Reform UK discussion

[brad465]

The top priority for Starmer is to make Britain prosperous and for our wealth - because we are not poor - to be more evenly distributed. The social contract must be repaired. Our tolerance of low standards in public life and public services has to end. The country feels very depressed at the moment.

The problem here is any attempt to redistribute and obtain money from those with the most leads to vicious cries of "socialism", "the rich will leave", "stop giving people handouts", etc. The greatest trick the super-rich ever played, is convincing a critical mass of those they exploit to defend their own exploitation.

Another example of top hypocrisy comes from the foreign aid argument: many of those who say "We must cut foreign aid so we can look after our own", are the first to slam any policy that seeks to look after our own. It should be a rule that anyone who says this is immediately asked "where you would spend it instead?"

 

[DarloRich]

It should be a rule that anyone who says this is immediately asked "where you would spend it instead?"

tax cuts!

 

[Senex]

The social contract must be repaired. Our tolerance of low standards in public life and public services has to end. The country feels very depressed at the moment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==


One big challenge for our society is how to have these conversations about immigration - including pushing back against some of it - while disaffiliating the opinions from the far right.

Yes, it's essential that the social contract should be repaired and essential to raise the standards of public services. We should all pay for public services of a quality we are all happy to receive. When you means-test or just provide services of such a basic quality that people feel the need to opt out of them if they can, then you create a recipe for real tension between those who pay and those who simply take — yet that seems to be the sort of country that Labour wants. (I'd add that in working out how much we all pay there really does need to be a thoroughgoing re-working of both the local and the national taxation system and of what is paid for centrally and what is paid for locally.)

As for immigration, isn't part of the problem that we've left the conversations and involvement of the people far too late? We were never asked whether we wanted the sorts of changes that mass immigration, all too often of people from alien cultures with no wish to integrate. Our lords and masters made the choice for us, and changes to media (especially the growth of social media) have made everything so much more visible than it used to be. We all see the small boats of invaders on our televisions, YouTubes, etc, which is very different from simply reading a paragraph in our newspapers some days later. Have our politicians even begun to take account of how society has changed?

 

[TravelDream]

Well, yes, partly - but also as alluded to upthread, the precarity of economic circumstances is now affecting more people and seeping up through the class system. It is now more difficult to move than ever, you have reduced employment rights when you start a new job, housing sucks up an enormous portion of most people's incomes and so does childcare. This all means too many people are stuck in low-productivity, low-waged work.

The country so badly needs an alternative to what is being perpetrated now and in the past - but the answer cannot come from the hard right. Reform is a party which asks people to reduce their empathy for themselves and others; it individualises and atomises the individual, asking them to advocate state cruelty against non-persons in the hope that they may be left alone if they approve. All the while giving them some sort of idea that they can just unite under a flag. Britain - and England in particular - is not that sort of country; it is far more localist - a country of smaller communities, county identities, regional accents, all of which are decentralised, softer, less overbearing markers of our identity.

The asylum issue is not our biggest issue but it is visible and it is a sign that the social contract is broken. People are living in poverty in Britain and they are suffering from poor healthcare outcomes and they have miserable lives. Reform supporters are grievance-filled and often unpleasant; some have allowed their parlous circumstances to hollow out their own humanity. That is very sad for them - they are victims, they talk like victims, they believe they have no agency. And nearly all of them voted Brexit - which has not delivered better lives for most of the people who voted for it.

The top priority for Starmer is to make Britain prosperous and for our wealth - because we are not poor - to be more evenly distributed. The social contract must be repaired. Our tolerance of low standards in public life and public services has to end. The country feels very depressed at the moment.

One big challenge for our society is how to have these conversations about immigration - including pushing back against some of it - while disaffiliating the opinions from the far right. I broadly agree with what you have posted here.

No doubt the country needs a change.
You're very right the gulf between the wealthy/ comfortable is no doubt growing and Britain's social contract is strained. You are also right that general dissatisfaction with life is growing in many places.
But as I said in my, a lot of that is down to managed decline.
Places in the greatest economic distress need massive investment. Investment is infrastructure and economic development which will provide long-term real growth and opportunity.
Not here today gone tomorrow social programmes, tinkering around the edges and generally poorly targeted, which seem beloved by governments of all colours.

You're right the asylum issue is more emblematic than major issues like the cost of living and housing. However, it's also hard to see how ordinary people should be expected to accept something when some many people live in effective poverty. In fact, it is one of them things which I thinks pushes people to parties like Reform. Ideas like we can't talk about immigration have been perpetuated for too long by too many have really damaged Britain's social fabric and have made far-right ideas more palatable to too many.

One thing I would disagree with is that Reform are 'hard right'. I think that is a far too often used trope by the terminally online 'left'.
Farage is economically libertarian-ish. Socially moderately conservative. And incredibly opportunist. All wrapped up in a British flag. Not sure that meets the definition of hard right as some state.


I've been a member of the Labour party since I was a teenager and I can only see disappointment in our governments in what they have delivered (or indeed haven't).

The problem here is any attempt to redistribute and obtain money from those with the most leads to vicious cries of "socialism", "the rich will leave", "stop giving people handouts", etc. The greatest trick the super-rich ever played, is convincing a critical mass of those they exploit to defend their own exploitation.

What level of taxes and redistribution do you think is required?

The only country in the world where a wealth tax has worked is Switzerland - where society and the tax system is very very different to ours.

No other country in the world has seen their tax intake increase through the use of a wealth tax.

These ideas aren't imagined or tricks of the wealthy, it's reality.

That's why government seek to 'punish' the middle classes who are far less mobile than the wealthy.

What we actually need is investment in places in economic distress and a build, build, build programme.

 

[nw1]

While it's easy to blame Farage, I think most people forget the fundamental problem in Britain.
We've had government after government whose goal seems to be managed decline rather than growth. Who've seemingly ignored the majority of Britain and focused on a narrow metropolitan bubble.

And is this government doing anything different? No.
We are still a build nothing build nowhere country. Taxes and state spending are continuing to increase at a dramatic rate. The government is unable to get a hold of key issues the British public worry about (cost of living, immigration/ boats**, housing etc.).

**I've put two asterisks here as I actually consider myself very pro-immigration. I've been an immigrant myself and realise the economic benefits immigrants can bring. But it is hard to see how taking thousands and thousands of unskilled economic migrants (I have no doubt Syria/ Iraq/ Nigeria etc. are miserable places to live for many, but call a duck a duck. I also realise that family and societal culture is very different in many places and that is why we see so many young men not the 'military invasion' talked about by those on the right) is a sensible or even sane idea.

Will Reform do anything different that will make life better though?
I think the answer is No.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

One thing I would disagree with is that Reform are 'hard right'. I think that is a far too often used trope by the terminally online 'left'.
Farage is economically libertarian-ish. Socially moderately conservative. And incredibly opportunist. All wrapped up in a British flag. Not sure that meets the definition of hard right as some state.

What about the association of immigrants with sex crimes that has been portrayed by some of their members?

Why are France's RN far-right, while Reform are not even hard-right let alone far-right? I've yet to hear a good explanation of this.

 

[TravelDream]

Will Reform do anything different that will make life better though?
I think the answer is No.

I am not sure on what you are saying.

You're right on a fundamental level, but a lot of people are dissatisfied and are willing to give something else a go

What about the association of immigrants with sex crimes that has been portrayed by some of their members?

Farage =/= 'some of their members'.

Obviously there are plenty of nasty types in Reform's ranks. That is a given. But it doesn't mean Reform is far right.

Again, as I have said in my posts. It's attitudes like that which push some ordinary people to Reform. Mainstream parties need to solve peoples' challenges rather than cast aspersions and try to police thoughts.
I am afraid many will realise too late what they have done if the polls turn out to be correct and things haven't changed in 2029 if we get a Reform government.

 

[nw1]

I am not sure on what you are saying.

You're right on a fundamental level, but a lot of people are dissatisfied and are willing to give something else a go

Seems a rather vacuous choice to me. I wonder how many oppressive regimes across the world started with people with no foresight "willing to give something else a go".

Farage =/= 'some of their members'.

Obviously there are plenty of nasty types in Reform's ranks. That is a given. But it doesn't mean Reform is far right.

Again, as I have said in my posts. It's attitudes like that which push some ordinary people to Reform. Mainstream parties need to solve peoples' challenges rather than cast aspersions and try to police thoughts.
I am afraid many will realise too late what they have done if the polls turn out to be correct and things haven't changed in 2029 if we get a Reform government.

I think you underestimate the strength of feeling against Reform though. 30% or so could cause a win, but it isn't a given. An organised tactical voting campaign against them could see them off. As I said you could see lifelong lefties voting Tory. I myself am certainly prepared to vote Tory to see them off, even if that means someone like Badenoch or Jenrick as PM. Life under Jenrick or Badenoch wouldn't be great but Tory governments are a known - we've certainly had many of them since 1979!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

I'm inclined to agree there. Immigration brings benefit and growth when it is to fill unfilled roles and where those people want to bring their culture to integrate with the UK's culture and bring benefits to both sides.

I'm not sure immigration should be limited to "filling unfilled roles".

What about people who actually want to emigrate for personal reasons and have professional or technical skills useful in another country, even if that other country could hire from the native population? Are you saying this should be stopped? That seems like quite a hardline approach to me and I'm not sure it's widespread; someone I know who is an EU citizen married a Qatari man and the Qatari man emigrated successfully to live in said EU country without even having a professional job lined up, let alone being needed to fill a role which the local population wouldn't take. Is that wrong?

 

[Sorcerer]

It's not untrue to say that Reform wouldn't be able to make people's quality of lives better and how Nigel Farage isn't Britain's new Julius Caesar who will bring the people to a new era of glory and wealth. But the issue with using that argument is that it won't work if you're Labour or Conservative trying to argue that you should stick with the status quo or making promises for change despite having had many chances to do so prior.

If you're a middle-of-the-road average Brit barely making ends meet in a deprived northern town/city who doesn't have time to dive into politics but likes Nigel Farage and Reform's image, you're not going to say "you know what, maybe the two parties who have ruled for decades and not made life better are right, maybe I should stick with them and not give someone else a chance. They'll get it right this time, surely?".

So realistically if you're going to argue that voting Reform is against one's interest, you're going to need a follow-up to explain why voting any other way also isn't voting against one's own interest. Or you could drop the arguments since a lot of people probably won't like being told what's in their interest by some stranger who's only really out for their vote and probably has no proper understanding of their life experiences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure immigration should be limited to "filling unfilled roles".

I didn't so much mean that at the level of "there's a job advertised, nobody has applied, so you can advertise it outside the country" but rather that we should be prioritising people who will bring the country economic and cultural benefits over those who will not. There are clearly more people who want to come to the UK than we can reasonably accommodate, so why should we not be picky? Hence the points-based systems.

What about people who actually want to emigrate for personal reasons and have professional or technical skills useful in another country, even if that other country could hire from the native population? Are you saying this should be stopped?

That's a difficult one. If it's a profession in which there is significant unemployment, or where we could grow domestic workforce*, probably yes. I would certainly put something in place like Switzerland does which would make it illegal to undercut UK wages using immigrants in any profession.

* We need for instance to be training our own builders, sparkies and plumbers on German style apprenticeship schemes, not importing them. That sort of job gives a proper future to those who don't work well in office type roles - and young people in dead end low-wage jobs are a big societal problem that this could help solve. A good way to start this would be vocational sixth forms where the output is a qualification in a trade - we sort of have them in the form of colleges of further education but I would like to see more proper structure behind them.

That seems like quite a hardline approach to me and I'm not sure it's widespread; someone I know who is an EU citizen married a Qatari man and the Qatari man emigrated successfully to live in said EU country without even having a professional job lined up, let alone being needed to fill a role which the local population wouldn't take. Is that wrong?

I would say it is wrong for anyone to be permitted to immigrate, unless they have genuine grounds for asylum, unless they either have a job lined up or firm evidence that they will be fully supported by another person in the UK with neither having any recourse to benefits as a result. Nobody should be permitted to enter the UK, other than for genuine asylum, unless they have a means to fully support the costs of their stay.

Recourse to benefits may be needed later if their situation changes, but I'd keep that for people who take indefinite leave to remain or citizenship, other than possibly short term.

I don't think people should be able to enter the UK speculatively to possibly get a job (though those on student visas should be given a limited period in which to do so following the completion of their degree). Jobs are mostly applied for and initially interviewed online these days, there is no need to be here to do that, though a trip for an in-person interview is fine just as per a holiday.

I don't consider that hard line at all - hard line is more Reform-like policies. It's simply an Australia-like policy - I think they have it pretty sorted, to be honest.

 

[nw1]

It's not untrue to say that Reform wouldn't be able to make people's quality of lives better and how Nigel Farage isn't Britain's new Julius Caesar who will bring the people to a new era of glory and wealth. But the issue with using that argument is that it won't work if you're Labour or Conservative trying to argue that you should stick with the status quo or making promises for change despite having had many chances to do so prior.

If you're a middle-of-the-road average Brit barely making ends meet in a deprived northern town/city who doesn't have time to dive into politics but likes Nigel Farage and Reform's image, you're not going to say "you know what, maybe the two parties who have ruled for decades and not made life better are right, maybe I should stick with them and not give someone else a chance. They'll get it right this time, surely?".

So realistically if you're going to argue that voting Reform is against one's interest, you're going to need a follow-up to explain why voting any other way also isn't voting against one's own interest. Or you could drop the arguments since a lot of people probably won't like being told what's in their interest by some stranger who's only really out for their vote and probably has no proper understanding of their life experiences.

Better the devil you know I say. Life may not be wonderful under Labour or the Tories but at the end of the day we are a democracy, we have freedom of speech, we have an open and tolerant societal attitude towards minorities.

Reform have already come up with some pretty disturbing things. What about this from one of their MPs? Scarcely the voice of tolerance and moderation, and to me is inciting prejudice or worse against the two named nationalities.

Sarah Pochin said it was “a fact” that Afghans and Eritreans are more likely to carry out sexual assaults.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...687e44d1e4b0502d85e59888?origin=top-ad-recirc

What about the ban on flying "unapproved" flags on council buildings?

I'm sorry but I have little or no sympathy towards those who wish to trade our open and tolerant society for this lot.

 

[Krokodil]

No other country in the world has seen their tax intake increase through the use of a wealth tax.

These ideas aren't imagined or tricks of the wealthy, it's reality.

France has a tax on real estate over €1.3m

If the UK started taxing individuals with property portfolios over £10m (a threshold I picked in an effort to ensure that family farms fell below it) then the sales that might result there would be a reduction in people using real estate as an investment, fewer empty properties and a fall in prices in the most extreme parts of London. It would also mean that agricultural land would fall in value - wealthy people (Dyson, Clarkson et al) buying it up when it used to be IHT exempt really pushed up prices. Real estate can't really be moved abroad to avoid tax.

I'd love to see the US implement a wealth tax on stock portfolios. If only because I'd love to see Musk absolutely rinsed. Maybe AOC will sort out the oligarchy there, but they'll fight tooth-and-nail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the UK started taxing individuals with property portfolios over £10m (a threshold I picked in an effort to ensure that family farms fell below it) then the sales that might result there would be a reduction in people using real estate as an investment, fewer empty properties and a fall in prices in the most extreme parts of London. It would also mean that agricultural land would fall in value - wealthy people (Dyson, Clarkson et al) buying it up when it used to be IHT exempt really pushed up prices. Real estate can't really be moved abroad to avoid tax.

This would all be wonderfully positive. I hate stamp duty with a passion - it's a tax on workforce mobility and on rightsizing property, both of which should be encouraged, not discouraged. Taxing ownership, particularly where the property is not lived in, is a far better idea to me.

I'd not have a problem with there being a band that did take in ordinary homes on the basis that we should all contribute, but it should be a very low rate until you get above typical family homes (which might need to be zoned by location as prices vary).

 

[nw1]

I would say it is wrong for anyone to be permitted to immigrate, unless they have genuine grounds for asylum, unless they either have a job lined up or firm evidence that they will be fully supported by another person in the UK with neither having any recourse to benefits as a result. Nobody should be permitted to enter the UK, other than for genuine asylum, unless they have a means to fully support the costs of their stay.

I still disagree there - I am still resentful of the restrictions which Brexit brought to be honest and I would have liked to have seen Brexit "compensated for" in some way by keeping immigration fairly easy for those willing to work from certain countries, both inside and outside the EU.

 

[Krokodil]

I'd not have a problem with there being a band that did take in ordinary homes on the basis that we should all contribute, but it should be a very low rate until you get above typical family homes (which might need to be zoned by location as prices vary).

I'd prefer it if council tax bands were based on property footprints (excluding agricultural land, public parkland, and land left to nature) on the basis that provision of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. The current system (in England at least, Wales has revalued) is a mess. A wealth tax would be collected by central government.

 

[TravelDream]

I think you underestimate the strength of feeling against Reform though. 30% or so could cause a win, but it isn't a given. An organised tactical voting campaign against them could see them off. As I said you could see lifelong lefties voting Tory. I myself am certainly prepared to vote Tory to see them off, even if that means someone like Badenoch or Jenrick as PM. Life under Jenrick or Badenoch wouldn't be great but Tory governments are a known - we've certainly had many of them since 1979!

First past the post is a perverse system.

With a split opposition, a large majority is very possible on not much above 30% (Labour has a large majority on just 33.7% and it is likely 2029's vote will be even more split based on current polling).

Better the devil you know I say. Life may not be wonderful under Labour or the Tories but at the end of the day we are a democracy, we have freedom of speech, we have an open and tolerant societal attitude towards minorities.

That's what you say. I am not sure that's what people in grinding poverty living in depressed parts of the country think.

I obviously don't know you or your background, but I do wish some of the well-off/ 'better educated' would open their eyes to other parts of the country and other peoples' lives.

Reform have already come up with some pretty disturbing things. What about this from one of their MPs? Scarcely the voice of tolerance and moderation.

Disturbing? But what if it is a fact?
Are you saying we should police our thoughts and what we say? As I have said, it is part of the reason for the rise of ReformUK.
People have been told for too long if you are against immigration, you're a racist. And you can't say this or that.
As I said above, I am pro-immigration, but I realise that this is a huge issue. Being anti-immigration is not racist. Never has been and never will - despite what some people say.

People should be tolerant and welcoming and society/ government should promote this. I think overwhelmingly Britain is a good place for migrants compared to many countries around the world.

But that doesn't mean you need to have open borders and welcome large numbers of poor economic migrants.

If the UK started taxing individuals with property portfolios over £10m (a threshold I picked in an effort to ensure that family farms fell below it) then the sales that might result there would be a reduction in people using real estate as an investment, fewer empty properties and a fall in prices in the most extreme parts of London. It would also mean that agricultural land would fall in value - wealthy people (Dyson, Clarkson et al) buying it up when it used to be IHT exempt really pushed up prices. Real estate can't really be moved abroad to avoid tax.

That is so incredibly easily avoided to be effectively meaningless.
Have properties owned by holding companies.
Incorporate them in places like the Cayman Islands to hide ownership.

I can't do it as I am not wealthy, but it is what wealthy people will do and it is incredibly difficult to meaningfully oppose it.

Plus France is a prime example of wealth taxes failing. The higher they pushed them, the lower the state took in as the wealthy took more measures to avoid it.

Again, I am not wealthy and I think that those with the means should pay their fair share of the tax, but I am also realistic and realise you can't put punishing taxes on those most mobile/ agile as they can and will simply move assets and use tricks to (legally) avoid paying said taxes.

Clearly the tax system on property is wrong.
Stamp duty is too punishing and restricts downsizing/ mobility which the tax system should promote. At the same time, council tax caps out far too low and is quite perverse in how low band properties play significantly more in some parts of the country compared to others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still disagree there - I am still resentful of the restrictions which Brexit brought to be honest and I would have liked to have seen Brexit "compensated for" in some way by keeping immigration fairly easy from certain countries, inside and outside the EU.

While things stabilised later, I had a problem with the initial mass immigration from Poland and Romania of largely manual workers who undercut British workers' pay by being willing to live in extremely poor conditions and resulted in something I have a real problem with - finding it difficult to be understood when speaking English in businesses in England. That has settled over time as the long-termers have stayed and improved their English (e.g. my Polish best mate, who actually agrees with me that that was an issue, and is close to considering himself British now) but it was not at all positive at the time.

We had the ability to control that within the terms of our EU membership and failed to do so - I think it's actually there that the resentment may have started.

So I think it would depend on what was meant by "fairly easy". We do need to ensure that immigration is not a financial or societal load on the country as a priority - we have enough problems without adding to it. It is of course welcome if it is positive in both regards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

I'd prefer it if council tax bands were based on property footprints (excluding agricultural land, public parkland, and land left to nature) on the basis that provision of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. The current system (in England at least, Wales has revalued) is a mess. A wealth tax would be collected by central government.

I think that would destroy the rural economy and is a complete non starter.

 

[nw1]

With a split opposition, a large majority is very possible on not much above 30% (Labour has a large majority on just 33.7% and it is likely 2029's vote will be even more split based on current polling).

As I said, a tactical "anyone but Reform" campaign could stop them, providing it's well-organised. Granted Labour wouldn't win, I think that's a given, but we could perhaps cobble together some kind of Tory-Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said, a tactical "anyone but Reform" campaign could stop them, providing it's well-organised. Granted Labour wouldn't win, I think that's a given, but we could perhaps cobble together some kind of Tory-Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

We might have to.

I'd love such a thing to be a single-issue coalition - to implement PR then immediately call another GE. That way Reform can have representation (as is their right, like it or not they are a legally legitimate political party) but are unlikely to end up forming the Government other than as part of a coalition which would moderate them somewhat.

 

[Krokodil]

But what if it is a fact?

Given that many of those protesting outside the hostels turned out to have colourful criminal records (often including sex offences and domestic violence) the claim is suspect.

That is so incredibly easily avoided to be effectively meaningless.
Have properties owned by holding companies.
Incorporate them in places like the Cayman Islands to hide ownership.

Presumably council tax (including second home surcharges) isn't so easily avoidable. Where there's a will, there's a way...

 

[nw1]

Disturbing? But what if it is a fact?
Are you saying we should police our thoughts and what we say? As I have said, it is part of the reason for the rise of ReformUK.

Do you think that hate speech laws should be repealed?

Saying this and that disparagingly about nationality X just risks the possibility of hatred towards nationality X.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is so incredibly easily avoided to be effectively meaningless.
Have properties owned by holding companies.
Incorporate them in places like the Cayman Islands to hide ownership.

How does that prevent the relevant taxation being due? (It's best to keep it per-property to avoid people being able to work around it by splitting ownership).

If the taxation was not paid over a long period*, it should be possible for the State to repossess the property to recoup the due taxation.

That is basically impossible to evade.

* I think you could viably allow years for this - we're not about trying to take houses off people who have stumbled onto hard times, rather to catch people out who are genuinely taking the mick.

 

[Krokodil]

We had the ability to control that within the terms of our EU membership and failed to do so

The then government actively chose not to do so in 2004 (though lessons had been learned by the time that Romania and Bulgaria joined). They wanted to "rub the right's nose in diversity"

 

[nw1]

That's what you say. I am not sure that's what people in grinding poverty living in depressed parts of the country think.

So the solution is surely more progressive social policies.

I am quite supportive of the more affluent paying higher taxes to support those less well-off.

I am supportive of strong laws to protect employees, both pay and conditions.

I am supportive of a caring and nurturing approach to those on benefits.

Reform will not support any of that. Someone to the left of Labour might. As I said, I have no sympathy towards those who will vote Reform. The answer to these issues surely lies on the Left. As I said, I'd like to see a French-style strong Left movement which can take votes for those for whom Labour or the Tories will do nothing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The then government actively chose not to do so in 2004 (though lessons had been learned by the time that Romania and Bulgaria joined). They wanted to "rub the right's nose in diversity"

That must rank as one of the most stupid political decisions made in a long time, to be honest - and in my view it directly led to Brexit.

 

[Krokodil]

I think that would destroy the rural economy

How so? Urban areas have always subsidised public services for rural ones. Obviously individual councils can set the rates as they wish, it would just be the banding that changes. This would particularly hit the sprawling suburbs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The answer to these issues surely lies on the Left.

To me the answer lies in something that doesn't exist - a balanced political approach that has policies on both the left and the right. The only time I recall this approach in my lifetime was the Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

An example I've used before is that benefits when you lose your job should be super-generous - after all, you want to get into another job ASAP. They might sensibly include being paid as much as 80% of salary by the Government (as per furlough) for a short period and strong assistance in helping to get another job - it helps nobody if someone loses their house as a result of losing their job, for instance. But penalties for fraudulently claiming this should be harsh.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

How so? Urban areas have always subsidised public services for rural ones. Obviously individual councils can set the rates as they wish, it would just be the banding that changes. This would particularly hit the sprawling suburbs.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that larger properties should always pay more. Farms tend to be quite large.

 

[Krokodil]

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that larger properties should always pay more. Farms tend to be quite large.

I had already exempted such land from tax:

(excluding agricultural land, public parkland, and land left to nature)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had already exempted such land from tax:

Even so, farmhouses tend to be on fairly large parcels of land, unless you'd exempt those too?

In urban areas, large suburban homes tend to be expensive anyway, so value still works as a measure. City centre flats may of course be taxed high too, but people who live in those can generally afford it.

 

[nw1]

To me the answer lies in something that doesn't exist - a balanced political approach that has policies on both the left and the right. The only time I recall this approach in my lifetime was the Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I'm not saying the Left necessarily has the best attitude on every single issue.

I was replying to the other poster who made the point that Labour and the Tories do not care enough about those in poverty. I was making the point that Reform, in my view, don't either (even less than Labour or the Tories IMV) and the people that genuinely do care are generally going to be on the Left.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was replying to the other poster who made the point that Labour and the Tories do not care enough about those in poverty. I was making the point that Reform don't either (even less than Labour or the Tories IMV) and the people that genuinely do care are generally going to be on the Left.

I'd certainly agree with that. Reform only care about themselves.