I suppose we now have to build new bridges ‐ to a different design!
I read one likely reason why Farage has decided to drop the “to pay for security” reason this outrageous £5m gift he got. The switch to another made up reason (it was a thank you) is consistent with the need Farage has to pretend it was not a bribe from the crypto billionaire. But the reason a switch from security to thanks was needed is because it was noted that security risks were the claim Farage has been using to explain his lack of constituency surgeries. He has held none. But £5m of security would surely take away that lame excuse and Farage would then have to actually take interest in the people of Clacton. Farage has no interest in the people of Clacton or their problems. He did not become an MP to care about the people of his constituency.
1 Like
It is interesting that these populist right wing parties attract the attention and interest of billionaires.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has just received the gift of a plane and pilot from Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart.
Obviously Gina Rinehart has the interests of Australia’s battlers close to her heart.
I suspect its inevitable. Populist leaders are consistently “strong” - which ends up becoming a single point of power and decision making. They actively subvert the other social and government bodies - upper/lower chambers, legal, academic, media. The power ends up focused on the executive only. This is what we’ve seen with Trump and what we saw with Orban.
This is attractive to the very wealthy as it means one person to influence (or one throat to choke). Decisions that help the very wealthy (individuals or businesses) can be more easily influenced and made more quickly. Dissenting voices can more easily be ignored. Plus populist leaders are focused on keeping the masses quiet - or rather angry about other stuff (incomers, outsiders, etc.). So the billionaires can keep treating the ordinary people badly and most importantly keep their wealth to themselves. Or grow their wealth - perhaps through a future Farage government easing regulations on crypto-currency so that a crypto billionaire can clean up - and leave the risk of a crypto collapse with the government / tax-payer. For example.
Interesting. Would a crypto collapse be of much interest to anyone that is not investing in it?
1 Like
Thanks, you highlight the problem well. The answer, today, is no, not much at all. But were a future government greatly encourage and enable crypto then the potential for wider damage and tax payer liability increases. What if a relaxation on regulations meant crypto became common place for high street banks? What if government pressure or legislation meant the bank of england traded in crypto, invested in crypto, created its own crypto? And then what if the whole pyramid collapses?
Yes it must not be allowed to get out of hand. Eggs in many baskets is always a good thing.
Lot of ‘What if’s’ there Lincs…
True, but they all go away if Reform are the next government. Farage was pushing crypto long before his £5m present. So the re-write of my post should actually be:
Were Reform to be the next UK government they will de-regulate crypto and force the BoE to invest / trade heavily on crypto. This will benefit one Farage donor. This will also result in the UK taxpayers coughing up billions when the crypto bubble (pyramid) collapses.
There we are - no “what if’s”
I always think we should be careful forecasting too far into the future. If just one small thing changes now, it would rewrite the whole of the next chapter.
To be honest, I don’t understand all this crypto stuff…I have a job just sorting out my bills… 
One sector of the UK economy that took a major hit due to Brexit was those companies exporting foods to the EU. The rules for non-EU products is that there must be veterinary health certification and other documentation to confirm the product met EU standards. That meant adding 25 sheets of info to the previous one sheet required when the UK was part of the EU. Plus the costs. Plus the delays. But everyone knew this would happen, of course, as after all it was what any non-EU country has to do. I just don’t recall it being talked about back in 2016.
But in another step on the slow road back into the EU (and it will be a long, slow journey) these checks have been dropped. Agreement with the EU will mean they are no longer necessary after next year. This should be a boost to the food production businesses in the UK - but too late for many which had to lay off people or even close due the burden of exporting.
I remember UK cheese makers complaining about the costs and paperwork involved. Even attending a European trade exhibition being impossible - especially for the smaller makers. Living in Kent I remember the queues of lorries along the A20 trying to get onto the Dover ferries and worrying whether their paperwork was correct.
Yes, cheese and seafood seemed to be particularly badly hit. And no-one seemed to have thought through such issues. Probably lost in the shouting at the time of the referendum.
I hope there is never a repeat of the hyperbolic rhetoric seen at the 2016 referendum, should there be a future vote on rejoining. In 2016 both sides of the referendum failed the people of the UK by over-stating their predictions of the future - thus making decision making clear only in its polarisation, rather than its rational or informed judgement.
But realistically, the tragically hard exit agreement made by the Boris government means the hurdles to rejoin are likely to be too high for the foreseeable future - the size of the EU membership financial contributions would not likely be lessened as before by refunds; possible obligation for monetary union within a few years of rejoining; obligation of free movement of people at a time when new countries (some poor countries) might be joining.
Of course, if Trump continues to be such a bad ally then perhaps Canada will join the EU before the UK gets back !!
1 Like
it’s clear to anyone that Reform don’t have any sensible policies when it comes to the economy, healthcare or anything really. Of course Reform voters will be doing so based on emotions rather than logic.
There has been an astonishing growth in Reform UK Ltd (its good to be clear its limited company) support across the country. Given that Farage is largely to blame for the mess that is Brexit, Farage is clearly dodgy as you like and doing very well out of it, the Reform run councils have been a sh*t show and as you note, they’ve no sensible policies. Lots of reasons to not support Reform. So I agree that it is the emotion of people being fed up - of a sense of broken promises that things will get better, of mealy mouthed politicians, of a sense (stoked by some) of too many incomers, of the last two governments making things worse, and on and on and on. You can understand the frustration. But what I can’t understand is the reckless willingness to vote for such an awful political movement just because there’s disappointment. The thinking seems to be “they can’t be any worse”. Err, yes they can. Just look at their track record and look at what populist parties have done in other countries.
people who voted Brexit were in the main doing so based on emotions rather than thinking it would create positive changes for our economy. When I say emotions I am talking about patriotic fervour. It didn’t matter how many times I said there is no plan for Brexit. People see what they want to see.
Britain has completely lost its identity since Brexit but nobody who voted for it wants to admit that things were better before. Farage is like the pied piper leading us over a cliff, whistling a merry tune.
I don’t support another referendum, but it’s a complete mess.
1 Like
That insight says a lot - once people have made an emotional decision there is no amount of logic, facts or knowledge that can change that decision. For me it’s getting worse as these emotional responses are mostly negative. I don’t want the EU, I don’t think either Labour or Tories have done anything in government, I don’t like net zero. All reactions against and away from things - there does not seem to be voting for something. And in that environment all a would be politician or party has to say “we are not these things”. They don’t need to set out their vision, strategy or end goals. In fact, its better if they don’t as it would expose themselves to the examination that would result. So similar to the Brexit vote, lots are going to vote Reform as its against what they don’t like but then we find no-one has any idea of what they are going to actually end up with.
I hate to be controversial but I see no changes from Brexit to our detriment the rich and powerful wanted us in Europe for their financial gain. I don’t agree with removing our borders to anyone who fancies coming here and claiming benefits and shoplifting on the side. I here now that if they get benfits that I worked for 40 years to pay for they can get a state pension. Our politics are fractured to our ultimate dismay. The Tories did not do enough, Labour, well they don’t have a clue, Liberals on another planet, greens who the hell let them in and what next. Reform have the right aims but do I trust Farage ? The restore leader Ben Habib talks a lot of sense but do they have a chance of even getting a seat. I don’t know who I would vote for.
2 Likes
Annie and Lincs, with your harsh criticism of Reform you both appear to be campaigning for a party but I’m having trouble deciding which party that is?
You never seem to mention who you would support, or would you simply not vote?
it’s not harsh to say they have no policies
1 Like