Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
Indeed, as I pointed out yesterday the results would imply Kemi Badenoch losing her seat, if she wants to spin that as a positive, then she's very brave.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I agree with almost all of that. Most strongly I agree that no-one other than Reform is offering the communities you mention a coherent narrative that their lives can improve. I think you give a very coherent argument for why it makes sense to support Reform if you live in one of those communities.
I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here.
Thanks for the reply.
That question is answered on the most basic grounds of practicality.
Allowing the rest of the world to 'access the opportunities that exist in the UK' without restriction would rapidly turn the UK into a vastly overpopulated third world failed state.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
Johnson did say he was going to do it before Brexit and, for once, wasn't lying and then did it.
Apparently he hates it being called the Boriswave though. He should own it.
I can see why he hates it. That one brilliant coinage has doomed any hopes he had - however slender - of a further political career. He is now forever tainted
Tough shit, Boris. You shouldn’t have allowed it. You were PM
He's honoured. It's not everyone who gets a wave named after them - only Boris and the Mexicans.
You’re forgetting Sir Humphrey Sine, Bt (and son of Lady Dorothea Sine, nee Hypotenuse). Invented the triangle in 1753
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
More fundamentally, the Conservatives have been displaced by Reform in large parts of the country, closing the door on any route back to a majority for them (without a Reform collapse). The LibDems have displaced Labour in much of the south, but they still have their majority (if not a route to retaining it, also due to Reform) and the LibDems aren't placed to displace Labour on a wider scale, whereas the Greens are nowhere near displacing Labour other than in a handful of city centre councils. For next GE I'd expect we'd mostly back Labour having more seats than any of the LDs, Greens, SNP, or PC, whereas we'd probably not back the Tories getting more seats than Reform right now (although personally I think that could turn out to be the smart bet)
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
Exactly. The WWC now have their own party. Labour was meant to be that but abandoned them decades ago; the penny has finally dropped, as it dropped in Scotland
Labour has never recovered in Scotland and, in fact, has declined further ever since. They are trending towards complete disappearance
Why should WWC in England and Wales go back to Labour? Labour are the party of London, and some BME voters. And parts of the public sector. That’s it
Labour will never offer policies that appeal to the WWC. So this means Labour are crippled forever
It's quite amusing to read your obituaries of the Labour Party when, as you well know, they are in power and sitting on a handsome parliamentary majority, with three years (probably) to go until they can be replaced.
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
Johnson did say he was going to do it before Brexit and, for once, wasn't lying and then did it.
Apparently he hates it being called the Boriswave though. He should own it.
I can see why he hates it. That one brilliant coinage has doomed any hopes he had - however slender - of a further political career. He is now forever tainted
Tough shit, Boris. You shouldn’t have allowed it. You were PM
He's honoured. It's not everyone who gets a wave named after them - only Boris and the Mexicans.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Trouble is, large blocks of Red Reform voters don't think they are on the Right. They think there's going to be more social housing and increased benefits for the poor, whilst taking an axe to the rich. Utterly bizarre.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Not quite, I think. In past conflicts across the globe those at the bottom, especially if they were on the losing side have either had to put up with the change or die. It was only when the modes of transport changed and improved that the 'huddled masses yearning to be free' could go and find somewhere else. Hence the massive Eastern European and Irish immigration into what is now the USA.
And young men, in particular, have always sought to 'make their fortunes 'in foreign parts'.
It's just that in some ways it's a lot easier nowadays, and those seeking a better life, for whatever reason, are easily distinguishable in their new countries.
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
That is what they must do. And I wish Kemi well. I like her. She’s the most likeable and increasingly admirable major party leader
But, I fear it’s far too late. This national conversation should have begun 15 years ago
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
Johnson did say he was going to do it before Brexit and, for once, wasn't lying and then did it.
Apparently he hates it being called the Boriswave though. He should own it.
I can see why he hates it. That one brilliant coinage has doomed any hopes he had - however slender - of a further political career. He is now forever tainted
Tough shit, Boris. You shouldn’t have allowed it. You were PM
He's honoured. It's not everyone who gets a wave named after them - only Boris and the Mexicans.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
More fundamentally, the Conservatives have been displaced by Reform in large parts of the country, closing the door on any route back to a majority for them (without a Reform collapse). The LibDems have displaced Labour in much of the south, but they still have their majority (if not a route to retaining it, also due to Reform) and the LibDems aren't placed to displace Labour on a wider scale, whereas the Greens are nowhere near displacing Labour other than in a handful of city centre councils. For next GE I'd expect we'd mostly back Labour having more seats than any of the LDs, Greens, SNP, or PC, whereas we'd probably not back the Tories getting more seats than Reform right now (although personally I think that could turn out to be the smart bet)
It looks like a tiny rump of Tories on the Island. Would I be right in seeing West Wight as a likely Reform gain from Labour and East Wight as a 3 way Reform/Con/Green tussle?
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
This drips with sincerity. 'Islam and the West are incompatible' is indeed the driving sentiment of the current manifestation of the far right. Of course it talks about other things in order to widen its appeal but whenever you get chatting with a true believer, esp on what you might call its 'intellectual' wing, you'll find this preoccupation to the fore.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
One of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic for a Labour government was the house building pledge, which could only really be delivered by a simplification of the planning system which I hoped would ease the way to further reform to simplify development.
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
I'd be interested to see some stats on who the Boriswave are. Because there's chuffing loads of them round here. And they haven't resulted in much more than grumblings about pressure on school places. Because the Indians and Hong Kong Chinese are much like us: middle class families with two kids living in semi detached houses and doing middle class jobs. Their daughters play football and cricket with my daughters. If you live in Cheetham Hill or Moston the picture is rather different.
The Boriswave stats were posted on pb last week. Mainly Indians and Nigerians iirc. Don't forget pressure on jobs and downward pressure on wages, btw – it's not just about girls' sports. I'll try and dig out the report.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
This drips with sincerity. 'Islam and the West are incompatible' is indeed the driving sentiment of the current manifestation of the far right. Of course it talks about other things in order to widen its appeal but whenever you get chatting with a true believer, esp on what you might call its 'intellectual' wing, you'll find this preoccupation to the fore.
No, it isn't.
Reform is very different to Restore (if I loosely categorise the two tribes as that), and are constantly criticised by the latter for 'selling out' and often the prominence of its Muslim (particularly) figures.
They are two very different visions. One believes you simply deport and remove the challenge of integrating the problem, the other believes that with a strong state, it can be done - just like Roman Catholicism, the global intefada of its day, was neutered, assimilated, and integrated.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
That's the thing that has surprised me the most.
I wrote on here a while back that the Coalition, with a much smaller majority, was able to pass contentious/difficult legislation quite easily.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
One of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic for a Labour government was the house building pledge, which could only really be delivered by a simplification of the planning system which I hoped would ease the way to further reform to simplify development.
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
Doesn't look like that round here. The new estates to there North and South-West of Colcheter are massive.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
The issue here, and I have some sympathy for the government, is that people are demanding cheaper housing but not but building more houses, rather they are asking for a smaller population and net emigration. Even among my largely liberal friends the conversation is now pretty acceptable that many millions of migrants (legal and illegal) should go home over the next few years, just by expiring their visas or deporting them in the case of illegals. This is among people who voted Labour at the last election and did so this time as well. There's little appetite for building millions of new houses and concreting over the countryside or blighting inner cities with awful high rises. Reducing te population from 69.8m to 67m is the better answer and it can easily be achieved over 2-3 years by just not renewing visas, deporting over stayers and other types of illegals.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
That's the thing that has surprised me the most.
I wrote on here a while back that the Coalition, with a much smaller majority, was able to pass contentious/difficult legislation quite easily.
Some of this is the result of the ming vase strategy, I think. With the coalition, there had been an election to endorse spending restraint and an agreed programme for government. Labour in 2024 made the deliberate choice of being tight lipped on policy, and to make a bit of a pretence that things were easily fixable so long as someone was in power who wasn’t a Tory. Their MPs entered parliament without a clear idea of what they’d be expected to vote through, hence why they haven’t been easily controllable.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
This drips with sincerity. 'Islam and the West are incompatible' is indeed the driving sentiment of the current manifestation of the far right. Of course it talks about other things in order to widen its appeal but whenever you get chatting with a true believer, esp on what you might call its 'intellectual' wing, you'll find this preoccupation to the fore.
No, it isn't.
Reform is very different to Restore (if I loosely categorise the two tribes as that), and are constantly criticised by the latter for 'selling out' and often the prominence of its Muslim (particularly) figures.
They are two very different visions. One believes you simply deport and remove the challenge of integrating the problem, the other believes that with a strong state, it can be done - just like Roman Catholicism, the global intefada of its day, was neutered, assimilated, and integrated.
But one of those 'tribes' has yet to migrate beyond Great Yarmouth.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I'd say maxh's perfectly valid question is very much from a contributor to the system (a category I am also in): "why should I care which humans get state largesse?" If you are in the category of a recipient of state largesse - i.e. the bottom end of the WWC - and suddenly there is less to go round because a new category of recipient has slotted itself in above you - you feel rather different.
I'd also add that there was a characteristically furious post from an occasional poster yesterday about the low levels of educational attainment of the average Reform voter - to which I'd say, well, of course, because people in the top brackets of educational attainment don't find themselves living next door to HMOs of immigrants in Ashton under Lyne.
I'd also add that the 'nation of immigrants argument' is true but facile. It wasn't great news for the British population when the Romans or the Anglo Saxons arrived. It wasn't great news for the Anglo Saxons when the Vikings or the Normans arrived. Almost every wave of immigration has resulted in the existing population - particularly those at th bottom end of the scale - becoming materially poorer.
I agree with much of that, except that we are/have been both recipients of the state's largesse also. There is a subtext of moral superiority in the 'I'm a contributor' argument. I'm only a contributor because I grew up comfortable, took out huge resources from the public purse by being educated, often 1-to-1, in a top tier HE institution and have since been on a self-reinforcing cycle of opportunity.
There are of course some on the opposite end of the scale who are feckless. But far, far more are just powerless.
In my view those of us in a comfortable position should have a driving, incessant question: how can we restructure society so that the cycle of opportunity I have experienced is more widespread (globally, not just nationally)?
Which is why I'm interested in the justification for Reform amongst those on here.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
Johnson did say he was going to do it before Brexit and, for once, wasn't lying and then did it.
Apparently he hates it being called the Boriswave though. He should own it.
I can see why he hates it. That one brilliant coinage has doomed any hopes he had - however slender - of a further political career. He is now forever tainted
Tough shit, Boris. You shouldn’t have allowed it. You were PM
He's honoured. It's not everyone who gets a wave named after them - only Boris and the Mexicans.
You’re forgetting Sir Humphrey Sine, Bt (and son of Lady Dorothea Sine, nee Hypotenuse). Invented the triangle in 1753
About whom Lord Tangent famously said "more sined against than sining"
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
One of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic for a Labour government was the house building pledge, which could only really be delivered by a simplification of the planning system which I hoped would ease the way to further reform to simplify development.
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
Doesn't look like that round here. The new estates to there North and South-West of Colcheter are massive.
If they are there already, likely approved well before the ushering in of the new era. In any case, the problem is quantity of housebuilding. The developments you mention need to be replicated many times over.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
This drips with sincerity. 'Islam and the West are incompatible' is indeed the driving sentiment of the current manifestation of the far right. Of course it talks about other things in order to widen its appeal but whenever you get chatting with a true believer, esp on what you might call its 'intellectual' wing, you'll find this preoccupation to the fore.
lol. I’ve never been accused of too much sincerity before. So, thanks
As it happens, I don’t think “Islam and the west are incompatible”. Is @TSE incompatible and unable to assimilate? Of course not. He has terrible tastes in shoes but he likes cricket, won’t blow me up, is a fervent democrat, etc etc etc
The problem, for me, is CONSERVATIVE Islam. A particular sub-genre
However if I did believe that all of Islam is incompatible with the west that would put me in agreement with about half of British people
“A July 2025 YouGov survey found that roughly half of the British public believed Islam is not compatible with British values, while 40% believed Muslim immigrants have a negative impact on the UK”
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
Whether this will help Streeting's bid to succeed Keir is left as an exercise for the reader. Data privacy concerns will be overridden in order to make the NHS more efficient in diagnosis and treatment and not at all to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Palantir, or to lose it all to Chinese hackers currently selling UK Biobank data on the dark web.
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
More fundamentally, the Conservatives have been displaced by Reform in large parts of the country, closing the door on any route back to a majority for them (without a Reform collapse). The LibDems have displaced Labour in much of the south, but they still have their majority (if not a route to retaining it, also due to Reform) and the LibDems aren't placed to displace Labour on a wider scale, whereas the Greens are nowhere near displacing Labour other than in a handful of city centre councils. For next GE I'd expect we'd mostly back Labour having more seats than any of the LDs, Greens, SNP, or PC, whereas we'd probably not back the Tories getting more seats than Reform right now (although personally I think that could turn out to be the smart bet)
It looks like a tiny rump of Tories on the Island. Would I be right in seeing West Wight as a likely Reform gain from Labour and East Wight as a 3 way Reform/Con/Green tussle?
The LibDems, Greens, and most but not all of the Independents held their seats against Reform, doubtless helped by tactical voting, as did - remarkably - the sole Labour ward despite having a new candidate to replace the former councillor now MP. That there was a LOT of publicity around a Reform council incoming for the island doubtless concentrated a lot of voters' minds. Whereas the Tories were almost entirely wiped out by Reform (and in one case by a LibDem), saving only my own ward of their group leader - probably also helped by anti-Reform voting as there was no LibDem or Green candidate - and in Fairlee, where the guy started with a big majority and is presumably popular.
I haven't seen the overall voting figures but suspect that when they're added up, both halves of the island look like strong Reform prospects; the Greens have shot for the island and then IOW East a few times, helped last time by a poor Labour candidate, but I'd be surprised if Polanski's pitch improves their prospects here, where we're somewhat light on younger voters.
The encouraging thing is the clear ability of centre-left voters to co-ordinate and identify the best way to defeat the right, coupled with the absence of many willing to back the Tories to do the same. Maybe that offers some hope for the Greens in East, but to win a GE they would need a transformation in their campaigning ability and organisation, which is stuck in the mode of the Liberal Party circa 1979.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
I think we know what Reform in government will do to these communities: the MAGA approach as used in the US rustbelt and deep South. Sod all that is practical and of economic benefit, but keep them angry with lots of Culture War red meat. Not so much Abortion and Guns, but the UK equivalent.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Hartlepool is getting significant investment from Net Zero Teeside, it'll probably get another nuke next to the existing nuke because there'll be less public opposition. Well-placed to for offshore wind as well.
Same with the changes to speed up planning, "why aren't Labour speeding up planning?", Labour speed up planning, followed by "No development near me, I'm voting X in protest"
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
The issue here, and I have some sympathy for the government, is that people are demanding cheaper housing but not but building more houses, rather they are asking for a smaller population and net emigration. Even among my largely liberal friends the conversation is now pretty acceptable that many millions of migrants (legal and illegal) should go home over the next few years, just by expiring their visas or deporting them in the case of illegals. This is among people who voted Labour at the last election and did so this time as well. There's little appetite for building millions of new houses and concreting over the countryside or blighting inner cities with awful high rises. Reducing te population from 69.8m to 67m is the better answer and it can easily be achieved over 2-3 years by just not renewing visas, deporting over stayers and other types of illegals.
Well, yes
And like you I’d prefer this solution. 1-2 million people need to go. Ease the pressure. The Boriswave must be reversed
However I did not expect this solution from Labour. So I expected the other solution. Build more houses. But they haven’t done that either. They’ve done fuck all and they are hurtling inevitably towards an apocalyptic election defeat
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
They don't care, the world doesn't work for them.
I am 47 years old, in the first 46 years I was racially/religious abused once, not it's been twice in the last 12 months.
It's like listening to the Reform/Restore campaign.
'Did you come over here on a boat? You must have to afford a new iPhone/iPad etc.'
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I'd say maxh's perfectly valid question is very much from a contributor to the system (a category I am also in): "why should I care which humans get state largesse?" If you are in the category of a recipient of state largesse - i.e. the bottom end of the WWC - and suddenly there is less to go round because a new category of recipient has slotted itself in above you - you feel rather different.
I'd also add that there was a characteristically furious post from an occasional poster yesterday about the low levels of educational attainment of the average Reform voter - to which I'd say, well, of course, because people in the top brackets of educational attainment don't find themselves living next door to HMOs of immigrants in Ashton under Lyne.
I'd also add that the 'nation of immigrants argument' is true but facile. It wasn't great news for the British population when the Romans or the Anglo Saxons arrived. It wasn't great news for the Anglo Saxons when the Vikings or the Normans arrived. Almost every wave of immigration has resulted in the existing population - particularly those at th bottom end of the scale - becoming materially poorer.
I agree with much of that, except that we are/have been both recipients of the state's largesse also. There is a subtext of moral superiority in the 'I'm a contributor' argument. I'm only a contributor because I grew up comfortable, took out huge resources from the public purse by being educated, often 1-to-1, in a top tier HE institution and have since been on a self-reinforcing cycle of opportunity.
There are of course some on the opposite end of the scale who are feckless. But far, far more are just powerless.
In my view those of us in a comfortable position should have a driving, incessant question: how can we restructure society so that the cycle of opportunity I have experienced is more widespread (globally, not just nationally)?
Which is why I'm interested in the justification for Reform amongst those on here.
I don't mean at all to be morally superior with the "I'm a contributor", quite the reverse: my point is that the luxury of indifference to who gets state largesse is one reserved for those of us lucky enough to be in this position.
And in response to your penultimate paragraph: we are a small proportion of the world's economy and can't possibly solve all the world's problems. But we can solve our own, and we do so by limiting the number of the world's poor we take responsibility for - i.e. to just our own poor.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
The cost of both building materials and construction labour has increased significantly and the current Iran situation is only going to make things worse, such that it's become uneconomic in many cases to build houses and then sell them at a profit.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
The cost of both building materials and construction labour has increased significantly and the current Iran situation is only going to make things worse, such that it's become uneconomic in many cases to build houses and then sell them at a profit.
And Interest rates of course. Developers only build houses if they can sell them at a profit. At the moment that demand is not there, though the shortage is.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
I'd be interested to see some stats on who the Boriswave are. Because there's chuffing loads of them round here. And they haven't resulted in much more than grumblings about pressure on school places. Because the Indians and Hong Kong Chinese are much like us: middle class families with two kids living in semi detached houses and doing middle class jobs. Their daughters play football and cricket with my daughters. If you live in Cheetham Hill or Moston the picture is rather different.
The Boriswave stats were posted on pb last week. Mainly Indians and Nigerians iirc. Don't forget pressure on jobs and downward pressure on wages, btw – it's not just about girls' sports. I'll try and dig out the report.
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
This is bed-wetting drivel. If you get ILR it is obviously contingent. It’s not citizenship. It can be reversed
Yes that’s painful for them, and I sympathise, but life is imperfect and some of the results of mass immigration have been so painful for native Britons we aren’t even allowed to discuss them on PB, as they are too explosive
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
So we have cast iron promises which must be fulfilled to immigrants but not to the people of this country ???
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
One of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic for a Labour government was the house building pledge, which could only really be delivered by a simplification of the planning system which I hoped would ease the way to further reform to simplify development.
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
Doesn't look like that round here. The new estates to there North and South-West of Colcheter are massive.
You'd think that as my namesake had the place as his capital that I could spell 'Colchester' properly.
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
This is bed-wetting drivel. If you get ILR it is obviously contingent. It’s not citizenship. It can be reversed
Yes that’s painful for them, and I sympathise, but life is imperfect and some of the results of mass immigration have been so painful for native Britons we aren’t even allowed to discuss them on PB, as they are too explosive
You’re saying that because it’s not effecting you . ILR the clue is in the title Indefinite Leave to Remain .
Whether this will help Streeting's bid to succeed Keir is left as an exercise for the reader. Data privacy concerns will be overridden in order to make the NHS more efficient in diagnosis and treatment and not at all to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Palantir, or to lose it all to Chinese hackers currently selling UK Biobank data on the dark web.
That's got to be a good thing, though? The inability of one hospital to share data with another is always frustrating, let alone with your GP, and things are started to improve now the patient can access information from a variety of sources through the NHS App. That patients are the ones who take their data from one health provider to another isn't optimal - and places those less able to organise themselves at a disadvantage. I have a stack of X-ray folders and MRI CDs from decades back in my cupboard because various bits of the health service told me they'd be safer with me than filed in the hospital, in the days before such things were stored electronically.
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
This is bed-wetting drivel. If you get ILR it is obviously contingent. It’s not citizenship. It can be reversed
Yes that’s painful for them, and I sympathise, but life is imperfect and some of the results of mass immigration have been so painful for native Britons we aren’t even allowed to discuss them on PB, as they are too explosive
You’re saying that because it’s not effecting you . ILR the clue is in the title Indefinite Leave to Remain .
And it is clearly contingent
And, have any of the negative aspects of immigration affected you?
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
So we have cast iron promises which must be fulfilled to immigrants but not to the people of this country ???
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
So we have cast iron promises which must be fulfilled to immigrants but not to the people of this country ???
You can do both . By all means change the law so in future people know exactly the situation before they come .
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
But outside of London, the Tories have lost the southerners too. An arc from the Isle of Wight to Norfolk gave the Tories a kicking.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
The cost of both building materials and construction labour has increased significantly and the current Iran situation is only going to make things worse, such that it's become uneconomic in many cases to build houses and then sell them at a profit.
And Interest rates of course. Developers only build houses if they can sell them at a profit. At the moment that demand is not there, though the shortage is.
And there's also been the post-Grenfell tightening up on building standards for reasons of safety, which no government is going to row back.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
By a Thai based crypto billionaire?
I know you voted Plaid for tactical reasons, but did you get a tiny lumplet in your throat at this? Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation and all that.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You seem to be conflating immigrants with asylum seekers who came over on a small boat. Most immigrants are not fleeing persecution. They come over as students (nearly all of whom then go back again), on skilled work visas or here because they fell in love with a Brit.
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Hartlepool is getting significant investment from Net Zero Teeside, it'll probably get another nuke next to the existing nuke because there'll be less public opposition. Well-placed to for offshore wind as well.
Same with the changes to speed up planning, "why aren't Labour speeding up planning?", Labour speed up planning, followed by "No development near me, I'm voting X in protest"
And even with all that investment and work the council voted Reform on mass on Thursday.
Because while the work is there people are seeing the town deteriorate year on year
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
People didn't vote for an extreme solution - during the campaign they were repeatedly reassured that voting Leave would deliver a moderate solution, with continuing free trade and maintaining all the same benefits. It was only when Johnson got his majority that the Tories decided to impose the worst possible Brexit upon us, and the fate of his party subsequently is of only some consolation.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
I think we know what Reform in government will do to these communities: the MAGA approach as used in the US rustbelt and deep South. Sod all that is practical and of economic benefit, but keep them angry with lots of Culture War red meat. Not so much Abortion and Guns, but the UK equivalent.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
I was using the Rallings/Thrasher benchmarks which TSE so kindly put up for us here prior to the elections.
They show the Conservatives doing well, so I think PB will use the BBC /Curtice ratings
BigG has been promoting the Sky/ Rallings and Thrasher NEV since Thursday night.
Many on here and elsewhere in the media have been using it
I have no reason to believe Sky would use it if they doubted it's relevance
Their methodology is, however, fairly crude when stacked up against the BBC's model, if you're looking for the best guess as to how the national vote would have panned out in an election where the whole country had a choice between the various parties.
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
So we have cast iron promises which must be fulfilled to immigrants but not to the people of this country ???
You can do both . By all means change the law so in future people know exactly the situation before they come .
For over twenty years governments have lied and broken promises about controlling immigration.
Why is this deemed acceptable and something that people who have been negatively affected have to put up with but making a change which negatively affects immigrants deemed unacceptable ?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
The Boriswave - which you voted for - was a deliberate move to try and cover over the economic hit from Brexit - which you also voted for - and is being stemmed by the current exceptionally popular government - which you voted for, as well.
I'd be interested to see some stats on who the Boriswave are. Because there's chuffing loads of them round here. And they haven't resulted in much more than grumblings about pressure on school places. Because the Indians and Hong Kong Chinese are much like us: middle class families with two kids living in semi detached houses and doing middle class jobs. Their daughters play football and cricket with my daughters. If you live in Cheetham Hill or Moston the picture is rather different.
Maybe Johnson will find a legacy after all. Turning the UK from a dying, predominantly old white society into a successful multi cultural melting pot of younger people from across the World living together in harmony. It's a nice thought.
I said noone really has a problem with the Indians or HKers. But I find the idea that a melting pot of different cultures is inherently better than a monoculture a bit weird, and one not necessarily born out by history.
The examples I gave above are welcome not becauae they are representatives of a different culture, but because they integrate well with the existing culture.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Hartlepool is getting significant investment from Net Zero Teeside, it'll probably get another nuke next to the existing nuke because there'll be less public opposition. Well-placed to for offshore wind as well.
Same with the changes to speed up planning, "why aren't Labour speeding up planning?", Labour speed up planning, followed by "No development near me, I'm voting X in protest"
And even with all that investment and work the council voted Reform on mass on Thursday.
Because while the work is there people are seeing the town deteriorate year on year
What’s been actually delivered though ? Talk is fine. Doing stuff to be seen to do stuff is fine but people need delivery
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
One of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic for a Labour government was the house building pledge, which could only really be delivered by a simplification of the planning system which I hoped would ease the way to further reform to simplify development.
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
Doesn't look like that round here. The new estates to there North and South-West of Colcheter are massive.
If they are there already, likely approved well before the ushering in of the new era. In any case, the problem is quantity of housebuilding. The developments you mention need to be replicated many times over.
There's a proposal for a new development of at least 5000 house just the South of where I live. The signs opposing it are all over the place, and IIRC one of Reform's election objectives was to support the objectors.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Reform and the Greens both came up short of expectations. Your party had most to be pleased with. The LD's also made modest progress. The rest were all middling to poor.
Simply not true. As Luke Tryl points out here. All parties performed pretty much exactly as predicted, except maybe the Greens
“Now the final results are just about in, comparing the council results to our final projection. Struck that all parties perform gains/losses broadly in line (within ~50 seats) of the projections, Greens a little under.”
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
This drips with sincerity. 'Islam and the West are incompatible' is indeed the driving sentiment of the current manifestation of the far right. Of course it talks about other things in order to widen its appeal but whenever you get chatting with a true believer, esp on what you might call its 'intellectual' wing, you'll find this preoccupation to the fore.
lol. I’ve never been accused of too much sincerity before. So, thanks
As it happens, I don’t think “Islam and the west are incompatible”. Is @TSE incompatible and unable to assimilate? Of course not. He has terrible tastes in shoes but he likes cricket, won’t blow me up, is a fervent democrat, etc etc etc
The problem, for me, is CONSERVATIVE Islam. A particular sub-genre
However if I did believe that all of Islam is incompatible with the west that would put me in agreement with about half of British people
“A July 2025 YouGov survey found that roughly half of the British public believed Islam is not compatible with British values, while 40% believed Muslim immigrants have a negative impact on the UK”
YouGov/Telegraph
No that's what I meant. Hence why I used Islam not Muslims. To give that flavour.
As to whether you (and ilk) manage to avoid being just generally prejudiced against Muslims from certain countries, viewing them as an en-masse pollutant rather than as varied individuals not massively different to anybody else in the grand scheme of things, I'd hope so despite a certain amount of evidence to the contrary.
But parking that, one thing I do know is that the sort of rhetoric and proposals on this floating around Reformsville are not surgically targeted at religious fundamentalism. It's about origin and ethnicity determining whether a person 'belongs' here.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
By a Thai based crypto billionaire?
I know you voted Plaid for tactical reasons, but did you get a tiny lumplet in your throat at this? Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation and all that.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
Let's see what happens if you keep on advocating racially/religious-based deportation....
PB is a broad and welcoming church, just don’t openly insult the mods seems a fair rule
You’re a self confessed zoophiliac, and not only that you live in Ventnor, and yet you too, in your strange eccentricities, are embraced in our congregation. It’s marvellous
Whether this will help Streeting's bid to succeed Keir is left as an exercise for the reader. Data privacy concerns will be overridden in order to make the NHS more efficient in diagnosis and treatment and not at all to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Palantir, or to lose it all to Chinese hackers currently selling UK Biobank data on the dark web.
That's got to be a good thing, though? The inability of one hospital to share data with another is always frustrating, let alone with your GP, and things are started to improve now the patient can access information from a variety of sources through the NHS App. That patients are the ones who take their data from one health provider to another isn't optimal - and places those less able to organise themselves at a disadvantage. I have a stack of X-ray folders and MRI CDs from decades back in my cupboard because various bits of the health service told me they'd be safer with me than filed in the hospital, in the days before such things were stored electronically.
Yes, of course health data sharing is a good thing. Trouble is, there may also be a darker side – loss of privacy; data theft; benefit to foreign firms, governments or drug companies. One interesting question will be whether the forthcoming bill aims to ease data transfer or to create a big central database; whether to federalise or centralise.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
You’re right and some civic pride as well as getting the scrotrs on sur-Ron’s off the high street and clamping down on shoplifting will help.
I’d also look at some job creation too. What can be done to help businesses especially start ups as well as targeting key.
Labour in Durham targeted fintech Newcastle looked at Stem.
We need to streamline further planning and make these places attractive to businesses to invest in.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
I agree, but I think we have to ask ourselves if it were that easy, why aren’t councils doing it already?
I suspect the main reason is that councils must prioritise areas in which they have legal duties (and they have a lot of those), rather than these items. If we want councils to be more responsive and community-driven, we also need to debate their purpose and whether what we require them to do is effective.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
People are being deported, in larger numbers than they were under the previous govt. The deliberate slowing of processing and deportations under the Conservatives resulted in the large numbers being housed in temporary, unsuitable accommodation and ensuing social problems, perceptions that have fueled the popularity of Reform.
Neither the Conservatives, Reform or the media that support them have an interest in Labour resolving or mitigating the problem that the Conservatives exacerbated.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
SNIP
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
So how would Reform (or anyone else) regenerate left behind communities like Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland?
Particularly without massive government spending.
I’m not a Reform spokesman or voter.
OK, not Reform then why not answer for "anyone else".
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Breakfast clubs for all !!
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
OK, anyone can be a critic, but what are the policies that you would favour instead? And how would they be funded?
This is the sort of facile comment that renders discussion of this futile.
Keep,doing what they’re doing and they’ll keep getting what they’re getting.
That was me, not Foxy. I will mention this, what I consider to be corruption, at every opportunity.
If calling out Johnson, Starmer and Rayner for corruption, not even on the scale of some other politicians, is appropriate. Farage should explain himself too.
When every borough lamppost has two flags on it, can Reform councils then get around to filling in pot holes?
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You seem to be conflating immigrants with asylum seekers who came over on a small boat. Most immigrants are not fleeing persecution. They come over as students (nearly all of whom then go back again), on skilled work visas or here because they fell in love with a Brit.
And immigration is way down. Hence the debate switch to "but what about all of them already here".
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
But outside of London, the Tories have lost the southerners too. An arc from the Isle of Wight to Norfolk gave the Tories a kicking.
Not entirely true, the Tories still have most seats on Hampshire County Council and have more seats than Reform on Wiltshire CC, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire CCs, Hertfordshire CC and on East and West Surrey and Buckinghamshire unitary councils (Bucks has a Tory majority still).
Harlow, Broxbourne and Fareham councils are also still majority Tory controlled
Comments
What are the government policies that would improve lives in estates in Hartlepool or Bishop Auckland? And importantly, how would this differ from what Starmers Labour is currently doing to reduce child poverty, improve state schools, develop new jobs via regional aid, and greatly reduce immigration?
Allowing the rest of the world to 'access the opportunities that exist in the UK' without restriction would rapidly turn the UK into a vastly overpopulated third world failed state.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
And young men, in particular, have always sought to 'make their fortunes 'in foreign parts'.
It's just that in some ways it's a lot easier nowadays, and those seeking a better life, for whatever reason, are easily distinguishable in their new countries.
But, I fear it’s far too late. This national conversation should have begun 15 years ago
Reducing child poverty is merely about a line on a chart. It’s meaningless.
As my old boss used to say. Performance talks, bullshit walks. It’s all talk. Nothing is being delivered.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
That simply hasn’t been the case and a massive opportunity has been lost to deregulate.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
They are UBI for layabouts.
And pension credits themselves open the door to even more benefits:
If you get Pension Credit you can also get other help, such as:
Housing Benefit if you rent the property you live in
Cold Weather Payments (or Winter Heating Payments in Scotland)
Support for Mortgage Interest if you own the property you live in
a Council Tax Reduction
a free TV licence if you’re aged 75 or over
help with NHS dental treatment, glasses and transport costs for hospital appointments, if you get the Guarantee Credit part of Pension Credit
help with your heating costs through the Warm Home Discount Scheme
a discount on the Royal Mail redirection service if you’re moving house
https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit
Reform is very different to Restore (if I loosely categorise the two tribes as that), and are constantly criticised by the latter for 'selling out' and often the prominence of its Muslim (particularly) figures.
They are two very different visions. One believes you simply deport and remove the challenge of integrating the problem, the other believes that with a strong state, it can be done - just like Roman Catholicism, the global intefada of its day, was neutered, assimilated, and integrated.
I wrote on here a while back that the Coalition, with a much smaller majority, was able to pass contentious/difficult legislation quite easily.
This is the sort of facile comment that renders discussion of this futile.
Keep,doing what they’re doing and they’ll keep getting what they’re getting.
There are of course some on the opposite end of the scale who are feckless. But far, far more are just powerless.
In my view those of us in a comfortable position should have a driving, incessant question: how can we restructure society so that the cycle of opportunity I have experienced is more widespread (globally, not just nationally)?
Which is why I'm interested in the justification for Reform amongst those on here.
As it happens, I don’t think “Islam and the west are incompatible”. Is @TSE incompatible and unable to assimilate? Of course not. He has terrible tastes in shoes but he likes cricket, won’t blow me up, is a fervent democrat, etc etc etc
The problem, for me, is CONSERVATIVE Islam. A particular sub-genre
However if I did believe that all of Islam is incompatible with the west that would put me in agreement with about half of British people
“A July 2025 YouGov survey found that roughly half of the British public believed Islam is not compatible with British values, while 40% believed Muslim immigrants have a negative impact on the UK”
YouGov/Telegraph
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
Legislation to create a single health record is set to be announced on Wednesday. Wes Streeting says it will save lives but doctors are ready to fight
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-doctors-gp-patient-data-kings-speech-3bgjtc3g7 (£££)
Whether this will help Streeting's bid to succeed Keir is left as an exercise for the reader. Data privacy concerns will be overridden in order to make the NHS more efficient in diagnosis and treatment and not at all to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Palantir, or to lose it all to Chinese hackers currently selling UK Biobank data on the dark web.
I haven't seen the overall voting figures but suspect that when they're added up, both halves of the island look like strong Reform prospects; the Greens have shot for the island and then IOW East a few times, helped last time by a poor Labour candidate, but I'd be surprised if Polanski's pitch improves their prospects here, where we're somewhat light on younger voters.
The encouraging thing is the clear ability of centre-left voters to co-ordinate and identify the best way to defeat the right, coupled with the absence of many willing to back the Tories to do the same. Maybe that offers some hope for the Greens in East, but to win a GE they would need a transformation in their campaigning ability and organisation, which is stuck in the mode of the Liberal Party circa 1979.
I think we know what Reform in government will do to these communities: the MAGA approach as used in the US rustbelt and deep South. Sod all that is practical and of economic benefit, but keep them angry with lots of Culture War red meat. Not so much Abortion and Guns, but the UK equivalent.
Same with the changes to speed up planning, "why aren't Labour speeding up planning?", Labour speed up planning, followed by "No development near me, I'm voting X in protest"
And like you I’d prefer this solution. 1-2 million people need to go. Ease the pressure. The Boriswave must be reversed
However I did not expect this solution from Labour. So I expected the other solution. Build more houses. But they haven’t done that either. They’ve done fuck all and they are hurtling inevitably towards an apocalyptic election defeat
I am 47 years old, in the first 46 years I was racially/religious abused once, not it's been twice in the last 12 months.
It's like listening to the Reform/Restore campaign.
'Did you come over here on a boat? You must have to afford a new iPhone/iPad etc.'
And in response to your penultimate paragraph: we are a small proportion of the world's economy and can't possibly solve all the world's problems. But we can solve our own, and we do so by limiting the number of the world's poor we take responsibility for - i.e. to just our own poor.
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-payrolled-employments-by-nationality-region-industry-age-and-sex-from-july-2014-to-december-2025/uk-payrolled-employments-by-nationality-region-industry-age-and-sex-from-july-2014-to-december-2025
Yes that’s painful for them, and I sympathise, but life is imperfect and some of the results of mass immigration have been so painful for native Britons we aren’t even allowed to discuss them on PB, as they are too explosive
Ok course he didn't call it that!
And, have any of the negative aspects of immigration affected you?
Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation and all that.
https://x.com/benphillips76/status/2053363537905582410?s=20
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
I have no reason to believe Sky would use it if they doubted it's relevance
Because while the work is there people are seeing the town deteriorate year on year
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
And I expect @isam knew he’d get banned
For over twenty years governments have lied and broken promises about controlling immigration.
Why is this deemed acceptable and something that people who have been negatively affected have to put up with but making a change which negatively affects immigrants deemed unacceptable ?
The examples I gave above are welcome not becauae they are representatives of a different culture, but because they integrate well with the existing culture.
No I didn't vote Reform.
As to whether you (and ilk) manage to avoid being just generally prejudiced against Muslims from certain countries, viewing them as an en-masse pollutant rather than as varied individuals not massively different to anybody else in the grand scheme of things, I'd hope so despite a certain amount of evidence to the contrary.
But parking that, one thing I do know is that the sort of rhetoric and proposals on this floating around Reformsville are not surgically targeted at religious fundamentalism. It's about origin and ethnicity determining whether a person 'belongs' here.
I won't be voting Plaid for Westminster mind.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2053407136298799151
You’re a self confessed zoophiliac, and not only that you live in Ventnor, and yet you too, in your strange eccentricities, are embraced in our congregation. It’s marvellous
I’d also look at some job creation too. What can be done to help businesses especially start ups as well as targeting key.
Labour in Durham targeted fintech Newcastle looked at Stem.
We need to streamline further planning and make these places attractive to businesses to invest in.
I suspect the main reason is that councils must prioritise areas in which they have legal duties (and they have a lot of those), rather than these items. If we want councils to be more responsive and community-driven, we also need to debate their purpose and whether what we require them to do is effective.
Time for Cambridge to sort out the mess Oxford have made of the country.
Also 'Downing Streeting' will be used a lot by me,
The deliberate slowing of processing and deportations under the Conservatives resulted in the large numbers being housed in temporary, unsuitable accommodation and ensuing social problems, perceptions that have fueled the popularity of Reform.
Neither the Conservatives, Reform or the media that support them have an interest in Labour resolving or mitigating the problem that the Conservatives exacerbated.
If calling out Johnson, Starmer and Rayner for corruption, not even on the scale of some other politicians, is appropriate. Farage should explain himself too.
When every borough lamppost has two flags on it, can Reform councils then get around to filling in pot holes?
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
Harlow, Broxbourne and Fareham councils are also still majority Tory controlled