Reform

Haven’t read all the thread but I can’t fathom why the Social Democratic Party (who describe themselves as left of centre) have done some sort of electoral deal with Reform to not duplicate candidates in certain constituencies?

Edit - I’ve just read the press release and I’m still confused.
 
Reform is almost an anti-vote i.e. none of the above.

Many of their proposals would not work, but they are not held to account, because they are not expected to get more than a few seats, like the Greens.

Personally I would not even consider them because there are so many racists and snake oil salesmen attached to them.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly I have now heard of teenagers (plural) that are getting a lot of Reform social media that appears quite appealing. Appears their social media teams gears are starting to turn in the background.
 
Yearbyred said:
Haven’t read all the thread but I can’t fathom why the Social Democratic Party (who describe themselves as left of centre) have done some sort of electoral deal with Reform to not duplicate candidates in certain constituencies?

Edit - I’ve just read the press release and I’m still confused.
Click to expand...
Social Democratic Party, are they the left wing fascists or are they leaving the racist bit to Reform whilst concentrating on the other stuff?
 
Cambsred said:
Interestingly I have now heard of teenagers (plural) that are getting a lot of Reform social media that appears quite appealing. Appears their social media teams gears are starting to turn in the background.
Click to expand...
Young people are affected significantly by immigration. Older people are often racist and fear immigration but young people are the ones actually affected by immigration. Young people are often looking for temporary or low paid work which is where they will often be competing with immigration for jobs. The biggest problem for young people though is housing and the population is increasing faster than we can build houses (net migration of 700k vs house building of 200k per year). Universities prioritise foreigners as well because they pay more.
 
Nano said:
Young people are often looking for temporary or low paid work which is where they will often be competing with immigration for jobs.
Click to expand...
There has been a labour shortage in the UK for several years and no indication it will end any time soon. Competition between workers is not the issue, rather it is low wages and lack of worker rights. The age demographic is such that in the coming decades there will be more older people and fewer younger people in the UK.
 
Nano said:
Young people are affected significantly by immigration. Older people are often racist and fear immigration but young people are the ones actually affected by immigration. Young people are often looking for temporary or low paid work which is where they will often be competing with immigration for jobs. The biggest problem for young people though is housing and the population is increasing faster than we can build houses (net migration of 700k vs house building of 200k per year). Universities prioritise foreigners as well because they pay more.
Click to expand...
Nano - our population is not increasing by 700k a year, because the population that has been in the UK for the last 100 years is not replacing itself. In the last 24 years the UK population has risen from 59m to 67m a new increase of around 333,000 per year. Significant, but not as high as net migration.

The overseas students who come don't all stay in the UK after they have completed their course. I believe around half leave the UK.
 
Redwurzel said:
Nano - our population is not increasing by 700k a year, because the population that has been in the UK for the last 100 years is not replacing itself. In the last 24 years the UK population has risen from 59m to 67m a new increase of around 333,000 per year. Significant, but not as high as net migration.

The overseas students who come don't all stay in the UK after they have completed their course. I believe around half leave the UK.
Click to expand...
I know. Those figures* were just the most recent year. It's pointless looking back at the 80s for population growth when net immigration has taken off almost exponentially in the last 20 years.

Edit: The birth rate has only seen a fall since the Tories took power which was after the immigration numbers had already started climbing steadily. The birth rate dropping is because people can't afford kids because housing (primarily) is too expensive.

*This is net migration though so that 700k includes the numbers that have gone home. There were 1.2m arrivals, 0.5m departures.

ThePrisoner said:
There has been a labour shortage in the UK for several years and no indication it will end any time soon. Competition between workers is not the issue, rather it is low wages and lack of worker rights. The age demographic is such that in the coming decades there will be more older people and fewer younger people in the UK.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been a labour shortage. There's been a shortage of people unwilling to do **** jobs for **** pay. The solution is to raise wages for those jobs, not import people that will accept **** pay and conditions. There has also been a shortage of companies willing to invest in training because they don't have to if we just allow them to import ready-trained foreigners (again on lower wages).

Most of it is a product of our own making. Governments have got away with not having to spend, businesses have got away with not having to spend. The rest of us are stuck with much lower wages than peer countries because of that. We didn't need such high immigration, we chose it because it benefited the wealthy.
 
Redwurzel said:
The overseas students who come don't all stay in the UK after they have completed their course. I believe around half leave the UK.
Click to expand...
That's why you look at net migration figures and not immigration figures. That takes into consideration the students that are leaving at the end of their study.
 
Yearbyred said:
Haven’t read all the thread but I can’t fathom why the Social Democratic Party (who describe themselves as left of centre) have done some sort of electoral deal with Reform to not duplicate candidates in certain constituencies?

Edit - I’ve just read the press release and I’m still confused.
Click to expand...

That party is a good example of why the old one axis approach really doesn’t work anymore, and hasn’t for some time. On an economic axis, its policies are undoubtedly on what we would traditionally call the left. In a quite old-fashioned 1970s sense in some respects. But it’s highly conservative socially and with nationalist elements.

To be honest, it seems a far more logical home to the traditionally Labour voting bigot than Reform, but it has totally failed to gain any traction, possibly because it has never had a Farage.
 
FishofContemplation said:
That party is a good example of why the old one axis approach really doesn’t work anymore, and hasn’t for some time. On an economic axis, its policies are undoubtedly on what we would traditionally call the left. In a quite old-fashioned 1970s sense in some respects. But it’s highly conservative socially and with nationalist elements.

To be honest, it seems a far more logical home to the traditionally Labour voting bigot than Reform, but it has totally failed to gain any traction, possibly because it has never had a Farage.
Click to expand...
Hate to say it, but some might say that sounds a bit like National Socialism.
 
To all posters

The UK birth rate (amongst UK born women) has been in decline since around 1973 and our population would now be in decline without some net migration. My estimate is we need around 350k a year just to keep our population stable. As Boomers drop out of the worforce (people born 1945 to 1964) this drop in birth rate affects the labour market i.e. reduces it. When boomers need care (we are just hitting the beginning of that now) there is going to be massive increases in demand for social care and medical care. This makes me think 700,000 is not an unrealistic number needed if many of them are entering the care sector.

If Reform say they will stop net migration, its going to cause some very serious problems.

Its better to build at least 250k properties a year, build more schools and hospitals, care homes etc. We did this in the 1960s, even for a while under New Labour. If Labour were braver they would stand up for more infrastructure investment. Raise money from increasing top rate of tax to 50%, cutting the high level of tax relief on pensions, increase tax on vehicle fuel, cut subsidies on EVs, increase tax on alcohol, increase property taxes.
 
B_G said:
That's why you look at net migration figures and not immigration figures. That takes into consideration the students that are leaving at the end of their study.
Click to expand...
I was responding to Nano's point when he said Universities priortise overseas students. So yes Universities do encourage overseas students (because they pay double the fees) but my point is that many are only here on a temporary basis. The overseas fees help the UK and they in effect subsidise the UK students to some degree. The overseas students also bring spending money with them.
 
atypical_boro said:
The thing is, everywhere thinks that their country does it the worst way don't they? Its not like the people of USA, France and Germany are looking at the UK going "We do it brilliantly compared to them". I was chatting to a Californian two weeks ago who was desperate to move to the UK, I explained to her that it was far from a bed of roses and that our weather was worse but she wouldn't have it.
Click to expand...
If she is say retired and has a decent income or savings she probably could move most of the UK and live more cheaply than California where property prices are like London. Its probably cheaper now to buy most goods and services too in the UK. Not all of California is warm. The more I hear about LA the less I would like to live there, crime rates like Netherfields!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top