FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reform UK
Reform UK
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Someone mentioned them in another thread so... What do you or don't you like about their proposals? Let's forget who they were founded by for now." Anti science, blame everything on foriegners nut jobs. Abolishing the house of lords should be discussed though. | |||
"Someone mentioned them in another thread so... What do you or don't you like about their proposals? Let's forget who they were founded by for now." Just had a quick look promising tax cuts and no waiting list for NHS... lol you do know they would only get 5 years to balance the books and aceve the impossible right. | |||
| |||
| |||
"We had a small taste of Reform when Liz Truss became PM, silly ultra libertarian policies which will tank the economy, increase inflation, and made a cost of living crisis worse. I know three months ago maybe a distant memory for lots of people, but we are going to be suffering the consequences for years to come." Silly ultra libertarian policies? Do you care to elaborate? I think I know what you're trying to say but I'd rather not guess. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Given the utter arse holes that we have as MP's now, Reform UK can't really be any worse." Ha. I'm sure they'd take this challenge! | |||
"Given the utter arse holes that we have as MP's now, Reform UK can't really be any worse. Ha. I'm sure they'd take this challenge!" Was going to say that sounds like a challenge! | |||
| |||
"What we need in British politics now is more posturing pseudo intellectual loons lapping at the teat of celebrity! I mean all you have to say is Laurence “fuckwit” Fox and I rest my case! I guess they might split the Tory vote though and stop both of them getting into power. I bet any of them who did become MPs though would do their best to fuck up the process of running the country for the common good - wankers!" I don’t think you should hold back. Let it out and say exactly what you think  | |||
"I don’t think you can ignore who is behind them/founded them. Aren’t they just a rebranded UKIP - Brexit Party? I will look when I have time but I would expect a fairly clear line of sight on policy between these three parties!" For the purpose if this thread which asks about policies, I think we can. | |||
"I don’t think you can ignore who is behind them/founded them. Aren’t they just a rebranded UKIP - Brexit Party? I will look when I have time but I would expect a fairly clear line of sight on policy between these three parties! For the purpose if this thread which asks about policies, I think we can." Spoil sport!
Don’t you think the people behind the policies can either enhance or undermine those policies? Leopards and spots changing and all that! | |||
"I don’t think you can ignore who is behind them/founded them. Aren’t they just a rebranded UKIP - Brexit Party? I will look when I have time but I would expect a fairly clear line of sight on policy between these three parties! For the purpose if this thread which asks about policies, I think we can. Spoil sport!
Don’t you think the people behind the policies can either enhance or undermine those policies? Leopards and spots changing and all that!"I do think the people behind policies can determine how they're enacted. Isn't this the same argument for any party though? | |||
| |||
"There isn't much about the reform party to like much, but we need to get away from a two party system in the UK and a single party system in Scotland. " You say there isn't much to like and then say we need to get away from 2 party system. They support PR  | |||
"I don’t think you can ignore who is behind them/founded them. Aren’t they just a rebranded UKIP - Brexit Party? I will look when I have time but I would expect a fairly clear line of sight on policy between these three parties! For the purpose if this thread which asks about policies, I think we can. Spoil sport!
Don’t you think the people behind the policies can either enhance or undermine those policies? Leopards and spots changing and all that!
I do think the people behind policies can determine how they're enacted. Isn't this the same argument for any party though?
"Of course! If Mr Leopard from the “Leopards ate my Face party” announces a policy that in future no faces will be eaten by anyone, I probably won’t believe him! | |||
"I don’t think you can ignore who is behind them/founded them. Aren’t they just a rebranded UKIP - Brexit Party? I will look when I have time but I would expect a fairly clear line of sight on policy between these three parties! For the purpose if this thread which asks about policies, I think we can. Spoil sport!
Don’t you think the people behind the policies can either enhance or undermine those policies? Leopards and spots changing and all that!
I do think the people behind policies can determine how they're enacted. Isn't this the same argument for any party though?
Of course!
If Mr Leopard from the “Leopards ate my Face party” announces a policy that in future no faces will be eaten by anyone, I probably won’t believe him!"We wouldn't believe any of them if that was the case | |||
"What we need in British politics now is more posturing pseudo intellectual loons lapping at the teat of celebrity! I mean all you have to say is Laurence “fuckwit” Fox and I rest my case! I guess they might split the Tory vote though and stop both of them getting into power. I bet any of them who did become MPs though would do their best to fuck up the process of running the country for the common good - wankers! I don’t think you should hold back. Let it out and say exactly what you think "Was it a bit much? | |||
"There isn't much about the reform party to like much, but we need to get away from a two party system in the UK and a single party system in Scotland. You say there isn't much to like and then say we need to get away from 2 party system. They support PR "I also read today that as well as supporting PR they also support abolishing the house of lords. Apparently at some point in the past, Labour members voted in favour of PR but not yet party policy. Perhaps PR is closer than we think | |||
"There isn't much about the reform party to like much, but we need to get away from a two party system in the UK and a single party system in Scotland. You say there isn't much to like and then say we need to get away from 2 party system. They support PR
I also read today that as well as supporting PR they also support abolishing the house of lords. Apparently at some point in the past, Labour members voted in favour of PR but not yet party policy. Perhaps PR is closer than we think"Correct. They are in devour of both abolishing the House of Lords and PR. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think they will actually pick up a surprising number of votes when the time comes. " Votes are onething but its seats you need to have a voice in the house. | |||
"I think they will actually pick up a surprising number of votes when the time comes. Votes are onething but its seats you need to have a voice in the house." They might take a few votes off the Tories though. Ultimately probably futile, but might help. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like "Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like "Their immigration policy reads like the Daily Express comments section. It's nonsensical. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc. "Funny how it can be read in such different ways. I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
"On the whole, their policies read as populist, full of weird soundbites and catchphrases. I assume designed specifically to attract votes from a certain demographic. We all see how a catchy slogan wins more votes than real life information. So it appears that they have made a very conscious choice to use the rhetoric and tone. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
"You are obviously their target demographic. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic. "Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes? | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?"I'm not agreeing with the other person saying you're they're target demographic. I have no idea. But pushing our reliance deeper into fossil fuels, which will always become more expensive due to their finite nature, seems that it will only make fuel bills more expensive. The price gas and oil on the market is not set by the British government. Not to mention the environmental cost and extra CO2 emissions, which we're trying to reduce. Imagine we had listened to scientists when climate change was first understood, we would be much further down the renewables route and this increase in gas prices would hardly have effected us. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
I'm not agreeing with the other person saying you're they're target demographic. I have no idea.
But pushing our reliance deeper into fossil fuels, which will always become more expensive due to their finite nature, seems that it will only make fuel bills more expensive.
The price gas and oil on the market is not set by the British government.
Not to mention the environmental cost and extra CO2 emissions, which we're trying to reduce.
Imagine we had listened to scientists when climate change was first understood, we would be much further down the renewables route and this increase in gas prices would hardly have effected us. "I do agree that renewable energy will always be cheaper at source than fossil. I'd also argue with anyone who says renewable aren't reliable, I'd argue this having plenty of experience providing solar energy at a domestic level. I'd disagree that the British governement don't set the prices though. They do set prices consumers pay via a cap. Besides, they want to part own and extract from UK land. Will it work? Who knows. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
I'm not agreeing with the other person saying you're they're target demographic. I have no idea.
But pushing our reliance deeper into fossil fuels, which will always become more expensive due to their finite nature, seems that it will only make fuel bills more expensive.
The price gas and oil on the market is not set by the British government.
Not to mention the environmental cost and extra CO2 emissions, which we're trying to reduce.
Imagine we had listened to scientists when climate change was first understood, we would be much further down the renewables route and this increase in gas prices would hardly have effected us.
I do agree that renewable energy will always be cheaper at source than fossil. I'd also argue with anyone who says renewable aren't reliable, I'd argue this having plenty of experience providing solar energy at a domestic level.
I'd disagree that the British governement don't set the prices though. They do set prices consumers pay via a cap. Besides, they want to part own and extract from UK land. Will it work? Who knows."Yes they do control the cap on household energy, sorry. I meant the market price of gas, oil. Norway part own their own fossil fuel reserves. It could work like that. But no idea how you'd go from one situation to the other. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
"But how are they planing to pay for it. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?"If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really. Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville. One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
"You're obviously new round here. At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'. Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy? | |||
 | |||
"It's hard work to know their policies at times. They possibly have ideas I'd agree with. They have some I don't. But laregyly they don't have policies but targets or goals. A dream with no plans. I like the idea of a sovereign wealth fund. However I also recognise that creates a hole on taxes today. Yet TRP would reduce taxes it seems. They need to square that circle. And their approach via extensive fracking doesn't seem to stack up with even the industries opinion. They blame BMW moving to China on energy prices, ignoring the mini is being built in Leipzig I believe. They also bemoan our low growth, but also our high immigration without recognising without immigration our growth would be lower. And while immigration does create additional strain, I believe they are tax positive. Other polices feel like baseless wishes. We should demand zero waiting lists. Have they shown how to get there? And on lower taxes ? It's easy to promise the earth. We will solve all your problems while also lowering your taxes, and your energy bills and reducing the number of tax payers. And will have money left over to invest in stocks and shares to sort out your retirement. Trust us. We told you Brexit would be great. "That kind of wishy washy rhetoric works. As you pointed out. People voted for Brexit largely based on slogans and catchphrases. None of which were backed up with plans and all of which could be torn to shred in a debate. This party are more of the same. And will likely get plenty of votes. | |||
"You're obviously new round here." No, not really. "At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'." In response to another poster’s comment that Reform’s energy policy was “ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.” You said, and I quote: “I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.” and from that I drew the conclusion that you thought it was ok. "Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?" Well, if the above poster didn’t do a good enough job of it, maybe the below one does? "It's hard work to know their policies at times. They possibly have ideas I'd agree with. They have some I don't. But laregyly they don't have policies but targets or goals. A dream with no plans. I like the idea of a sovereign wealth fund. However I also recognise that creates a hole on taxes today. Yet TRP would reduce taxes it seems. They need to square that circle. And their approach via extensive fracking doesn't seem to stack up with even the industries opinion. They blame BMW moving to China on energy prices, ignoring the mini is being built in Leipzig I believe. They also bemoan our low growth, but also our high immigration without recognising without immigration our growth would be lower. And while immigration does create additional strain, I believe they are tax positive. Other polices feel like baseless wishes. We should demand zero waiting lists. Have they shown how to get there? And on lower taxes ? It's easy to promise the earth. We will solve all your problems while also lowering your taxes, and your energy bills and reducing the number of tax payers. And will have money left over to invest in stocks and shares to sort out your retirement. Trust us. We told you Brexit would be great. "But if you still can’t see that they’re peddling populist nonsense then I doubt that there’s anything else I can say to convince you. | |||
"That kind of wishy washy rhetoric works. As you pointed out. People voted for Brexit largely based on slogans and catchphrases. None of which were backed up with plans and all of which could be torn to shred in a debate. This party are more of the same. And will likely get plenty of votes." I couldn’t agree more. | |||
"You're obviously new round here. No, not really. At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'. In response to another poster’s comment that Reform’s energy policy was “ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.” You said, and I quote: “I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.” and from that I drew the conclusion that you thought it was ok. Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy? Well, if the above poster didn’t do a good enough job of it, maybe the below one does? It's hard work to know their policies at times. They possibly have ideas I'd agree with. They have some I don't. But laregyly they don't have policies but targets or goals. A dream with no plans. I like the idea of a sovereign wealth fund. However I also recognise that creates a hole on taxes today. Yet TRP would reduce taxes it seems. They need to square that circle. And their approach via extensive fracking doesn't seem to stack up with even the industries opinion. They blame BMW moving to China on energy prices, ignoring the mini is being built in Leipzig I believe. They also bemoan our low growth, but also our high immigration without recognising without immigration our growth would be lower. And while immigration does create additional strain, I believe they are tax positive. Other polices feel like baseless wishes. We should demand zero waiting lists. Have they shown how to get there? And on lower taxes ? It's easy to promise the earth. We will solve all your problems while also lowering your taxes, and your energy bills and reducing the number of tax payers. And will have money left over to invest in stocks and shares to sort out your retirement. Trust us. We told you Brexit would be great.
But if you still can’t see that they’re peddling populist nonsense then I doubt that there’s anything else I can say to convince you.
"Hovis makes some good points, much more than yourself. I still haven't seen you actually point out the 'gaping holes' in their energy policy. That's what I asked for. Are you the same as some others round here where you'll rant about everything and anything to try score some points rather than deal with the question asked? Please don't be like them. Ps. this is what we call a forum, it's for discussion re. topics of interest. We discuss things and go back and forth, it's not necessarily a place where you can 'convince' people, especially when those said people don't need convincing. I WILL NOT VOTE REFORM. Oh and pps. Don't make conclusions with small amounts of information, you'll only get it wrong  | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?"They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
"man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix. "We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal." Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees. "Some obvious points on their policy. 1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions. 2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions. 3. "Clean coal" is bollocks. 4. And yeah, also the money tree thing. I maintain my original statement on their energy policy "Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc." | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.""not gonna fight you. Just sharing the info I have. It's a policy with holes. But it is (just about) a policy. Compared to their policy for zero waiting lists. I'm waiting for that plan. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc."not gonna fight you. Just sharing the info I have. It's a policy with holes. But it is (just about) a policy. Compared to their policy for zero waiting lists. I'm waiting for that plan. "No fights or arguments 
It is barely a policy, but falls down with the very lightest of scrutiny. Which doesn't matter to large portion of the electorate. I can see people voting for this nonsense for sure. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.""I have read their policies and can't see anything that mentioned terrorists, where did you see that? what did you think of their tax, public services, health and education ideas? | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc."
I have read their policies and can't see anything that mentioned terrorists, where did you see that?
what did you think of their tax, public services, health and education ideas?"Under "Reform our energy policies": "We are in a global energy war. Terrorists are blowing up gas pipelines and power plants. The public services bits says "we have a plan", doesn't say what the plan is, then blames foriegners. The education section suggested reducing university degrees from three to two years. And then goes on to complain about woke teachers. So they want less educated more racist kids. Amazing. Less tax sounds good. Not sure how that lines up with the huge increase in costs and spending that they suggest. The health section doesn't seem to make sense. Just a few catchy sound bites. I think they grossly underestimate the complexity of the NHS. The climate change section is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. Utterly embarrassing for them. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc."
I have read their policies and can't see anything that mentioned terrorists, where did you see that?
what did you think of their tax, public services, health and education ideas?
Under "Reform our energy policies":
"We are in a global energy war. Terrorists are blowing up gas pipelines and power plants.
The public services bits says "we have a plan", doesn't say what the plan is, then blames foriegners.
The education section suggested reducing university degrees from three to two years. And then goes on to complain about woke teachers. So they want less educated more racist kids. Amazing.
Less tax sounds good. Not sure how that lines up with the huge increase in costs and spending that they suggest.
The health section doesn't seem to make sense. Just a few catchy sound bites. I think they grossly underestimate the complexity of the NHS.
The climate change section is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. Utterly embarrassing for them."Got it now thanks, no idea how I missed that...
Question is, who are they referring to as terrorists, the Russians? I wouldn't argue against that right now.
| |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like
Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc.
Funny how it can be read in such different ways.
I see a price cap that's less than now. I see part public ownership.
You are obviously their target demographic.
Am I really? Can you point out where in their Energy Policy it reads as price hikes?
If you genuinely can’t see the gaping holes in all the things that they are saying, then yes, really.
Saying “but their energy policy sounds ok” is like saying “but he raised loads of money for charity” about Jimmy Saville.
One half-baked ill thought out soundbite policy that sounds faintly reasonable on first reading, buried like a piece of sweetcorn in a turd, does not a viable political party make.
You're obviously new round here.
At no piunt did I say 'their energy policy looks ok'.
Would you like to point out the gaping holes in their energy policy?
They don't realy have a fix they say what has happened and what they woul like but not how they would do it.
man alive, I'm posting stuff to defend reform. This is their fix.
"We will fast track new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Start the production of small modular nuclear reactors. Build high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines. And unlock our vast reserves of shale gas. We must also invest in clean coal."
Lots of investment while reducing taxes etc. Good ol' money trees.
Some obvious points on their policy.
1. This pushes our reliance even deeper into oil and gas. The market price of which is out of our control, would cost consumers a lot, cost the country a lot, increases instead of decreases CO2 emissions.
2. Fracking is uneconomical, damages the local environment, and again increases CO2 emissions.
3. "Clean coal" is bollocks.
4. And yeah, also the money tree thing.
I maintain my original statement on their energy policy
"Their policy on Energy is ridiculous, anti-science nonsense and would push the UK deeper into reliance on fossil fuel price hikes. The policy is worded full of sound bites, waffling about terrorists and the drive for net zero etc. It will attract climate deniers, Daily Mail headline readers etc."
I have read their policies and can't see anything that mentioned terrorists, where did you see that?
what did you think of their tax, public services, health and education ideas?
Under "Reform our energy policies":
"We are in a global energy war. Terrorists are blowing up gas pipelines and power plants.
The public services bits says "we have a plan", doesn't say what the plan is, then blames foriegners.
The education section suggested reducing university degrees from three to two years. And then goes on to complain about woke teachers. So they want less educated more racist kids. Amazing.
Less tax sounds good. Not sure how that lines up with the huge increase in costs and spending that they suggest.
The health section doesn't seem to make sense. Just a few catchy sound bites. I think they grossly underestimate the complexity of the NHS.
The climate change section is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. Utterly embarrassing for them.
Got it now thanks, no idea how I missed that...
Question is, who are they referring to as terrorists, the Russians? I wouldn't argue against that right now.
"I think it's just generally "terrorists" doesn't really matter who, it takes the focus off a lack of detail and introduces more fear to their potential voters. | |||
| |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. " Absolutely agree. | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. " I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion" I hope they don't get any seats. Thanks to this thread, I looked at their policies, which I would never have otherwise done. Reads like the Daily Mail comments section, it's terrifying to think they might get enough votes to get a seat in parliament. | |||
"Well this seems to be a waste time. Plenty of people against the party but not one has picked a single policy they don't like "You understand what populist policies are right? They are undeliverable pipe dreams that trigger support in those of the less well thinking contingent amongst us. Having populist back of a fag packet policies and having reasoned, costed, well thought out and deliverable policies are two very different things. How do you think populist policies have worked out for us in the that 6 or 7 years? | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion I hope they don't get any seats. Thanks to this thread, I looked at their policies, which I would never have otherwise done. Reads like the Daily Mail comments section, it's terrifying to think they might get enough votes to get a seat in parliament." I can’t see them winning many (if any) seats, but I can see them taking millions of voters from the tories | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion I hope they don't get any seats. Thanks to this thread, I looked at their policies, which I would never have otherwise done. Reads like the Daily Mail comments section, it's terrifying to think they might get enough votes to get a seat in parliament." I don't think you need to be concerned about them winning much in the way of seats. Only if PR is introduced would they stand a chance but I'm going on the UKIP example and personally don't think reform have as much support. As others say, they will just pull votes from the Tories making Labour's job even easier | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion I hope they don't get any seats. Thanks to this thread, I looked at their policies, which I would never have otherwise done. Reads like the Daily Mail comments section, it's terrifying to think they might get enough votes to get a seat in parliament. I don't think you need to be concerned about them winning much in the way of seats. Only if PR is introduced would they stand a chance but I'm going on the UKIP example and personally don't think reform have as much support. As others say, they will just pull votes from the Tories making Labour's job even easier" Hope you're right. I've no clue how many votes these maniacs will win | |||
"When things get worse, it makes it easier for Reforms message to appeal to many. However, We’ve seen populism before, it may provide brief respite, but it will eventually fall under the weight of its own bullshit. Fantasy politics where we can have the best of both worlds such as great services and low taxes is cakeism at its finest. You either have great services and more taxes, or terrible services and low taxes. When Reform argue it’s about more privatisation. They would privatise the entire government if they had the chance. This is how you get low taxation. Need more prisons?, make the private sector do it for pennies and without scrutiny. Need less immigration, hire private sector staff for pennies and without scrutiny. Energy policy? Privatise that and give these companies allowance to make massive profits without reinvesting in infrastructure. Military? Privatise it, private military contractors everywhere. No actual investment in defence, just enough to quell dissent. in the end the UK would turn into an oligarchy like Russia, who I may add seem to have a special place in many reform supporters hearts. BTW nobody seems to mention the relationship that was fostered between putins russia and these guys before the invasion of Ukraine. Guess they have been trying to reinvent themselves, and people have short attention spans. I think Labour have the next GE in the bag already. More to do with the Tories messing up than anything in my opinion. The reform party are just the final nails in the Tory coffin. I think they will take votes from the Tories more than anyone. They won't win any seats or very few seats but could tip the balance in some closely fought seats in Labour's favour. Just an opinion" I'm hoping it will be tighter then that and end up with a Labour lib coalition. | |||
"There isn't much about the reform party to like much, but we need to get away from a two party system in the UK and a single party system in Scotland. " -------- Single party system in Scotland? Please explain. At least 4 parties have seats in the Scottish parliament... --------- | |||
