General News

[bovril]

I think it's likely the British right moves on from Farage eventually. He's too economically-liberal, pro free trade at a time when the Anglo right seems to be turning away from that. And being anti EU isn't really much of a boon these days, especially amongst young people who are probably more concerned about non EU immigration and won't have much memory of the panic over Poles etc. Someone like Rupert Lowe strikes me as more reflective of where they're moving - more open about immigration and the breakdown of the social contract in Britain, and less obsessed with celebrity than Farage. I think it's quite likely we will get a hard right government in Britain in the next ten years but it won't be Farageist. 

[Clogger_]

On Musk/Farage, odious though these characters are, it's hard to disagree with Musk's basic point, no?! From a purely technical basis, there will be an upper limit to Reform's appeal under Farage's leadership. A lot of 'traditional' Tory voters baulk at his schtick.

[Guest Bilo]

7 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

 

Haha Sly, I'd suggest that NF is the complete opposite of a "good statesperson"...

He's a decent campaigner, but demonstrably completely useless when elected. 

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think it's likely the British right moves on from Farage eventually. He's too economically-liberal, pro free trade at a time when the Anglo right seems to be turning away from that. And being anti EU isn't really much of a boon these days, especially amongst young people who are probably more concerned about non EU immigration and won't have much memory of the panic over Poles etc. Someone like Rupert Lowe strikes me as more reflective of where they're moving - more open about immigration and the breakdown of the social contract in Britain, and less obsessed with celebrity than Farage. I think it's quite likely we will get a hard right government in Britain in the next ten years but it won't be Farageist. 

Please don't me ever see the word "Farageist" again 

[bovril]

Hard to overstate just how boned England is really, and how weird it looks from the outside. 

[bovril]

Just now, Zear0 said:

Please don't me ever see the word "Farageist" again 

Was debating whether to put the e in or not, but I thought without it would be a hard g and sound like a Greek starter of stewed legumes. 

[CosbehFox]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I’m glad others are optimistic. In early 2016 I probably would’ve felt the same. Sadly, I’ve heard enough variations of “don’t worry, people won’t actually vote for it” over the past 8 years to feel a lot less confident.

The voting numbers for UKIP at their height and Reform at the last election are roughly the same 

[Guest Bilo]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think it's likely the British right moves on from Farage eventually. He's too economically-liberal, pro free trade at a time when the Anglo right seems to be turning away from that. And being anti EU isn't really much of a boon these days, especially amongst young people who are probably more concerned about non EU immigration and won't have much memory of the panic over Poles etc. Someone like Rupert Lowe strikes me as more reflective of where they're moving - more open about immigration and the breakdown of the social contract in Britain, and less obsessed with celebrity than Farage. I think it's quite likely we will get a hard right government in Britain in the next ten years but it won't be Farageist. 

I think the young moving to the right in the UK is quite overblown and largely an online phenomenon. Any government, regardless of rosette, that can get a handle on housing, the job market, building opportunities for young people to succeed and cost of living will do well over the next decade. A Farage government isn't going to build swathes of new housing, invest in education and training for jobs or help with bills because of its economic liberalism.

 

Reform aren't the answer because they think cutting immigration is the answer to every issue Britain faces, and they can't actually articulate a coherent and workable plan to do even that.

[Guest Bilo]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The voting numbers for UKIP at their height and Reform at the last election are roughly the same 

It's to all intents and purposes the same party.

 

Same figures, same funders, same target voters, same issues and even the same constituencies. They only performed well this time because the Tories were galactically unpopular. If Labour improve their performance and make headway with issues normal voters care about, and/or the Tories ditch the absolute deadweight that is Kemi Badenoch in favour of a decent leader, they go down to 1 or 2 seats.

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Bilo said:

I think the young moving to the right in the UK is quite overblown and largely an online phenomenon. Any government, regardless of rosette, that can get a handle on housing, the job market, building opportunities for young people to succeed and cost of living will do well over the next decade. A Farage government isn't going to build swathes of new housing, invest in education and training for jobs or help with bills because of its economic liberalism.

 

Reform aren't the answer because they think cutting immigration is the answer to every issue Britain faces, and they can't actually articulate a coherent and workable plan to do even that.

Fair point. But they don't need a massive number of young people to vote for them though in order to get into government. And I don't think the phenomenon is that overblown, I'm sure I saw some data in the autumn that Trump would gain a higher % votes in the UK from people under 25 than those over 60. We've similar shifts in Europe - again not a majority but a sizeable chunk - so it's naive to think that England is immune. I think Brexit and the huge rise in immigration since, plus with social media thrown in to the mix, has really turned politics in this country on its head in ways that we probably haven't totally come to terms with yet. 

[Guest Bilo]

26 minutes ago, Skidmark said:

Elon Musk is on some sort of Asperger's obsessive crusade. 

 

X is now unusable, it's full of right wing, left wing bollocks, and all I want to do is see what people are saying about the footy. 

 

Yes Britain is a chronic mess and it is incredibly depressing, but everything else you see online is just making it worse now. 

 

 

He had managed to tank 80% of its value a couple of months ago, and I suspect that might be optimistic now.

 

Give it another year and it'll be like Gab or Telegram in terms of reach and relevance. 

[Dunge]

Nobody other than Farage has shown any sign of moving the needle on the right of British politics.

[blabyboy]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Firstly, I appreciate the response.

 

I'm going to phrase my response in two parts, ethical and practical:

 

- WRT the ethical issues, conservative Wahabist Islam (as opposed to all the other branches of that religion) is hardly the only non-progressive ideology to represent a problem for womens and LGBT rights and other such viewpoints. (Of course, other types of such conservatism doesn't really rear its head in the UK, but my own take is that the worlds problems are the UK's problems too anyway). My particular issue is with anyone with a lack of respect for those values - no matter the colour of their skin, whether they've come here "legally", "illegally" or have been born here. That there is a problem with people that have such values doesn't mean that an immigration policy that is overly restrictive - or focused on one demographic - needs to happen; AFAIC the more that people interact with each other and see that they are simply human rather than shuttering themselves off in small groups, the less chance there is of misunderstanding and conflict between those groups, which is really what we should be aiming for, I would think.

 

- WRT the practical issues, ideology of any kind that doesn't put the entire species first and foremost is simply incompatible with civilisational survival in the next few decades - "white", "black", "Christian","Muslim". "atheist" civilisation, or whatever other label is applied to it. There are problems that require an effort on the part of practically every single human being - anything less will result in failure and truly terrible consequences for that failure. So, regardless of whatever clashing ideologies there are, if people want to prevent large scale conflict and very bad times in the future, practically our species needs to make a common ground with each other on at least some matters.

 

I can understand where the fear regarding what you're talking about comes from, and the feelings themselves are understandable, even if in a few cases they're not justifiable. But I don't disagree with it simply because I believe it unethical, I mostly disagree with it because it assumes that humanity can survive as a set of disparate, walled groups, which is empirically false and will result simply in those groups ending fighting each other over barren and riven land to earn the right to be the last to die. Do we really want that to be the legacy of our species - the one that was aware of our nature and where it would lead, but chose to follow the route of a great many other animals instead?

 

I would hope not. We have the potential for so much more. And I would hope that most people would want our species, as well as others, to live.

If we acknowledge the historical record as put forward by anthropologists and archaeologists then whilst individual acts of altruism have occurred, species-wide it appears to be non-existent. 

 

Survival of the fittest appears to be primal, in both meanings of the word and limited to groups within species.

 

As I've said previously, we will survive only by adapting, and we will most likely be forced to that rather than moving in step with Nature.

 

[Guest Bilo]

Just now, Dunge said:

Nobody other than Farage has shown any sign of moving the needle on the right of British politics.

Liz Truss tried it and is now essentially a walking punch line. Reform being seen as a potential government in waiting rather than a protest vote could destroy them in terms of scrutiny because they'll never have the talent or support base to withstand it.

[blabyboy]

11 minutes ago, Bilo said:

It's to all intents and purposes the same party.

 

Same figures, same funders, same target voters, same issues and even the same constituencies. They only performed well this time because the Tories were galactically unpopular. If Labour improve their performance and make headway with issues normal voters care about, and/or the Tories ditch the absolute deadweight that is Kemi Badenoch in favour of a decent leader, they go down to 1 or 2 seats.

A decent leader.. as in??

[Guest Bilo]

4 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

A decent leader.. as in??

And that's the problem for the Tories. There's nobody obvious as the talent pool is pretty much completely drained; this was proved by the conplete non-event of a leadership contest after the election won by a non-entity.

[bovril]

Tbh I think probably the likeliest thing to happen is Elon gets bored of Reform and UK politics, and anyway will probably go the way of Bannon. Like Henry VIII falling out with and executing his advisors.

[Dunge]

4 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

A decent leader.. as in??

This is a big problem generally these days, across most countries. Finding proper statesmen in the age of social media is a global issue.

[Dunge]

As for Musk, it really is time people started ignoring him.

[Wymsey]

44 minutes ago, Skidmark said:

Elon Musk is on some sort of Asperger's obsessive crusade. 

 

X is now unusable, it's full of right wing, left wing bollocks, and all I want to do is see what people are saying about the footy. 

 

Yes Britain is a chronic mess and it is incredibly depressing, but everything else you see online is just making it worse now. 

 

 

Was actually wondering if his behaviour, particularly online, was due to Autism..

[Guest Bilo]

Honestly, at this stage I think the next election will be like 1983. Like Starmer, Thatcher had an awful start and was wildly unpopular. If the election had been held within twelve months of her first win, Michael Foot would have won by a landslide.

 

As much as the Falklands War bolstered her popularity, more important was a spectacularly divided opposition. Labour and the SDP were more interested in having a pop at each other than taking down Thatcher, and the result was Thatcher winning a landslide victory with a reduced vote share compared to 1979 because the opposition was weak and divided. 

 

You can easily see history repeating itself. The Tories and Reform fighting like rats in a sack, taking all the headlines, while Labour quietly gets on with governing, makes some improvements to living standards and even vague competence would look safer than handing the country over to Rabble of Nutters A or Rabble of Nutters B.

[Guest Bilo]

4 minutes ago, Dunge said:

As for Musk, it really is time people started ignoring him.

To a large extent, Labour and the Tories pretty much have. It's only since he started making ridiculous and dangerous accusations about Jess Phillips that the government has called him out. 

 

He's so unstable, unpredictable and batshit that relying on him is not the mark of a smart politician.

[Guest Bilo]

25 minutes ago, bovril said:

Fair point. But they don't need a massive number of young people to vote for them though in order to get into government. And I don't think the phenomenon is that overblown, I'm sure I saw some data in the autumn that Trump would gain a higher % votes in the UK from people under 25 than those over 60. We've similar shifts in Europe - again not a majority but a sizeable chunk - so it's naive to think that England is immune. I think Brexit and the huge rise in immigration since, plus with social media thrown in to the mix, has really turned politics in this country on its head in ways that we probably haven't totally come to terms with yet. 

This is fairly solvable by rebuilding a closer relationship with the EU, and the small boats issue can be solved by opening up more safe routes so the people smugglers become redundant.

[bovril]

13 minutes ago, Bilo said:

This is fairly solvable by rebuilding a closer relationship with the EU, and the small boats issue can be solved by opening up more safe routes so the people smugglers become redundant.

This is very vague as ever. What is the "closer relationship"? You're either in the SM and CU or out of it. This government is committed to hard Brexit which means economic growth continues to get battered, and we can't be as tight on non-EU immigration as we might like as European workers don't come here anymore. So until hard Brexit is reversed, we'll continue to have high migration and low economic growth, and voters will continue to be dissatisfied. 

Edited 5 January 2025 by bovril

[Guest Bilo]

10 minutes ago, bovril said:

This is very vague as ever. What is the "closer relationship"? You're either in the SM and CU or out of it. This government is committed to hard Brexit which means economic growth continues to get battered, and we can't be as tight on non-EU immigration as we might like as European workers don't come here anymore. So until hard Brexit is reversed, we'll continue to have high migration and low economic growth. 

2025 offers a real chance for the UK and EU to reset their relationship, and it’s a moment we can’t afford to let slip. With Labour now in government, there’s a fresh willingness to rebuild ties, and key events like the UK-EU summit and Poland’s focus on engaging Britain during its EU presidency give us the perfect platform to do so. But let’s be honest—while this is a priority for us, the EU has bigger fish to fry. They’re busy with Ukraine, trade issues with the US and China, and their own internal challenges. That means we need to be smart about how we approach this.

 

One thing we can’t do is box ourselves in with rigid red lines. Saying no to things like youth mobility schemes or closer trade alignment might appease certain domestic audiences, but it risks cutting off opportunities for real progress. A more pragmatic approach is essential if we want meaningful outcomes. Take something like a security pact—this is a win-win, especially given the current global instability. And a veterinary agreement could give a much-needed boost to our agricultural sector without undermining our other trade ambitions. These are sensible, achievable steps.

 

At home, we also need to get better at explaining why this matters. The public already supports stronger ties with the EU—polls show majorities back reducing trade barriers, tackling illegal migration, and cooperating on security. But we need to frame this reset as something that serves Britain’s interests, not as a concession to Brussels. Past mistakes, like David Cameron and Theresa May failing to sell their visions for EU relations, show us how not to do it. Contrast that with Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework, which was seen as a British solution and got a relatively easy ride. Presentation makes a difference.

 

This isn’t about going back to the EU with our cap in hand. It’s about being bold, pragmatic, and clear about what we want—and showing the British people how a better relationship with Europe benefits all of us. If we get this right, 2025 could be the year we finally turn the page on years of friction and move towards a partnership that works for everyone. It's pretty much the only way to promote growth and begin to control immigration. The reasons why we need a decent relationship with the EU for the latter are self-explanatory, and the reasons for the former are that the US is about to have a volatile, unpredictable, unreliable and probably largely incompetent administration.

 

 

Edited 5 January 2025 by Bilo