Cable Forum - Reform UK's chronicles

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Reform UK's chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33713145)

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36199666)

No, Farage plans to send the most hardened criminals to El Salvador, not just the "illegals".

Correct. The latter was my suggestion!

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

If the Tories couldn’t do Rwanda, Farage won’t be able to do El Salvador.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36199661)

I don't think any party can completely change our system of taxation nor do I think Reform UK have suggested they can do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36199684)

If the Tories couldn’t do Rwanda, Farage won’t be able to do El Salvador.

That’s a stretch, Russ. Why do you say that? The Conservatives were ready to fly the first illegals to Rwanda but the election put paid to that.

The main issue they had was the legal machinery that the human rights lawyers were able to exploit. Pull out of the ECHR and substitute the Refugee Convention 1951 and it’s 1967 Protocol for a UK Bill of Rights and put us back to where we thought we were when the Agreement was first passed, updated to be relevant for the 21st Century.

The problem is that successive governments and court over-reach have painted us into a corner which has resulted in us not being able to do anything anymore. This must change. If legislation or belonging to some sort of treaty gets in the way of what we want to do, we re-negotiate or abolish it. That’s the way to get things done.

We don’t need any more ‘can’t do’ governments - we need a ‘can do’ government which can achieve what so many people are demanding from our politicians.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36199685)

I don't see increasing a few allowances and increasing a tax band or two up as completely changing our system of taxation. The system has always accommodated these types of changes. As Reform UK have found when in power in councils, their wriggle room is somewhat limited.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36199685)

You can't leave the ECHR as we would wave goodbye to our trade deal with Europe and beyond. It's opposition party nonsense which makes the LibDems manifesto pledge of no university fees look like a realistic proposition! You've seen the economy struggle and unlawful immigration rise because of Brexit. How many more fairy tales do you need to read before you face up to reality that there are no lazy quick fixes?

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36199685)

Can or won't?

Reform have indicated they are going to make changes to our system of taxation. They have come up with alternative plans for non doms as well.Here's one of them. We'll know the exact details of more changes when we see his manifesto.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ta...les-will-work/

[EXTRACT]

The Reform UK leader promised sweeping tax breaks for married couples in a bid to boost birth rates and make family “a more important element in British life”. Estimates suggest it would save the average couple almost £2,500 a year in tax.

Currently, workers pay 20pc income tax on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270. Under Reform’s plans, one spouse would be spared from paying tax on the first £25,000 of income. It means a worker earning £50,000 would save about £2,500 in income tax.

The party has already vowed to raise the tax-free allowance from £12,571 to £20,000, which estimates suggest could cost as much as £80bn. On top of this, it has promised to raise the higher rate threshold from £50,270 to £70,000, to release the millions more workers being dragged by stealth into the top rate band, shown in the chart below.

If Reform delivered on all three promises, a worker earning £70,000 would be better off by almost £6,500.

---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------

That’s a stretch, Russ. Why do you say that? The Conservatives were ready to fly the first illegals to Rwanda but the election put paid to that.

The main issue they had was the legal machinery that the human rights lawyers were able to exploit. Pull out of the ECHR and substitute the Refugee Convention 1951 and it’s 1967 Protocol for a UK Bill of Rights and put us back to where we thought we were when the Agreement was first passed, updated to be relevant for the 21st Century.

The problem is that successive governments and court over-reach have painted us into a corner which has resulted in us not being able to do anything anymore. This must change. If legislation or belonging to some sort of treaty gets in the way of what we want to do, we re-negotiate or abolish it. That’s the way to get things done.

We don’t need any more ‘can’t do’ governments - we need a ‘can do’ government which can achieve what so many people are demanding from our politicians.

Two independent reviews of Reform UK’s tax proposals

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/17/...anifesto_2024/

Quote:

Reform UK has published its manifesto. They plan personal tax cuts which they say will cost £70bn; however our analysis shows that they’ve miscalculated, and the actual cost will be at least £88bn.

Reform UK says it will fund these tax costs with £70bn of savings and additional revenue, but it provides few details. Their proposal to change Bank of England reserve rules is over-stated by at least £15bn, and the cost would likely fall on businesses and consumers, not banks.

These two factors mean that Reform UK’s plans have a total unfunded cost of at least £33bn – about twice the unfunded cost of Liz Truss’ ill-fated 2022 “mini-Budget“.1

We hope other estimates become available soon, but for the moment this is the only currently available estimate of the impact of Reform UK’s proposals. We asked Reform UK for the calculations they had used; they did not respond.

We have published our methodology in full, together with the supporting spreadsheet and modelling. We welcome suggestions and corrections.

Our analysis is for tax year 2025/26 only; the cost will be higher towards the end of the Parliament. And, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, the long-run annual cost will be higher still.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/reform-u...festo-reaction

Quote:

An assessment of the tax and spending changes proposed in the 2024 Reform UK general election manifesto.

Carl Emmerson, deputy director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90 billion per year, and spending increases of £50 billion per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150 billion per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.

This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives.

A reduction in tax of £90 billion a year, while sizeable, would still see tax revenues higher as a share of the economy than in 2019–20. But in reality the package of tax cuts proposed would, if and when fully implemented, cost tens of billions of pounds a year more than that. For example, Reform UK plans to cut the rate of corporation tax from 25% to 20% immediately, and then to 15% in year 3 of the parliament. The manifesto costing of £18 billion a year over the course of the next parliament for all its business tax cuts is less than half of what official estimates suggest the long-run cost of just this cut in the corporation tax rate to 15% would be.

Of the proposed spending increases, the largest is for the NHS (£17 billion per year). However, this would not be nearly enough to meet Reform’s incredibly ambitious commitment to eliminate waiting lists within two years. Eliminating the waiting list entirely is a feat that has not been achieved in the history of the NHS and seems near impossible within two years.

The cost-saving measures would save less than set out. There is a respectable argument for changing the extent to which the Bank of England pays interest to commercial banks, and indeed some other central banks don’t pay interest on all the reserves they hold. But whether a good idea or not, it would raise a lot less than £35 billion per year. Reform also propose to reduce “wasteful” spending by £50 billion per year across all government departments, quangos and commissions. But saving this sum would require much more than a crackdown on waste; it would almost certainly require substantial cuts to the quantity or quality of public services.

Even with the extremely optimistic assumptions about how much economic growth would increase, the sums in this manifesto do not add up. Whilst Reform’s manifesto gives a clear sense of priority, a government could only implement parts of this package, or would need to find other ways to help pay for it, which would mean losers not specified.”

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

First, recognition to Hugh for taking the trouble to post the two analyses of Reform UK’s loose fiscal plans. Reform’s plans, at first sight, put Reform UK into the same wishful thinking pot as the other main parties.

Reform UK can come right if they soberly and soundly explain the downward spiral we are in and how they will realistically deal with that. Being a downward spiral, realism will require some serious analysis - what’s going downhill, ranked by importance to people and the economy. Then one by one, a choice of cures for each challenge that eventually inter-lock to provide the best mix of measures.

Such a plan would also require investment plans. We can’t borrow any more for growth - we’ve proved that we can’t manage large projects. So that would fall to private industry and they’ll want to make their buck. The countries with the tin to invest need to (a) like us, (b) see a buck or five as the result of their investment, (c) see a government plan to make that possible.

All this boils down to a fragile set of geo-political variables where chances of success are low. So this implies the need for “foundations” and/or “building blocks”; the stuff that Labour mumbles on about whilst monumentally failing. When you add Starmer to the Tories’ mess, you’ve got compound mess.

I doubt that Reform UK nor anyone can fix this without a huge, painful reset. For example, it is urgent that the retirement age be raised significantly to take pressure off the upcoming Treasury’s bankruptcy; at the same time, a pension investment fund must be established to grow for future pensions. The incoming shortfall will have to be paid for by taxation - must happen. This needs selling to the public. Stupid projects and most foreign aid should be stopped.

The green shit must be stopped. Just think = heat pumps have to run on electricity. Plus they cost the earth to buy and install. We’ve got natural gas resources; use them. Common sense stuff.

Reform really must have sound plans, explained to the public. No good trying to woo the public; the public need to be aware of the sit creek we’re up and be convinced that the Reform ship has the paddle.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Laura Anne Jones, a senior Conservative member of the Welsh Senned, has defected to Reform. She was the Conservative group's local government spokesperson.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...live-reform-uk

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199693)

Sadly these are not sound plans from Reform UK. The miscalculations are shocking and Reform needs to go back to the drawing board and some. Putin will like them as they plan to do a Chamberlain and stop supporting Ukraine. Or end stupid foreign aid as Reform prefers to call it.

I'm not sure anyone surgically explaining the problems we're in is going to win an election in the UK right now. This kind of analysis and trade-offs won't ever come from populists like Farage and Trump. It is exactly what the Conservatives should be doing now behind closed doors in readiness for the 2029 election but primarily the 2036 one.

The gas arguments don't work as gas is sold on a global market not a UK one and is more expensive than renewables. We need energy sovereignty and to future-proof our energy supplies whilst minimising the growth of global warming as this is costly in terms of new flood defences, poor crop yields, etc. Common sense stuff. ;)

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36199698)

The gas argument does work to an extent that it provides British jobs and supply chains. It can also work if the government makes this a sovereign project, the profits from which go into a sovereign wealth fund.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199699)

It's an expensive fuel. And it increases global warming which is adding to the tax burden.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Much as I would love to pay far less tax, their proposals do not seem to have any sound financial basis.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36199701)

It's an expensive fuel. And it increases global warming which is adding to the tax burden.

But heatpumps are expensive and electricity is very expensive. Surely we should use what we have first.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199704)

But heatpumps are expensive and electricity is very expensive. Surely we should use what we have first.

Electricity is expensive because it's linked to the price of gas. Once renewables reach tipping point that link will cease to exist and we can enjoy far cheaper bills

We also need to do more things like this .

Quote:

Renters may be able to use plug-in solar panels after safety review

Ed Miliband’s energy department looks to follow the example of Germany where panels cost less than £200 each

Renters will be able to use solar power to cut their energy bills for the first time under government plans to allow plug-in panels for balconies and rooftops.

Balcony solar power panels have boomed in Germany, Spain and other European countries, and Germans can now buy individual panels for less than £200.

However, under UK regulations plug-in panels are not allowed. That may now change with the start of a safety review on Monday by Ed Miliband’s energy department.

The safety concern is due to differences in how UK and German homes are wired and how sockets are connected to fuse boxes. Testing will be needed to ensure that the devices are safe under all possible fault conditions when plugged into a UK socket.

The authorities have allowed the panels in several other European countries without widespread issues. Almost half a million were installed in Germany last year alone, official figures show. They are increasingly popular in the Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environm...omes-xxhwf5chr

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199704)

But heatpumps are expensive and electricity is very expensive. Surely we should use what we have first.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environm...=1753200951729

Quote:

What sets the price?

Every half hour, every day of the year, there is an automatic auction. From the electrons that heat your morning kettle to the ones that flow through your bedside reading light, generators place bids for the privilege of supplying you.

Some, such as wind farms, place a low bid — say, 5p per KWh. Once you’ve built a wind turbine, it costs very little to run it.

Some, such as ageing gas turbines, might ask for more. They cost a lot more to run, especially if their job is as a buffer for less windy days.

“If you’re only called up to run a couple of hours a week, you are going to need to charge higher prices to stay functional,” says Iain Staffell, a lecturer in sustainable energy at Imperial College London. So maybe they will bid 20p/kwh.

Then, the energy retailers buy what they need — starting with the cheapest, and going in price order until it has enough. So far this makes sense.

What might make less sense, unless you are an economist, is that the price they pay — called the wholesale electricity price — is set by whichever source is the most expensive. If 99 per cent of the electricity used that half-hour is wind, and 1 per cent is gas, we still pay the gas price for all of it.

This creates a paradox. The proportion of renewables in our energy mix has gone up from 15 per cent a decade ago to 40 per cent today. But even as our grid has decarbonised, the price mechanism has gone the other way. More than 95 per cent of the time, the price is determined by gas.

Re: Reform UK's chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36199706)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environm...=1753200951729

We definitely need to cut the link to expensive gas. I guess by better storage.