Forum Topic

2 April 2026 BBC"Reform UK has said it would cut the benefits bill by billions of pounds to offset the cost of keeping the triple lock on state pensions if the party was in power.The triple lock, which was introduced in 2011, means the state pension rises each year in line with either inflation, wage increases or 2.5% - whichever is the highest.The triple lock is a major pressure on the UK's public finances, with the annual cost estimated to reach £15.5bn by 2030.Reform UK was considering whether to scrap the triple lock and last year party leader Nigel Farage said he shared "the concern with pensions being unaffordable on a national level".But at a news conference on Thursday, Farage said the party had debated the matter and decided to commit to keeping the triple lock.He said the most "decisive reason" for making that decision was a plan the party had drawn up to "announce the biggest cuts to the benefits bill ever seen in the history of this country". He said the detail of those cuts would be revealed soon."---------------------------"The Centre for Policy Studies think tank said it was sceptical of Reform UK's promise of "radical change"."Spending on pensions, along with spending on the NHS and working age and child welfare, is on an unsustainable trajectory and no party is willing to tell the truth about how much this will cost the country," said CPS's head of economic and fiscal policy, Daniel Herring.The UK state pension is set to rise by 4.7% from 6 April 6, driven by average earnings growth.The Conservatives have ruled out scrapping the triple lock.Labour and the Liberal Democrats are also committed to keeping the triple lock.But ahead of the 2024 general election, the Green Party proposed changing the triple lock to a double lock, ensuring pensions rise by the higher of inflation or earnings."2 April 2026 BBC

David Ainsworth ● 2h

Er, Joseph Stalin is held responsible for the deaths of up to 10 million people. Nigel Farage , as far as we know, hasn’t killed anyone. The comparison is silly beyond words, Michael, and is evidence, if any were needed, of the irrational antipathy which Farage seems to inspire. It is also a distortion to suggest that Farage divided the nation. The nation was already divided on the merits of remaining in the EU. Farage and the Leave campaign simply gave voice to the 17 million plus people who were in favour of Brexit. Yes, the majority was small and around 30% did not vote, but I am sure that if Remain had won by 51.89%, of the vote, Remainers would not now be saying their majority was insufficient and that we need a second Referendum.The comparison between the embezzlement of £400 000 by Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the gift of £5 million to Farage for his personal security is simply an unjustified slur, Jonathan. One is fraud, the other is a personal donation. As to what Christopher Harborne may or may not have expected in return for his gift (made at a time when Farage was not even an MP and may never have become one), that is pure speculation. It may be that he wanted nothing in return other than to maintain the personal safety of the leader of a party which he supports.Regarding the economic consequences of Brexit, yes, some manufacturers have experienced difficulty in exporting to the EU, but actually exports to the EU, mainly in the form of services have increased by 18% since Brexit. Tony Blair is right when he says that Brexit was not the answer to the country’s economic problems in 2016, but neither is rejoining the EU the answer in 2026. The talk of rejoining by Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham (though typically retracted in the case of Burnham) and the intention of realignment by Keir Starmer are simply intended to win votes from disappointed Remainers, not a serious plan for the country. Everybody knows that the real problem in this country is the number of working age people in receipt of benefits. Labour is utterly incapable of dealing with this problem. Even the Chancellor’s modest attempt last year to cut the welfare bill was defeated by Labour backbenchers who regularly repeat the daft refrain, ‘I wasn’t elected to make my constituents poorer’. They simply don’t understand that cutting the welfare bill would allow the government to reduce taxes, which in turn would stimulate growth and thereby increase tax receipts needed to pay for essential public services.

Steven Rose ● 8h