All Reform has is several coats of gloss trying to conceal rotten woodwork, no primer and crumbling fabric.
They have the interests of the rich at heart and that organ itself is rotten, poisoned by the Faragian levels of bigotry that are their real driving force.
All else is BS intended to bluff the credulous and hard of thinking.
The prize is Britain’s over centralised government allowing elective dictatorships to ram through laws benefitting shadowy interests.
The requirement is for votes but not the policy ideas of the general public.
The tactic is synthesised outrage and grievance. Manufactured anger as political energy.
The idea, as America is showing, is that a significant cohort can tolerate a government acting against their interests, as long as another cohort is punished. Divide, rule, enrage, exploit.
Looking forward to Matt Goodwin's poll of, er, Matt Goodwin and the authenticated independent non-partisan Reform membership predicting a landslide for Matt Goodwin.
Absolutely brilliant analysis! The disconnect between Reform's working-class rhetoric and their regressive tax policies is somthing I've been trying to explain to people for months. When you see them proposing policies that primarily benefit estates over £2m while half the constiuency doesn't even own homes, the mask really slips. This breakdown of Gorton and Denton's demographics makes it crystal clear.
Amidst the usual swell of salient points, dear Iratus, I would like to add a note of caution to your analysis. Yes, Reform has become the Care Home for Failed Tories; yes, Farage's policy offering is tissue-paper thin; yes, he and his cronies are more of the establishment than anti-establishment; and yes, he manages to skirt the line between xenophobia and racism as adroitly as ever. Having said all that, he is doing something that the other parties are not: he is recognising the anger the last decade and a half generated.
Whilst the irony is unlikely to have passed many by, that his party is now full of the dregs of the party that not only did more damage to this country than the Luftwaffe, introduced us to a level of political incompetence that lacks historical precedent, and dangerously undermined trust in democracy, he has pushed a narrative that the British public desperately wants to hear.
Mervyn King noted the anger people felt about the extent to which the financial sector escaped the consequences of its actions back in 2008. Not only that, but Cameron and Osborne's politically motivated austerity left the most vulnerable with the bill. The architects of the Financial Crisis not only got away scot-free, but they also left families up and down the country shelling out to cover their bets.
Cameron's Brexit may, or may not, have been a backlash against a government that had well and truly shafted great swathes of the electorate. Whatever the truth, it has left the UK weaker on numerous levels. The Troika of austerity, Brexit, and Tory party 'reforms' have stripped back public services to the point where even the ultra-libertarian Reform party cannot find any savings beyond the amount of time spent in meetings.
While Starmer 'sort of' recognised this truth, his timorousness has held him back from even the mildest response. Farage, on the other hand, has no compunction about throwing out the most outrageous statements. Best case scenario, it catapults him into power (from his point of view, not ours, I hasten to add). Worst-case scenario, he languishes as the perpetual rabble-rouser, fleecing his flock as he rails against the storm.
He is still the only politician challenging the idea that business as usual is a viable strategy. The likelihood of his making good on his promises should not be considered reasonable for even a moment. What we need to be careful of is writing him off completely.
We need to recognise him for the cancerous political figure he is. As long as he can command attention, he will continue to poison political discourse. Consensus is impossible whilst he remains on the stage. It is pure dogmatism and division. The likes of Goodwin are merely the latest creatures to emerge from beneath the same rock most Reform politicians have sheltered under for so long.
Gorton and Denton will be subject to the full force of Reform's machine over the coming weeks. Wales will face a diluted version with the Senedd elections, as will local authorities across the country when the polls open for the next round of county council elections. They may not bother to try to understand local issues, but they understand the electorate well enough to play them like a violin.
What a great post. This should be given to each and every Labour-aligned politician, and should be ordered to quote from it at every possible opportunity.
But... you can't counter a narrative with facts. Quote a number, and people turn away, or flap their hands. "No no no, you're all the same..." they quote. Point out the discrepancies, and they shout "you're always arguing with each other - we need change." Recall the CV & lifestyles of candidates, and they say "we need Nigel. He speaks for us."
It can be depressing, until you realise that a lot of the voices we hear and read and watch are those of people the media want you to hear. TV news programmes seek out constituencies like Lincoln or Grimsby (or, indeed, Clacton) where they will feature many voices from white-faced, middle-aged citizens who repeat the talking points (actually, they're not talking points, because they refuse to engage in 'talking' - let's call it rhetoric), usually with the word "illegals" in there somewhere.
It might be comforting (in the long term) to face facts. We might need to suffer a Reform government for a term in order to show the people what we keep talking about.
I think you've got this wrong or incomplete. Yes, Matt G is everything you describe and more besides. His 2023 book sets out the tropes we see deployed today. I 'critiqued' it (loosely) at the time, see: https://suxless.substack.com/p/a-critique-of-matthew-goodwins-values), but could not have seen the degree to which the political climate would shift.
So, where do I think you wrong? This constituency would be difficult to win for anyone outside of Labour. It's certainly not a shoo-in for the Greens as the leftier version of Labour. Putting Goodwin in there is clever. If they can get this fella over the line, then all bets are off. If he misses out, there is still a story to tell. Either way and regardless of what happens, I am betting REFUK is testing all manner of headlines, all of which land with their base. It's certainly not the high-wire act for REFUK that some might wish to portray.
P.S. Don't get me started on Burnham... that's a story for another day and nothing to do with leadership plots.
If the Greens are ‘leftier’ than Labour, that’s because the ‘window’ has moved. I think the Lib Dem’s are almost ‘leftier’ than Labour these days the way Labour has turned out. Can’t see much difference between Mahmood these days & Tory counterparts.
And the Greens are fielding an ethnic minority candidate for this election which might help given the make-up of the constituency.
I live in the Bradford district. We have a high population of South Asian heritage voters similar to G&D. We also have 2 long standing S-A heritage MPs. Both their votes fell sharply in 2024. Read into that what you will.
You make very strong points, and I agree. Except Denton and Gordon may well vote for the idiotic Reform candidate. If only Clacton could raise their voices and shout “No!”.
Well put Bear.
All Reform has is several coats of gloss trying to conceal rotten woodwork, no primer and crumbling fabric.
They have the interests of the rich at heart and that organ itself is rotten, poisoned by the Faragian levels of bigotry that are their real driving force.
All else is BS intended to bluff the credulous and hard of thinking.
It says something that Reform couldn't come up with a candidate from the constituency.
To be fair, it doesn't look like Labour will either. I would say the same about the Tories, but Nigel's got that covered.
All excellent points, and he is a thoroughly unsuitable character, according to his former colleagues.
However, he might just win, with the Greens a close second. Depressing proof that you can indeed fool most of the people most of the time.
The prize is Britain’s over centralised government allowing elective dictatorships to ram through laws benefitting shadowy interests.
The requirement is for votes but not the policy ideas of the general public.
The tactic is synthesised outrage and grievance. Manufactured anger as political energy.
The idea, as America is showing, is that a significant cohort can tolerate a government acting against their interests, as long as another cohort is punished. Divide, rule, enrage, exploit.
Like Farage he would rather agitate than mediate.
Again, sadly true.
However, the voters there probably will vote like turkeys for Christmas.
It would be interesting to know how many Tory detectors would be classed as British under the criteria.
I hope he’s going to enjoy living in his constituency and holding surgeries.
A bit like Farage in Clacton then?
Looking forward to Matt Goodwin's poll of, er, Matt Goodwin and the authenticated independent non-partisan Reform membership predicting a landslide for Matt Goodwin.
Absolutely brilliant analysis! The disconnect between Reform's working-class rhetoric and their regressive tax policies is somthing I've been trying to explain to people for months. When you see them proposing policies that primarily benefit estates over £2m while half the constiuency doesn't even own homes, the mask really slips. This breakdown of Gorton and Denton's demographics makes it crystal clear.
Reform = HypocritesRus®
Amidst the usual swell of salient points, dear Iratus, I would like to add a note of caution to your analysis. Yes, Reform has become the Care Home for Failed Tories; yes, Farage's policy offering is tissue-paper thin; yes, he and his cronies are more of the establishment than anti-establishment; and yes, he manages to skirt the line between xenophobia and racism as adroitly as ever. Having said all that, he is doing something that the other parties are not: he is recognising the anger the last decade and a half generated.
Whilst the irony is unlikely to have passed many by, that his party is now full of the dregs of the party that not only did more damage to this country than the Luftwaffe, introduced us to a level of political incompetence that lacks historical precedent, and dangerously undermined trust in democracy, he has pushed a narrative that the British public desperately wants to hear.
Mervyn King noted the anger people felt about the extent to which the financial sector escaped the consequences of its actions back in 2008. Not only that, but Cameron and Osborne's politically motivated austerity left the most vulnerable with the bill. The architects of the Financial Crisis not only got away scot-free, but they also left families up and down the country shelling out to cover their bets.
Cameron's Brexit may, or may not, have been a backlash against a government that had well and truly shafted great swathes of the electorate. Whatever the truth, it has left the UK weaker on numerous levels. The Troika of austerity, Brexit, and Tory party 'reforms' have stripped back public services to the point where even the ultra-libertarian Reform party cannot find any savings beyond the amount of time spent in meetings.
While Starmer 'sort of' recognised this truth, his timorousness has held him back from even the mildest response. Farage, on the other hand, has no compunction about throwing out the most outrageous statements. Best case scenario, it catapults him into power (from his point of view, not ours, I hasten to add). Worst-case scenario, he languishes as the perpetual rabble-rouser, fleecing his flock as he rails against the storm.
He is still the only politician challenging the idea that business as usual is a viable strategy. The likelihood of his making good on his promises should not be considered reasonable for even a moment. What we need to be careful of is writing him off completely.
We need to recognise him for the cancerous political figure he is. As long as he can command attention, he will continue to poison political discourse. Consensus is impossible whilst he remains on the stage. It is pure dogmatism and division. The likes of Goodwin are merely the latest creatures to emerge from beneath the same rock most Reform politicians have sheltered under for so long.
Gorton and Denton will be subject to the full force of Reform's machine over the coming weeks. Wales will face a diluted version with the Senedd elections, as will local authorities across the country when the polls open for the next round of county council elections. They may not bother to try to understand local issues, but they understand the electorate well enough to play them like a violin.
What a great post. This should be given to each and every Labour-aligned politician, and should be ordered to quote from it at every possible opportunity.
But... you can't counter a narrative with facts. Quote a number, and people turn away, or flap their hands. "No no no, you're all the same..." they quote. Point out the discrepancies, and they shout "you're always arguing with each other - we need change." Recall the CV & lifestyles of candidates, and they say "we need Nigel. He speaks for us."
It can be depressing, until you realise that a lot of the voices we hear and read and watch are those of people the media want you to hear. TV news programmes seek out constituencies like Lincoln or Grimsby (or, indeed, Clacton) where they will feature many voices from white-faced, middle-aged citizens who repeat the talking points (actually, they're not talking points, because they refuse to engage in 'talking' - let's call it rhetoric), usually with the word "illegals" in there somewhere.
It might be comforting (in the long term) to face facts. We might need to suffer a Reform government for a term in order to show the people what we keep talking about.
I think you've got this wrong or incomplete. Yes, Matt G is everything you describe and more besides. His 2023 book sets out the tropes we see deployed today. I 'critiqued' it (loosely) at the time, see: https://suxless.substack.com/p/a-critique-of-matthew-goodwins-values), but could not have seen the degree to which the political climate would shift.
So, where do I think you wrong? This constituency would be difficult to win for anyone outside of Labour. It's certainly not a shoo-in for the Greens as the leftier version of Labour. Putting Goodwin in there is clever. If they can get this fella over the line, then all bets are off. If he misses out, there is still a story to tell. Either way and regardless of what happens, I am betting REFUK is testing all manner of headlines, all of which land with their base. It's certainly not the high-wire act for REFUK that some might wish to portray.
P.S. Don't get me started on Burnham... that's a story for another day and nothing to do with leadership plots.
P.P.S. His book is definitely worth studying.
If the Greens are ‘leftier’ than Labour, that’s because the ‘window’ has moved. I think the Lib Dem’s are almost ‘leftier’ than Labour these days the way Labour has turned out. Can’t see much difference between Mahmood these days & Tory counterparts.
And the Greens are fielding an ethnic minority candidate for this election which might help given the make-up of the constituency.
I live in the Bradford district. We have a high population of South Asian heritage voters similar to G&D. We also have 2 long standing S-A heritage MPs. Both their votes fell sharply in 2024. Read into that what you will.
You make very strong points, and I agree. Except Denton and Gordon may well vote for the idiotic Reform candidate. If only Clacton could raise their voices and shout “No!”.
Good work Bear - the Reformistas must really hate that your first language isn’t English.