Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
isaldiri said:
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.....
Edited by Mrr T on Monday 15th January 10:26
deeps said:
LF5335 said:
gt_12345 said:
Okay, so what is it thats immoral?
https://www.reformparty.uk/“Make Britain great again”
Gee, I wonder who they’re pandering to with that Trumpism. If you’re going to pretend to be credible then maybe don’t copy the most morally bankrupt President in US history.
Were we great when women didn't work?
When being gay was illegal?
When there were less Muslims?
When 10,000 people a year were killed in car crashes despite many fewer cars on the road?
When we had thick smog in cities?
When we died within a few months of retiring?
When was this great time and what did it represent?
Kermit power said:
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.
P-Jay said:
Not a Party I'd vote for, but they are a sign of the times.
They're not a party at all. Reform is a limited company controlled by Nigel Farage, has three officers, no voting rights over policy for its 115,000 members with Farage hand picking all of its candidates. You would think after everything that has happened, some critical thinking would be in order when it comes to actual democratic structures in this country but it appears not to be the case. Plenty of people still willing to look the other way when a de facto dictatorial outfit so happens to align with their base reflexes. Part of me wishes it upon them, it would serve them right.sugerbear said:
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.
otolith said:
gt_12345 said:
The only people who benefit from immigration are business and property owners.
And if they benefit, they make larger profits and pay more tax.oyster said:
deeps said:
LF5335 said:
gt_12345 said:
Okay, so what is it thats immoral?
https://www.reformparty.uk/“Make Britain great again”
Gee, I wonder who they’re pandering to with that Trumpism. If you’re going to pretend to be credible then maybe don’t copy the most morally bankrupt President in US history.
Were we great when women didn't work?
When being gay was illegal?
When there were less Muslims?
When 10,000 people a year were killed in car crashes despite many fewer cars on the road?
When we had thick smog in cities?
When we died within a few months of retiring?
When was this great time and what did it represent?
President Merkin said:
They're not a party at all. Reform is a limited company controlled by Nigel Farage, has three officers, no voting rights over policy for its 115,000 members with Farage hand picking all of its candidates. You would think after everything that has happened, some critical thinking would be in order when it comes to actual democratic structures in this country but it appears not to be the case. Plenty of people still willing to look the other way when a de facto dictatorial outfit so happens to align with their base reflexes. Part of me wishes it upon them, it would serve them right.
There are not members, they are subscribers.President Merkin said:
They're not a party at all. Reform is a limited company controlled by Nigel Farage, has three officers, no voting rights over policy for its 115,000 members with Farage hand picking all of its candidates. You would think after everything that has happened, some critical thinking would be in order when it comes to actual democratic structures in this country but it appears not to be the case. Plenty of people still willing to look the other way when a de facto dictatorial outfit so happens to align with their base reflexes. Part of me wishes it upon them, it would serve them right.
The Reform party members probably have about as much influence on their party as the Conservative party members do, whatever the differences in the formal structures.President Merkin said:
gt_12345 said:
When London wasn't stabbing capital of the world?
London not the highest in the UK, the UK not in the top 20 in the world. You should spend less time with your prejudice.London / 7,556,900
Birmingham / 984,333
Liverpool / 864,122
Nottingham / 729,977
I am not good with numbers, so can anyone explain to my why London would have more stabbings than any other city in the UK?
/8West Midlands and Cleveland have the highest number of stabbings per head of population in the UK.
JagLover said:
The Reform party members probably have about as much influence on their party as the Conservative party members do, whatever the differences in the formal structures.
Tory members can vote for their leader à la Truss.What voting structure exists within Reform that the membership have a say in who becomes leader?
valiant said:
It’s all pie in the sky and no doubt lapped up without question by the same people who demand fully costed plans for other parties.
Still, they are taking votes away from the Tories without much chance of winning a single seat which can only be a good thing.
Membership mechanism is a bit odd. You can become a member but you don’t seem to have any party voting rights? Is that correct? I’ve only quickly peeked at their website and can’t see what ‘rights’ you have by becoming a member.
What will actually be good about a labour government?Still, they are taking votes away from the Tories without much chance of winning a single seat which can only be a good thing.
Membership mechanism is a bit odd. You can become a member but you don’t seem to have any party voting rights? Is that correct? I’ve only quickly peeked at their website and can’t see what ‘rights’ you have by becoming a member.
What will they actually do that will be soo beneficial?
Mrr T said:
Not sure that makes sense. If a commercial bank sells bond to the BOE it will be paid the value which may or make not be par. The money will not sit in the commercial bank, because the commercial bank will have borrowed to buy the bond. Why would the BOE offset the bond against the commercial banks reserves? Commercial banks do hold reserves with the BOE and the Bank does pay interest on those to the commercial banks because the banks have to borrow to make the deposit.
The BoE pays for the gilt buying and QE through creating bank reserves and the APF was only (iirc) buying bonds from counterparties who did have reserve accounts. valiant said:
JagLover said:
The Reform party members probably have about as much influence on their party as the Conservative party members do, whatever the differences in the formal structures.
Tory members can vote for their leader à la Truss.
As in members can vote on candidate MPs................. from a shortlist drawn up by party HQ.
They theoretically vote on who should be leader, but in reality the MPs tend to present them a choice between who they want and some no-hoper and it may not ever reach them. If they still make the "wrong" choice then this can be corrected.
Members, unlike in the Labour party, have no say on policy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff