Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Paragraph 2 is the key note policy to raise 20/40bn. The problem is it means nothing, I mean the words actually have no meaning.
QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
Funnily enough there was an article in the business section discussing this very thing the other day. QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
I think this is actually a thing but perhaps not explained very well in the manifesto, I don't know as haven't read it.
Basically the BOE was buying bonds and commercial banks were holding reserves with them. During ultra-low interest rates the government was banking the profits and effectively paying interest at fractions of a percent on debt owned by the BOE. Now it is actually a cost as rates paid to commercial banks are higher than the bond rates. It is also a very significant cost at over £10bn an annum (from memory).
So one possible policy choice is to shift that cost onto the commercial banks. It may not be a wise thing to do but is actually theoretically possible according to the article I read.
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?These are the details of the issue
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-taxpayers-hook...
and the suggestion by some is to shift those losses over onto the commercial banks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-taxpayers-hook...
and the suggestion by some is to shift those losses over onto the commercial banks.
JNW1 said:
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?
gt_12345 said:
Kermit power said:
gt_12345 said:
Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
That's a very pertinent question, but it's not a question for me to answer, it's a question for Reform to answer, as they're the ones claiming that they can deliver lower tax and zero waiting lists in the NHS whilst simultaneously overseeing a fall in the number of working people per pensioner and legislating to prevent the resultant gap being plugged with immigrant labour.90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Your views may differ from mine or other people's as to which of those items we'd like to see, and I'd like to hope that we can have a thread that doesn't just go down that rabbit hole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
So please answer the questions.
I am not saying that we absolutely have to have more immigration to address the problems with our ageing population, but it is one option.
Another option would be to immediately increase State retirement age to 75 to restore the link between retirement age and life expectancy, but quite apart from the obvious electoral suicide that might entail, it would also be an increase in taxation, so isn't an option open to Reform UK under their manifesto.
A third, longer-term option might be to significantly increase taxation - maybe another 10% on VAT, for example - then ring-fence it specifically to enable more people to have more babies at a younger age, but again that's not an option open to Reform UK because it increases taxation.
These issues are, of course, compounded if you're going to declare no waiting lists in the NHS, as we all know that demands on the NHS are seasonal - either directly due to weather-sensitive conditions or indirectly due to patients with said conditions taking up bed space, so to ensure no waiting lists at peak times you'd have to factor in significant excess capacity in both people and beds at quieter times of the year at significant extra human and financial cost.
Anyone can suggest and debate a mixture of higher or lower immigration, taxation or waiting list and prioritise them according to their view of the world, but nobody can deliver zero immigration, lower taxation and zero waiting lists all in one because it's simply not possible without making Logan's Run a reality.
The fact that ReformUK are putting those impossible mutually exclusive claims at the heart of their manifesto means that it is for them and them alone to answer the question of "how?", and until they've done that, the question of "why?" is completely irrelevant.
Kermit power said:
Another option would be to immediately increase State retirement age to 75 to restore the link between retirement age and life expectancy, but quite apart from the obvious electoral suicide that might entail, it would also be an increase in taxation, so isn't an option open to Reform UK under their manifesto.
.
Why would that be required when the number in receipt of the state pension isn't rising?.
The number in receipt of the state pension now is slightly lower than it was ten years ago. This situation may well change in the future but then there is already a further planned increase in the retirement age to mitigate this.
sugerbear said:
JNW1 said:
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
Paragraph 2 is the key note policy to raise 20/40bn. The problem is it means nothing, I mean the words actually have no meaning.
QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
Funnily enough there was an article in the business section discussing this very thing the other day. QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
I think this is actually a thing but perhaps not explained very well in the manifesto, I don't know as haven't read it.
Basically the BOE was buying bonds and commercial banks were holding reserves with them. During ultra-low interest rates the government was banking the profits and effectively paying interest at fractions of a percent on debt owned by the BOE. Now it is actually a cost as rates paid to commercial banks are higher than the bond rates. It is also a very significant cost at over £10bn an annum (from memory).
So one possible policy choice is to shift that cost onto the commercial banks. It may not be a wise thing to do but is actually theoretically possible according to the article I read.
The alternative (and probably what should have been done at inception) though simply is for the the government to scrap the requirement to reimburse losses to the APF and just allow the BoE to continue to rack up losses on their balance sheet the way the ECB and Federal Reserve do. It was pretty stupid to have agreed to do so in 2009 tbh and there's good reason why no other central bank had that kind of agreement.....
Until enough people put their cross in the box of other parties or spoil their paper,nothing will change.
The main parties will tit for tat in Government and continue to feather their individual nests and treat the electorate with contempt,continuing to lie and cheat the system.
Until they are given a bloody nose and a kick in the arse,nothing will change.
Far to many people are willing to accept the status quo,even when it means eating a s
t sandwich.
The main parties will tit for tat in Government and continue to feather their individual nests and treat the electorate with contempt,continuing to lie and cheat the system.
Until they are given a bloody nose and a kick in the arse,nothing will change.
Far to many people are willing to accept the status quo,even when it means eating a s
t sandwich.StevieBee said:
Seasonal Hero said:
Farage wants the Tories gone.
I don't think he does. His objective all along has been to force the Tories further to the right. He's achieved this. Reform is about maintaining that position.Tony Blair and David Cameron both brought British politics as close to the centre line as you can get. This was a good thing as it's the space where generally sensible governance takes place and where as a whole, the UK operates the best. The problem is that there are sufficient ideologist on the far right and far left who disagree and wish to force their ideology into how the country is run. On the right, we've had UKIP and now Reform. On the left we had Momentum.
The key difference between the two is that the right is supported overwhelmingly by the majority of British media as this suits their financial ambitions. This has and continues to lead to client journalism and the promotion of skewed truths and lies presented as facts which in turn influence those that lack the capacity of independent thought.... which is a startlingly large number of the electorate.
Don't think this is a dig at the far right. Should Labour win the next election, we can expect the weight of media support to swing to the left, as they did at the beginning of Blair's tenure.
Sending people to Rwanda is not far right.
Capping benefits to 2 kids is not far right
Bedroom tax is odd, but it's not far right.
Supporting Israel is not far-right.
JNW1 said:
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?If they can't win a constituency, who would they represent?
wisbech said:
gt_12345 said:
What countries, with extensive public services and social welfare, have zero % income tax?
UAE. Of course, they also have 80% of the population as immigrants (who don't get the public services & welfare) and oil.Not a Party I'd vote for, but they are a sign of the times.
Our Leaders aren't leading anymore, not on the right of centre at least. The current Tory Party are a complete shambles, they don't know if they should appeal to the fundamentalists who want the very things Reform as offering, or appeal to the pragmatists who are more concerned with problems the UK is facing who are far more likely to either vote Labour / Libs, or just stay at home. They're desperately jumping from policy to policy to see what sticks this week, watching the polls with one eye and keeping an eye on their own backbenchers with another.
Voters aren't stupid, okay some are, but even the most fundamentalist Tory voter isn't going to look at Reform and say, "I like the policies, I'm sure it's very easy to just do all those things". They might tell a pollster they'll vote for them because they're angry, but when it comes to crossing the box, I'm not so sure.
Our Leaders aren't leading anymore, not on the right of centre at least. The current Tory Party are a complete shambles, they don't know if they should appeal to the fundamentalists who want the very things Reform as offering, or appeal to the pragmatists who are more concerned with problems the UK is facing who are far more likely to either vote Labour / Libs, or just stay at home. They're desperately jumping from policy to policy to see what sticks this week, watching the polls with one eye and keeping an eye on their own backbenchers with another.
Voters aren't stupid, okay some are, but even the most fundamentalist Tory voter isn't going to look at Reform and say, "I like the policies, I'm sure it's very easy to just do all those things". They might tell a pollster they'll vote for them because they're angry, but when it comes to crossing the box, I'm not so sure.
Mrr T said:
gt_12345 said:
Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Its not possible to answer your question because the figures you use are rubbish. I am sure you have used the figures before and I have explained why they are rubbish but you keep posting the same rubbish.90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
The 40k figure, I think it a bit less, is calculated by allocating all government costs on a per head basis. 29% of government is social benefits, pension, universal credit, and disability benefit, none of this will be paid to migrants. 20% is health so very little will be for migrants who are younger. 10% on education so none paid to migrants. 6% on defence, 10% on debt interest. So about 75% of the costs of government are nothing to do with the migrant.
It's likely a young fit migrant is contributing to the economy even on minimum wage.
As for education most migrants will contribute more over there life time because we did not have to pay for there education.
Young people don't use healthcare??
They are no different to a British person. Both consume Government expenditure.
gt_12345 said:
Nobody here is far-right. There have been no far-right policies in UK politics for decades.
Sending people to Rwanda is not far right.
Capping benefits to 2 kids is not far right
Bedroom tax is odd, but it's not far right.
Supporting Israel is not far-right.
Sending people to Rwanda is far right policy. It is straight out of a national front/BNP leafelt from yesteryear. Sending people to Rwanda is not far right.
Capping benefits to 2 kids is not far right
Bedroom tax is odd, but it's not far right.
Supporting Israel is not far-right.
The Israel one is complicated because it depends on what you support. Their right to self defence is fair, their determination to encroach/control the west bank and Gaza and effectivley expel Palastinians or hold them without trial maybe not.
Skeptisk said:
105.4 said:
Skeptisk said:
Have people forgotten what happens when you these fkwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.
I can’t speak for Liz Truss as I must have blinked during the brief second that she was PM, but the principles behind a vote on whether we remain in the EU simply wasn’t ’far-right’. kwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit. It was the largest and fairest implementation of democracy we’ve ever had in this country. Do you honestly consider a true Democratic vote to be far-right? Or is classing anything you don’t like as far-right, (when it clearly isn’t), now the default position people are taking for things that they don’t like?
otolith said:
gt_12345 said:
otolith said:
520TORQUES said:
Those countries are either piss poor, have enormous wealth from natural resources, or import criminal money whilst having easy methods to wash said money into a spendable asset.
How many of Tesco’s employees earn more than 40k? How much tax is paid as a result of Tesco’s operations?And therefore no population increase and no requirement to increase public infrastructure due to people who consume more than they contribute.
The only difference is Tesco would have to pay a fairer wage because there wouldn't be a massive supply of cheap labour.
The only people who benefit from immigration are business and property owners.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff