The Labour Government

[Vic]

I hope the first question from Reynolds is

"before we start with your concerns can you let me know is Sir John Bamford going to hand over the £500m back tax he owes HMRC then we can discuss your concerns "

Business secretary to meet JCB boss after concerns raised about US tariffs

Jonathan Reynolds will meet the boss of JCB after the company was among those which raised the alarm about the impact of new US tariffs on British businesses. JCB chief executive Graeme Macdonald called on the UK Government to get a “deal done quickly” with the US on steel, after hundreds of...

uk.finance.yahoo.com

That would be the JCB that advocated for Brexit because:

Leaving the EU would free the UK to make trade agreements with other countries​

JCB has seen 13 per cent growth in its US business, according to reports. Negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have stalled in the face of EU bureaucracy.

The partnership would allow multinational corporations like JCB to trade much more cheaply with the US. And without EU membership, the UK would be free to broker a deal along these lines with less red tape.

 

[bluethrunthru]

That would be the JCB that advocated for Brexit because:

Leaving the EU would free the UK to make trade agreements with other countries​

JCB has seen 13 per cent growth in its US business, according to reports. Negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have stalled in the face of EU bureaucracy.

The partnership would allow multinational corporations like JCB to trade much more cheaply with the US. And without EU membership, the UK would be free to broker a deal along these lines with less red tape.

Yep - for me its "oh you want our help over finances? How's about you level things up with your £500m? " I mean Trump would as for it but to be paid to him not to the treasury so time to act tough with these people

 

[Hertzblue]

I've not really explored how it would work (or wouldn't) but instead of paying in-work benefits I like the idea of firms paying proper wages, and giving subsidies or tax breaks to SMEs especially startups.

You should have spoken up and told your mate Gordon Brown exactly that.

 

[Hertzblue]

If you remove Africa from the equation then the global population has been in decline for most of this century.

To say that the global population will be reducing by the end of this century is akin to saying CD sales have been in decline for its first quarter. The extent of this decline will be severe, precipitous and catastrophic for many countries, and quite possibly humanity as a whole, at least for a couple of generations, if not ad infinitum. The rate of reduction is going to be mind blowing.

The impact on matters such as social care, as there simply won’t be the numbers of people of working age to deliver it, will be profound and may require a complete revaluation of how we assess matters such as ageing, euthanasia and life itself. AI may provide some solution to this issue in the form of robotics, although it’s hard to see how that will assist in making the elderly feeling less isolated and lonely, but that may be the only practical solution short of adopting a Logan’s Run type future.

The issues currently being debated in this thread are a microcosm (and the start) of what awaits us and I find myself in agreement with posters with whom I don’t always share the same political outlook, but we have to face up to reality.

Some resolution may come from taxing property and the very wealthiest in society, but to suggest that is a complete panacea, and not without risk, is completely misguided. It certainly isn’t a complete solution, despite what some posters seem to believe.

I think stagnant or weak growth are likely to be endemic going forward. It seems too embedded and long-standing now for that not to be the case. I certainly don’t think it’s wise to make any economic assumptions based around late ‘90s levels of growth as a predication for spending levels.

Defence spending absolutely has to increase along the lines already committed to, as we are currently at war with Russia and that is highly unlikely to change for the foreseeable. I don’t agree that net zero should be abandoned as I think it’s in the nation’s medium and long term strategic best interests to pursue that course, and it is achievable. I feel the issue of illegal immigration isn’t substantive enough (in financial terms) to warrant forming a significant part of this discussion. And any country that substantially reduces education spending is failing to invest in its future.

So that leaves health and welfare, not least because they represent such an overwhelming percentage of overall expenditure and one way or another this is where the savings will have to be made. Obviously this needs to be done in a way that avoids the greatest injustice, but it will be sadly painful for lots of people. The political messaging needs to be faithful to this reality, but that will require a level of courage not currently on display.

These challenges will be faced by most developed counties btw. A combination of the foregoing demographic changes and the decline in western hegemony are both combining to create a reality that has to be faced up to.

Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

That was a good read, I agree with most of it and I have written some similar stuff, I imagine I may be a poster you don't share the same political outlook. A couple of things.
In regard to social care, despite the promises it appears no government has a solution that is affordable and equitable but I think before we hand over care to robots or resort to euthanasia we should look to ourselves. I am unsure at what point in our history it was ever agreed that the state should be responsible to care for our elderly. Outside of destitution this has only become possible through Western welfarism and is not the standard in most of the world.
As we live longer it is simply unaffordable and I think the only answer is to for the state to withdraw as far as is possible ( medical issues aside) and the responsibility needs to return to families in the first instance.

I think you are mistaken to believe that cost of illegal migration isn't substantive. Most illegal migration is low skilled . latest OBR estimates of the net cost of a 24 year old low wage migrant is £200k up to pension age, total lifetime cost £400k. Around 50,000 illegals since Labour came to power @ £400k net cost each is £20 Billion .Now not all will be low wage but not all will be aged 24 either and they will add on numerous dependants so the £20Billion will not be far out.
That is the cost in one year , and the cost is growing and recurring . That is not insubstantial.

 

[meltonblue]

That was a good read, I agree with most of it and I have written some similar stuff, I imagine I may be a poster you don't share the same political outlook. A couple of things.
In regard to social care, despite the promises it appears no government has a solution that is affordable and equitable but I think before we hand over care to robots or resort to euthanasia we should look to ourselves. I am unsure at what point in our history it was ever agreed that the state should be responsible to care for our elderly. Outside of destitution this has only become possible through Western welfarism and is not the standard in most of the world.
As we live longer it is simply unaffordable and I think the only answer is to for the state to withdraw as far as is possible ( medical issues aside) and the responsibility needs to return to families in the first instance.

I think you are mistaken to believe that cost of illegal migration isn't substantive. Most illegal migration is low skilled . latest OBR estimates of the net cost of a 24 year old low wage migrant is £200k up to pension age, total lifetime cost £400k. Around 50,000 illegals since Labour came to power @ £400k net cost each is £20 Billion .Now not all will be low wage but not all will be aged 24 either and they will add on numerous dependants so the £20Billion will not be far out.
That is the cost in one year , and the cost is growing and recurring . That is not insubstantial.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all, to the point of being that disingenuous I have to question you can’t be that stupid, did you just add in the word illegals from time to time for emotive value or something?

 

[Hertzblue]

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all, to the point of being that disingenuous I have to question you can’t be that stupid, did you just add in the word illegals from time to time for emotive value or something?

The original poster specified illegal migration , hence the reply on illegal migration.

 

[meltonblue]

The original poster specified illegal migration , hence the reply on illegal migration.

But you’re not quoting costs of illegal migrants.

 

[bluenova]

That was a good read, I agree with most of it and I have written some similar stuff, I imagine I may be a poster you don't share the same political outlook. A couple of things.
In regard to social care, despite the promises it appears no government has a solution that is affordable and equitable but I think before we hand over care to robots or resort to euthanasia we should look to ourselves. I am unsure at what point in our history it was ever agreed that the state should be responsible to care for our elderly. Outside of destitution this has only become possible through Western welfarism and is not the standard in most of the world.
As we live longer it is simply unaffordable and I think the only answer is to for the state to withdraw as far as is possible ( medical issues aside) and the responsibility needs to return to families in the first instance.

I think you are mistaken to believe that cost of illegal migration isn't substantive. Most illegal migration is low skilled . latest OBR estimates of the net cost of a 24 year old low wage migrant is £200k up to pension age, total lifetime cost £400k. Around 50,000 illegals since Labour came to power @ £400k net cost each is £20 Billion .Now not all will be low wage but not all will be aged 24 either and they will add on numerous dependants so the £20Billion will not be far out.
That is the cost in one year , and the cost is growing and recurring . That is not insubstantial.

Do you have a source for the OBR estimate? I suspect it's correct* but would be interested to see the figures (I did have a look, but couldn't see the one you mentioned).

*the reason for the asterisk is that usually these "net cost" figures are highly dubious, and you end up with most people being counted a cost to the economy. The problem is that they tend to ignore the fact that all the "net contributors" (the company owners, high paid managers, the people with large investment portfolios, companies themselves, etc.), would not be making money if it wasn't for the rest of the population working/buying etc.

 

[BlueHammer85]

According to The Times, the one in, one out migrant Starmer signed with France's Emmanuel Macron earlier this summer will soon see more than 100 people sent back.

The newspaper reported there are dozens of migrants currently in detention, including some arrested over the bank holiday weekend, who could be among the first sent back to France.

In exchange, the UK would be expected to take an equal number of asylum seekers in France with ties to Britain.

 

[Hertzblue]

But you’re not quoting costs of illegal migrants.

I am quoting the cost of low wage migrants which I believe most but not all of the illegals will be and I qualified that in the post. I did not add in any additional costs of the asylum process either.

 

[Hertzblue]

Do you have a source for the OBR estimate? I suspect it's correct* but would be interested to see the figures (I did have a look, but couldn't see the one you mentioned).

*the reason for the asterisk is that usually these "net cost" figures are highly dubious, and you end up with most people being counted a cost to the economy. The problem is that they tend to ignore the fact that all the "net contributors" (the company owners, high paid managers, the people with large investment portfolios, companies themselves, etc.), would not be making money if it wasn't for the rest of the population working/buying etc.

£200k by retirement , plus conservatively a further £200k post retirement age.

 

[meltonblue]

I am quoting the cost of low wage migrants which I believe most but not all of the illegals will be and I qualified that in the post. I did not add in any additional costs of the asylum process either.

Of course they won’t be, if they’re working and a low wage migrant then they clearly aren’t illegal are they?

 

[bluenova]

View attachment 167352

£200k by retirement , plus conservatively a further £200k post retirement age.

Thanks for that.

I don't know what your financial circumstances are @Hertzblue, but the majority of people on this forum would be a "net cost" on this measure. Those UK residents aren't doing so well on this measure either - in fact it looks like we get a bonus with migrants who go straight into the economy as adults, rather than reaching 18 already in massive "debt" to society. All the people who arrive as adults, then return to their country of birth after retirement, are pretty much superchargers for the economy ;)

But my point is that if you take out all the people who are a net cost, then almost nobody would be left making money. There are very few companies who can exist without "net cost" workers or a large customer base.

It's got limited academic interest, but in terms of estimating someone's value in the economy, it's nonsense on a stick.

 

[Blackley_Blue]

According to The Times, the one in, one out migrant Starmer signed with France's Emmanuel Macron earlier this summer will soon see more than 100 people sent back.

The newspaper reported there are dozens of migrants currently in detention, including some arrested over the bank holiday weekend, who could be among the first sent back to France.

In exchange, the UK would be expected to take an equal number of asylum seekers in France with ties to Britain.

Sounds a bit like a pre-season friendly where the manager changes the full 11 at half time

 

[stonerblue]

Are you ignoring India? (:

birth rate dropping like a stone

 

[ganganvince]

birth rate dropping like a stone

Have you a source for that claim? Growth may have slowed slightly but still growing

 

[Oldham Exile]

.....................Going to be painful, but the longer we leave it the more painful it gets, a debt crisis will be much more painful

Good point

We should all be grateful that the UK is no longer on the hook for future EU borrowing, especially now European Commission has expanded its power to issue joint EU bonds!!!!

As you have pointed out - dealing with our own debt is challenge enough!!

A lot of people seemingly do not understand this and prefer instead to embrace that massive liability to save a few mins at border controls

 

[stonerblue]

Have you a source for that claim? Growth may have slowed slightly but still growingView attachment 167369

Google Search

 

[ganganvince]

Google Search

That's birth rates not population growth

 

[stonerblue]

That's birth rates not population growth

I said 'birth rates dropping like a stone'