Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Mrr T said:
Not sure that makes sense. If a commercial bank sells bond to the BOE it will be paid the value which may or make not be par. The money will not sit in the commercial bank, because the commercial bank will have borrowed to buy the bond. Why would the BOE offset the bond against the commercial banks reserves? Commercial banks do hold reserves with the BOE and the Bank does pay interest on those to the commercial banks because the banks have to borrow to make the deposit.
The BoE pays for the gilt buying and QE through creating bank reserves and the APF was only (iirc) buying bonds from counterparties who did have reserve accounts. crankedup5 said:
Let’s apply the critical thinking and vote Conservative / Labour again this time around, it’s worked so well in the past.
But in the system we have a vote for Reform is a wasted vote. They probably won't win any seats and and it will split the right wing vote. I've said it before that if the Tories and Reform combined their votes, they are not that far behind and it's certainly not insurmountable. If you sit on the right then the only way is to vote Tory and hope they mount a decent campaign. As it stands both parties will lose. Heavily.By all means vote Reform if it appeals to you but a vote for Reform is now effectively a vote for Labour or Lib Dems. (Which is great by the way so crack on
)It's no use complaining that we need the voting system to change to help the smaller parties as it simply isn't going to happen. You have to work with what you've got.
Edited by valiant on Monday 15th January 11:14
JagLover said:
valiant said:
JagLover said:
The Reform party members probably have about as much influence on their party as the Conservative party members do, whatever the differences in the formal structures.
Tory members can vote for their leader à la Truss.As in members can vote on candidate MPs................. from a shortlist drawn up by party HQ.
They theoretically vote on who should be leader, but in reality the MPs tend to present them a choice between who they want and some no-hoper and it may not ever reach them. If they still make the "wrong" choice then this can be corrected.
Members, unlike in the Labour party, have no say on policy.
gt_12345 said:
The only people who benefit from immigration are business and property owners.
Take that opinion to any Adult Social Care home or service, any local authority's waste management department, hospitality or healthcare sectors and report back to tell us how you got on.Just in case they hadn't thought of it, you might want to suggest that they pay more and recruit more British people or train more British people while you're at it.
And ignore anyone that points out that around 90% of the stock of the British population is immigrant stock - that's just history. History - Smistory! Who needs that, eh?
Or, to save you the time, you might want to step back a bit and reflect on the absurdity of such a statement.
valiant said:
crankedup5 said:
Let’s apply the critical thinking and vote Conservative / Labour again this time around, it’s worked so well in the past.
But in the system we have a vote for Reform is a wasted vote. They probably won't win any seats and and it will split the right wing vote. I've said it before that if the Tories and Reform combined their votes, they are not that far behind and it's certainly not insurmountable. If you sit on the right then the only way is to vote Tory and hope they mount a decent campaign. As it stands both parties will lose. Heavily.By all means vote Reform if it appeals to you but a vote for Reform is now effectively a vote for Labour or Lib Dems. (Which is great by the way so crack on
)It's no use complaining that we need the voting system to change to help the smaller parties as it simply isn't going to happen. You have to work with what you've got.
Edited by valiant on Monday 15th January 11:14
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
Paragraph 2 is the key note policy to raise 20/40bn. The problem is it means nothing, I mean the words actually have no meaning.
QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
Funnily enough there was an article in the business section discussing this very thing the other day. QE debt is owned by the BOE. It pays interest, but that's just the BOE paying itself.
There is no such thing as commercial bank reserves for QE. There are commercial bank reserves held by the BOE but they are nothing to do with QE.
I think this is actually a thing but perhaps not explained very well in the manifesto, I don't know as haven't read it.
Basically the BOE was buying bonds and commercial banks were holding reserves with them. During ultra-low interest rates the government was banking the profits and effectively paying interest at fractions of a percent on debt owned by the BOE. Now it is actually a cost as rates paid to commercial banks are higher than the bond rates. It is also a very significant cost at over £10bn an annum (from memory).
So one possible policy choice is to shift that cost onto the commercial banks. It may not be a wise thing to do but is actually theoretically possible according to the article I read.
Commercial banks hold reserves with the BOE. The BOE pays interest on those reserves. It has to do that because the commercial banks will have to borrow those monies.
I think the BOE does not MTM QE holding. So if during the QE it buys a bond with a coupon of 10%, even though it paid above par, it will still treat the 10% as interest.
This meant with interest rates falling the BOE was receiving more from QE than it paid the commercial banks on reserves. This was just a feature of the rates at the time since these figures have no real relationship. Since the Covid QE where the interest on the bonds was lower and now with rates rising the income from QE is less than interest paid on reserves. Lots of people did not seem to understand these figures are not related. Also commercial bank reserves do not just sit in the BOE account, the Bank uses them in its MM operations on which it does earn interest.
crankedup5 said:
Yup like I said, most voters who bother to vote will go for the same old same old that results in only one thing by the end of a Parliament. More debt, more disatisfaction, more broken promises leading to less of the electorate being interested in changing the same old stale politics. As you say, crack on.
Yup. Like voting Tory thinking things would get better.StevieBee said:
Take that opinion to any Adult Social Care home or service, any local authority's waste management department, hospitality or healthcare sectors and report back to tell us how you got on.
Just in case they hadn't thought of it, you might want to suggest that they pay more and recruit more British people or train more British people while you're at it.
And ignore anyone that points out that around 90% of the stock of the British population is immigrant stock - that's just history. History - Smistory! Who needs that, eh?
Or, to save you the time, you might want to step back a bit and reflect on the absurdity of such a statement.
Hadn't paid any attention to Reform until this thread came up, so I went and looked at their policy for dealing with the NHS issues. Just in case they hadn't thought of it, you might want to suggest that they pay more and recruit more British people or train more British people while you're at it.
And ignore anyone that points out that around 90% of the stock of the British population is immigrant stock - that's just history. History - Smistory! Who needs that, eh?
Or, to save you the time, you might want to step back a bit and reflect on the absurdity of such a statement.
On a superficial level there are some interesting ideas in their plan - exempting patient facing health workers from paying basic rate income tax for examp-le may very well help with recruitment, retention and even tempting back staff that had previously left the NHS. Costing for it doesn't look super silly either. BUT, how long before other parts of the public sector demand a similar concession? Then it becomes a nightmare.
Conclusion: Superficially interesting, might even contain the kernel of a good idea or two somewhere, but unworkable as presented.
One point I did agree on, and that is that more of the same is almost certainly not going to cut it. UK needs a new deal, and a new direction. Sunak is a broken record, the Tories look shabby, desperate and clueless . Barring something mind bending happening in 2024 SKS will win. I just hope he really does have some good ideas (that don't revolve around taxing everyone to death and gesture politics to appease the far left of his party) and that he has the balls to carry them out in the teeth of a recalcitrant CS and a public with the patience of a wasp.
Mrr T said:
Under QE the BOE bought bonds from commercial banks at market value. It did so by creating money which it did not have to pay interest on. The government paid the interest on gilts which the BOE received. The deal was very profitable to the BOE!
Oh really..... The BoE pays base rate against receiving whatever coupon the bond the APF is holding. How or why else is the APF racking a (very) large loss now as compared to making a profit previously when the base rate was 0.10-0.25%?gt_12345 said:
Mrr T said:
gt_12345 said:
Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Its not possible to answer your question because the figures you use are rubbish. I am sure you have used the figures before and I have explained why they are rubbish but you keep posting the same rubbish.90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
The 40k figure, I think it a bit less, is calculated by allocating all government costs on a per head basis. 29% of government is social benefits, pension, universal credit, and disability benefit, none of this will be paid to migrants. 20% is health so very little will be for migrants who are younger. 10% on education so none paid to migrants. 6% on defence, 10% on debt interest. So about 75% of the costs of government are nothing to do with the migrant.
It's likely a young fit migrant is contributing to the economy even on minimum wage.
As for education most migrants will contribute more over there life time because we did not have to pay for there education.
Young people don't use healthcare??
They are no different to a British person. Both consume Government expenditure.
An immigrants may use healthcare but far less than an 80 year old brit.
No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.
The fact remain the £40k figure is rubbish.
StevieBee said:
gt_12345 said:
The only people who benefit from immigration are business and property owners.
Take that opinion to any Adult Social Care home or service, any local authority's waste management department, hospitality or healthcare sectors and report back to tell us how you got on.Just in case they hadn't thought of it, you might want to suggest that they pay more and recruit more British people or train more British people while you're at it.
And ignore anyone that points out that around 90% of the stock of the British population is immigrant stock - that's just history. History - Smistory! Who needs that, eh?
Or, to save you the time, you might want to step back a bit and reflect on the absurdity of such a statement.
I meant mass unskilled immigration.
Looks like that blows all your points out the water.
Killboy said:
crankedup5 said:
Yup like I said, most voters who bother to vote will go for the same old same old that results in only one thing by the end of a Parliament. More debt, more disatisfaction, more broken promises leading to less of the electorate being interested in changing the same old stale politics. As you say, crack on.
Yup. Like voting Tory thinking things would get better.Over the decades I have voted Labour before moving to Lib Dem and last three elections Tory. None of these have delivered and indeed have left the Country worse off. Why keep voting for more of the same?
Mrr T said:
gt_12345 said:
Mrr T said:
gt_12345 said:
Kermit, please answer this:
90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
Its not possible to answer your question because the figures you use are rubbish. I am sure you have used the figures before and I have explained why they are rubbish but you keep posting the same rubbish.90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.
Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.
1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?
2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?
The 40k figure, I think it a bit less, is calculated by allocating all government costs on a per head basis. 29% of government is social benefits, pension, universal credit, and disability benefit, none of this will be paid to migrants. 20% is health so very little will be for migrants who are younger. 10% on education so none paid to migrants. 6% on defence, 10% on debt interest. So about 75% of the costs of government are nothing to do with the migrant.
It's likely a young fit migrant is contributing to the economy even on minimum wage.
As for education most migrants will contribute more over there life time because we did not have to pay for there education.
Young people don't use healthcare??
They are no different to a British person. Both consume Government expenditure.
An immigrants may use healthcare but far less than an 80 year old brit.
No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.
The fact remain the £40k figure is rubbish.
So the taxpayer funded the child's education (not their parents), funded their NHS AND probability suggests the child will be a net taker too.
So where's the benefit?
Seems like we're importing a lot of costs.
Killboy said:
JNW1 said:
Killboy said:
frisbee said:
How is it fair that a party that gets 10% of the vote doesn't get a single MP?
How many MPs should they get?If they can't win a constituency, who would they represent?
The answer to the second part is that it would depend on the system of Proportional Representation adopted; some retain more of a local constituency link, others more reflect the overall National voting pattern.
But however it's done, I'd argue 10% of the votes cast should translate into something fairly close to 10% of MP's in the House of Commons - if a party can poll millions of votes but end-up with no representation whatsoever in Parliament that's not terribly democratic IMO.
crankedup5 said:
That’s what I have said, whichever is voted for Tory / Labour will result in ———-
Over the decades I have voted Labour before moving to Lib Dem and last three elections Tory. None of these have delivered and indeed have left the Country worse off. Why keep voting for more of the same?
Its almost as if people should start holding their representatives to account.Over the decades I have voted Labour before moving to Lib Dem and last three elections Tory. None of these have delivered and indeed have left the Country worse off. Why keep voting for more of the same?
Getragdogleg said:
This is going to be like brexit isn't it? Lots of clever folk saying how bad and impossible it's going to be and how it will never happen and then on the day, Bang! A hefty share of the vote and puzzled clever folk asking why.
No, I'm fairly sure Reform will never have to deliver on their promises and just poke from the sidelines.They're disruptors not deliverers.
I agree with Isaldiri on that one.
I don't agree with some thinking that the UK is some sort of centrist compass. It isn't.
It's too easy for outlier parties to pick holes in the main ones. They're all full of problems. But if someone's just pointing out problems and not offering true solutions I'll dismiss them. I just wish more would dismiss reform as they're very representative of the accusation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff