Reform UK discussion

[Bletchleyite]

What about when the individual is a child?

The individual is the parent; benefits are provided to them. Where practical to provide directly to the child (e.g. education, school meals, free school uniforms) we already do, and those things are not limited based on the number of children one has, it is only one specific benefit.

It is obviously difficult to provide many things direct to the child, though I am in favour of doing that when and where possible. But where we can do that it does help avoid parents taking advantage as many do.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Nigel Farage has called for the lifting of the two-child benefit cap which applies to parents having a third or more child since April 2017. I am not sure why Nigel Farage or any other politician seeking to win votes would support lifting this two-child benefit cap as opinion polling shows it is supported by six in ten voters.

The two-child benefit cap only applies to children born after April 2017 and any parents having a third or more child since April 2017 did so knowing they would not get additional benefits for these third or more children. It is clear that not only do most voters see this as fair, they also do not want to pay more taxes to fund additional cash payments to parents having a third or more child since April 2017.

Lifting the two-child benefit cap would cost several billion pounds a year so those who call for this really need to say what other spending they want to cut or what taxes they want to see increased to pay for it. The message from the Government is there is no money for it. Those MPs who forced the Government to roll back planned cuts to benefits seem to think this helps them to push for lifting the two-child benefit cap but in fact it makes this even more difficult as there is even less money.

Nigel Farage Calls For Lifting Of Two-Child Benefit Cap

Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage has called for the lifting of the two child benefit cap and transferable tax allowance for married couples.

www.politicshome.com

Nigel Farage Calls For Lifting Of Two-Child Benefit Cap

Public support retaining the two-child benefit limit as Starmer gears up for first rebellion

Six in ten Britons support the cap being kept, but 18-24 year olds tend to believe it should be abolished

yougov.co.uk

Six in ten Britons support the cap being kept, but 18-24 year olds tend to believe it should be abolished

 

[DarloRich]

Nigel Farage has called for the lifting of the two-child benefit cap which applies to parents having a third or more child since April 2017.

If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, suggested the same she would be hammered about how it should be paid for. Fragale, nothing...........................

 

[Railwaycat]

No it isn't.

If I innovate a method of making a product twice as fast - that is, to work smarter, using a new method which more efficiently uses the same resources - I can produce twice as many of them, make more money, and pay more tax. Do you think that GDP is just a measure of resources consumed?

That's nonsense.
If I make glass bottles for example, and find a way of making twice as many of the same bottle in the same amount of time, I'm still going to use twice as much sand, even if I only use the same amount of energy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lifting the two-child benefit cap would cost several billion pounds a year so those who call for this really need to say what other spending they want to cut or what taxes they want to see increased to pay for it. The message from the Government is there is no money for it. Those MPs who forced the Government to roll back planned cuts to benefits seem to think this helps them to push for lifting the two-child benefit cap but in fact it makes this even more difficult as there is even less money.

This is the problem with Reform (and all other populists) - they are just shouting policies, they are not realistically looking at what else would have to be adjusted as a result.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's nonsense.
If I make glass bottles for example, and find a way of making twice as many of the same bottle in the same amount of time, I'm still going to use twice as much sand, even if I only use the same amount of energy.

No you won't, necessarily, if you find a new and more efficient method of making the glass which uses less sand. Or indeed, decide to move away from glass, or innovate a hybrid product.

 

[ainsworth74]

Child benefit is an ongoing thing, not relevant to major changes of circumstances like this when other benefits such as universal credit kick in. It is not the same argument.

Child Benefit isn't capped by number of children. You could have 10 children and receive full Chid Benefit for them (unless your income is over £60k in which case you'll have a charge applied to your income tax and after £80k that charge will be the equal of your Child Benefit award so you'll receive nothing).

Universal Credit is where the two-child limit applies so it is absolutely relevant to the scenario outlined above. You could have three children, whilst working, that you could afford easily but then someone loses a job and suddenly you need to claim Universal Credit (at least for some time) as your income has dropped sufficiently. In that case you will be limited to getting Child Elements for two children only. You'll still get Child Benefit for three children.

Then that family gets extra benefits to relieve their situation - but why should they get benefits for a third child when they were in work? To take it further, why does a family on, say £100,000 pa, get child benefit at all?

As noted, Child Benefit is not capped by the number of children, Universal Credit is so this family would not get extra benefits to relieve their situation because they would only get two Child Elements not three. Their Child Benefit would be unaffected by this change in circumstances. But in general I have no issue with the idea that a high earning family shouldn't get Child Benefit.

Of course one common thing that could happen is that a parent or parents could become disabled and unable, or less able, to work - which would make them poorer. Or, perhaps, another relative started requiring care, so a parent has to work less and bring in less money. Naturally the government wanted to impoverish disabled people more (and thankfully failed), by also cutting their benefits.

Absolutely, I went for loss of job as I reckoned (it seems foolishly now!) that it might be more relatable than someone being disabled and unable, or less able, to work but disability is a really big reason why it might be affordable to have three children but then, through no fault of your own, find that you need support.

The individual is the parent; benefits are provided to them. Where practical to provide directly to the child (e.g. education, school meals, free school uniforms) we already do, and those things are not limited based on the number of children one has, it is only one specific benefit.

It is obviously difficult to provide many things direct to the child, though I am in favour of doing that when and where possible.

But the outcome of this policy is that you're punishing a child for having the temerity to have been born. You can judge the parent all you like (though things are rarely black and white) but there is still a child who is growing up in poverty. That means that statistically they're more likely to be unemployed or employed in poorly paid work, they're more likely to need to access welfare benefits of their own when they're an adult, they're more likely to be ill or disabled in later life, they're more likely to end up with substance abuse issues, to end up partaking in criminal activity, to end up costing the taxpayer far more money in the long run than if we'd just made sure that they didn't grown up in poverty in the first place.

Quite apart from any morale arguments around how acceptable it is or is not to punish a child for some possible parents behaviour purely on financial grounds it's a dumb policy which is simply storing up a need to make vast future expenditure when the inevitable consequences of higher levels of poverty manifest themselves so we can pretend that we're encouraging "personal responsibility".

But where we can do that it does help avoid parents taking advantage as many do.

Source needed for that statement that "many do".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Child Benefit isn't capped by number of children. You could have 10 children and receive full Chid Benefit for them (unless your income is over £60k in which case you'll have a charge applied to your income tax and after £80k that charge will be the equal of your Child Benefit award so you'll receive nothing).

In which case I'll admit I misunderstood. I was of the impression that it was Child Benefit that was capped. I am of the view that it should be.

If it is Universal Credit, then I'm not in support of that being capped because that is specifically to deal with issues of poverty (which Child Benefit is not).

Absolutely, I went for loss of job as I reckoned (it seems foolishly now!) that it might be more relatable than someone being disabled and unable, or less able, to work but disability is a really big reason why it might be affordable to have three children but then, through no fault of your own, find that you need support.

I certainly think things that deal with unexpected changes of circumstances should not be capped based on a simple number. Indeed one of my views is that we should probably have a form of compulsory unemployment insurance that would pay one's full salary (or say 80% of it a la furlough) for a short but reasonable period of time to prevent people losing homes and the likes over temporary unemployment.

Source needed for that statement that "many do".

The number of poorer people who smoke cigarettes (a very expensive practice compared to vaping (accepting that it is an addiction that is not easy to simply stop) and one that is highly harmful to their children) is evidence enough for one. A week's worth of average cigarette smoking pretty much puts decent food on the table for a whole person these days.

 

[BAFRA77]

Nadine Dorries has joined Reform UK. To quote someone when Lee Anderson did this, this move has raised the IQ of both Reform and the Tories:

Former Conservative minister Nadine Dorries defects to Reform UK

The ex-MP told the Daily Mail the Tory Party was dead and its members now "need to think the unthinkable".

www.bbc.co.uk

More seriously, Reform UK attracting a load of former Tories, but most especially former ministers (which includes Dorries), is going to make the already dubious "anti-establishment" narrative much harder to sell.

Quick quiz question - which public figure tweeted this in 2022:

“I had the misfortune of watching and listening to Nadine Dorries this morning. If she is the PM’s defence then he really is a goner.”

 

[ainsworth74]

In which case I'll admit I misunderstood. I was of the impression that it was Child Benefit that was capped. I am of the view that it should be.

If it is Universal Credit, then I'm not in support of that being capped because that is specifically to deal with issues of poverty (which Child Benefit is not).

Always happy to help provide illumination of an often arcane system

I certainly think things that deal with unexpected changes of circumstances should not be capped based on a simple number. Indeed one of my views is that we should probably have a form of compulsory unemployment insurance that would pay one's full salary (or say 80% of it a la furlough) for a short but reasonable period of time to prevent people losing homes and the likes over temporary unemployment.

100% agreed on that, it's barmy that you could be on a good wage and lose your job and see your income drop to just a few hundred pounds a month. Some sort of proper Unemployment Insurance is long overdue. Obviously people should have savings to help cushion the blow but even so.

The number of poorer people who smoke cigarettes (a very expensive practice compared to vaping (accepting that it is an addiction that is not easy to simply stop) and one that is highly harmful to their children) is evidence enough for one. A week's worth of average cigarette smoking pretty much puts decent food on the table for a whole person these days.

Ha! I'll grant you that one even if I do disagree with the general contention

 

[SuspectUsual]

Quick quiz question - which public figure tweeted this in 2022:

“I had the misfortune of watching and listening to Nadine Dorries this morning. If she is the PM’s defence then he really is a goner.”

50/50, its either Farage or Tice

 

[Krokodil]

To take it further, why does a family on, say £100,000 pa, get child benefit at all?

They don't. We are in this situation and don't - and in practice can't - claim child benefit for our daughter, because the benefit is recouped immediately and in full in tax. I have no issue with this. (It is linked to individual salaries/incomes, rather than household income)

It's not true to say that a household earning £100k don't get child benefit. So long as the individual salaries are below £60k the household income could well be north of £100k and still allow them to receive full child benefit. But a single parent earning £60k will start to have it docked which seems unfair.

Anyway, the UK doesn‘t need to discourage childrearing. Birth rates are substantially below replacement levels already. If anything we need birth rates to be a little higher, to allow for a more gentle reduction than a collapse.

The UK should be focusing development aid on female emancipation in developing countries. It has been proven the World over that educated women with opportunities have fewer kids than those who have no other purpose in life. This is the best way to prevent a devastating population explosion (with the humanitarian issues that causes) as lifespans increase.

No you won't, necessarily, if you find a new and more efficient method of making the glass which uses less sand. Or indeed, decide to move away from glass, or innovate a hybrid product.

So you invent a more efficient way which uses less sand. This makes the bottles cheaper which means more people buy them and you end up using more sand than you were using in the first place. It's another form of the Jevons Paradox. Same reason that despite computers being more efficient than paperwork the carbon footprint hasn’t dropped because we've ended up using these efficiency gains to find extra things for the computers to do.

 

[Cloud Strife]

We're having less children, which is creating a problem for the future. If we're not producing more people then it stands to reason that people will look to immigration to fill the needs of society (and fund pensions etc). This is where we then get the people going on about the great white replacement theory.

I want to go back to this for a second.

There is a bitter truth in that Europe as a whole is struggling with a demographic timebomb. There simply isn't enough money being paid into social security systems, and so there's a simple choice: either the local population works longer/harder, or we cut what we pay to people through the social security systems. Some countries are being realistic such as Denmark by increasing the pension age to 70, but others like Poland are stubbornly denying the reality, that either the pension age goes up or the amount paid will go down.

I'm not a massive fan of low paid immigration either (the social democratic view is that low paid immigration contributes to a lowering of living standards), but Europeans as a whole are really struggling to accept that the glory days of high pensions and early-ish retirement are over. I spoke to one retired accountant who moved to Spain when I was on holiday, and he said straight out that the numbers simply don't add up. Interestingly, he blamed the school system for giving people unrealistic expectations.

Parties like Reform will always gain support by shouting about things that people don't like, but the truth is that they always struggle when they come to power as there's simply no way around the reality. Looking at Italy, while Meloni has done quite a lot to reduce illegal immigration, she's also been issuing huge amounts of work permits to non-EU citizens. The end result is that there's still a lot of migration, just that shouting about illegal immigration is an effective way to cover up the fact that you're admitting a large amount of legal migration. The last Polish government did exactly the same thing: they shouted about illegal migration while selling at least 250,000 visas and overseeing a massive boom in migration as a whole to the country.

Of course, part of the problem is that there's a lag between implementing a policy and seeing the effects of it. Millennials like me saw in our childhood how it was common for people to retire to Spain on fat final salary pensions, and I have family friends who are in their 80s and living in Spain on insanely generous pensions. One of them has a pension from British Telecom, which in his position as a local manager is paying out incredibly well, but this was effectively funded by ripping off the taxpayer for years, first as a government agency and then as a private business.

There's no way that I'll get the same thing without some very shrewd and clever investing, and even then, it's likely that I'll have to manage my portfolio in retirement to ensure that it keeps paying out. Is it any surprise that people in their 50s and 60s are now drifting to Reform, because they want "what it used to be like", without realising that "what it was like" was largely based on high taxation and a fairly large amount of exploiting the taxpayer?

 

[SteveP29]

It's easy to moralise about "personal responsibility" but the real world is rarely so black and white. And all the while there is still a million children living in grinding poverty which is simply going to store up even more problems, even more broken lives, missed opportunity, and higher costs for the taxpayer compared to having just provided appropriate support in the first place whether or not we think the parents in question were sensible or not.

It also produces anger and jealousy among these people who life gave no opportunities to.
It just takes a Pied Piper type of person (no names mentioned by he's the Member of Parliament for Clacton- in absentia) to feed that anger, resentment and jealousy and we have situations as we're seeing around the country with asylum hotels, painting signs, roundabouts and being bold enough to be openly racist in public

 

[BAFRA77]

I see the Glorious Leader is about to address the Presidium in Birmingham

 

[weeklycommuter]

The following statement by Richard Tice is more than a bit of an understatement. If any political party wants to be taken seriously as a potential party of government the sums in their manifesto need to add up. Promising to give away eye watering amounts of money in tax cuts while giving no information about how these would be funded means they cannot be taken seriously as their promises are clearly undeliverable.

Reform UK may need to rethink £90bn tax cuts pledge, deputy suggests

Richard Tice says manifesto pledges ahead of last year's general election are "not appropriate" for a future election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reform may need to rethink £90bn tax cuts pledge, deputy suggests

Reform UK may need to rethink its pledge to deliver £90bn of tax cuts, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice has suggested.
The Reform UK manifesto published ahead of last year's general election made commitments to slash income tax in particular, as well as large spending pledges on defence.
However, Tice told the BBC: "A manifesto in July 2024 is not appropriate for a manifesto or contract whenever the next general election is."

 

[Railwaycat]

So you invent a more efficient way which uses less sand. This makes the bottles cheaper which means more people buy them and you end up using more sand than you were using in the first place. It's another form of the Jevons Paradox. Same reason that despite computers being more efficient than paperwork the carbon footprint hasn’t dropped because we've ended up using these efficiency gains to find extra things for the computers to do.

Yes. A good example is the home printer - 20 years ago, would take minutes to print a good quality photograph, now it takes seconds, but you still use the same amount of ink and paper.

Back to the topic, I can see deform bringing means testing for the state pension - will upset many (me for one), but will go down well with his core voters.

 

[Krokodil]

I can see deform bringing means testing for the state pension

I'd be surprised if they were brave enough to take the pensioners on. Much as something does need doing.

 

[Ted633]

Yes. A good example is the home printer - 20 years ago, would take minutes to print a good quality photograph, now it takes seconds, but you still use the same amount of ink and paper.

Back to the topic, I can see deform bringing means testing for the state pension - will upset many (me for one), but will go down well with his core voters.

I doubt it to be honest. The amount of backlash from withdrawal of the winter fuel payment would be nothing compared to means testing the state pension.

 

[Railwaycat]

I doubt it to be honest. The amount of backlash from withdrawal of the winter fuel payment would be nothing compared to means testing the state pension.

Would it though? If the cut off level was set at, say, 25k and after that the pension was gradually reduced, the majority without or with just a small occupational pension might be quite pleased - don't forget deform thrives on division.

 

[dcbwhaley]

If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, suggested the same she would be hammered about how it should be paid for. Fragale, nothing...........................

Is my memory correct that in my childhood - 1950s - family allowance (as child =benefit was called back then) was paid at a reduced rate to second and subsequent children?
Even if my memory is wrong I think that that would be a good scheme. Second children are less expensive than the first.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is my memory correct that in my childhood - 1950s - family allowance (as child =benefit was called back then) was paid at a reduced rate to second and subsequent children?
Even if my memory is wrong I think that that would be a good scheme. Second children are less expensive than the first.

I can't speak to Family Allowance but Child Benefit certainly is arranged that way. Currently £26.05 per week for the eldest child or only child and then £17.25 per week for additional children.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Is my memory correct that in my childhood - 1950s - family allowance (as child =benefit was called back then) was paid at a reduced rate to second and subsequent children?
Even if my memory is wrong I think that that would be a good scheme. Second children are less expensive than the first.

I was born in 1960. My mother wasn't entitled to family allowance as she only had one child.

 

[Tester]

Is my memory correct that in my childhood - 1950s - family allowance (as child =benefit was called back then) was paid at a reduced rate to second and subsequent children?
Even if my memory is wrong I think that that would be a good scheme. Second children are less expensive than the first.

No - the opposite applied!

In the 1960s, per week:
First child - nothing
Second child - 8/- (40p)
Third and subsequent children - 10/- (50p)

Times and priorities change!

 

[AlterEgo]

No - the opposite applied!

In the 1960s, per week:
First child - nothing
Second child - 8/- (40p)
Third and subsequent children - 10/- (50p)

Times and priorities change!

Wasn't that per family and not per child?

 

[Tester]

Wasn't that per family and not per child?

I can't make sense of your question!

I'll try again.....

One child - family allowance zero
Two children - family allowance 8/-
Three or more children - add 10/- per child

 

[brad465]

Reform will form the next government.....this one we have now is a lame duck and going nowhere

Something that isn't understood enough is that any party, regardless of its intentions/policies, going from 5 seats to over 300, is going to collapse the country. Reform have no understanding of ministerial departments as they are not shadowing any, and no more than 5 or so MPs, plus a few Tory defections not currently in parliament, have any idea how the legislative process works. Yes you can research, but nothing beats on the job experience. This collapse of government will by definition mean investors turn away at levels not seen before and the markets collapse; I wouldn't be surprised if this starts happening in the election campaign if the odds of Reform winning are high.

Now they might argue that the whole system is the problem and therefore not following it doesn't matter, and yes it's full of problems. However, building a more effective system requires knowledge of how the current one operates, especially as not everything in it is a problem, but destroying this suddenly makes it a problem.

The same logic applies if the Greens or any other party were to suddenly go from 4 to over 300 seats, as they have no such widespread experience either. It may not be so bad for the Lib Dems, as they have 70-odd MPs and places on Select Committees, but it's still a big step up. If Reform UK are to ever have an effective government on their own, they'd be better off going up to 100-150 seats at the next election and trying to go for power in 2033-2034.

 

[Railwaycat]

This collapse of government will by definition mean investors turn away at levels not seen before and the markets collapse; I wouldn't be surprised if this starts happening in the election campaign if the odds of Reform winning are high.

Sell high, buy low....and who is going to make a killing there? (begins with an f and ends in an e)

 

[Tetchytyke]

This collapse of government will by definition mean investors turn away at levels not seen before and the markets collapse

The people funding Reform would like that to happen very very much.

Look at how many of them made their fortunes in 1990s Russia.

Chaos is lucrative.

 

[philosopher]

Something that isn't understood enough is that any party, regardless of its intentions/policies, going from 5 seats to over 300, is going to collapse the country. Reform have no understanding of ministerial departments as they are not shadowing any, and no more than 5 or so MPs, plus a few Tory defections not currently in parliament, have any idea how the legislative process works. Yes you can research, but nothing beats on the job experience. This collapse of government will by definition mean investors turn away at levels not seen before and the markets collapse; I wouldn't be surprised if this starts happening in the election campaign if the odds of Reform winning are high.

Now they might argue that the whole system is the problem and therefore not following it doesn't matter, and yes it's full of problems. However, building a more effective system requires knowledge of how the current one operates, especially as not everything in it is a problem, but destroying this suddenly makes it a problem.

The same logic applies if the Greens or any other party were to suddenly go from 4 to over 300 seats, as they have no such widespread experience either. It may not be so bad for the Lib Dems, as they have 70-odd MPs and places on Select Committees, but it's still a big step up. If Reform UK are to ever have an effective government on their own, they'd be better off going up to 100-150 seats at the next election and trying to go for power in 2033-2034.

Personally I do not think Reform will win a majority. At the moment, they are benefitting from both Kier Starmer and Kemi Badenoch being very unpopular. I think it is likely at least one of them will be replaced by the time the next election comes round, which may help them slightly in the polls. Also, given Reform are very divisive, they will be suffer quite badly from tactical voting against them.

What I think is most likely is that Reform are the largest party but can only form a majority government with Tories. Labour would probably require a coalition of the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP to form a coalition. The former is possible, but I am not sure the Tories would be very keen entering into a coalition as a junior partner. The latter coalition would very likely be unworkable.