Are you now more likely to vote for REFORM (the party)

[Decisiondecisions]

NC for this and apologies if Q already asked. My quick search yielded no result.

Reform plan to undo the reversal of 2 child cap benefit. Are you now likely (or more likely) to vote for them? There have been endless threads about the welfare bill.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WixMzQa5Lx8?si=m8jwkC7c7HeBzwiv

It's ok, you stick to 'nothing tio see here', 'conspiracy theory', 'desperate'

If Reform is your kind of party, vote for them. I won't.

Bannon also gives the impression he was meeting with Farage. He may be lyíng of course, he's a pretty shameless person. But I think ít raises some questions.

I also have a problem with left wing people like Peter Mandleson. Even before the most recent tranche of emails came out I thought he was the wrong choice for Ambassador because his friendship/fawning over someone who was a convicted sex offender and known wrong 'un showed at best poor morals and judgement. That wasn't conspiracy theorising/purity politics. Just judging someone by the people they admire. Likewise Farage's persistent praising of Trump/his repeated attempts to get into Trump's/Musks/Thiells inner circle speaks (tó me) of a very skewed moral compass. Just as Epstein's criminal conviction and rumoured behaviour were common knowledge by 2010,.so Trumps being found guilty of rape his shady dealings, his own comments on walking in on Míss Teen contestants etc etc is common knowledge. Farage's admiration of him isn't any better IMO than Mandlesons admiration of Epstein's wealth and fame. It's not illegal, it just concerning to me. And gives Bannons claims greater credibility.
But time will out. I was right about Mandleson.

People earning Slave wages are a net drag on the economy, especially if they have dependents.

Well. We can either pay everyone in the country £35k, ban lower earners from having children, or reopen workhouses.

Which one to choose…

But if I want to run a business (a shop, a factory whatever) and become a high earner I need to raise the capital (and take on that risk) but I also need people to work for me. Ideally not slave labour but many of them will need to be earning less than me. Also I might hire expensive people like lawyers and accountants but their jobs wouldn't exist without the people on the factory/shop floor. So the "net tax contributors" can't exist without the people you deem "drags on the economy". It's like emptying most of a planes fuel just before takeof because it's "dead weight and the engine and wings are the ones working together to generate thrust".

I think there's a happy medium where the gap between CEOs and the average employees wages isn't quite so extreme. But unless we make everyones salary the same (not what I think you are advocating) some people will be on lower wages AND be essential to the economy and the earning of higher wages by other people.

No. Even though the state of the company is pretty crap at present, it will be worse under Reform. Not one of them is in politics for the right reasons.

Any idea of benefit rates?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/22/nigel-farage-accused-of-maga-stunts-chagos?

25% reduction for those who haven't worked. Full amount when you have worked for 10 years.

Once you have claimed for 6 months you need to contribute to your local community on a part time basis unless there is a medical reason (certificate) or other extenuating circumstance).
This isn't just good for society but it benefits the individual. Keeps them active thus improving their chance of finding employment. Gives them a purpose and a time to connect with others. ( I would hope this would be short term whilst they find their feet.

Is that acceptable? Would you make any changes to the current system?

Contribute to your local community

Vo;unteer or paid?

Paid in benefits.

Work for benefits?

Why not pay a proper wage instead?

That is the idea. To prepare them for work. As I said this should be a temporary measure.

Also stops them from being isolated.

What a palaver. Imagine the admin costs!

Excuses. It should be given a go.

So employers can use people on benefits and instead of paying wages?

So your solution is cutting benefits and workfare - unless you're going to pay the community work at NMW rates, but I bet that isn't what you're suggesting. That's exploitation. If the work is genuine and needs doing, it should be paid at legal rates.

Again - why do we need to incentivise rich people by giving them more money, but we need to incentivise poor people by taking money away?

Also the admin needed to support this is going to wipe out any savings to the exchequer.

Exactly 🙄 Hey, let's bring back the treadmill and the workhouse while we're at it. Oakum picking anyone....?

The Reform UK leader said he had flown to the Maldives to join a delegation bringing aid

Hilarious.
Reminds me of Greta Thunberg's stunt - he probably got the idea from her.

It has been. It was a failure and was stopped. As you would know if you did a little reading.

Not a chance

No. I would not vote for reform under any circumstances. The may come up with one policy that I could agree with but their general attitude is repugnant to me.

Is this all benefits or is it only for jobseekers?
What if someone is a full time carer for a parent or partner or child?
What if someone is a paraplegic?
What if someone has severe learning disabilities?

(I am all for disabled people being helped into work. The problem is Reform is also opposed to independence payments that make it possible, they are opposed to equality legislation requiring employers make reasonable adjustments and can't discriminate, and they also oppose WFH. So what do those disabled people do?)

And are there any exceptions to this? Eg if someone was severely wounded serving this country and has been unable to work since do they also get their benefits cut because their legs haven't grown back and their PTSD hasn't cured itself.

Does this reduction in benefits also apply to pensioners?

And is the mandatory volunteering on top of the current mandatory 35 hours a week claimants need to spend job searching or do you reduce that time?

That is not the case but it would incentivise work and make benefits less appealing in the financial sense. Although some people might actually like helping their local community for a short spell.

Fabulous.

So a person with a disability from birth who would never be able to work, would be given 25% less than the amount deemed minimum to survive on.

How would this vulnerable person feed themselves or house themselves? How do you propose that this vulnerable person contributes to society, when they can barely understand enough to dress themselves in the morning?
Who would be supervising them while they are contributing to society? To ensure that they contribute sufficiently to earn their pittance, and to ensure no harm comes to them.

Or, would you prefer them to be institutionalised,