Reform UK discussion

[GusB]

But why Reform? They are certainly not a party that care about people who have fallen on financial hard times, IMO. They might make promises to lure people in, but will they really be caring, sharing left-wingers in power? I think not!
Why don't people vote for the radical left, instead? To me that would make much more sense.

They are making promises to lure people in. Whether or not they'll keep those promises is irrelevant to people whose lives are ****e, to put it bluntly; people will vote for whatever they think they will make their own lives better.

When you're at rock bottom, you simply don't consider the bigger picture and you'll opt for whatever you think will elevate you from that position.

The "radical left" simply does not appeal as much as it should. To start with, it doesn't really address the needs of self-employed people. We now live in a world where the "gig economy" is a thing and self-employment is probably more prevalent than it has ever been. Life for many people has become more precarious and employment rights appear to have gone out of the window. Labour hasn't done anything to address this. The Tories certainly won't address these issues, so where do people turn?

 

[class17]

Regarding Local Government Pension Scheme. (LGPS)

Employees pension is now based on Career Average Salary, (or at least the salary earned since then) and has been since 2014. So why are some people saying they are going to abolish their Final Salary Scheme?

Career Average is a much fairer system as it avoids those receiving a pay rise in their final years being able to take a higher pension when they only paid higher pension contributions in their final years.

How your pension is worked out :: LGPS

www.lgpsmember.org

How benefits built up before April 2014 are worked out​

The LGPS changed from a final salary scheme to a career average scheme on 1 April 2014.

 

[styles]

Regarding Local Government Pension Scheme. (LGPS)

Employees pension is now based on Career Average Salary, (or at least the salary earned since then) and has been since 2014. So why are some people saying they are going to abolish their Final Salary Scheme?

Career Average is a much fairer system as it avoids those receiving a pay rise in their final years being able to take a higher pension when they only paid higher pension contributions in their final years.

How your pension is worked out :: LGPS

www.lgpsmember.org

People who joined LGPS before 1st April 2014 still have final salary pension arrangements.

From that web page:

If you joined the LGPS before 1 April 2014, you have membership in the final salary scheme. Your final salary benefits are worked out differently.

Unclear if they're going to try and make some retrospective change to that or not, which would be amusing to watch if so.

 

[nw1]

The "radical left" simply does not appeal as much as it should. To start with, it doesn't really address the needs of self-employed people. We now live in a world where the "gig economy" is a thing and self-employment is probably more prevalent than it has ever been. Life for many people has become more precarious and employment rights appear to have gone out of the window. Labour hasn't done anything to address this. The Tories certainly won't address these issues, so where do people turn?

One thing that hasn't been discussed so much here, is, what do we, as in the concerned public (concerned about the possibility of them winning), do?

I have to admit I don't really have influencer skills myself - if I did I'd be influencing against them like mad - but I do believe Reform can be fought via grassroots campaigns led by the general public and untied to any of the major political parties.

I am deeply worried, even frightened, about Reform, though feel a bit powerless to do anything myself. What can we do to stop them? You say that the option of a real left-wing party as an alternative to Labour may not work, so what can we do? To my mind the options are one or more of the following:

1. Grassroots public campaign groups to vigorously campaign against them and highlight their problems. Such groups would be strictly non-party-political.
2. A new, alternative and more left-wing party which would appeal to those who have fallen on hard times without all the anti-immigrant, anti-woke, anti-climate-change-measures hardline right-wing baggage. In France last year a Left alliance helped keep them out, for now. We have four years to come up with our own - could we do so?
3. The major parties suspending hostilities and forming a National Alliance to keep them out. Would require a more moderate Tory leader than we have at the moment.
4. Fast-track a PR system that would significantly reduce the chance of them forming a government. Under FPTP they could get 50% of the seats on 30% of the vote. Under PR they get 30% of the seats and could not form a government unless other parties were willing to form a coalition with them. Possible with the Tories under certain leaders I guess, but by no means certain.

For me personally, there's never been a party that has caused me so much deep concern. But what do we do?

 

[Magdalia]

Regarding Local Government Pension Scheme. (LGPS)

A bit more on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).

Unlike a lot of the public sector, the LGPS is a "proper" pension scheme where employers and employees contributions go into a fund, which holds financial investments to meet future pension liabilities. It is these funds that pay out the pensions, not the councils. It is not a "pay as you go" scheme like, for example, the Civil Service; it is much more like, for example, the railway pension fund.

This means that the cost to councils of the pensions of local government employees is the employers contributions they make to the funds, as part of employees salaries, not the pensions paid out.

The funds in the LGPS are separate legal entities, not part of local councils, though local councils, as employers, will have appointees on the Fund's Board of Trustees. Changes to the terms of each LGPS fund are matters for the Board of Trustees, not the councils, within the constraints of the legal framework under which the funds operate.

Most funds will have members, both employers and employees, from more than one council. There will also be members from what are called admitted bodies. A lot of these are contractors, and their employees, who took over services that councils had previously provided "in house", notably cleaning and catering.

In a separate development, the Chancellor is seeking to merge some of the LGPS funds together. Historically many are small funds by modern standards, having started as pension funds for shire councils. Small funds tend to have quite risk averse investment policies and the theory is that bigger funds will be able to make riskier investments, particularly in growing UK high tech companies.

 

[DarloRich]

I have spent quite a bit of time in hospital due to an elderly relative being ill. The ward is full of elderly Daily Mail readers who seem to worship Farage and want to end forigns coming here. They aren't shy of telling you!

I had to be physically restrained by my partner from pointing to the ward staff and asking the patients, loudly, where they thought the staff were from. Hint: it wasn't Harehills. It was the Philippines!

The NHS that is trying to make these ill elderlies better runs on migrant labour and they are all for stopping it!

( even if you accept that the NHS shouldn't be running on migrant labour it will take 5 -10 years to attract and train enough "native" people to keep the show on the road. The fact we are importing loads of trained doctors, nurses and staff suggests we cant attractive "natives"! )

Unclear if they're going to try and make some retrospective change to that or not, which would be amusing to watch if so.

Lets see if Farage gives up any of HIS gold plated on top of solid platinum pensions or is it just the bloke who empties the bins for 30 years or the woman working in the canteen for the same time who should lose out.

It is performative nonsense, like thier DOGEALIKE stuff, which will be lapped up by thier "low educational performance" supporters.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have spent quite a bit of time in hospital due to an elderly relative being ill. The ward is full of elderly Daily Mail readers who seem to worship Farage and want to end forigns coming here. They aren't shy of telling you!

I had to be physically restrained by my partner from pointing to the ward staff and asking the patients, loudly, where they thought the staff were from. Hint: it wasn't Harehills. It was the Philippines!

Yes I have had a similar experience with elderly relatives recently.

The discussion developed entertainingly…

(Them) We should hire more non foreign people to be doctors and nurses …
(Me) well we will need to raise pay to make the jobs more attractive
(Them) Yes we should
(Me) and to do that we’ll need to either put up taxes or reprioritise Government spending, like reduce pensions
(Them) Not reducing pensions!
(Me) Put up taxes then, like inheritance tax
(Them) Not inheritance tax!
(Me) But you won’t be paying it…

 

[Bletchleyite]

IHT is probably by far the fairest way to do it. Because people are living much longer, inheritances now tend to happen in your 50s or sometimes even (as in my parents' case) well into their 60s. By that point most people don't really need it and so it gets spent on luxuries, like my parents are spending it on multiple cruises per year while they're still fit to travel.

This is all very nice, but it's not anywhere as necessary as a properly funded NHS and care system for everyone.

There are issues with it e.g. family farms and multigenerational homes. But there are sensible workarounds for these, such as putting a charge on the property that is only realised when it is sold out of the family.

TBH I probably lean towards the idea that all income of whatever type, bar small gifts* and your primary residence**, should be taxed as income, rather than us having separate CGT and inheritance tax. Even though that would mean I'd be taxed at 40% of what I eventually inherit from my parents. That would also mean that when someone who is genuinely poor inherits a relatively small amount of money or a house they could live in rather than sell having rented their whole life, that is protected for them, or if a farm is inherited it can still be worked as a farm (but tax paid if it's flogged off for housing), but if someone who is rich inherits a fat holiday budget then they are taxed on it just as they would be if they'd worked to earn it.

* I'm thinking up to the value of something like a car, given that gifting something like that to one's child isn't unusual and probably shouldn't be subject to taxation.
** Because the gain isn't a real gain, it goes into the next house purchased - only when downsizing is there any possible sense in applying tax to it.

 

[GusB]

I think that we should let Reform's performance speak for itself:

Reform-Led Kent Council Cancels Swathes of Meetings Amid Claims They 'Don't Know What They're Doing'

Nigel Farage's party accused of running a "decision-free" administration, after being forced to scrap a third of its upcoming scheduled meetings

bylinetimes.com

A flagship council won last month by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has cancelled a third of its upcoming council meetings, amid claims the new administration has no idea how to run a local authority.


As of May, Kent County Council is now run by Reform UK, one of 12 in England led by the party.


Since the election a swathe of crucial council meetings have been either scrapped or postponed as the new administration tries to work out what it is doing, with seven out of 20 meetings this month put on hold.


Opposition Labour councillor Alister Brady told Byline Times: “The administration are not ready yet. At the moment there are induction meetings and the experienced councillors are getting on with case work but there is a decision free zone within KCC at the moment.


“They don’t know what they’re doing.”

A similar situation is happening with Nottinghamshire:

Reform UK slammed for cancelling month of Nottinghamshire County council meetings

‘Scrapping every key meeting in their first full month in charge is not only reckless—it’s dangerous.’

leftfootforward.org

After taking control of Nottinghamshire County Council last month, Reform has cancelled all committee meetings in June, sparking serious concerns about the party’s leadership.


The Conservative opposition said the move has left council officers and departments in limbo, with no political direction, policy agenda, or visible leadership.


In a post on Facebook, Nottinghamshire Conservatives highlighted that the cancelled meetings, including cabinet and the overview and scrutiny committee, “are responsible for decisions that directly affect local residents”.


Reform took control of the council after winning 40 out of 66 seats on 1 May.


Leader of the Conservative group, Sam Smith, said: “This is a shambolic start from Reform.”


“Local residents were promised action, change and common sense. Instead, we’ve got silence, confusion and a complete absence of leadership.


Scrapping every key meeting in their first full month in charge is not only reckless—it’s dangerous. This puts public services at risk and shows just how unprepared Reform really are. And, the boats are still coming up the Trent!”


The Conservatives said that in the first full council meeting on 22 May, newly appointed Cabinet Members were asked “basic questions” about their areas of responsibility.


The Conservatives also criticised Reform’s performance at the first full council meeting on 22 May.


They claimed that newly appointed cabinet members couldn’t answer basic questions about their portfolios, despite having access to senior officers for support.


“There’s no excuse for this,” Smith said, “They should be in their offices, speaking to officers, and getting to grips with their jobs. Instead, the car park is empty, and the Council is effectively leaderless.


“This is what happens when you elect people who had no plan and no idea what the job involved.”


The statement continued: “Reform’s campaign was full of bold promises—but the reality is already falling apart. There’s no strategy, no urgency, and no answers. It’s becoming clearer by the day: they weren’t ready for this responsibility.”

If its members can't get to grips with local government issues, what hope does Reform have of governing at a national level?

 

[styles]

At least in Nottinghamshire, the Reform leader has responded basically saying it's a combination of new councillors requiring statutory training and induction, and the meetings having no agendas:

 

[dangie]

.... I fear that too many people voted for them in order to vote against Labour or the Conservatives, without knowing what they were voting for.

That I fear, is absolutely correct.

 

[JGurney]

Cambridgeshire councillor says some children in care are 'evil'

Reform UK's Andy Osborn makes the comments at a Cambridgeshire County Council committee meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

"A councillor has told a committee meeting that some children in care are 'not just naughty children, they can be downright evil'.

Reform UK's Andy Osborn made the comment during a Cambridgeshire County Council meeting, which heard that the authority had overspent on care placements"

 

[alex397]

"A councillor has told a committee meeting that some children in care are 'not just naughty children, they can be downright evil'. Reform UK's Andy Osborn made the comment during a Cambridgeshire County Council meeting, which heard that the authority had overspent on care placements"

Cambridgeshire councillor says some children in care are 'evil'

Reform UK's Andy Osborn makes the comments at a Cambridgeshire County Council committee meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

What a pointless comment. Is he suggesting that we shouldn’t be spending money on these ‘evil’ children? Not sure that would help reduce anti-social behaviour and crime.

 

[DarloRich]

What a pointless comment. Is he suggesting that we shouldn’t be spending money on these ‘evil’ children? Not sure that would help reduce anti-social behaviour and crime.

This is the problem in electing , charitably, inexperienced people to public office. What you think the world is from the outside, driven by your careful curated social media accounts and what's in the Daily Mail is very different from the reality on the inside when you are responsible for paying to look after these children.

Children in care is a vastly difficult and complex situation. Kids aren't just put in care because the parents are rubbish. As the council officers mention they will have experienced horrible trauma that impacts on them in many ways.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is the problem in electing , charitably, inexperienced people to public office. What you think the world is from the outside, driven by your careful curated social media accounts and what's in the Daily Mail is very different from the reality on the inside when you are responsible for paying to look after these children.

Children in care is a vastly difficult and complex situation. Kids aren't just put in care because the parents are rubbish. As the council officers mention they will have experienced horrible trauma that impacts on them in many ways.

On the plus side at least the Council's executive director actually gets it:

Mr Purbrick said: "Sometimes [trauma] can manifest itself in behaviours like you have described... but I do think it is important that we as a committee also remember that under that behaviour is a child that has experienced something incredibly difficult and something that has really changed the way that they are able to manage their own emotions."

That is what it boils down to at the end of the day. There is, possibly, a tiny tiny fraction of kids where something has gone wrong in their brain and they are just "wrong'uns" despite the fact that they came from a loving home with plenty of resources. But most of these "evil" kids are in fact victims of trauma and would benefit far more from a kind and caring society that tries to help rather than simply birch them and brand them as evil. Well, and a society that tried to tackle some of the root causes of this trauma in the first place which is often the grinding poverty that they and their parents (and often their grandparents) live in and has gotten worse in recent years:

Child poverty statistics – new record high and further breakdowns​

Today’s Households Below Average Income statistics published by government show 4.5 million children were in poverty in the year to April 2024, an increase of 100,000 from the previous year. This means across the UK 31% of children are living in poverty.
Today’s statistics also show:

• 44% of all children living in poverty are living in a household where someone is disabled
• 72% of poor children live in working families
• 44% of children in families with 3 or more children are in poverty, far higher than families with 1 child (21%) or 2 children (25%)
• Poor families have fallen deeper into poverty. There are 3.1 million children in deep poverty compared to 2.9 million children last year (i.e. with a household income below 50% of after-housing-costs equivalised median income)
• 48% of all children in poverty were in families with a youngest child aged under five
• 49% of children in Asian and British Asian families are in poverty, 49% of children in Black/ African/ Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of children in white families
• 43% of children in lone parent families were in poverty, higher than the couples rate of 26%
• More children in poverty are growing up in privately rented homes – 1.7 million, a record high, up from 1.1 million in 2010/11
• The three-year average poverty rate has fallen in Scotland from 24% to 23% (one-year from 26% to 22%) and has risen in England from 30% to 31%, in Northern Ireland from 23% to 24%, and in Wales from 29% to 31%

Child poverty statistics – new record high and further breakdowns

44% of all children living in poverty are living in a household where someone is disabled. 72% of poor children live in working families. Poor families have fallen deeper into poverty.

cpag.org.uk

When 31% of children are living in poverty (4.5 million of them) what do we think is going to happen to them now and in the future, and to their children when they have them? We're just storing up more and more trouble for ourselves and higher and higher costs to deal with it in the future. But I imagine that's not really what the Reform types really want to hear.

Far more comforting to just pretend that these children are inherently "evil" and that their parents are "failures" and really they probably deserved it anyway as if they just tried hard ("like I did!" ignoring the likely inherent advantages they had over some poor kid from Grangetown in Middlesbrough versus Cambridge) they'd be fine anyway.

 

[3141]

I have spent quite a bit of time in hospital due to an elderly relative being ill. The ward is full of elderly Daily Mail readers who seem to worship Farage and want to end forigns coming here. They aren't shy of telling you!

I had to be physically restrained by my partner from pointing to the ward staff and asking the patients, loudly, where they thought the staff were from. Hint: it wasn't Harehills. It was the Philippines!

The NHS that is trying to make these ill elderlies better runs on migrant labour and they are all for stopping it!

( even if you accept that the NHS shouldn't be running on migrant labour it will take 5 -10 years to attract and train enough "native" people to keep the show on the road. The fact we are importing loads of trained doctors, nurses and staff suggests we cant attractive "natives"! )

Lets see if Farage gives up any of HIS gold plated on top of solid platinum pensions or is it just the bloke who empties the bins for 30 years or the woman working in the canteen for the same time who should lose out.

It is performative nonsense, like thier DOGEALIKE stuff, which will be lapped up by thier "low educational performance" supporters.

There was, about two years ago (and not as part of their programme in last year's general election), a Reform scheme to fix the NHS by exempting all front-line staff from income tax, or some portion of it, for a number of years, thus increasing their net income. This would make working for the NHS more attractive and would enable vacant posts to be filled, instead of using expensive agency staff.

I don't think they had thought about
1) the difficulties of acceptably defining front-line staff. The people behind the reception desk seem pretty front line to me.
2) what would happen at the end of the period when full income tax liability was restored.
3) what would replace the missing tax income while the scheme was in operation.

It illustrated Reform's ability to think up ingenious short-cuts to solving problems without considering the implications.

 

[DarloRich]

It illustrated Reform's ability to think up ingenious short-cuts to solving problems without considering the implications.

populism in a nutshell!

 

[styles]

There was, about two years ago (and not as part of their programme in last year's general election), a Reform scheme to fix the NHS by exempting all front-line staff from income tax, or some portion of it, for a number of years, thus increasing their net income. This would make working for the NHS more attractive and would enable vacant posts to be filled, instead of using expensive agency staff.

I don't think they had thought about
1) the difficulties of acceptably defining front-line staff. The people behind the reception desk seem pretty front line to me.
2) what would happen at the end of the period when full income tax liability was restored.
3) what would replace the missing tax income while the scheme was in operation.

It illustrated Reform's ability to think up ingenious short-cuts to solving problems without considering the implications.

This isn't dissimilar from the major parties' perpetual consideration of exempting some front-line NHS staff from annual/lifetime pensions allowance tapering and/or personal allowance tapering.

Labour would scrap pensions tax cap to boost NHS staff

On the go: Labour's shadow Health and Social Care secretary, Wes Streeting, has pledged to do away with the cap above which NHS workers incur additional tax burdens, in a bid to dissuade experienced staff from retiring.

www.pensions-expert.com

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019/11/19/govt-to-pay-doctors-tax-bills-in-emergency-measure/

It's never ended up with permanent reform to pensions or tax rules for NHS workers, likely for the same reasons, but it's hardly a Reform-specific issue.

 

[Harpo]

Reform’s MPs have shown their true colours and their top priority in parliament today. Given the opportunity to ask the PM a question at PMQs they asked him to ban the burka.

…….Sarah Pochin - who won last month's Runcorn and Helsby by-election - urged the prime minister to ban the garment "in the interests of public safety"

Reform MP's burka ban call was dumb, says party chair

Reform UK's newest MP called for restrictions on the wearing of the full-scale veil during PMQs.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[YorkshireBear]

Reform’s MPs have shown their true colours and their top priority in parliament today. Given the opportunity to ask the PM a question at PMQs they asked him to ban the burka.

Reform MP's burka ban call was dumb, says party chair

Reform UK's newest MP called for restrictions on the wearing of the full-scale veil during PMQs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Really hitting on the subjects affecting the country.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The token Muslim has resigned as Chairman of Reform

[EDIT]

Here's the link to the slightly vague tweet he used to make his announcement

https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1930662199267119221

I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time" is a bit of an opaque statement. Presumably its code for "I've finally realised Farage is a ****

 

[m0ffy]

The token Muslim has resigned as Chairman of Reform

That was quick.

 

[brad465]

Get the popcorn out! (Again)

 

[aftv]

Oooh more Reform Infighting

 

[nr758123]

Reform’s MPs have shown their true colours and their top priority in parliament today. Given the opportunity to ask the PM a question at PMQs they asked him to ban the burka.

Reform MP's burka ban call was dumb, says party chair

Reform UK's newest MP called for restrictions on the wearing of the full-scale veil during PMQs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Really hitting on the subjects affecting the country.

Maybe she felt under pressure to demonstrate that she could be every bit as objectionable as their other MPs

 

[brad465]

Reform are at their high point. The only reason he'd leave, besides health reasons (not the reason given), is a fall out up top.

 

[Acfb]

Reform are at their high point. The only reason he'd leave, besides health reasons (not the reason given), is a fall out up top.

He's possibly unhappy with how Reform has campaigned in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by election. Really pandering to the lowest common denominator in the way they've targeted Anas Sarwar and Humza Yousaf.

They might still come 2nd though as I can see Reform performing very strongly in Larkhall itself.

 

[styles]

I'm surprised he was ever a) offered the chairman role, and b) took it to be quite honest. Reform is obviously not the party for Muslims.

 

[Gloster]

I'm surprised he was ever a) offered the chairman role, and b) took it to be quite honest. Reform is obviously not the party for Muslims.

As far as a) is concerned, it is so they can say, “Of course we‘re not racist. Just look at our chairman.”

As to b): well, some people will do anything for money, publicity, ego, etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reform are at their high point. The only reason he'd leave, besides health reasons (not the reason given), is a fall out up top.

Surely he has left due to the question asked by one of his colleagues at PMQs today?