REFORM Party Questions.....

[Modernfamily2011]

Genuine question here, I do not want to start arguments but i'm honestly curious as to the hate for the Reform party....... I will be the first to admit that politics is absolutely not my strong point but this Election and for the last few months I have been doing a lot of research

I will not be voting Conservatives but Labour don't fill me with any confidence either, the Reform party Manifesto actually looks good, I would love the minimum income tax rate to be raised, Stamp Duty threshold to be higher, NHS change, energy bills to be lower etc

Am I just a little naïve and is this just a case of Farage talking nonsense? A bit like the Brexit debacle? Surely if these policies could have been implemented then they would have and where would the money come from? Farage is an excellent speaker and he knows how to play the public, there is no doubt about that

I would love some insight from those who know a little more about politics than me!

@midgetastic having lived in Copenhagen- I would like it like Denmark- very good social underpinning and services but actually pretty capitalist- it's essential services though tend to be state controlled . It is however high tax, high wages and not cheap!

Kim Jong Un would get through Reform's vetting process with ease

There haven't been any communist countries I know of. Plenty that identified as such. However on a board such as this, that counts for nothing. Or so I thought.

Maybe AI can help ?

😂

Looks like the internet can knock these out all day long.

As I was saying

😂

Reform will reject the influence of the World Economic Forum and cancel Britain's membership of it.

Small problem

The UK isn't a member of the World Economic Forum...........

Whilst your concerns about tax cuts and public spending efficiencies are understandable, it’s important to consider the broader vision and strategic approach that Reform UK advocates.

Firstly, the principle of reducing tax burden is not merely about paying less tax; it's about stimulating economic growth, increasing disposable income, and creating a more dynamic, competitive economy. Reform UK's approach is grounded in the belief that when people have more of their own money, they spend and invest it in ways that drive prosperity for all.

Regarding the funding of tax cuts, efficiencies in public spending are indeed a significant part of the strategy. However, efficiencies do not necessarily mean harmful cuts. Reform UK is committed to rigorous audits and reforms aimed at eliminating waste, reducing bureaucracy, and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent more effectively. This approach has been successful in various sectors and countries, demonstrating that it is possible to streamline operations without undermining frontline services. The assertion that efficiencies equate to detrimental cuts is a misinterpretation of this strategic approach.

Your reference to Trussonomics overlooks key differences in Reform UK's policies. The lessons from previous economic strategies have been taken into account, and the current proposals are built on a more sustainable, well-thought-out financial foundation. The aim is to balance tax cuts with responsible fiscal management, ensuring that we do not repeat past mistakes.

On the NHS, Reform UK acknowledges the challenges and proposes innovative solutions. The goal is to introduce more efficient processes, reduce administrative overhead, and leverage technology to improve patient outcomes. While attracting and retaining healthcare professionals is critical, the focus is also on improving working conditions and career prospects within the NHS to make it an attractive choice for talent. Net zero immigration is a complex issue, but it is not an insurmountable barrier. By investing in training and development of domestic talent, and exploring bilateral agreements with other nations, we can address workforce shortages.

The critique of the overall deliverability of Reform UK's policies misses the essence of the party's pragmatic and results-oriented approach. The policies are designed not just to sound appealing but to bring about real, measurable improvements in the lives of citizens. Unlike the Green manifesto, which often relies on idealistic and impractical solutions, Reform UK's proposals are grounded in realistic, actionable plans that have been tested and refined based on evidence and expert input.

In conclusion, Reform UK's vision is one of a leaner, more efficient government that delivers high-quality public services, a robust economy driven by lower taxes, and innovative solutions to complex challenges like healthcare and immigration. This vision is not only deliverable but essential for creating a prosperous future for all.

"Firstly, the principle of reducing tax burden is not merely about paying less tax; it's about stimulating economic growth, increasing disposable income, and creating a more dynamic, competitive economy. Reform UK's approach is grounded in the belief that when people have more of their own money, they spend and invest it in ways that drive prosperity for all."

And how will it fund public services? Remember what happened the last time unfunded tax cuts were announced.

"Regarding the funding of tax cuts, efficiencies in public spending are indeed a significant part of the strategy. However, efficiencies do not necessarily mean harmful cuts"

Meaningless waffle. Public services have been cut to the bone, there are no efficiencies left to find, however this is often the call of the right wing who tend to have no real idea about how public services work.

"Your reference to Trussonomics overlooks key differences in Reform UK's policies. The lessons from previous economic strategies have been taken into account, and the current proposals are built on a more sustainable, well-thought-out financial foundation"

Translation, they're unfunded, they'll have exactly the same impact as Trussonomics.

"In conclusion, Reform UK's vision is one of a leaner, more efficient government that delivers high-quality public services, a robust economy driven by lower taxes, and innovative solutions to complex challenges like healthcare and immigration. This vision is not only deliverable but essential for creating a prosperous future for all."

Reads like it was written by a mediocre A level Pol/Econ student.

Utter drivel.

Reform manifesto, sorry contract, is the Truss budget on steriods

What a pointless wall of text utterly devoid of any coherent arguments, actual policy or explanation of why this approach is different that doesn't have a strong Rocky and Bullwinkle vibe.

You can't run a country on grand promises and empty platitudes.

You are doing a disservice to A level students. Their manifesto would be more coherent.

I agree, maybe a GCSE student, who was scraping along.

@JassyRadlett but Nige doesn't care as he knows he won't be filling through -it's fantasy policy on the back of a fag packet designed to maximise votes so he gets a good few seats and plenty of cash coming in to his 'company'- the non Political who often have zero idea about economics and don't question where all this generosity is coming from lap it up- I think the blokes an absolute menace particularly with his Putin connections

@JassyRadlett

"Gas increasingly tends to be the highest cost electricity source. Anyone telling you otherwise is dressing up anti-renewables ideology as deeply faulty economics, and they're lying to you."

Gas is indeed one of the highest costs electricity sources basically it doesn't receive a subsidy like renewables and secondly because there is a cost to the fuel input (the gas) unlike renewables where the input fuel (wind, solar, tidal) is free.

However it is impossible to have 100% renewable generation because the entire country would black out on a cold windless January dark evening.

The amount of electricity storage required to prevent this (battery, pumped hydro etc) would be nearly impossible to build and would be crippling expensive and inefficient (as it would be sat around doing not a lot on sunny or windy days).

@JassyRadlett

"Oh and I'd be keen to understand how increasing our reliance on gas would lower energy bills."

Because a third of your electricity bill comprises of subsidies for renewables.

The real problem with Reform is that there spending and tax cuts would equate to a funding shortfall of approximately £150 billion which as @Perplexed20 points out didn't work out to well for Liz Truss and that was just on £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts.

Nope.

Take historical build out of the picture. Those contracts are done. What we're talking about is what gets built in the future, and what they cost consumers.

2022 strike prices through CfDs for established technologies were all well below the cost of CCGT generation even outside of the wholesale gas cost spike - even with the costs of integration into the grid.

But why wouldn't you look at the 2022/23 price spike? We don't seem likely to be sailing into much more stable geopolitical waters and gas is one of the commodities most sensitive to shocks and most vulnerable to manipulation. The price of wholesale bills made up around 80% of the increase in energy bills during the crisis and the U.K. was almost uniquely exposed to the impacts - partly because of our choice to go for gas over nuclear over the last half century of so, and partly because of how we heat our homes.

A more stable, resilient economy wouldn't see households and businesses exposed to those sorts of fluctuations and vulnerable to those sorts of shocks in future, even if the costs of the domestic technologies were slightly higher. Which they aren't.

Also, you need to take a better look at the composition of energy bills and in particular better understand the difference between "policy costs" and "renewable subsidies" and the proportion of the TDCV they comprise.

Is there a reason you've set up a false renewables/fossil fuels dichotomy?

I was thinking about this today and I think it's got right to the root of why I feel so strongly that Reform are a huge problem that should be called out - but that is something that also applies to the other small parties with their "we don't need to be realistic" manifestos to a lesser degree. Reform in particular are treating this as a game to be won, with no thought to the effect on our broader politics.

I've just been watching Paul Johnson at the IFS delivering their analysis of the manifestos and this really struck me:

"I want to spend a little time, though, on Reform UK and the Greens, they offer much bigger numbers, very exciting, radical policies. Of course they're not going to be implemented because they're not going to form the government. But I would suggest that they say that the way that they suggest that their radical reforms can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, does help to actually poison the political debate. It makes the other parties look feeble. When you say 'we could all this stuff', they can't.

"Take Reform. They propose £90 billion by their numbers - actually it's a much bigger number than that - of specific tax cuts and £50 billion of spending increases, specific ones paid for by a £150 billion package of measures that includes substantial and completely unspecified cuts in welfare and government waste. If they want a smaller state, which is a perfectly reasonable ambition, then they should tell us how they're going to achieve it. We saw the consequences of massive tax cuts with no detail on how they'd be paid for in September 2022. What Reform offers us in a much bigger scale."

It's the treating the public - and the value of truth and trust in our politics - with such a huge level of disdain that I both despise and fear.

It's the treating the public - and the value of truth and trust in our politics - with such a huge level of disdain that I both despise and fear

Maybe we deserve it ?

Interesting how Farages bluster appears to have made him a little shy recently.

And the old meme about Kremlin "employee of the month" looks unnervingly true - as sometimes humour can be. The only other person who has done as much for Russian influence abroad has been Trump.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13559719/nigel-farage-russia-ukraine-putin-comments-praised.html

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

You can't run a country on grand promises and empty platitudes.

Most of CCHQ "So that's where we've been going wrong !"

The best renewable, constant and doesn't need storage is of course tidal. If the waves stopped then the moon would have fallen out of the sky or of our orbit and we'd really have something to worry about.