Starmer thinks I am an enemy of the state

[Bumblebee72]

So we have it Starmer has declared at conference because I support Reform I am now an enemy of his Government.

Who would have thought it, a middle class British worker, now an enemy in the country I was born. And they say Reform is the party of Fascists. Yet we also now have the Home Secretary saying "In solving this crisis, you may not always like what I do. We will have to question some of the assumptions and legal constraints that have lasted for a generation and more". Maybe the Home Secretary too will be deemed an enemy of the state.

Am I being unreasonable to think this should be seen as a rallying cry to get this Government out at the first opportunity.

PFI is pretty universal agreed to have been a disaster yet you are supporting this now?

The implementation was appalling. The concept was sound.

Getting those people into work is not going to do any harm isn't? 1.6m people is still 1.6m people. Reform policy of raising tax threshold to £20,000 will take the need to provide benefits to many of those who are working as it will put more of their wages into their pocket - obviously this isn't won't save money but will provide a clearer link to work an income.

I don't think you're being honest about your reasons for voting Reform.

If you genuinely had concerns about not voting for parties which have demonstrated that they are"not fit for power", you wouldn't touch Reform with a bargepole. So there are clearly other reasons for supporting them which you're choosing not to say.

That's fine. You are under no obligation to explain your voting intentions. I just find it strange that so many Reform voters seem to invent obviously spurious claims about why they have made that choice. It inevitably begs the question of what they are not saying.

I know exactly why you won't link to proof of your assertion that "Starmer declared at conference because I support Reform I am now an enemy of his Government". It is because this is a lie and he said no such thing at conference.

You keep posting this quote, though:

“History will not forgive us if we do not use every ounce of our energy to fight Reform. There is an enemy. There is a project which is detrimental to our country. It actually goes against the grain of our history. It’s right there in plain sight in front of us. We have to win this battle.”

Which does not call you or anyone else an enemy of the state. It is also not from conference. It is from this interview with Crear.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/26/keir-starmer-warn-labour-battle-reform-fight-soul-nation

Weird and illogical? By that do you mean statements you didn't agree with or find palatable? Because as far as I can see nobody has said anything weird or illogical.

Of course they do. And the rest of us get to read and respond to those posts.

The pp has the absolute right to post things that make no sense. I have already acknowledged this, and I have also acknowledged that she isn't obliged to tell anyone why she votes the way she does.

But if you post things that make no sense, then you probably shouldn't be surprised if people respond to say that they make no sense. And the pp's post made no sense.

Repeating similar messaging about Reform being the enemy across interviews and similar at the conference. On a non personal level it’s a confused strategy for Labour when put with new policies.

It is also clear on not wanting those voters back.

Saying that you're voting Reform because you don't want to vote for a party that has demonstrated that it is unfit for power is blatantly illogical. Unless, of course, you think that a racist far right party is fit for power, in which case, why not say that?

You don't have to think I'm being honest. I am comfortable with you thinking whatever you want to think. It changes nothing for me.

I'm happy to give Reform a try. I have already stated I have limited choices and don't completely trust any of them. See previous posts. 🥱

That's fine. I'm not actually trying to change anything for you. As I said above, I've already written off Reform voters as a lost cause.

What I'm interested in is the majority of voters who are opposed to a far right governmen, and how we can get those voters to unite.

I think people are desperate to hang to Reform being a one trick immigration party, which is increasingly become an outdated view. Read their policy document is well rounded. I don't agree with every single item in it but I have never agreed with every single any political party has put forward. There is still three years before they need to put forward a full manifesto for government, all we can judge at the moment is direction of travel. No other party has set out a clear direction of travel for the next election, the Tories haven't given any policy direct, and labour are blowing with the wind.

If I'm a lost cause do yourself a favour and stop quoting me and asking me to engage with you. What you're saying and what you're actually doing are in conflict with each other.

Labour trying to out Reform, Reform.
Organisations that represent refugees said the plans were “unworkable” and “straight from a populist playbook”, which ministers have recently condemned.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/01/starmer-to-end-asylum-golden-ticket-of-resettlement-and-family-reunion-rights

This and the rhetoric. Couldn’t be more confused.

Any takers on pointing out this is Reform setting Labour’s agenda.

The other parties on the left wouldn’t join with this either.

Personally I think that makes sense to some extent but it could take one of two routes: either the men will stop coming over in the boats, because they will know that they won't be able to bring their families over by plane in due course, or we will end up with more women and children coming over in the boats as families seek asylum together.

How so? I'm just curious, that's all.

I've always been a bit intrigued by why people vote for far right parties, and I'm interested in the excuses that people make to justify this to themselves.

And that is exactly why Reform will win. Did no-one learn a goddamn thing from Hillary Clinton's 'deplorables' slur? Who are you to 'write off' reform voters as a 'lost cause'?

High horse sitting like the remain voters did resulted in a lot of pouty faces and feet stomping, but little else. Engagement and a willingness to actually listen and ponder rather than 'I know what you said, but I don't believe you and I think you're racist but are too scared to just come out and say it' is not a winning strategy for an election.

The NHS is not working. Hasn't been for years. Yes I want to see it changed to a system where appointments are fast and treatments also happen quickly.
If that means paying for it then so be it. There are lots of options between what we have and what America has.

When the new medical system is running properly and pays well etc I don't think we will have any issue attracting staff. I mean don't we have plenty of GP's here who are having to leave the country because there are not posts for them. I assume under the new paid for system they will all have jobs.

'Rights' for many groups of people seem to have gotten to laughable levels now. Nobody wants to work in their office, men want to be women, nobody wants to work. So yes I think a return to more 'sensible' standards would be a good thing.

I don't get any benefits and I don't pay tax anymore either. Lots and lots of working people though are sick to the back teeth supporting all these benefits through their taxes. Sadly that's only half the story as the country goes into greater and greater debt as we can't actually afford these benefits (nor the NHS)

Do I wish we were a rich country with a working well NHS - of course. However we are not and somebody needs to do something.

Yes there will be pain but at least there will be access to GP's, ambulances in emergencies and fast treatment.

Very unusually, we agree.

The strategy is confused and Labour can't seem to work out who they're trying to appeal to.

The rhetoric and the policies don't match.

This isn't going to work.

This amused me:

Yesterday Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, gave interviews arguing Starmer’s attack on Farage in his conference Tuesday put the Reform leader at risk. This was an odd claim from a party that invited the woman jailed for urging people to set fire to asylum hotels to address its party conference as a free speech martyr. Yusuf went even further, though. He implied that Starmer was deliberately trying to get Farage killed. This was an allegation so unhinged that the Guardian ended up covering it in John Crace’s sketch. This is what John wrote about Yusuf’s interview with Wilfred Frost on Sky News.

Yusuf was appalled by Starmer’s speech. It had been vicious, vindictive and inflammatory. An attempt to demonise Nige. As such it had been an incitement to violence. Here was the crux of it. Starmer knew that he couldn’t beat Farage at the ballot box so he was trying to have him assassinated.

“There’s a term known as ‘stochastic terrorism’,” Zia went on. It meant to whip up so much hatred that one supporter takes it on themselves to kill the target. And that was what Starmer had been doing. It was almost certainly the first time the prime minister has been called a terrorist on live news. Time and again, Frost invited Yusuf to back down. To qualify his language. But Zia wasn’t having any of it. Starmer was a terrorist. The one aim of his speech had been to incite someone to kill Farage. Everything else was a smokescreen. Yusuf alone knew the truth. You wonder what he makes of Nige’s speeches.

In an interview with Times Radio, Tapp was asked to respond. He said the claim that Starmer wanted to incite violence against Farage was “utter nonsense”. He went on:

Of course, we want all members of parliament to be safe, and that’s absolutely important, and no-one wants any harm to come to Nigel Farage.

But, look, if we want to say what we want to say, then we’re in our rights to do that, as are they. That’s freedom of speech.

This is utter snowflakery from Zia Yusuf, who claims that we’re diminishing freedom of speech whilst at the same time being allowed to say what he wants.

I agree too that the rhetoric is confused. Labour needs to stop persuing the Reform agenda.

Nope - I used to vote Tory when they seemed to know what they were doing.

Loved MT. She was a strong decisive leader. Shame we can't clone her.

Recent years I voted for nobody as there didn't actually seem to be anyone who could fix us. Nobody expected labour to fix things in a year. However they have made things much worse. Have you seen the increase in our debt? What are their plans for growth. How are they planning to reduce our debt and increasing interest on goverment bonds. I have no faith in RR at all. She seems the least qualified of all the bodies that have held her post.

That's why NF is doing so well. He is giving people hope that he has some balls and will take decisive action.

We’ve had free speech in the country for a very, very long time 😊

Say what you like. We can't win back those who have embraced the far right. We need a different approach.

Labour hasn't accepted this yet, and they're pursuing Reform Lite policies in exactly the same way that the Tories are. This strategy will fail. The people who want those policies will vote for the real deal. In the meantime, those who don't support that approach will look elsewhere, because they will no longer feel able to vote for a party that is seeking to appease the far right.

We need a different strategy. We need to abandon the old tribal politics and think about how to create a viable alternative that will appeal to the people who don't want Farage as our next PM.