@
KatyO83 I have no time for Reform either.
This is the third political-party Nigel Farage has formed, all of them leaning heavily on wooing MPs betraying their original parties and their constituents who voted for them under those parties.
I have perhaps slightly more insight into Nigel Farage's politics than many of his opponents do because I was a UKIP member for some years. UKIP was often branded a "Far Right" party by the Press and other attackers; but in fact it was originally fairly Centrist, and attracted a goodly number of Labour supporters as well as business people you might expect "Rightist". I cannot recall if it attracted many defectors from Labour, Conservative or the Liberal-Democrats.
I left it eventually for three reasons:
1) It was becoming overtaken by events anyway, as did Farage's next manifestion as the Brexit Party.
2) It produced a draught manifesto lest it became the nation's governing party, and I regarded many of its proposals at least flawed and at worst, traitorous. This also revealed a drift further Right than I liked, although I am not strongly socialist in Britain's own Left-Right spectrum.
3) Nigel Farage was replaced as leader by Gerard Batten. Fine so far - he seemed wiser and less histrionic than Farage. Though, and this was the last flaw for me, Batten then appointed as a "special advisor" a convicted criminal whose own extreme views barred him from UKIP membership under the Party's own rules, applicable to Left and Right equally. That "special advisor" was the odious, deeply-racist Steven Yaxley-Lennon. (He who calls himself "Tommy Robinson".)
I do not know if Reform has published a formal Manifesto as such but its own website outlines its main "promises". These show among things it has not a clue what civil-servants in totality do!
(The States' background public services are an easy target for cost-cutters who know only cost not value. The Civil Service works in the background and rightly, jealously guards its political independence and probity, meaning it is difficult to defend itself from the Great Ignorant who all rely on it but love to attack it. It is attacked by Labour as much as Conservative, too.)
The web-site does not detail how a Reform government could or would carry out any of its superficially-attractive, vote-bait promises, though.
It calls for investment in British industry. Quite right, we want that; but Reform does not say if it wants Britons investing in Britain
for Britain, but yet more foreign investors investing in Britain
against Britain. (The "inwards investment" myth).
Reform UK's own web-site claims it will guard the NHS, but not how, and it is hard to see how when we can also read this:
Reform UK proposes £70 billion in annual tax cuts, funded by canceling net zero targets and reducing government spending. NHS staff would receive zero basic-rate tax for three years, and private health insurance would get 20% tax relief.
The problem I see with private health-care is not that it exists, for in theory it should ease the burden on the NHS. Unfortunately it also diverts talent from the NHS, and when used as a contractor by the NHS, adds a profit element to the cost. Worse still, if the owners are not even British, for then the profits are lost to the country.
Now, that quote is not Reform's words. It appeared at the top of the link summaries screen, and is from Copilot, so we need account for its publisher being a giant commercial Internet-monopoliser based in a largely hard-Right wing country that regards comprehensive state health and welfare services as bordering on "Communism". So we might question its reliability and probity, but unfortunately, it does not reveal its the sources. Saying "Reform UK proposes" does not prove quoting Reform UK.
Even so, if Copilot is even only half accurate, it is hard to see Reform's promises being at all credible.
They are self-contradictory: we cannot have something for nothing!
