Gransnet forums

News & politics

Reform admits their proposed tax cuts are just an ASPIRATION

(37 Posts)
sunami Mon 13-Oct-25 17:57:30

LemonJam

MaizieD

They are Farage/Reform proposed spending cuts not mine. He proposes to make the cuts and then when successful use the savings to make tax cuts.

Hmmm ...

So let's assume he is successful in cutting a sixth of the public services budget. Savings will have been achieved by cutting jobs because most public services are labour-intensive. The outcome will be a huge increase in unemployment. Presumably these poor people will be given a meagre amount of Universal Credit, which will cut the amount which has been saved, so more will need to be cut to compensate. Which taxes are going to be cut with all this saved money? Who will actually end up benefiting from this cutting of public services and taxes? Maybe people should think about that before they go to the ballot box. It could be that taxes are cut for those who still have jobs, but that won't be much good if you don't have a job.

It's bonkers!

LemonJam Mon 13-Oct-25 17:49:05

MaizieD

They are Farage/Reform proposed spending cuts not mine. He proposes to make the cuts and then when successful use the savings to make tax cuts.

MaizieD Mon 13-Oct-25 14:50:47

LemonJam

Farage has previously said he expected to make £350bn worth of spending cuts over the course of the parliament – the equivalent of axing the whole schools budget every year or wiping out a third of NHS funding annually.

He has said he would "find the savings via cuts to net zero, migrant hotels and diversity initiatives".

What is the POINT of spending cuts?

Do you realise that George Osborne, whose baby was 'austerity' had no background in economics whatsoever? He was an Arts graduate.

The cuts to state spending he wanted weren't justified by empirical economic evidence, they were based on the neoclassical economic theory (a completely unevidenced theory) that state spending 'crowded out' private sector investment. in other words, not enough money around to do both.. hmm What the neoclassical lot really meant was that they thought state spending curtailed their opportunity to make money from the provision of goods and services.

Completely ignoring the fact that state spending gave business to the private sector because the state didn't produce the necessary resources. It didn't manufacture hospital beds, or cleaning materials, or stationery etc. etc.

But his prime motivation was ideological; shrinking the' state' in order to offer more opportunities to the private sector. Nothing to do with running a national economy, just enriching the private sector.

The all pervading belief that a national budget is like a household or business budget; that the state has a finite amount of money which must be carefully husbanded is just completely untrue. State spending is limited by the resources available for purchase, not by the amount of money it has in the kitty. The state creates all the money in the economy. This is empirical fact. It cannot run out of money.

Chocolatelovinggran Mon 13-Oct-25 14:15:40

In Kent, there was much talk about how much money would be saved by cutting DEI "woke" initiatives.
In power, they found....none: it's been a Conservative run council for many years and they were not big on these things.
However, they were very proud to announce that they had taken down the flag of Ukraine from County Hall.
I'm not sure quite how important that was to the council tax payers.

LemonJam Mon 13-Oct-25 14:10:54

Farage has previously said he expected to make £350bn worth of spending cuts over the course of the parliament – the equivalent of axing the whole schools budget every year or wiping out a third of NHS funding annually.

He has said he would "find the savings via cuts to net zero, migrant hotels and diversity initiatives".

LemonJam Mon 13-Oct-25 13:54:56

MaizieD Mon 13-Oct-25 13:24:21
Question to Gransnetters, which public services, if any would you be happy to be downsized and how?

"I wouldn't be happy to see any public services downsized because it is and economically illiterate thing to do".

MaizieD- I absolutely agree with you. However Reform promises tax cuts based on "slash of wasteful government spending", i.e. a DOGE type approach as in US. That worries me, particularly as Reform are riding high in the polls. I don't think there is much waste to achieve after previous years of austerity. But other Grasnetters may be considering voting for Reform and this proposed DOGE style approach hence asking the question....

Is the Reform DOGE style cost cutting approach credible and realistic? If so where can savings costs be achieved specifically?

Here are the UK Public Spending Statistics: July 2025 to help:

Social Protection £383.9 billion- state pensions, disability benefits like PIP, unemployment support like UC and help with housing, maternity and caring costs.

Health £241.8bn - Hospitals, GPs and Public Health.

Defence £63.6bn , Military operations and equipment.

Public Order and Safety £51.4bn - Police, courts, prisons and fire service.

Education £118.7bn - Schools and other educational institutions.

Economic Affairs £86.8bn - Business support, , transport and infrastructure.

General Public Services £157.6bn - Government administration and law enforcement.

Housing and Community £22.3bn- Housing development and community support.

Recreation, Culture and Religion £14.5bn - Parks and heritage sites.

Environment protection £17.1bn- Waste management and conservation efforts.

sunami Mon 13-Oct-25 13:49:31

If public services are cut, presumably unemployment would increase. People would sit around not being employed to do all the tasks people would moan about not being done.

I can't honestly see people doing social or health care roles or teaching or filling potholes or chasing criminals voluntarily. I guess some people could afford to pay private contractors, but I can't see how that would work.

Would people have to pay tolls to use non-pothole roads, while those who can't afford to pay would be for bumpy tracks? Some people couldn't/wouldn't pay for education, so what exactly would the country do with millions of illiterate people? The same with the millions who wouldn't be able to afford healthcare or care in their later years? Would we need to bring back workhouses?

MaizieD Mon 13-Oct-25 13:24:21

Question to Gransnetters, which public services, if any would you be happy to be downsized and how?

I wouldn't be happy to see any public services downsized because it is and economically illiterate thing to do.

The funding of public services contributes to GROWTH in the UK economy. Cutting public services contributes to decline in the UK economy because it cuts jobs, with loss to the public sector of tax revenues and to the private sector of business, with a consequent loss of jobs and of tax revenue.

The significance of any investment can be assessed by the economic activity it gives rise to. A rough guide to its value is the 'multiplier', an estimate of how many pounds worth of economic activity is produced by one pounds worth of investment. The NHS is reckoned to have a multiplier of 3, it's likely that Education isn't that far off 3. Some services, such as the police and law courts may not appear to enhance economic activity but there is a heavy financial cost to cutting them, in poor police services , long delays in cases coming to court etc.

Then look at regulators which can't do their jobs properly because of cuts to their departments. Why do you think we have rivers and seas full of sh*t?

Cutting any services is utterly ridiculous. It just contributes to the deterioration of all services and greater and greater hardship and dissatisfaction among all of us who depend on them.

keepingquiet Mon 13-Oct-25 13:18:44

The closer they get to having any power the more the reality of serious politics is going to hit home and the electorate will judge them as being the same as all the others...!

Doodledog Mon 13-Oct-25 13:08:50

They have already said that the NHS will be shaken up if they get in. Those who can’t fund operations (not just the queue-jumping appointments to get them) are unlikely to benefit much from tax cuts, and the less well-off are, in many cases, more likely to need medical care, so it will be a double whammy for them.

Education is expensive, and the usual right-wing approach is to see it as something for those who can pay, with others getting training for the workplace, so my guess is that that would be cut too.

Social housing and benefits (including pensions) would be targeted, as would what is left of social care, which would cost even more if immigrants are sent home.

sunami Mon 13-Oct-25 12:26:04

To put that £200bn into perspective, total spending in public services on 2024/5 is £1,278bn. Therefore, Reform is looking to cut about a sixth of all public spending.

About £190bn is spent on health and social care, £150bn is spent on pensioners and £89bn on education. I'm assuming people wouldn't want those areas to be cut.

LemonJam Mon 13-Oct-25 11:46:06

BREAKING NEWS- Richard Tice confirms Reform abandoning firm commitment to most of £90bn tax cuts in 2024 manifesto. Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, has confirmed that the party has dropped its commitment to most of the £90bn tax cuts it was promising in its election manifesto last year.

In a significant change of tack, the party is now saying that it will not implement tax cuts until it has cut government spending first.

Tice and Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, still believe that colossal cuts in public spending are achievable, and that these could be used to fund big tax cuts. But they have abandoned the bravado of the 2024 Reform manifesto, which implied rebalancing the economy in that way was relatively straightforward.

At their party conferences Labour and the Conservatives both claimed that Reform’s irresponsible economic policies would crash the economy just like Liz Truss’s mini-budget, and it is now clear that this line of attack seems to have had an impact.

In its manifesto, Reform proposed tax cuts worth £90bn, alongside spending commitments worth £50bn. The key tax cut would have been lifting the tax-free personal allowance to £20,000.

Today Tice told Times Radio that this was no longer a commitment, but just an “aspiration”. He said Reform remained committed to getting rid of net zero environmental levies, but he went on: “All the other details [in the manifesto] go because we’re in a different time.”

Tice explained:

A manifesto is based on a point in time. The principles behind it are absolutely rock solid. We said we’ve got to make very significant savings in order to fund a different way to run the economy.
What’s happened since then is that the state of the economy, because of the mismanagement by this Labour government, the numbers have got far worse. And we will be focusing relentlessly, as I’ve been saying, on the savings.
Tice was speaking after Farage told the Times in an interview that Reform would have a “rigorous and fully-costed manifesto” at the next election and that a Reform government could cut spending before it cut taxes. Farage said:

Reform will never borrow to spend, as Labour and the Tories have done for so long; instead, we will ensure savings are made before implementing tax cuts. I will have more to say on all this in the coming weeks.
The tax and spending policies in Reform’s 2024 manifesto were widely seen an unrealistic. Although the party claimed that its proposed cuts were affordable, the Economist published an analysis claiming that a more realistic assessment of the plans showed “the annual costs are in the region of £200bn and savings around £100bn”. The Economist said: “The gap between the two would amount to a colossal fiscal shock, blowing up the deficit and straining the gilt market to its limits.”

Reform is no different from any other party. All incoming governments inherit the budget deficits of the previous governments. Reform are now being honest that they will not/and can not give tax cuts until spending savings are made.

Reform proposed tax cuts are now admitted to just an ASPIRATION- AFTER £200bn saved from public spending, on top of any existing defect it inherits were it to win a GE.

The question is - where can Reform realistically find the £200bn savings it needs without blowing up the economy and decimating public services?

Question to Gransnetters, which public services, if any would you be happy to be downsized and how?