My only comment is that Reform has policies, the criticism being that they are neither detailed nor costed.
And by their own admission, that's true, but they correctly point out that pre the 2024 general election they had single digit percentage support and a tiny membership which, within a year, has leapt to 34% support, first place by far in the polls, and a membership now outstripping both the Tories and Labour (although we don't know the Labour membership because they stopped publishing it). They now have thousands of candidates for MP's and Councillors around the country they must vet, organise, train and fund into a cohesive group.
Personally, I can't think of a political organisation or start up business which has scaled so rapidly, and as Zia Yusef correctly points out, mistakes are impossible to avoid.
The details of policies are impossible to develop within a year and, as Nigel Farage points out, they have another 4 years to dot the I's and cross the T's.
The concept of mass deportation of immigrants has been attacked and mangled by the Tories and Labour and Nigel has pointed out, correctly, that it's impossible. But we need to define 'mass deportation'. What does it mean? Do we deport every immigrant that's ever entered the country illegally or legally? That is utterly ridiculous.
Does it mean deportation of the boat people? Not so ridiculous, but that's not mass deportation. How about those illegal immigrants who have committed crimes? That would seem desirable, but what about the legal immigrants who have committed serious crime, should they be deported?
You can do mental gymnastics with this single subject, and then attempt to calculate the economic impact of innumerable permutations. Once 'solved' you then move onto another policy, say the increase in the personal allowance. Quite apart from the mental gymnastics required to develop that policy, how is that impacted by 'mass deportations'?
So on and so forth.
The Tories and Labour have the resources and experience to deal with all these matters (frankly, all they seem to do is tweak previous policies) so perhaps it's time for a clean sheet rethink of the way forward for the country. If they get anything right at all, they'll be way ahead of what we've had for the last 15 years.
As regards immigration management, I wonder if it might be improved by creating a status of Associate Citizen of the United Kingdom (for legal migrants of course) which carries certain obligations but no restrictions e.g. Individuals, and legally married couples with children under 19 are allowed but no other dependents; employment for at least one must be secured (and maintained for 10 years) before entering the UK, no criminal record, private health insurance, prearranged dwelling etc. Maintain that for, say, 20 years before full citizenship can be applied for. Any criminal/antisocial or long term unemployment during the Associate period means automatic deportation.
Immigration is an issue, but not the *only* issue regarding crime. As it stands, all I've seen from Reform is the usual 'Bobbies on the beat' platitudes. No evidence of strategy / direction of travel. Reform strike me as likely to fall into a similar trap to Labour; whereas Labour thought leftist virtue would magic away our problems, Nigel and Co. seem to think commonsense will serve the same purpose. Would be happy to be proved wrong.
Like I said, they are a year on from a party polling in low single digits. They can't magic up answers to everything in 12 months. Nor does the average voter understand the first thing about policing, which is why 'bobbies on the beat' sounds attractive. But it's no worse than the Tories and Labour, who have blind sided the public with promises of thousands of new recruits, whilst cutting personnel elsewhere.
The problem is, politicians are all liars, but Labour and the Tories have proven themselves compulsively so. As far as I'm concerned, why wouldn't I give a new party a tilt at the job. I don't believe Reform could be any worse than what we have had for 15 years. What's not to like? - Scrap the ECHR, scrap NetZero, raise the tax threshold to £20k (long overdue) "De-Politicise the College of Policing", audit local councils, reform the Criminal Justice System, "Ban Transgender Ideology in Primary and Secondary Schools" etc.
Fair enough. My 'job' (such as it is) is offering analysis. I've never pretended to be unbiased - my views are generally (but not exclusively) right of centre, but if Labour propose a solid policing policy? I'll support it. Ditto the Tories or Reform (or anyone else). Policing has to offer continuity (whoever is in charge), something political parties seem to forget. I do however, have to see something more than aspirations. I can't offer much of an analysis on 'vibes.' I'd be letting my readers down.
And a little something you and I know is not true, that racism is endemic within the police. That floodgate opened after the murder of Stephen Lawrence when the Met. caved to announcing endemic racism rather than throwing incompetent senior officers under the bus.
I met a handful of privately 'racist' cops (more likely to meet sectarian officers in Glasgow though) but not one would allow their personal opinions affect their professional approach to policing.
Entirely reasonable, but every 'manifesto' from every party is a wish list, in Starmer's case, not even that.
Personally, I think Reform has a rather more pragmatic approach to politics. For example, the two child policy seems, on the face of it, a sensible Right wing policy - don't burden the taxpayer with paying for other people's children. Labour consider it essential that all children should be supported by the state because it's 'kind'.
Reform have taken an entirely different tack. The UK's birthrate is around 1.4 children per couple (it should be 2.1) we can't possibly provide for the future of our native population if that persists. The usual response is that we'll be funding the unemployed and immigrants to have children. But you and I know, these people breed like rabbits anyway and get multiple sources of state support, extra child support would be inconsequential to them, especially if they are not paying taxes.
What we might be better focusing on is the vast majority of kids born into a working family environment. Those are the families who need support to encourage an increase in the native birth rate.
As I recall (from the accounts of others, since I was born in 1948 and didn't read the papers for a few years after), when the NHS was founded the story was that all ill health would be fixed in one or at most two generations. Say 50 years. That was 1998.
By then, we were told, almost everyone would be healthy and all the NHS would have to deal with would be accidents, criminal injuries, and a few genetic conditions. (Which might gradually be eliminated as science advanced). So the cost would plummet, leaving a happy, healthy, and productive nation with perfect teeth.
What happened? Every decade saw the costs rise steeply, along with levels of sickness. Much of the blame (ironically) must be assigned to government health and nutrition advice, and the simpletons who unthinkingly followed it. (Who were admittedly rendered even simpler by government education).
Governments, blindly followed by the NHS, doctors, nurses, dieticians, and many others who didn't even profit (much) from their advice, told people to stop eating the foods that had sustained and invigorated as many as 100,000 generations of humans and pre-humans - basically meat and eggs - and to switch to "healthy whole grains" and seed oils, foods and food-like substances that had been consumed for only a few centuries at most (and steadily degraded during that time). Result: instant pandemic of obesity, diabetes, cancer, circulatory disease, autoimmune diseases, you name it.
Also vast, obscene profits for the "food", pharmaceutical, medical, and insurance industries.
I won't even get into government advice to keep out of the sun, thereby getting too little Vitamin D, nitric oxide, and other essential nutrients - and, with crushing irony, probably having increased chances of getting cancer.
In today's "Daily Sceptic" I read that Daniel Hannan has written in "The Telegraph":
"The British state spends an unbelievable £52 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits. According to the DWP, that figure will rise to £70 billion at today’s prices by the end of the present Parliament". https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/29/economic-collapse-is-now-inevitable/
So, after 77 years of the NHS, the British government has to pay the equivalent of nearly £1,000 every year to each and every British citizen!
Hardly the sign of a healthy populace. The longer the NHS has existed, it seems, the more ill-health there has been; and that trend continues inexorably.
Perhaps Pournelle’s Law of Bureaucracy applies?
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely".
My only comment is that Reform has policies, the criticism being that they are neither detailed nor costed.
And by their own admission, that's true, but they correctly point out that pre the 2024 general election they had single digit percentage support and a tiny membership which, within a year, has leapt to 34% support, first place by far in the polls, and a membership now outstripping both the Tories and Labour (although we don't know the Labour membership because they stopped publishing it). They now have thousands of candidates for MP's and Councillors around the country they must vet, organise, train and fund into a cohesive group.
Personally, I can't think of a political organisation or start up business which has scaled so rapidly, and as Zia Yusef correctly points out, mistakes are impossible to avoid.
The details of policies are impossible to develop within a year and, as Nigel Farage points out, they have another 4 years to dot the I's and cross the T's.
The concept of mass deportation of immigrants has been attacked and mangled by the Tories and Labour and Nigel has pointed out, correctly, that it's impossible. But we need to define 'mass deportation'. What does it mean? Do we deport every immigrant that's ever entered the country illegally or legally? That is utterly ridiculous.
Does it mean deportation of the boat people? Not so ridiculous, but that's not mass deportation. How about those illegal immigrants who have committed crimes? That would seem desirable, but what about the legal immigrants who have committed serious crime, should they be deported?
You can do mental gymnastics with this single subject, and then attempt to calculate the economic impact of innumerable permutations. Once 'solved' you then move onto another policy, say the increase in the personal allowance. Quite apart from the mental gymnastics required to develop that policy, how is that impacted by 'mass deportations'?
So on and so forth.
The Tories and Labour have the resources and experience to deal with all these matters (frankly, all they seem to do is tweak previous policies) so perhaps it's time for a clean sheet rethink of the way forward for the country. If they get anything right at all, they'll be way ahead of what we've had for the last 15 years.
As regards immigration management, I wonder if it might be improved by creating a status of Associate Citizen of the United Kingdom (for legal migrants of course) which carries certain obligations but no restrictions e.g. Individuals, and legally married couples with children under 19 are allowed but no other dependents; employment for at least one must be secured (and maintained for 10 years) before entering the UK, no criminal record, private health insurance, prearranged dwelling etc. Maintain that for, say, 20 years before full citizenship can be applied for. Any criminal/antisocial or long term unemployment during the Associate period means automatic deportation.
Immigration is an issue, but not the *only* issue regarding crime. As it stands, all I've seen from Reform is the usual 'Bobbies on the beat' platitudes. No evidence of strategy / direction of travel. Reform strike me as likely to fall into a similar trap to Labour; whereas Labour thought leftist virtue would magic away our problems, Nigel and Co. seem to think commonsense will serve the same purpose. Would be happy to be proved wrong.
Like I said, they are a year on from a party polling in low single digits. They can't magic up answers to everything in 12 months. Nor does the average voter understand the first thing about policing, which is why 'bobbies on the beat' sounds attractive. But it's no worse than the Tories and Labour, who have blind sided the public with promises of thousands of new recruits, whilst cutting personnel elsewhere.
The problem is, politicians are all liars, but Labour and the Tories have proven themselves compulsively so. As far as I'm concerned, why wouldn't I give a new party a tilt at the job. I don't believe Reform could be any worse than what we have had for 15 years. What's not to like? - Scrap the ECHR, scrap NetZero, raise the tax threshold to £20k (long overdue) "De-Politicise the College of Policing", audit local councils, reform the Criminal Justice System, "Ban Transgender Ideology in Primary and Secondary Schools" etc.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371
Fair enough. My 'job' (such as it is) is offering analysis. I've never pretended to be unbiased - my views are generally (but not exclusively) right of centre, but if Labour propose a solid policing policy? I'll support it. Ditto the Tories or Reform (or anyone else). Policing has to offer continuity (whoever is in charge), something political parties seem to forget. I do however, have to see something more than aspirations. I can't offer much of an analysis on 'vibes.' I'd be letting my readers down.
And a little something you and I know is not true, that racism is endemic within the police. That floodgate opened after the murder of Stephen Lawrence when the Met. caved to announcing endemic racism rather than throwing incompetent senior officers under the bus.
I met a handful of privately 'racist' cops (more likely to meet sectarian officers in Glasgow though) but not one would allow their personal opinions affect their professional approach to policing.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/29/police-chief-suspended-for-rejecting-nonsense-racism-claims-launches-legal-battle/
Entirely reasonable, but every 'manifesto' from every party is a wish list, in Starmer's case, not even that.
Personally, I think Reform has a rather more pragmatic approach to politics. For example, the two child policy seems, on the face of it, a sensible Right wing policy - don't burden the taxpayer with paying for other people's children. Labour consider it essential that all children should be supported by the state because it's 'kind'.
Reform have taken an entirely different tack. The UK's birthrate is around 1.4 children per couple (it should be 2.1) we can't possibly provide for the future of our native population if that persists. The usual response is that we'll be funding the unemployed and immigrants to have children. But you and I know, these people breed like rabbits anyway and get multiple sources of state support, extra child support would be inconsequential to them, especially if they are not paying taxes.
What we might be better focusing on is the vast majority of kids born into a working family environment. Those are the families who need support to encourage an increase in the native birth rate.
Makes pragmatic sense to me.
An entertaining read, thank you. Reposted on BlueSky
I'm sure they'll love me over there!
I will let you know if they bite.
A Government of Service? Self-serving would be a far more accurate description.
As I recall (from the accounts of others, since I was born in 1948 and didn't read the papers for a few years after), when the NHS was founded the story was that all ill health would be fixed in one or at most two generations. Say 50 years. That was 1998.
By then, we were told, almost everyone would be healthy and all the NHS would have to deal with would be accidents, criminal injuries, and a few genetic conditions. (Which might gradually be eliminated as science advanced). So the cost would plummet, leaving a happy, healthy, and productive nation with perfect teeth.
What happened? Every decade saw the costs rise steeply, along with levels of sickness. Much of the blame (ironically) must be assigned to government health and nutrition advice, and the simpletons who unthinkingly followed it. (Who were admittedly rendered even simpler by government education).
Governments, blindly followed by the NHS, doctors, nurses, dieticians, and many others who didn't even profit (much) from their advice, told people to stop eating the foods that had sustained and invigorated as many as 100,000 generations of humans and pre-humans - basically meat and eggs - and to switch to "healthy whole grains" and seed oils, foods and food-like substances that had been consumed for only a few centuries at most (and steadily degraded during that time). Result: instant pandemic of obesity, diabetes, cancer, circulatory disease, autoimmune diseases, you name it.
Also vast, obscene profits for the "food", pharmaceutical, medical, and insurance industries.
I won't even get into government advice to keep out of the sun, thereby getting too little Vitamin D, nitric oxide, and other essential nutrients - and, with crushing irony, probably having increased chances of getting cancer.
In today's "Daily Sceptic" I read that Daniel Hannan has written in "The Telegraph":
"The British state spends an unbelievable £52 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits. According to the DWP, that figure will rise to £70 billion at today’s prices by the end of the present Parliament". https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/29/economic-collapse-is-now-inevitable/
So, after 77 years of the NHS, the British government has to pay the equivalent of nearly £1,000 every year to each and every British citizen!
Hardly the sign of a healthy populace. The longer the NHS has existed, it seems, the more ill-health there has been; and that trend continues inexorably.
Perhaps Pournelle’s Law of Bureaucracy applies?
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely".
Adrian Culley
7m
Fabulous, apposite writing and reasoning Dom. Thank you 🙏