Worried about Reform Electoral Victory

[RolandH]

Hello everyone,

I'm worried about a possible Reform electoral victory. I do disagree with alot of their policies, but the main thing which concerns me is, if they get in, I have doubts about whether they will preserve the integrity of our electoral system.

Looking at far right governments around the world just now, many of them seem to be happy to attempt to undermine the electoral process. Trump tried to after he lost to Biden, and I doubt that the next election in the US will be free and fair, as the republicans will be trying to replace the electoral officials with their people. In Hungary, the free press has been repressed. Things can obviously get worse than this.

I would like to hear if other people are worried about this, for people who are thinking about voting Reform or have done have thought about it, and also how people who are committed Reform voters would respond to this. Will you be ready to fight against this party if it looks like they are taking the country in an anti-democratic direction?

They don’t look massively threatening and murderous. These far left nutters need to work on their presentation

Yes, quite 😄

😂

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this.

https://www.theprivateoffice.com/insights/have-you-fallen-victim-62pc-tax-trap#:~:text=The%2062%25%20tax%20trap%20refers,national%20insurance%20contributions%20of%202%25.

"The 62% tax trap refers to the income band falling between £100,000 and £125,140 on which the employed or self-employed will effectively experience an income tax rate of 60% alongside national insurance contributions of 2%.

This is because for every £2 you earn over £100,000 per annum, you lose £1 worth of your £12,570 tax-free personal allowance."

If you could read and retain information, you'd remember that I described them as 'disruptive, at best' and it's pretty clear that the police would be required for Farage's surgeries due to dickheads like this - or violent crazies.

Parliament doesn't agree. Farage has been told that it's safe for him to do his surgeries despite people in fancy dress dancing around him ten years ago.

Now there’s no need for that. Your picture was very amusing, and this was all said in the context of discussion about MPs, or Farage specifically, requiring protection from the people.

There certainly are people who would attack MPs. But describing a group wearing a feather boa and a bad wig at a party as far left nutters is not very credible - you made it sound as if the country was plagued by the Khmer Rouge

It isn't a party, though, is it?

That's his local pub where he was having Sunday lunch with his family. His children were terrified and left in tears. They jumped on his car to prevent them leaving/escaping.

Sounds bad. I suspect some pp react to whether it’s ok based on the politics of whomever it happens to.

Nobody sane would defend that.

You were posting laughter emojis?

True. Laughter emojis for some politicians under threat.

Because the picture was comical.

That's true, but I think the important point is that the council houses were built, and in sufficient quantities. I'm not saying there are not, or were not, ways to use the private sector to meet demand - I'm hardly an expert. But whatever we have certainly is not working and hasn't worked for years.

The problem with a wholly private sector approach is that there is no overall control over it which is responsive to the whole of the population. It works fine if you have money - we haven't seen a shortage of "executive homes" being built, so far as I can tell - but most people in this society do not have the money. Now I am not suggesting that your position is that there should be no oversight on the private sector - hardly anyone thinks that. But the fact that we need houses for people not simply based on what their bank balance is is something which anyone has to grapple with. And I do not merely mean we need to build houses - we have alot of housing stock which is not being used for its intended purpose, but simply to accumulate capital through inflated prices.

Right, I think what is confusing me is your use of the word "discriminatory". I just don't think it is discriminatory when couples are offered the same benefit, and one couple chooses not to have it, while the other doesn't.

Now, sometimes things which can be seen as a choice nevertheless should receive support from the state. Having children is a good example, for lots of reasons I can go into if you like. I don't think it's discriminatory against childless couples for couples with children to have support. But I don't think whether one parent stays at home or not is equivalent. The children need to be supported either way.

However, I get that what's bothering you is that you value parents bringing up their own children more than they would if they both worked.

So: I don't have an in-principle objection to parents receiving the money for childcare from the government whether they use it for that or not. So that would be the option of simply increasing child support to take account of that. If this could be worked out, that would satisfy both of us, at least partially. If you wanted to make more of an incentive for one parent to stay at home than for both to work, then we would just have to disagree. And I've already said why - you would get more women doing this than men, and I don't agree with women being pressured to stay in the home like that.

Now, given that the government is very unlikely to want to give money to parents for child care that doesn't need to be spent on childcare, I do agree that, in certain circumstances, you are going to end up with the both-working couple earning alot more than the one-working couple. It will depend on how generous the benefit is. If it accounts for the full cost of childcare, then both parents working will simply allow them to bank two salaries rather than one (of course, there is a massive variety in what salaries people. Something which just seems like extra money to a middle-class family may be a very important source of money for a working class family, who perhaps are both going to have to work to make ends meet whatever happens). If it only accounts for part of the childcare, depending on how generous it is and how much the person who would be at home earns, it may be that salary basically just pays for the rest of childcare. Either side of this, the salary doesn't cover the childcare so some of the other person's salary is needed as well, or the salary isn't entirely needed to go into the childcare so the couple end up with more money than the couple who simply have one person stay at home.

I think that's enough for now - handing over to you. Does the above make sense, and I don't mean, do you agree, but I am thinking about this clearly?

Furthermore, on Reform being the only party to support this. Fair enough, but what do you think about their other policies? Obviously you can like a party is bring in a certain policy proposal to the table without intending to vote for them. And further, what about the worry that I started this conversation with - that I don't trust them not to undermine the electoral system, as seen in many authoritarian states around the world, both that we are meant to like, and not meant to like?

Workshy doesn't seem the right word. Derelict in his duty might be better?

Thanks for that - very enlightening. And don't worry about taking a while to reply - I literally log out for days at time. Who could stand it otherwise?

So there's basically this kind of "valley of the shadow of death" lurking between 100 grand to 125 grand (roughly)? I can well anticipate the kind of perverse incentives this sets up.

Now, obviously, you do still earn money in your pocket over this section of your salary. It just feels more galling, because you are taxed at a much higher rate than you would appear to be at a cursory glance. Given your overall salary, you earn, say, a pound from the pounds between 100,000 and 125,000, and receive only 37p net. My attitude would be, well, you still get something, but that's just my attitude.

I don't know what the exact balance would be that would be optimal. I've got a low opinion of people who grouse about this, but that is more my basically socialist values coming through. I think it's important to hightlight this, as our society doesn't really encourage people in very high incomes to reflect on how they really do have a very good deal, and how shocking it is for alot of other people.

These are a guide for me, but you then need to decide practically on the best way to follow them in terms of tax policy. If you are me, that is.

I'm more interested in getting money out the millionaires and billionaires anyway, to be honest. They're a much more worthy target, not only because they are hogging immense wealth, but also because they can easily use it to manipulate our democracy.

Everything you’ve said does make sense.

I do share your concerns about any undermining of our democratic voting system. As a woman, I know that other women literally threw themselves under horses for me to have the right to vote, so it’s something I really value and respect.

In terms of their other policies, I would like to do more research. I am generally extremely concerned about the current state and future of our precious NHS, regardless of who is in power. That really is a huge worry, isn’t it?

I just cannot get across how disappointed I am with the mainstream parties with how much they devalue anything traditional, eg marriage, being a SAHM. It feels like they all just see people purely as economic units and overlook unpaid caring contributions. The Greens less so actually.

Some good news this morning… reform came third a in Scottish by-election it seems the public aren’t that interested in racist reactionary politicians! And their chairman has quit let’s hope this is the beginning of the end for them.

@RolandH

"Given your overall salary, you earn, say, a pound from the pounds between 100,000 and 125,000, and receive only 37p net. My attitude would be, well, you still get something, but that's just my attitude."

I think this is the problem with socialism/socialists.

They have the attitude of 'be grateful you've been allowed to keep anything', as if everybody's entire economic output is de facto owned by the state.

I, personally, consider losing anything greater than 50% of earnings to be immoral and, arguably, a form of slavery. There might not be whips involved, but somebody else is taking the majority of your income. I guess you can always quit, but where does that leave you - repossessed home, no entitlement to benefits because you've 'voluntarily' quit, etc.

@ThisOldThang I wonder how many socialists you actually know as that isn’t my experience of what they think.. I think you’ve fallen for the propaganda about socialism rather than having an actual understanding of it.

The problem with socialism is: free education, the NHS, social housing, labour laws, equal pay for equal work and the welfare state. The problem with socialism is that people don't want to pay towards it and you end up with what we have now.

If you look at the results there wasn't much in it between the SNP and Reform which considering Reform is a new party is quite something.

Also, Reform appear to have taken votes from both Labour and SNP but mainly the SNP.

Labour won with less vote percentage than they acquired at the previous election where they came second.

If I were Labour I wouldn't be resting on my laurels.

I’m not suggesting Labour or other politicians can be complacent and assume they have voters support etc. But I’m pleased to see Reform didn’t win and I believe the media are over hyping them. And now the Chairman has quit I do believe it’s not good news for Reform as he was suppose to make the party more professional- I’m not normally one to agree with Kemi Badenock but I do think it’s a fan club revolving around Nigel Farage as she suggests.

I was wondering what the swings were and who from. Interesting