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.

Where did pp mention them working? She said they are hanging around smoking and harassing women. That is not a job.

Removing the relevant words of woman (or girl) from abortion legislation does not help women or girls.

Why exactly? There's nothing logically saying legislation is ineffective if it referred for example to people. What doesn't help women and girls is legislation that reduces their bodily autonomy.

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.

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Good to know you understand how simplistic your claim is.

Why exactly? There's nothing logically saying legislation is ineffective if it referred for example to people.

There are plenty of legal reasons why it is detrimental for women and girls to remove the words referring to women and girls in legislation relevant to them. There’s plenty of discussion on FWR from legal experts who can explain the technicalities if you are interested.

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Why? They are not saying that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to terminate a pregnancy but due to improvements in survival rates it would be sensible to look at the limits again. Can you explain why you think that shouldn’t happen?

Many of the people now in Reform were in the Tory party previously. I don't think their voting record should be forgotten just because they hopped parties.

Taking photos with Trump isn't in itself evidence of being far right. However, the constant adoration/sucking up to Trump by the likes of Farage is distasteful. It would be cringe making enough if Trump wasn't an adjudicated rapist with multiple credible allegations of involvement in a child sex abuse scandal. Starmer has, rightly, been in the shit for appointing Mandleson when his relationship with Epstein was already known. Even if Mandleson committed no crime himself, his puppy like eagerness to be friends with someone like Epstein should have disqualified him from any post. Starmer showed terrible judgement. I also think the people glossing over Farage's relationship with the likes of Bannon and Trump also show the same terrible judgement.

Then there was his quote about Tate being "an important voice for young men".

He has a clear admiration for a certain types of "alpha male" and I think that's off-putting for many women because it sets of spider senses.

I think they also depend on leveraging male dissatisfaction to attract support. Hence the strategy to talk about Tate etc. But that makes it harder for them to attract women unless they can make sure men/women only see posts/comments directed at them. Which is easier to do on social media sites like X than the wider world.

Technically I think it's wrong to position abortion rights like that. I get why, you only need an abortion when you are pregnant. But the right to an abortion is a right all women have/should have. It's a woman's rights issue not a pregnant women's rights issue. I know that seems nitpicky, but I think when rights etc are being eroded and people are being split into smaller and smaller groups by malevolent forces, diluting/reducing who abortion rights are for is a mistake.

That's not to say Reform aren't mysogynist. But then why remove the language used to fight far right/regressive movements just as those movements are becoming stronger. Transmen who are pregnant can of course refer to themselves however they like

@JustSomeWaferThinHam
Why? They are not saying that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to terminate a pregnancy but due to improvements in survival rates it would be sensible to look at the limits again. Can you explain why you think that shouldn’t happen?

Not the person you were asking but I think tying abortion term limits to viability is problematic.

1. Very premature babies are often very unwell and even though medical advances have enabled more to survive at earlier ages, there is always going to be a sharp edge of that where doctors and parents have to decide whether it's worth trying to prolong life for what may only be a few hours. The point at which that dilemma may move according to advances, but it will always be there and it's fraught enough. It's probably one of the most horrible ethically tortured decisions in medicine. Bringing politics into that, and therefore people with a point to prove is a horrible mistake. I don't want premature babies born at 16 weeks being kept alive artificially when there is no long term chance of their survival because someone wants to move the abortion limit to 15 weeks. A much more sensible way to look at abortion is as early as possible as late as necessary. Most abortions happen well before 20 weeks. If someone is having an abortion closer to that cut off it's usually because of specific circumstances

1. There has already been a sharp uptick in women having miscarriages being reported to and investigated by the police under suspicion of having had an illegal abortion. (This itself is a bit sus). If you push the gestation limit for abortions down you risk catching more women having miscarriages into this trap. Which is awful (and it's hard if you have a "spontaneous abortion" to prove you didn't do anything to cause it's especially in the earlier stages. Especially if you maybe don't know you are pregnant which can happen before 20 weeks as many women aren't even showing them.

I would much rather we had a general policy that trusted women on this. Since very few women are getting pregnant and then aborting for shits and giggles.

Many of the people now in Reform were in the Tory party previously. I don't think their voting record should be forgotten just because they hopped parties.

Can you tell me which current members of Reform, both Tory and others voted against the upskirting law and why?

Then there was his quote about Tate being "an important voice for young men".

I keep hearing this repeated with all context removed. That makes me rather suspicious as these things are so frequently not as they are presented and people lie about Farage all the time. He has criticised Tate on a number of occasions so it is unlikely that making his (pretty accurate) observation meant that he necessarily approves of all of Tates views or that he thinks it’s a good thing that Tate was so influential with boys.

I’m not sure that you can lump the Starmer brand of terrible judgement in promoting and/or employing not one, but two paedophile supporters (at least one whom leaked national secrets to benefit Epstein). I’m not saying that Farage hasn’t exhibited bad judgment but Starmer is clearly next level.

I don’t disagree with much of what you say. I have an objection to pp making the blanket assertion I was responding to.

I don’t object to proposals to review the law, with apolitical medical experts (if that’s possible these days) to ensure that it is still working after all this time but I’d generally expect it to be fairly low on the list. Weren’t Farage’s comments on the topic more of a response to a journalist trying to get soundbites rather than an active policy choice?

There's context...
Eg "I think sometimes the sky is Blue except when its raining and then its grey." And later I might clarify "of course at night its normally black with stars,"
If you were to misquote me saying "Persephone is an idiot, she said the sky is grey when it was very clearly blue today" that's quoting me out of context.

Or I could say "the sky is blue, some idiots will try to tell you otherwise but it's definitely blue".... "Of course some very clever people say the sky is grey, I don't always agree with them but they are right there. The woke left will try to distract by saying the sky is blue but that's nonsense.".... "The sky is purple".

If someone tries to point out I tried to curry favour with the purple sky society by saying the sky was purple I could scream fake news and say I was being quoted out of context. But really I rely on people hearing me out of "context" so I can convey the message I want to those disparate groups of people. AND get to claim I'm being victimised by fact checkers.

Theres a difference between pointing out nuance and being misunderstood, and taking extreme often contradictory positions and people pointing it out.

The same way that before the Brexit referendum Garage said the UK could have an agreement like Sweden or Switzerland and immediately after started calling for a hard Brexit (a deal he had previously dismissed as "project fear")

That's also why I don't trust him on abortion. He'll imply it isn't a big deal to one interviewer but signal to American backers in another interview that it is.

If you don't believe me why not try finding the context for the Tate quote and see if it makes it better (plot twist, it doesn't).

I’m not sure that you can lump the Starmer brand of terrible judgement in promoting and/or employing not one, but two paedophile supporters (at least one whom leaked national secrets to benefit Epstein). I’m not saying that Farage hasn’t exhibited bad judgment but Starmer is clearly next level

There is no proof Mandelson leaked anything at all, thats still to be decided by the Met.

Mandelson was employed by the BBC & several major Newspapers.

Farage said of his appointment "I might disagree with Mandelson on his politics, but he's a very intelligent man and would be good choice for ambassador"

i believe Farage also said it was an Inspiring appointment.....

Doyle passed CS vetting, the process, to some extent, relies on the person telling the truth, for example, you may be asked about a gambling issue or sexual kink, neither of which would necessarily be known to anyone.

Referees are used to try and dig out issues.

Doyle of course should have had his peerage revoked but the advice appears to have been (incorrect) that it could not be.

I don't see this as being on Starmer, unlike Mandelson, who should never have been considered, regardless of Epstein, as he was previously sacked twice for dishonesty.

I haven’t read the full thread so don’t know if you have had other replied to this, but I would I argue if your local environment is your biggest concern you should be avoiding voting reform! I was reading about Matthew Goodwin the other day, who has advocated for ‘sacrificing land’ for more houses to encourage people to have kids. The current policies on rural communities and ‘family’ on the reform website are extremely vague, but seem to be suggesting they want to remove environmental protections that farms have to follow. Alongside their policy of getting rid of net zero targets, there really doesn’t seem much to vote for from an environmental perspective either on a national or local scale.

I get it @JustSomeWaferThinHam, you could check things for yourself but reality makes you rather suspicious.🤔

Also though, at the time that Mandleson was appointed the emails hadn't come out. So it wasn't known that he had written in the Birthday book or been "allegedly" forwarding confidential information. It was known that he had chosen to remain friends with a man convicted of child sex trafficking (plus all the other stuff). It shouldn't have been a suprise that someone who was willing to be friends with someone like that (it helped he was rich) would also be of low moral character and have other skeletons in his closet. That's where Starmer is at fault - for not being able to see that based on what he already knew about Mandleson he was untrustworthy.
Well, equally based on what we already know about Farage I think he is just as if not more untrustworthy than Mandleson. I don't think it's fair to criticise Starmer for not seeing through Mandleson while continuing to hold Farage up as some misunderstood "jack the lad".

The same way that before the Brexit referendum Farage said the UK could have an agreement like Sweden or Switzerland and immediately after started calling for a hard Brexit

Farage gave plenty of notice he wanted to leave the single market before the Brexit referendum. Two interviews quoted here - BBC and Channel 4 News February 2016;
https://www.cityam.com/eu-referendum-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-doesnt-want-to-be-part-of-the-european-single-market/

Farage had previously confirmed he wanted to leave the single market in a separate interview with Andrew Marr in November 2015.

Reform UK: misogynist, racist, grifting traitors who've done nothing but fail in everything they promised and damage the UK.

He did say that. He also said this in 2015:

"The first we address is the claim that you need to be in the EU to have access to the single market. This is an outrageously false assertion" (he then gives a rather odd definition of the single market TBF so it's not quite lying...)
"The next falsehood put about is that you must be in the EU in order to export successfully.
Switzerland is the best example of how this is just plainly wrong: outside of the EU, with an economy one quarter the size of the UK’s, they consistently export more than four times what Britain manages per head of population"

(After the referendum, the "soft Brexit" plans that would be more like the Switzerland model would be described by Farage as a betrayal of what people voted for.)

I know he also said we should leave the single market. That was my point with the sky colour analogy. He says one thing in one context, and then the complete opposite in another. That's not nuance. It's lying
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11679048/Nigel-Farage-It-is-bonkers-to-stay-in-the-European-Union.html

He also suggested that the UK could replace EU migration with a points based migration system from other countries particularly the commonwealth. Now that we have a points based immigration system and a lot of EU migration was replaced by immigration from commonwealth countries he is talking about how bad that is.

No, I am suspicious about this very limited quote being repeated with no context. I have tried to find the source but the search seemed to be full of people repeating the same short phrase so it didn’t help.

No one who has responded to my comment has provided any further detail for their claim. I just received a long winded explanation of the concept of context either no actual context being provided for this specific quote. Curious.

Then listen to the podcast and tell me what about the context changes the meaning of what he said to the extent that the people quoting him are being unfair:
https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/strike-it-big-2016432/episodes/nigel-farage-on-andrew-tate-do-202241114
(For me it would be like if someone said "Tate is an important voice for young men however that's a problem because..." Or similar. Because that context would change the meaning significantly to the extent only quoting the first part is misrepresentation.)

Strike It Big appears to be a podcast targeting young men that features a surprising number of MLM businessmen and watch salesmen. Farage is tailoring his message to suit that audience. That's the context. Fine. He has the right to say what he wants, and I have every right to judge him on what he says, including the fact he chose to big up one proven sex offender and one alleged rapist and sex trafficker (including allegations of sex trafficking under 18 year olds). Noone is being misrepresented.

Ditto the Labour Party.

Thank you. I’ll have a listen later.

Apart from the fact that your link is dated more than a year before the referendum took place (my advice to you is to pay attention to what is being said nearer the time of the vote/next election), you have edited out half of what he said;
Countries right across the globe ranging from economic powerhouses such as America and China to the likes of Algeria, Hong Kong and Nigeria all trade with the EU whilst of course remaining outside of it...
In 2013, China exported goods to the EU worth close to €280 billion. Nobody is saying they must join the EU to export, so why must we remain?

Access to the single market is not the same as being a member of the single market.

I know he also said we should leave the single market

So, you now claim that you knew Farage wanted to leave the single market, you knew he wanted to stop freedom of movement with the EU but you didn't know he wanted a hard Brexit?

(After the referendum, the "soft Brexit" plans that would be more like the Switzerland model would be described by Farage as a betrayal of what people voted for.)

I'm not surprised:

David Cameron 12 June 2016 BBC

David Cameron confirmed [ ] that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum...

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

Hansard - House of Commons Wednesday 15 June 2016
[David Cameron] The Prime Minister
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. “In” means we remain in a reformed EU; “out” means we come out. As the leave campaigners and others have said, “out” means out of the EU, out of the European single market, out of the Council of Ministers - out of all those things

I said that he claimed that the UK could be like Switzerland and then after the referendum he campaigned against exactly that. You said oh no, he argued that we should leave the single market and provided quotes to that effect. I provided an example where he both talked about remaining part of a single market (note that he referred to it as being part of a single market not having access to said market) and where he specifically referenced Switzerland as being a good example of a country outside the EU. Which was my original point. Switzerland. On both issues - "being like Switzerland" and "being in a single market" he said completely different things within a short space of time. Without acknowledging/admitting to the change of mind (and it's a big change of mind). And it wasn't any old random quote. He was literally setting out his stall for leaving the EU in that article. I deliberately avoided off the cuff remarks because I wanted to be fair.

But anyway, that's why I would be suspicious of anything he says on women's rights/violence against women. Because apparently what he says is irrelevant to what he does a year later anyway and it's unfair to hold him to such standards. And he and his supporters would claim he never said that anyway.

David Cameron was against leaving the EU but clearer about what he thought it would mean. That was "project fear". I don't like the guy, but he was more consistent than Farage.