Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
Hants PHer said:
I don't believe that Richard Tice expects Reform to gain any seats at the next election. That's a function of the current electoral system which makes it almost impossible for 'challenger' parties. More likely is that Tice intends to move the Tories towards Reform thinking, especially cutting out waste in public spending, lower tax and immigration control. We've seen this M.O. before, with UKIP.
Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
So if the tories promised those things that they won't and can't deliver you'd vote for them? Priceless! Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
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 rabbithole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
frisbee said:
86 said:
If we move to PR parties like this will have a decent voice
Why shouldn't they have a voice? Why shouldn't people be able to vote for people who represent their values? At present, the mainstream parties can take everyone for granted and there is little we can do about it. If people feel taken for granted in a PR system, they can vote for more extremist views, and eventually, whether through concessions to secure coalition or concessions in manifestos to show people they're no longer being taken for granted to win votes back from the extremists, a fairer consensus and greater democracy can be achieved.
105.4 said:
Hants PHer said:
I don't believe that Richard Tice expects Reform to gain any seats at the next election. That's a function of the current electoral system which makes it almost impossible for 'challenger' parties. More likely is that Tice intends to move the Tories towards Reform thinking, especially cutting out waste in public spending, lower tax and immigration control. We've seen this M.O. before, with UKIP.
Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
That pretty much sums up my thinking.Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
Let’s wind the clock back 40 years and look at our choices.
In the Blue Corner, weighing in at 154 lb’s, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.
In the Red Corner, weighing in at 188 lb’s, all the way from Wales, the Ginger Ninja, Neil Kinnock.
As voters, we knew what we were getting. Both Leaders were people of principle. Both were political Leaders whom I respected.
And what do we have now from all three main parties, (four if you include the SNP)? An absolute cesspit of underachievement, a gaggle of spineless cowards intent on looking after only themselves, not the people whom they serve. Bland, wishy-washy, grey, morally bankrupt b
ds who care even less for you than they do for the dead wasp on their windowsill, until that is, the time when they need you to vote for them so they can continue to dig their disgusting, greedy, grubby little snouts in the bottomless trough of the public purse for another five years, all the while laughing at how much of a gullible tt you’ve been to vote for them.f
k them all, regardless of the their party affiliation. s ! I utterly resent even a penny of my taxes being spent to provide a single one of them any degree of comfort, financially or otherwise.
Knock it all down, wipe the slate clean, because what we have now isn’t working.
ds….did t lift a finger to sort it out whilst it was actually happening. They all need shooting for treachery to the electorate. I’ll be voting Reform because they seem like their hearts are in the right place and they basically want what I want. I don’t care how they do it, whether it grabs the Tories back in the right direction or they even win some seats, but I sure as hell ain’t voting for the establishment…bdsHammersia said:
They're a neat encapsulation of the democratic deficit - goodness knows the current incumbents are useless, but there is no chance of Reform fielding 640 halfway credible candidates either.
We need to half the number of constituencies (in line with other countries) as a starting point to attract quality representatives.
We need to half the number of constituencies (in line with other countries) as a starting point to attract quality representatives.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1172438/parlia...
Kermit power said:
We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
UK's population pyramid is in pretty decent shape compared to many developed countries.https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/2...
If you want to crap yourself, look at the demographics of China and Japan.
You cover the costs of an aging population by improvements in efficiency, not by importing low skill workers. The post Brexit statistics of EU citizens asking for permanent residences also showed us the official immigration stats whilst we had free movement from the EU were hugely inaccurate, and we didn't pay for the infrastructure and services that increase in population required, we are currently paying the price for that lack of investment, the drop in service provision drove the Brexit vote.
We are currently experiencing unprecedented immigration as a result of the pledge to allow the Hong Kong former British subjects to leave there and come to the UK after China has reneged on its promises post handover. Add to that the increase from Asia and we will have a lot of skilled and business focused people in the economy. UK is going to do better than mainland Europe as time passes and the heavy industry there collapses, something we suffered in the 70's and 80's is now in progress in Germany and the Eastern Block supply chain that fed that economy built on cheap energy and cheap skilled labour from the old USSR countries.
It's going to be a fascinating 20 years ahead.
We need a better quality of politician to maximise this opportunity, the vast majority are very poor. 30 years of hiding behind the EU bogeyman is over and with a bit of luck the lazy crap ones are exposed and dumped. The next election will be just the start of that.
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.
Crippo said:
105.4 said:
Hants PHer said:
I don't believe that Richard Tice expects Reform to gain any seats at the next election. That's a function of the current electoral system which makes it almost impossible for 'challenger' parties. More likely is that Tice intends to move the Tories towards Reform thinking, especially cutting out waste in public spending, lower tax and immigration control. We've seen this M.O. before, with UKIP.
Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
That pretty much sums up my thinking.Voters like me cannot vote for the incompetent ConSocialist incumbents, nor for Starmer's equally mediocre alternative. If I was to vote Reform, and it acted as a catalyst for the Tories to actually start acting like Conservatives, I'd consider it a vote used rather than a vote wasted.
Let’s wind the clock back 40 years and look at our choices.
In the Blue Corner, weighing in at 154 lb’s, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.
In the Red Corner, weighing in at 188 lb’s, all the way from Wales, the Ginger Ninja, Neil Kinnock.
As voters, we knew what we were getting. Both Leaders were people of principle. Both were political Leaders whom I respected.
And what do we have now from all three main parties, (four if you include the SNP)? An absolute cesspit of underachievement, a gaggle of spineless cowards intent on looking after only themselves, not the people whom they serve. Bland, wishy-washy, grey, morally bankrupt b
ds who care even less for you than they do for the dead wasp on their windowsill, until that is, the time when they need you to vote for them so they can continue to dig their disgusting, greedy, grubby little snouts in the bottomless trough of the public purse for another five years, all the while laughing at how much of a gullible tt you’ve been to vote for them.f
k them all, regardless of the their party affiliation. s ! I utterly resent even a penny of my taxes being spent to provide a single one of them any degree of comfort, financially or otherwise.
Knock it all down, wipe the slate clean, because what we have now isn’t working.
ds….did t lift a finger to sort it out whilst it was actually happening. They all need shooting for treachery to the electorate. I’ll be voting Reform because they seem like their hearts are in the right place and they basically want what I want. I don’t care how they do it, whether it grabs the Tories back in the right direction or they even win some seats, but I sure as hell ain’t voting for the establishment…bdsI believe the attempted forcing through of this insanity will bring about the fundamental change in UK politics that is overdue.
But it's still a few years away, as most people haven't yet realised what's planned for them. I think by 2030 most will know the score.
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?
Some countries don’t have any personal income taxes.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?
How do they pay their way when by your definition everyone is a “net taker”, and why do they welcome so many immigrant workers?
If everyone earning <40k disappeared tomorrow, would net treasury receipts go up or down?
There is more to a person’s contribution - even restricting it to economic contributions - than their direct personal tax contributions.
otolith said:
Some countries don’t have any personal income taxes.
How do they pay their way when by your definition everyone is a “net taker”, and why do they welcome so many immigrant workers?
If everyone earning <40k disappeared tomorrow, would net treasury receipts go up or down?
There is more to a person’s contribution - even restricting it to economic contributions - than their direct personal tax contributions.
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 do they pay their way when by your definition everyone is a “net taker”, and why do they welcome so many immigrant workers?
If everyone earning <40k disappeared tomorrow, would net treasury receipts go up or down?
There is more to a person’s contribution - even restricting it to economic contributions - than their direct personal tax contributions.
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.
In some cases. In others they tax industry or imports. How many of Tesco’s employees earn more than 40k? How much tax is paid as a result of Tesco’s operations?
Incredibly short sighted analysis.
otolith said:
In some cases. In others they tax industry or imports.
How many of Tesco’s employees earn more than 40k? How much tax is paid as a result of Tesco’s operations?
Incredibly short sighted analysis.
A country functions on more than the tax receipts. Most developed countries exist on debt. How many of Tesco’s employees earn more than 40k? How much tax is paid as a result of Tesco’s operations?
Incredibly short sighted analysis.
You cant run a country like you do your own personal bank account. A country gets to print it's own money and spend on the promise of future ability to pay the debt issued. If you try and balance the books as a country, you destroy it's future.
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 rabbithole, as I'm more interested in the fact that they are mutually exclusive.
So please answer the questions.
otolith 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?
Some countries don’t have any personal income taxes.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?
How do they pay their way when by your definition everyone is a “net taker”, and why do they welcome so many immigrant workers?
If everyone earning <40k disappeared tomorrow, would net treasury receipts go up or down?
There is more to a person’s contribution - even restricting it to economic contributions - than their direct personal tax contributions.
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.
Kermit power said:
I'd never really given much thought to Reform UK before seeing a surprising number of people on the "Voting Intentions" thread saying that they were actually considering voting for them. What's more, it seems from opinion polls that around 10% of the country are actually considering voting for them, so I went to have a look at their policies and found this...
We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
Life expectancy hasn't improved significantly for two decades and the retirement age has increased already and at least one more rise is in the works.We live in a country which has had declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy for decades. Basically every year for the past half century has seen more people retiring than children reaching adulthood to replace them, and this dial will shift by a further million over the next 15 years. Every year - without net immigration - the ratio of workers to pensioners will continue to fall and the tax burden per worker to support those pensioners will continue to rise.
Secondly there is a tendency among some to see immigrants as all the same, and all creating economic and fiscal benefit, whereas a glance at the situation with UK workers as a comparison would make that highly doubtful. So a managed immigration system targeting those with useful skills would likely both result in significantly lower numbers and a better fiscal position.
So you are pointing out contradictions that rely on those earning minimum wage, or barely above it, making a great fiscal contribution, despite the costs of public services per head and the entitlement to in-work benefits.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff