Scrutable

Who could possibly have predicted that the political party now known as "Reform 2025 Limited" would descend into infighting?

https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1900819140492820487

sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 12:35 pm Who could possibly have predicted that the political party now known as "Reform 2025 Limited" would descend into infighting?

The Party Constitution of Reform UK is now published on their website.

The BBC reported in Feb that this constitution was approved last September - which is quite important because the constitution itself requires it to be approved by the members - so presumably it is in force. But I'm not sure the BBC have it quite right. Because it is clear that being a "member of the party" is still quite distinct from being member of Reform 2025 Limited within the terms of corporate law. Similarly the jobs mentioned in this constitution are separate from being the board/members/directors of the company Reform 2025 Limited, which is not mentioned at all in this. So Farage may in practice still control Reform 2025 Ltd, but it is unclear what powers that gives. I suppose by making it a CLG, he has separated himself from any potential losses or profit the party might make.

So how democratic is this constitution?

There is a "Party Board", which is responsible for things like the policies of the party. This comprises

- The Party Leader
- The Party Chairman, Treasurer, Deputy Leader and Secretary, all appointed by the Leader
- 3 party members elected by the Party Membership - but they must be "in good standing" so it looks like the board has some of Iranian power to stop people it doesn't like from standing
- Additional party members who can be appointed by the Leader, at least two of them must have held public office (really weird restriction that, also implies that there must be two of them.)

So the Party Leader is in utter control of the board, with at most 3 members out of at least 10 not appointed by them.

The Party Leader has a 5 year term of office. But initially it inherits the leader from the existing party, ie Nigel Farage, without election, and it is unclear when the 5 years starts in that case - I suppose by implication from the moment when the constitution comes into force. It says that there shall be an election of the party membership for a new leader on expiration of the term, resignation, or death. Again there are rules about "good standing" - only members in "good standing" can stand for leadership or vote. So this looks a bit like Iranian election rules that people the board doesn't like can be stopped from standing or voting.

Amendments of the constitution are put to a ballot of the members, and require a 2/3 majority to go through. The process for proposing amendments is subject to rules to be written by the party board, so presumably they can make it hard for proposals to come from the wider membership.

So this looks like there is some democracy in the sense that the members can vote for the leader. But outside those leadership elections the leader is pretty much in absolute control, with the ability to appoint the large majority of the board that runs and manages the party and policies.

At least the previous constitution made clear what was the relationship between party operations and the company that ran the party. This one leaves it opaque. Maybe the CLG is just a shell and does nothing in practice. But that is odd.

Interesting that they insist on a 2/3 majority to make changes. Don't remember them insisted on that at the 2016 Referendum.

Starmer's first By-Election will has been triggered by the resignation of Mike Amesbury, the MP for Runcorn and Helsby following his conviction for assault.
Ashworth's polling last weekend suggested that Reform would expect a comfortable win over Labour with the Conservatives in a very low third.

However, the schism in Reform is having an interesting effect, with at least one Lowe supporter saying that Reform supporters should withhold their vote in protest at his treatment by the Limited Company
https://x.com/SSaravanagane/status/1900900956444799013

I completely despair, the UK has huge structural problems, but nothing Reeves is doing will address any of that, all so she can avoid putting up rates of tax with the people with the most money. eg: the charity my wife helps run will have to fire people to cover the cost of the imminent NI rise. Then they impose benefits cuts to starve sick people to go back into work, but they've just made it more expensive to hire people, so there will be fewer jobs for those people to take on. What kind of thinking leads to them doing this crap?

If the Germans are happy to violate their own self imposed budgetary straightjackets, the UK certainly can.

They are handing the country to Reform.

Gfamily wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 5:40 pm Starmer's first By-Election will has been triggered by the resignation of Mike Amesbury, the MP for Runcorn and Helsby following his conviction for assault.
Ashworth's polling last weekend suggested that Reform would expect a comfortable win over Labour with the Conservatives in a very low third.

However, the schism in Reform is having an interesting effect, with at least one Lowe supporter saying that Reform supporters should withhold their vote in protest at his treatment by the Limited Company
https://x.com/SSaravanagane/status/1900900956444799013

On the other hand, the Labour candidate has signed a petition to close down the local hotel that's currently housing asylum seekers, so I can't vote for such a 'pro Reform' candidate.

The cost of welfare is absurd. No way are so many people too ill to work. But the correct path is to invest in mental health first, job schemes second and benefits cuts third.

But cutting benefits for scroungers is popular.

lpm wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 11:31 am The cost of welfare is absurd.

Is it?

Or is it a reasonable price to pay to support a functioning economy?


(asking as a US person where the safety net has much bigger holes and the economy only works because of illegal immigration)

I just despair of politicians in general. Not one of them is prepared to acknowledge the fact that there are more people of working age than there are jobs. And that's only likely to get worse. We need to decide what to do about the excess of people. They can't just be junked like obsolete machinery.

lpm wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 11:31 am The cost of welfare is absurd. No way are so many people too ill to work. But the correct path is to invest in mental health first, job schemes second and benefits cuts third.

But cutting benefits for scroungers is popular.

Mental ill health is being ill. But yes, fixing people so they are capable of working should be the priority. Having seen up close how poorly functioning the mental health service is, a huge amount of investment is required for that to happen.

Lew Dolby wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 1:33 pm I just despair of politicians in general. Not one of them is prepared to acknowledge the fact that there are more people of working age than there are jobs. And that's only likely to get worse. We need to decide what to do about the excess of people. They can't just be junked like obsolete machinery.

At the same time, there are huge numbers of unfilled vacancies. Which actually means is, you can't get people of a skill you'd like at a wage you'd like to pay them. And it can simply be unwillingness to pay the suitable wage. But it can also be training and education, which often the state has to intervene in - why we have a state education system. The Economist has an interesting article this week on this. They point out that some labour shortages are insoluble. There is only one Erling Haaland, much as all football teams would like to employ one, so there's not much that can be done to increase the labour supply there. But in plenty of other cases - construction workers, who seem to be perpetually in short supply - then they are potentially available, but they have to be first trained and then paid a suitable wage.

Gfamily wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 10:50 am

Gfamily wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 5:40 pm Starmer's first By-Election will has been triggered by the resignation of Mike Amesbury, the MP for Runcorn and Helsby following his conviction for assault.
Ashworth's polling last weekend suggested that Reform would expect a comfortable win over Labour with the Conservatives in a very low third.

However, the schism in Reform is having an interesting effect, with at least one Lowe supporter saying that Reform supporters should withhold their vote in protest at his treatment by the Limited Company
https://x.com/SSaravanagane/status/1900900956444799013

On the other hand, the Labour candidate has signed a petition to close down the local hotel that's currently housing asylum seekers, so I can't vote for such a 'pro Reform' candidate.

FFS, she didn't just sign the petition, she f.cking created the petition!
Soddit, if the constituency fails to Reform, so be it, with the hope that the Labour Party will learn that supporting the least advantaged is better than hitting down on them.

IvanV wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 4:55 pm

Lew Dolby wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 1:33 pm I just despair of politicians in general. Not one of them is prepared to acknowledge the fact that there are more people of working age than there are jobs. And that's only likely to get worse. We need to decide what to do about the excess of people. They can't just be junked like obsolete machinery.

At the same time, there are huge numbers of unfilled vacancies. Which actually means is, you can't get people of a skill you'd like at a wage you'd like to pay them. And it can simply be unwillingness to pay the suitable wage. But it can also be training and education, which often the state has to intervene in - why we have a state education system. The Economist has an interesting article this week on this. They point out that some labour shortages are insoluble. There is only one Erling Haaland, much as all football teams would like to employ one, so there's not much that can be done to increase the labour supply there. But in plenty of other cases - construction workers, who seem to be perpetually in short supply - then they are potentially available, but they have to be first trained and then paid a suitable wage.

[forgot to say earlier] with the added complication that vacancies aren't necessarily where the unemployed are. Telling someone in, say, Preston that there are loads of jobs in, say, London really doesn't achieve much.

Gfamily wrote: Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:32 pmSoddit, if the constituency fails to Reform, so be it, with the hope that the Labour Party will learn that supporting the least advantaged is better than hitting down on them.

I can’t quite put into words how furious that petition makes me, but when I figure that out I intend to share them with the North West regional organiser who has been emailing me to help out with the campaign.

Depressing account from focus groups in Grimsby: https://www.channel4.com/news/james-joh ... wing-in-uk

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:59 am Depressing account from focus groups in Grimsby: https://www.channel4.com/news/james-joh ... wing-in-uk

It's along the same lines as, let's vote for Brexit, that will give those complacent politicians a kick up the arse.

The Labour Party is complacent and does need a kick up the arse, as Mr Michael Spicer (youtube 3mins) rather cuttingly points out. And unfortunately it seems it is only going to learn it in the same way the Democrats in the US just learned it. I think many people have said, at the time of the election, that Labour had about 18months-2yrs to actually do something noticeable about the mess we are in, or the people who voted for it will be rather upset at the lack of perceptible change.

Do these people know what Reform's policy on the NHS is? They'd better find out. Because if they vote Reform in, they risk being mightly upset when they discover he has in mind Trumpian destruction for it. And that's likely to be even less helpful for our problems than Brexit, at least for for the less well-off.

Sadly it seems most voters don't do policy details... they won't know Nige wants to scrap the NHS and sell it off to the USA. And if you tell them they probably won't believe you.

TopBadger wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 10:20 am Sadly it seems most voters don't do policy details... they won't know Nige wants to scrap the NHS and sell it off to the USA. And if you tell them they probably won't believe you.

Or they'll think it's a good thing because the NHS is sh.t because of how long their nan was on the waiting list for, or something.