Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue May 20, 2025 5:12 pm

This seems to be a common problem across western democracies.

Both the left and the right are increasingly concerned about "elites", income inequality, and corporate power.

The left-wing populist solutions for these problems are typically put forward by career politicians who have never even been close to power, triggering reasonable skepticism about their ability to deliver on an ambitious reform agenda. This approach is off putting for those who are simultaneously concerned about corporate/elite power and state incompetence.

The right-wing version populist response is driven forward by "elites" themselves, ostensibly because they know best how to dismantle the system that unfairly perpetuates their own privilege—which relies on voters choosing to ignore the obvious incentive these leaders have have to maintain their own affluence and power. These leaders typically make the case that previous success in business qualifies them to lead a massive and complex policy change—even though its far from obvious that such skills are transferable.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue May 20, 2025 4:23 pm

What really makes me roll my eyes is where the polling indicates significant support, among Reform voters, for these positions:

"Rich people in the UK are able to get around the law or get off more easily than poorer people"

"Big businesses in the UK take advantage of ordinary people"

"Ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth"

"Rich people in the UK should be taxed more than average earners"

I find it hard to understand how someone holding the above positions could then happily walk into the polling booth and vote for a party headed by:

Nigel Farage, multi-millionaire ex-stockbroker;
Richard Tice, multi-millionaire landowner and real estate agent;
Zia Yusuf, multi-millionaire former Goldman Sachs executive.

Why do they think these people have any interest whatsoever in improving the lot of the ordinary working person??

Fucking idiocy.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue May 20, 2025 2:36 pm

I'd say the two linked polls above mostly support your view Jamie. The typical Reform voter is more misinformed about the quantity of asylum seekers than the average Brit, Reform voters are clearly very motivated by their opposition to boat-crossing migrants, and additionally (somewhat to Oct's point) Reform voters are clearly opposed to the current pace and make-up of immigration (legal and illegal).

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue May 20, 2025 2:28 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue May 20, 2025 2:14 pm
It's quite unlikely that either of your anecdotal experiences happen to capture the views of the typical Reform voter.

Thankfully, that's what polls are for: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe

Unsurprisingly, the typical Reform voter cares quite a bit about channel crossers (legal or not) and the perceived watering down of "British" values (defined, it seems, in opposition to multiculturalism).

This is interesting because the second strongest "belief" in that survey was this one:

"Migrants coming to the United Kingdom across the English Channel should all be immediately removed from the United Kingdom and prevented from ever returning"

This directly calls out to the image of people arriving by boat (as opposed to, say, an Indian doctor arriving by aeroplane to work in an NHS hospital); it appeals to the "stop the boats" rhetoric which chimes with what Mr. Reform in the pub was saying, as I read it.

I am slightly surprised to notice that the survey makes no distinction between legal migration, on the one hand, and illegal migration, on the other. Nor does it make any distinction between the planned-for import of foreign workers on the one hand, and the arrival of asylum seekers (bogus or valid) on the other.

In other words the survey is not very nuanced when it comes to the issues of immigration we have been debating in this thread.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue May 20, 2025 2:25 pm

https://www.britishfuture.org/reform-voters-are-outliers-on-immigration-they-think-differently-to-the-majority-of-the-public/

As a follow up, this poll more clearly makes the legal/illegal distinction. It corresponds with the YouGov results above - the typical Reform voter is clearly opposed to both legal and illegal immigration. A substantial minority of Reform voters (39%) mistakenly believe that over half of the UK's immigrants are asylum seekers (the real share is only ~7-11% are, depending how you class folks invited from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong).

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue May 20, 2025 2:14 pm

It's quite unlikely that either of your anecdotal experiences happen to capture the views of the typical Reform voter.

Thankfully, that's what polls are for: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe

Unsurprisingly, the typical Reform voter cares quite a bit about channel crossers (legal or not) and the perceived watering down of "British" values (defined, it seems, in opposition to multiculturalism).

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue May 20, 2025 12:15 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue May 20, 2025 8:20 am
What's to discuss? You spoke to two people in a pub with a shaky grasp of the figures. I do not believe that their views are representative, and I rather suspect that if they had a chance to think about the numbers their views on legal immigration would change.

Speaking to actual Reform voters about why they support Reform is illuminating. What better evidence than the qualitative evidence of the man on the street? (Or in the pub, as in this case). I expect that a lot of Reform voters have a shaky grasp on the facts, that part was not a surprise.

Their greatest source of concern is illegal migration, black men in small boats whose motives they suspect.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue May 20, 2025 8:20 am
More importantly, my last non-beer or billiards related conversation with strangers in a pub was about the viability of using modified submarines for space exploration. You should really branch out on your topics. You're in severe danger of putting yourself in a position where you're duty bound to punch someone...

I did not bring up the topic. I generally avoid talking about politics in the pub as it leads to arguments. I will engage in the discussion if someone else seeks to engage in such discussion, however.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue May 20, 2025 10:53 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Tue May 20, 2025 9:10 am
Screenshot_20250520_095711_com_hihonor_filemanager_FileViewerAnimationActivity.jpg

For those of you unsure what British pub conservations about billiards refers to, it's this. The game of kings

Wow, you don't see many of those anymore.

by **Octavious** » Tue May 20, 2025 9:10 am

For those of you unsure what British pub conservations about billiards refers to, it's this. The game of kings

by **Octavious** » Tue May 20, 2025 8:20 am

What's to discuss? You spoke to two people in a pub with a shaky grasp of the figures. I do not believe that their views are representative, and I rather suspect that if they had a chance to think about the numbers their views on legal immigration would change.

More importantly, my last non-beer or billiards related conversation with strangers in a pub was about the viability of using modified submarines for space exploration. You should really branch out on your topics. You're in severe danger of putting yourself in a position where you're duty bound to punch someone...

... on second thoughts... carry on

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 19, 2025 10:55 pm

I was in a pub this evening when I got into an interesting debate with two men (both white, in their early 50s) who had voted Reform in the recent council elections.

One of them was bandying on about illegal immigrants. I pointed out to him that asylum seekers, legal or illegal, amounted to less than 20% of migrants entering the UK and that, as Oct has pointed out, the majority of migrants come here legally.

Initially the two gents did not believe me. There was some checking of data by phone. Then they did believe me.

Then one of them took a slightly surprising tone which I will paraphrase as best I can:

"I don't care about legal migration. Anyone who comes here legally like Indian doctors or whoever is fine. I care about black men coming here illegally on boats who will be a threat to English women and our way of life."

I pressed him on the overall numbers of immigration, based on my discussions in this thread. I suggested that a genuine asylum process was important, but that immigration was too high for economic reasons supported by recent Tory and Labour governments.

His reaction was: "Typical lefty changing the subject. I told you I don't care about legal migration. Legal immigration could be five million a year. If they contribute to our economy and pay taxes I don't care. I voted Reform because I don't want black male criminals coming here on boats to attack British girls. We should stop their boats. Starmer isn't doing it, the Royal Navy should."

His friend nodded along with him and said little beyond, "yes".

I can promise you that I am not making a word of this up. These are real Reform voters in the UK. They are not motivated, as Octavious thinks, by legal migration. They are obsessed, as I previously suggested, by the spectre of illegal immigration.

Discuss!

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 05, 2025 2:27 pm

Well we disagree on the severity of the issue, but we appear to agree about the economic side of the debate. Let's be glad we agreed about something and leave it there eh?

by **Octavious** » Mon May 05, 2025 11:36 am

This is the first time I've used "the 60s" to refer to this century rather than the last, and I'm feeling suddenly old... I think I need to lie down

by **Octavious** » Mon May 05, 2025 11:34 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 10:55 am
I am not sure what you are predicting here. By "following the same trend" do you mean that in the relatively near future you expect the overall global population to decline?

If not, could you explain what you mean?

The EU, UN, and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation all predict declining global populations by the end of century, with the IHME reckoning that the decline will begin in the mid 60s. These are all the medium scenarios. The lower end scenarios run by these organisations allow for a far more rapid decline starting somewhat earlier, but hopefully we won't see that. It goes without saying that the demographics of this 2100 population will be far more heavily weighted to the elderly than what we have now.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 10:59 am
But if you think the global population is going to start to decline, then it is surely unlikely that the UK population will double?

I imagine not. I was using it to illustrate how mistaken you were in stating that we're not experiencing a significant population increase

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 11:07 am
First of all, lots of them do seek asylum in other European countries. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 20th in Europe. Even in absolute numbers (i.e. not adjusted per capita) the UK is only fifth, and Germany, France, Italy and Spain take more than the UK does. France and Spain twice as many, Germany around four times as many.

So what? That Germany takes lots or Hungary takes very few ultimately makes no difference to our immediate problem.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 11:07 am
Second of all, two thirds of asylum claims in the UK are ultimately successful. Doesn't this indicate that the majority of asylum seekers arriving the UK have a genuine claim?

It may indicate that. It may also indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose and can't handle people with no documents who can't be sent back because no one knows for sure where they came from.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 11:10 am
Do you agree with my analysis that successive Tory and Labour governments have sought to hold down wages, to the benefit of big business, including by allowing a higher-than-sustainable rate of legal immigration for labour purposes (among other levers)?

Yes. Effectively starting under Tony Blair and getting steadily worse ever since, with the Tories getting extra high marks on the bastard gauge for blatantly and repeatedly lying about it

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 04, 2025 11:10 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 4:10 am
Very much so, yes. Jobs that are necessary will see a substantial increase in pay and conditions. Jobs that are unnecessary (to pick an example, minimum wage strawberry pickers who work exhausting shifts for the sake of producing cheap strawberries) will probably go. But if the cheap British strawberry industry only exists on the back of exploiting immigrant labour then we shouldn't have cheap British strawberries.

Here we are in agreement that demand for labour should increase the value of labour, to the benefit of those labouring (and therefore ultimately to the benefit of the domestic workforce).

We are also in solid agreement that artificially low prices (or artificially-profitable goods) should not be so artificially priced if the reason is that labour costs are being held down by exploiting the source of labour.

I am glad we have a point of clear agreement.

Do you agree with my analysis that successive Tory and Labour governments have sought to hold down wages, to the benefit of big business, including by allowing a higher-than-sustainable rate of legal immigration for labour purposes (among other levers)?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 04, 2025 11:07 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 4:10 am
What has been heavily criticised are the people smuggling themselves in on the boats, lorries etc, who are overwhelmingly young men who are trying to cheat the system. Young men who are fleeing the apparent tyranny of France after passing through the nightmare states of Italy, Spain et al. If you were to envision a fair and just asylum policy that comes to the aid of those in genuine need, the vast majority of the people on the boats would have no part of it.

First of all, lots of them do seek asylum in other European countries. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 20th in Europe. Even in absolute numbers (i.e. not adjusted per capita) the UK is only fifth, and Germany, France, Italy and Spain take more than the UK does. France and Spain twice as many, Germany around four times as many.

Second of all, two thirds of asylum claims in the UK are ultimately successful. Doesn't this indicate that the majority of asylum seekers arriving the UK have a genuine claim?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 04, 2025 10:59 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 4:10 am
We clearly have a different understanding of statistics. I tend to put more faith in British government statistics as they have more skin in the game and the civil service is pretty good at this sort of thing, but even using your stats that's a significant increase. If a population is increasing by around 0.6 percent a year it means it will double in a little over a century.

But if you think the global population is going to start to decline, then it is surely unlikely that the UK population will double?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 04, 2025 10:55 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun May 04, 2025 4:10 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm
Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?
No, because all regions are following the same trend. Some are just further along than others. China will soon be following the same part of the route as Japan and Korea, with India not far behind. In Africa the population boom fueled by high birth rates, as experienced by Europe in previous centuries, is very much over. There is still growth, but fertility rates are far more modest and it is reasonable to expect that the trend experienced everywhere else in the world is going to play out in Africa in much the same way.

I am not sure what you are predicting here. By "following the same trend" do you mean that in the relatively near future you expect the overall global population to decline?

If not, could you explain what you mean?

by **Octavious** » Sun May 04, 2025 4:10 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm
Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?

No, because all regions are following the same trend. Some are just further along than others. China will soon be following the same part of the route as Japan and Korea, with India not far behind. In Africa the population boom fueled by high birth rates, as experienced by Europe in previous centuries, is very much over. There is still growth, but fertility rates are far more modest and it is reasonable to expect that the trend experienced everywhere else in the world is going to play out in Africa in much the same way.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm
The population of the UK is not "significantly increasing" as I have previously highlighted. But I do agree with some of your analysis.

We clearly have a different understanding of statistics. I tend to put more faith in British government statistics as they have more skin in the game and the civil service is pretty good at this sort of thing, but even using your stats that's a significant increase. If a population is increasing by around 0.6 percent a year it means it will double in a little over a century.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm
1. Do you agree that the demonising of asylum claimants (who I think we agree, are a small minority of those arriving) by various political parties and actors in the UK, is problematic? (And has a tendency to draw attention away from other issues?)

I disagree that asylum claimants have been demonised. I also disagree that 7% of total immigration is a small number, considering how high immigration currently is.

What has been heavily criticised are the people smuggling themselves in on the boats, lorries etc, who are overwhelmingly young men who are trying to cheat the system. Young men who are fleeing the apparent tyranny of France after passing through the nightmare states of Italy, Spain et al. If you were to envision a fair and just asylum policy that comes to the aid of those in genuine need, the vast majority of the people on the boats would have no part of it.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm
2. Do you agree that instead of relying on migrant labour to sustain sectors of the labour market, the British economy should use increased labour demand as an opportunity to increase wages and living standards, and end in-work poverty? (And that any UK Government should work to that end?)

Very much so, yes. Jobs that are necessary will see a substantial increase in pay and conditions. Jobs that are unnecessary (to pick an example, minimum wage strawberry pickers who work exhausting shifts for the sake of producing cheap strawberries) will probably go. But if the cheap British strawberry industry only exists on the back of exploiting immigrant labour then we shouldn't have cheap British strawberries.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sat May 03, 2025 9:24 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 7:13 am
I'm not particularly interested in having another immigration debate, but I'll sketch out some of my thoughts.

Thank you very much.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 7:13 am
As an ideal I feel the globe should maintain a largely stable population supported by sustainable birth rates in all regions, with low levels of migration open to those who are born with wanderlust.

I can support the first part of that. I feel the second should be less significant.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 7:13 am
The reality is far off that ideal. Native populations are collapsing all across the world, particularly in Asia and Europe. Looking at Africa you can see the exact same pattern emerging. China and India are somewhere in between. There is enough momentum in places like Africa to keep headline global populations increasing for the time being, but it won't last.

Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 7:13 am
The "solution" favoured by Europe has been to import workers from elsewhere to paper over the cracks in the local labour markets. This has had a massively detrimental effect on the ability of developing nations to maintain effective healthcare systems and develop their own economies, but we don't seem to give a damn about that for some reason. But this imperfect solution will become increasingly more difficult to implement as there are fewer and fewer areas to import workers from. The numbers of available Eastern Europeans has dropped alarmingly. We're unlikely to get another tranche of workers like we did from Ukraine, or indeed the recent high numbers from Hong Kong. The empty villages of Greece and Romania are testament to the issue.

We are probably somewhere closer to agreement here than you might assume.

An economy that requires a continuously increasing population is not sustainable indefinitely. Instead of trying to import labour to maintain a cheap labour pool, salaries should be increasing. A finite labour market should mean that each person's labour becomes more valuable. Automation should be reducing the demand for low-skill, low-pay labour.

Instead, over the past 15 years or so, the UK has experienced wage stagnation and a continuation of a long hours culture. A lot of people in work are having to claim benefits because their earnings are insufficient to support their basic needs. The reason we are not transitioning to a higher-paying, more productive economy, in my view, is that business owners want to hold down wage growth to bolster their own profits. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, Reform, and even Keir Starmer's zombie pastiche of the Labour party, are all equally in the pockets of big business backers.

So successive Conservative administrations, and now Labour, have actually quietly accepted a situation where there is a significant amount of immigrant labour, despite their false anti-immigration rhetoric. It's why there has been such a focus on "stop the boats" and victimising refugees, even though asylum seekers represent a very small proportion of total immigration (I think last week I read it was around 7%).

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat May 03, 2025 7:13 am
Now there is a strong argument to use some immigration to mitigate the effect of a declining national workforce, but it should be carefully managed. Immigrants should be keen to integrate, share local values, and come in numbers that don't overwhelm local areas. We should also have a keen awareness of the problems this may cause to the supply nations and act in a more responsible manner. And this should very much be about mitigating the more damaging impacts of a declining population, not pumping in people to such a degree that the population of an already densely populated island is significantly increasing. That's utterly insane and puts you in mind of the overuse of antibiotics for every medical condition under the sun.

The population of the UK is not "significantly increasing" as I have previously highlighted. But I do agree with some of your analysis.

However, I think we are closer to each other than we might have realised.

So, I offer you two genuine questions:

1. Do you agree that the demonising of asylum claimants (who I think we agree, are a small minority of those arriving) by various political parties and actors in the UK, is problematic? (And has a tendency to draw attention away from other issues?)

2. Do you agree that instead of relying on migrant labour to sustain sectors of the labour market, the British economy should use increased labour demand as an opportunity to increase wages and living standards, and end in-work poverty? (And that any UK Government should work to that end?)

Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

Re: Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage