Reform voters may not be racist but they are at least dangerously naive

[ChocolateMagnum]

AIBU to accept that some Reform voters may not actually be racist, but to be pretty certain that, if they're not, they are at the very least dangerously naive?

I thought we all got taught at school about how fascism took over in 1939s Germany? And there's so much out there at the moment showing why we are at a dangerous turning point in history again.

Why is it that the so-called non-racist Reform voters not see that they are aligning themselves with a covertly racist and fascist-leaning party and that their support risks tipping the balance towards a fascist dictatorship in the UK?

They have said they will do it.

That very fact confirms they are racist. Please do not vote for an openly racist party if you are not racist.

Quite a lot of people pointed out how utterly vacuous, ineffective and dishonest Kier Starmer was priort to the election, but so many people naively assumed that he was just a 'nice guy'

It was extreme naivity to think that just because he looks like a geek, he was one. He is monstrous, much worse than Farage will ever be.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. We are in the UK, not Turkey. I know what happened in Turkey, which has a completely different culture and history. I believe the poster is concerned about the influence of Islamism however my points still stand. We have to keep religion out of politics.

They don't in your opinion. Your opinion is shared among others. But as the saying goes; opinions are like armpits, everyone has them and they all stink.

If Reform wins, which is likely given how far ahead they are in the polls, then it is what it is. I might well be wrong and they lose miserably. Let's see what happens. I personally don't like Reform, especially after how they treated Rupert Lowe. They should have had the integrity to sack him but instead they shopped him to the police like the petulant, gutless idiots that they are.

This is such a strange post.

Lots of mothers work and raise children. The childcare argument is normally only relevant for the first 5 years of a child's life, even less if you're eligible for free hours.

Why are you so desperate to write millions of people off? People can retrain and upskill, especially in sectors like care. We can look at making work more flexible and accessible. We don't need to jump to the assumption that millions upon millions of British people are completely incapable of working and we need to import labour from elsewhere.

I don't think Labour should copy Reform and I think Starmer finally made a good decision to state what they actually thought of Reform. Reform are dangerous in a way that the Labour party are never going to be, it is disingenuous to suggest they are of equal merit.

Reform want to retrospectively change the law on immigration. They are openly saying they will do it and that they can.
This leaves every single resident of the UK open to having their human rights removed. It is deathly serious.

Why are Reform haters so dramatic?

Every single resident of the UK? And then to go on about misinformation in the next breath. It's comical.

Yes but some of them don't want to.

How do you plan to force them?

I agree we need PR for Westminster elections.

It would be a big change as I think most countries with PR end up with coalitions as it is almost impossible for one party to have a majority (happy to be corrected though as am not an expert!).

I am in Wales and we have PR for our elections in 2026. At the moment PC and Reform are neck and neck and a PC/Labour coalition is looking likely. PC won't work with Reform, and a Reform/Tory coalition wouldn't have a majority.

I am not sure Reform would want to switch to PR for this reason. It could probably only govern within a coalition and that would negate its claims to not be part of the political establishment etc.

They have openly said they will retrospectively change the law on people's preestablished legal rights.

What makes you think you aren't next?

Hasn't Wales always been Labour? I don't recall any other party ever winning there.

States the poster who literally just made out Starmer, in all seriousness, to be as sinister as Lex Luthor!

Like I said, so dramatic

Why do you feel the need to dramatise everything?

If you think Nigel Farage is the same as Hitler, I can't help you

Yes. But as I said, we have full PR coming in from 2026, which will change things. The current system is a mix of PR and FPTP and will cease to exist.

I'm not writing them off because I'm not sitting here being naive that everyone out of work is sitting on their arse. Many are already engaged in caring for the children or family members, they do not have the time to work. Others have disabilities that prevent them from being able to do a lot of jobs. Others can afford not to work so good luck forcing them to do work they don't need to do. Are there a minority of able bodied people with no responsibilities sitting on their arse? Probably, but they aren't actually entitled to many benefits if that's the case. Who's going to pay for them to be trained and upskilled? I'm sure you're also aware that care wages are so low that many working in the care industries and the NHS have to claim benefits on top of their wages. I'm all for people being encouraged towards employment but into positions caring for vulnerable people? No

Lots of mothers work and raise children. The childcare argument is normally only relevant for the first 5 years of a child's life, even less if you're eligible for free hours

My mind is boggling at you typing this. You know working mothers pay for childcare right...? What exactly do you think a 5 year old does when school is finished at 3.30 and their parents are at work? They go into childcare, silly. Otherwise a parent needs a flexible school hours job, of which care work doesn't provide much of!

Happy to provide the source:

The Office of National Statistics (ONS), dataset INAC01 SA (by reason).

What figures did you base your statement on that "a lot of the economically inactive are stay at home mothers "?

He is very very sinister - the man has no values, no honesty, and no one can really tell me what he stands for.

I didn't however say he is like Hitler - even though I probably would if I were on the left given his record in jailing people for their opinions

I don't think he's as clever as Hitler, but if you think Nigel Farage will safeguard your human rights just because you have the right colour passport, I'm not sure what to say.

What makes me think I won't be next?

Gee, I don't know. I'm not an immigrant. Something like that.....maybe?

And this dismissive attitude towards Reform voters is shared by MPs and is why the country on a knife edge.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

Look I'll make it easier for you, when the left lose the argument based on facts and figures the fail safe fall back option is to call the opposing side a racist or a fascist etc etc.

I think Starmer might be a psychopath. I'm not a psychologist and I have no medical credentials, however, he said before how he doesn't dream, doesn't have thoughts and there was an implication that he doesn't even have an inner monologue, like an internal voice. These are all hallmarks of a psychopath. Like when you read, there's always a voice in your head you read in (at least that is the case with me, I find it hard to get peace and quiet in my head most times). It's creepy. The man creeps me out.

Ah, I see what has happened. At some point during the conversation the goalposts were moved from "unemployed" to "economically inactive".

The relevant figure here is "unemployed", and the number is 1.67 million, or around 4%.

It is a low figure compared to most other countries.

Although I'm sure many of those people are actively looking for work and suitably qualified to do something, that doesn't mean they are suitably qualified to fill the posts that are actually available.

The problem with setting an income threshold for immigrants is that most of the vacancies we actually need to fill do not pay £60k but do require people with specific skills.

If you want to pluck some useless twit off his mum's sofa, take away his PlayStation and force him to become a teacher or to take care of vulnerable adults, that's a bit concerning.

😂

You could have stopped after the first 17 words of that post.

I don't see what point you think you're making. Yes there's no official breakdown of that figure between those who are SAHM and those caring for other family members, so what? I don't really see what difference it makes who they're caring for plus I think any one with a relationship.world view would know many women are caring for both their children and other family members. Neither really makes a difference about how you're going to go about forcing them back into work?