Nigel Farage

[Maddie05]

Why do people vote for Reform and in particular Nigel Farage?

Labour, SNP, Plaid, Greens, Lib Dems, SultanaCorbyn all have significant woke elements in their parties, and I am sure all are on the fringes of pushing ideas which lean on the racism of BLM.

“I am sure are on the fringes of pushing…”

That’s caged in a lot of speculation, opinion, conjecture.

Whereas Reform have actually and openly called for mass deportations, withdrawal from human rights protections, removal of positive action among other things, all of which are far-right policies.

Are the bad policies though? The Human rights protections have been used repeatedly to stop is deporting people who shouldn’t be here. It’s hard to see how any system is going to be able to cope with processing the amount of people coming here without approval. “Positive discrimination” is a double edged sword and has undoubtedly fed into feelings of resentment.

You views on the above are predicated on a certain world view which many people don’t share.

Mass deportations to protect a native workforce can be a hard left policy.

If withdrawing from human rights protections is the only way of doing what the public want on immigration then what choice do Reform have?

Throwing around "far right" accusations" is so self-destructive. I for one think Farage is a disgusting, dishonest corrupt grifter who would do nothing to solve immigration concerns. But we are currently in a position where people like me - never so much as voted Tory in 33 years of voting - are being called hard right for thinking that if the majority want less immigration then we should probably have less immigration.

Yeah, but those are bad people, thick racist gammons who don't deserve to be listened to.

[sarcasm]

i was listening to a very articulate woman setting out why liberals/the Left cling so much to their ideologies and will reject anything else, even on the face of common sense and evidence. Why they seek to demonise any one with different views. None of it is about justice, protecting others, it is all about making themselves feel good about themselves - it was a really interesting interview. I’ll see if I can find it later.

What I do find interesting is this rejection of the thoughts of the population by a small percentage.

if you were in a family of say 5 people, all sharing a house and someone walked in through your front door as they were homeless, you didn’t know who this person was, what motive they had, what crimes they had committed, had a different way of living to you, would you ask them to stay? If 4 out of 5 people wanted them to leave would that mean that they should be thrown out and the locks changed?

You've lost me a bit there

That only one of two parties are likely to get in is the outcome. But it wasn't designed that way. On the contrary, the idea was that each constituency voted for whichever individual seemed most likely to represent them - 'them' being people who live in the constituency. Parliamentary parties weren't considered.

Nowadays, actually, people vote not for the person who is going to represent them, but for the party to which that person belongs - regardless of the individual usually. And that's why we end up with a two-party system.

I think it would be a good idea not to have the candidate's party on the ballot paper - just their name. Then voters would have to find out about the person rather than just tick the colour they like.

That's not a bad idea, even if it would be pretty easy to find out which party the candidate stood for.

Why does anyone have to explain how they voted and the reasons for their choice?

Just another:

If you can’t disprove what I say, it proves I am correct.

Thread.