[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[pocketseagull]

I believe the protocol as highlighted by one of the NSC’s greatest minds whilst communicating with @TomandJerry is that you ought to provide a link connected to your post

No one is expecting a list of sources for posts. People are asking @TomandJerry to link to articles they're directly copying and pasting from.

 

[Guinness Boy]

No one is expecting a list of sources for posts. People are asking @TomandJerry to link to articles they're directly copying and pasting from.

And have done for their entire NSC career and have been told not to more than once!

 

[TomandJerry]

Interesting, so I wonder what is being cut?

I find it suspicious that they have listed what they are going to increase, but not what is being cut. Looks like spin to me.

 

[BBassic]

I believe the protocol as highlighted by one of the NSC’s greatest minds whilst communicating with @TomandJerry is that you ought to provide a link connected to your post

Posted this about Resolute 1850 a few days ago which mentions possibilities for the NHS becoming an insurance model:

In December last year, Resolute 1850 Ltd was incorporated in the UK. With a thinktank soon to be launched and funds from MAGA, American Big Tech and the US religious right already pledged, it seeks to use Reform as a vessel to bring Project 2025-style policies to the UK.

In a presentation document seen by The Financial Times, the initial aims of Resolute 1850 include:

• the reduction of state-funded services to shrink the public sector
• the opposition of DEI and Net Zero initiatives
• transitioning the NHS to an insurance-based system

‘Resolute 1850’: Reform UK Ltd’s MAGA plan to turn Britain into Little America

Right-wing US interests are pushing a plan to bend the UK to their will, ‘DOGE’-style – in Farage’s Reform UK they have an eager little helper

yorkshirebylines.co.uk

That last one especially should be very concerning to everyone on this island. Well, everyone except for whom an insurance based NHS would present an opportunity for profit.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I believe the protocol as highlighted by one of the NSC’s greatest minds whilst communicating with @TomandJerry is that you ought to provide a link connected to your post

As most people online say. do your own research It's easily found.

There again, I produced the entirety of Sir Winston Churchill's speech in Amsterdam 9th May 1948, regarding the ECHR, and his views on Europe, which was studiously ignored by the person I was replying to.

 

[BadFish]

I believe the protocol as highlighted by one of the NSC’s greatest minds whilst communicating with @TomandJerry is that you ought to provide a link connected to your post

I posted the link that shows the evidence, just above your post.

 

[BadFish]

View attachment 201679

What am I missing in here?

"Govt dept, Quangoes and Commissions" ?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I suspect one reason people are supporting Reform is as a reaction to those (like the majority on here) who say that anyone who doesn’t agree with their politics is wrong, thick, racist and so on. This arrogance has created the space for Reform whom are attracting support simply by saying ‘we are listening to and understanding your concerns and you are not thick, but have a right to be heard as much as the ‘lanyard class’ ( an expression coined in an excellent Times column on the subject recently).

Do you not think 'lanyard class' is a dangerous generalisation, up there with 'woke' and 'dungaree tuggers'?

 

[BadFish]

Do you not think 'lanyard class' is a dangerous generalisation, up there with 'woke' and 'dungaree tuggers'?

Apparently, these are all acceptable examples of name calling.

Not the ones that send their callees straight into the arms of right wing charlatans

 

[SouthSaxon]

What am I missing in here?

"Govt dept, Quangoes and Commissions" ?

I’m mostly curious why “save £5 in 100” only amounts to £50 in the total column.

If they can’t perform basic proof reading…

 

[BadFish]

I’m mostly curious why “save £5 in 100” only amounts to £50 in the total column.

If they can’t perform basic proof reading…

I think its 5 saved in every 100 given all the areas they will save in, it will result in 50m savings.

Although it is badly written so I cannot be sure.

Edit - Found it here, where it is written better.

Save £5 in every £100.
We make these savings in business and at home. The public sector must be no exception. Every manager across government must find savings without touching frontline services. We should slash wasteful spending, cut bureaucracy and negotiate better value procurement across every department. This will enable lower taxes, more money in your pocket and boost our economy. This saves £50 billion per year.

Slash Government Waste

www.reformparty.uk

 

[dsr-burnley]

I would be very concerned about more (and quite vague) cuts to government departments. After Austerity, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't much left to try and cut.

I would also be concerned that they would try and replace the workers in those government departments with outside contractors or consultants with no obligation to act on the behalf of the people (This happened in Australia a few years ago and was very dodgy - and cost about twice the money they saved.)

At the start of "austerity", civil service numbers were 480,000 but were down to 385,000 by 2016. They're now at 515,000.

Civil service staff numbers | Institute for Government

Who exactly are civil servants and how many are there?

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

These numbers don't include people working for quangos. For example, in 2010 the NHS was ultimately administered by the civil service; many of those civil servants would now be working for NHS England so wouldn't be counted.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I’m mostly curious why “save £5 in 100” only amounts to £50 in the total column.

If they can’t perform basic proof reading…

It's £50 billion. Common practice to put "billion" at the top of the column rather than include all the zeroes.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think its 5 saved in every 100 given all the areas they will save in, it will result in 50m savings.

Although it is badly written so I cannot be sure.

Edit - Found it here, where it is written better.

Save £5 in every £100.
We make these savings in business and at home. The public sector must be no exception. Every manager across government must find savings without touching frontline services. We should slash wasteful spending, cut bureaucracy and negotiate better value procurement across every department. This will enable lower taxes, more money in your pocket and boost our economy. This saves £50 billion per year.

Slash Government Waste

www.reformparty.uk

A quite extraordinary statement by itself. Cutting office jobs and negotiating better value (i.e. cheaper) procurement will not grow the economy, because fewer people will be paying less for items that the seller has to cut costs to sell for less. It's a race to the bottom.

 

[SouthSaxon]

I think its 5 saved in every 100 given all the areas they will save in, it will result in 50m savings.

Although it is badly written so I cannot be sure.

Edit - Found it here, where it is written better.

Save £5 in every £100.
We make these savings in business and at home. The public sector must be no exception. Every manager across government must find savings without touching frontline services. We should slash wasteful spending, cut bureaucracy and negotiate better value procurement across every department. This will enable lower taxes, more money in your pocket and boost our economy. This saves £50 billion per year.

Slash Government Waste

www.reformparty.uk

Ah, thanks. The lack of £ on the 100 in the table led me to think it was savings across that many areas.

Moving on then…how much money will they be spending on identifying and eliminating wasteful spending, cutting bureaucracy and negotiating better value procurement? And is that costed into the £5 saved in every £100 or will that be an additional saving that’s needed to offset?

Saving money is an expensive business.

 

[Jim in the West]

Don't underestimate the willingness of the electorate to give the unpopular politician a bloody nose. The Democrats in the USA did that, and managed to appoint as candidates two of the few people who could have lost to Trump. As long as "mainstream" politicians persist with the attitude, or apparent attitude, shown on here (ie Reform voters are thick and wrong so we will ignore them), and as long as "mainstream" politicians continue to prove themselves incompetent to do what they want to do, then Reform will get votes.

This is the problem with populist parties and their leaders....they give voters a potentially enticing opportunity to give someone else a chance. Their main weapon is incredibly simplistic "solutions", lies, cheeky-chappie style bonhomie, etc, etc. They create division and spread disinformation all over the place. However, I very much doubt that any of the leaders of non-Reform parties is ignoring the Reform voter. In fact, the complete opposite with Labour and the Tories. Both are tacking further and further to the right in an effort to win (or win back) those voters.

However, at the end of the day, the best way to combat Reform is to actually improve the lives of the average citizen. Although many are doubting our current great leader (SK), he seems to be doing his damndest to ensure the UK economy can grow - recent trade deals with the US and India are important, as will be the imminent deal with the EU. These are boring, technocratic processes which will ultimately benefit us all. Farage and Reform would create chaos that not even the Tories could aspire to - and the losers would DEFINITELY be the poorer communities in the UK. Hopefully the current government can do enough to ensure that potential Reform voters see the light and avoid voting catastrophically against their own best interests.

 

[SouthSaxon]

It's £50 billion. Common practice to put "billion" at the top of the column rather than include all the zeroes.

I know that.

The issue was that it reads like they’ll save £5b each in 100 areas, which does not total £50b.

Badfish has provided the needed clarification.

 

[pocketseagull]

At the start of "austerity", civil service numbers were 480,000 but were down to 385,000 by 2016. They're now at 515,000.

Another Brexit bonus.

 

[Simster]

Any manifesto that says it will "cut waste" to the tune of billions deserves to be put straight in the bin. If it was that easy, why haven't other parties done it before? And that especially applies to parties who believe in a small public sector.

 

[WATFORD zero]

At the start of "austerity", civil service numbers were 480,000 but were down to 385,000 by 2016. They're now at 515,000.

Do you want to take a wild stab why they've increased hugely since 2016