What can an individual do to keep Reform out?

[Thepoliticsofchaos]

I have a young friend (a university student) who is getting depressed about the prospect of Reform getting in next election. He thinks that the UK is fucked, basically. He's left-leaning, I assume a Labour voter. I've advised him to get politically engaged (so that in the future he'll at least be able to feel that he did what he could). He's not the most outgoing of people, though is interested in politics. Can anyone suggest how he could become usefully politically engaged to try to reduce the Reform vote? Not just joining a party and turning up to meetings, but actually doing something?

For the reasons outlined above multiple times. By several posters.

I'm.not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

The mere fact you find that funny speaks volumes. You know so much about her that you can’t even spell her name.

So?

Passive aggression towards female journalist is hilarious? You “loved” it? Grim. He has form on this. His aggression towards being questioned on the Clacton house/tax avoidance/ dishonesty. He’s a nasty fragile little man who hates being challenged, very Trumpian.
“son went to Eton” why is this relevant? Should this preclude her from basic respect? Farage himself was educated at a prestigious private school.

He deflates pompous people and teases them. Just as he was teasing that biased journalist that wouldn't let him finish a sentence unlike anyone on the left she interviews.

Son went to Eton but she's demonstrably nailed her colours to the lefty mast. You may disagree but of course this is all my own subjective opinion.

If that's what you are concentrating on and getting agitated abour then your priorities are pretty messed up. Let's get all het up about mild sexism to deflect from the discussion about rape gangs.

He belittles women who challenge him and hold him accountable. For me, that’s grim and avoiding accountability just like Trump does. You think it’s hilarious, you do you.
Im actually able to hold more than one thought though and there is no deflection on my part.
Woodhouse as a Rotherham survivor has spent over a decade campaigning for justice. She’s repeatedly offered her expertise and evidence to Reform for free, including direct outreach to leaders like Richard Tice and Nigel Farage only to be ghosted and dismissed. When Farage now parades victims at rallies to "offer solutions" to a failing inquiry, it reeks of opportunistic bandwagon jumping, especially after Reform promised their own independent probe and reneged without explanation. Survivors aren't props to be paraded on telly; many, including Woodhouse, have publicly called out this as performative posturing that ignores their lived realities and prior pleas for real collaboration, turning profound trauma into electoral fodder. This is the lived experience of another grooming gang victim, who feels immeasurably let down by Reform. If Reform truly shared the victims' goals, they'd apologise for the snubs and act on the evidence already handed to them, rather than leveraging pain for headlines while survivors like Woodhouse fight alone.

Do you also agree with other PP that he is "grooming" Ms Reynolds "again" and is like a member of Isis?

If by the other pp you mean me, I didn’t say he’s like a member of Isis. The grooming of Shamina Begum was used as an example of political grooming because you seemed to think that it only existed in a sexual context and didn’t appear to understand grooming can be applied in additional ways. There’s no need for the inverted commas, by the way.

Your argument was perfectly clear! In my view the comment was both disingenuous and a hastily and ill conceived straw man. Ironic that this poster accused me of deflection 😂

I already did, as she is the other MO to pull this stunt

NF isn’t trying to “save” anyone, he is not interested in victims of sexual abuse. what NF is calling for is already in progress - but according to you it’s not done properly. When asked to explain what properly means in this context - you decline to answer but state you don’t want to discuss this with me. yet here you are engaging asking a question..

you can’t explain what properly means can you

Having a social worker and police to chair, isn’t a good idea imo. The reason being that it was originally the same organisations that didn’t raise the alarm in the beginning.

The notion of Farage “saving women” is both absurd and abhorrent

Sorry...you keep saying explain properly. Do you mean in thr context of the enquiry into Rotherham? You keep repeating a word but no question.

Properly means
1.Holding a specific investigation into the gang rapes for decades of children by Pakistani Muslims for religious and ethnic reasons.

1. Giving the enquiry a right to subpoena witnesses and have them take an oath.

1. No attempt to widen the remit to include victims of other types of sex crimes. These are specific crimes with specific motivations.

1. Be run by entirely independent people perhaps from abroad.

1. Punish the people that have failed. Punish the police that ignored the rapes. Punish the social worker that attended a forced marriage (forced because a child cannot give consent).

1. Include Maggie Oliver. Or just even listen to her?

That's properly. Which isn't being done by Labour. Yet..Political pressure including by Mps such as Nigel Farage should hopefully get that to change.

Edit..don't know why my numbering went wrong but hopefully you understand the points.

Well I didn't want to be guilty of potential libel if I didn't make sure that accusing Nigel Farage of grooming a child rape victim again definitely weren't my words!!

You didn't say "political grooming". You said grooming again. You only tacked on the word "political" when everyone was disgusted by your comments.

And even political grooming is an unfortunate choice of words in the context of someone that has been groomed already. But I suspect you wanted the undercurrents of that word to stick on Nigel Farage. I see why you would try but luckily failed. And now you are trying to explain and justify going so low. Crack on.

Edit. Isis. You actually likened Nigel Farage giving a survivor a podium to speak from, to a member of a terrorist organisation grooming under age girls to come and marry them! You can't really get away from that either! Try for a hatrick go on! You won't be able to resist I bet, as it's Nigel Farage.

your first two points are being adhered, the investigation hasn't got there yet, as it is taking time.

your third point, it just needs to be independent - if you start using foreign justice systems or people from abroad that feeds back to the argument of taking back control of our own laws in the UK and using our own people to make these decisions- so it would be a silly idea.

punishment of crimes can't be even started to look at until an investigation has been conducted

A large part of democracy is being able to openly discuss politics. otherwise, we would just be left too. The media to persuade us who to vote.
Media ideally should be open and unbiased (the majority of ours isn't, but it is much better than other countries).

The inquiry is not focused solely on grooming and rapes carried out by Pakistani Muslims. The survivors resigned as there were steps to widen the remit to all child sexual exploitation rather than those with a religious and ethnic element. That needs to be changed to comply with it being carried out properly

Unfortunately while we should ideally be able to make our own decisions, in this particular matter most state bodies in this country including right up to the PM are tainted potentially so a foreign independent judge such as one from Australia overseeing the inquiry may be better to give confidence to the victims. We don't need to use their justice system obviously. We just need someone overseeing the inquiry to make sure it isn't corrupted further (corrupt being the word used by Ms Reynolds to describe the current inquiry.

And yes of course. Innocent until proven guilty. I've said that upthread as you went to town on Prince Andrew.

Openly discuss politics is fine if the other person is up for it (Many people like to keep their own political views private. It used to be considered good manners not so long ago). But know your audience. Discussion of views is fine. Ramming your own political views down someone's neck and attacking them personally if they disagree with you is not.

1. No attempt to widen the remit to include victims of other types of sex crimes. These are specific crimes with specific motivations.*

The inquiry is not focused solely on grooming and rapes carried out by Pakistani Muslims.

these two above statement are not the same

I answered the first

We took back control - we now would have uproar in UK if we handed our justice system to a forigner or foreign nation - it wouldn't be accepted as 51% of the country voted for exactly that reason

We will have to agree to disagree again Mike.

There's a difference between "handing the justice system to a foreigner" and having an independent eye on things. There's plenty of.precedence for this in sensitive issues. Commonwealth judges from countries with similar legal systems to ours eg a NZ judge was appointed to oversee the 2015 child sex abuse investigation. There won't be uproar I can assure you. Not in this. When the PM is under suspicion the whole system is tainted.

Agreed!

You didn't say "political grooming". You said grooming again. You only tacked on the word "political" when everyone was disgusted by your comments.

It was obvious to anyone with half a brain what I meant. I had to elaborate to clarify for posters who were either incapable of understanding that or quite deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

You actually likened Nigel Farage giving a survivor a podium to speak from, to a member of a terrorist organisation grooming under age girls to come and marry them!

I didn’t. I provided another example of political grooming because you appeared to be unable to understand the concept of any form of grooming that isn’t sexual.

You’re making yourself look very foolish now.

fallen

you've put up two widely different sentences and tried to pretend they are the same thing - they aren't the same words or mean the same things

oh well we will have to disagree

Of course I disagree with what you are writing, you say one thing then say something else completely different in the next post, as if that is what you have written previously

what you meant in your second post, was not being done properly as it was including white gangs not just focusing on brown gangs and had nothing to do with the actual crime but the colour of the skin of the perpatrators

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/29/female-survivors-of-grooming-gangs-demand-apology-from-nigel-farage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv10ey2nno

It's not going well in Warwickshire either, with George Finch Reform leader, using the government to increase the milage from 3 miles to 5 miles for home to school transport. Stephen Shaw the deputy leader has stated in the cabinet meeting last week said that "the council isn't in a massive struggle at all. Everyone is having a bit of difficultly here and there, but its not a massive struggle" If this is the case why then are they wanting the home to school transport to increase by 40% to 5 miles?