That you find my last paragraph concerning, is all part of the same problem.Your last paragraph is more than a little concerning. It has nothing at all to do with “wokeness”, nor are our courts or lawyers to blame. It is successive governments implementing poor (and conflicting) legislation.
Sort out the law.
I'll not reply to all of the above since you make some valid points.Looking at spending alone is surely short-sighted? Taxation was at its lowest under the Tories and we didn't grow much then either. With Reform all growth will just be drained into the pockets of faceless non-doms under mates rate arrangements under Farage just as the US has become with Trump.
Millions are on long-term sick and productivity is suffering alongside historically high living costs, that's where the growth has gone, it has nothing to do with taxation. Nobody is struggling to pay their bills because of taxation, the poorest and middle classes barely pay any tax but they are paying record rents and energy costs.
Resolve health problems, get people back to work and make it worthwhile, sort out the crazy energy costs and robbing supermarkets and people will have cash to spend... The economy will then grow and government will finally act for people instead of treating them as an accountants spreadsheet.
Or are you arguing that the economy is not growing because Tesco made £3bn this year instead of £3.2bn due to Reeve's NI increase (I made this figure up but the analogy is there)? People should be at the heart of government policy on the economy and this will never happen with Farage.
We have an ageing population, deaths in the UK outnumber births year on year.
If we want the country to grow, for the population to increase so there are more people paying tax to pay for the services our population will need we need to look at how that will happen.
Ive said a few times, there is a narrative being put out there that immigration is a problem, a drain on our finances.
Sure it has to be controlled and managed, but it could just be that controlled immigration is what's needed for the country to grow.
You tell me. You obviously get the state pension and I’d suggest that if it’s all you get then it’s absolutely shit. Do you have alternate means, such as private pension/savings?Is 4% of 11.5k a huge raise
Spot on, of course it isn't.Is 4% of 11.5k a huge raise
What's that got to do with the price of bread? People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension.You tell me. You obviously get the state pension and I’d suggest that if it’s all you get then it’s absolutely shit. Do you have alternate means, such as private pension/savings?
To an extent, although older people coming into the country tend not to qualify for pensions as much etc.It's one big unsustainable ponzi scheme though. More people to pay for the ageing population, then more people needed when that group get old too. The system is broken if that is the case and needs rethinking.
That you find my last paragraph concerning, is all part of the same problem.
And BTW our courts are absolutely part of the issue. Instead of using ECHR rules as guidance, they repeatedly choose to implement them verbatim (when there is no obligation to do so), opposing the will of our sovereign parliament in doing so. That must stop!
It’s not the pay increase that’s the issue, it’s the actual amount that is paid.Spot on, of course it isn't.
I wonder if same poster was in favour of the train drivers getting their 15% over 3 years last year? 15% of 69,000 = £10,350 or £3,450 per year increase. Vs £460 for a pensioner. Not to mention the doctors' massive pay increase.
And the pensioners are getting a "huge rise"? You couldn't make it up.
Our state pension is still woeful compared to comparable economies. It's ludicrous people on the left moaning "but we're the 6th richest country in the world" and then also moaning that we can't afford to pay pensioners £460.
They get the state pension on top of their private pension …What's that got to do with the price of bread? People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension.
It's been the reason successive governments have done nothing about it.We have an ageing population, deaths in the UK outnumber births year on year.
If we want the country to grow, for the population to increase so there are more people paying tax to pay for the services our population will need we need to look at how that will happen.
Ive said a few times, there is a narrative being put out there that immigration is a problem, a drain on our finances.
Sure it has to be controlled and managed, but it could just be that controlled immigration is what's needed for the country to grow.
To an extent, although older people coming into the country tend not to qualify for pensions as much etc.
Point remains though, if we scrap immigration, the country stops growing based on current metrics. And while immigrants will grow old and need services they'll also have kids who will end up paying taxes, working in the NHS etc.
Not suggesting it should be uncontrolled and we just let in anyone that wants to come, just that there are real positives to immigration that seem to be ignored when everyone goes on about the negatives.
The problem is the frivolous claims these HR lawyers come up with.
Wouldn't the "1" coming from France otherwise have eventually been "1" on a small boat? If the pilot scheme works, why would anyone get on a small boat if there's a better chance of getting here on a big boat with their asylum claim likely to be granted?Would it matter either way? Because even if he’d failed and had to leave, France would just send someone who’d likely pass, so overall immigration figures would probably go up because without ‘1in1out’ we wouldn’t have someone coming the other way for every one who fails and gets deported.
No more frivolous than the home office claiming that because he passed through France he wasn't entitled to claim asylum. It's what happens in legal cases, you do what you can to win.
The home office also said that he was entitled to present his case, and they wouldn't expect him to present it from France.
So why not let him present it? It will either succeed and we need to accept that he has a legitimate right to stay. Or it will fail, and he'll be gone.
What I suspect, is the government is desperate to send some people home so they can say to the Reform folk "we're tough on immigration too". But we need to be careful that we don't take away people's rights in the process.
Their argument obviously wasn't too frivolous as they get the time to present their case.You agree it’s frivolous and that lawyers are using all sorts of technical arguments to get their clients to stay. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution etc I’m all for, ones taking the piss? Meh.
You surely perceive though that taxes feel high because you're getting nothing back and not because they're so high that it's affecting anything? If we paid tons of tax and everything was amazing then we wouldn't care. That's how it is in the Scandinavian countries, they do pay a ton of tax but everything works so everybody is happy.I'll not reply to all of the above since you make some valid points.
But regards your first paragraph, taxes have never been "low" in the past 20 years. That is absolutely at the core of why our growth has been so poor for so long. I am not saying it is the only reason, but it is absolutely part of it.
And we cannot just keep increasing taxes further and further, not least since it often doesn't raise more tax. Reeves capital gains tax rate increases for example in the last budget, have reduced capital gains tax receipts because people stopped selling assets to avoid paying it.
So yes, we need to get people back to work and I'm afraid that needs to be achieved with both carrot and stick. Not just carrot.
And be replaced by people whose claims will likely be successful.For those whose claims are rejected, they'll end up returned.
The purpose of asylum process isn't to reduce immigration, it's to protect those in need of protection.And be replaced by people whose claims will likely be successful.
How is that going to reduce immigration?