r/europe • u/AlfredsChild England • 2d ago

News Reform takes shock 15-point lead over Labour as Farage dreams of winning power

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/reform-shock-15-point-lead-labour-farage-power-3887857
2.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

611

u/Telochim 2d ago edited 2d ago

Modern electorate doesn't think - it feels. And if it's uncomfortable for one reason or another, it will vote in the loudest and brazenest anti-establishment group, regardless of whether it communicates any pathways to solving issues or just puts on the "we are so furiously against all the status quo" performance without any substance.

It's that primitive.

249

u/Hungover994 2d ago

Electorates have always “felt” when voting. That’s why philosophers like Plato were against traditional democracy in Athens because most just vote with their emotions allowing unqualified idiots and charlatans to rise to power.

42

u/trowawayatwork 2d ago

i see vibe voting has been around for millennia

10

u/UnPeuDAide 1d ago

The problem is that autocrats or aristocrats also very much rule with their feelings and their own interests

21

u/Imperito East Anglia, England 2d ago

Sadly there isn't really a palatable alternative to democracy that we have come up with yet. It's the best of the terrible systems on offer.

12

u/TheDesertShark 1d ago

Democracy lives and dies on making sure that everyone is educated enough for it.

We've never had democracy.

1

u/Ok-Sun-8754 1d ago

It would hurt for people to read a touch of policy and manifesto - at least some of the actual substance. 

-2

u/marsilva123 2d ago

Sadly there isn't really a palatable alternative to democracy

Yes, there is.

2

u/s4Nn1Ng0r0shi 1d ago

So the elected officials would be randomly selected by a lottery? I don’t see ”random governance”as superior to democracy

7

u/CetateanulBongolez Transylvania 1d ago

Honestly, with politics being attractive mostly to power hungry sociopaths, it makes you wonder if just a bunch of random citizens wouldn't actually do a better job at governance. It makes sense statistically if nothing else.

2

u/Imperito East Anglia, England 1d ago

Sortition is a very interesting concept, I have heard of it before (I think I am right in saying Sparta had a variant of it in their government despite being a Duarchy) not sure it would work very well in practice, especially given the modern world is more complex than Ancient Athens.

5

u/marsilva123 1d ago

You'd have to have some restriction in place, of course, otherwise you just be selecting the next emperor.

But, with that caveat in mind, I honestly think that sortition wouldn't perform worse than the system we have in place now.

2

u/Imperito East Anglia, England 1d ago

I admit I would love to see a trial of it somewhere. But no government is ever going to relinquish the power necessary to make it work, it'll take a full blown revolution to make it even a possibility somewhere.

Heck the British establishment won't even consider changing the voting system.

1

u/marsilva123 1d ago

100% agree.

2

u/silverionmox Limburg 1d ago

Yes, there is.

You're reducing democracy to a specific system of election and pretend that your specific system of election is going to solve everything.

In reality, democracy is a cluster of institutions geared towards making sure that policy aligns with the population. The various systems of elections are just tools in the toolbox of democracy.

3

u/marsilva123 1d ago

If democracy is the will of the people and the people can only enforce its will on those institutions through elections and protest, then democracy is functionally reducible to those two actions. Everything else is just theater.

-1

u/silverionmox Limburg 1d ago

If democracy is the will of the people and the people can only enforce its will on those institutions through elections and protest, then democracy is functionally reducible to those two actions. Everything else is just theater.

The second leg of your syllogism is wrong, therefore the conclusion is wrong. It would be like saying "if the military is the ultimate enforcer of political might, then everything else is just theater."

All the institutions of democracy serve to translate and coordinate that power, and to pick up cues in less hamfisted ways than the occasional election or protest.

Moreover, "the will of the people" doesn't exist in a vacuum. If the will of the people is that it should rain beer and dogs should shit chocolate, that's not possible, no matter how much they "will" it. Even the people have to accept the fundamental constraints of reality on their whims.

1

u/marsilva123 1d ago

All the institutions of democracy serve to translate and coordinate that power

Funny how often that "translation" fails the public.

We simply disagree on a fundamental, worldview level.

-2

u/silverionmox Limburg 1d ago edited 1d ago

Funny how often that "translation" fails the public.

It doesn't, the public isn't a hive mind and with people disagreeing, it's impossible not to disappoint a part of them. Even individuals often have contradictory wishes (eg. less taxes and more government services). Even if those wishes are not contradictory, there is the international context that can force the issue; and finally, reality has veto rights over what is possible and what is impossible. If the people want that it rains beer and dogs shit chocolate, that's not happening.

We simply disagree on a fundamental, worldview level.

You simply are not able to provide a counterargument, and try to evade that by declaring your opinion an axiom.

1

u/KeneticKups 1d ago

That’s far worse

1

u/TiredEsq 1d ago

Electorates have always “felt” when voting. That’s why philosophers like Plato were against traditional democracy in Athens because most just vote with their emotions allowing unqualified idiots and charlatans to rise to power.

If the above is the issue you’re attempting to fix, how is your suggestion a viable alternative?

3

u/silverionmox Limburg 1d ago

Electorates have always “felt” when voting. That’s why philosophers like Plato were against traditional democracy in Athens because most just vote with their emotions allowing unqualified idiots and charlatans to rise to power.

This did result in worse policy, and obviously that irks philosophers.

The thing about democracy is, however, that its primary goal isn't to get better policy - it's to make sure the direction of policy aligns with the sentiments of the population, so civil wars are avoided.

This means that it forces the people in power to look back and see whether everyone is coming along. So if we don't like how other people vote we need to engage and convince them somehow.

1

u/pataglop 2d ago

Anyone yearning to power should be automatically disqualified

7

u/Hungover994 2d ago

Rulers would have to be specially selected against their will which I have thought about before. Pull out the good from the population who just want peace and freedom and force them to serve for the good of all. People can change however so that probably wouldn’t work.

3

u/-The_Blazer- Europe 1d ago

Yes but in the modern age this is made far more extreme. Social media, which is algorithmic and deliberately rooted in fast-instinctive responses, has replaced institutional media. These new media are also less regulated and harder to enforce the law on. The world's largest broadcast is Joe Rogan (relevant for an English-speaking audience) who follows an explicitly anti-intellectual line and is quite happily pushed by large hosting companies, who are protected from any legal consequences or concerns by 'safe harbor' provisions.

0

u/Candayence United Kingdom 1d ago

Plato was against democracy because democracy killed Socrates.

Democracy killed Socrates because he agitated for oligarchy, and was teacher to multiple members of the Thirty Tyrants - the people who killed 5% of the Athenian population in less than a year. Compared to democracy, which limited itself to merely exiling those who gained too much power.

78

u/Path_of_Hegemony 2d ago

When has the electorate ever been different in a democratic society?

People from my great grandparents time, so 1920's, voted exclusively based on what their job social class was (e.g. worker = social democrat). A shit ton of people still vote like that, or blindly vote like their parents did out of tradition.

47

u/elmekia_lance 2d ago

the difference is that voting based on one's class interests makes sense, voting for self-imposed economic sanctions because one is afraid of immigration or being a declining power does not.

1

u/FuckRedditIsLame 21h ago

They aren't voting as they are because they're afraid of immigration, they're voting this way because they see a link between endless, barely controlled migration to support short term macroeconomic gain, and the erosion of their ability to earn a good living and be able to afford a good home, and the erosion of the social safety nets they felt they could always count on in a worst case.

-3

u/Path_of_Hegemony 2d ago

Voting against immigration makes sense once you realize how much damage immigration can do to a country socially, politically and economically. It is actually hard to justify high levels of immigration, no matter how much money it makes.

Voting based on social class makes less sense, especially now when political parties don't give a fuck about class struggle anymore.

2

u/No_Sugar8791 2d ago

The probability of you and I being refugees, whether economic, climate or war related, is not zero. How would you want to be treated?

11

u/Path_of_Hegemony 2d ago

Depends on how I act in said country.

If I act gratefully for whatever help I might receive, follow the laws of the country, try my hardest to assimilate myself and my family (learn the local language fluently, participate in local society, cut ties to old country/religion/politics etc), then then I would hope to be allowed to live and work there.

If I didn't do all of those things, I'd expect to be forcefully deported, as I rightfully should.

-7

u/JunkSack 2d ago

Oh so just run of the mill xenophobia. Nice.

9

u/Path_of_Hegemony 2d ago edited 2d ago

Ah yes, the xenophobia of not wanting massive parallel societies, like they have in Sweden's Malmö.

Any nation has the right to decide how their country is run. If the danish people don't want muslim imams preaching about how best to beat their wives, so as not to harm their dignity with visible marks, then the imams can choose to either follow those rules, or to get the fuck out of Denmark (this example is taken from reality btw. It was from the danish mosque "Grimhøjmoskeen").

The people decides who are let on and on what grounds. Nobody else does. It is not anyone else's right to decide such things.

-5

u/No_Sugar8791 2d ago

So get rid of the wrong ones and not blame everyone with the same skin colour.

We all need to start accepting WWIII has already started and we won't do well if we're on the same side as putin.

3

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

The wrong ones, those who we should get rid of, include every single one of them those who have done any of the following:

  1. Committed crime in the host country.
  2. Participated in foreign parallel societies, such as upholding or appealing to sharia court systems, or acting as local enforcement for foreign nations/cultures (such as Erdogan-alligned turks performing social control in the turkish ethnic enclaves).
  3. Established or overtaken businesses, and only hired, or only performed services/traded with members of their own ethnicity.
  4. Failed to uphold themselves and their spouse/children economically.
  5. Failed to attain the level of language fluency required to verbally and with writing interact and work with members of the host nation without translators, or english as a medium. Within three years at the latest.

Anyone who falls under one of the five categories above needs to get out.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TiredEsq 1d ago

If I act gratefully for whatever help I might receive, follow the laws of the country, try my hardest to assimilate myself and my family (learn the local language fluently, participate in local society, cut ties to old country/religion/politics etc), then then I would hope to be allowed to live and work there.

And how do you suppose they’d figure this out about you?

2

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

By working along side them, participating in local activities, forming friendships with the locals and so on. Actually mingling with the locals, rather than sticking to those of my previous culture.

0

u/saynotoseksuality 1d ago

Why would you cut ties to your old country before citizenship? Your “new” country can tell you to leave at any point theoretically

2

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

You only have to do that, if you want to actually live there from then on. I believe citizenships should be exclusive, i.e. only one citizenship pr. person at any given time. Choose a team, so to say.

-2

u/elmekia_lance 2d ago

if you are a worker, you have more in common with those immigrants you hate so much than the company owner.

most people with a functioning brain can see that Brexit and Trump are not working out so good compared to how things were before

13

u/Path_of_Hegemony 2d ago

I'm not talking about Trump or Brexit, or condoning those things.

I'm talking about severely limiting or even fully stopping migration and asylum grants from the middle east, as we can easily see how that is ruining countries like fx Germany, England and France.

We have tried our best to do so in Denmark, and that has kept us from the current swedish and german immigration crisis, which the vast majority of danes are grateful for.

The average danish worker has next to zero in common with say, an indian or pakistani worker. Anyone who has worked with such people would know. Everything from how to treat other people to work ethics are utterly alien.

-4

u/TiredEsq 1d ago

Are all Danes such horrible bigots, or just you?

6

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

Itching that much to hate people with different opinions from yours?

-2

u/TiredEsq 1d ago

I feel absolutely no compulsion to be tolerant of the intolerant. Obviously I hadn’t read your username or I would not have bothered to engage. Bye.

2

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

Those who use that idiotic thought-fart always seem to view themselves in the right, and the other in wrong.

Funny coincidence.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/melonowl Denmark 2d ago

Working class people voting for parties advocating for, and providing, better conditions for working class people is pretty sensible. Voting for parties that are good at hyping up problems and pretending that hugely complex issues have simple solutions that only that party can provide is not very sensible. Particularly when parties like that continue to demonstrate that their actual goals are to benefit an extreme minority of society at the cost of everyone else, and primarily at the cost of the working class people voting for them.

2

u/LeBlueBaloon 1d ago

True, but they're pointing out that people used to vote along class lines regardless of what their representatives did.

That's a recipe for corruption and power abuse.

This is about people voting while emotional and uninformed. Blindly voting for the farmers party because you are a farmer or the business party because you run a business is still a problem

8

u/FrogsOnALog 2d ago

Every single republican voted against the PRO Act but they still get rewarded with majorities ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/WeeBabySeamus21 1d ago

to be clear voting in you class'/job's interest makes sense, nowadays poor people vote for people who'd cut governement programs helping them and feel good about it

2

u/Path_of_Hegemony 1d ago

Sure, but my point was that people, to this day, blindly vote for the same parties out of tradition or feel of class cohesion, even though the same parties have long stopped championing their social class.

Fx, the social democrats in Denmark used to be a workers' party during my great grandparents time, however now they are the party of inner city house owners and pensioneers.

If you are a danish worker and vote for Socialdemokratiet, then you are closer to committing class treason than anything else.

8

u/samamp Finland 2d ago

Parties in power sticking to decisions that the public dislikes strongly. It shouldnt be suprise to anyone they vote for someone who atleast pretends to be against it.

2

u/VeryProidChintu 2d ago

Lol the conservative have been against it for 14 years

5

u/potato-cheesy-beans United Kingdom 2d ago

Honestly, I sort of get it too. It’s been over a decade of being shat on by the tories and now labour, people don’t feel like government is working for them anymore. 

I’d personally never vote reform or Tory, but labour lost my vote by their terrible handling of the OSA and their inability to actually make the big changes to fix the problems a decade of the tories and inexplicably shooting ourselves in the foot (aka brexit) has left us with. 

I’ll probably end up voting Lib Dem next election, which I never thought I’d do, but I can see if I was a right leaning person struggling to make ends meet why I’d fall for reforms BS. 

5

u/ZeBoyceman 2d ago

Always has been

3

u/MurkyFogsFutureLogs 2d ago edited 1d ago

Modern electorate doesn't think - it feels. And if it's uncomfortable for one reason or another, it will vote in the loudest and brazenest anti-establishment group, regardless of whether it communicates any pathways to solving issues or just puts on the "we are so furiously against all the status quo" performance without any substance.

It's that primitive.

We've elected the same two parties for over a century. In a democracy you're suggesting that the electorate wanting to vote for a new party for the first time in 100 years is being "primitive".

What's sophisticated? Being conned by the same two parties over and over again?

You don't seem to understand the people you're looking down upon and they know you're looking down upon them.

Calling people thick racists didn't help the remain argument in the EU referendum. The same attitude isn't going to stop people voting for Reform today.

In a genuine democracy the power should belong to the majority. Working class hating, middle-class socialist cosplayers hate this.

1

u/Maleficent_Resolve44 1d ago edited 1d ago

All this vague nonsense about how a genuine democracy should be and xyz. We can all use our brains and eyes though. We saw how poorly Brexit went and we saw how farage and other idiots pushed it. Labour are run by wishy washy fools but clearly Farage, if he becomes PM, will run an even more disastrous govt. They haven't got a clue about anything except cutting immigration and even that they don't know how to do practically. They sell fake solutions that's all and people are falling for it for the 2nd time.

Calling Leave people thick racists didn't help the remain argument in 2016 but they weren't wrong about most of the loudest ones. I've never voted for labour yet half of these discussions with reform backers today (and Brexit backers in yesteryear) just feel like trying to debate that weird guy at work who thinks communism is the solution to all our woes. Never mind it's failed history, never mind how it isn't as fair as the current system, never mind how he's blatantly wrong; at the end of the day he's so thick that you can never win the debate!

2

u/MurkyFogsFutureLogs 1d ago

All this vague nonsense about how a genuine democracy should be and xyz. We can all use our brains and eyes though. We saw how poorly Brexit went and we saw how farage and other idiots pushed it. Labour are run by wishy washy fools but clearly Farage, if he becomes PM, will run an even more disastrous govt. They haven't got a clue about anything except cutting immigration and even that they don't know how to do practically.

We saw how poorly Brexit went? Here's you. "Pandemic, Russian escalation in Ukraine, affects the whole of Europe, must be Brexit!"

We won't know how a Reform government will perform until we do. Let's find out. Until then, you can't convince me that re-electing the two same parties over and over again or different shades of socialist will solve our problems, neither with the economy and the cost of living or with respect to the environment.

Calling Leave people thick racists didn't help the remain argument in 2016 but they weren't wrong about most of the loudest ones.

It didn't work then it won't work now.

1

u/Maleficent_Resolve44 1d ago edited 1d ago

Brexit was sold as the big solution to bring back power to parliament, to get immigration back under control, to right our fisheries and to not have to follow unelected bureaucrats. A bunch of undefinable rubbish and platitudes whilst the main issue -immigration- has only gotten far worse.

All Brexit did was make watching the news an absolute bore for 3 years and make trade unnecessarily harder with our main partner. It also made it so we can't easily move to Europe anymore but nobody really did that in the first place anyways.

It was a true failure because it's hard to transform lies into reality. The NHS has only continued to get worse but we talk about that far less than we did 10-15 years ago. The pandemic and russia haven't helped things but if you think you can demolish the mountain of disappointment with that excuse, I don't know what to say to you.

Re a reform govt's performance, you can tell a lot about how they'll be. Look at their current platform and how little substance there is about the economy/environment/NHS/the demographic issue etc. Look at the infighting and scandals in a group of just 5 MPs. Scale that up to 320 and you'd be a fool to want that running the country.

It's unlikely reform get into power. If they do manage it, we'll get a pretty rubbish term and the disillusioned will remain disillusioned. There'll be damage behind the scenes to the framework of govt that'll only help the ruling class and the rich. They'll then be replaced by the Tories or labour. By that time people like you will have moved on to the next big thing that's going to solve our problems and make up excuses for why Brexit and Reform didn't solve them. It's very predictable.

1

u/MurkyFogsFutureLogs 2h ago

Brexit was sold as the big solution to bring back power to parliament, to get immigration back under control, to right our fisheries and to not have to follow unelected bureaucrats. A bunch of undefinable rubbish and platitudes whilst the main issue -immigration- has only gotten far worse.

Brexit was sold under a variety of possibilities. No one knew at the time exactly how it would be delivered and how it would eventually fare. For example, did anyone know that David Cameron would step down as soon as Remain lost, to be replaced with an ardent remainer in Theresa May who for all intents and purposes seems to have tried her best to give Britain the appearance of leaving whilst still appeasing the EU states we were supposed to be breaking off from?

All Brexit did was make watching the news an absolute bore for 3 years and make trade unnecessarily harder with our main partner. It also made it so we can't easily move to Europe anymore but nobody really did that in the first place anyways.

As if this wasn't by design. How after all do you think Boris managed to secure a parliamentary majority on the messaging "Get Brexit Done"? And don't tell me because NF stood the Brexit party down. The popularity of the Brexit party sank as the popularity of Boris rose. Boris had a chance to deliver a proper Brexit and sold us Theresas half-baked one foot in/one out Brexit instead.

It was a true failure because it's hard to transform lies into reality. The NHS has only continued to get worse but we talk about that far less than we did 10-15 years ago. The pandemic and russia haven't helped things but if you think you can demolish the mountain of disappointment with that excuse, I don't know what to say to you.

Yes, the NHS has only continued to get worse. You know, we've had record levels of immigration since we voted to leave (thanks to the Conservatives). For a country "built by immigration", one would expect the NHS to be doing much better now? Oh wait. Deliveroo drivers, CIA licenced security, car washers and taxi drivers aren't going to be halving the waiting lists are they? But they will all need to use the NHS!

You only need to look across the channel to see your disillusion with Brexit is misplaced. Had we even remained we would still not have avoided the impacts of the economic crash of 08, the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. EU haven't and neither would we had we still been a full member.

Re a reform govt's performance, you can tell a lot about how they'll be. Look at their current platform and how little substance there is about the economy/environment/NHS/the demographic issue etc. Look at the infighting and scandals in a group of just 5 MPs. Scale that up to 320 and you'd be a fool to want that running the country.

You're acting as though the parties we already elect aren't just as bad if not worse? At least they had over a century to get their crap together and they still couldn't. The proof in the pudding is in the eating, if you don't try it you won't know.

It's unlikely reform get into power. If they do manage it, we'll get a pretty rubbish term and the disillusioned will remain disillusioned. There'll be damage behind the scenes to the framework of govt that'll only help the ruling class and the rich. They'll then be replaced by the Tories or labour. By that time people like you will have moved on to the next big thing that's going to solve our problems and make up excuses for why Brexit and Reform didn't solve them. It's very predictable.

At worst, business as usual but you're trying to argue that trying something new is worse? It could be better!

4

u/Red_Laughing_Man 2d ago edited 2d ago

Every election winning manifesto since 2005 has promised restrictions on immigration.

That the electorate would now rather go off "vibes" than specific policies should only be seen as a suprise in that they still (thankfully!) believe in democracy at all.

3

u/ChucklesInDarwinism Japan - Kamakura 1d ago

I think the saddest part is that the electorate has no hope that the establishment will do anything to help them.

This is not the electorate is dumb it’s more the electorate is desperate and the establishment lives in a bubble_.

2

u/dr4urbutt 2d ago

It has nothing to do with modernity, we as humans always think and act based on a "feeling".

https://instituteforpr.org/part-one-not-thinking-machines-feeling-machines-think/

2

u/Heavy_Practice_6597 1d ago

Tbf the "adults in the room" consistently give deficits when the UK has cripplingly high debt and debt interest. Nobody wants to tell the electorate some serious choices have to be made.

2

u/dotinvoke 2d ago

But that’s what happens when the establishment parties try to gaslight the population that they’re not uncomfortable. If you can’t vote for someone with the right solutions, you can at least vote for someone who admits that the issue exists.

Our Swedish Social Democrats decided to get real tough on crime and immigration only after losing an election over it.

2

u/VeryProidChintu 2d ago

Conservative are the biggest one admitting issues exist for the last 14 years. Its the same reason Brexit happened.

1

u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) 2d ago

Surprisingly, you've also just described the problem all over Europe. Humanity just wasn't prepared for social media.

0

u/LimpCommand8052 2d ago

Thank god we have you to post anime and save us

0

u/elwookie 2d ago

And that's why we have so many sons of Satan with crazy hair: Trump, Milei, Boris Johnson, Wilders... Their crazy hair is their (only) way of being against the establishment. In the rest they're fighting for Team Capitalism with all they have.

0

u/Uat_Da_Fak 1d ago

Maybe there is something missing in the political offer. You know, some folks that are not sold out to billionaires.