On the point about Reform constituencies having a higher than usual number of welfare claimants: I have seen it argued that these are places where ordinary people are working hard to just get by, and so they resent it when they see neighbours on benefits, who have lives of comparative leisure, while not appearing to be materially worse off.
In other words, it is not the benefit claimants who are voting Reform, quite the opposite. And so Reform might do well to campaign for stricter rules on benefits (such as making them more contingent on a history of contributions) in order to tap into this grievance at entitlement culture.
The benefits claimants themselves will, quite rationally, be more likely to vote for a left wing party, which not only promises to maintain their benefits, but also tells them they are victims / oppressed / morally deserving of redistributions from "the rich".
Note that this dynamic, of workers and welfare claimants living cheek-by-jowl, is quite different from wealthier left wing areas (such as Cambridge, where I live) in which the leafier streets have "Vote Labour" signs outside the grand townhouses, and where the moneyed inhabitants have sympathy for "the poor", without having to live amongst them.
“…it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people.’ Pochin later apologised, and Farage criticised the remarks as ‘wrong and ugly”
Sad to see Reform stick to pointless respectability politics. They’ll never be “decent” in the eyes of the BBC and Guardian reporters whose opinions Farage apparently think matter. Voters don’t care about this stuff.
In fairness, Sarah Pochin was responding to a question in a radio discussion (or similar) to which she gave an honest answer, which was subsequently deemed wrongspeak. When I read an analysis of the exchange someone pointed out that she should have said that "white people were underrepresented in adverts", which, of course, the liberal pearl-clutchers would not have been able to complain about in the same way.
On the point about Reform constituencies having a higher than usual number of welfare claimants: I have seen it argued that these are places where ordinary people are working hard to just get by, and so they resent it when they see neighbours on benefits, who have lives of comparative leisure, while not appearing to be materially worse off.
In other words, it is not the benefit claimants who are voting Reform, quite the opposite. And so Reform might do well to campaign for stricter rules on benefits (such as making them more contingent on a history of contributions) in order to tap into this grievance at entitlement culture.
The benefits claimants themselves will, quite rationally, be more likely to vote for a left wing party, which not only promises to maintain their benefits, but also tells them they are victims / oppressed / morally deserving of redistributions from "the rich".
Note that this dynamic, of workers and welfare claimants living cheek-by-jowl, is quite different from wealthier left wing areas (such as Cambridge, where I live) in which the leafier streets have "Vote Labour" signs outside the grand townhouses, and where the moneyed inhabitants have sympathy for "the poor", without having to live amongst them.
“…it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people.’ Pochin later apologised, and Farage criticised the remarks as ‘wrong and ugly”
Sad to see Reform stick to pointless respectability politics. They’ll never be “decent” in the eyes of the BBC and Guardian reporters whose opinions Farage apparently think matter. Voters don’t care about this stuff.
Agree, but Farage ultimately defended her which is the important thing.
In fairness, Sarah Pochin was responding to a question in a radio discussion (or similar) to which she gave an honest answer, which was subsequently deemed wrongspeak. When I read an analysis of the exchange someone pointed out that she should have said that "white people were underrepresented in adverts", which, of course, the liberal pearl-clutchers would not have been able to complain about in the same way.
I appreciate your willingness to assume that liberal pearl clutchers may have a smidgen of intellectual honesty.
I personally have no such illusions.
Quite
Reading between the lines, it seems that Reform is liable to tear itself apart during the long haul to 2029. What a pity.