To think that a Reform UK government would just be like a Truss on steroids one ?

[Peeppuandpopo]

So all the folk using them as a protest vote against the Tories will just get the usual cutting of benefits, selling off of stuff to huge companies, further privatisation of the NHS, demonisation of anyone ‘different’.
Loads of them are from areas ravaged by Thatcherism (which is basically Trussonomics) but they’ll just get more of the same….

You are correct.

Truss had a plan, to grow Britain out of it's current problems. The plan was poorly executed rather than being fundamentally unsound, although its hard to say whether it would have worked with certainty. I think it would.

Truss cost the country a lot. But not in the way people think. By failing to implement her plan we lost the chance to take a step in a different direction and do things differently. That may yet come back to haunt us.

We are now faced with the prospect of a Labour government that has no workable plans for growth, is faced with a difficult situation regarding taxation and is going to come under huge pressure from its voter base for more spending. There is only one place where that ends.

The irony is we might end up with the Truss plan eventually. But not before we have ended up at the IMF first (that is if the markets will even let us borrow the money to get to the IMF in the first place).

Unfortunately the general public are just too ignorant of economics to understand these sorts of issues.

1. But they’ve been sat in a plane on the tarmac when the High Court ruled it was illegal.
2. Giving away ££££££ to their mates doesn’t negate the fact that most local services no longer exist.
3. DWP are currently refusing 89% of initial PIP claims, and only 52% of claims are successful overall. I have a friend with MS who is a wheelchair user who can’t walk a step and has to be fed. He had his PIP withdrawn and they took his motobility car back. He had to go to court to get it reinstated. It’s unsurprising that there are more claimants given the state of NHS treatment right now.
4. Our local physio services have been sold to Virgin Care. All our counselling provision is also provided by for-profit companies. The NHS spends billions every year paying private companies (whose shareholders will be creaming off a massive chunk of taxpayer’s money) to deliver NHS services.

@ll09sm give it up. You are fighting a one woman battle against people who get their "facts" from the Guardian/BBC. I have said on MN several times that there is no money, we spend more than ever and we are in a debt spiral. Also immigration at record levels of mostly non workers who cost alot and put even more pressure on public services. I feel sorry for these people as they will get a shock when Keir Starmer gets in and things get even worse.

Reform aren't going to win. At most they'll get one or two seats.

Regarding mass immigration. It's a very very right wing policy as it impacts on the less advantaged the most, so if Reform want to reduce the numbers that's actually a leftwing attitude. I don't get why people don't want to acknowledge or admit that.

Minority of genuine bigots aside who don't like people "not from here", concerns about the impact are legitimate.

What's the difference between that, and the multiple threads on here complaining about lots of 'blow ins' impacting on jobs, housing, and local facilities? Nothing. It's the same issues. The issues should be discussed and addressed. Obviously not in a hostile manner that encourages hate, and solutions need to be compassionate but ignoring the issues is wrong. How to address is up to what people prefer. Can Either cut immigration numbers, or massive investment of affordable housing, protecting wage levels, and more funding to public services.

How many asylum seekers have been forcibly sent to Rwanda. Yeah, that’s right. 0.
From the UK, true. From some EU countries, I'm not sure how many. It's a EU policy but I don't know if they've gone ahead with it (personally I'm not sure it's the best solution but it's not up to me).

The NHS needs to be reformed to public/private as in France and the rest of Europe, we don't need to reinvent the wheel we just need to copy one of them. They are far more efficient and have much better mortality rates but for some reason people think the US is the only alternative health system in the world.

The most baffling this is how the economically illiterate regurgitate soundbites with such conviction when the numbers are staring them in the face. The data is there for all to see, it’s not a secret.

To repeatedly insist that we have been living through austere times for the last 14 years is stupid. And then to insist that spending even more (money that we simply don’t earn as a country) will solve all problems is beyond stupid.

These people, unfortunately the majority, simply fail to grasp basic math and economics. That you can’t keep borrowing every month to pay for public spending. That there isn’t an infinite amount of tax that the ever decreasing number of net contributors will pay. The freebie culture, something for nothing mentality, the handout expectation, is so entrenched into the national psyche that there is a refusal to acknowledge math. Basic math.

And net zero migration might sound good in theory but sectors of the economy would collapse.

Agree that zero immigration isn't what's needed. Cutting mass immigration numbers is obviously another matter. Absolutely there's some jobs, especially niche ones, where there's a genuine shortage of skilled workers. A minority of jobs though.

Definitely the argument that mass immigration is needed to fill jobs doesn't add up.

There's 916,000 total job vacancies (that includes part-time jobs). And over 1 million people on jobseeker benefits. Employers should be more willing to train people on the job (like they used to), pay living wages (which should be affordable for businesses if government invested in building social housing), & get over age, disability, & employment gap discrimination.

As for cutting benefits and hurting the most vulnerable. Reform, I don't know their policies on benefits but as they're not going to form government it's irrelevant. However both Tory and Labour have form on attacking the vulnerable. The last Labour government went after the disabled and lone parents. I'd like to think the next one wouldn't but who knows.

http://www.labournet.net/other/0409/disability1.html

If your argument is 'public spending is high therefore austerity does not exist' then you are not making your case clear.
Austerity measures dismantled infrastructure and support systems, and ended up costing the tax payer.

Training people to fill jobs is one example. It costs money to train people. You can ask employers to do it, and you can support job seekers to do it instead of penalising them.
But austerity was also an ideology; and now you think of people who claim benefits as spongers instead of just people who are out of work. So you resent spending money on them.

And as I said, the number of people on benefits has increased because they now also include working people who claim tax credits.

Whether Tory austerity or Labour austerity, it costs the economy a lot. It's a false economy approach. It leaves more people needing benefits and for longer periods of time.

There's many examples just on MN threads.
People needing benefits because their job doesn't pay enough to live (especially with unaffordable housing).

Women fleeing DV who have to give up their jobs to go to refuges because of the lack of social housing (there was a thread recently from one woman in that position).

People becoming too ill to work because of poverty and or poor or delayed NHS care.

Lone parents needing benefits because the other parent has fucked off and isn't paying child support

What's needed to reduce the need for benefits and to improve both individual lives and the economy (and society as a whole) is good well funded public services, social housing, supportive benefits system, better child support system, and job education and training opportunities. Across the country.

What does ‘well funded public services’ mean?

What amount would be enough to do that?

And if that amount is more than we spend now, where is that money coming from?

Services in the NHS have been privatised left right and center. IT systems, hospital transport, catering, cleaning - all private contracts. Assistive equipment providers. NHS contracting private beds to help with backlog. IAPT, CBTi.. the list goes on. The government wants to talk about the inefficiencies with the NHS, then they can have a look at hospital transport contracts - hospital transport that doesn't show up on time resulting in missed appointments but is still being billed at the extortionate rates to the trusts. Medequip who charge £150 for 24h equipment delivery because hospitals no longer have their own equipment stock.
Social care is no different. All care companies are in private hands and are charging extortionate rates. Where does this money go? Not to care workers.

No NHS services have been privatised - name one that has.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/how-has-the-role-of-the-private-sector-changed-in-uk-health-care

The Truss/reform posters in here proving that they have a sub GCSE understanding of politics and economics :)

No idea who you're taking about @Aladdinzane Saying that we have a deficit of 100 bn pa and debt of over 1trn and if you tax "the rich" more they will leave the country just makes one a realist. None of these issues have even been addressed in the poor quality "debates" which are just about getting us even more into debt with our own money. And that's before you get to the effects of net zero and mass immigration.

@Northernnature

Clearly talking about you :)

What solutions do you offer?

It means not running public services on the cheap, with contracts given to whichever private or 3rd sector organisation that offers the lowest bid. Bids low for a reason. Run on a shoestring with poor quality service, poorly trained and demotivated staff (no wonder often high staff turnovers), where more time and money is spent on winning and keeping contract than providing a good service.

It's a false economy because it's everything is interlinked in society. Delayed or poor healthcare, unaffordable or substandard housing, poverty. All interrelated. Lack of social housing, delayed or poor NHS care, limited job education and training opportunities, weak child support system, and other poor quality or inaccessible public services leads to a higher benefits bill.

Timely and effective help and care, more social housing, an improved child support system, and job education and training opportunities cost upfront but pays off later on, as it reduces the need for benefits, reduces demand on the NHS, reduces need for social care, and reduces crime.

Examples of the consequences of false economy often seen on MN threads.

Someone gets fobbed off by GPs and or has delayed healthcare due to long waits. So they get more unwell and less able to work. So need benefits and for longer period of time.

A recent thread had a woman fleeing DV. Because of lack of social housing she was going to have to give up her job (and therefore need benefits) to go to a refuge.

Other threads on here about lone parents where the other parent is weaseling out of paying child support (including high earners) and the CMS system not being as effective as it could. So the RP needs benefits.

People in full-time work but needing benefits because of the lack of social housing.

These are just some examples but that's what I mean by false economy.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but economics is not just maths and certainly not basic maths.

I do agree that the majority of people struggle to understand it and that leaves people very open to manipulation.

Managing an economy is not the same as balancing the books for a household. It's not £1 in vs £1 out. It's more like running a business where each £1 out is expected to contribute towards generating a larger £ in.

In the case of the UK economy government spending needs to be optimised to generate maximum tax income. Two of the main ways you can do this are (1) raising taxation through changing tax rates or the conditions/thresholds under which tax is paid and (2) changing other factors such as industry regulation to increase the pool of money (profit or income) on which tax is payable. So theoretically it is possible to lower the tax rates or thresholds and generate more tax. In practice (2) is difficult and often very time consuming to achieve. You also need to be sure you are not just storing up problems for later (e.g. relaxed industry regulation leading to increased tax income but which leads to an expensive public health crisis 10 years down the line which costs more money to solve than it raised.

It is complicated and I see all parties dumb it down and take advantage of the fact people do not fully understand it.

So the same old regurgitated soundbites. No one is going to to say that they want to award contracts to the highest bidder.

What amount of spending would be enough, if the current record levels of spending are not enough?

and where is the money coming from.

@Aladdinzane reduce tax (see Laffer curve - higher tax rates bring in less tax as people emigrate or stop trying), reform NHS to be like European ones, support the family as we have highest family breakdown in Europe which costs alot, look at every budget and cut out waste (quangos etc) with a view to getting deficit down via spending less (we should spend less through tax on European style health system as people will have pay more privately via means testing). Get rid of OBR who have dodgy ways of measuring success.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114vnje68o

@ll09sm

I don't think it's regurgitated soundbites. It's common sense. Ending false economy is the morally right thing to do, but it's also economic good sense. Should appeal to both the Left and the Right.

I don't believe public services should be operated on a contracts and bidding system at all

They should all be brought back in-house. Run as a public service, not subcontracted to private or 3rd sector companies. On a related note, charities should never be a replacement for public services.

Previous posters have pointed out the issues of both poorer provision and false economy of NHS and social care being contracted out to private or 3rd sector organisations. Similar issues with housing. Unaffordable and substandard housing affects health. Which then increases demand on the NHS and benefits bill. Also lack of social housing increases the benefits bill.

A lot of money is spent on these contracts but the provision of support is poor. So people don't get timely and effective help (and access is too area dependant, rather than equally good services nation-wide). Also often the organisations who win the bids are more concerned with keeping the contract when it next comes up to bid for than providing a good service. More time and money is spent on the bidding process than providing the service.

So then people end up in more need of state help (ironically because they didn't get timely and effective help when they first needed it). So it ends up costing more.

In 5 years time though, Farage might be leading the Conservative Party into the next election.

They were campaigning in my economically deprived 98% white British constituency yesterday, banging on about the effects of immigration.

Only if they have zero desire to ever form another government.

Reform appeal to a lot of the hard of thinking around here who worship Farage as some kind of man of the people 😫. Lots of people are saying they will vote for them. We expected not to end up with Brexit and we got it. I wouldn't be too complacent about the danger of reform getting in. By the time their supporters are thrown to the wolves and realise what's going on it will be too late.