Mumsnet is now backing Reform UK - survey

[IwantToRetire]

The ladies are for turning after all – as a new survey reveals that one in five of the politically engaged mothers on the social networking site are ready to pledge allegiance to Nigel Farage

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mumsnet-labour-reform-school-gates-keir-starmer-b2894524.html

Also in full at https://archive.is/V5P6n

I think her argument is that she encountered each new, more powerful level of 'unelected state' as her career progressed and that party leaders and other high placed politicians are refusing to admit, even within Cabinet, that this bureaucracy is at times more powerful than elected politicians.

Rachel Johnson also made a comment regarding Boris Johnson, as PM, being refused, by civil servants, on actions he wanted to take. So, from this conversation, I get the impression that each new PM or Cabinet minister thinks that the failure of their predecessors was lack of ideas and initiative, rather than non-cooperation by bureaucracy.

Seems like Farage isn't the only threat to democracy🤔

I think you still misunderstand me @1984Now I am quite happy to acknowledge that there was no space between Hitler’s far right fascism and Stalin’s far left communism. I see the ‘left’ as capable as the ‘right’ to enact centralisation of authority and oppressive control.

Personally, I am politically homeless and have no idea which party to vote for. So no skin in the game to advocate or support any of the UK political parties. Though my comments about Reform have clearly upset you and saying that I’ve implied that young male [Reform] voters are Blackshirts just waiting for their chest sizes to be taken is exaggerating and misrepresenting what I’m saying. Do I think that there’s a possibility that some young men supporting Reform could hold racist and fascist views? Yes, I do.

And I’m all for rational discourse. Not sure what mistakes you think are being made with respect to talking about Reform. That Farage holds quite politically conservative views on the economy and immigration is surely not going out on a limb. Why else are the further right exTories politicians defecting?

You may support Reform under Farage and have your reasons for doing so. I’ll grant that possibly classifying him solely as ‘right-wing’ may well oversimplify his ideology, but as mentioned, I have concerns for a Farage-led government and have my reasons for doing so.

The best I’m hoping for is that it’d be no worse than the previous government’s we’ve endured the past 10 years, but I do not see Reform improving anything.

Farage has had a consistent message for the 20 years he's had visibility, esp the last 10-15, effectively nearly 30 years of active political life.
That's on immigration and EU membership.
Every GE since 2010 especially he highlighted the fact that all the main parties talked about getting migration down, every GE, five since 2010, the opposite happened.
That's his pivot point. You can call a predisposition to always talk migration as inherently far right, or you can say it's the old fashioned civ-nat attitude we had to migration up until Blair, when annual levels didn't exceed 55k.
And now on illegal migration, again the main parties have said how they'll listen to the electorate to get boat/lorry/scam visa overstayer illegals down, and confront the illegal migrants already preexisting in the country, again Labour have followed the Tories into total inertia. Again, you can call the predisposition to concentrate on illegals as far right "othering", or you can say Middle Britain is irate about this seemingly insoluble issue, and his promise to Brits is to finally solve it.
That's how I see it, migration has always had salience amongst voters, six Tory and Labour govts didn't see thru what they promised voters re legal migration (although numbers are now reducing), now two Tory and Labour govts are not seeing thru what they promised to voters about illegal migration.
And Farage is saying he's always realized the salience, always pointed to govts not dealing with the causes of the salience, the salience can only increase towards 2029, and he is the only man who will finally reduce the salience by following thru on what the electorate wants here.

Micheal Gove interviewed Dominic Cummings and said much the same thing.

I wonder if its always been the case, or its increased over time.

I keep seeing stories in the press that Starmer is frustrated that Chris Wormald won't let him do things. Starmer is the guy who appointed Wormald Cabinet Secretary. I feel that about 90% of the time Starmer is an AI programmed to do what Whitehall wants him to, but he has these occasional glitches where he's frustrated that things aren't moving and can't understand why.

Rory Stewart said a similar thing in his book about his officials not letting him do things. Rory is a clever man, but he doesn't seem to grasp that this is the system he supports working as it's designed.

Notably, brexit was delivered even though most civil servants personally viewed it as the disaster it was predicted and has proved to be.

These people are projecting blame for their own inability to formulate implementable policy (Rwanda says hi). Ministers are rightly told "no" if what they suggest is completely impractical and incompatible with existing laws. Ministers can ask for and they do get electorally inadvisable things passed - poll tax is an example. But civil servants won't (and shouldn't) do things that will land themselves in court.

The civil service did an awful lot to get all the Covid legislation, data collection and reporting done and did it quickly because there were well defined, legal policy objectives.

…again Labour have followed the Tories into total inertia…and his promise to Brits is to finally solve it.

I’ve said that immigration - at scale - is a problem. It’s a problem because many people in the UK see it as a problem. And it’s a problem because it’s not just about housing, education, jobs or feeding people, it’s about values and culture. It takes time for acculturation and that’s not happened.

Farage may have been right in understanding and much quicker in capitalising on how immigration had become a problem for many Brits. And I’m not sure if you’re arguing that Farage will finally solve or merely noting that he has promised to solve it, but if elected, Farage is going to find it every bit as difficult as the previous governments to solve the ‘immigration - and asylum seekers - problem’. Just as it is for most high income countries.

It would take billions to modernise all UK entry points, seaports, airports, to hire and train border guards, to put in place surveillance systems, stop the organised crime people smugglers etc. and it’s impossible to ‘stop the boats’ when it’s on France to do so and clearly in their interest to let the boats go. So if people vote for Reform thinking Farage will solve immigration, they’re going to be disappointed.

You're moving the goalposts on the argument. We were arguing as to whether Farage is far right yada yada, and the response from the left is that he's spent his whole career othering migrants, setting up the increasing shrillness in the tone of the "conversation".
My point is simply that by IDing migration so early (and in parallel, EU membership), he's tacked with the British people.
There's no demagoguery here pulling people right. He's right at the point that civ-nats in all parties stood in the early 90s, never once promoting open borders or making excuses for illegal migration.
That's purely my point, it's where 99% of elected politicians were 35 years ago. Farage is that person.
Blair doubled migration in his first year in office, Farage made his first attempt to get elected into the European Parliament for James Goldsmith's Referendum Party just two years later.
The 1997 GE with Blair was the start of the pinch point to elites via Blair normalizing mass migration, and Farage saying the electorate were never asked and never gave their permission.
And in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2024.
If you want to discuss whether Farage can achieve his aims, I have serious doubts.
But right now,,the argument from you and the left/establishment is that Farage is a fascist in plain sight for simply eliciting what a huge proportion of Middle England have wanted for 30+ years (by the time of the GE).

And frankly I think if the issue of migration had been faced honestly - and I don't mean solved, but admitted, 30 years ago - the more radical elements and bad feelings that have developed in some communities would be fewer in numbers and less.

Frankly, I think the reason it wasn't tackled has zero to do with "racism," and zero to do with even supporting institutions like the NHS. I think it has all been to prop up what looks like economic growth when they have been unable to create real productivity.

Anyone saying let’s rub their noses in it ie the Blair years really can’t be surprised if the electorate push back.

Purposely annoying people was never going to work.

Possibly if the civil servants had stayed in their lane it would have been possible to manage Brexit in a more immediately successful way.

The thing about civil servants is they just want the status quo. In their world everything ticks along a certain way, they are cogs in the wheel, and they want to keep it ticking. Imagination, even predicting long term changes, is outside of their wheelhouse, and scares them. The fact that the technocrats in the UK, are so powerful in running the nation and include such a large part of the political class, is a major part of why the nation is struggling now to adapt to changes in the global balance of power.

It won't be clear whether Brexit is a disaster, or something else, for 50 years.

Ah yes, the GDP scam.
They still love to tell us that the UK is, what, 5-7th richest nation in the world re GDP.
The gross figure may be true.
But it's based on 70m population as opposed to the 55m from just 25-30 years ago.
But you take that figure, and divide it by 70m, now GDP per capita puts us maybe 25-30th in the world.
And now we have escalating welfare costs, lack of housing and infrastructure, pretty fragile energy and farming.
And we allow everyone here, as soon as they arrive, to share in our super generous welfare state.
So, a big part of mass migration was effectively a scam on the British people, to artificially boost GDP, but the wealth per person significantly down on what it was per person in the early 90s.
If Farage takes power, this comes to an end.
The welfare state, social housing, end of 2 child benefit cap etc, will revert to British born and fully British naturalized citizens. And migration will be allowed on legally binding strict quotas for specialized skills we need, other migration determined industry by industry, seasonal etc.
I see that Farage is courting James Goldsmith the conservationist, this will be part of his pitch to preserve the Green Belt, eco policies will include housebuilding mindful of the natural environment, again any expansion in social housing will be for British born (how many are on long term waiting lists while Starmer plans to build council housing for illegals migrants?), and naturalized Brits, not to he world and his brother.

*Ben Goldsmith.

From a constitutional standpoint, it's supposed to be the elected politicians who make the decisions. The civil servants give the best advice they can, flag any risks, and in the end they carry out what the politicians decide. When it works, it works well.

It is not the job of the civil servants to say "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

Honestly, I think many politicians are so feckless they prefer not to be the ones making the decisions. Which is part of the reason why they liked the EU so much.

It's revolutionary, isn't it? A senior civil servant suggests why something can't easily be done. And the politician in charge gets on with doing it anyway.
I mean, can you imagine business operating the same way? Where a human resources officer tells a manager or team leader why something can't be done, and nothing gets done?
It's not as if the rejection happens because the minister wants to do something illegal. It's because so many layers of bearaucracy at triggered, that it's just easier to do nothing than something.
The state exists because it's always existed. Not as the servant of govt and thus the people. Just in and of itself.
More the state as enslaver.
Somehow the next govt, Reform or Reform Tory coalition, has to make the state a liberator.
Look at Phillipson, she will undoubtedly point to how much civil service advice she's getting to go slow in the SC ruling rolled out, so many noses put out out of joint if she proceeds beyond snail's pace.
Sir Humphreys everywhere sucking their teeth saying, "minister, it's just too much trouble to publish the Codes of Practice, because so many interests are clashed with".
Yet on the FE Free Speech Act, she was right in there, day one, ensuring it couldn't be enacted fully, or at all.
She was happy to be purposeful there. Again, did the civil service say enacting the law was impossible? Or did she choose to not go ahead?

It all comes down how you define Far Right and Fascist.

Actual Fascists from 30s/40s were anti democracy, anti minority, anti--women and pro aggressive militarism/imperialism.

Farage is not anti democracy, he is fine with women leaders, educated women or in business. He has a party with prominent Muslim members he is anti mass immigration sure, but he believes in limited migration. He has consistently thrown out people inside parties he has run for racism. On the military his beliefs are fairly standard. You can argue he is weak on Russia, but so are many Euro leftists. He isn't planning to invade anywhere. Now he is filling the party with some Tories hardly the act of a radical.

So you end up with a right wing populist party, not a Fascist one, yet compared to the ones in Europe it is hardly that radical.

The tendency to exaggerate is a key problem in todays politics. One tactic which fails again and again is painting people thinking of voting reform as evil extremists. Left has talked about Farage being Hitler like for decades, it doesn't make any sense and makes them look like they want to duck conversations. You can't shame voters into backing you. The right do it all the time Starmer is a communist. That sounds so dumb.

The wider issue with Farage is the charge of incompetence, and dislike of having anyone challenge his authority. His record in party management is shambolic. He thought both Boris and Truss might be worth backing. A Reform government might be a total train wreck.

Farage is not unbeatable. It would require the left/centre to focus round one party in 2028/9 though. This is the awkward fact. Again this undermines the rhetoric Labour/Lib Dems/Greens plus the Tories all kind of hate each other enough, that in practice they and voters in general are likely to let Reform win by default. If Farage is really the ultimate evil then surely people would be ready to help Ed Davey win for example. Only in practise few think like that. All the parties look kind of useless right now. That ultimately is on them.

We are probably going to find out what a Reform government is like. If it truly messes up then it will be out in 5 years.

Great post.
Have always thought this, if Farage is fascist and Reform are the far right threat to the country, it would be the patriotic duty of the left parties to merge and present one unified opposition.
But no, Polanski wants his own piece of the action, Corbyn Sultana too, hell, Davey as well.
Effectively, if they split the anti Farage vote and he gets in, they only have themselves to blame.

The media are really complicit in stifling the conversation in my opinion. Yes, most Reform views are actually pretty mainstream, yet you have the media pushing the line from another politician that they have to stop the 'cancer' of reform. I find this pretty offensive. Yet it was repeated across the media.

If you called another group a 'cancer' or 'poison' there would be outcry and claims of hate speech, yet apparently it's fine if it's Reform? People aren't stupid no matter what politicians might like to think. And they don't know much about the national character if they think trying to trick people with manifestly unfair trash talk tactics is going to work, it's obviously going to push people towards Reform not away.

DH came in to me listening to Laila Cunningham on triggernometry. He was appalled I was listening to a Reform politician and I said 'what is it she says you disagree with?' and he came back with nothing. She was talking about how the police don't bother even investigating rape, let alone it being prosecuted. She talked about her experiences as a prosecutor, she talked about loving London and rising crime. She talked about the grooming gangs. It was all incredibly sensible, she's articulate and charismatic and clearly intelligent. She talked about actually acting to stop crime as a councillor. Based on that interview, I think she'd be an incredible Mayor for women and a hell of a lot better than Sadiq 'we don't have grooming gangs' liar Khan.

We're in a situation in this country whereby it seems to me increasingly that if you're against the mass rape of vulnerable children then Reform is the only sensible vote. Labour in particular actually have the power to do something about this now but the evil runs so deep over this, apparently, they won't and their deputy leader (who also made the 'cancer' comment) call it a 'dogwhistle' to discuss the cover up of child rape and torture. They are so out of touch with normal human morality that they're not fit to govern IMO (I know there are individual MPs that are good people and have pushed back often at great personal cost, but the institution of the Labour Party I think is beyond repair on this). The fact Powell is still in position shows utter corruption and moral decay.

They are the opposite of the party of the working class, they seem to enjoy harming working class British people and acting against their interests.

I can only assume, based on Labour actions, that there was some kind of votes for silence complicity with Labour councils and the Labour party in general. Otherwise why would you look the other way when children are being raped? People who do that should not be in positions of power.

Which media? Mainstream newspapers report largely neutral/positively re Reform activities, the only two that don't really are the Independent/I and Guardian.

The BBC gives a disproportionate amount of airtime to the Reform Party and its leader. For all the talk about the 'woke BBC', it's anything but. Research (from Cardiff university) has consistently found that it is more biased towards right wing coverage than left wing coverage, even pre-Reform.

I'm not suggesting that other parties are the utopian dream, but suggesting that the media at large is trying to shut down right wing conversation points is just not true.

What?! I wonder if this is just Russian Bots

What is?

I think Ballad is being either naive, or disingenuous, by equating amount of coverage with support.

A lab/lib/green/your party coalition would obviously be a 'them vs us' party.

The problem the working class face is that they are being pushed out by two groups - the middle class and the immigrants. In work, housing, even the high street. Work that used to be accessible now not only needs a degree, but contacts. Work that used to support a family now doesnt. Areas often become gentrified or very high density. Its obvious that the aspirational working class are being moved out of towns into new build estates on the outskirts, either because the towns are too expensive or undesirable.

A left coalition do have lots in common in that they arent really part of the working class. Who wasnt surprised about the green candidate for gorton and denton? So its obvious they are aware of their need to at least look a bit trade. Its going to be effective as having Angela Rayner, though, unless they can demonstrate they have policies that make difference.

Im not saying Reform and Conservatives are representative of the people. But if Reform candidates can talk about the problems facing working class truthfully, theyll seem more electable nationally than the left who i dont think can ideologically.

But isn't the Green candidate the epitome of working class, trainee plumber (or is it plasterer)? And isn't the Reform candidate an anti-professional managerial/lanyard class with a work CV that is 100%...professional managerial/lanyard class,? Lol.