Latest news with #Farage
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Young, angry and in debt: why Gen Z could turn to Corbyn
The opportunities are out there – to almost be a left-wing version of the populist right Reform. Standing for subterfuge and scapegoating, Reform seeks to protect the elite few. Corbyn can offer hope of a better future for the many. Last month More In Common polled 1,408 people on whether they'd vote for a Corbyn-led party. Regardless of gender, it found 10% would, with the Farage-led Reform on 27% and Labour on 20%. Much more interestingly and importantly, 32% of 18-24-year-olds – the highest for this age group for any party – said they would also do so. Reform was on just 7% for this age group. Among 25-34-year-olds, Reform moved ahead with 21% support compared to Corbyn's 14%. Support amongst older age groups continued to decline at roughly the same rate as it grew for Reform, suggesting a battle of the generations. In other words, the Gen Z generation – those born between 1997-2012 – are far more attracted to Corbyn and his politics than to Farage and his. And support across all ages in Scotland, at 18%, was the highest amongst any of the nations and regions in Britain. Without any policies yet declared, what will Gen Z be looking for and what will Corbyn and his comrades need to offer to keep them away from the clutches of a charlatan like Farage? The far left that hopes to have a home in the Corbyn party suggests a plethora of platitudes, whether it be welfare not warfare, ending austerity, taxing the rich, freedom for Palestine, climate action, and anti-racism. And since Corbyn lost the Labour leadership in 2020, he has led his Peace and Justice Project, focusing upon environmentalism, international peace cooperation, social inequality and corporate power. Read more by Gregor Gall None of these issues should be lightly dismissed but there needs to be something much more concrete to get Gen Z to turn up en masse at the polling booth to vote for the Corbyn party. It's called the security of self-interest. Unless Gen Zers have rich parents, they're the first generation that will be poorer than their parents were when they had them. So top of the priority list of policies must be housing, debt, and employment. Unless helped by the "bank of mum and dad", Gen Z-ers cannot afford, let alone get, a mortgage to put a foot on the property ladder. Forced to rent, they have no security of residence as rents rapidly rise. As demand outstrips supply, what they get for their money is pretty grotty. Thus, policies of house price control, council house building and more first-time buyer financial support as well as rent controls for flats and landlords licensed only where minimum quality standards are met. Next many have gone to college or university and graduated with debt. And that's with having worked through the time they did their degrees. Though student loan debt repayment only kicks in when earning above a certain level, the irony is that many do not get to that point for some years. Thus, reintroduction of student grants, abolishing fees, cancellation of student debt, price controls on basic food stuffs, free public transport, and a new national state bank offering low interest loans. Upon entering the jobs market these days, many will end up in jobs that are no better paid and with no more security or prospects than the ones they did during their degrees. Artificial intelligence will reduce, not increase, job opportunities at this end of the labour market. Thus a doubling of the minimum wage to £25 per hour, ending temporary employment contracts, and job security for the first five years of a job. To bastardise Oscar Wilde's saying, you can only look at stars when you're not lying in the gutter. So, only then with that firm basis securely established can the policy platform then add on those more altruistic aspects like "world peace". But before we run away thinking it's just about the policies on offer, we need to remember that the issues of the personalities and processes are important too. With chants of "Oh, Jeremy" still heard today, a party built too much around a single leader comes with dangers. Yes, it needs a clearly identifiable and credible leadership but putting too many of its eggs into one basket can be a ticking timebomb. We know this from the experience of the likes of Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway. Corbyn could easily suffer a stroke under the strain of it all. Zarah Sultana has stepped up to the plate by leaving Labour (Image: PA) Now Zarah Sultana MP has stepped up to the plate by leaving Labour. She is a still young – but not quite Gen Z - 31 year-old woman with Pakistani heritage. It could be a case of replicating the current practice of the Green parties either side of the Border of having two co-leaders. And, just as many young people flocked into Labour when Corbyn became leader in 2015, many also became disillusioned by their inability to change the party to sing in tune with him. This should not be a problem in the new political party but that does not mean that members will be happy to become just the shock troops that knock on doors and hand out leaflets come election times. All is to play for. There will be competition with the Greens because there might be some policy overlap, especially if the radical candidates win the leadership here and down south shortly. Time is of the essence, as a party not yet established and with no name has a hard hill to climb to fend off Farage. The youth and vigour of the 32% of the young Gen Zers need to be tapped into now to bring on board their peers and others. Professor Gregor Gall is a Research Associate at the University of Glasgow
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Heckling of Nigel Farage will only help reinforce Reform UK's mantra
Now we've got Farage here, and Trump there. But no matter how much many of us despise their politics, their popularity and their capacity to polarise opinion persists. Last Wednesday Farage was actually present in parliament and asked a question at PMQs. That he was heckled, almost shouted down and not exclusively by Labour, must have been mood music to him and his followers. The government braying at this self-opinionated 'man of the people' will only help reinforce Reform's mantra: that they stand for the common folk, there on behalf of working people: anti-establishment as the establishment continues to get it oh so wrong. READ MORE: Ultra-Unionist fringe group fails to reach crowdfunder target After all, just how long is the list of the Labour failures one year in, and who lost out? Not the millionaires, and I doubt if many in the knighted circles felt the pinch or worried about cutbacks. Techne UK's recently published poll put Reform ahead, Labour second and the Tories third-placed, 11 points behind Reform. That Reform manage to gloss over their failures and possible scandals as they acknowledge more Tory deserters, it is Labour who must be welcoming the summer recess: time to rest and regain momentum. But to us punters here, whatever seems to be on the horizon, it certainly isn't 'hope'. Hope that they do better? Backbenchers could come back emboldened, seeking more concessions, and party in-fighting is no good to anyone, far less a government. Will the SNP take note? Labour have trouble brewing over proposed changes to specific sections of children's education. There's all those payments still due to victims of numerous scandals: the Post Office, war veterans, infected blood, Windrush. Bad news waiting at every turn, and no hope as Scotland is shafted again with Shanks and Miliband and their double larceny: energy theft and over-pricing. No hope for Gaza and Palestinians as the Starmer government continues to deny the genocide, whilst supporting the apartheid state of Israel. No hopes for our diminishing money at the end of the month with the probability of tax increases in Reeves's autumn budget. READ MORE: Former Reform MP worked for bank while 'claiming Covid loans', reports say Missteps are all that is required to boost Reform. Whatever they poll here in 2026, we will serve as their proving ground. With or without Scottish votes at the next General Election, they offer the prospect of breaking the two-party government system. It's ironic, then, that Reform don't want to see positive change. They need the boats to continue, to see taxes rise, to see Westminster in disarray so their own chances will rise. They won't be offering hope, just some new mangled spin on change without substance. So where's our hope here? Just attacking Reform as extremist, inward-looking and not in line with the social leaning mores of the majority of us won't cut it. Reform want to be likened to the right-wing change happening in the USA, so decrying them without positive alternatives just victimises them. The danger of the SNP being the established government here is a godsend to Farage, the new anti-establishment. With Labour lurching further right, dog-whistling when it suits ("island of strangers"; a policy still to be put into practice of people trading, one in one out), Corbyn will probably garner left-leaning votes if he and his cohorts can get their act together for 2026. What a crowded landscape 2026 is going to be! READ MORE: Reform UK attack King Charles over comments in UK-France speech What hope have we here as we get swept along, detritus-like and directionless with an absence of political leadership? There is an alternative to the right-wing populism being promoted by Unionists, right and left. But when will that alternative be spelled out by our politicians, or have they forgotten how to spell independence? We can't depend on some short, sharp campaign in 2026, and with what? What messages will the grassroots be taking out? The same old same old messages we've tried in the past? We need to be able to activate and motivate people to vote next year for all that independence can bring. It's way past the time of hand-wringing over the ills of the centuries-old Union. Now is the time and need to articulate practical steps that will lead to independence, and the benefits. Failure won't lead to more of the same, but worse standards of living, a foreign policy that makes us complicit in genocide, restrictions going way beyond the erosion of freedom of speech. Who would vote for that? But voting for indy without a laid-out plan of action in the over-crowded pantomime that passes for democracy will be another wasted election, another wasted vote. Selma Rahman Edinburgh
Spectator
2 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
The populist case for fixing the pension system
Pensions rarely top the Westminster agenda or get politicians excited. Too boring, too distant. But maybe, just maybe, pensions will soon become political. There is a growing consensus among pensions policymakers and industry insiders: if we want future generations to retire with a bit of security and comfort, contributions into defined contribution (DC) pensions must rise. That means workers will need to put in more – and so will their employers. So soon the government will take the next sensible steps on this sensible journey, with its ongoing Pensions Review starting to focus on 'adequacy', technocrat-speak for saving enough to retire on. The world of pensions policy is a small, pleasant one. Experts, executive and officials tend to meet and talk amicably, away from the passion and poison of politics, about doing sensible, technical things in the best interests of the public. I'm lucky enough to visit pensions world sometimes and it's a treat for a centrist technocrat like me – smart, decent people trying to do smart, decent things. But there is a huge risk in clever people making clever policy away from the public. So in parts of pensions world, away from the consensual panel sessions and policy papers, there's political fear, which shapes the thinking of ministers and mandarins alike. What if Nigel Farage decides to attack all this? Farage is a force in the land. Anyone who's watched him work an audience or studio knows how easily he could turn 'increased pension contributions' into a populist talking point about taxing working people to prop up a system run by out-of-touch elites. I understand that fear. I've spent enough time in and around pensions policy to know that these are not the sexiest or easiest issues to sell to voters. And the fear that rising contributions could be turned into a political attack line has already delayed reform. The government had planned to announce a new Pensions Commission to look at contributions last autumn, but delayed the move in the wake of the autumn budget. When that commission does finally launch, fear of attack by Farage (or a Convervative party aping his approach) will loom, large but unspoken, in the background. I think the fear is misplaced. In fact, it's back to front. The right response to Farage on pensions isn't to hide from him – it's to try and enlist him and his politics. Because there is a genuinely populist case for pensions – and for better pensions policy. Not in spite of Nigel Farage, but very much in line with his values, his instincts, and those of his supporters. He's popular for a reason, after all. If pension policymakers want their reform agenda to survive contact with the public, they should start thinking – and talking – more like Farage. Start with the most obvious theme: control. What was Brexit if not a demand for ordinary people to take more control over their lives – to repatriate decisions from remote, unaccountable authorities? Pensions are part of the same story. When you don't save enough, when your pension pot is too small, you lose agency. You end up relying on the state – or your children, or the housing market, or the shifting preferences of future chancellors. That's not security. It's thraldom. If you really want to Take Back Control, put more in your pension. A decent pension is the very essence of self-reliance and pride. It says: I worked, I saved, I did the right thing – and now I can stand on my own two feet. If the populist right believes in anything, it's that. Then take the role of employers. This is where some policymakers get really twitchy. They worry that asking businesses to pay more into pensions will be seen as anti-growth, anti-business – and therefore toxic to a pro-enterprise agenda. But again, that's the wrong political lens. The right one is this: what happened to the deal? Here, the pension-populist argument goes like this. There was a time when British businesses saw pensions as part of their basic duty to employees. You worked hard, stayed loyal, and got something back at the end. That social contract has been quietly shredded. Today's multinationals boast about their values and their people while cutting pension contributions to the legal minimum. Populist pension politics would demand better. It would ask: If you want to do business here, what are you doing for your workers? It would make a moral and national case for stronger employer pension contributions, not as a handout but as a marker of decency. It would say: pensions are part of the price of a functioning society – not an optional extra. For those employers – and there are a lot of them – who do go the extra mile to support workers' pensions, there should visibility and recognition. (I recently wrote an SMF paper on this, if you're really keen.) Pension officials worrying about Farage and the Daily Mail should see that their case can be made in right-wing language. This isn't redistribution. It's contribution. It's firms putting something back into a system that allows them to operate and profit. It's responsibility, not regulation. Which brings us to the real problem: language. How do we talk about pensions in a way that ordinary people understand and connect with? Too often, we don't. Policymakers and pension lobbyists should not shrink from populism — we should channel it. Farage or one of his tribute acts will fill the silence if others stay quiet. That would be a disaster: a populist vacuum filled with simplistic outrage. Instead, pension reformers should speak the language of pride, family, and common decency. Stop talking about 'replacement rates' and 'opt-out inertia'. Start talking about security, personal stake, a fair deal. Remind people that pensions are not optional luxury – they are rights earned through decades of work. And remind firms: this is not a cost – it is an investment in your people and a proof-point of your commitment to them. How do we talk about pensions in a way that ordinary people understand and connect with? The policy details are not trivial. Auto-enrolment defaults, smart decumulation pathways and the rest all have a role. But none of that will matter unless the political story is won first. Right now, the pensions policy establishment is nervous. Nervous that Farage or someone like him will come along and blow the whole thing up with a single line about new burdens and working families. But avoiding the issue won't work. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does politics. The better strategy – the smarter politics – is to tell a better story first. Don't fear Farage. Speak to the same instincts that make him successful. And perhaps even challenge him to back a policy agenda that's actually on the side of the very people he claims to speak for. There is a compelling, patriotic, populist case for fixing our pension system – for higher contributions, fairer treatment of workers, and a culture that values self-reliance. The question is whether policymakers are ready to make it. Like it or not, populist arguments have power. Use that power to build up the pension system, before someone uses it to break things.
South Wales Argus
4 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Question over George Cottrell and Nigel Farage campaign
Known as 'Posh George,' George Cottrell was a volunteer for Farage in 2016 before his arrest in the US on money-laundering charges and ultimate guilty plea to one count of wire fraud in a case unrelated to his work at Ukip, Farage's party at the time. The crime was committed in 2014, before Cottrell worked for either the anti-EU party or Farage. Cottrell served eight months after a plea agreement that reduced his possible prison sentence from a maximum of 20 years, according to court documents at the time. He has been seen at Farage's side on the campaign trail over the last week, including the day the Reform UK leader was hit by a milkshake thrown by a member of the public. Many thanks, Andrew Nutt, Bargoed
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
MP calls for Ofcom probe after BBC uses GB News clip of Nigel Farage
In an edition of BBC News shown on Thursday, July 10, the corporation used footage shot by the alt-right GB News of Reform UK leader Farage on a boat trip in the Channel monitoring migrant crossings. Max Wilkinson, the LibDems' culture and media spokesperson at Westminster, has written to Melanie Dawes, the chief executive of watchdog Ofcom, urging her to open an investigation. READ MORE: 'Skewed': BBC slated for pushing small boat crossings as top Scottish story Wilkinson said in his letter to Dawes that he believes that the BBC breached section 5 of the Ofcom broadcasting code, which states that the corporation must not 'give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy'. The LibDem MP goes on: 'As I'm sure you are aware, numerous parliamentarians and media commentators have expressed concern that Britain's national broadcaster is currently giving disproportionate coverage to one political party, namely Reform. 'The BBC's weighting of Reform's reactions to national and international news is disproportionate to the small number of seats they hold in Parliament. 'It is in this context that I write to request your review of yesterday [Thursday] evening's broadcast. Yesterday afternoon, Nigel Farage's boat trip to the Channel was carried by GB News, amongst other outlets. I understand that the BBC was not originally one of those outlets. 'However, the BBC still carried Farage's comments for the 6 O'Clock News, clipping GB News' own broadcast for their programme. GB News went on a boat trip with Nigel Farage into the Channel, and the BBC used the footage (Image: GB News) 'My issue is not with the reuse of other broadcasters' material in and of itself but with the lengths gone to by the BBC to carry the voice of one politician, lengths that we imagine would not be proportionately extended to other political parties. 'However, I would also add that licence payers' money seems poorly spent on the BBC if that outlet is 'cutting and pasting' other broadcast outlets' content, rather than fulfilling its duties to research and report news independently and impartially.' Wilkinson claimed that the BBC were 'making special allowances' in order to feature Farage, warning that it risks 'delegitimising its platform; undermining its reputation for impartiality; and undercutting its commitment to providing a distinct, unbiased news service'. 'I am concerned that this approach blurs the lines between independent broadcast journalism and partisan political coverage,' he wrote. READ MORE: BBC issues correction after Scottish Government driving test claim 'It is for these reasons that I ask you to open an official investigation into this issue. I hope you will take appropriate action, should you agree that the BBC's due impartiality requirements have once again not been met.' The LibDems won 72 Westminster seats in the 2024 General Election, while Reform UK won five. However, Reform have more recently been polling above Labour and the Tories in UK-wide surveys. BBC guidelines say that both should be taken into account when deciding on the prominence to give any one party's views. The BBC News broadcast which sparked the complaint is not available on the corporation's iPlayer. Ofcom and the BBC have both been asked for comment.
