Are you now more likely to vote for REFORM (the party)

[Decisiondecisions]

NC for this and apologies if Q already asked. My quick search yielded no result.

Reform plan to undo the reversal of 2 child cap benefit. Are you now likely (or more likely) to vote for them? There have been endless threads about the welfare bill.

There are left wing Jewish people. I don't think it's wise to constantly brand left wingers anti semitic. That might be your view. I don't agree with you.

I completely agree with you and equally I don't think it's accurate to brand all those on right as racists.

Your premise is incorrect. The left wants to level the playing field and provide equality of opportunity. This is a matter of acknowledging that not everyone gets the same start in life, and that success is harder to achieve for some than for others. Denying that this is the case means denying the existence of entrenched advantage, which is ridiculous.

I think that objecting to the way settlers in the West Bank are attacking Palestinian villages whilst being watched by IDF troops who do absolutely nothing is not antisemitic and really, it makes the 'self defence' argument look pathetic.

But yes, I know plenty of right wing people who are not racist. I'm fine with them.

The only people that will vote for reform are racists and child haters

I don’t think all of those on the right are racist.

I do think the vast majority of people who are voting for a party who have such openly racist members and policies at least have racist tendencies.

Not racist. Also I would say anyone who condones the rape gangs are the worse kind of child haters.

The more I hear about their policies, the less likely to vote for them I become.
Womens' rights, workers' rights, the NHS, working from home even, all in the firing line. Tax hikes for women without children. A return to "Christian values" that doesn't include caring for the poor?
Why any "normal" person would run towards this is a mystery.

Who has condoned them?

The authorities who turned a blind eye

I mean we’ve asked about other Reform policies and @Moonshadowmoon admits she doesn’t know and hasn’t read any of them but is purely voting for Reform because she wants Afghan men out.

Why else would you vote to surrender your equality, human rights, NHS, and help to line the pockets of the elite if it wasn’t for their views on getting all brown people out?

Low priority dragging their feet over an enquiry.

Uproar over Prince Andrew yet the victims were over 17 and gained financially.

Rape gang victims were as young as 11 suffered unbelievable torture and the gangs specifically targeted non Muslim girls and white.

The victims were not all over 17 if you are talking about Epstein.

Yet the rich white men named numerous times in the Epstein files who have trafficked, raped, killed and done all sorts of horrific things to children are still free to run countries all in the name of privilege.

Both are awful. Why try to compare?

all it does is show sexual assault isn’t restricted to any enthnicity or walk of life. There are awful men across society.

They need to be held to account.

Rape gang victims were younger and had no choice. The others were influenced by financial gain.

None of the rape gang victims were paid off. Never mind being offered millions.

It's amazing whataboutery anyway.
Some people did this when the grooming gangs scandal was breaking - "what about Catholic priests etc". Now a surprising number of online "influencers" and anonymous web posters are trying to do the same thing for the Epstein files.

All child abuse is bad. If someone is trying to handwave Epstein away because he wasn't a Muslim and therefore it doesn't matter as much that says a lot about them.

Some of the girls were as young as 11/12/14 when they were first groomed. In many cases that abuse continued for years (or was perpetuated by other men). Once they reached the age of 17 it didn't make it OK. That's exactly the same as Epstein's MO. It's not somehow better because the abusive man wasn't brown. And while South Asian men were overrepresented in the grooming gangs relevant to their number in the total population, they still made up less than 50% of grooming gangs perpetrators. The people insisting that we need to only concentrate on the grooming gangs cases that involve South Asian men need their hard drives checking frankly.
And of course, grooming gangs is only one specific type of child sexual exploitation. The people trying to detail every other effort to address CSE because it doesn't involve Muslim grooming gangs again need their hard drives checking.

Reform have never said that they will ban abortion and I see tax breaks for families with children as a positive thing. It's better than extra UC for families with children as it incentivises work which I agree with.
And it took a Reform court case to make this govt. realise that cancelling elections was illegal. It seems the ex DPP doesn't know the law.

That would be called 'grooming'. Aside from your horrific assumption that these girls somehow deserved it and were old enough and chose it because of money, and it was therefore not as bad - many were as young as 14, there are accounts of horrific rape and torture. Why would anyone think this was somehow 'less bad'? Unless of course it's because it was white men doing it, not brown men... (Not all grooming gangs were brown, btw).

No where did I say they deserve it, abuse is abuse. I was attempting to explain the rationale how victims end up in that situation.

From what I have read, the rape gang victims were literally dragged off the streets to be tortured.

The other were manipulated and coerced.

Its also awful because "the girls were influenced by financial gain" could just as easily be "the girls were influenced by the chance to get alcohol or cigarettes or takeaways". They were, in both cases CHILDREN being abused. As you say, that's how grooming is.

At the time it was dismissed by some in this way (including by the men committing the crimes but also by the police etc). And the same attitude was quite common. I can remember over 20 years ago when I was 15 my mum and uncle were discussing a photographer (white) who had been done for having sex with minors and my uncle said something along the lines of "oh, it'll be some 14 year olds who knew what they were doing but thought they would get fame out of it but then cried rape later when they didn't get to be famous models" and my mum agreed. 15 year old feminist me was outraged. But the point was it was a fairly common attitude that some girls were asking for it/streetwise and that fed into the official response to children being groomed.

I thought at least one positive change was that it is seen differently now. But I think for some people ithe grooming gangs abuse was ONLY bad because the perpetrators were brown. And worse than that there is a really concerted effort to draw a sharp line around the grooming gangs as the "bad type of child abuse" and basically push attitudes back to where they were. I don't know if it's subconscious or deliberate but it's definitely happening. I think some people aren't happy with the idea that no child is able to consent to sex.

They platform anti abortionists, as well as anti vaccine promoters

Then you haven't read much. The most common pattern for the rape gang victims was that they were identified as vulnerable, befriended by one or a few of the men often under the pretense that one of the men was their "boyfriend", lured in to relationships through affection(these were often children who had had not had enough of this in their lives) and alcohol and drugs. They were then coerced into having sex with other men and the rape and torture escalated as a way of keeping them under control.

The lack of understanding - that rape and sexual exploitation only happens when someone is "literally dragged of the street" is exactly how the grooming gangs were able to operate unchecked for so long. Because girls appearing to willingly go of with those men made them seem like not real victims. It's very disturbing to see those exact same myths perpetuated all over again by people who claim to care about child abuse. You can hold whatever views on Muslims you want. Be as racist as you want. But it would be nice if you could do that without spreading regressive lies about what "real" child abuse looks like.

You only have to look at similar parties/governments across the globe to see that the hard and far right have abortion in their sights. It would be incredibly foolish to believe that a Reform government whose leader has string links to other far right politicians would leave abortion (or any other women's rights) alone. And Reform voters might want to turn a blind eye to the dangers but their actions will impact everyone.

What on earth makes you think that (a) postponing (not cancelling) the local elections was illegal and (b) that it took Reform to make the government realise that? Do you seriously believe that Starmer doesn't know the law or, indeed that he makes legal decisions unilaterally as PM? Do you actually have the ghost of an idea how government and Parliament operate?