The Guardian has this headline this morning:
UK far right lines up behind Rupert Lowe in challenge to Reform
The subtitle is:
MP who fell out with Nigel Farage and has backing of Elon Musk launches anti-immigration party in Great Yarmouth
And as the article notes:
Over the weekend other parties and figures to the right of Reform quickly rallied behind the new party. Advance UK, led by the former Reform deputy leader Ben Habib and backed by the far-right activist known as Tommy Robinson, said it would consider a merger.
Such a force could cost Reform a number of seats – and potentially even power, in a wafer-thin general election result – by splitting support among those drawn to hard-right anti-immigration populism.
What do I think about the prospect of a fractured right, split between Farage, Lowe and the Tories?
"Yes, please" is the only real response I can offer to that prospect.
"Bring it on", might be my second take.
Whatever electoral system we have, this is welcome. The more the far-right fight among themselves, the more extreme they will get, the less their appeal will be, and the lower their electoral success will be.
That does not end their toxicity, and I am aware of that. But the fact that Farage cannot now hold his far-right front together clearly supports the hypothesis that I have had for a while, which is that his appeal has peaked.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
In this context, this is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND2EBhYLMRs
Novara/Bastani in Manchester. Deform has a lot of troops on the ground. It is difficult to say what impact, but there is no doubt that “immigration” has been pulled to the front. If Deform win in Manchester it could give them a leg-up. I take the point about a split in the right-whinge – but this is unlikely to impact on Manchester which seems to be turning into a straigh Green vs Deform fight.
Particualrly worrying – the aceptance by some that immigration is a problem – no questioing – just acceptance. Pathetic sheeple.
Agreed, very worrying.
Many people want the problem to be immigration because they want to hate a target they can reach. Reform aren’t convincing people as such, they are mostly preaching to the converted, normalising the hate and permitting people to express it. In my opinion, anyway.
Richard
I do think Tom.B is on to something.
Farage, Trump, the right wing traditional media, Tories & influencers on social media platforms have normalised immigration & racial issues into our politics. It has become acceptable to “speak out”.
Trouble is all this “identity politics” which I think Labour likes too allows neoliberalism to continue while polarising society.
I agree.
On the surface it’s welcome. But it also takes the whole spectrum of parties even further to the right, perhaps making Reform policies seem not so extreme after all to confused-induced-racism voters. Could be the playbook. Hope not. Hmm.
Fragmentation sounds like a gleam of hope in the short term. Thanks for bringing it to light.
This looks like more ‘filling the zone with shit’ to me, Bannon style.
On a slightly different tack, but related note.The drivers of this is the lack of proper ‘blood supply’ to anywhere but London.
I know places like Great Yarmouth, once a former Victorian seaside beauty, have been treated as cheap receptacles to dump other places’ problems.
This has created complex high need communities, and no doubt local resentment which Reform harvest for their nefarious purposes.
Neoliberalism- apply the problem then apply the solution.
Electoral fragmentation may reduce one pathway to influence, but it doesn’t eliminate the underlying hatred, social polarisation, and online radicalisation that will lead to undemocratic behaviour and violence if left unaddressed. Democratic safeguards like a strong civil society, fair institutions, inclusive economic policies, and robust social norms against violence, are all essential if we are to prevent this. As you are warning us daily, we’re falling far short in all these areas.
Entirely agreed.
Never forget the grift aspect. There’s so much money out there, ripe for the taking, and all you have to do is push the Overton window to the right to get your share. Maybe Lowe didn’t want to share with Farage.
The danger that Reform had seemed to pose was that of uniting the right behind a single person and party. Now Badenoch has found some more political awareness and stopped putting her feet in her mouth so often, the Tories have regained some support. Meanwhile Reform seems to have harmed itself with the recent defections and as-expected inability to actually run councils. And now there’s Advance to peel off further support.
A key hope is that they all insist they ‘can win’ in every location while the left has realised the need for tactical voting.
Ratchet right. Watch and recalibrate. A tried and tested game play we have seen many times before.
To the right of Reform is Genghis Khan and Nihilism. No civilised or caring society can abide there. Some of the characters pushing in that direction are straight out of Hammer House of Horrors. Under normal conditions, 90% of the public would be repulsed by these ghouls, but we are living in very strange times where politics resembles an episode of Stranger Things and monsters are difficult to kill off.
Granted, the Tories and Labour have both performed poorly, leaving the door open for the nasties, but I honestly believe that time is on the side of common sense and that the more we see of the hard right, the less popular they will be. Unless there has been a complete sea change in the mores of the general public. Personally, I would rule that out.
There is no-one (key public figure or MSM) challenging the “immigration is the problem” trope.
Many of the followers of reform have legitimate grievances.
This really is a time where an alternative explanation might have a “window of opportunity” (no-one competing on the same platform against an alternative of multiple fascist and slightly less fascist neo-liberals).
So : It really is time to prepare that manifesto! The alternative to neo -liberalism and decay!
Noted
The cancellation of the cancellation of local gov elections is playing straight into the hands of N.Fartrage & Deform…
We now have a U-Turn on the local election cancellations!!!
I wish he would U-Turn on the household analogy.
🙂
If anyone thinks deporting non whites is OK? Lowe wants to remove citizenship from anyone with what he considers immigrant heritage.
That’s me…
Your view on this Richard
“If people spend from savings or take out bank loans and spend that reduces deficit but paradoxically increases transactions and potentially inflation. Government spend and get all money back as tax more transactions only leakage from circular flow of money to tax rather than tax and saving (stops sooner) hence STRUCTURAL DEFICITS ARE DEFLATIONARY (structural deficits not including spending that goes up or due to the growth or recession in the economy – a permanent increase in deficit spending)! You can think of saving as blocking additional transactions down the line!”
There actually more transactions/inflation when you get back as tax. IOW with arbitrary ‘full funding rule’ restrictions borrowing happens at the end of the day (only way all payments can be made otherwise you would sometimes run out of money.)
Please reply
I think the statement you quote mixes a few real insights with some misunderstandings, and that makes it confusing.
First, private spending financed by borrowing can indeed increase activity. When households or firms take on debt and spend, that adds demand. If the economy is already at capacity, that can be inflationary. But it also leaves higher private debt behind, which can later become deflationary when repayments begin. So the effect is temporary and depends on conditions.
Second, government deficits are not automatically inflationary or deflationary. They are simply the mirror of private saving. If the private sector wants to save more than it invests, the government must run a deficit or the economy shrinks. That is an accounting identity, not a policy preference. Whether the deficit is inflationary depends on real resources: are there idle workers, unused factories, unmet needs?
The claim that “structural deficits are deflationary” is therefore too sweeping. Persistent deficits can support demand, maintain employment and stabilise incomes. Or they can be inflationary if spending exceeds capacity. Context matters.
What is correct is this: savings do slow the circular flow of spending, and deficits can offset that. But the real issue is not financial arithmetic. It is whether spending uses resources productively and sustainably.
Economics is about who gets what, on what terms, and with what consequences. Deficits are tools. Their impact depends on how and why they are used.
This article may be of interest. It’s more concerned about the rise of the even further right.
https://simonpearson1.substack.com/p/building-the-state-before-winning?
That is very worrying.
If I have time I might post about it in the morning.
I recommend reading it.