The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

Rich_cb wrote:

So the correct outgroup to demonise is Conservatives? People like to put other people in outgroups, that's always been the case. The left like to think that placing conservatives in an outgroup is somehow different. It isn't, it's the exact same phenomenon with the exact same ugly sentiment underlying it. If it wasn't for 'group X' then life in this country would be so much better...

You're missing the point.

When people put others into an out-group, it's because of who they are (e.g. black, gay, squirrel fancier etc.)  or the situation they find themselves in (e.g. homeless, asylum seekers, pregnant teen etc). Our complaints about the Tories is because of what they do and what they have done.

There's certainly people who identify as Conservative and are aghast at how the government is behaving, but if you support the current government and their policies, then you are part of the problem.

I'm not missing the point. You are.

Throughout human history people have wanted an outgroup to hate. They have justified why they hate that outgroup in various different ways but ultimately it's the same desire to hate.

I'm sure you think your particular out groups are different and that your particular motivations are different.

They're not.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not missing the point. You are. Throughout human history people have wanted an outgroup to hate. They have justified why they hate that outgroup in various different ways but ultimately it's the same desire to hate. I'm sure you think your particular out groups are different and that your particular motivations are different. They're not.

If they weren't so hell-bent on sleaze, cruelty and self-serving greed, then they wouldn't be so hated. It's precisely their destruction of so much of this country that has to be stopped. As soon as the Tories are out of power, there's not going to be any persistent campaign to hate them, though history will not be kind to their rampant abuse of power and environmental destruction.

To be honest, I'm sick of your lies when you attempt to justify the unjustifiable. How you can possibly think that persecution of refugees is any way comparable to people complaining about the morally unjustifiable cruelty of the rich, entitled Tories is beyond me.

It's beyond you because you don't want to admit that you are the same as the people who you hate.

Out groups haven't always been defined by unalterable characteristics. The Kulaks in the Soviet Union were an out group and were massacred. They were largely just ordinary people who happened to be 'bourgeois'. Communists and Socialists were an out group in McCarthy era America. Socialism/communism is a political choice. The persecution of both those groups was still wrong. What happened to the Kulaks was on a par with any cruelty meted out to any group.

As a fun little example of how similar you are to those that you really hate consider which unsavoury groups in history would have said the following about their chosen out group:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

If they weren't so hell-bent on sleaze, cruelty and self-serving greed, then they wouldn't be so hated.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's beyond you because you don't want to admit that you are the same as the people who you hate. Out groups haven't always been defined by unalterable characteristics. The Kulaks in the Soviet Union were an out group and were massacred. They were largely just ordinary people who happened to be 'bourgeois'. Communists and Socialists were an out group in McCarthy era America. Socialism/communism is a political choice. The persecution of both those groups was still wrong. What happened to the Kulaks was on a par with any cruelty meted out to any group. As a fun little example of how similar you are to those that you really hate consider which unsavoury groups in history would have said the following about their chosen out group:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

If they weren't so hell-bent on sleaze, cruelty and self-serving greed, then they wouldn't be so hated.

The point that you are deliberately ignoring is that the people in power are not being persecuted and they're certainly not having their children illegally locked up in hotels: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/01/home-office-defies-high-court-by-placing-100-asylum-seeker-children-in-hotels

You don't just reserve your ire for the people in power though.

You've claimed in this thread that anyone who supports the government is "part of the problem".

Every time an outgroup has been persecuted in history those doing the persecution have been able to justify it to themselves.

History's great crimes were enthusiastically cheered by people just like us, who justified the persecutions in the exact same way we justify our own hatred.

Rich_cb wrote:

You don't just reserve your ire for the people in power though. You've claimed in this thread that anyone who supports the government is "part of the problem". Every time an outgroup has been persecuted in history those doing the persecution have been able to justify it to themselves. History's great crimes were enthusiastically cheered by people just like us, who justified the persecutions in the exact same way we justify our own hatred.

People who vote to keep them in power are definitely part of the problem as without them, the Tories wouldn't be in power. If they choose to vote differently, then they're not part of the problem - what possible issue do you have with that?

If someone goes around stabbing other people and I declare them to be a problem, but not when they stop stabbing other people, then it's nothing to do with me putting them in an out-group, but the fact that their stabbing is causing significant harm to others.

Similarly, hating Nazis for their atrocities is nothing like being a Nazi. Presumably you don't hate Nazis yourself and would be happy to be considered one of them as otherwise you'd be out-grouping them wouldn't you? Or do you concede that Nazi hate and hating Nazis are entirely different?

Keep justifying your hatred if you want.

The same arguments have been made multiple times before.

"The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all."

Rich_cb wrote:

Keep justifying your hatred if you want. The same arguments have been made multiple times before. "The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all."

What the blazes are you on about?

What treatment are you referring to?

Is it some imagined treatment that makes you into a victim?

That's not your quote but it's identical in tone to your quote from earlier in the thread.

Rich_cb wrote:

That's not your quote but it's identical in tone to your quote from earlier in the thread.

So you're just making shit up then?

Simple question - do you think it's morally correct to hate/despise/discourage Nazis?

No, it's an historical quote from a figure I'm assuming you're not a fan of.

It has the exact same tone as your quote.

I think it's correct to condemn those who commit crimes directly.

How are you defining Nazi?

Should we hate/despise/discourage people who have willingly joined communist parties? Or should we chuckle at squirrels in communist attire?

Rich_cb wrote:

Or should we chuckle at squirrels in communist attire?

Now you've done it...

Rich_cb wrote:

No, it's an historical quote from a figure I'm assuming you're not a fan of. It has the exact same tone as your quote. I think it's correct to condemn those who commit crimes directly. How are you defining Nazi? Should we hate/despise/discourage people who have willingly joined communist parties? Or should we chuckle at squirrels in communist attire?

Your refusal to answer a straightforward question speaks volumes about your ethics. I notice that you're only willing to condemn people who directly commit crimes, but that ignores that people can persuade others to do their bidding and commit atrocities on their behalf. Also, a lot of atrocities weren't necessarily illegal due to the introduction of immoral laws.

Why would you want to hate people who joined communist parties - is there part of the philosophy that you find objectionable and if so, what? I suspect that you dislike the behaviour of authoritarian communist leaders and the atrocities that they ordered, but that is a separate issue from the philosophy of communism.

I'd go with something like this for a definition of a Nazi, though modern Nazis are not typically associated with Germany:

Quote:

Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates a dictatorship, fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism, scientific racism, white supremacy, social Darwinism and the use of eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism originated in pan-Germanism and the ethno-nationalist neopagan Völkisch movement which had been a prominent aspect of German ultranationalism since the late 19th century, and it was strongly influenced by the Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's underlying "cult of violence". Nazism subscribed to pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy, identifying ethnic Germans as part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.

That's a pretty decent definition of Nazism but who are you counting as a Nazi?

Goebbels/Hitler etc are easy, they directly committed historically awful crimes. They are worthy of hatred.

What about an average citizen who only joined the party in order to keep their job?

It's not a straightforward question without an explicit definition of exactly who we're talking about.

Those who directly committed crimes are the obvious ones to condemn but what of those who in some small way enabled those crimes?

Those who joined communist parties may have had entirely good motives but did they, in some small way, act an enablers for the atrocities committed in the name of communism that continue to this day?

On an entirely different scale, you might not like the policies of the Conservative party but is every voter to be held responsible for every action? Was every Corbyn supporter responsible for the worst examples of antisemitism that occurred under his leadership?

David9694 wrote:

What examples of anti-semitism under Corbyn's leadership actually are there?

Good whataboutery on the Nazi party of Germany. Like Brexit, the party cause is whatever we say it is - there are a few loose MAGA type basic principles, but it seems to me a lot of it about creating this situation/atmosphere where folk with ideas that appeal no matter how bizarre or heinous get an airing and get to put this stuff into practice.

Govenrment is there to protect us from foreign invasion (or untoward influence, rather than troops landing at Hastings), to protect us from the worst effects of big business, while ensuring the country is prosperous, ensure justice and protect people from crime and the mob; I would argue that in modern times there is stuff to do  around health and well-being, safety.  

Can you honestly say the Tories have succeeded at any of that on any level in the past 10 years?   Do you believe they ever will, or have I with my O level, A level*, degree in politics, post grad certificate in policy admimstration and lifetime career in public service got the wrong definition of what the public should expect?

* OK, the A level was a bit shit - blame girls, or rather a girl. 

I believe it was mainly a small minority of Labour supporters making antisemitic posts online.

In July 2019:

Corbyn wrote:

While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold anti-Semitic views and a larger number don't recognise anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories. The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of anti-Semitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood. I am sorry for the hurt that has been caused to many Jewish people. We have been too slow in processing disciplinary cases of mostly online anti-Semitic abuse by party members. We are acting to speed this process up. People who hold anti-Semitic views have no place in the Labour Party. They may be few – the number of cases over the past three years represents less than 0.1% of Labour's membership of more than half a million – but one is too many.

There's also evidence of political interference with anti-semitic complaints (inappropriate involvement) and generally poor handling of them.

There have been some significant successes over the last 13 years.

Minimum wage reform.
Tax threshold reform.
Pension reform.
Huge expansion of renewable energy generation.
Huge decreases in the UK's carbon footprint.
They've also done a much better job of running health and education than their devolved equivalents in Wales.
There's also the small matter of navigating both a global financial crisis and a global pandemic without any periods of large scale unemployment.

You're really clutching at straws there.

All of those things have happened as a direct result of government policy. CO2 emissions would likely have fallen despite who was in power but the extent of the fall is significantly larger due to government policy.

Healthcare is not in a good place in England but it's far better than in Wales where health is run by the Labour party and has been for 25 years+.

Sewage spills are just as bad in Wales.

Pandemic mortality was worse in Wales.

JSO demonised themselves, I personally think they are more damaging to the climate movement than any politician in this country.

It is actually not well known that Wales has an entirely independent health system.

Hence, foolish comments like yours.

The simple fact is that the global financial crisis and the pandemic have both made providing public services incredibly challenging. The Conservatives have done a better job of it than Labour.

If a Labour leader would have been so much better for the UK why haven't Labour in Wales produced similar results?

Rich_cb wrote:

It is actually not well known that Wales has an entirely independent health system.

You know perfectly well what a disingenuous statement that is: Wales is reliant on the direct grant from the UK government which is worth 15% less in real terms than it was a decade ago. Additionally your beloved Brexit has removed very significant funding from the EU. Fairly standard Tory behaviour, take away the lifebelt and then ask why is that man drowning.

What part is disingenuous?

Wales sets its own health budget and makes its own health policies.

Wales receives (per capita) £1.20 for every £1 spent on devolved public services in England. Wales then chooses how to spend that money.

For every £1 that the Westminster government spend on the English NHS the Welsh government receive the equivalent of £1.20.

However they choose to only spend £1.05 on the Welsh NHS and then blame England for the underperformance. The graph I posted neatly shows the consequences for the Welsh public.

Your last one resulted in huge borrowing - now at 2.5 trillion.
They may have tinkered with tax allowances but that hasn't changed for 5 years now. Remind me what's the NI rate over 50270?

Is it 2%?

I'm not sure the relevance of that?

You claimed tax threshold reform yet those who earn well continued with the 2% rate. So helping the well off again, not the whole scale reform required.

National insurance isn't the only tax applied to income.

Child allowance was removed for those earning above £50k so the effective tax rate for someone with children earning above that threshold went up significantly.

Similar increases occurred at £100k due to the loss of personal allowance and the tax rate is 45% above £125k.

The 45% that was reduced from 50% ?

Yep. They probably should have cut it further. It had only been at 50% for a few years anyway.

A high tax rate does not always produce a high tax take.

Income taxes have been cut much more for low earners than for high earners.