I didn't give you a rainbow for this because I don't think it deserves that. The pressure on Farage from more radical MPs is a real thing. But I've also seen how much purging of the original base there was and even high profile heavy weights like Rupert Lowe were driven out. One might argue, not without merit, that maybe he was driven out because he was a high profile heavy weight, but the same happens to lesser known members who step out of line.
The main source of my optimism is that the Burqa-banner was that one woman MP who was a former-Tory. In a prior post I touched on the
Reform MPs and why even the former Tories were actually decent grabs given their past history. Lowe was really the only good political outsider given McMurdoch, as admirable as it was winning on a self-funded campaign, rebelled to vote
for the Online Safety Act of all things. I'm not arguing Reform
should be filled up with former-Tories, I'm mostly arguing that they aren't
all cunts.
Just as Farage changes his tune depending on what is deemed acceptable, the less devoted MPs will likely just echo what's popular if it means keeping their seat, which has been observed in the Tories and Labour too with Neolibs and Neocons voicing anti-immigrant platitudes in recent times. Why? Because it's what's popular. Every poll hasn't just pointed towards it being a topic of interest, as it has been for a decade and a half now, but over time the actual measures people want to deal with it have been getting stronger and stronger.
So long as sentiments amongst the public remain at this level if not higher, there'll be a slight but continuous tug to the right on anti-immigration rhetoric and proposed measures to deal with
With Labour, the whole thing about winter cuts was generally unpopular, especially amongst their voters, which translated into a "no cuts" sentiment with MPs hence the "rebellion" that occurred not that long ago. Anti-immigration has broad appeal but in locations with high student/high immigrant populations, which make up a not inconsiderable number of Labour seats, find any sentiments racist. This means Labour are stuck potentially losing voters outside of urban heartlands to Reform or some other party because they can't tackle the issue that actually needs tackling with the peace of mind they won't lose a shit load of seats doing so.
The Tories seeing their polls boost above Labour can attribute it to Labour's incompetence with the economy, or their lack of action on the immigration issue, but with Badenoch in charge they might prioritise attacking on the former rather than the latter. I do think it's important the Tories start heating up their rhetoric, boost their numbers, to then encourage Reform to compete with them on it, sort of like we saw in the middle of the year when the Tories and Labour were both trying to assert themselves on the issue in response to the local elections.
That's the major threat to Reform. Labour and the Tories proposing shit that is going further than what they propose and then not offering anything better to draw people back. Right now Reform's polling numbers are first but they're also static and at risk of decline, and until they do there isn't much to encourage them to offer anything substantial to get those figures higher.
My relative optimism is largely a result of uncertainty when it comes to individual politicians and the public's open support for anti-immigration sentiments. Were there no sign of shifting attitudes I'd probably be a lot more cynical, and any attempts to see the bright side or argue for optimism would be more "copes" rather than sincere "hopes" based on observation of trends.
There's ways to completely demolish my optimism though:
(1) Reform drop below both Labour and the Conservatives in polling
(2) There isn't a single (even performative) act of discontentment in response to some future mass stabbing or mass casualty event ala hotel protests, riots, etcetera despite having widespread news circulation (
Every rape/murder that could've been prevented were these people not allowed here ought to receive substantial backlash but regular people simply not being aware of everything is something you just have to accept)
(3) Immigration stops being 1st or 2nd as the biggest public concern in public polling
(4) Reform abandon immigration as the primary issue in favour of the economy, maybe going so far as to argue the necessity of immigration in general (this'd probably precede (1))
(5) Remigration doesn't get raised as a potential idea by any member of Reform from now until the election, possibly precluding it as a possibility.
A lot of this is dependent on the general public (who I'd rather hold more faith in than politicians) and events which may or may not occur from now until then.
I think different generations are familiar with different types of gambling. If you ask older people they think of having a flutter on the races. If you ask some kid he probably thinks of some B F Skinner online poker / casino. I've never understood the appeal nor want to, but I was shocked to encounter a young-ish man who was hooked in the way @Duane Dibbley has been talking about. He as an IT dude came to install some stuff and he was pale as a ghost and had apparently been up all night playing online poker, and lost about £500 in a night, from memory.
I think a lot of people would change their tune about gambling if you just had them run through the BossmanJack thread highlights.
Gambling addicts are trading money to feel good like any other vice. It's arguably the most efficient and least damaging addiction if you abide by limitations and don't become financially dependent on hypothetical winnings that you
could win if you lose a lot of money in return. People need to set a limit and be content with their losses. The bloke was probably awake all night trying to get back a small initial loss but then ballooned it into half a grand. I typically shun measures to police self-harming behaviour because some people are incapable of policing themselves. I don't consider gambling a virtue and like a lot of vices it's harmful if you don't practice moderation, but I think in lieu of trying to protect people from themselves you probably just need a bottom-up approach.
Gen-Z smokes less and drinks less than prior generations. People will just pin that on a lack of going out or trading cigarettes for vapes, but I think the decrease is down to younger being educated and shown the harm of certain substances from a young age. Of course they're also probably opting for new ones instead, like weed. People were also getting high off of Mr Whippy cans or something, I still don't know what that was about.
