Forum Topic

Reform U.K. ~ Contract With You

I watched the live event held in Wales this morning when Nigel Farage and Richard Tice presented Reform UK's Contract With You, deliberately not called a manifesto. I am sure 99% of you aren't interested but for those who have an open mind I have copied some very important pledges below:Reform U.K. 'Our Contract With You' Launch ~ Wales Monday 17th June 2024 https://www.facebook.com/share/v/mmJnLyeDE7ViM2oL/? First 100 days: Critical reforms needed in the first 100 days:Free Over 1.2 Million Small and Medium Sized Businesses from Corporation Tax.
Lift the minimum profit threshold to £100k. Reduce the main Corporation Tax Rate from 25% to 20%, then to 15% from year 5.Abolish IR35 Rules to Support Sole Traders.
Britain's self-employed often work longer hours and take more risks. Many have no pension and receive no sick pay.Lift the VAT Threshold to £120,000. 
Free up small entrepreneurs from red tape.                                                                                            Thereafter:Support Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.
SMEs represent over 95% of UK business and two thirds of all employment. Abolish Business Rates for High Street Based Small & Medium Firms. Offset this with Online Delivery Tax at 4% for large, multinational enterprises to create a fairer playing field for high streets. Cut entrepreneur's tax relief to 5%. SME Enterprise Zones for left-behind Areas with a period of zero tax for new or existing businesses that are creating jobs.Reform the Planning System.
Fast track new housing on brownfield sites and infrastructure projects to boost businesses, especially in the North and in coastal regeneration areas.Slash Business Red Tape. The Brexit Bonus.
Scrap thousands of laws that hold back British business and damage productivity, including employment laws that make it riskier to hire people.Reform the Tax System.
Major simplification is needed. At over 21,000 pages, the UK's tax code is a burden. Hong Kong's tax code is under 500 pages.Economy - Business Pledges Costs = £18 billion pa Inheritance Tax Reform has pledged to abolish inheritance tax for estates worth under £2m. In addition, it wants to reduce the charge from 40pc to 20pc. Currently, people can pass on £325,000 without having to pay death duties. Homeowners get an extra £175,000 allowance – so couples can leave behind a maximum of £1m.If you want to hear how Reform U.K. plan to fund these changes and to hear their policies on other key issues you can listen to the complete launch by using the FB link above. It has probably been uploaded to YT by now too.

Sue Hammond ● 654d21 Comments

The point I was trying to make is that a country can be a democracy without necessarily signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights. So a plan to withdraw from the Convention should not provoke quite so much moral indignation.I accept  that there may be problems, though not necessarily insuperable problems, in a withdrawal, which is why I support Rishi Sunak’s reluctance to take such a step if it can be avoided. But the question of who determines immigration policy is important.

Steven Rose ● 653d

You keep mentiong judges elected by popular vote.  That, I am sorry to say, is an anathema of common sense.  Could you tell me what basis do you or I, and everyboyd else for that matter, have to elect judges?I would much rather have judges that are elected by Member States' delegates based on names put forward by Member States.The court was not dictating environmental policy at all.  It  reached a decision on the basis that lack of action by the government of Switzerland, the right of Swiss people to live healthily in Switzerland.  The lack of action by the government meant that the future for the people did not have assurances for a healthy and happy life (or words to that effect).It is quite a case that the British Supreme Court also ruled that the Rwanda flights were illegal.So, following your line of thought, do you believe that the judiciary should be done away with?

Ivonne Holliday ● 653d

The last time I looked at a map the USA, Australia and Japan aren't part of Europe, so why would they be in the EUROPEAN Convention of Human Rights? I don't think there's been a radical tectonic plate movement has there?The United States and Japan along with the Holy See, Canada, Mexico are observer countries of the ECHR. Russia has been expelled because of its aggression against Ukraine, and Belarus's special guest status has been suspended due to its lack of respect for human rights and democratic principles. Why does anyone want to demote themselves in the category of Russia and Belarus? Better remain to strive to improve the ECHR for all members if you think it has problems? Anyway, what's the solution for the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit Cooperation Agreement?

Michael Ixer ● 653d

I take your point, Ivonne, but the judges of the ECHR are not elected in a popular vote. They represent no one but themselves. If they stuck to the original brief of the Court, which was to interpret the Convention as intended by  its signatories, this would not be a problem. But through judicial activism they have strayed into the political sphere, for example dictating environmental policy to Switzerland. So the question for Britain is who should decide immigration policy: Parliament or seventeen individuals residing in Strasbourg?

Steven Rose ● 653d

Steven,Regarding your comments on "unelected" judges, please refer to the following:The judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from lists of three candidates proposed by each State. They are elected for a non-renewable term of nine years. Although judges are elected in respect of a State, they hear cases as individuals and do not represent that State.https://prd-echr.coe.int/web/echr/composition-of-the-court#:~:text=The%20judges%20are%20elected%20by,do%20not%20represent%20that%20State.

Ivonne Holliday ● 653d

The furore over Reform’s policy to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights is based on a misconception. Nigel Farage and those in the Conservative Party like Stella Braverman who support this policy do not object to the main provisions of the Convention. They object to the judicial activism of the 17 (unelected) judges of the  European Court  of Human Rights who now interpret the Convention in ways never intended by the original signatories. Some of their recent judgments encroach upon the right of democratic nations to make their own laws. An example is their decision that Switzerland’s failure to decarbonise quickly enough breaches the right to family life enshrined in the Convention.  There is a fear that the Court may decide that the Rwanda plan  is similarly in breach of the Convention, setting aside the will of Parliament.Those who equate Labour with moral virtue tend to seize on issues which supposedly demonstrate the wickedness of the right.  At the last election it was the NHS. Who can forget the absurd scenes at Labour Party HQ on election night in 2019 when hysterical activists chanted ‘Save our NHS’, on the grounds, apparently, that Boris Johnson intended intended to sell our hospitals to the Americans? This time it is the European Convention on Human Rights, the assumption being that right wing politicians want the freedom to repeal basic human rights in this country. This assumption is unjustified. People in this country do not enjoy human rights by virtue of Britain’s adherence to the Convention.  These rights, such as the righ to life, the prohibition of slavery and so on were enshrined in British law long before Britain signed the Convention in 1950.  Indeed it was a British lawyer, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who chaired the committee which drafted the Convention.The idea that Britain would immediately become a pariah state if it withdrew from the Convention is also a little exaggerated. Many democratic countries such as the USA, Australia and Japan are not parties to the Convention. And even within the Convention many member states have not ratified all of the 14 additional protocols.Anyway the present government has no plans to withdraw from the Convention, though Rishi Sunak has said that he won’t allow unelected judges in a supranational court to determine British policy on immigration.

Steven Rose ● 653d

Let's have some facts: these are the difficulties with leaving the ECHR...The problem is that the ECHR is woven into the Good Friday Agreement and the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the Brexit agreement signed by Mr Johnson when he erroneously said Brexit was done):"The Belfast/Good Friday agreement requires the ECHR to be part of the law in Northern Ireland. There is no way for the UK to leave the ECHR without violating the agreement, causing issues for the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, as well as the UK’s relationship with Ireland, the EU and the US.
Relations with the EU would also be further strained by withdrawal. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which governs the post-Brexit relationship, commits both the UK and EU explicitly to the ECHR when it comes to human rights protection, particularly in security and judicial cooperation. The EU has stated that if the UK left the ECHR, it would terminate this part of the agreement, which could effectively stop, for example, the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK."https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

Michael Ixer ● 653d

Some of the proposals seem sensible such as Business rates.No detail in Labour's business rate proposal and nothing at all in the Green's.More chance of collecting other taxation if the high street is active.Clearly lots to appeal to small businesses and Conservative voters.Lots of detail too, very little waffle, but it doesn't actually say what the unnecessary EU regulation are that need cutting! It could be anything from weights & measures to paid holidays.

Ed Robinson ● 654d

Amazing. You are a Farage supporter 😏

Freddie Francis ● 654d

And you have no inkling that you appear to be  an opinionated right wing bigot. Maybe getting over YOURself is something you should consider too? Can’t quite picture that.

Freddie Francis ● 654d

It's an amazing contract and I recommend everyone signs up..

Michael Brown ● 654d

Perhaps some people think so, including you of course.But, asking if you (or anybody else) understands the principle behind international conventions and treaties signed by the UK is not at all patronizing, it is just a simple question I asked based on the declaration by the Reform Party to leave the ECHR.If you found it offensive, I am sorry, but that was not in the spirit in which I asked the question.

Ivonne Holliday ● 654d

Yes it is my perception, and not just mine.

Sue Hammond ● 654d

It was a very sensible question to ask in connection of leaving the ECHR.Patronising?  Not at all.  Perhaps your perception?

Ivonne Holliday ● 654d

Ivonne. You really have no idea just how patronising and disrespectful you sound at times, do you? Fgs get over yourself!

Sue Hammond ● 654d

Hi Nick. The Putney candidate is Peter Hunter. His hustings are as follows:Tomorrow 19:30 : Putney Society General Election Hustings , St. Mary’s Church, PutneyToday 19:45 : Election Hustings: ST BARNABAS CHURCH, LAVENHAM ROAD ENTRANCEYou will have to run very fast to see him tonight though.😸

Sue Hammond ● 654d

One policy not mentioned (unless I missed it) which seems sensible and apparently already the case with the European Central Bank."Reform’s suggestion is that the Bank of England could stop paying interest on the remaining £700bn of commercial bank deposits created through quantitative easing."https://www.cityam.com/whats-going-on-with-reforms-overhaul-of-bank-of-england-reserves/

Ed Robinson ● 654d

Sue, do you understand the principle of international conventions and treaties signed by the UK?It is akin to Trump leaving the WHO - ridiculous does not start describing it!

Ivonne Holliday ● 654d

Sue, if you believe this Reform rubbish I presume you will run as the candidate in Putney. Will you?
Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 654d

Why Ivonne? We are not in full control of our own laws and conventions when a foreign court can veto or overturn anything our Government tries to do.

Sue Hammond ● 654d

Yes, but leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in 1951 - pre EC, EEC and subsequently EU, is illogical.

Ivonne Holliday ● 654d