Forum menu
Even the BBC breakfast news ran a story this week from their chief political correspondant using the Reform logo, in Reform colours, stating Reform policy, without any other party logo or BBC graphics as a background
Indeed. Whats irritating me at the moment is how Reform have started referring to their goons with 'shadow...' in front of their name. Honest Bob calling himself the Shadow Chancellor etc.
Everyone mocked them when they started doing it, but now the BBC is constantly referring to Honest Bob as the Shadow Chancellor. He is not the Shadow Chancellor! He's the economic spokesman for a party with a handful of MP's. Stop giving these whoppers more credibility than they deserve FFS 🙄
It’d almost be worth putting up with Farage to see the looks on their credulous, dimwitted faces as the penny slowly drops that Reform are on about stopping ALL benefits, not just the ones that go to asylum seekers
"I didn't think they would eat my face" Says person who voted for the Leopard Eating Faces Party
I'm disappointed to see Reform polling in the high teens in Scotland, but it could be worse.
It looks like they will pick up at least a dozen List seats maybe as many as 20!
Votes are being split 6 ways in Scotland now, so the outcome is really hard to predict, but its possible Reform will end up the official opposition in the Scottish Parliament with Labour and the Tories seeing their worst ever results. Despite this if you actually look at the numbers for each party there is still roughly a 70-65 to 30-35 split between left leaning parties (SNP, Lab, Lib, Green) and (Con, Ref)
He is not the Shadow Chancellor!
Why not? They are the opposition to Labour at the moment, like it or not.
Thinking otherwise is playing into the 2 party adversorial system we have. Reform are right when they say the system is broken. Whether you see them as the fix or taking advantage is probably just about how secure the current system keeps you.
Stop giving these whoppers more credibility than they deserve FFS
Like it or not they deserve to be taken seriously as a political party. Like it or not, whether there is substance to it or not, they are credible in politics now. They tell better stories and are growing support. Labour are pretty much irrelevant - off-brand, unclear, weak leadership - as much as I might see them as responsible adults they're useless politicians because politics is a media marketing job up front with economics behind it. Put the economics up front or omit that media job and you have a load of boring waffle that no-one listens to, esp not the people who are screwed by the current economic climate (i.e. more and more of us as time goes on).
Stories beat statistics, someone tell Labour this because unfortunately Reform understand it well.
Why not?
Because those words mean something. And they don't meant a spokesperson for the 5th largest party in the House of Commons. He's no more the Shadow Chancellor than you are. Not yet anyway. That's down to the voters not the BBC.
Why not?
Because those words mean something. And they don't meant a spokesperson for the 5th largest party in the House of Commons. He's no more the Shadow Chancellor than you are. Not yet anyway. That's down to the voters not the BBC.
That's the correct answer yes, the BBC is technically wrong though that's not the general point I'm getting at. The BBC even doing that is a symptom. The term means something within a political structure, but that structure or the rules or what's correct means less to much of the public now. 'Shadow' is understood by most to mean the main opposition party. Is that Reform now?
What I'm getting at here more generally is, if we think that what's right/intelligent/logical/correct process will make all this ok, we're missing what's been making it not ok for a long time and what will continue to make it not ok. That's (imho) the mistake Labour are making at the moment.
Reform have a handful of MPs, many of which got their seats by standing for another party. They are not the official opposition any more than the Green party are. Will the BBC start calling Chowns the Shadow Chancellor, or the Leader of the Opposition... because her party is riding high in the polls? Of course not. It's a reminder that the media are setting the rules, not us. We have a too loosely defined constitution as it is... let's not leave it to Reform and their media palls to burn what little we have.
I bet that way because I see complacency everywhere and it'll take a shock to get people out of it.
Complacency is in part how we got brexit. "There's no point voting, there's no way in hell Leave will win."
So it is their own fault that they don't have the critical thinking skills you think they should have.
"Fault" is the wrong word here. But by turns, that doesn't make it anyone else's fault either.
@kelvin, the BBC should do better and I was underplaying that point. Still, most of the media isn't the BBC and it's an easy trap for the more intelligent, well-read or critical-thinker to fall into - that people or institutions are wrong in supporting these fraudsters and what's right is the way it should be (it should oc in the BBCs case) and it'll be ok because right is right. Yet we're not seeing it go that way. What I'm trying to get into is why, and I think it's about the gap between the story-first (subjective, emotive, populist) and the statistics-first (objective, economic, trad politics) approaches.
Human nature and emotions are what politics are about on the surface. Populists know that and seem to be far better psychologists and behavioural economists than most of our short-term trad political parties are (Labour or the better aspects of the Conservatives). Populists are driven by power and personal ambition and that seems to motivate those who want power and wealth who support them. They understand that trap and how to move faster than complaints about truth or reality. It's not easy to fight against unless you can win over and unify the/a majority, and I don't see how we win the majority w/o fairer opportunity and outcomes for more of us and an ability to communicate well beyond people who are smart or understand markets and economics.
Are you saying The Green party isn't emotive or "story-first"? Look at their support in the polls, and yet they're not being described as if they are the official opposition. Not the right kind of populism to be treated as if they're the official opposition? I think the word "right" there is key. This is about the media dragging the national story to the right... not the public dragging the media towards their own concerns.
I'd have invited him is for chat and a proper cup of tea. I'd even have found biscuits. Like my granny used to do for jehovah witnesses. I'd have found a polite discussion fun, but an hour with me would be an hour he wasn't out looking for more gullable people to win over!Did it have the lovely black Labrador in the photo? I'd vote for that dog. I hope it eats his lunch.
Nah only Malcolm Offord sharing a good honest handshake
I'd have invited him is for chat and a proper cup of tea. I'd even have found biscuits. Like my granny used to do for jehovah witnesses. I'd have found a polite discussion fun, but an hour with me would be an hour he wasn't out looking for more gullable people to win over!Did it have the lovely black Labrador in the photo? I'd vote for that dog. I hope it eats his lunch.
Nah only Malcolm Offord sharing a good honest handshake
While this is quite a novel idea the cost of replacing my fire cleansed flat is just to high to stomach.
Are you saying The Green party isn't emotive or "story-first"? Look at their support in the polls, and yet they're not being described as if they are the official opposition. Not the right kind of populism to be treated as if they're the official opposition? I think the word "right" there is key. This is about the media dragging the national story to the right... not the public dragging the media towards their own concerns.
No, I wouldn't. The Greens are better at the stories part than Labour, for sure. Branding is the problem they have. They're campaigning well on wider issues under a single-policy or dominant-policy banner and it's too easy to shoot at green policies. Same stories under a different banner that isn't linked to left/right hippy/capitalist type partisan issues would perform better. And while I am into the negatives of Reform in a Reform thread, the Greens do give me some hope that someone understands how to engage and lead. But I'll listen to them because I will vote for green policies overall and I'm no more or less bothered by pink hair and a nose ring than shaved head and tattoos. Problem is I'm probably in a minority there.
The media do drag things to the right I think, look at who owns the media. The public support the media views because the media firstly gets to influence how the public think. Having power means you get to tell the stories.
You can't simultaneously both allow people the agency to vote for their choice of govt and also absolve them of all responsibility for the predictable consequences.
You can't simultaneously both allow people the agency to vote for their choice of govt and also absolve them of all responsibility for the predictable consequences.
You can't but you can acknowledge there are more factors at play than just "selfishness" education, socio economic background, perceived or otherwise experience with other parties locally and centrally.
Not everyone who votes for reform will be a bigot the numbers just don't add up. And the consequence and disting your hands of everyone and saying "i am alright" is neither constructive nor particularly caring.
The comprehension of consequence is not a universal constant.
The numbers do add up I’m afraid. You’re just in denial about the nature of the UK public. And then when a government panders to them (as all in recent memory have) a large minority of people still seem to want politicians in power who promise an even harder line on “others”.
Saw this article and wondered if it was some satirical homage to Goodness Gracious Me - first gen immigrants complaining about immigrants messing up the country.
Double post
Pull that ladder up behind you
Not everyone who votes for reform will be a bigot the numbers just don't add up
Well it's a complex issue. Most people are actually quite kind and generous, but only to people they feel aligned with i.e. their 'in' group. Often that's just your family, but it could be your town, your country etc. People are often a lot less generous to their 'out' group. That's how you can end up with logic like 'I hate those blood immigrants, but not my neighbour Khaled, he's alright. It's the other ones I hate'. It's because they are friendly towards Khaled because they meet him face to face and get on, because most people are not actually bastards. The hypothetical other immigrants, they are easy to demonise as a concept because they are unknown and hence part of the out group.
Fundamental nature of a tribe based species innit. People only get better when you can convince them that all of humanity is your 'in' group.
Not everyone who votes for reform will be a bigot the numbers just don't add up
Well it's a complex issue. Most people are actually quite kind and generous, but only to people they feel aligned with i.e. their 'in' group. Often that's just your family, but it could be your town, your country etc. People are often a lot less generous to their 'out' group. That's how you can end up with logic like 'I hate those blood immigrants, but not my neighbour Khaled, he's alright. It's the other ones I hate'. It's because they are friendly towards Khaled because they meet him face to face and get on, because most people are not actually bastards. The hypothetical other immigrants, they are easy to demonise as a concept because they are unknown and hence part of the out group.
Fundamental nature of a tribe based species innit. People only get better when you can convince them that all of humanity is your 'in' group.
Uh. Yeah that was kinda what i was getting at.
Gammonzilla is stirring. We’ve played the mass migration game and it’s been a disaster, mass remigration is inevitable now.
People only get better when you can convince them that all of humanity is your 'in' group.
Turn on, tune in .. etc?
They're campaigning well on wider issues under a single-policy or dominant-policy banner and it's too easy to shoot at green policies.
Why does this apply to the greens but not reform? They are much more single issue imo
Why does this apply to the greens but not reform? They are much more single issue imo
They were when they first formed.
That you think this - and no doubt many others do also - is a problem.
They're campaigning well on wider issues under a single-policy or dominant-policy banner and it's too easy to shoot at green policies.
I don't think this is the biggest problem with the Greens. The biggest problem is the tension between a leftist urban wing and rural Green tories (though TBF the SNP have largely managed similar tensions), and the second one is being somehow proud of not whipping, which means that Jenny Jones is free to mouth off unhelpfully on whatever subject she wants.
This is different to Reform which is the Nigel show, and is largely a protest vote because people are fed up with the main parties. The Greens' greatest strength is that, while it's easy to laugh at Polanski's previous career as a hypnotist and a failed Lib Dem, he is a decent communicator and making a positive case for things, and as Mamdani has shown in NYC, that carries people a long way with the electorate.