If you voted Reform, I would love to know why?

[AplineDaisies]

I am not here to judge so would just like to hear from Reform voters for their reasoning.

Caringcarer - Well said

@SeriaMau I really don’t get the sense Reform are about installing a liberal democracy where people are free to follow their hopes, dreams and desires.

The UK hasn't allowed people to follow their hopes, dreams, and desires for at least the past 40 years.

You are complaining about not being able to have something under Reform which we don't have anyway...

Let's agree to disagree.
Electorate, or some part of it, don't want to hear about pensions "welfare" because all of us, well, most, will be pensioners at some stage.

Most of electorate do want to tackle benefit bill though, especially given that it's now exceeding the entire income tax receipt.

The problem is that NF is not the one to do this in any more or less sustainable way.

Yes percieve.
As opposed to imagine i said all Labour voters were well-off and living in eg Dulwich

@Katypp so who do you think the below voted for?

The 'enlightened' middle classes who consider themselves morally and intelectually superior can only imagine how awful life must be for poors and want to make things better, knowing that any consequences of their largesse are unlikely to affect them.

Your previous post was full of assumptions and judgement.

Hmm. The increase to the minimum wage year on year means jobs that require a degree and a few years experience now pay barely above the minimum wage. And employers can’t afford to increase those wages because of the increased employer NI (enforced by Labour) So many are on NMW, or close to it, by default, when they weren’t a few years ago. Is that a good thing?

With respect - I’m not reading all of your previous posts from however many pages ago.

You should be grateful that you were able to buy a property with the inheritance that wasn’t guaranteed, and wasn’t a product of your own effort.

The alternative is not being able to do that, which I’m sure wouldn’t have been your preference but is lots of people’s reality.

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be grateful for what you received, or why you’d resent having to pay tax on income that you didn’t earn and was additional to what you would have had otherwise.

Surely you are grateful what you received, and aren’t entitled enough to think it should have been more, when without it, you’d have had substantially less.

There may not be many of them, I don’t know, but count your blessings.

why aren't you talking about benefits bill though? it's 50% of the entire welfare bill.

And no, I do not agree that pensions are benefits.

@nearlylovemyusername Well I agree NF is definitely not the person to do it but it does confuse me that some are so convinced he will.

I think many people realise the triple lock is ridiculous and would be fine with it going if we want to seriously tackle the benefits bill.

And no, I do not agree that pensions are benefits

They are though

I don't think the average reform voter has lived through harder times. Ironically, I was talking to a youngish lad (mid 20's) the other day who said he was a reform voter. He's never worked a day in his life, he claims PIP and UC for ADHD and anxiety. He's had a shit family, full of domestic violence and alcoholism and yet all his family vote reform too because it's the immigrants fault apparently. Like somehow that is going to teach his parents how to have been decent human beings and not utter dicks who take no responsibility for the 7 kids they've bought into the world.

I’m not sure what you mean. The benefits bill needs to be addressed and I’ve previously said lifting the two child cap was a big mistake. And there are many people better off working part time because of UC top ups and how crazy that situation is.

Pensions also need to be looked at but that demographic is so powerful in the ballot box there is next to no hope of any party touching it for current pensioners. Getting rid of triple lock and replacing it with a single lock linked to average increase in earnings would be a start. Also introducing NI for everyone (not just workers on the payroll under state pension age) needs to happen.

If you’re not prioritising your time so you can socialise, then that’s a you issue.

How is the system set up against working class men specifically?

How is the fact you’re a man making you any worse off on a systemic level?

It sounds like that young man has lived through quite a hard time tbh.

I'm not doubting that at all. He really has but it's certainly not the fault of the immigrants which is why him and his family are voting reform.

Also introducing NI for everyone (not just workers on the payroll under state pension age) needs to happen.

Just scrap NI and roll it into one. I’m not against linking some welfare payments to what has been paid in as they do in other European countries.

I do find it hilarious that thus thread is full of name-calling, insults and insinuations about Reform voters but as soon as i have the temerity to call out a 'type' of Labour voter, it's off limits.
The results speak for themselves. Lots of traditional Labour areas returned Reform and the better-off areas stuck with Labour.
Anyway, we will not agree, so let's agree to differ.

So have the workers who’ve had to support him!

Christ.

The problem is that many have presented very sensible reasons not to vote Reform yet Reform voters seem almost always in my experience be unable to accept these points - confirmation bias kicks in and they ignore the evidence presented to them.

Voting for someone who will actually make your life worse just because you're pi**ed with the alternatives IS stupid. This is what results in people thinking they are stupid and calling it out. Same with Brexit.

So? They are not the architect of the system that allowed/continues to allow that to happen.

IHT thresholds should rise. All inheritance is not the same. There is a major difference between wealth accumulated across generations and protected through trusts, offshore structures and sophisticated tax planning, and an ordinary family whose main asset is the family home bought through decades of work, PAYE taxation and mortgage payments. You should be able to give to your children and grandchildren with certain caveats.

It is also an uncomfortable truth that the reason many younger people cannot afford homes today is not primarily because 80-year-old Ethel has lived in her home for 50 years, contributed to her community, and seen the value increase around her. She is not hoarding wealth nor is she the primary cause of house price inflation. Taxing her will not increase homeownership or meaningfully redistribute "wealth". The bigger issues are (not an exhaustive list) decades of cheap credit, restricted housing supply, institutional ownership, demographic pressures, housing being treated as an asset class rather than a necessity, an economy reliant on asset inflation, and large-scale capital outflows.

Nor will she and her family necessarily benefit from that house price inflation. Many ordinary homeowners end up selling their homes to pay for dementia or long-term residential care, often at £60,000-£100,000+ per year over many years. Self-funders are already propping up the wider care system and effectively subsidising lower local authority rates. Various estimates suggest they save the state around £10bn+ annually. In reality, much of this “wealth” is already recycled back into the system through later-life care costs long before inheritance is ever passed on.

There is also far too little joined-up thinking about the real drivers behind house price inflation, pressures on the NHS and education, or who benefits most from how the current system operates. Take water industry - much of the industry (in addition to teetering on the edge, financially) is now effectively owned through international pension funds, infrastructure investors, HNW individuals and other overseas investors. Since privatisation, water companies in England and Wales are estimated to have paid out around £70bn-£80bn in dividends while building up more than £60bn in debt.

It was their responsibility to use profits to maintain and improve infrastructure, yet leaks, outages and contamination issues remain persistent. Ask people in Kent and Sussex about the major outages, disruption and extra costs they experienced while still facing rising bills. Now Ofwat has agreed bills can rise per household to fund investment that many argue should already have happened... and to service the debt! . That is tens of billions over five years that could otherwise have been circulating in the economy, improving lives and creating opportunities. That's just nuts!

It's time for people to wake up realise who is carrying the cost, and who receives the rewards? The government and the political parties have you looking in the wrong direction and at the wrong people.

I didn't vote reform, however, all the parties are only out for themselves.
Labour has been pushing to remove rights for all sorts of marginal groups

The wellbeing and school bill is targeting disabled children and home educating families. It's dressed up in safeguarding and well being but actually removes legal rights and protection from families and children..it doesn't actually safeguard vulnerable children

The LA often act unlawfully and deny disabled children the right to an appropriate education - currently families can challenge this via tribunal - and virtually always win because the LA haven't followed their legal duty. The new act will take away the option of tribunal and allow the LA to get away with acting unlawfully

There really isn't any good options when even the labour party is unfairly targeting disabled children

Aye, it's hard work breathing all day...

Wow. For a start the major flaw in your argument is that the small Amazon tribe you refer to would not have invaded, colonialised and pillaged other countries, bought people back over to their country as slaves, and left countries war torn with no option other than to go elsewhere for their safety.

Point is the pp said Reform voters likely haven’t lived through hard times. And then goes on to describe a young man who votes Reform who has experienced a life of domestic violence and alcoholism from his parents. That sounds quite hard to me, and I’m sure no one would disagree if it was talking about a female who had experienced domestic violence.

I am not saying that means he should be entitled to benefits his whole life, just disagreeing with the view that he hasn’t had a hard upbringing.