The Labour Government

west didsblue said:
And scouse like apparently.

Quite bizarre how some people think.

Imagine liking Katie Hopkins!!
Click to expand...
Scouse like because of their 'famous' sense of humour that magically falls apart, and gets offended the second they think that a joke may be on them.....

Imagine being part of the hive mind on here ?

I've already stated that I think it's shite, others may like it, but it's not for us to be telling them that is it ?
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Labour are destroying the UK.


The UK economy has recorded the fastest quarterly growth in the G7, an economist has told Sky News.

Simon French, chief economist at Panmure Liberum, said the figures were "good" and the "major takeaway" today was that the City will be upgrading its growth expectations for the year as a result.
Click to expand...
Looks like Brexit is finally paying off.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
No... British waters to prevent the boats from entering, like I said there are no easy solutions but Labour are i power and need to show somw leadership, like getting Border Force mobilised for example.
Click to expand...
So the navy are in British waters.
A boat with hopeful asylum seekers is approaching about half a mile away but still on French waters.
What happens next?
 
117 M34 said:
So the navy are in British waters.
A boat with hopeful asylum seekers is approaching about half a mile away but still on French waters.
What happens next?
Click to expand...
Prevent them from crossing into British water?

I know, better still, well send out boats take them all on board, bring them to shore and then.... over to you, what happens next?
 
Just maybe Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves actually do know what they’re doing.

Before anyone says it I’ll say let’s wait till the end of the year before making a proper assessment rather than getting too excited about one quarter.
 
west didsblue said:
Good one.

Maybe trying to realign with the EU rather than continually trying to diverge is having a bigger effect.
Click to expand...
Nope. Although the noises are encouraging nothing really substantial occurring (yet) in that regard. It seems not being in the EU has some advantages - even if it does hurt us to admit it. I suppose credit must be given to Starmer for not reversing Brexit and now having the foresight to adopt Reform/Enoch Powell's vision on immigration.
Clearly not afraid to change his mind - well done labour and Sir K.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
It's an option that some may prefer but not for me.... well gunning them down at least... sending them back isn't so bad.
Click to expand...

I think once they're in UK waters it's impossible to send them back, the only really option is to make the processing of them efficient as possible. And then remove all who fail the checks, make sure to take their fingerprints pictures ect so if they turn up again they get deported there and then.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Nope. Although the noises are encouraging nothing really substantial occurring (yet) in that regard. It seems not being in the EU has some advantages - even if it does hurt us to admit it. I suppose credit must be given to Starmer for not reversing Brexit and now having the foresight to adopt Reform/Enoch Powell's vision on immigration.
Clearly not afraid to change his mind - well done labour and Sir K.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more the realisation that we’re not actively trying to diverge any more that is making the UK a better place to invest rather than the delusional prospect of us just doing our own thing scaring away inward investment.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Prevent them from crossing into British water?

I know, better still, well send out boats take them all on board, bring them to shore and then.... over to you, what happens next?
Click to expand...
And how do they prevent them getting onto British water? Sink the boats and let them drown? Use a massive wave machine to blow them back to France?
 
Scottyboi said:
The hive mind haha you're getting precious over people not finding some bints attempt at humour funny you soft shite.
Click to expand...
Did you completely miss the bit where I said that I find it to be shite and unfunny then ?

Or did that not suit your need, only read the bits you want, then misinterpret them ?
 
Vic said:
I presume every council has a policy (explicit or assumed) about where and how high towers may go.

If your contention is that the North is disadvantaged because housing demand is higher in the south, that's just part of the self-perpetuating reality of the pull of London.

Developers will go for highest profit, governments will say you must provide "affordable" homes, and developers will plead "viability".

The previous government scuppered NPR, by scrapping HS2 to Crewe and Manchester. NPR relied on sharing the HS2 infrastructure from High Legh into Manchester (and even then it was not a great business case). £17bn was a Tory fiction - there's no way it would fund new platforms at Piccadilly (let alone another £4bn for Burnham's subsurface station), 7 miles of tunnel under south Manchester, then another 30 miles of new or converted railway to Liverpool with 3 motorway crossings and over the Ship Canal, revamping Warrington Bank Quay, and the two new stations Mayor Rotheram wants in Liverpool), plus an airport station that was always to be privately funded - and all to have a Liverpool-Manchester journey time slower than Lime St - Victoria now.

I suspect we're actually on the same hymnsheet about infrastructure spending in London. Who can forget this benefit from cancelling HS2 to the North?
Click to expand...
My overarching contention is around not making aggressive steps via investment and financial incentives to major businesses to decentralise our economy away from just the south east.

Housing is clearly unaffordable in London with areas like Enfield now up in the 350-400k bracket for a run down ex council house.

You therefore have three options or a combination there of..

1). In the Greater London area force the building of affordable houses by legislation, if land in the area is held for over 3yrs without houses being developed and sold then the land is sold at the median asking price for similar land to another developer or the government.

2). Build high speed railways to London which are cheap, for people commuting from the north, look to offset a percentage of the standard commuting fare against tax so that its no more expensive than travelling from say Stevenage (for instance). This allows cheaper houses in the north to be utilised but has the benefit of bringing higher salaries and money back to northern communities, hence improving the local economies.

3). Develop the North and significantly reduce spending in the London area, e.g. scrap the Lower Thames crossing for instance costing £10Bn. This will cool the growth in London. Use the money to incentivise major international and UK businesses to locate to the North to readdress the balance. For reference the spending per person is 2.5 times in London compared to northern England, that equates to 2.4k less per person. Make the spend equal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top