Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?

[Mrr T]

Olivera said:

Mrr T said:

So us demographic doom mongers, who say the UK needs immigration to increase the size of the work force, should row back our comments because you have just showed that because of immigration our work retire ratio is being maintained. Did you think that though?

The doom mongers posit we have an *immediate* crisis caused by an aging population. One would expect to therefore see a declining workforce, but in fact we see the opposite. So the problem is overstated and hence we have scope to reduce net immigration.

I did not say that I said the UK was facing a major demographic problem. This was largely corrected due to immigration post EU 14 assertion.

Can we reduce immigration, which the Tories seem to have maxed out on. Likely but the reform idea we can stop makes no sense as life expectancy continues to increase. There would not be an immediate problem but once the problem grows it requires even higher levels of immigration to correct.

I do not usually link to wiki but this shows what is happening in Japan a country which has always limited immigration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ja...

[Dave200]

LimmerickLad said:

Dave200 said:

The policy to dismantle the NHS and replace it with an insurance system reminiscent of the US?

Is that what is stated in their manifesto / contract or your interpretation?

Unlike the unfounded 'Labour bogeyman' stuff that's doing the rounds to scare older voters, the Reform party leader has been consistently quoted as saying he wants "privatisation of the NHS" (not my words, but a direct quote from him).

A vote for Reform is a vote that supports "privatisation of the NHS".

[skwdenyer]

bad company said:

That’s an over simplistic and inaccurate assessment. Of course the country needs immigration but it needs to be controlled, not predominantly uneducated young males arriving illegally.

I don’t think Reform as a party are saying any different. They are attracting some racist support though which is a shame.

Talking of over-simplistic and inaccurate assessments, immigration *is* controlled and is *not* predominantly uneducated young males arriving illegally.

People voted for a points-based immigration system based upon national need. That’s what we’ve got. Illegal immigration is a rounding error to that.

[LimmerickLad]

Dave200 said:

LimmerickLad said:

Dave200 said:

The policy to dismantle the NHS and replace it with an insurance system reminiscent of the US?

Is that what is stated in their manifesto / contract or your interpretation?

Unlike the unfounded 'Labour bogeyman' stuff that's doing the rounds to scare older voters, the Reform party leader has been consistently quoted as saying he wants "privatisation of the NHS" (not my words, but a direct quote from him).

A vote for Reform is a vote that supports "privatisation of the NHS".

So you made your interpretation up then?

[JagLover]

Dave200 said:

LimmerickLad said:

Dave200 said:

The policy to dismantle the NHS and replace it with an insurance system reminiscent of the US?

Is that what is stated in their manifesto / contract or your interpretation?

Unlike the unfounded 'Labour bogeyman' stuff that's doing the rounds to scare older voters, the Reform party leader has been consistently quoted as saying he wants "privatisation of the NHS" (not my words, but a direct quote from him).

A vote for Reform is a vote that supports "privatisation of the NHS".

There are many different types of health systems and Reform are talking of a more European system. Farage has explicitly said he wants a "French style" system.

[Dave200]

swisstoni said:

Dave200 said:

bad company said:

Dave200 said:

Yes, my lack of evidence is definitely the problem here.

The problem here definitely isn't you lying to yourself and presenting statements without fact.

1. Less than 30,000 people reached the UK on small boats last year.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...
Our total immigration was 1.22 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigra...
That means that people on "small boats" made up around 2% of our immigration last year.

Your first lie, comprehensively debunked.

2. 93% of "small boat" arrivals are claiming asylum, which is completely and totally legal. Absolutely nothing illegal at all.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...

Your second lie, comprehensively debunked.

Now, do please stop lying so obviously. It's very unbecoming of an adult.

1. You really think 30,000 illegals arriving in small boats is ok? As you know I was referring to the predominantly uneducated young males who arrive illegally by boat.

2. They should claim asylum in the first safe country. Why not France?

You throw around a lot of aggression and unfounded allegations of lies including previously a link to some twisted Twitter account.

Brilliant. You get even better as you scramble to stay on your high horse. I've seen better attempts at deflection by children.

I've yet again comprehensively debunked your lies in this thread, using the actual law (you know, not the one you like to pretend exists) and actual government data.

Your response to this comprehensive dismantling of your 'argument' is to tell me I'm throwing around "unfounded allegations".

And to put the icing on the cake you try to accuse me of "aggression" because I'm calling out your lies. Just brilliant.

You're a proven liar in this thread. A functioning adult would own it and fess up, but you continue to dig a hole.

Nice to see you posting again. Been anywhere nice?

It is illegal to enter the country in the way the people on boats do.
But when they immediately claim asylum, a whole set of international asylum seeker laws are invoked.

The UK could technically refuse to offer asylum because they clearly haven’t claimed asylum at their first safe country.

But as the UK is a grown up G7 member, that’s not a good look and would get at least as messy as the current situation.

Once the 93% who claim asylum on arrival do so, their method of arrival and its legality is irrelevant.

Calling them all "illegal immigrants" is the sort of baseless, dog-whistle tosh I'd expect from a Reform candidate, not a balanced adult.

[Elysium]

Mrr T said:

Elysium said:

There is obviously also an issue of demography with an aging population. But if our strategy is to keep bringing in young immigrants so that their children prop up our national insurance system, then that will ultimately fail.

More than half of the population take more out of the system than they put in. If the immigrants are younger and have more children, then they will be disproportionately in that group.

The entire tax system is propped up by those paying higher and additional rate taxes.

Something has to change here, otherwise we are on a never ending tax escalator.

This is one of the reasons why I actually quite like the Reform idea of a tax rebate for private healthcare. I would also support means testing of the state pension. The ‘safety net’ of the welfare state only needs to be there for those who need it.

I would rather see people fund their own retirement than have them supported by the state who then grab back the cost with inheritance tax.

It is a ponzi scene but it should work for another 20 to 30 years and there really are no alternatives.

As for the 50% who take out more than they put in, 20% of the UK population is retired and almost all fall into that category. Immigration gives you a new worker with no cost for education, who will then have children which we will educate but then they will work for 45 years.

Calculating the benefits of immigration is not just about how much tax they pay you also need to consider,
1. Indirect taxes, we know the ONS figure excludes employer NI, it also does not consider the output from the immigrant which will also generate tax.
2. The opportunity costs. For example the care industry is heavily dependant on immigration. Less immigration less care beds more people stuck in hospital which is far more expensive and stops others getting treatment.

Best of luck with means testing pensions. It's not on the reform policy list. Looking at the meetings I can see why. As for making private healthcare tax deductible its good to know reform have found the magic money tree.

I am not sure I see the merits in maintaining a ponzi scheme for another 20-30 years.

If we are to have a solution by then we need to start thinking about it now. Society seems to have decided that we should, which is why immigration control is being championed by most parties in this election.

[LimmerickLad]

JagLover said:

Dave200 said:

LimmerickLad said:

Dave200 said:

The policy to dismantle the NHS and replace it with an insurance system reminiscent of the US?

Is that what is stated in their manifesto / contract or your interpretation?

Unlike the unfounded 'Labour bogeyman' stuff that's doing the rounds to scare older voters, the Reform party leader has been consistently quoted as saying he wants "privatisation of the NHS" (not my words, but a direct quote from him).

A vote for Reform is a vote that supports "privatisation of the NHS".

There are many different types of health systems and Reform are talking of a more European system. Farage has explicitly said he wants a "French style" system.

Indeed...fill your boots Dave
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/25...

and while you are at it goggle The National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 (c 56)

Edited by LimmerickLad on Wednesday 3rd July 12:14

[bitchstewie]

biggbn said:

bhstewie said:

And now we have this filth.

Reform UK candidate described autistic people as ‘vegetables’

There really is no gutter they won't crawl down into is there.

This is getting incredible, isn't it?

We've had:

• Anti-Black racism
• Anti-Muslim racism
• Anti-Semitism
• Misogyny
• Homophobia

And now we're mocking disabled people.

How can anyone say they're still considering voting for people with those views?

[Dave200]

bhstewie said:

biggbn said:

bhstewie said:

And now we have this filth.

Reform UK candidate described autistic people as ‘vegetables’

There really is no gutter they won't crawl down into is there.

This is getting incredible, isn't it?

We've had:

• Anti-Black racism
• Anti-Muslim racism
• Anti-Semitism
• Misogyny
• Homophobia

And now we're mocking disabled people.

How can anyone say they're still considering voting for people with those views?

Because they promise to "get the immigration crisis under control", by focusing their efforts and energies on the 2% who arrive in "small boats".

I'd almost like to see them get into power, just to watch at their amateurish attempts to run the country reduce the party to a smouldering wreck. They'd be like the dog that caught the car.

[Dagnir]

Dave200 said:

Because it gets the gammony types (of all ages) all riled up.

No need to bring race into it....

[bad company]

bhstewie said:

We've had:

• Anti-Black racism
• Anti-Muslim racism
• Anti-Semitism
• Misogyny
• Homophobia

And now we're mocking disabled people.

How can anyone say they're still considering voting for people with those views?

There’s no denying that a few undesirable people have been attracted to Reform. None of that is in their policy/manifesto/contract.

Yes the undesirables trouble me but I’m also troubled by policies from the other parties.

[Mrr T]

swisstoni said:

Nice to see you posting again. Been anywhere nice?

It is illegal to enter the country in the way the people on boats do.
But when they immediately claim asylum, a whole set of international asylum seeker laws are invoked.

The UK could technically refuse to offer asylum because they clearly haven’t claimed asylum at their first safe country.

But as the UK is a grown up G7 member, that’s not a good look and would get at least as messy as the current situation.

If I may correct you.

The international asylum laws you refer to are the UNCR and protocol, which the UK has signed and is incorporated into UK law.

Entering the UK without the normal papers if you are entitled to asylum is not illegal under UK law.

There is no first safe country rule, although travel though intermediate countries should be done as quickly as practicable. That UK case law.

Hope that helps.

[fido]

bhstewie said:

How can anyone say they're still considering voting for people with those views?

Same way you can vote for Labour even though it has harboured racists and anti-semites. Reform has a reasonably diverse set of candidates so unless you have the cognitive ability of Narinder Kaur it isn't a racist party.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 3rd July 12:26

[bitchstewie]

bad company said:

There’s no denying that a few undesirable people have been attracted to Reform. None of that is in their policy/manifesto/contract.

Yes the undesirables trouble me but I’m also troubled by policies from the other parties.

Yeah it's always just a "few undesirable people" isn't it.

Is that how you justify it to yourself?

Is migration or dislike of the Conservatives really that much of an issue to you that you're willing to endorse that sort of behaviour?

What's your personal tipping point where you'd accept it goes beyond a "few undesirable people" to a pattern of candidates having some absolutely gross views?

At some point surely it comes down to "I can't vote for people like this" doesn't it?

[President Merkin]

fido said:

Same way you can vote for Labour even though it has harboured racists and anti-semites.

This is a ludicrous false equivalence. I think you must either know this in which case you're posting in bad faith or you genuinely believe the two parties are equivalent in which case you aren't up to speed enough to involve yourself in the conversation. Neither is a very good look.

[captain_cynic]

bhstewie said:

We've had:

• Anti-Black racism
• Anti-Muslim racism
• Anti-Semitism
• Misogyny
• Homophobia

And now we're mocking disabled people.

How can anyone say they're still considering voting for people with those views?

Because that is exactly the kind of people Farage courts.

He knows exactly what he's doing, of all the unkind things we can say about Farage, idiot is not one of them.

His supporters, sure but not Farage.

He's deliberately going after the crowd that wants bigotry back whilst trying hard to claim he's not a bigot.

[Dave200]

bhstewie said:

bad company said:

There’s no denying that a few undesirable people have been attracted to Reform. None of that is in their policy/manifesto/contract.

Yes the undesirables trouble me but I’m also troubled by policies from the other parties.

Yeah it's always just a "few undesirable people" isn't it.

Is that how you justify it to yourself?

Is migration or dislike of the Conservatives really that much of an issue to you that you're willing to endorse that sort of behaviour?

What's your personal tipping point where you'd accept it goes beyond a "few undesirable people" to a pattern of candidates having some absolutely gross views?

At some point surely it comes down to "I can't vote for people like this" doesn't it?

We've already seen that he's willing to openly lie, so I wouldn't expect a straight answer on this one. It will probably be along the lines of "well yeah, but there are nasty people on all the parties", or something similarly disingenuous.

[fido]

President Merkin said:

This is a ludicrous false equivalence. I think you must either know this in which case you're posting in bad faith or you genuinely believe the two parties are equivalent in which case you aren't up to speed enough to involve yourself in the conversation. Neither is a very good look.

Well yes you are right Labour is actually worse as it was run by someone with those credentials, so desperate were they to get into power. It also has support of Islamists who Labour are now fighting over with Galloway's parrty. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/16/labour-activists-13-seats-party-muslim-voters-gaza)

Edited by fido on Wednesday 3rd July 12:31

[President Merkin]

fido said:

President Merkin said:

This is a ludicrous false equivalence. I think you must either know this in which case you're posting in bad faith or you genuinely believe the two parties are equivalent in which case you aren't up to speed enough to involve yourself in the conversation. Neither is a very good look.

Well yes you are right Labour is actually worse as it was run by someone with those credentials, so desperate were they to get into power.

Ah. Bad faith then.