The most pernicious secret about Reform

[SeriousFaffing]

The results from a YouGov poll in December show quite a large difference between men and women of those who would vote Reform at the beginning of 2026.

This has got me thinking about the split and women’s awareness of Reform.

Agree or not, I’m sure that everyone is aware of the links made between Reform and racism… However, I think that a just as big elephant in the room is what appears as pernicious and deep rooted misogyny… I think that the YouGov poll appears to show that women are subliminally - or very - aware of this fact.

When I think of Reform, I see images of white men chanting “we want our country back”. I think of Farage cosying up to the anti abortionists in the USA (many news articles on this) and I think of Reform’s policies to boost the birth rate.

I wonder about wanting ‘our country back’ being as much about harking back to a time when women were not out at work (taking up jobs) and expecting dinner to be on the table when he comes home. No answering back at home or in the work place. And, you know, ‘Protecting our women’ as though a commodity or object… But only when it suits.

What do you think? Am I unreasonable as a woman to worry about Reform getting into Government?

You are unreasonable - no, as a woman, I am not worried about Reform getting into Government.

You are not being unreasonable - I am worried too.

Do try reading my original question before you keep attacking me. It wasn’t me accusing the local protestors of being racist. 🤷‍♀️

Is it racist for local people to be upset about 3 of their young girls being brutally murdered by a young man that was not stopped because of his race and the authorities then lied to the public about his race and tried to conceal his motivations?

Do you understand that it “fell short of editorial guidelines” because <we have no evidence to back our claim>

So as you repeatedly make that subjective and controversial claim that the BBC lawyers were worried enough about a libel suit that they advised the beeb to make an embarrassing apology (although they must be so used to that by now), you need to provide some evidence or I just have to assume you have none.

You can just say that this is your entirely subjective opinion but you have no actual evidence to back it up? I won’t hold it against you.

I’m confused. The upskirting law was passed in 2019 but the first Reform MP wasn’t elected until 2024 so they couldn’t have voted against that law.

Which laws have they voted against and why?

Taking photos with Trump or anyone else doesn’t make a party ‘far right’ though. Otherwise you’d be including Starmer in that accusation as well.

Ah let him sue me then and we can have it out in court.😆😆😆

There is actually plenty of evidence to justify the use of the term "far right". The problem that the BBC encountered is that there is no precise, legally recognised definition of "far right", and the use of such a phrase therefore involves a degree of editorial judgement.

That in itself is nothing new. There is always a degree of editorial judgement, even in describing parties as "left" or "right", which also don't have precise legal definitions. Usually, such judgements are fairly uncontroversial, because the parties in question don't generally object to the characterisation - most Labour politicians would be happy to be described as left wing, and most Tories would be happy to be described as right wing. In this particular case, Reform did object because the term "far right" is perceived to be a pejorative one and not merely a descriptive one which describes where they fall on the political spectrum. This is obviously because of negative associations with far right parties through history.

BBC's editorial guidelines require them to present the news in an impartial manner. This means that they have to avoid the use of terms like "far right", which might be perceived as expressing judgement. Their apology does not mean that the description was wrong, but merely that it was inappropriate for a broadcaster which is supposed to avoid value judgements.

If you set aside the value judgements, it's quite hard to argue that Reform are not "far right". They are certainly quite a lot further to the right than the traditional "centre right". Perhaps you would prefer the term "hard right" if you don't like the historical associations?

That was a bit longer than I had planned.

TLDR - the bbc were using the term in a purely descriptive sense initially. They then recognised that this was inappropriate because some people interpreted the description as a value judgement. So they apologised.

This is so full of half truths its incredible

Agree. Of course they’re misogynistic. It’s all a big sham to convince a demographic of stupid (ignorant? Poorly educated?) (white) men whom are culturally somewhat lost at this time, to vote for them. So they can then serve their own interests. It’s the tories dressed up differently and more extreme. Not really good for anyone other than maybe Farage himself, Trump, and probably Putin.

Yes, I thought @snowbear22 addressed the ridiculous half truths and misrepresentations in italics very well.

That’s a lot of words to confirm that the BBC (and you) used a term that you can’t justify with facts.

If the BBC had used this as a descriptive term based on facts they could point to, they would have pointed to them and rejected the complaint. But they didn’t.

You claim there is ‘plenty of evidence’ of their far right policies but still have not produced any.

I do agree that the definition is a bit difficult to pin down precisely and I have noticed in the summaries it includes things like:

A strong emphasis on national sovereignty, prioritizing the rights of native-born citizens over immigrants, wouldn’t the citizens of most countries think that reasonable within certain limits?

Populism: Positioning themselves against mainstream "elites" to represent the "ordinary people". The Labour government took this position when campaigning in relation to the Tories.

Authoritarianism: I’d say our current government is far closer to that than Reform. Cancelling elections, introducing national id and facial recognition, removing the right to trial by jury for some, shutting down free speech, state sponsored suicide programme being rammed through Parliament against the wishes of many. Etc.

And if you are going to point at the ‘white supremacy’ or racist aspects of ‘far right’, you might get some pushback from Zia Yusuf.

@totk Abortion rights are meaningless if the law won’t even name who they apply to

Er...they apply to anyone pregnant. It's a pretty straightforward criterion.

Only women can get pregnant. HTH.

Erasing women by using terms like ‘pregnant people’ or ‘anyone pregnant’ is not cool.

Woman refers to their sex. ‘Gender identity’ is not a sex.

So they can't be considered to be a fundamentally racist party because they have a few black and brown members?

Isn't that the political equivalent of "I can't be racist because I have a black friend"?

I think you'll find girls also get pregnant and need abortions too. Acting as though it's impossible to word abortion legislation without using the word woman, or preferring abortion protections aren't in place because you want to throw a sulk about being called a person makes you sound like very short sighted man.

It’s ok to just admit you have no evidence to back your claims.

How on earth does wanting legislation that affects only women (yes girls are female and will become women) to use the word ‘woman’ (or female if you are being pedantic) make me sound like a man? And what has any of that got to do with my eyesight??

You are sounding somewhat confused.

How about the other people? Do they sound like far-right protesters?

How can you tell which people are 'far-right'? Are the 15-year-olds 'far-right'? Is your average drunken yob 'far-right'? The people high on drugs? Those people identified as having learning difficulties? The man who joined in after a shoplifting spree? Is the unidentified young man in the beanie hat (end of the article) 'far-right'? He looks mixed race.

Do you think the counter-protesters named: Ebrim Jadama, Terrell Morris, Abdinasir Hussein, Mohamed Osman and Jivara Omar are 'far-left'?

Bristol had a previous riot in 2021 - Kill the bill riot - are the people in this rogue's gallery 'far-right' or 'far-left'?

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-03-21/activist-says-police-should-stop-investigating-kill-the-bill-riot

Those 'children' were 15 and charged with 'throwing metal beer barrels at members of the public', 'throwing metal beer barrels at a police car' and 'violent disorder'. Someone capable of that is as capable of domestic abuse as an older person, as are women

And it's just as likely that those women and teenagers were flagged as living in a household where domestic abuse has taken place, carried out by someone not involved in the riot. Apparently, Avon and Somerset Police have been logging every child in such households for over 10 years. A 15-year-old now may have been aged 5 or 10 when they were flagged. AS Police state that children witnessing domestic abuse in the home are more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour themselves.

Therefore, we need better data to ascertain how many of those people arrested in Bristol "were the alleged perpetrators, witnesses or victims" of domestic abuse reports.

Its a bit trite to be calling me pedantic when you're arguing pedantically about a specific word at the expense of lifesaving access to abortion. You'd literally rather support a man who wants to legislate to restrict women's access to abortion because "he knows what a woman is" while he's rolling back their rights while claiming its impossible to keep or extend our current abortion access for pregnant people whether they be women, girls, or identify as something else (it's really not!). You're either very confused in your priorities as a woman or a man if you be so silly about that.

Yeah, but you're missing the point a little I feel. If you're campaigning for women's rights but not at all considering factors that contribute to the likelihood of VAWG actually occurring, then you're being a bit myopic at best.

It's not just about whether Reform would be good for women. It's why so many people are turning to them out of desperation. At least part of the reason IMHO is liberals that prioritise virtue signalling over addressing uncomfortable truths. A lot of these educated people live in relatively safe areas, unlike the people voting Reform.

I regularly attend a construction site literally next door to a hotel housing male asylum seekers. They've had to stop sending female engineers to site due to the sexual harassment they were experiencing. There was an unsuccessful petition by the locals and nearby shops (mostly run by Indians/Pakistanis btw) to have the men relocated as locals were avoiding the street, causing the shops to lose business.

Whenever I go to that site there are loads of shady looking men sitting on the steps smoking. A lot of lefties would take greater issue with me mentioning this than with the actual events I'm describing.

Why do you assume that we are "virtue signalling" and not "addressing uncomfortable truths"? Has it not perhaps occurred to you that we might just have a different perception of what constitutes "the truth"?

I live in an area where a lot of people vote for Reform. We have a Reform-led council. There are a lot of asylum seekers near where I live. I have volunteered with these asylum seekers. My young adult daughter has also volunteered with them, and now continues to do so in a different part of the country. Yes, there are a lot of young men. Yes, some of them are deeply traumatised. But neither of us have ever been treated by these young men with anything other than the utmost respect. Same for the many other women I know who have worked with them.

There have of course been cases of rapes and assaults committed by asylum seekers in this country. They are horrific and abhorrent crimes. However, there are horrific and abhorrent crimes committed by British men too. I don't believe on that basis that all British men are dangerous and predatory and that they should be got rid of. So why would I leap to the conclusion that all asylum seekers are dangerous and predatory either?

If you're campaigning for women's rights but not at all considering factors that contribute to the likelihood of VAWG actually occurring, then you're being a bit myopic at best.

I know the cause of VAWG: Men!

At least part of the reason IMHO is liberals that prioritise virtue signalling over addressing uncomfortable truths.

Voting to "own the libs*" is costly and stupid. As Americans are increasingly finding out.

Reform UK are no good for women's rights!🙄 They're no good running councils🤷‍♀️ and they'd be shit at running the country. I'm hopeful that the non-racist, potential Reform voters will work it out before the next GE.

In the meantime I'll challenge their bullshit and use of victims for their own racist agenda.

I have no idea what you’re on about, who am I supposed to be supporting and who is trying to restrict women’s access to abortion?

Btw for you and PPs who keep lying about this, a quote from Farage on his views on abortion:

The Reform UK leader said he believes abortion and assisted dying are "issues of personal conscience".

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr Farage said: "I am pro-choice, but I think it's ludicrous, utterly ludicrous that we can allow abortion up to 24 weeks.
"And yet, if a child is born prematurely at 22 weeks, your local hospital will move heaven and earth and probably succeed in that child surviving and going on and living a normal life.
"So I believe there is an inconsistency in the law. I believe it is totally out of date."

Only women (females) can get pregnant and could need to access abortion. Your ludicrous attempt at erasure of our essential word to advocate for ourselves only harms us. ‘Gender identity’ is not the same as sex. It’s not even a verifiable thing - just what people say they are.

You're literally quoting him stating he thinks our current access to abortion is ridiculous while making a silly comparison to a wanted healthy child. A typical male perspective on abortion that has zero understanding of why abortion and access to it up to 24 weeks can be essential.

Women and females are not bloody synonyms! Girls are not women simply because they're pregnant. You are not advocating for anyone by demanding on a particular word while voting for someone who would restrict their bodily autonomy and reduce maternity rights, don't be so ridiculous.

My DD has white english patients where they have to go in pairs because of the sexual harassment they have to put up with.

Who let in all these migrants to do the jobs we don't want to do? Sunak and Bojo, 4m of them, inc dependents, we used to take workers from mainly white Christian European countries, thanks to Brexit, another rightwing policy... its SE Asia and Africa.

But if you think these asylum seekers are working illegally, i do hope you've reported this and the firm employing them? inc the overall site contractor...

Eh? Women are female. Girls are female. Only females can get pregnant. It’s not difficult. Removing the relevant words of woman (or girl) from abortion legislation does not help women or girls.

Many people have different views on abortion. You claimed that he wants to legislate to restrict women’s right to abortion. He has said he’s pro choice but makes a valid point that as medical advances now mean that babies can survive from younger than they were when the legislation was originally passed in 1967, it might be good to look at it again.

And again, why are you on about who I have voted for? You have no idea who I vote for.