Reform UK's chronicles

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

Correct. The latter was my suggestion!

[Russ]

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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]

[I]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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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/

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

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.”

[Sephiroth]

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.

[papa smurf]

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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.