These conservatives were not traditional conservatives they were something far more ugly.
I don’t like any of their policies from 2010 onward bar putting gay marriage into law.
So while it may outwardly look very polar it wasn’t. Also note I have a dislike for some current labour policies and certainly the way they have governed to this point. In my eyes they have done good things and some bad things and some really stupid stuff.
There is not a single Reform policy I like and I don’t follow racists and closet fascists. If you want to label me as a hypocrite on that side go ahead but there are other parties out there.
For what it’s worth (because I have no intention of engaging with him) , it struck me as utter bollocks as soon as I saw it. A cursory search took me to some reddit sub-group or suchlike where they were making similar claims. Little wonder then that he felt the need to protect his source.
Tbf that is a great reply, we all differ in beliefs on a vast range of stuff, and even if others are convinced that we are wrong, the respect for a certain belief should be acknowledged , debate within the realms of cordial debate etc, but dont get side tracked into a slagging off match ( we all fail at some point no doubt).
But sadly half of this chat does go round in circles because one person just repeats half of the same stuff and ignores half of the reasoned replies.
Below is a watered-down list of 20 Reform policies. Can you explain why you don’t don’t like a single one of them?
They all seem like common-sense to me but I appreciate people will have different perspectives.
I’m not asking you to address every single point or argue why you don’t think some/all of them are obtainable - every party lists their policies regardless of how pie-in-the-sky the electorate might percieve them - I’m solely asking why you don’t like any of them.
Intercept, detain and deport all illegal arrivals.
. Establish a fully integrated border command with the legal authority, manpower and technology to stop illegal entry by land, sea or air.
Implement a 5 year programme to identify, detain and deport illegal migrants, while securing return agreements with other countries.
Scrap ILR and introduce a 5 year renewable visa for migrants with higher salary thresholds, mandatory fluency in English and stricter good character requirements.
Keep the NHS free at the point of use, while re-directing funding and reducing waste and back-office bloat.
Ensure that no foreign court, treaty or institution over-rides the will of the British people or government. Laws, borders and national interests will be decided by the British people alone.
Restore visible policing, much tougher sentences for serious offenders and build more prison capacity to ensure no serious offenders are released early due to over-crowding.
Cut taxes for the working man/woman and reform the welfare system to only support British citizens who cannot get by without government help.
Scrap Net Zero and expand domestic energy production while scrapping policies that drive bills higher and make Britain more dependent on foreign energy.
Remove punitive taxes on farmers and ensure they are paid fair prices for their products.
Support domestic manufacturing with cheaper energy, simpler regulation and procurement policies that favour British producers.
Cut red tape, cut business taxes, simplify planning and create a stable, pro-enterprise environment.
Defend free-speech, uphold British traditions, ban DEI quotas and reject the policies of guilt. Ensure British children are not indocrinated in school.
Rebuild the armed forces so our forces are ready to deal with any threats from foreign powers like Russia and China.
Reduce the financial pressure on working people that make having children unaffordable.
End the importation of cheap foreign labour and ensure training and apprenticeships for young people.
Prioritise British firms in procurement, remove unnecessary regulation and create a level playing field for British businesses.
Make Britain a world leader in emerging technologies, including AI, advanced manufacturing, life sciences etc. Create a pro-innovation environment.
Cap foreign aid at £1 billion which would save over £30 billion over a Parliament.
Slim down the CS, eliminate waste and end roles that manage decline and enforce ideological agendas. Restore accountability, productivity and value for money.
I am not Brit but when I read about Reform, to me, on surface there is nothing wrong really, and in fact correct, to want stricter enforcement of illegal migration. But I think to me, the problem is the motivation behind these policies. The leader of Reform just comes across as wanting to blame every single issue on migrants. That is wrong, lazy and dangerous. And I would call myself pretty conservative and even I find some of the things he says deplorable. So policies are fine as they read but the motivation and principles they have behind them are dangerous.
Item 6 is particularly risible. It would imply that the British economy would no longer operate under WTO/GATT rules, meaning both imports and exports would have to be dramatically reduced and become far more expensive. British banks would no longer be subject to or participate in FSB or BCBS, so the City would all but disappear. They would no longer be allowed to operate outside the UK, nor even send or receive international transactions. Of course, that would be less of a problem with no real international trade. That in turn would ensure that no one really missed the fact that British commercial aviation could not enter the airspace of any IATA member (i.e. all of it that British carriers could possibly reach), nor could foreign airlines land in the UK. Similar conditions would apply for maritime traffic.
That part of the Reform platform is basically the plot for 28 Days later minus the zombies.
I just read it as British people having the final say on the countries laws and national interests but if you want to muddy the waters with a load of waffle feel free.
The platform explicitly rejects the idea that international judicial bodies can have final authority over disputes and regulations as a condition of membership. It specifically states treaties. They obviously have the ECJ in mind, but each one of those examples I cited explicitly requires exactly that.
The ‘I just read it has’ is the folly of Brexit in a nutshell. The Leave campaign was won by a majority of voters ‘just reading it as’ something they were comfortable with, versus a Remain campaign that never really figured out how to defend the status quo.
No other country is going to give the UK a de facto veto in these international organizations, even the US has to accept that despite numerous attempts to circumvent it. The legislative bodies get a in or out vote, but after that the sovereignty is delegated as a condition of membership.
Nobody’s talking about the British people having carte-blanche to do whatever they want.
Why you’re waffling on about trade, banking and airspace is beyond me. That’s all waaaaay over the heads of the man in the street and everyone knows it.
I think you know the intention is much simpler, ie the over-protection of murderers, peodophiles etc on the grounds of their human fucking rights.
The fact that it is way over the heads of the man in the street is precisely the point. All of those bodies require the delegation of regulation and dispute resolution as a condition of membership. If the WTO passes a rule, the UK is required to implement it. If FSB passes a rule that requires that all British banks must raise their interest rates on mortgages and/or back them with more assets, the British public doesn’t get a vote. Ditto IATA. You can decide it only applies to the ECJ, but the simple fact of the matter is the Reform platform doesn’t make that limitation - that is either disingenuous or incompetent.
You are basically saying the principle only applies to the one I don’t like. But these issues become very contentious very easily around trade in particular - it really doesn’t take much before it does directly cross over to something the man in the street is directly affected by.
I accept what you’re saying. I agree no country can be above the law and dictate their own terms if they want to be part of various organisations.
I tend to see point 6 on a simpler level though. But as you say the Reform policy doesn’t make any distinctions or examples where sovereignty would be enforced.
Look, I haven’t got the time or inclination to argue every point. I’m not claiming to agree with everything in the manifesto. I’m not claiming a single issue is achievable. I’m not claiming Reform could form a competent government.
This all started because a poster on here made a comment that I found incredible. I was asking a genuine question, it’s as simple as that.
