be significant work required below ground to secure the tunnels and workings and make them safe for mining activities.

This all assumes, of course, that the existing shafts can even be accessed. Many of these mines have since been redeveloped on the surface so you'd also have to re-purchase the land to access the shafts or sink new shafts to intercept the original workings.

Bringing old mines back into production could certainly be done, anything can be done with enough will and money, but it ain't going to happen. Coal, deep level coal mining anyway, in this country is done. There are perhaps a handful of edge cases where it could be possible to restart deep level mining again, the proposed mine in Cumbria where they intend to go after coking coal and are proposing to reuse some old workings for instance, but it's going to be a handful of edge cases.

Even there the number of employees probably won't be all that great. Modern mining is pretty damn efficient. You don't need thousands of men to extract large amounts of coal (or other materials) anymore. Few hundred is all you'll need to extract thousands and thousands of tonnes of coal a year.

Any political party which tries to suggest that "Vote for us to re-open the pit/steel plant/factory/chemical works/[insert other industry here]" is selling snake oil. Many of those industries closed for good reasons when they did. The failure was the writing off of those areas where those industries did close, an issue which has persisted for decades. Trusting that the "market" would sort out the towns and/or regions that had their guts ripped out when the traditional local industries went away was always ludicrous.

I get the frustration and sense of pain, loss and grief (I have lived on Teesside my whole life, we're a bit of a poster child for the issue and close to plenty of other areas that could be poster children). But pretending that if only the politicians did x (whatever x might be) we'd be back at full employment with everyone having secure well paid jobs working in real industries making stuff is actively harmful to trying to help these areas recover.

Of course part of the problem is persuading HM Treasury to invest in these areas but that's another topic (my signature refers to my feelings on the Treasury )

I think part of the problem is also that these were skilled jobs, and 25 years down the line there's hardly anybody left in the workforce who even remembers doing them at a senior level. I know there are people who still swear that mining is in their blood, but I'd really prefer at least a City & Guilds before I saw them heading down a mine.

Maybe we shouldn't have closed all the mines and coal-fired power stations quite as quickly as we did, but it happened, and it's going to happen pretty much everywhere within the next 10-20 years. There are already better ways to power most things and create electricity, and those technologies are improving every day. "supporting" former coal mining areas by resurrecting unprofitable dead industries is even less useful to the people than keeping them on life support with disability benefit.

Sadly since we left Europe we seem to have lost all pretence at having a regional policy. I can see why people would turn to Reform in the hopes that somebody still cares and has a solution, but in practice I don't believe for a second that they do.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can see why people would turn to Reform in the hopes that somebody still cares and has a solution, but in practice I don't believe for a second that they do.

Absolutely. That's why I reckon quite a lot of this Reform vote is a scream into the void in the hopes that someone can fix things. Sure some of it absolutely is because people don't like immigrants and think that "they've taken our country from us" or whatever.

But I reckon quite a lot is simply that the a lot of these areas have been suffering, to a greater or lesser extent, for forty odd years and it seems like thing are, in fact, getting worse and whether they vote Labour or Tory nothing changes for the better, actually it's getting worse.

If that's what you're thinking then what the hell is the harm in rolling dice on this Farage fella and his ideas for fixing it? The other main parties promised us they'd improve things and that turned out to be lie so why not?

In reality if Reform were to win real power most of these things would get even worse. The needle Reform has to thread is so narrow as to be neigh on impossible. Farage and Co clearly want a smaller state, lower taxes and fewer services provided by the state. Many Reform voters rely on those very same services or, at the very least, value them highly. Quite apart from any moral or human rights issues that might flow from untrammelled Reform power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. That's why I reckon quite a lot of this Reform vote is a scream into the void in the hopes that someone can fix things. Sure some of it absolutely is because people don't like immigrants and think that "they've taken our country from us" or whatever.

But I reckon quite a lot is simply that the a lot of these areas have been suffering, to a greater or lesser extent, for forty odd years and it seems like thing are, in fact, getting worse and whether they vote Labour or Tory nothing changes for the better, actually it's getting worse.

If that's what you're thinking then what the hell is the harm in rolling dice on this Farage fella and his ideas for fixing it? The other main parties promised us they'd improve things and that turned out to be lie so why not?

In reality if Reform were to win real power most of these things would get even worse. The needle Reform has to thread is so narrow as to be neigh on impossible. Farage and Co clearly want a smaller state, lower taxes and fewer services provided by the state. Many Reform voters rely on those very same services or, at the very least, value them highly. Quite apart from any moral or human rights issues that might flow from untrammelled Reform power.

Completely agree with all of this. In some ways it is an echo of the Brexit vote. Certainly a lot of people voted for Brexit because they did actually understand the implications and accepted the downsides, but many voted for it as a shake-up, again very often driven by disquiet over immigration.

Unfortunately the shakeup didn't shake up enough, and Brexit and COVID has damaged the economy so peoples' lot has got worse, and so here we are again.

 

[Harpo]

Completely agree with all of this. In some ways it is an echo of the Brexit vote. Certainly a lot of people voted for Brexit because they did actually understand the implications and accepted the downsides, but many voted for it as a shake-up, again very often driven by disquiet over immigration.

Unfortunately the shakeup didn't shake up enough, and Brexit and COVID has damaged the economy so peoples' lot has got worse, and so here we are again.

A bonus for Farage who grifts his way to a another win from the same illusion.

 

[DarloRich]

I have watched a lot of Reform councillors post election addresses on the socials ( so you don't have to) and the vast majority of them are, charitably, confused about what they have won. The main points covered are:

• "DEI" (?)
• Anti woke
• DOGE alike
• Cutting council waste
• immigrants
• Flags

One whopper said they would stop spending on biscuits and lunches for staff. I have never heard of a council doing that. They haven't got a pot to piddle in.

The vanguard of the reform shock troops are about to find out just what they have won. Thier lives are now a constant barrage of people like me sending them emails about dog pooh, parking, bins and pot holes. I wonder how many turn up for week 2?

They have no polices, no clue what to do and no clue how things work. You can say you will bring change but they haven't yet worked out you cant just rock up to the council offices and fire people. The yare in for a shock when they read the consultation process! They haven't worked out that they cant stop the boats from Ilkeston and they haven't worked out that being a councillor is hard, boring, thankless work that comes with a code of conduct that wont let you post about forigns on social media.

PS: One of them posted a picture of the town hall in Durham stating they were there for day 1 as a councillor. The council he was elected to "live" at County Hall.....................

PPS how long until the first councillor is booted out of Reform for whopperism on social media?

I did read that, when the Coal Mines were closed. Although the buildings on the surface were demolished, the workings were mothballed with a
possibility of being brought back into use.

Not a chance. Most of those mines are gone either flooded or collapsed with the shafts sealed with a concrete plug. They aren't mothballed in any way

I think part of the problem is also that these were skilled jobs, and 25 years down the line there's hardly anybody left in the workforce who even remembers doing them at a senior level. I know there are people who still swear that mining is in their blood, but I'd really prefer at least a City & Guilds before I saw them heading down a mine.

it is also hard, awful, dangerous work that has a negative impact on long term health.

Many Reform voters rely on those very same services

Like the NHS............................

 

[Horizon22]

On a serious note, I'm not aware of them having any policy on rail at a national level.

At a local level where they've had most of their success, it doesn't matter much.

It may a little, only if a) Labour’s devolution ideas go through (ambivalent) and if b) GBR finally comes to fruition (good thing) where they want devolved mayors to have some sway (bad thing).

I have watched a lot of Reform councillors post election addresses on the socials ( so you don't have to) and the vast majority of them are, charitably, confused about what they have won. The main points covered are:

• "DEI" (?)
• Anti woke
• DOGE alike
• Cutting council waste
• immigrants
• Flags

One whopper said they would stop spending on biscuits and lunches for staff. I have never heard of a council doing that. They haven't got a pot to piddle in.

The vanguard of the reform shock troops are about to find out just what they have won. Thier lives are now a constant barrage of people like me sending them emails about dog pooh, parking, bins and pot holes. I wonder how many turn up for week 2?

They have no polices, no clue what to do and no clue how things work. You can say you will bring change but they haven't yet worked out you cant just rock up to the council offices and fire people. The yare in for a shock when they read the consultation process! They haven't worked out that they cant stop the boats from Ilkeston and they haven't worked out that being a councillor is hard, boring, thankless work that comes with a code of conduct that wont let you post about forigns on social media.
........

There are already numerous reports of lots of candidates (now councillors) openly worried about what they’ve got themselves in for.

Lots of Reform candidates were “paper candidates” (name on ballot paper basically only - all parties do it where they really don’t think they’ll win) only they won by such huge margins and basically swept through several counties that these people have been elected. So that could lead to more by-elections in next 6-9 months…

 

[Bletchleyite]

DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is an American phrase for what we would just call "inclusivity" I guess, i.e. the avoidance of discrimination. It's notable that Reform seem to have followed Trump by using the US phrase.

 

[Howardh]

Lots of Reform candidates were “paper candidates” (name on ballot paper basically only - all parties do it where they really don’t think they’ll win) only they won by such huge margins and basically swept through several counties that these people have been elected. So that could lead to more by-elections in next 6-9 months…

I was once asked by my local Libdem party to be a paper candidate in my ward, I didn't take up the offer! Whilst it's not illegal and the candidate is a genuine real person, I reckon this shouldn't be allowed although it's a hard one to police on the fringes. So in the case of reform's "winning" paper candidates, I'm sure that if there were a certain number of meetings they HAD to attend, both day and evenings (thus encroaching on their "proper" job) and if they didn't then they would be (a) sacked and (b) a local by-election called then we might see a reduction of paper candidates.

Of course that applies top all parties, not just picking one!

 

[styles]

Lots of Reform candidates were “paper candidates” (name on ballot paper basically only - all parties do it where they really don’t think they’ll win) only they won by such huge margins and basically swept through several counties that these people have been elected. So that could lead to more by-elections in next 6-9 months…

In Notts we had a Labour party paper candidate for one of the rare 'safe' Tory councillor seats.

She won.

Then she had to step down immediately as she was a PhD student in her write up period and frankly didn't have the time to also be a councillor.

So we had a by-election, which surprisingly Labour won again if I remember rightly.

 

[Horizon22]

In Notts we had a Labour party paper candidate for one of the rare 'safe' Tory councillor seats.

She won.

Then she had to step down immediately as she was a PhD student in her write up period and frankly didn't have the time to also be a councillor.

So we had a by-election, which surprisingly Labour won again if I remember rightly.

The actual minimum requirements to be a councillor are actually very low - go to a meeting every 6 months. Obviously that’s nowhere near the ideal of what you should be doing but that’s pretty much the only way you can be removed without losing an election / not standing.

 

[102 fan]

Only because Reform are appealing to the lowest common denominator with low-information voters. They aren't the only alternative party out there.

The real answer to why we are seeing a rise in the hard right is because standards of living are declining - most people are working longer, for less, with a lower stake in capitalism, having seen prosperous times evaporate with the previous generation. Labour have had to cut the nation's cloth to suit and this has contributed to a sense that they must be dealt a bloody nose.

Declining standards of living naturally lead people in all democracies to seek an alternative. In Britain particularly, scapegoating is an effective tactic, because the culture here is one of zero-sum "if someone is getting rich it means someone else is getting poorer" "if a minority earns this right, another group must have lost one" and so on. It's the country of the moat and drawbridge, and the crab bucket.

The main parties are struggling which minority is the one most to blame for why Your Life Sucks (Not YOUR Fault, Median Adult): asylum seekers, immigrants, the disabled, trans people, and Muslims are taking turns at being the Nominated Scapegoat.

You're still doubting the voters intelligence because they didn't vote the way you want them to. You're not going to get the voters to change back by labelling them that way. How many Labour voters changed their vote on election day? Did they become 'low information' voters that day?