| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago |
| The only way to win the argument is to win the argument with the public. In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls, so even political parties who would otherwise oppose it just stay silent, because the public narrative You have to shift the narrative. Farage does this - he's finally after 20 years managed to get elected to parliament, he's head of a company with 4 MPs, same say as the Greens, about the same as the nationalists, yet for 20 years he has steered the conversation and got what he wants time after time |
|
| ▲ | mihaaly 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The loudest and the weirdest get the most airtime. Not all conversations are golden. He is a lying, opportunistic, self-existence driven ass. Farage is not a reference for how to do things, not even close, not at all! It is of course unfortunate that a big part of the population is heavily influenceable by almost anything that has some scary perspective, in whatever size, over-considering dangers to opportunities to the extremes (want to eliminate dangers, hopelessly), also can only hear what is too loud, so the real democratic conversations and resulting decisions are distorted a lot. Better focus on improving this, than put a self centered ass on the pedestal to follow! |
| |
|
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > he's head of a company with 4 MPs, same say as the Greens The electoral system has been working against him. At the last general election Reform got a larger share of the vote than the Lib Dems, yet the result is that they got 5 MPs while the Lib Dems got 72. The Brexit referendum and the current national polls that put Reform in first place at 27% (YouGov) show that they are not just "steering the conversation". When people's concerns keep being ignored at one point someone will come up to fill this "gap in the market", this is legitimate and how democracy works. |
| |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He's had 15 years of success without his vote in a westminster election getting to 15% Actual election results: 2010: 3% 2015: 13%. He was the only party to endorse leaving the EU in that election. 2016: (52% vote to leave the EU) 2017: retired 2019: 2% 2024: 14% Yet his prime policy was passed in 2016 and implemented in 2019. You don't need people to vote for you to get your policies passed. You need people to just believe in what you say, and other politicians will see that and implement them. The most successful politicians see all sides "steal their policies" and implement them. That's assuming your goal is the policy, not the power. | |
| ▲ | Vespasian 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was under the impression that Faraga was heavily advocating for Brexit and he and his supporters ultimately got what they wanted so at least some people should be really happy that it happened (the ones who went into it with realistic expectations at least). | | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They should be happy. But the promised utopia didn't arrive, so now Farage is blaming the next thing, "just get rid of the 30k boat arrivals and things will be great". (There's 900k arriving each year on visas, which if you are concerned with immigration is a far larger number, but that is harder for Farage to argue against) Once the boats are all blasted to bits or whatever, and things still don't get better, who will be the next person to blame. | | |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Immigration has been a big issue for a very long time and it partly caused the Brexit vote. To me your reply exemplifies my previous point: You dismiss those concerns. This is what happened with Brexit and this is what has been happening for a long time over immigration. This can only end badly. > There's 900k arriving each year on visas, which if you are concerned with immigration is a far larger number, but that is harder for Farage to argue against They argue against the high level of immigration legal or illegal. Of course illegal immigration is an easy topic handed to them on a plate by successive governments since it is very visible and very little is done against it. | | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If they were spending their effort arguing against 95% of immigration, which are people arriving at Heathrow, then I'd be more sympathetic. People voted for brexit was all about stopping Iraq and Turkey from sending millions of people to the UK. -- I remember the leaflet, I remember the voxpop of people saying "Europe, fair enough, but not from Africa, Syria etc". People voted for Brexit to stop immigration. It decreased European immigration, but more than replaced it with African and Middle Eastern immigration) because they believed that being in the EU meant. This was inevitable. They were wrong based on their own beliefs, and its difficult to argue against that viewpoint. > They argue against the high level of immigration legal or illegal. Of course illegal immigration is an easy topic handed to them on a plate by successive governments since it is very visible and very little is done against it. One major policy was implemented which massively increased immigration, illegal or not, was Brexit. Farage's flagship policy. | | |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent [-] | | people voted to stop immigration which wasn't happening (people from outside europe) Brexit means we left agreements which let us send people on boats back to France. It also means that rather than having local europeans with similar culture doing work, we have people from further afield, and people aren't happy. The last 5 years shows what a lie brexit was, it delivered exactly what brexit voters were voting against. We already had what they wanted. Of course Vote Leave knew this, they went door to door to non-european communities saying "vote leave and europeans won't be able to come in and instead your friends and family will". But sure, keep voting for the liar. Will be interesting to see what happens next. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | iLoveOncall 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls This couldn't be further from the truth. People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing, but don't support the implementation at all. |
| |
| ▲ | WithinReason 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It depends on how you ask the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > > In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls > This couldn't be further from the truth. > People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing So pretty close to the truth then? | | |
| ▲ | iLoveOncall 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, given that the implementation has already landed, people don't support it. | | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They support the idea. That's the fundamental problem. If people didn't support the idea then it wouldn't have gone in. | | |
| ▲ | const_cast 3 days ago | parent [-] | | People support lots of ideas. I support the idea of everyone getting 1 billion dollars. Can we do that ethically? No. Of course not. The implementation must necessarily require death and theft. Age verification is a similar problem. I support the idea of minors not accessing bad data. Okay, cool. Is there an ethical way to implement that? No, of course not. It would require extreme surveillance and said surveillance would necessarily be used for evil. I mean, imagine this. New law: children can never smoke law. Great! 100% support! Now you must upload a video of you smoking every time you smoke so the government knows a child isn't smoking. Uh... Not great, very bad. Its all about how you ask the question: "do you support children never smoking" => 100% support. "Do you support requiring video uploads to the government of every time you smoke" => 0% support. We're actually asking the same question, it's just a matter of how favorably we show the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | immibis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Having public opinion on your side is necessary, but not sufficient. Politicians impose laws that people don't want all the time. |
|
| ▲ | ljm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Farage only has this traction because he's financed and platformed by interests (Russia, conservative Christian groups in the US, right wing media) that benefit from the division his inflammatory politics creates. This gives him and his party a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other, larger parties with more MPs. The playbook that was overwhelmingly successful for making Brexit happen is being used again, but this time for immigration. The fact he got elected as MP only serves to give credibility to his backers' narrative, given that he does not serve his constituency and is too busy schmoozing the US right wing. At one point in time he would have been forced to resign in disgrace for backroom dealing like this (as previous MPs have before). |
