Reform aren't a proper political party - why are we pretending they are?

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Farage isn't a real political leader. He's a hype 'em up, sound bite merchant. When he was an MEP he rarely bothered to attend. He just wants the kudos without any desire or ability to do the actual work.

The councils run by them are chaos, having increased council tax massively despite promises to the contrary.

Reform is just the next iteration of the National Front, BNP, English Defence League. Farage is no better than Nick Griffin.

All incorrect.
Trail by jury changes, not removal. And only under review.
Equality under the law? No idea what you are on about.
Ditto policing.
No elections were cancelled. Some were postponed at the request of the councils due to boundary changes. Now, thanks to Reform, there’ll be rapidly repeated elections costing millions. Elections have been postponed due to boundary changes many times before - Farage didn’t care until now.

Evidence about the ‘case’ please. Court case?

Meanwhile Farage wants to rip up the Equalities Act, remove recourse via ECHR and move to health insurance (with huge profits for his mates, I’m sure).

You can make excuses about each of my points and say "all incorrect" but you are simply repeating The Party Line. There is a huge amount of genuine concern about these issues which have been widely commented on by all decent media sources. I think you should do some research.

Id also add trying to make "islamophobia" an offence (being a backdoor blasphemy law) also infringes on our right to free speech.

Google Gabriel Pogrund and Labour Together. The fact you don't know about this suggests you really dont read proper newspapers.

I’m not making excuses. I’m using facts. I guess that’s a bit foreign to you. No point in discussing further then.

You probably won’t see Labour on mn agreeing but they are struggling with these things, it’ll impact their ratings and polling.

Im just surprised you're on a thread about Reform when youve completely missed one of the main reasons they are ahead in tbe polls. You may think youknow why people vote Reform but your post which shows no concern about the authoritarian nature of thid government shows it's gone completely over your head.

I think a lot of die hard Labour supporters do what they often accuse Reform supporters of doing and thats failing to use brain. I think they should be asking a lot more questions of their own party as I think if they did they wouldnt be so keen to defend it.

And TBF most decisions Labour make are the wrong ones which is why they spend all their time U turning.

True. It’s easy to see that it doesn’t match what many think, look at the feedback in focus groups, polls and voting.

But equally you could say that Keir Starmer isn't "really" a politician - he's a lawyer by training, a barrister, which is not the same as a politician at all. And it really shows, he makes unwise quicky decisions, that everyone hates, and immediately had to back down. He listens to all the wrong people and then has to sack them. He pretends not to know what a woman is even though he's married to one, who gave birth to his kids. And he spends most of his time anywhere but England.

But what qualifies someone to be a proper politician’?

Some people study politics at school , join a political party and make a career of being a politician.

Others have ‘real jobs’ before they enter politics. Keir Starmer entered quite late, wasn’t he in his early 50s when he became an MP?

Most Reform MPs have also had previous careers. Lee Anderson, who’s flip flopped, previously worked in the mines.

Tice is a businessman , so is Yusif ,and Farage was a city trader before he went full
time into UKIP.

I just don’t really understand what makes a proper politician.. no one is born to be anything are they ?

Someone that intends to do the job. E.g. when they are an MEP, attending the European Parliament.

I was thinking about this and what you said is definitely one definition.
But I thought of "politician" as being someone who's really good at the cut and thrust and networking and smoozing journalists and grabbing publicity and soundbites etc. A bit machievellian when they have to be. Tony Blair was one. Gordon Brown wasn't. Starmer isn't at all good at it. You get the idea he hates the politicking side of politics and sees it all as a bit pointless. Mandleson was really really good at it.

The trouble is, being good at being a politician is most definitely not the same as being good at helping to run the country (or turn up to boring meetings about fish). It also very rarely coincides with "decent and honourable". The same traits that make good politicians also mean being attracted to power for powers sake, being attracted to winning for winnings sake, cosying up to the powerful. (Of course, being bad at being a politician doesn't automatically make one good at running the country or a decent person either.)

The media/journalists really love people like that. Hence why Mandleson was actually really "liked" and platformed by the press right up until hís fall. They are Characters and they know gossip and give a good interview and make for good headlines. Ironically politicians also exemplify all the things ordinary members of the public (non journalists) say they hate about politics. But they still do better than non politicians like Gordon Brown.

So yeah. Reform aren't a proper political party (not a compliment) but Farage is IMO a proper politician (also not a compliment).

Was Churchill a good politician?

He was very good at speeches and at putting ideas across in a way that caught people's imagination (both other MPs and the public). And very recognisable/a character. He must presumably have been good at networking although he was probably advantaged by his background/old school tie networks (maybe not that different to today).
I don't know though because the media environment was so different then. You didn't have 24 hour news or social media. Newspapers were sensationalist but clickbait wasn't a thing. You didn't have TV cameras in the house of commons so I'm sure there was still grandstanding but maybe not the need to get the soundbite in. Or maybe soundbites were more important.
Wondering now whether personalities like Churchill/Atleet/Bevan/Chamberlain would have done well in today's political landscape. Or whether they would be viewed the same... Maybe their foibles (drinking, fits of depression) would be much more obvious and disqualify them faster. Or it might not matter/be taken as an eccentricity.

Churchill wasn't a perfect person of course
And in lots of ways things are better/more democratic now. There isn't as much of a sense that some people require reference by birth right etc..But it's hard to imagine him transplanted into the modern media/political landscape.

Trying to imagine putting "we will fight them on the beaches" onto TikTok and hoping it will be good enough to compete with AI generated clips of Mosely dancing the Lindsey Bop or of dirty scary minorities literally swarming through the East End.

So what do you think he did for the six years while Britain was at war? Just speeches and networking? Who was responsible for the conduct of the war?

Rupert Lowe is our man - Restore Britain. Only one talking any sense. Just joined his party for £20.

Well he was running the country and taking vitally difficult decisions and at times putting his own life at risk (or being stopped by his advisors).
How good you are at those things has very little to-do with how good you are at politicianing.

Like I said before, it depends on what your definition of a "proper politician" is. I think we disagree because we are using different definitions. If I described someone as "he would make a really good politician" would you assume I meant they would be good at managing a country during war. Or something else...

You should definitely do that. If half of all Reform voters vote for Rupert Lowe's party, the UK will be a much better place.

I would mean that he was good at his job. Which was being a politician. Thats what they are. Some of them have bigger jobs as a politician than others. Churchill was PM which is a political appointment with a defined role and powers. Luckily for us he knew exactly what his job as PM was and was good at it.

A good politician is someone who can get things done (like a programme in a manifesto or run a country at war) in whatever way appropriate. Keir Starmer is not a good one. Churchill was. I think you are mistaking the fundamental role of a politician with the superficial style of any individual.

I checked and technically we’re both right https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politician

politician
noun
pol·i·ti·cian ˌpä-lə-ˈti-shən
1
: a person experienced in the art or science of government
especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2
a
: a person engaged in party politics as a profession
b
often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

It's more than a superficial style though. Even using politician in its most cynical definition still involves a complex skill set. And some people have it, and some don't
Of course just because you aren't good at definition 2 doesn't mean you are good at definition 1.

@Pineneedlesincarpet IMO Winston Churchill was a really terrible Chancellor of the Exchequer but a really good Prime Minister of a country at war. Even people at the time elected someone else for the peace.
If he was a good/bad politician (definition 1) depends on whether you are talking about the 1920s or the 1940s. I don't think you can issue blanket statements.
Keir Starmer has been quite good in some areas, but not good in others. E.g I think he handled a difficult foreign policy climate as best as anyone could. I think the way he put through the Winter Fuel Allowance was incompetent. Not Gold Standard levels of bad. But bad.

A good politician needs support to push the agenda to achieve his aims. Keir Starmer cannot achieve his aims as he is controlled by his backbenchers.

Perfectly understandable to have a different PM after the war. He would have been exhausted and the country needed a change of mood. They voted him back in later anyway.

We will have to agree to disagree on Churchill being an effective politician overall as that is a discussion for another thread.

Keir Starmer's polling shows he is the most unpopular PM ever so most people clearly think he is hopeless politician because of the things he does and the things he doesn't do.

I think the problem is they can no longer be a centrist party. They risk losing their working class voters to Reform and on register side risk the left wing voters moving to the Greens.

Starmer cant make a labour appease the right and left of the party, and in fairness how would anyone else ?

I think Labour are in a very difficult situation.