I think their dysfunction in local government is more to do with incompetence than design.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
If I were working in an environment where there were cut backs I would prioritise the things that absolutely have to be done now and anything with a longer deadline gets put off, regardless of how important it is. Thus the cheques would still go out but other things are not done which will cause problems in a month's time (say) when their deadlines are looming. Thus the problems caused by the cut backs are long term, not immediate. I'm not saying that this is what has happened at USA social security under DOGE nor that this is what will happen in the Reform-led councils where cuts might be made. But it seems quite feasible to me.
I’m not remotely defending them obviously - I’m just a bit exasperated by the ‘look what a mess they’re making of local government’ chat when at the moment that just doesn’t ring true (though I totally take @Arethosemyfeet ’s point about slow burn failure).
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
I appreciate people are worried, and I think they’re right to be, but I also seriously worry about getting into boy who cried wolf territory. Because, at the moment in a Reform-controlled area, I can only imagine people being laughed at and then tuned out. Too fast out of the traps, and too ready to jump on anything as evidence of failure.
That’s fine if you’re trying to discredit a pressure group, when on the other hand you’re attacking a unitary authority with 100% election on the same five year term, a clear majority, and well over four years to run - where they basically are in charge barring implosion until 2030, then it looks hysterical if you go off too early.
Particularly when, as at the moment, it doesn’t match with what people are seeing on the ground. Or the overall mood.
I suspect Reform would walk a general election in this authority area at the moment, and that’s about 5 MPs.
I suspect I've said before that a lot of work that local councils do is down to officials, and mucking it up in the short term takes conscious effort rather than incompetence. Budget setting is an area I could see things starting to come unstuck.
Another factor is that councils are both strapped for cash and stripped to the point where the majority of their budget pays for social care.
The former means that they have been prone to being taken for a ride by fraudulent investment firms, something I suspect may speed up under a Reform controlled council with DOGE like pretensions. Trouble is that these take a long time to fester and the latter means that the impact is first felt by those least able to make a fuss.
@Stetson Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
"They say what I want to hear" is one phrase I hear a lot from them ... I tend to think my relatives don't care what is said atm. Almost as if they want 'something' to happen although if it gets too geographically close to them or too hot they'll just squeal like lil piggies.
If I were working in an environment where there were cut backs I would prioritise the things that absolutely have to be done now and anything with a longer deadline gets put off, regardless of how important it is. Thus the cheques would still go out but other things are not done which will cause problems in a month's time (say) when their deadlines are looming. Thus the problems caused by the cut backs are long term, not immediate. I'm not saying that this is what has happened at USA social security under DOGE nor that this is what will happen in the Reform-led councils where cuts might be made. But it seems quite feasible to me.
Yeah, quite likely. But when you say "Airplane crashes and late cheques coming up now!", and six months later those specific outcomes haven't materialized, it doesn't enhance your credibility.
I’m not remotely defending them obviously - I’m just a bit exasperated by the ‘look what a mess they’re making of local government’ chat when at the moment that just doesn’t ring true (though I totally take @Arethosemyfeet ’s point about slow burn failure).
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
The bit where councillors work really hard is setting a budget. At present any Reform lead council will be working on the budget set by their predecessors, with only a relatively small amount of room to adjust that. The big question is going to be how they set their first budget. Do they maintain the basic funding formula and simply tinker with a few quid here and there, which is generally the approach most parties take (especially as over the last 10 years or so any potential slack in the finances which could be used to deliver either significant cuts in spending or council tax has been removed as councils have made their operations basically as efficient as they can be)? Or do they take the proverbial chain saw to spending and put themselves potentially in the position of not meeting statutory requirements to provide social services, to house the homeless and the asylum seekers in their area, run schools, collect bins etc? And, if they do cut, cut, cut who will notice - those receiving social care or needing housing will, but for the comfortable middle class as long as the bins are emptied and the grass cut it will look pretty much business as usual (except they may see council tax frozen).
@Stetson Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
In my experience, a lotta voters don't make connections between political parties and extraparliamentary groups pushing the same agenda as the parties. So unless Farage has actually endorsed the mobs, I suspect a lot of Reform voters think stuff like "Well, the rioting's not good, but maybe if the government wasn't so lax on immigration, people wouldn't be pushed to such extreme responses. Farage will take care of all that."
I think their dysfunction in local government is more to do with incompetence than design.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
Interestingly, I was reading earlier about social security checks/cheques in the USA. Trump changed the system in July to move from paper to some sort of electronic system.
It's now September. It seems a bit soon to confidently say that the checks have continued to be delivered.
I think their dysfunction in local government is more to do with incompetence than design.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
Interestingly, I was reading earlier about social security checks/cheques in the USA. Trump changed the system in July to move from paper to some sort of electronic system.
It's now September. It seems a bit soon to confidently say that the checks have continued to be delivered.
True, I remember hearing about that as well, and wondering how it would go over with people who don't like doing business on-line.
I wonder if Danny Kruger joining is another fairly isolated event or an indicator that the trickle of Conservatives moving to Reform may become a bit more of a flood. I don't agree with Kruger on much but he does seem a bit above the level of some of the previous defectors.
Going back to the thread title - yes, but the real threat is right wing populism.
All the ingredients for Bad Things to happen are there;
1. Stoked up resentment and grievance ("they get 5* luxury hotels and we get nowt")
2. Demonisation ("they're all rapists and criminals")
3. Simplistic solutions ("send them all back and use the money for...")
4. Slogans ("Stop the boats", "Save our kids!")
5. Vague appeals to emotion without any detail ("preserve our culture", "we want our country back" - without ever specifying in exactly what way the culture is threatened or the country taken away)
6. Charismatic leader - or at least a marmite one
The wheels of local government turn so slowly that it will be a while before Reform councillors can affect anything.
In the meantime they seem hell-bent on portraying all other councillors as incompetent or unaccountable, neither of which is true of course but it plays well with their audience and core base.
They also insinuate that none of the other councillors or their predecessors ever scrutinised anything properly and this before most of them have ever gone through the budgetary process themselves.
In fairness, I have come across one Reform councillor in another local authority area who seems to want to work with councillors from other parties. All the others I've come across position themselves as the only ones who know what they are doing despite having loads less experience than everyone else.
Again, that plays well with their supporters who are only too willing to believe that everything is bust until Reform come to miraculously fix it.
Subtly saying that the Weimar Republic was a degenerate time and whatever came after was better (no, we haven't checked what came next, yes our editor was very excised over the teaching of history when he was Education Secretary).
Subtly saying that the Weimar Republic was a degenerate time and whatever came after was better (no, we haven't checked what came next, yes our editor was very excised over the teaching of history when he was Education Secretary).
The article itself is pretty much the opposite of that characterisation - that Britain should learn from the past and avoid the same fate as befell Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Subtly saying that the Weimar Republic was a degenerate time and whatever came after was better (no, we haven't checked what came next, yes our editor was very excised over the teaching of history when he was Education Secretary).
The article itself is pretty much the opposite of that characterisation - that Britain should learn from the past and avoid the same fate as befell Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Well, let's see what he thinks the problem is:
"Artists, polemicists and others who placed themselves in the cultural vanguard sought to dismantle traditional gender roles, ridicule bourgeois values and deride patriotic attachment. "
So, Michael, what's the remedy? Tell us!
"That will require setting aside international conventions that have had their time, repealing EU laws that our courts have made into economic opioids, appointing to cultural institutions leaders who believe in celebrating Britain, requiring universities to be incubators of homegrown science, not finishing schools for Chinese communists, and facing down the rainbow-crescent alliance of radical leftists and revolutionary Islamists who feed on national self-doubt."
Ah yes, we need to crush the international forces of Islamo-Bolshevism which seek to undermine the nation, I wouldn't expect anything less from an avid reader of Arktos Press.
One curious aspect of this that whoever is funding the right wing in Scotland (and my gut feeling is that someone is funding it) is wrapping it in the Saltire. Meanwhile the St George's crosses of England are feeding into the rhetoric of a divided Britain, at least here in Scotland.
We've had Saltires appearing in the poorest areas here; maybe people are buying them for themselves, but I don't think so. Peterhead (collapsed fishing industry) is currently awash with them.
Double posting to add - the reason I think that someone is funding these Saltires is that usually when you see Saltires, on St Andrew's Day or when Scotland are playing in some sporting international event, for example, they are a variety of sizes and a variety of shades of blue, and they'll be interspersed with the Lion Rampart. But the Saltires appearing now are large and identical. All one size. ISTM that they are being distributed from one central distribution point.
Meanwhile the St George's crosses of England are feeding into the rhetoric of a divided Britain, at least here in Scotland.
Did you mean to link saltires in Scotland *and* St George’s crosses in England as *both* feeding into the rhetoric of a divided Britain?
Because what you’ve written pretty much says that it’s a problem indicative of a divided Britain (in Scotland) when the English fly their flag (in England). Does that go both ways?
The irony of Scotland being run by a *separatist party* is not lost on me when it comes to divided Britain.
I must drive over to Corby and see which flags are out there!
Actually, as an aside, I learn from a quick look at social media that it is predominantly union flags in Corby, presumably because many residents don’t see themselves as English.
I mean that whichever right-wingers are behind this, they see pushing Saltires in Scotland as a way of fermenting discontent and division. They are not interested in "Britain." In Scotland, at least, "Britain" is not the message they are pushing. They might be talking about "Britain" in England, but they are not talking about "Britain" here.
I don't know who is behind it, but it does seem to me that there's some group behind it.
There's a migrant hotel about five miles from my house. For quite some time requests for needed items for the migrants (e.g. warm jumpers, jackets) have been included in our church intimations. There's a "wanted" list pinned outside the church office. There have been practically no issues, and a lot of local support. Now suddenly directions as to how to find the hotel have been published online and non-locals have been turning up to shout outside the hotel. Clearly, if someone needs directions to find the place, it isn't an issue for them personally. Locals, who have had few issues with the hotel up to now, suddenly have a problem with men turning up and shouting.
From what I've heard, the shouty-Scottish-but-not-local-men have just produced an increase in local support for the hotel.
Because what you’ve written pretty much says that it’s a problem indicative of a divided Britain (in Scotland) when the English fly their flag (in England). Does that go both ways?
The irony of Scotland being run by a *separatist party* is not lost on me when it comes to divided Britain.
There is an existing issue and some right wingers are seeing this as an issue to exploit and create discontent, in a way that is clearly not "pro-British."
The funding for these identi-Saltires, and possibly the money for bus fares to enable the discontents to travel to the migrant hotel is coming from somewhere.
If you see a lot of Union flags/flag designs decorating buildings and kerbs in Scotland in a non military context you're generally looking at anti- Irish, anti-RC sectarianism and often support of a certain football team which commonly goes with it. It can be a divisive symbol of its own up here, especially in the West of Scotland.
In my recent experience, populists can impart the same rough meaning into political flags of various tendencies, even within the same jurisdiction.
The convoyards in Ottawa were flying both the old red ensign and the republican banners of the 1837 Rebellions, even though those flags represent diametrically opposed views of what Canada should be(*). And some of them were flying the Eureka Flag, which I was told by Aussie shipmates was originally associated with strikes and left-wing protests, but has now been picked up by the right.
I think if a flag looks traditional and/or has a vague aura of manliness about it, it's probably good-to-go for right-populist appropriation.
(*) I suspect the "Liberty" flag of Navy Island got canonized after someone googled "Flag of the Republic of Canada" and that's what came up. The patriotes tricolour has a longer history of everyday use in Quebec.
I mean that whichever right-wingers are behind this, they see pushing Saltires in Scotland as a way of fermenting discontent and division. They are not interested in "Britain." In Scotland, at least, "Britain" is not the message they are pushing. They might be talking about "Britain" in England, but they are not talking about "Britain" here.
Would I be correct in my summation that, if Joe Blow Saltire Waver from Scotland and Joe Blow British Flag Waver from Brighton met at an anti-migrant protest in the north of England and went to the pub afterwards, they would basically agree on all of the issues that brought them into the movement in the first place?
IOW it's the same broad movement in both places, just with the symbolism tailored differently for local appeal?
@stetson it could be that, or it could well be that the people behind, those financing, have decided it would be a good idea to weaponise the movement that seeks Scottish Independence, and infiltrate their isolationist and unwelcoming ideas into what has always been a very different idea of nationalism.
Also, I've heard rhetoric amongst the English Reform far-right protesters that they should be allowed to fly their flags with pride. And now I'm hearing that here, too. I don't know whether there were issues about the St George's Cross in England, but at no point has there ever been anything negative about the Saltire here.
I was in Marks and Spencer food hall yesterday. All the paper carrier bags have a Saltire design, with the Saltire made out of blueberries, brambles and something white. There were two large signs with Saltires saying "Marks and Spencer - proudly supporting our Scottish suppliers", one next to the meat, another next to the shortbread. The milk, some cheese, mince, and shortbread were all packaged with saltires. There were Union jacks on the potatoes and tin of sweets.
Anyone here thinking they are making a point by flying identi-Saltires is sadly mistaken. If you want to carry a Saltire, all you have to do is go shopping in Markies and forget to bring your reusable bags.
It does feel as though someone is trying to create an issue amongst the disaffected in Scotland, which wasn't an issue for them before. It doesn't feel as though it's a grass-roots movement.
@stetson it could be that, or it could well be that the people behind, those financing, have decided it would be a good idea to weaponise the movement that seeks Scottish Independence, and infiltrate their isolationist and unwelcoming ideas into what has always been a very different idea of nationalism.
Hmm. Though of course that is to ignore that there are a decent number of Scottish nationalists for whom that is not the case, and who would exists in Scotland in the event of Scottish Independence (plus also the British nationalists in Scotland).
The National Centre for Social Research has run the numbers on this by the way, which rather looks like the picture of nationalism amazingly similar both sides of the border:
In the anti racism demonstration yesterday in Glasgow the photos show racists/ fascists had brought Union flags and Saltires but the anti-racist side also had some Saltires - there were Palestinian and Progress pride flags too - but people aren't going to readily concede the Saltire to a bunch of racists.
Actually, if I were planning for ‘How to Govern an Independent Scotland’ I think I’d be troubled by how to handle the 42% of Yes voters that think ‘having Scottish ancestry is important to being truly Scottish’ in the aftermath of achieving an independence vote on the basis of ‘not like other nationalism.’
That is, by the way, agnostic on whether it’s a good idea to have Scottish independence - it’s more a warning not to take the ‘it’s different and civic’ line too far.
It (and by these numbers so is English nationalism) is majority civic, but the non-civic nationalist vote is still more sizeable than I would have expected and those people will still be there the day after!
In the anti racism demonstration yesterday in Glasgow the photos show racists/ fascists had brought Union flags and Saltires but the anti-racist side also had some Saltires - there were Palestinian and Progress pride flags too - but people aren't going to readily concede the Saltire to a bunch of racists.
Is anyone in Britain going to ‘readily concede’ their flag to a bunch of racists?
Actually, as an aside, I learn from a quick look at social media that it is predominantly union flags in Corby, presumably because many residents don’t see themselves as English.
I see NEQ has replied herself to your peculiar interpretation of her comments. All that the hoo-hah about 'raising the saltire' proves to me is that whoever is organising this allegedly populist movement is intelligent enough to realise that asking a bunch of Scots to raise the English flag would go down like a lead balloon.
I have been wondering myself whether someone is funding the English flag-wavers. There have been quite a few round where I live, most of a uniform size and attached by cable ties halfway up lamp-posts. Some of the lamp-posts are in quite dangerous positions for someone on a step-ladder, which is no doubt why they are still there. And they all appeared at more or less the same time, which suggests an organised group with special equipment to me.
I find them disturbing for many reasons, but if you're going to hang a flag up, you should treat it with respect. Get a proper flagpole, raise and lower it with due ceremony at sunrise and sunset (bugler is optional) and put it on your own f**** property. Those horrible tacky polyester things all look like they're being flown at half-mast.
...actually, that is perhaps an appropriate comment on the state of the nation...
@betjemaniac your own link comments on civic nationalism being more linked with Yes supporters.
Supporters of Scottish independence are more ‘civic’ in their conception of national identity than opponents. Two-thirds (66%) of those who would vote Yes in another independence referendum agree that someone can become Scottish if they make the effort, compared with 52% of No supporters. At the same time, a higher proportion of No (59%) than Yes (50%) supporters think being born in Scotland is important for being truly Scottish, while 51% of No supporters but only 42% of their Yes counterparts say that having Scottish ancestry is important.
In contrast, those who support Brexit are more ‘ethnic’ than opponents in their understanding of what is needed to be ‘truly British’. A majority of those (across Britain as a whole) who now would vote against being a member of the EU (78%) believe it is important to have been born in Britain to be truly British, while nearly two-thirds (65%) believe it is important to have British ancestry (65%). Among those who would vote to become an EU member, only 45% say it is important to have been born in Britain, while just 28% say the same of having British ancestry
You can have a strong Scottish identity and be anti- independence- the old unionist nationalism - but the No voters and Brexit voters are less likely to be civic in their concept of nationalism.
Also the less civic side of the nationalist movement tried having their own party under Alex Salmond and electorally it died on its arse even before Salmond's decease.
Scotland has a racist problem as the rest of the UK does - and while all Scottish party leaders used to be reliably anti-racist that's not so now as Labour and Conservative have become increasingly illiberal and Reform has got a foothold. But this Overton window move isnt coming from the SNP and Greens. The one Unionist party which hasn't become more illiberal on immigration is the Lib Dems and they and the SNP and Greens are left holding the fort since Scottish Labour fell in behind Starmer. This cuts across Yes/No and I think has more to do with who are still prepared to go against the tide and uphold civic values.
In the anti racism demonstration yesterday in Glasgow the photos show racists/ fascists had brought Union flags and Saltires but the anti-racist side also had some Saltires - there were Palestinian and Progress pride flags too - but people aren't going to readily concede the Saltire to a bunch of racists.
Is anyone in Britain going to ‘readily concede’ their flag to a bunch of racists?
You would think - and I would hope so too but look at how Starmer jumped on the bandwagon...
Listening to the Scottish Labour leader going on about 'reasonable concerns' a couple of weeks ago on the wireless didn't fill me with confidence either. Concessions to racists seems to be rather fashionable.
In the anti racism demonstration yesterday in Glasgow the photos show racists/ fascists had brought Union flags and Saltires but the anti-racist side also had some Saltires - there were Palestinian and Progress pride flags too - but people aren't going to readily concede the Saltire to a bunch of racists.
Is anyone in Britain going to ‘readily concede’ their flag to a bunch of racists?
Well, at the very least, the racists themselves evidently think the flag is compatible with their outlook and goals.
So, between the racists on the one end, and the anti-racists on the other, are there at least some people in the middle who don't really care one way or another, and won't put up much objection to racists using the flag than when pop stars use it?
Comments
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
I appreciate people are worried, and I think they’re right to be, but I also seriously worry about getting into boy who cried wolf territory. Because, at the moment in a Reform-controlled area, I can only imagine people being laughed at and then tuned out. Too fast out of the traps, and too ready to jump on anything as evidence of failure.
That’s fine if you’re trying to discredit a pressure group, when on the other hand you’re attacking a unitary authority with 100% election on the same five year term, a clear majority, and well over four years to run - where they basically are in charge barring implosion until 2030, then it looks hysterical if you go off too early.
Particularly when, as at the moment, it doesn’t match with what people are seeing on the ground. Or the overall mood.
I suspect Reform would walk a general election in this authority area at the moment, and that’s about 5 MPs.
Another factor is that councils are both strapped for cash and stripped to the point where the majority of their budget pays for social care.
The former means that they have been prone to being taken for a ride by fraudulent investment firms, something I suspect may speed up under a Reform controlled council with DOGE like pretensions. Trouble is that these take a long time to fester and the latter means that the impact is first felt by those least able to make a fuss.
"They say what I want to hear" is one phrase I hear a lot from them ... I tend to think my relatives don't care what is said atm. Almost as if they want 'something' to happen although if it gets too geographically close to them or too hot they'll just squeal like lil piggies.
Yeah, quite likely. But when you say "Airplane crashes and late cheques coming up now!", and six months later those specific outcomes haven't materialized, it doesn't enhance your credibility.
In my experience, a lotta voters don't make connections between political parties and extraparliamentary groups pushing the same agenda as the parties. So unless Farage has actually endorsed the mobs, I suspect a lot of Reform voters think stuff like "Well, the rioting's not good, but maybe if the government wasn't so lax on immigration, people wouldn't be pushed to such extreme responses. Farage will take care of all that."
Interestingly, I was reading earlier about social security checks/cheques in the USA. Trump changed the system in July to move from paper to some sort of electronic system.
It's now September. It seems a bit soon to confidently say that the checks have continued to be delivered.
True, I remember hearing about that as well, and wondering how it would go over with people who don't like doing business on-line.
All the ingredients for Bad Things to happen are there;
1. Stoked up resentment and grievance ("they get 5* luxury hotels and we get nowt")
2. Demonisation ("they're all rapists and criminals")
3. Simplistic solutions ("send them all back and use the money for...")
4. Slogans ("Stop the boats", "Save our kids!")
5. Vague appeals to emotion without any detail ("preserve our culture", "we want our country back" - without ever specifying in exactly what way the culture is threatened or the country taken away)
6. Charismatic leader - or at least a marmite one
Yes 😢
In the meantime they seem hell-bent on portraying all other councillors as incompetent or unaccountable, neither of which is true of course but it plays well with their audience and core base.
They also insinuate that none of the other councillors or their predecessors ever scrutinised anything properly and this before most of them have ever gone through the budgetary process themselves.
In fairness, I have come across one Reform councillor in another local authority area who seems to want to work with councillors from other parties. All the others I've come across position themselves as the only ones who know what they are doing despite having loads less experience than everyone else.
Again, that plays well with their supporters who are only too willing to believe that everything is bust until Reform come to miraculously fix it.
I thought The Spectator was pretty much well on the way already ...
Subtly saying that the Weimar Republic was a degenerate time and whatever came after was better (no, we haven't checked what came next, yes our editor was very excised over the teaching of history when he was Education Secretary).
The article itself is pretty much the opposite of that characterisation - that Britain should learn from the past and avoid the same fate as befell Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Well, let's see what he thinks the problem is:
"Artists, polemicists and others who placed themselves in the cultural vanguard sought to dismantle traditional gender roles, ridicule bourgeois values and deride patriotic attachment. "
So, Michael, what's the remedy? Tell us!
"That will require setting aside international conventions that have had their time, repealing EU laws that our courts have made into economic opioids, appointing to cultural institutions leaders who believe in celebrating Britain, requiring universities to be incubators of homegrown science, not finishing schools for Chinese communists, and facing down the rainbow-crescent alliance of radical leftists and revolutionary Islamists who feed on national self-doubt."
Ah yes, we need to crush the international forces of Islamo-Bolshevism which seek to undermine the nation, I wouldn't expect anything less from an avid reader of Arktos Press.
One curious aspect of this that whoever is funding the right wing in Scotland (and my gut feeling is that someone is funding it) is wrapping it in the Saltire. Meanwhile the St George's crosses of England are feeding into the rhetoric of a divided Britain, at least here in Scotland.
We've had Saltires appearing in the poorest areas here; maybe people are buying them for themselves, but I don't think so. Peterhead (collapsed fishing industry) is currently awash with them.
Did you mean to link saltires in Scotland *and* St George’s crosses in England as *both* feeding into the rhetoric of a divided Britain?
Because what you’ve written pretty much says that it’s a problem indicative of a divided Britain (in Scotland) when the English fly their flag (in England). Does that go both ways?
The irony of Scotland being run by a *separatist party* is not lost on me when it comes to divided Britain.
I must drive over to Corby and see which flags are out there!
I’ve probably misinterpreted it..
I don't know who is behind it, but it does seem to me that there's some group behind it.
There's a migrant hotel about five miles from my house. For quite some time requests for needed items for the migrants (e.g. warm jumpers, jackets) have been included in our church intimations. There's a "wanted" list pinned outside the church office. There have been practically no issues, and a lot of local support. Now suddenly directions as to how to find the hotel have been published online and non-locals have been turning up to shout outside the hotel. Clearly, if someone needs directions to find the place, it isn't an issue for them personally. Locals, who have had few issues with the hotel up to now, suddenly have a problem with men turning up and shouting.
From what I've heard, the shouty-Scottish-but-not-local-men have just produced an increase in local support for the hotel.
Because what you’ve written pretty much says that it’s a problem indicative of a divided Britain (in Scotland) when the English fly their flag (in England). Does that go both ways?
The irony of Scotland being run by a *separatist party* is not lost on me when it comes to divided Britain.
There is an existing issue and some right wingers are seeing this as an issue to exploit and create discontent, in a way that is clearly not "pro-British."
The funding for these identi-Saltires, and possibly the money for bus fares to enable the discontents to travel to the migrant hotel is coming from somewhere.
The convoyards in Ottawa were flying both the old red ensign and the republican banners of the 1837 Rebellions, even though those flags represent diametrically opposed views of what Canada should be(*). And some of them were flying the Eureka Flag, which I was told by Aussie shipmates was originally associated with strikes and left-wing protests, but has now been picked up by the right.
I think if a flag looks traditional and/or has a vague aura of manliness about it, it's probably good-to-go for right-populist appropriation.
(*) I suspect the "Liberty" flag of Navy Island got canonized after someone googled "Flag of the Republic of Canada" and that's what came up. The patriotes tricolour has a longer history of everyday use in Quebec.
Would I be correct in my summation that, if Joe Blow Saltire Waver from Scotland and Joe Blow British Flag Waver from Brighton met at an anti-migrant protest in the north of England and went to the pub afterwards, they would basically agree on all of the issues that brought them into the movement in the first place?
IOW it's the same broad movement in both places, just with the symbolism tailored differently for local appeal?
Also, I've heard rhetoric amongst the English Reform far-right protesters that they should be allowed to fly their flags with pride. And now I'm hearing that here, too. I don't know whether there were issues about the St George's Cross in England, but at no point has there ever been anything negative about the Saltire here.
I was in Marks and Spencer food hall yesterday. All the paper carrier bags have a Saltire design, with the Saltire made out of blueberries, brambles and something white. There were two large signs with Saltires saying "Marks and Spencer - proudly supporting our Scottish suppliers", one next to the meat, another next to the shortbread. The milk, some cheese, mince, and shortbread were all packaged with saltires. There were Union jacks on the potatoes and tin of sweets.
Anyone here thinking they are making a point by flying identi-Saltires is sadly mistaken. If you want to carry a Saltire, all you have to do is go shopping in Markies and forget to bring your reusable bags.
It does feel as though someone is trying to create an issue amongst the disaffected in Scotland, which wasn't an issue for them before. It doesn't feel as though it's a grass-roots movement.
Hmm. Though of course that is to ignore that there are a decent number of Scottish nationalists for whom that is not the case, and who would exists in Scotland in the event of Scottish Independence (plus also the British nationalists in Scotland).
The National Centre for Social Research has run the numbers on this by the way, which rather looks like the picture of nationalism amazingly similar both sides of the border:
https://natcen.ac.uk/scottish-nationalism-different
That is, by the way, agnostic on whether it’s a good idea to have Scottish independence - it’s more a warning not to take the ‘it’s different and civic’ line too far.
It (and by these numbers so is English nationalism) is majority civic, but the non-civic nationalist vote is still more sizeable than I would have expected and those people will still be there the day after!
I see NEQ has replied herself to your peculiar interpretation of her comments. All that the hoo-hah about 'raising the saltire' proves to me is that whoever is organising this allegedly populist movement is intelligent enough to realise that asking a bunch of Scots to raise the English flag would go down like a lead balloon.
I have been wondering myself whether someone is funding the English flag-wavers. There have been quite a few round where I live, most of a uniform size and attached by cable ties halfway up lamp-posts. Some of the lamp-posts are in quite dangerous positions for someone on a step-ladder, which is no doubt why they are still there. And they all appeared at more or less the same time, which suggests an organised group with special equipment to me.
I find them disturbing for many reasons, but if you're going to hang a flag up, you should treat it with respect. Get a proper flagpole, raise and lower it with due ceremony at sunrise and sunset (bugler is optional) and put it on your own f**** property. Those horrible tacky polyester things all look like they're being flown at half-mast.
...actually, that is perhaps an appropriate comment on the state of the nation...
@betjemaniac your own link comments on civic nationalism being more linked with Yes supporters.
You can have a strong Scottish identity and be anti- independence- the old unionist nationalism - but the No voters and Brexit voters are less likely to be civic in their concept of nationalism.
Also the less civic side of the nationalist movement tried having their own party under Alex Salmond and electorally it died on its arse even before Salmond's decease.
Scotland has a racist problem as the rest of the UK does - and while all Scottish party leaders used to be reliably anti-racist that's not so now as Labour and Conservative have become increasingly illiberal and Reform has got a foothold. But this Overton window move isnt coming from the SNP and Greens. The one Unionist party which hasn't become more illiberal on immigration is the Lib Dems and they and the SNP and Greens are left holding the fort since Scottish Labour fell in behind Starmer. This cuts across Yes/No and I think has more to do with who are still prepared to go against the tide and uphold civic values.
You would think - and I would hope so too but look at how Starmer jumped on the bandwagon...
Listening to the Scottish Labour leader going on about 'reasonable concerns' a couple of weeks ago on the wireless didn't fill me with confidence either. Concessions to racists seems to be rather fashionable.
Well, at the very least, the racists themselves evidently think the flag is compatible with their outlook and goals.
So, between the racists on the one end, and the anti-racists on the other, are there at least some people in the middle who don't really care one way or another, and won't put up much objection to racists using the flag than when pop stars use it?