Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Reform are getting a shitload of voters

737 replies

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 04/07/2024 23:27

I have not voted
Reform and live in a safe tory seat But I voted
Lib dem tactical vote

I said ages Ago on here the reform would do really well and was shouted down.

Same as brexit, no one will admit voting for reform but
They still do it in droves it seems.

I'm Willing to bet they
Might win an election in four years at this rate!!

Scary
Times

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 09:43

1dayatatime · 08/07/2024 22:44

@Grammarnut

Sorry you lost me on the kettle...

Sorry I lost you at kettle. My point was that kettles, or any item really, are commodities. Food is a commodity also. Kettles - representing consumer goods here - and food - representing things we need but can make choices about - can be regulated by the market, though one will most likely want controls over food production and also the production of kettles to meet health and safety regulations. Water, however (and in modern high-tech societies power sources such as electricity and gas and their progeniters e.g. coal) is not a commodity that can be regulated by the market because we cannot choose to do without it or choose a similar item that will do much the same job.
Going back to kettles, if I cannot afford a Russell-Hobbs kettle I can buy Asda's own brand. If I cannot find a kettle I can afford I can use a saucepan (it will use more energy but it will still boil water), so the market can regulate the production and distribution of kettles and regulate the price as well. If no-one buys Russell-Hobbs kettles (sorry, can't think of another brand off-hand) then the price will fall, no-one has to have a Russell-Hobbs kettle, they can have another brand or use a saucepan. We have decided that making kettles should be regulated so they do not cause fires (electric ones) and do not melt on the hob (hob kettles), so whichever brand I choose, it will do me no harm.
As to food - which is something we cannot do without - if I cannot afford fillet steak I can always buy rump steak or some concoction of stewing steak already cut into cubes for me. I will have to cook the stewing steak much longer, but I will still be eating. The same goes for all food items. If I cannot afford bread made with specialist grains and artisan baked I can still buy bread. And because we have already decided that food production must be regulated, then all the breads I can buy will be edible and do me no harm.
Now, water (and in a high-tech society all forms of energy). No animal can live without access to water. Water is also a potent spreader of disease if it is not clean. When I shop for water I cannot buy a similar alternative, I have to have clean water. I could buy alcohol to drink, or milk (but see that all animals need water) but these will not quench my thirst adequately and I cannot use them for washing-up, washing clothes etc, nor can I irrigate my garden/farm/park etc with them, they will mostly kill the plants or stunt growth. Yes, I could collect rain water but I still have to pay for this water (waste water bill), it's not free anymore.
Since nothing can live without water I have no choice but to buy it at whatever price it is. The price cannot be regulated by the market because no-one can refuse to buy it or have something similar instead.
At this point marketeers will point out that I can shop around for a water company to buy my water from. However, in the UK that is not the case. If I live in Severn Trent's area then Severn Trent has a monopoly, I cannot buy water from Thames Water instead. Thus each water company is a monopoly and can put on any charges it wishes (this is less the case for power sources, I am aware, but we are talking of water).
Thus, water is not a commodity like kettles or fillet steak, both of which I can replace with something cheaper. If we allow water to be commodified a literal life-giving necessity could become too expensive for some to buy because there is no way to regulate the price through competition. Cartels are illegal, but it does not need a cartel for water prices to be much the same between water companies. We also have the problem that water companies are there to make profit so they will want to spend the least possible on infrastructure and keeping water clean, because their raison d'etre is not clean water but money for share holders.
This is the problem the UK and the world now have. Water has been commodified. Consumers, industry, agriculture, private people have no recourse but to buy water and the water companies can charge what they like. Because water is needed for everything we do that the price of water cannot be regulated buy the market means that the price of everything else - kettles, fillet steak etc - is affected and will carry the extra cost of water.
In this scenario the case for decommodifying water and having it as a national or a global resource, regulated by the state and run by nations themselves is difficult to argue against. A company on the other side of the world not only does not care about the problems of e.g. the UK, they cannot be regulated by the UK. Witness the struggle to stop water companies discharging raw sewage into rivers (which had been clean for over a generation whilst water was state run) and the sea. Witness the demand by water companies that they be allowed to cut off people who cannot pay their water bills - only stopped after many years because of the environmental catastrophe this can cause. The access to clean water is absolutely necessary for a disease-free society. It's regulated to make sure it is healthy, and the easiest way to regulate both cleanliness and price is for water to be run by nationalised companies democratically accountable to the people.
Much the same argument goes for electricity and gas - and is enhanced by the need of a government to regulate costs to industry for the benefit of the nation's trade.

Biggleslefae · 09/07/2024 12:44

@Grammarnut
👏🏻😊👏🏻😊👏🏻😊

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 15:39

Biggleslefae · 09/07/2024 12:44

@Grammarnut
👏🏻😊👏🏻😊👏🏻😊

Afraid I went on a bit. Sorry.

Devonbabs · 09/07/2024 15:51

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 09:43

Sorry I lost you at kettle. My point was that kettles, or any item really, are commodities. Food is a commodity also. Kettles - representing consumer goods here - and food - representing things we need but can make choices about - can be regulated by the market, though one will most likely want controls over food production and also the production of kettles to meet health and safety regulations. Water, however (and in modern high-tech societies power sources such as electricity and gas and their progeniters e.g. coal) is not a commodity that can be regulated by the market because we cannot choose to do without it or choose a similar item that will do much the same job.
Going back to kettles, if I cannot afford a Russell-Hobbs kettle I can buy Asda's own brand. If I cannot find a kettle I can afford I can use a saucepan (it will use more energy but it will still boil water), so the market can regulate the production and distribution of kettles and regulate the price as well. If no-one buys Russell-Hobbs kettles (sorry, can't think of another brand off-hand) then the price will fall, no-one has to have a Russell-Hobbs kettle, they can have another brand or use a saucepan. We have decided that making kettles should be regulated so they do not cause fires (electric ones) and do not melt on the hob (hob kettles), so whichever brand I choose, it will do me no harm.
As to food - which is something we cannot do without - if I cannot afford fillet steak I can always buy rump steak or some concoction of stewing steak already cut into cubes for me. I will have to cook the stewing steak much longer, but I will still be eating. The same goes for all food items. If I cannot afford bread made with specialist grains and artisan baked I can still buy bread. And because we have already decided that food production must be regulated, then all the breads I can buy will be edible and do me no harm.
Now, water (and in a high-tech society all forms of energy). No animal can live without access to water. Water is also a potent spreader of disease if it is not clean. When I shop for water I cannot buy a similar alternative, I have to have clean water. I could buy alcohol to drink, or milk (but see that all animals need water) but these will not quench my thirst adequately and I cannot use them for washing-up, washing clothes etc, nor can I irrigate my garden/farm/park etc with them, they will mostly kill the plants or stunt growth. Yes, I could collect rain water but I still have to pay for this water (waste water bill), it's not free anymore.
Since nothing can live without water I have no choice but to buy it at whatever price it is. The price cannot be regulated by the market because no-one can refuse to buy it or have something similar instead.
At this point marketeers will point out that I can shop around for a water company to buy my water from. However, in the UK that is not the case. If I live in Severn Trent's area then Severn Trent has a monopoly, I cannot buy water from Thames Water instead. Thus each water company is a monopoly and can put on any charges it wishes (this is less the case for power sources, I am aware, but we are talking of water).
Thus, water is not a commodity like kettles or fillet steak, both of which I can replace with something cheaper. If we allow water to be commodified a literal life-giving necessity could become too expensive for some to buy because there is no way to regulate the price through competition. Cartels are illegal, but it does not need a cartel for water prices to be much the same between water companies. We also have the problem that water companies are there to make profit so they will want to spend the least possible on infrastructure and keeping water clean, because their raison d'etre is not clean water but money for share holders.
This is the problem the UK and the world now have. Water has been commodified. Consumers, industry, agriculture, private people have no recourse but to buy water and the water companies can charge what they like. Because water is needed for everything we do that the price of water cannot be regulated buy the market means that the price of everything else - kettles, fillet steak etc - is affected and will carry the extra cost of water.
In this scenario the case for decommodifying water and having it as a national or a global resource, regulated by the state and run by nations themselves is difficult to argue against. A company on the other side of the world not only does not care about the problems of e.g. the UK, they cannot be regulated by the UK. Witness the struggle to stop water companies discharging raw sewage into rivers (which had been clean for over a generation whilst water was state run) and the sea. Witness the demand by water companies that they be allowed to cut off people who cannot pay their water bills - only stopped after many years because of the environmental catastrophe this can cause. The access to clean water is absolutely necessary for a disease-free society. It's regulated to make sure it is healthy, and the easiest way to regulate both cleanliness and price is for water to be run by nationalised companies democratically accountable to the people.
Much the same argument goes for electricity and gas - and is enhanced by the need of a government to regulate costs to industry for the benefit of the nation's trade.

Great analogy - and also why hiking interest rates to curb inflation largely driven by the non- negotiables has had such a catastrophic effect

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 17:00

Devonbabs · 09/07/2024 15:51

Great analogy - and also why hiking interest rates to curb inflation largely driven by the non- negotiables has had such a catastrophic effect

Thanks. Not many realise that was the effect of hikes in interest rates.

TempestTost · 09/07/2024 17:16

1dayatatime · 07/07/2024 00:21

@paperrocksiscissors

"The only way to reduce immigration REALLY reduce it, is accepting we can't have huge growth with an ageing population and low native birth rate, we will have to accept to be a poorer nation and have a reduced economy , even then, we'll still need some migrants, but we can't bloody well have both, a big economy and low migration, unless we all start having 3 or 4 kids again. And this is the puzzle that all of western Europe and the US is facing."

To take an alternative approach a large number of the legal migrants are working in the agricultural, care and health sector. Jobs that the native population is not willing to do at the salaries on offer.

Now you could in theory resolve this by increasing salaries in those sectors - to take an extreme example if you paid fruit pickers £50k a year then you would have no problem recruiting native workers, however your punnet of strawberries would now cost £25 and no one would buy them! An alternative approach would be to reduce social welfare so that native workers have a choice between say picking fruit or serving to death, although I think such a policy might be a tad Victorian and somewhat unpopular with the electorate!

The ageing population explanation whilst true only offers a part explanation, for example Japan has a much quicker ageing population and is handling it without immigration albeit through two decades of lost growth but they are now coming out the other side of it.

So to my mind there are choices to be made.
Yes the UK could strictly control immigration just like Japan does but this would come at a cost to the economy.
Or UK could continue to import cheap foreign labour to grow our economy and keep inflation low. But by continually seeking to increase the population in some kind of Ponzi scheme you are placing stress on housing, healthcare, education, social cohesion
Or you face massive unpopularity by forcing the native population to do the jobs that they are currently unwilling to do.

But what we cannot do is to dodge the question entirely and accuse anyone asking it of racism, fascism, nationalism etc etc.

You know, what is really interesting about this is that it reveals that essentially, bringing in outside workers is about paying people from poor places less so we can have a lot of consumer goods.

It's got to be about the most exploitative, least "nice" and respectful way of thinking about non-citizens that you can imagine.

And yet it's always presented as if this is the way kind people think, and anyone who disagrees is selfish (and a racist.)

WoodforTrees · 09/07/2024 17:19

Maybe2024 · 06/07/2024 05:26

You may be right - I don’t know what young people all around the country think, but in my experience - my kids’ generation - generation Z - are generally tolerant and inclusive.

Maybe it depends where you live - in large multi-cultural cities where schools are diverse, children grow up with “difference” all around them, and know that everyone belongs regardless of where their parents might have come from.

I have 16 and 18 year old DC in London Comps/Sixth Forms. You'd be surprised and a bit horrified to see how many local schools 'elections' were either won by Reform or Greens followed by Reform. In DS school it was Green/Labour/Reform/Lib Dem/Others/Tories

Problem is that it's not such a leap from the likes of Andrew Tate to Nigel Farage on your TikTok algorithm and that's where 15 year olds go for their info. Farage is perfect for quick 'reasonable sounding' soundbites to a lot of people who won't read Manifestos and don't put his words up to any kind of scrutiny.

TempestTost · 09/07/2024 17:44

I think there are a lot of reasons younger people are leaning toward a very different political perspective.

Part is that they often like a bit of drama, and they want to go against what their elders tell them. The main thing their elders and the schools bleat on about is tolerance and inclusion, and being kind and nice. So some naturally kick against these things.

Or if they are of a more cynical nature they doubt them - because the young tend to be suspicious of the motives of their elders, and can sniff out hypocrisy like hounds. (They aren't quite old enough to understand we all live with some imperfections and contradictions in our lives so they judge those very harshly.)

The other thing is, in general they aren't racists, and they know it. But they know what they see around them and don't feel the need to pretend it isn't so in order to appease their feelings of guilt. If they see unfairness to, say, the guy born in the UK who is in the shelter or sleeping rough competing with new arrivals for housing, they are going to say so.

There is an assumption by some older people that younger generations are always less conservative, but that's quite a mistaken notion.

EasternStandard · 09/07/2024 18:05

TempestTost · 09/07/2024 17:44

I think there are a lot of reasons younger people are leaning toward a very different political perspective.

Part is that they often like a bit of drama, and they want to go against what their elders tell them. The main thing their elders and the schools bleat on about is tolerance and inclusion, and being kind and nice. So some naturally kick against these things.

Or if they are of a more cynical nature they doubt them - because the young tend to be suspicious of the motives of their elders, and can sniff out hypocrisy like hounds. (They aren't quite old enough to understand we all live with some imperfections and contradictions in our lives so they judge those very harshly.)

The other thing is, in general they aren't racists, and they know it. But they know what they see around them and don't feel the need to pretend it isn't so in order to appease their feelings of guilt. If they see unfairness to, say, the guy born in the UK who is in the shelter or sleeping rough competing with new arrivals for housing, they are going to say so.

There is an assumption by some older people that younger generations are always less conservative, but that's quite a mistaken notion.

I wouldn’t be surprised if SM news consumption away from BBC and other mainstream formats to social media plays a role.

Loads of stats here

www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/attitudes-to-news/light-hearted-news-social-media-drawing-gen-z/

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 09/07/2024 19:46

Devonbabs · 08/07/2024 08:48

Please don’t call out this posters misplaced feeling of moral superiority! It’s prob her main topic of conversation over a bottle of Pinot with her Mummy friends- how stupid all these Reform voters are. She can’t understand racism when her Nigerian cleaner is so nice.

I do sometimes wonder how these people square the circle of feeling superior by calling a whole group of people who they don’t know bigots. It’s hard to understand how they don’t even have a whiff of the hypocrisy. I’m guessing because it’s not a diversity box handed to them they can’t think critically about what they’re saying.

I suspect these people are the same ones who think they’re doing the environment a favour when they pack their three kids in the SUV to drive to the recycling centre with 6 yoghurt pots.

Edited

Such an apt user name 'Devon'babs. No problems with racism in that rural idyll.at.all.

Pinot
Mummy friends
Nigerian cleaner - Interesting the only people you can think of that clean for a living are Nigerians. Or maybe not...

Three kids in an SUV
Yoghurt
#sofarfromthetruthitslaughable

Good to see that your imagination knows no bounds. I see your 'square the circle' and raise you my Occams Razor.

Devonbabs · 09/07/2024 19:50

TempestTost · 09/07/2024 17:44

I think there are a lot of reasons younger people are leaning toward a very different political perspective.

Part is that they often like a bit of drama, and they want to go against what their elders tell them. The main thing their elders and the schools bleat on about is tolerance and inclusion, and being kind and nice. So some naturally kick against these things.

Or if they are of a more cynical nature they doubt them - because the young tend to be suspicious of the motives of their elders, and can sniff out hypocrisy like hounds. (They aren't quite old enough to understand we all live with some imperfections and contradictions in our lives so they judge those very harshly.)

The other thing is, in general they aren't racists, and they know it. But they know what they see around them and don't feel the need to pretend it isn't so in order to appease their feelings of guilt. If they see unfairness to, say, the guy born in the UK who is in the shelter or sleeping rough competing with new arrivals for housing, they are going to say so.

There is an assumption by some older people that younger generations are always less conservative, but that's quite a mistaken notion.

I do think there’s some resistance to many facets of the educational
system. Most of DSs friends are openly laughing at teachers insistence boys can be girls and unfortunately a teacher coming out with that sort of thing are just seen as idiotic and the rest of the things they say not worth listening to.

Young people know that employment is going to be increasingly limited and competitive.,

Ypung people have often endured years of celebrating random religious ceremonies whilst often being denied the right to do much re British ones.

They've been constantly excluded from friendship groups because they’re not part of the community.

They’re not stupid, the inclusivity card has been pushed too far and many young people feel very excluded by it.,

Devonbabs · 09/07/2024 20:00

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 09/07/2024 19:46

Such an apt user name 'Devon'babs. No problems with racism in that rural idyll.at.all.

Pinot
Mummy friends
Nigerian cleaner - Interesting the only people you can think of that clean for a living are Nigerians. Or maybe not...

Three kids in an SUV
Yoghurt
#sofarfromthetruthitslaughable

Good to see that your imagination knows no bounds. I see your 'square the circle' and raise you my Occams Razor.

Oh I have great imagination- it’s important to be able to imagine a decent future in order to get there.

Occams Razor is seen by most as debunked twaddle nowadays. But I can’t see how it’s even relevant here. Mind you your post actually says very little sense - it’s twaddle - Starmer- is that you? All you have done is list some points from a previous post without making any point

yes it’s a lot nicer down here. Lots less crime, much more of a sense of community- it’s like a breath of fresh air. I would say there’s a lot less racism down here because there aren’t the tensions.,

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread