“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

Yes, it’s quite clear you aren’t following. I give up. I did try my best.

I think a similar list could be made for many of the motivations of Labour voters.

I haven’t said anybody is stupid. You are perhaps mistaking my comment about poor economic understanding (which is about knowledge and in my opinion a key failing of our education system) and - in many cases poor numeracy as the data about UK school leavers shows - for a comment on people’s intelligence or intellectual ability which is largely innate. It wasn’t - I said nothing whatsoever about people’s intelligence.

My comments were about poor knowledge and therefore being unable to make rational assessments of what the significant matters are from an economic perspective and distinguish between things which are a (deliberate) distraction and those which will actually make a meaningful difference to the public finances and therefore productivity, growth and living standards. I also commented about people’s frustration with the ongoing mismanagement for decades now and said this was understandable.

Not being numerate or having been taught the basics of economics (not covered by the national curriculum) makes the electorate easier to manipulate. This is not calling the electorate “stupid”. Intelligence and knowledge are not the same. I was pointing out a failure (in my opinion, a very deliberate one) in the education system.

Again, meanings being assigned to words by you and other posters which are not what they actually say. If I wanted to say all Reform voters were racist and stupid then that’s what I’d have said. It wasn’t, so I didn’t. My words mean what they actually state.

I would encourage all Reform voters who react like this to any discussion on politics to examine their behaviour because this shows the complete hypocrisy of the usual “insulting people won’t persuade them”, “people need to engage and understand each other’s point of view”. Yet even when asked for theirs and someone trying to engage with them, it’s met with a barrage of insults and attempts to twist their comments and pretend they mean something else. It’s too exhausting so no wonder people give up.

If you actually want to discuss the things that are bothering you about the country and ways that people could come together behind a policy program that wasn’t divisive and had majority support that might actually improve things, then a change of approach on your part is needed, not just from those who actually do insult you for your views. Not everyone is the enemy and if you treat them as such with this kind of adversarial and aggressive approach then quite clearly nothing will improve. It’s much too tiresome to try to have rational conversations with people if they absolutely refuse to do so and wilfully misrepresent everything you say, so people won’t bother to engage with you if you continue to do this.

The argument for voting reform which appears most often in the FT is that they will upend the entire welfare state - their economic plans are so incredible that the bond markets will pull the plug and the Uk will have a Greece moment. The economic disaster will be worth it for the shirkers to get their comeuppance. I think it is likely to be a bumpy few years whatever happens.

I do think half the trouble in politics these days is a lack of civility in politics. I think I've mentioned it before, perhaps not on this thread so apologies if I have. People cannot argue a point without insulting the intelligence of the people that disagree with them. It's a shame. And your 10 points are actually worded rather rudely. And the fact that you stand by them all means unfortunately that you intended to be rude. Which is a shame as it detracts from your argument.

I stand by it all. You might not like my way of expressing things, but as a list of factors for why many people are now considering voting Reform, it is my opinion (with the caveat stated at the start of the list that OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL OF THESE WILL APPLY TO ALL REFORM VOTERS because we’re talking about millions of different people with different motivations) that these are some of the main drivers for why their support has been growing.

I also expressed interest at hearing any other reasons other people are considering doing so because the list was a response to another poster asking for my OPINION on why Reform is getting more support in political polls than previously, and I am not someone who would ever consider voting for such economically incompetent charlatans, so all I can do is base it on opinions that have been given by Reform voters and documented in research, or stated publicly by them in the media, or stated to me personally by people I know.

I was hoping that some rational reasons that aren’t in the list might be provided and to have an objective and factual discussion about it to understand better anything I am missing. If you would like to add to the list and state other reasons, as I said to you earlier, I would be very interested to hear them, particularly in the context of how you believe they will help the UK’s economic situation/ living standards/ options for fiscal policy, which is the subject of the thread.

Is there a particular reason you keep suggesting this poster is a teacher? Is it an attempt to belittle teachers or because you just don’t understand that economist is a separate job? It is very weird.

At least half your points imply that Reform voters are stupid for a start.

I don't think I'd ever be brave enough to make such a list about Labour voters!

So why take the gun off them and shoot yourself in the temple?

Here's your original.10 point post which might be helpful to have handy as we are discussing it.

I'm not sure how objective it is and perhaps you got a little carried away with the language.

Do retract anything you now no longer stand by.

Quite happy for you to do so, providing you and other posters stop taking specific sentences of it out of the context that was set out at the start of the list which clearly stated explicitly that I was not stating that these factors apply to everyone.

It’s sad to be honest that I needed to state that when it should be obvious, but I did so to avoid precisely this kind of pointless conversation pretending I’d called everyone a racist or stupid and make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that I wasn’t doing so. Yet here we are, anyway.

Nobody called a teacher an economist.

I am not a teacher. How many times do you need to be told this?

The opposite happened: you called an economist a teacher.

Again: I have not called Reform voters racist or stupid.

You are the person who has attempted to be insulting and belittle someone else because you don’t agree with them. On the other hand, I’ve said nothing personal about you whatsoever.

Edit: except noting your apparent inability to understand words, but that’s not intended as an insult, rather just bemusement at the objective reality evidenced in the posts that you somehow manage to misunderstand even clear answers like “no”.

Well, we can all easily read your 10 points and judge for ourselves.

You seem to be missing the first part of the post, which clearly stated that there are a number of different factors why (in my opinion - which is what I was asked for by another poster and to which the post was a response) I can imagine many people might be considering voting for Reform. I was asked, so I listed them out.

I also specifically stated at the start of the post that obviously not all of these factors will apply to all people considering voting for them, because there will be a wide range of reasons that aren’t applicable to all. This is the complete opposite of implying all people considering voting for them are a homogenous group with the same motivations.

I did not claim that this list of factors was exhaustive, given that I cannot read the minds of millions of people who are apparently considering voting for them. Merely that in my opinion - which the poster I was responding to had asked for - I think these factors may be responsible for a lot of the recent increase.

When you replied and stated none of the reasons I had listed applied to you but you were considering voting for them, I replied very politely, genuinely asking why and how you thought this would improve things because I wanted to understand your point of view.

I really don’t appreciate my comments being misrepresented in this manner. It’s very disingenuous and not conducive to any constructive discussion. I haven’t insulted anybody or called them a “racist” or “stupid”. In these conversations people always say that others should engage with them and understand their point of view and then when somebody tries to do so, ironically, it is met with them being insulted by Reform voters.

Also how would you means test? On yearly income? People with pension pots would just draw down the minimum each year to prevent losing the pension. On savings? That would completely discourage saving for retirement.

Quite you'd go to the hospital. This government has just kept on shooting themselves.

When you reach pensionable age but carry on working you no longer pay NI - because you have paid what you need to to get your pension.
Also you still pay tax - so if you have a private pension add that to your state pension and you will be taxed as a normal working person (less the NI).

Not sure why you’re mentioning my parents. I’ve no idea who they voted for and nor is it remotely relevant to my decisions.

I certainly haven’t said that the current “shit show”, as you so eloquently put it, or the departed one, are credible. I have been scathing of the incompetence of both, and specifically stated several times that I believe one of the reasons some people are now contemplating voting for Reform is that they are in despair at decades of economic mismanagement and therefore falling living standards.

My point is that voting for people who are even more incompetent whose stated policies will be economically catastrophic on a scale much worse even than the “shit show” we’ve seen for the last 20+ years is not a sensible solution, despite the frustration (which I share).

When you’ve been shot in the foot it is best to go to hospital, not get someone to shoot you in the face as well.

I don't mean to be annoying as I am interested in much of what you say, but you sort of did say that. For example at Point 1 of your post upthread you said.

A poorly educated electorate who have next to no understanding of economics so are easily redirected from the pressing issues into flapping around in rage and squabbling over irrelevancies/ directing their anger at scapegoats.

You did also say a fair few other derogatory things about Reform voters....

If they do that they are insane.

But I wouldn’t put that kind of economic stupidity past them, given their track record so far on doing the complete opposite of what they need to do to improve things.

I’m 33 and my financial advisor recommended I plan for not receiving a state pension so I’m assuming it’s common knowledge it’s likely to be changed in some way. I’m not sure how this will work if Labour also remove higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.

Pathetic.

No: my job is economics.

I’m not sure how much more clearly I can explain this to you since you seem to have such difficulties with understanding words.

I did not say that Reform voters were stupid or racist. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent other people’s posts?

The figures I quoted are for removing it from those with private incomes (or equivalent assets to generate those incomes without the state pension - because people with drawdown pensions for example can vary their income so an asset test, as in Australia, is also necessary to ensure the type of avoidance that you mentioned it not possible) of over the “moderate living standard” levels set by the PLSA and Loughborough University which are updated with inflation annually: currently £31,700 for an individual and £43,900 for a couple, after tax and housing costs, i.e. all they have to pay from this amount is Council tax, utilities, house maintenance, food etc.

www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk

This is far in excess of the average full-time UK salary which is £37,500 before tax (so equates to £29,200 after tax and NI, assuming no pension contribution at all). Working-aged people are almost all generally then paying housing costs from this net income, and childcare costs, which retired people do not pay.

As such, this would leave even those who had their state pension tapered away to zero with far more disposable income than the average working person. The “moderate” standard is set at a level to enable purchase of a 3 year-old car every 7 years, spend money on taxis and travel, have a two-week holiday abroad every year and a UK break, pay for streaming services, pay for regular takeaways etc. It would create absolutely zero poverty to stop paying state welfare to such people.