Marty

I live in a caravan in Kent used to have dogs. I use llm and voice to text as tools — the thinking and the lived experience behind it are mine.

[Marty @martyuk26]

BUILD UK is the only political movement willing to sign a contract with you the people of Great Britain to do what we promise in our charters.

25 policy charters (more added as needs). Published. Open. Challengeable.

Conservatives won't sign it.
Labour won't sign it.
Reform won't sign it.
Restore won't sign it.
Greens won't sign it.
Lib Dems won't sign it.

None of them want accountability. Because five years without it is worth:

£497,000 in salary.
Expenses on top.
A pension for life.

The contacts. The contracts. The book deals. The memoirs. The consultancies. The peerages.

And "5 years senior management" looks great on the CV when you've never been reviewed, never been assessed, and never faced a consequence for breaking every promise you made to get the job.

BUILD UK: annual confidence vote. Every twelve months. Do what you promised or get out of the chair.

From a caravan. Not a country estate. With a contract, not a handshake.

Answer? https://t.co/RKK8DbXzNH
Prove it? https://t.co/YUcsiYKRrs

[Marty @martyuk26]

Best rated PM in six years. After four weeks. During summer recess. While Parliament isn't sitting.

He hasn't passed a single piece of legislation. He hasn't faced PMQs. He hasn't survived a budget. He hasn't weathered a winter energy crisis. He hasn't dealt with an NHS winter backlog. He hasn't sat through a spending review.

He's announced things. Announcements aren't governance. They're press releases with a podium.

Free 24/7 bus passes not implemented until April 2027.
£442 million for rough sleeping not delivered yet.

No10 North 50 staff in hotels, building not ready until 2032.

Bus fare cap at £2 already existed under the previous government.

Best rated PM in six years means he's more popular than Sunak, Truss (49 days), Johnson (parties), and May (nothing has changed).

That's not a high bar. That's a limbo stick on the floor.

Rate him in February when the heating bills arrive.

Rate him in April when the council tax goes up.

Rate him in June when the NHS waiting list hasn't moved. Rate him after a year of actually governing, not four weeks of announcing.

Four weeks of summer sunshine and press releases. The easiest month any PM has ever had. The polls reflect a honeymoon, not a government.

Ask the nurse on a 12-hour shift if she feels it yet.

Ask the disabled person waiting for the bus pass that doesn't start for 7 months. Ask the farmer watching crops fail during a drought that £65 million won't fix.

Rate the PM when the work starts. Not during the holiday.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

£59 billion uncollected. Let's talk about why.

HMRC's enforcement process:

Step 1: Send a letter. Wait.
Step 2: Send another letter. Wait.
Step 3: Send a final letter. Wait.
Step 4: Refer to debt collection. Pay the debt collection agency a percentage.
Step 5: Apply to court. Pay court fees.
Step 6: Get a County Court Judgement. Pay more fees.
Step 7: Instruct a bailiff. Pay the bailiff.
Step 8: Bailiff visits. Nobody answers. Schedule another visit. Pay again.

Step 9: Eventually recover a fraction of the debt minus all the fees you paid to collect it.

Net result: HMRC spends millions collecting thousands. The enforcement costs more than the tax owed in many cases.

The person who owes £50,000 hires an accountant who costs £5,000 to delay for three years. HMRC pays £20,000 in legal and enforcement costs to recover £30,000 of the £50,000. Taxpayer loses twice.

Meanwhile a normal person on PAYE has their tax taken automatically before the money hits their account. Zero enforcement needed. Zero collection cost. You never had the chance to not pay.

The fix:
HMRC gets its own enforcement officers. Not outsourced bailiffs on commission. Direct employed officers with direct powers.

Simplified tribunal process. Not county court. Not High Court. A tax tribunal with a 30-day turnaround. You owe it. You pay it. If you dispute the amount, the tribunal decides in a month, not three years.

Automatic asset freezing above a threshold. Owe more than £10,000 and don't respond within 60 days? Bank accounts frozen until resolved. No court order needed. The same power that banks already have when they suspect fraud.

And the big one: close the loopholes that let companies route profits offshore. A UK revenue tax not profit tax, REVENUE tax at 2-3% on all UK sales regardless of where the company is headquartered.

Amazon sells £26 billion in the UK? 2% revenue tax is £520 million. Can't be offshored because the sales happened here.

£59 billion buys a lot of buses, hospitals, and social housing. HMRC just needs the tools to collect it and the law needs to stop helping people not pay it.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

1 in 5 tenants spending half their income on rent. Agreed, it's a travesty. Rent controls are part of the answer. But only part.

The problem with rent controls alone: landlords sell up, supply drops, the remaining properties go underground or get converted to Airbnb. It happened in Berlin. It happened in San Francisco. Controls without supply don't work.

The problem with your broader approach, Jeremy: tax the wealthy, they restructure through Ireland, Luxembourg, the Channel Islands. The business stays.

The tax base leaves. Amazon's UK tax bill is a rounding error on its revenue because the HQ is in Luxembourg. Starbucks routes profits through the Netherlands. Google through Ireland. You can raise the rate to 90%. They'll still pay 2%.

The actual fixes work together:

Rent controls tied to local median income. Not arbitrary caps. A rent that reflects what people in the area actually earn. Reviewed annually. Enforced with penalties.

Build social housing at scale. 90,000 units a year for a decade. Not 50,000. Not affordable housing at 80% of unaffordable market rent. Actual social housing at social rents.

Tax the LAND, not the income. A land value tax can't be offshored.

The land doesn't move to Ireland. It sits there, in London, in Manchester, in Kent, generating value that currently goes to the landowner without being taxed.

You can dodge income tax. You can dodge corporation tax. You can't dodge a tax on the ground beneath your feet.

Bring empty homes back into use. 700,000 sitting empty while people spend half their pay on rent for the ones that aren't.

Close the Airbnb loophole. A property is either a home or a hotel. If it's a hotel, it pays business rates, meets safety standards, and needs planning permission. If it's a home, someone lives in it.

Rent controls are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Building more homes, taxing land, and closing loopholes is the fence at the top.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

"Nobody is excluded."

Then two sentences later:

"A gay couple with no children is a lower priority."

Chris, that IS exclusion. You just described it. A same-sex couple pushed down the list because they can't biologically have children without assistance that costs tens of thousands of pounds.

A gay couple who adopted two children from care saving the state approximately £200,000 per child in care costs.

Lower priority than a heterosexual couple whose children cost the state nothing?

The couple who SAVED the system money gets deprioritised behind the couple who didn't?

A lesbian couple where one partner is a serving soldier. She qualifies as a veteran.

But her wife and their children don't qualify as a "married couple with children" under a policy designed around heterosexual families.

Which box does she tick?

A single gay man who fosters vulnerable children. No marriage. No biological children. Doing the work nobody else will. Lower priority.

"Nobody is excluded" and "a gay couple is lower priority" cannot exist in the same argument.

Lower priority IS exclusion. You're just using softer language for it.

Social housing by need. A roof over your head shouldn't depend on who you love, whether you married them, or how your children arrived.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination in housing on grounds of sexual orientation. This policy, as you've just described it, does exactly that.

But thanks for saying the quiet part out loud.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

Fair enough. Your specific journey, your numbers work. City Airport or Luton with a desk nearby flying wins by 2 hours for you.

But that's the point. It shouldn't.

Edinburgh to London is 400 miles. A modern high-speed train does that in 2 hours 20 minutes on the continent. Paris to Marseille 480 miles takes 3 hours 20 minutes on the TGV. No security queue. No liquid restrictions. No arriving an hour early. Station to station, city centre to city centre.

The reason you fly isn't that planes are better than trains. It's that British rail infrastructure is 40 years behind France, Spain, Japan, and China.

If HS2 hadn't been cut to Birmingham only, Edinburgh to London would be under 3 hours. Leave at 06:26, arrive 09:26.

At your desk by 10. No airport. No emissions. No bus to Haymarket at 5:25am.

Your flight wins today because the train has been allowed to lose. Not because rail can't compete it already does in every other developed country but because Britain chose not to invest in making it competitive.

You shouldn't need to fly 400 miles within your own country. The fact that you do is an infrastructure failure, not a transport preference.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

Allison, do you know how much Pension Credit actually is?

£218.15 a week for a single pensioner. That's £11,343 a year. Below the poverty line. Below the tax threshold. Below what anyone would call "comfortable."

These aren't people living in luxury because they get free dental. These are people who qualified for Pension Credit because they have almost nothing. The free dental isn't a perk. It's because they literally cannot afford to pay.

The pensioner who "put savings by" and doesn't qualify? They're struggling too. Agreed. But the answer isn't to take dental care away from the poorest pensioners. It's to extend it to everyone over state pension age.

Your teeth don't know how much you saved. Dental health in retirement is a healthcare need, not a reward for poverty.

The actual fix:

Free NHS dental for everyone over state pension age. Full stop. Your generation paid taxes for decades. You funded the NHS your entire working life. The least it can do is look after your teeth when you stop.

And stop taxing pensions below £20,000. A pensioner on £13,000 a year paying income tax is an obscenity. They worked.

They paid in. They retired. And the government takes 20% of an income that barely covers heating and food.

The incentive to work isn't destroyed by giving poor pensioners free dental. It's destroyed by taxing working pensioners on poverty incomes while the system punishes everyone who falls between "destitute enough for help" and "wealthy enough not to need it."

That gap in the middle is where millions of pensioners live. Too much for Pension Credit. Too little for comfort. Paying tax on an income that doesn't cover the bills.

Fix the threshold. Extend the dental. Stop blaming the poorest for getting the scraps.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

Dean, this goes both ways and both are broken.

Proving someone is dead: when my mum died, cancelling her contracts, bank accounts, and benefits was a nightmare. Every organisation needed separate proof.

The DWP, the bank, the council, the utilities each one demanded the death certificate, each one had a different process, none of them talked to each other. Weeks of grief spent on hold proving your parent is gone.

Proving someone is alive: this woman spent months trying to convince the NHS she exists. Because once the computer says deceased, nobody has the authority to override it. The system that records death has no equivalent system that confirms life.

Both should be simple:

Tell Once. One notification to a central register death or correction that propagates automatically to every connected service. DWP, NHS, HMRC, banks, utilities.

You notify once. Everyone updates. No grieving family calling 15 organisations with the same certificate. No living person fighting 15 systems that think they're dead.

Certification of Life. A simple, free, automated certificate renewed every 10 years via your local council. Walk in. Confirm your identity. Certificate issued.

It sits in the system as proof of existence. If the computer ever says "deceased" and there's a current Certification of Life on file, the error flags automatically before it causes damage.

Costs almost nothing. Prevents exactly this scenario. And creates a universal identity confirmation that doesn't require biometric scanning, facial recognition, or waving your hand at a phone 11 times.

A country that can't reliably tell the difference between its living and dead citizens has no business building automated systems for either.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

Or you could just count what you've already got.

Before deporting a single person, answer three questions:

How many homes are empty? 700,000 in England. 261,000 empty for over six months. Nobody living in them. Nobody deported from them. Just empty. Bring them back into use and the waiting list shrinks overnight.

How many are second homes and holiday lets? Hundreds of thousands of properties used 30 days a year while families share one bedroom. Tax second homes at 500% council tax. Watch them come back to market within a month.

How many are damaged, derelict, or above empty shops? Every high street has flats above shuttered retail. Every city has derelict buildings rotting behind hoardings. Convert them. Fund the conversion. House people in buildings that already exist.

Then do a full land audit. How much land is banked by developers with planning permission they're choosing not to build on? Tens of thousands of plots. Use-it-or-lose-it within two years or the permission reverts.

Then do a capacity audit. What infrastructure exists to support new housing where it's actually needed? Water, transport, schools, GP surgeries. Don't build where the infrastructure can't cope fix the infrastructure first.

THEN see where the numbers sit. THEN decide what needs building. THEN make policy based on evidence, not deportation targets.

You don't need to deport anyone to house people. You need to use what you already have. But "count the empty houses" doesn't fit on a placard and doesn't get the crowd cheering.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

Three quarters right, Professor. Industrial carbon capture IS largely a con.

The technology captures a fraction of what's emitted, costs billions, and gives fossil fuel companies a green label to keep burning.

But carbon capture itself isn't the problem. The METHOD is.

What doesn't work:

Industrial CCS attached to power stations and refineries. Captures 10-30% of emissions at enormous cost.

Requires energy to run often from fossil fuels. The captured CO2 is frequently pumped underground into old oil wells to extract MORE oil.

That's not carbon capture. That's an extraction subsidy with a green hat on.

What does work:

Trees. A mature tree absorbs roughly 22kg of CO2 per year.

Plant a billion of them across Britain's unused land, abandoned industrial sites, highway margins, and rewilded farmland. Free technology. Self-maintaining.

Provides habitat, flood prevention, air quality improvement, and timber.

Algae. Absorbs CO2 up to 400 times more efficiently than trees per unit area. Can be grown in bioreactors on non-productive land.

The harvested algae becomes biofuel, animal feed, fertiliser, or biodegradable plastic. It captures carbon AND produces something useful.

Seagrass and kelp. Britain's coastline is vast. Marine vegetation captures carbon faster than rainforest. Kelp farming sequesters carbon, produces food, provides marine habitat, and reduces ocean acidification.

Biochar. Agricultural waste converted to charcoal and buried in soil. Locks carbon in the ground for centuries while improving soil quality and water retention. Farmers benefit directly.

Nature already solved carbon capture. It's been doing it for 3.5 billion years. We don't need a billion-pound machine bolted onto a gas plant. We need trees, algae, kelp, and soil.

Fund nature. Not Chevron's marketing department.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

"I literally did not say this." Then you said something worse.

Your "clarification":

"People who have no intention of working or contributing towards society should not expect to live in free social housing."

Who decides "no intention of working"? You? The council officer at the door?

The same DWP assessors who get PIP wrong constantly?

A disabled person who can't work no intention or no ability? Who makes that call at the doorstep?

A single mum with three children under five not working or raising the next generation?

Does childcare count as "contributing to society"?

A carer looking after a dying parent full-time for £2.47 an hour no intention of working or saving the NHS £1,500 a week in care home fees?

Someone with severe depression who can't get out of bed lazy or ill?

The council officer checking for weeds is going to make that clinical assessment, is he?

"The whole property stinks of weed." So now drug use determines housing eligibility?

Do we breathalyse homeowners too?

Or is substance use only a housing offence when you're poor?

And "it's not fair on working British people who bought their first home." Those homeowners chose to buy next to social housing.

The social housing was there first. If proximity to council tenants bothers them, that's an estate agent conversation not a housing policy.

The 1940s council officers you're romanticising also enforced rules about unmarried mothers, "moral character" assessments, and racial segregation of housing estates. Not every old policy deserves revival.

Social housing by need. Support for those who struggle.

Consequences for genuine antisocial behaviour through existing legal frameworks.

Not council officers sniffing gardens and deciding who "deserves" a roof.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

Lee, which gardens exactly?

Most social housing in Britain is tower blocks and maisonettes. Flats. No garden. A shared communal area maintained by the housing association who charges you a service charge for the privilege.

Where social housing DOES have gardens, the tenants who can't maintain them are usually:

Elderly people who physically can't weed. Disabled people who can't get outside to do it. People working two jobs who don't have time. Single parents managing alone. People with mental health conditions where an overgrown garden is a symptom, not a choice.

Your policy: evict them.

The alternative: ask if they're okay. Because an overgrown garden is usually a sign that someone is struggling, not that they're lazy.

The army does cleaning inspections. On young, fit, able-bodied soldiers who signed up for military discipline. Applying the same standard to an 80-year-old widow with arthritis in a council house isn't policy. It's bullying.

Private landlords CAN enforce garden maintenance clauses. Most don't because they know the legal cost of eviction over a dandelion is more than sending someone round with a strimmer.

And the real question: if Reform evicts a family for weeds, where do they go?

Back on the 1.3 million waiting list that Reform says is too long?

Into private rental they can't afford? Onto the street that Burnham just spent £442 million clearing?

You don't fix housing by evicting people from it.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

"I despise them all." But your bio says vote Reform.

Does "all" include Reform? Especially after today's announcement that social housing priority goes to married, under-35, working, British-born couples and everyone else goes to the back of the queue?

The disabled person. The single parent. The over-35. The carer. The veteran who can't work. All deprioritised by the party you're asking people to vote for.

Reform IS the self-serving politicians. Farage is a millionaire city trader. Tice is a millionaire property developer. Yusuf ran a luxury concierge for the ultra-wealthy. They went to Dulwich College, Uppingham, and Hampton School.

"Know yourself, then be yourself." Good advice. Are you a married, under-35, working, British-born person? If yes, Reform is for you. If not, you're the person they just put at the back of the queue.

The country does need to change. But changing from one set of self-serving politicians to another set of self-serving politicians in better suits isn't change. It's rotation.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

This isn't about Ukraine. Ukraine deserves to defend itself. This is about the pattern of technology sharing that keeps repeating.

Britain helped develop radar. We shared it with allies. Now every adversary has it.

The US gave Stinger missiles to the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s. Those missiles were later found in the hands of people shooting at US aircraft.

The West sold Iraq chemical weapons precursors in the 1980s. A decade later, we invaded to find the weapons we helped create.

NATO shared military communications technology with Turkey. Turkey shared it with third parties.

Britain sold arms to Saudi Arabia. Those weapons are used in Yemen against civilian populations.

We share missile technology today. In 10 years, where is it? Who reverse-engineered it? Who copied it? Who sold the blueprints to someone we didn't intend?

The principle isn't "don't help Ukraine." The principle is sovereign defence means keeping critical technology sovereign.

Help Ukraine defend itself yes. Share intelligence yes. Provide equipment yes.

Share the ability to BUILD the equipment? That's where the line should be.

Because once the blueprint leaves the country, you don't control where it goes next.

And "our ally today" has a complicated relationship with "our ally in 20 years."

Build it here. Operate it here. Maintain it here. Support allies with the product, not the process. The moment you share HOW it's made, you've lost control of who makes it next.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

Three hostile states targeting UK power, water, and transport in two years. The government's response: classify the details so nobody panics.

The actual response needed is four words: AIR GAP CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

A power station does not need to be connected to the internet.

A water treatment plant does not need to be connected to the internet.

A railway control centre does not need to be connected to the internet.

A hospital's life support does not need to be connected to the internet.

Physically disconnect. No ethernet cable. No WiFi. No remote access portal. No cloud dashboard. No "smart" monitoring that creates the attack surface hostile states are walking through.

"But we need remote monitoring." CrossCountry's control centre lost power yesterday and the entire national network collapsed for two days. Remote monitoring didn't prevent that.

A backup generator would have. A second control centre in a different city would have. An air-gapped local fallback at every major station would have.

"But upgrading is expensive." The Colonial Pipeline ransom was $4.4 million. The NHS WannaCry attack cost £92 million.

CrossCountry's two-day shutdown cost millions in lost revenue and compensation. One successful attack on a power station during a winter cold snap could cost lives.

An air gap costs nothing. Literally nothing. It's a cable you DON'T plug in. It's a network you DON'T build. It's an attack surface that DOESN'T EXIST.

The government classifies the details "because transparency risks public alarm." You know what risks MORE public alarm? The lights going off in January because Iran found the login page.

Stop connecting things that don't need connecting. Stop treating cybersecurity as a software problem when the solution is a hardware one. Stop spending millions on firewalls when the answer is an unplugged ethernet cable.

Air gap. Air gap. Air gap. ONE MORE TIME AIR GAP

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

John, you're almost there. But "2/3rds underground because of NIMBY Tory MPs" isn't the problem. The problem is it's not ALL underground.

100% tunnelled solves everything:

Zero compulsory purchase orders. No homes demolished. No farmers losing fields. No communities split in half.

No NIMBY objections because there's nothing to object to on the surface.

Zero nature destruction. No 140-mile nature reserve needed as mitigation because you didn't destroy any nature to mitigate.

No 7 million replacement trees because you didn't cut any down.

Zero weather delays. Tunnels don't buckle in heatwaves. Don't flood in storms. Don't get leaves on the line. Don't freeze in winter.

Constant temperature. Constant conditions. Year-round reliability.

Zero visual impact. The countryside above looks exactly the same as it did before.

Because the railway is 30 metres below it.

"But underground is expensive." Madrid built 56km of metro tunnel in four years for €5 billion.

HS2 is spending £66 billion for 140 miles of surface track that STILL isn't finished.

The surface sections are the expensive part. The CPOs, the environmental mitigation, the 7 million trees, the legal challenges, the planning inquiries, the compensation claims. All of that disappears underground.

HS2 is expensive because they built it wrong. Not because NIMBYs complained about it being right.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

"Children in married couples will do really well at school."

Richard Tice just told every single parent in Britain their children won't do well. Let's check his homework.

Raised by single parents:

Barack Obama President of the United States.

Keanu Reeves raised by his mother after his father left when he was 3.

Jay-Z raised by his mother in a housing project.

Jodie Foster raised by her mother. Two Oscars by 30.

Alexander Graham Bell raised primarily by his mother.

Isaac Newton father died before he was born.

And here's the one that matters most:
approximately 2.8 million single-parent families in the UK. That's nearly a quarter of all families with children. Tice just told 2.8 million families their children are worth less than married couples' children.

And the same-sex question? "There'll be an allocation list." That's a non-answer. He was asked a direct question about where LGBT families sit in the priority list and answered with a spreadsheet.

Because the honest answer they'd be deprioritised is too ugly to say on radio.

So Reform's social housing priority:
Married + children + under 35 + working + British-born = front.
Single parent + working + British-born = back.

Same-sex couple + children + working + British-born = "there'll be an allocation list."

Disabled + British-born + unable to work = invisible.

A housing policy that ranks children by their parents' marital status isn't a housing policy.

It's a moral judgement disguised as allocation criteria.

My mum raised me alone. I turned out fine.

https://t.co/aQTsPg4she

[Marty @martyuk26]

Mike, genuine question from one person to another.

You're retired. Reform's social housing policy prioritises young working people. You're not young. You're not working. Under their own criteria, you go to the back of the queue.

Reform's network includes people calling for scrapping the triple lock. That's your pension losing value every year against inflation. Permanently.

Reform wants to scrap PIP for working-age adults. What happens when your health declines and you need support before pension age? Oh wait, you're already retired. But your neighbour isn't.

Reform says "social housing should not be a reward for welfare." Your state pension IS welfare. It's the largest single welfare payment in the UK budget. If "welfare" disqualifies you from priority, where does the pension sit?

You served your working years. You paid your taxes. You earned your retirement. And the party you support just announced that working-age people come first and everyone else waits.

"Time for Reform." Reform's time starts with the young and employed. When does your time come?

Not trying to fight. Just asking if you've read the small print of what you're voting for.

[Marty @martyuk26]

I voted no. Not because I think foreign nationals should be prioritised. But because that's not what the policy actually says.

The policy says:

Under 35. Married. With children. Working. British-born.

Hit all five criteria? Front of the queue.
Miss one? Back of the queue.
So the question isn't "British or foreign." The question is:

Should a 36-year-old British widow be behind a 34-year-old British couple?

Should a disabled British veteran who can't work be behind a healthy 25-year-old with a job?

Should a British single mum fleeing domestic abuse be deprioritised because she's no longer married?

Should a British carer on £2.47 an hour who gave up work to look after their dying parent be classed as "not working"?

The poll asks British versus foreign because that's the easy answer. The policy does something much more specific it ranks British citizens against each other based on age, marital status, employment, and family structure.

88.5% of social housing already goes to UK or Irish nationals. The "foreign nationals taking your homes" narrative is built on 11.5%.

The real question isn't who gets housed first. It's why there aren't enough homes for everyone who needs one.

Build more. Allocate by need. Stop ranking people by how closely they match a demographic checklist.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO

[Marty @martyuk26]

"The first people we should be looking after are young British workers."

The FIRST people? Let's see who that puts second, third, and last:

Second: the 40-year-old single mum who's worked since she was 16 but just turned "not young enough."

Third: the 55-year-old factory worker whose body broke after 30 years of shifts. Not young. Not a priority.

Fourth: the 70-year-old pensioner who built the country you want to reform. Not young. Not working. Not priority.

Last: the disabled person of any age who can't work. Not young. Not working. Not even on the list.

The elderly fought the wars. The middle-aged paid the taxes. The disabled didn't choose their condition. The carers gave up their careers. And Reform says "young British workers first."

A country that only looks after the young and working is a country that abandons you the moment you age, get sick, get injured, or need help.

Social housing by need, not age.
Healthcare by need, not employment.
Support by need, not demographic checklist.

The FIRST people we should be looking after are the people who need looking after MOST.

Sometimes that's a young worker. Sometimes it's an 85-year-old widow. Sometimes it's a disabled veteran. Sometimes it's a child.

A government that ranks its citizens by usefulness isn't governing. It's sorting.

https://t.co/eL53voUhtO