This seems very accurate to me. While immigration is massively important and basically the existential threat to us, it has to be united with a general vision. Burnham’s pathetic invocation of hope is politics at its most threadbare and dishonest, but it’s true that people need a positive vision to unite behind. Reform should be looking to give a narrative beyond ‘its broken’ to ‘and this is what we are offering instead’. They don’t articulate that, but the Right needs an I Have a Dream narrative to sell. The stupid thing is that such a narrative could very easily be constructed.
We also need a new political class to accept the existing system is broken and the people need a far greater say in our governance thus improving our democracy.
«They don’t articulate that, but the Right needs an I Have a Dream narrative to sell.»
The right as it were had a very popular "Middle England" dream: become richer with house price and stock price growth redistributed from the "lazy, scrounging" lower classes.
In the past 40 years the "Middle England" dream has been powered first by mass offshoring and then by mass immigration.
Both have had downsides but almost only for the lower classes. Now the issue is that mass immigration has become so large that immigrants are overflowing lower class areas and so are becoming more socially visible to "Middle England" voters, thus tainting the "Middle England" dream.
Surely it’s not too difficult for Reform to link the No1 issue of immigration to the economy, government spending and taxes, the NHS and health, education, housing, social care, crime and policing, defence policy, etc? Instead of coming up with some policies and spokesmen they’re fighting a pointless battle in Clacton and will be forced to do so again as the Establishment ties them up in knots. Not looking good for the right.
The right's overemphasis on immigration might end up damaging their chances of political success, when they are the most likely to prioritise policies that attempt to deal with the problem...awkward yes, but surely they need to link their No1 issue with all the areas of British life that would be greatly improved by tackling the immigration crisis?
I suppose it fits with your oft repeated point that the right needs credible plans for government, that address all matters of concern, not just immigration. Even if you convince a large group of voters that most of their other ills (jobs, housing, health, schools, crime) are downstream of immigration, you still need solid and clear plans to fix these other issues beyond “send them all back”.
Reform really underperformed particularly in the hinterland of Wigan, Bury, Bolton, Tameside & Stockport which if their PR is to believed is their natural turf. Perhaps their candidate, a Sarah Beeney wannabee, from one of the cities more exclusive post codes didn't cut it with their core vote. Labour did as well as can be expected, with charisma free candidate.
You would think given all the city swagger both parties could've come up with better prospects for a decent contest but I guess both neither Team Farage nor Team Burnham felt they would benefit from a six week public slanging match given the delicacy of their respective circumstances. Shame really.
«The right has focussed almost exclusively on immigration since 2024. [...] While the right is good at sustaining its own little online ecosystem, it’s out of touch with the real world. Hospital waiting lists, housing, care places and childcare costs still influence votes, and the right has nothing at all of interest to say when it comes to bread and butter issues. Given the radical libertarian leanings of the right on these matters, the less they say the better»
Here the implied argument is that the "social issues" right main theme of immigration is important to people on the "economic issues" left. But that is only one of two problems related to immigration:
* Immigration is opposed by two very different groups: the "social issues" right and the "economic issues" left.
* The "economic issues" left opposes immigration mainly because it has been used for the past 20 years as a tool to increase house gain and "moderate" labor costs, and do not particularly care about social issues, but care about other economic issues in the opposite way to most "social issues" right people opposed to immigration, as hinted above.
* Unfortunately for the "social issues" right many if not most "social issues" right voters have made tremendous amounts of money from immigration because in general they are delighted by higher property gain and "moderated" labour costs. Since for example in London 50-60% of employees and 40-50% of residents are immigrants any cut in immigration or even worse deportations would collapse house prices and greatly increase labor costs.
For now opponents of immigration from the "economic issues" left and the "social issues" right are voting for anti-immigration parties (largely as a protest) but their attitudes are incompatible.
For most "social issues" right voters cutting immigration or doing deportations would make them quite poorer (50% cut in property prices? 50% higher costs of deliveries, cleaners, gardeners, ...) so cutting immigration is a "nice to have as long as I don't become poorer" but the situation is very different for "economic issues" left voters.
As I wrote on Turbulent Times this morning democracy has one stale around the world as the 'people' realise voting doesn't change things.
What we need is a complete overhaul of our governance and democracy that gives the people real power and turns our politicians into our servants instead of our masters.
Here is the best template for change I've seen since involved in its set up in 2012.
«democracy has one stale around the world as the 'people' realise voting doesn't change things.»
But what most voters want is not change or democracy, they want to make money, and for the 40 years since Reagan/Clinton and Thatcher/Blair middle-class voters and upper-class "sponsors" have made awesome amounts of money from property and stocks. That is good enough for them.
Sure the working-class and the under-class want change because the gains of the higher classes have been redistributed from them, but their votes have counted for little to nothing. But how many middle-class and upper-class people would want for the votes of the lower classes to count if that meant redistribution to them ended or reversed?
i don't deny most people want to 'make money' and improve their standard of living BUT you will never convince me they do not also want to live in a democracy.
Ask any person living in a totalitarian state if they would prefer to live in a democracy.
«Ask any person living in a totalitarian state if they would prefer to live in a democracy.»
But the choice is not between democracy and totalitarianism; it is between "stale" democracy where only the votes of middle-class and upper-class people count so "voting doesn't change things", and a democracy where even working-class and under-class votes count and this would means a risk of higher taxes and lower property profits for middle-class and upper-class voters.
My guess is that many middle-class voters would prefer our current "stale" (and authoritarian) democracy where they make a lot of money and there is no totalitarianism.
I clearly have more faith in the general population than you and certainly judge and value the opinions of the majority of the electorate over 650 MPs.
The Right needs to come up with a coherent narrative that resonates with the concerns of potential supporters - who, as you say, are not concerned solely with immigration. Immigration is the Right's USP, which is good to have, but that isn't enough. They also need to be telling a story that seems positive and optimistic, and promises a better life for their supporters in ways that they can understand. It also needs to allow people to feel good about themselves, in moral terms, for accepting it.
It’s bizarre how the circumstances in the UK are replicated in Australia. The Labor government here is doing almost exactly the same things as the Labour government in the UK. Net zero? Tick. Rental property? Tick. Private health care? Tick. They are now subsidising the aluminium smelters, and the steel industry among others. Insanity.
This seems very accurate to me. While immigration is massively important and basically the existential threat to us, it has to be united with a general vision. Burnham’s pathetic invocation of hope is politics at its most threadbare and dishonest, but it’s true that people need a positive vision to unite behind. Reform should be looking to give a narrative beyond ‘its broken’ to ‘and this is what we are offering instead’. They don’t articulate that, but the Right needs an I Have a Dream narrative to sell. The stupid thing is that such a narrative could very easily be constructed.
We also need a new political class to accept the existing system is broken and the people need a far greater say in our governance thus improving our democracy.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk
«They don’t articulate that, but the Right needs an I Have a Dream narrative to sell.»
The right as it were had a very popular "Middle England" dream: become richer with house price and stock price growth redistributed from the "lazy, scrounging" lower classes.
In the past 40 years the "Middle England" dream has been powered first by mass offshoring and then by mass immigration.
Both have had downsides but almost only for the lower classes. Now the issue is that mass immigration has become so large that immigrants are overflowing lower class areas and so are becoming more socially visible to "Middle England" voters, thus tainting the "Middle England" dream.
Surely it’s not too difficult for Reform to link the No1 issue of immigration to the economy, government spending and taxes, the NHS and health, education, housing, social care, crime and policing, defence policy, etc? Instead of coming up with some policies and spokesmen they’re fighting a pointless battle in Clacton and will be forced to do so again as the Establishment ties them up in knots. Not looking good for the right.
The right's overemphasis on immigration might end up damaging their chances of political success, when they are the most likely to prioritise policies that attempt to deal with the problem...awkward yes, but surely they need to link their No1 issue with all the areas of British life that would be greatly improved by tackling the immigration crisis?
I suppose it fits with your oft repeated point that the right needs credible plans for government, that address all matters of concern, not just immigration. Even if you convince a large group of voters that most of their other ills (jobs, housing, health, schools, crime) are downstream of immigration, you still need solid and clear plans to fix these other issues beyond “send them all back”.
Reform really underperformed particularly in the hinterland of Wigan, Bury, Bolton, Tameside & Stockport which if their PR is to believed is their natural turf. Perhaps their candidate, a Sarah Beeney wannabee, from one of the cities more exclusive post codes didn't cut it with their core vote. Labour did as well as can be expected, with charisma free candidate.
You would think given all the city swagger both parties could've come up with better prospects for a decent contest but I guess both neither Team Farage nor Team Burnham felt they would benefit from a six week public slanging match given the delicacy of their respective circumstances. Shame really.
«The right has focussed almost exclusively on immigration since 2024. [...] While the right is good at sustaining its own little online ecosystem, it’s out of touch with the real world. Hospital waiting lists, housing, care places and childcare costs still influence votes, and the right has nothing at all of interest to say when it comes to bread and butter issues. Given the radical libertarian leanings of the right on these matters, the less they say the better»
Here the implied argument is that the "social issues" right main theme of immigration is important to people on the "economic issues" left. But that is only one of two problems related to immigration:
* Immigration is opposed by two very different groups: the "social issues" right and the "economic issues" left.
* The "economic issues" left opposes immigration mainly because it has been used for the past 20 years as a tool to increase house gain and "moderate" labor costs, and do not particularly care about social issues, but care about other economic issues in the opposite way to most "social issues" right people opposed to immigration, as hinted above.
* Unfortunately for the "social issues" right many if not most "social issues" right voters have made tremendous amounts of money from immigration because in general they are delighted by higher property gain and "moderated" labour costs. Since for example in London 50-60% of employees and 40-50% of residents are immigrants any cut in immigration or even worse deportations would collapse house prices and greatly increase labor costs.
For now opponents of immigration from the "economic issues" left and the "social issues" right are voting for anti-immigration parties (largely as a protest) but their attitudes are incompatible.
For most "social issues" right voters cutting immigration or doing deportations would make them quite poorer (50% cut in property prices? 50% higher costs of deliveries, cleaners, gardeners, ...) so cutting immigration is a "nice to have as long as I don't become poorer" but the situation is very different for "economic issues" left voters.
It does need an awakening on the right to undermine Labour.
Fear is great at being noticed but messages of hope/gain provide the most votes.
Fairness is a vote winner.
Getting rid of DEI and the rules of institutions that treat white kids as 2nd class is a start.
Side effects are a fear running through Covid vaccine takers so pledging action to supply medicines to reverse damage would help.
Increasing the police and armed forces to protect people from the criminal activity of migrant gangs would also be a vote winner.
The big one is tax reductions, but that takes big cuts in borrowing.
If the right can promise both, the rights future can be assured!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPuaw4apOiw
As I wrote on Turbulent Times this morning democracy has one stale around the world as the 'people' realise voting doesn't change things.
What we need is a complete overhaul of our governance and democracy that gives the people real power and turns our politicians into our servants instead of our masters.
Here is the best template for change I've seen since involved in its set up in 2012.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk
«democracy has one stale around the world as the 'people' realise voting doesn't change things.»
But what most voters want is not change or democracy, they want to make money, and for the 40 years since Reagan/Clinton and Thatcher/Blair middle-class voters and upper-class "sponsors" have made awesome amounts of money from property and stocks. That is good enough for them.
Sure the working-class and the under-class want change because the gains of the higher classes have been redistributed from them, but their votes have counted for little to nothing. But how many middle-class and upper-class people would want for the votes of the lower classes to count if that meant redistribution to them ended or reversed?
i don't deny most people want to 'make money' and improve their standard of living BUT you will never convince me they do not also want to live in a democracy.
Ask any person living in a totalitarian state if they would prefer to live in a democracy.
«Ask any person living in a totalitarian state if they would prefer to live in a democracy.»
But the choice is not between democracy and totalitarianism; it is between "stale" democracy where only the votes of middle-class and upper-class people count so "voting doesn't change things", and a democracy where even working-class and under-class votes count and this would means a risk of higher taxes and lower property profits for middle-class and upper-class voters.
My guess is that many middle-class voters would prefer our current "stale" (and authoritarian) democracy where they make a lot of money and there is no totalitarianism.
I clearly have more faith in the general population than you and certainly judge and value the opinions of the majority of the electorate over 650 MPs.
The Right needs to come up with a coherent narrative that resonates with the concerns of potential supporters - who, as you say, are not concerned solely with immigration. Immigration is the Right's USP, which is good to have, but that isn't enough. They also need to be telling a story that seems positive and optimistic, and promises a better life for their supporters in ways that they can understand. It also needs to allow people to feel good about themselves, in moral terms, for accepting it.
It’s bizarre how the circumstances in the UK are replicated in Australia. The Labor government here is doing almost exactly the same things as the Labour government in the UK. Net zero? Tick. Rental property? Tick. Private health care? Tick. They are now subsidising the aluminium smelters, and the steel industry among others. Insanity.