What will life be like under Reform?

[Easipeelerie]

I have accepted the likelihood of the next government being Reform. I don’t think the government after that will necessarily be Reform. But in the 4 Reform years, what do people think life will be like for the different groups in our country? Will we see very immediate changes?

Can you give one historic example of a society of a similar size, developmental level and heterogeneity to the UK which has successfully used a different economic model. Thanks.

I find this an interesting take. I'm assuming you're a type 1 :

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-intellectuals-academics-and-creatives-more-drawn-to-socialism/answer/Susanna-Viljanen

What is it with labelling people when you disagree with them?

You didn't bother reading the article then. OK.

I think this is a fair point to make. It probably comes down to what you want to optimise for and how much of other things you are willing to compromise to get it.

To be open/transparent, growth is very high on my personal list.

I don’t actually think inequality is our current problem. I think this is a misdiagnosis. With a few years of real growth, we might have the opportunity to decide how we want to spend it, redistribution, public services, defence, infrastructure, etc. For me at this point in time, folks like Zac Polanski banging on about inequality feels like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic so that everyone has an equal view of the ship sinking.

I've read the article. It's basically just an op-ed. Author sets up a series of strawmen and knocks them down. Easy. Author isn't an economist.

Next.

I did and that's why I am wondering why you felt the need to label the poster.

I disagree. I think inequality is an enormous problem, because it breeds division and resentment. It makes people feel that there is no point in working hard and trying, because they will never be able to overcome entrenched privilege.

I'm not opposed to people being rich. I'm really not. But when you are earning enough money every single year that you could live several lifetimes in complete luxury from just a year's earnings, something is wrong. Money becomes just a way of keeping score in a game. And when the cost of people having wealth on that scale is societal fracture, resentment and people working full time yet not being able to afford the basics of food, housing and heating, society needs to stop and think.

PP talks about 'value' - but doesn't provide a definition of what that means. In their view, it's probably money handed out to shareholders. And yes, shareholders take risks by putting their own capital into things. I own shares, so I know this.

But at the same time, I am getting money every year that I haven't worked for. It isn't a lot, but it gets me the nice things in life and keeps my cats in expensive medication. I wouldn't object to being taxed more on it than I am, because I am not working to earn it.

PP talks about 'value' - but doesn't provide a definition of what that means.

It's a standard term in economics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

You really should do some reading to understand economics. It will change the way you understand the world.

I very much doubt it. I do read up on economics - I just don't agree with the same people you agree with. I say again: there is not one correct way to run the economy. Posting opinion pieces by non-economists doesn't help your cause.

Your Wikipedia link states it has multiple issues, including a lack of citations and the issue that it reads like an opinion piece.

I'm not really sure what you re trying to say with that link?

Many Economic models and even more interpretations of the same model ie Social Market Economy, followed by both Germany and the UK but very different ways of achieving this.

Value? set by whom? the free market or the end user? take care work, massively valued by the end user, not valued by the market or rather the establishment/employer.

Other than that, good effort at being condescending, you like anyone on here, is a just random, as far as i'm concerned your opinion is of no more "value" than mine or anyone else's.

I am more interested in improving the absolute standard of living for people at the bottom of the income distribution, than with equality. It’s possible to improve inequality by lowering standards for everyone as long as people at the top lose even more. This seems quite self defeating.

Or we could do both. However, I'm in favour of the 'rising tides' theory - but that would be in direct conflict with the ideas of Reform in terms of lowering the NMW for young people. Anyone who thinks that Reform is going to deliver a better standard of living for anyone who isn't already well off is dreaming. Look at their 'ideas' for education children with special educational needs - sticking them in disused churches. That's the level of mad people seem to want to vote for.

You can do both, but each puts a drag on the other. Intense growth will have uneven gains worsening inequality while all boats rise, just not equally. Heavy redistribution will slow growth as people change their behaviour in response to high taxation.

I wouldn’t a huge pie and one person gobbling it all. I wouldn’t want a tiny pie and everyone getting a minuscule crumb.

In my opinion inequality is hyped up. Our real problem is lack of growth and opportunity. Without productivity, there is nothing to redistribute.

I disagree with you on inequality in the UK, but fair enough.
The problem with increasing growth and productivity is that both those things have been trashed by austerity. The UK hasn't invested in its own people. It was a huge, huge mistake not to defer full rights for the EU accession countries (and I say this as an EU national), but since then the decisions tsken by successive governments have only compounded that disaster. Brexit was another massive mistake that we are still paying the price for. We're not going to get growth and increased productivity without ensuring that we have a healthy and well educated population - the past 14 years have really not helped with that.

People on MN love to whinge about how people aren't resilient and how they all have 'mental health' - if we had had MH services that were fit for purpose, more people could have been caught early, helped, and gone on their way to live productive working lives. Instead we closed wards and cut services. Nothing I see from parties on the right seems to want to acknowledge the mistakes of the past (and no, Labour hasn't acknowledged its own mistakes either, but they aren't the ones threatening to be the next government).

The problem is that demand for health care and public services are limitless but our ability to supply it is finite.

Agree up to a point, but this could all have been prevented if the UK had been less capitalist and more social democratic in its approach to the structures of care and public services. Europe everywhere is facing the same demographic problems, but because no-one in the UK was willing to think beyond the length of a parliament, nothing structural has been done.

Take the NHS - I'm not wedded to that model, because where I come from there is an insurance based system. It isn't perfect, but on the whole it does function better.

Look at public transport - the UK dismantled its railway network because it was counting on the car to save everything. In my native country, investment in rail continued and public transport is just plain good. The town I grew up in is smaller than the one I live in now in the UK - and yet it has two railway stations with 4 trains an hour 6am to midnight even on Sundays, whereas my current town doesn't have a station at all.

So now we face the prospect of not providing services, but that comes with considerable risks of its own in terms of civil unrest and crime.

Same old problem with populism. Look at the outrage about people getting a bit extra on welfare. People would rather a minority group be forced to suffer and the face the huge economic costs 20 years later....than actually accept that our politicians have to make these decisions for the greater good.

People need to accept that large parts of policy is about making decisions that meet the needs of everyone not just a popular vote. They have to make decisions on those in minority.

We have more than enough money to fund healthcare for everyone. Never believe the lie that healthcare is unaffordable. ..that's the mistake America made and they have a system that's on the verge of bankruptcy....

We clearly don't - not without cutting spending on other things - given that our current budget deficit is £131 billion per year: about £2000 per person.

I imagine you mean "other people have personal money I feel entitled to, which if the government stole could be used to fund even more healthcare spending, as well as kittens and unicorns for all"

But you're not allowing for how people change their behaviour when the government steals ever more of their money and gives it to other people the government decide are more deserving.

(And resident doctors are on strike again for more pay)

No they are not, their strike finished earlier this week and they have no mandate for further strikes.
Both sides will now talk.

You seem to constantly want to stoke up the language and narrative don't you?

Even taxation is now "Steals ever more of other peoples money"

Got to wonder what your real motive is.

Got to wonder what your real motive is.

I think it’s pretty transparent. I wonder how anyone has the time and energy to post 24/7.

My motive is to counter the Left wing nonsense which is already causing so much harm to the UK, and I see causing yet more harm whilst this government is in power. And heaven-forbid if they were to make some kind of alliance with the Greens.

I used to just roll my eyes when people said things like 'there's plenty of money' if only 'rich people would pay more' but since Labour have got in we've seen the enormous harm which comes when people actually believe this and vote in a government that makes stupid, destructive policy. So I'm speaking up.

Presumably it's a similar motive to why people on this thread and elsewhere are posting doom-laden hyperbole about what will happen if Reform get in: now that it looks possible, they want to express their frustration in the hope that people might just think.

I don't support Reform. But I see the incompetemce and spite of Labour and the cynical extremism of the Greens as a far, far greater threat to the UK.