Why aren't Reform voters ashamed?

[TheShellBeach]

They don't seem to care that everyone will know they're racists.

It seems incredible to me that people are open about voting for them.

I suppose such things as the
Nottingham murders
£8m a day hotel costs
Grooming gangs
2 tier policing
Batley school teacher
Michaela school
and so forth
all gets on your tits after a while

What should it be then?

Well I've already voted and I voted Independent. I live in a die hard Tory constituency. None of my posts refer to myself personally. I am capable of rhetorical thought and debate

Voting for a party that don’t know what a woman is to start with.

They should know, they’ve had enough time to work it out.

you do realise what the consequences of that are when they get in power don’t you?

@1dayatatime I'm not really interested in changing the minds of Reform voters. Most of them will drift back to the Conservative Party at the next election (when they realise the futility of voting Reform in a first past the post system - with it leading to left of centre majority governments like the one we seem likely to get on Thursday).

Times were better when even the Tories thought and openly said that UKIP (Reform's predecessor) was for swivel eyed lunatics.

@mybeesarealive

"Not an insult, an observable fact"

Interesting that you have shifted from an opinion to now stating that it is an " observable fact" that those voting for Reform have simple minds.

Yep there are going to be some shocked people on Friday morning.

Here's some evidence of it happening already. Meaning the shift back from Reform to Conservative because new converts don't like the company they find themselves keeping.

apple.news/Ahg0dAeF0Q3WNB4kp-HNBzg

@mybeesarealive

I agree with you that Reform voters will drift back to the Conservatives for the next election. My fear is that post election the few remaining Conservative MPs will conclude that the reason they didn't win wasn't because they did a crap job for the last 14 years but because they weren't right wing enough

We will then get a harder right wing versus a harder left wing election in 2029 similar to what we are seeing in France this weekend.

👏👏👏

@1dayatatime go on then. Explain to me how Reform proposes to cancel BOE quantitative easing programmes to avoid billions in interest payments and to pay for massive unfunded tax cuts without the markets taking fright and without making the Truss mini-budget look like a pebble splashing a puddle compared to a a tsunami washing the entire economy away. It's a simple solution offered for a simple mind if you think it is a credible proposal.

@BionicBadger you seem not to have noticed that this country is on the cusp of electing a left of centre government with a supermajority while Reform may win 2 MPs at best. First past the post my friend. European countries use PR and that lets the loonies in (left and right). Here you can only win from the centre. And actually, the way to fight the hard right is to call them out, not to placate them or pretend that their policy proposals are anything other than unserious. And definitely not to ape them like the Tories (and what a mess that has caused for them trying to be Reform-lite)

Farage supports what is called the "offensive realism" school of foreign policy thinking. It's basically a variant of traditional foreign policy thinking about "great powers" and their spheres of influence. Simplifying it each great power has its sphere of influence and effective buffer zone, the USA for instance would not want Russian or Chinese military in Cuba or Canada and would not want Cuba or Canada to enter into strategic alliances with Russia or China and the USA would take action against to prevent this happening. This foreign policy thinking basically expects states to act for their national advantage not for moral reasons which is why it's called offensive realism. It expects small states act in alignment with this to prevent conflict.

The Offensive Realism argument regarding Ukraine set out by John Mearsheimer, is that the west created this situation by encouraging Ukraine to think it could join NATO, which meant that Ukraine thought it had article 4 guarantee from other NATO members to go to war to defend the Ukraine against Russia. Mearsheimer view is that in reality that's not the case, NATO would be very unlikely to send troops into Russia's backyard (where it has had a naval base since the Crimean war) to defend Ukraine. This is because 1) Ukraine isn't important for the defence or interests of Western Europe or North America 2) A war in Ukraine distracts the great power USA from it's main threat (China) and 3) Russia is a nuclear power and cares more Ukraine than NATO does so it would be stupid to have a fight with a nuclear power about something NATO doesnt have a strategic interest in.

The thinking further goes if NATO membership for the Ukraine hadn't been discussed then Russia wouldnt have invaded.

This might all be total bollocks and Russia may have invaded anyway because Putin is a maniac but the thinking is at least interesting and not entirely stupid.

I've just been watching the coverage of the results of the French election today on France 24. A woman representing the French Left wing alliance said 'we must now all stick together in the second round of voting, to defend democracy by keeping the National Rally out.'

Defend democracy? Darling, this is democracy. I realise it's an absolute bummer when you don't like the result, and that's something I will feel very acutely when I wake up to find that David Lammy is the fucking foreign secretary in a few days' time, god help us.

But at least I understand what democracy is, and how it works, which is clearly more than some do.

It's amazing how many people think that hey support democracy, but in truth it's only for people who don't have the temerity to vote for the 'wrong' result.

I'm still undecided but when I vote I shall not be ashamed or embarrassed, it is my choice, it's a democratic country and I'm more ashamed by people who think only their views / vote count.

Because they are thick as mince

Hitler was elected democratically. German democracy didn’t last long after that, did it? It’s not unreasonable to fear your democracy is at risk from Nazis.

@1dayatatime I agree that the Conservative rump may conclude that they were not right wing enough, but then they will lose the next election too. I think they will go for Patel as next leader. Braverman is too divisive and extreme for the one nation group. Badenoch has a poor temperament. She escalates every minor spat and makes enemies (coming off as aloof and arrogant). Patel hits the sweet spot. She is to the right, but experienced enough to be pragmatic to gain power from the centre. She is mates with Farage, but wouldn't let him or Reform into the party. She has already said this. That gets the One Nation tribe onside. She is a survivor and a smart cookie. And has held Great Offices of State. If they are a small party in the Commons after the election, I think they may turn to her for unity. She would get Boris's support and would put him in the Lords. They can then blame it all on Sunak while pivoting to whatever position they think best for the future.

I'm older than you and I don't object to seeing women in burkhas and I do not agree that Muslims are taking over the country.

Why do you object to women in burqhas? How does that affect you in any way at all? We live in a free society and surely women can dress any way they choose? What evidence do you have that Muslims "are trying to take over"?

The irony !

Not everyone who will vote for them I'm sure is racist but I think a lot of people are just fed up with the other parties and just because one person in a party has said something stupid, it doesn't mean they all believe what that person has said.

@ShouldhavebeencalledAppollo

Your post sums it up perfectly

@mybeesarealive

"@1dayatatime go on then. Explain to me how Reform proposes to cancel BOE quantitative easing programmes to avoid billions in interest payments and to pay for massive unfunded tax cuts without the markets taking fright and without making the Truss mini-budget look like a pebble splashing a puddle compared to a a tsunami washing the entire economy away. It's a simple solution offered for a simple mind if you think it is a credible proposal"

Of course Reform does not have a credible proposal- they don't care because they know that they aren't going to be elected anyway.

But it's only by explaining this with hard facts and figures that there is a chance of dissuading potential Reform voters and not by insulting them that they have simple minds.

Because the "left leaning liberal elites" have not been able to explain this on this post then I will have a go.

So the Labour policies are under funded by £5 billion, the Conservatives by £13 billion, the Liberals by £27 billion, Reform by £141 billion and the Greens by £180 billion.

To give a measure of the impact of this, the mini budget by Truss that shocked the money markets was under funded by £40 billion.

Similarly refusing to pay interest on existing debt will simply mean the UK government has defaulted on its debt meaning no one or no bank would be willing to lend to it.

So you can see that compared to Liz's £40 billion under fund, a £141 billion under fund combined with a default on existing debt would blow up the economy beyond recognition and make Liz Truss budget look like sound policy.

But none of this really matters because Reform is never going to be the governing party. It's simply a lobby group raising issues such as reform of the NHS or controls over immigration that mainstream parties are too scared to mention.

However their logic is that enough people vote for Reform then what's left of the Conservative Party will adopt some of these policies (not the £141 billion deficit!) and potentially some of their candidates (Farage looking for a senior job here). All in time for the 2029 election.

@Dorisbonson spheres of influence belonged to the 19th century (big nations deciding for and ruling over little nations). We now live in a rules based international order in the 21st century based on the pooling of sovereignty and international law. Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin wants to recreate a Russian empire. And because he sees Ukraine as a fake country that is in fact territory ceded from old Russian Kiev. It's feck all to do with NATO. Though it wouldn't have happened would it if Ukraine had been a member of NATO (or if it hadn't given up its nukes unilaterally at the end of the Cold War in the expectation of security guarantees from the West that never materialised).