Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
bad company said:
Dave200 said:
It's either thick or a proven liar. Which is it?
You’re really not doing yourself any favours with your aggressive approach. This is frustrating, it stifles debate & gives the impression you are istening to no one except yourself and thus you are contributing to the friction. I have no idea why you do it, maybe you're assured of your beliefs, maybe the issues are a bit too much to process, doesn't really matter but you shoould recognise it's also you as much as the other guy.
President Merkin said:
I agree. If there's one way to get someone to pull down the shutters, it's to call them thick. However. you ought to accept that you have a habit of repeating Reform talking points that are not only untrue but easily disproved and that attracts people only to willing to correct you, whereupon you ignore them & repeat them.
This is frustrating, it stifles debate & gives the impression you are istening to no one except yourself and thus you are contributing to the friction. I have no idea why you do it, maybe you're assured of your beliefs, maybe the issues are a bit too much to process, doesn't really matter but you shoould recognise it's also you as much as the other guy.
I’ve acknowledged faults in the Reform message and my issues with the other parties. As I said I’m still undecided.This is frustrating, it stifles debate & gives the impression you are istening to no one except yourself and thus you are contributing to the friction. I have no idea why you do it, maybe you're assured of your beliefs, maybe the issues are a bit too much to process, doesn't really matter but you shoould recognise it's also you as much as the other guy.
JagLover said:
Also the retirement age has been changing, such that the numbers in receipt of the state pension has actually fallen slightly over the past decade not increased.
We also have roughly a million more working age people on out of work benefits since 2019 and another million forecast to join them. So the issue is more about trying to increase workforce participation and not, at present, demographic collapse.
Add to that the fact that it is only the last 10 years of life where older people need support. If the average age rises from 70 to 80 but the number of older people is reducing due to the boomers dying off we will need less care not more. We also have roughly a million more working age people on out of work benefits since 2019 and another million forecast to join them. So the issue is more about trying to increase workforce participation and not, at present, demographic collapse.
bad company said:
Dave200 said:
It's either thick or a proven liar. Which is it?
You’re really not doing yourself any favours with your aggressive approach. Tell me again how my replies to debunk your lies were "unfounded and aggressive". Your victim complex is hilarious.
bad company said:
President Merkin said:
I agree. If there's one way to get someone to pull down the shutters, it's to call them thick. However. you ought to accept that you have a habit of repeating Reform talking points that are not only untrue but easily disproved and that attracts people only to willing to correct you, whereupon you ignore them & repeat them.
This is frustrating, it stifles debate & gives the impression you are istening to no one except yourself and thus you are contributing to the friction. I have no idea why you do it, maybe you're assured of your beliefs, maybe the issues are a bit too much to process, doesn't really matter but you shoould recognise it's also you as much as the other guy.
I’ve acknowledged faults in the Reform message and my issues with the other parties. As I said I’m still undecided.This is frustrating, it stifles debate & gives the impression you are istening to no one except yourself and thus you are contributing to the friction. I have no idea why you do it, maybe you're assured of your beliefs, maybe the issues are a bit too much to process, doesn't really matter but you shoould recognise it's also you as much as the other guy.
Makes sense.
bad company said:
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he and the party have been very badly treated by the BBC. The very biased Question Time audience being a clear example. I’m also a bit put off by the numbers of racist supporters.
.
Good policies? They fall apart at the merest scrutiny..
Treated badly by the BBC? He’s has more coverage than all the other minor party leaders combined. He’s been on QT more than virtually any other politician. You’re just upset that they are finally holding him to account on his policies and his past comments.
He struggles when he’s pushed on policy and when he’s not allowed to reply in rehearsed soundbites and scripts. Look at the Royal Marines comment. Pushed on his immigration policy and how he’d return migrants and he fell apart and came out with the utterly unworkable RM reply. (Or do you think it’s a good idea?).
He attracts racists because his language is very carefully chosen to attract them. Ask yourself why he continually has this issue? Why are racists and bigots attracted to him?
anonymoususer said:
Unfortunately (for them) they seem to be riddled with racist candidates that are being slowly revealed
Take a look at the diverse candidates here https://www.facebook.com/share/v/bcAtaPWxpqkXbnBj/Racist: no.
valiant said:
bad company said:
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he and the party have been very badly treated by the BBC. The very biased Question Time audience being a clear example. I’m also a bit put off by the numbers of racist supporters.
.
Good policies? They fall apart at the merest scrutiny..
Treated badly by the BBC? He’s has more coverage than all the other minor party leaders combined. He’s been on QT more than virtually any other politician. You’re just upset that they are finally holding him to account on his policies and his past comments.
He struggles when he’s pushed on policy and when he’s not allowed to reply in rehearsed soundbites and scripts. Look at the Royal Marines comment. Pushed on his immigration policy and how he’d return migrants and he fell apart and came out with the utterly unworkable RM reply. (Or do you think it’s a good idea?).
He attracts racists because his language is very carefully chosen to attract them. Ask yourself why he continually has this issue? Why are racists and bigots attracted to him?
This is the same Farage who, in spite of never being an elected MP, is one of the top 10 most regular guests since QT started in the 70s. They've literally given him a platform to spout his lies and vitriol.
But apparently this is him being "treated badly".
ds in the media how dare they hold him to account.smn159 said:
Dagnir said:
Dave200 said:
Because it gets the gammony types (of all ages) all riled up.
No need to bring race into it....
JagLover said:
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.
So you’re happy with French-style taxation to pay for it? I’d be delighted if we started spending as much as France on public services, benefits, etc. If Farage is promising that, he has my vote!No? Thought not…
JagLover said:
We also have roughly a million more working age people on out of work benefits since 2019 and another million forecast to join them. So the issue is more about trying to increase workforce participation and not, at present, demographic collapse.
Care to share your data for this claim? I’m not seeing that here: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docu...valiant said:
bad company said:
Reform. Some good policies imo but are they properly costed? I like Nigel Farage though, he and the party have been very badly treated by the BBC. The very biased Question Time audience being a clear example. I’m also a bit put off by the numbers of racist supporters.
.
Good policies? They fall apart at the merest scrutiny..
Treated badly by the BBC? He’s has more coverage than all the other minor party leaders combined. He’s been on QT more than virtually any other politician. You’re just upset that they are finally holding him to account on his policies and his past comments.
He struggles when he’s pushed on policy and when he’s not allowed to reply in rehearsed soundbites and scripts. Look at the Royal Marines comment. Pushed on his immigration policy and how he’d return migrants and he fell apart and came out with the utterly unworkable RM reply. (Or do you think it’s a good idea?).
He attracts racists because his language is very carefully chosen to attract them. Ask yourself why he continually has this issue? Why are racists and bigots attracted to him?
Your second point is an opinion. Does the RM solution work? I honestly don’t know but the current policies certainly aren’t working.
Racists are attracted to Reform, that’s clear. They’re not being invited as far as I can see and such people are bound to be attracted to the right wing parties.
Mrr T said:
So what else would you do?
I have made some suggestions.
1. Large increase in retirement age.
2. Reduction of state pension costs either by cutting in real terms or means testing.
3. Rationing of healthcare for retirees.
Best of luck getting elected on those policies.
Unfortunately, 50% of society is below average intelligence.
I would agree reducing it from it current level would have little problem. However, the reform policy is.
What we do know is any changes will be the responsibility of the government so we cannot assume it will be a complete f**I up.
Well we are already increasing the retirement age and I think people are starting to realise that the pension might not actually be there for them when they eventually reach that point.I have made some suggestions.
1. Large increase in retirement age.
2. Reduction of state pension costs either by cutting in real terms or means testing.
3. Rationing of healthcare for retirees.
Best of luck getting elected on those policies.
Unfortunately, 50% of society is below average intelligence.
I would agree reducing it from it current level would have little problem. However, the reform policy is.
What we do know is any changes will be the responsibility of the government so we cannot assume it will be a complete f**I up.
As I said in an earlier post I think it should be means tested and I think any efforts to over complicate private pensions like the lifetime allowance and tapering should be dropped. I would rather have people plan for their own retirement than pay them a pension that is later clawed back in the form of inheritance tax.
I agree with your comments about how this stuff plays with the electorate. But that’s how we have ended up with two parties that are broadly similar in policy and differ mostly in rhetoric. For almost 30 years politics has inhabited the centre left, whether its badged that way or otherwise. Corbyn tried to drag it left and failed as it was unnecessary. Reform are trying to drag it right and I think will get a bit further in that endeavour.
I think we do need some change. Time will tell if this achieves that
Elysium said:
No Vanden Saab is right
ONS prediction for the 25 years from 2021 to 2036 is that 10.8 million people will be born and 10.3 million people will die.
But they also predict net migration of 6.2million, which is the equivalent of adding 2.5 cities the size of Birmingham:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68139947
The Conservatives and Labour both have manifesto commitments on immigration. It is a major issue for this election.
Twenty five years is nothing.ONS prediction for the 25 years from 2021 to 2036 is that 10.8 million people will be born and 10.3 million people will die.
But they also predict net migration of 6.2million, which is the equivalent of adding 2.5 cities the size of Birmingham:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68139947
The Conservatives and Labour both have manifesto commitments on immigration. It is a major issue for this election.
Isn’t it an amazing we managed to add 15M over 35% to the population in the period post 1900 to about 1970 with few of the problems we now face. I would contend largely because provided the social housing and services to cop with that growth.
As I said previously of U.K. families had carried on growing at the rate we had in 1969, 50 years ago we would have reached over 80M completely organically and no one would be complains about population size.
Dave200 said:
You're a proven liar in this thread. A functioning adult would own it and fess up, but you continue to dig a hole.
Dave200 said:
... dog-whistle tosh I'd expect from a Reform candidate, not a balanced adult.
Dave200 said:
It's either thick or a proven liar. Which is it?
The mods really ought to deal with your repeated unpleasantness, and maybe you could just roll back your troll farm post rate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff