Maybe I’m wrong but just googled anti immigrantion demonstrations for 2022 and 2023 and can’t find any of note . Agree that the issue of illegal migrants was occurring during the last governments tenure but the media has certainly inflamed the issue with greater enthusiasm since the last election.Consipicuous by its absense???? Wow. Incredible comment given it was arguably THE most significant and persistent story line during that period, never out of the papers. And that it's one of the main reasons the Tory's became so unpopular, resulting in their worst election defeat in the party's 200 year history.
To put it into context, borrowing has increased by £186bn or £6550 per household since Labour got in.This is the kind of Labour-oriented, financially irresponsible nonsense that has got us into this mess.
If we weren't borrowing £2.8 Trillion pounds already (£95,000 per household in the UK) then the government would have an extra £120bn per year to spend on public services. Reeves would not have had to introduce tax rises in the last budget, cut the winter fuel allowance, raid family farms and everything else. She'd now have a surplus to spend and wouldn't be looking at further tax rises in November.
Yes, Labour are low in the polls for the reason you suggest. But that's because far too many people are idiots who have no fucking clue about fiscal responsibility and the calamity that would follow if we just went spend, spend, spend even more than we already have done.
So why are we in this mess? It started in around 2008. Prior to that we had growth of around 2% per year, but the financial crash stopped that in its tracks and we've never recovered. We didn't stop our spending though. Sure Osborne and Cameron put us through a bit of austerity, but even then we were still borrowing more and more and the debt was rising further and further. The country has been living beyond its means for nearly 20 years.
And you want to make it worse.
They never will, all Labour do is borrow. We’re still paying massive interest rates on Blair’s PFI fiasco, I knew this would happen. Because none of them have ever run a business, they’ve no idea. They talk a lot, navel gaze, sit round tables and pay other people to come up with the ideas. People who voted for them will get just what they deserve. It’s a shame, but a fact.To put it into context, borrowing has increased by £186bn or £6550 per household since Labour got in.
And we have never recovered and neither have services from that austerity.
Madness isn’t it. So over the past few weeks thousands have arrived, we send one back, and I’m sure we will have to accept one in, to replace the one we send back.
What sort of ‘deal’ is that?
We're not in this mess because of fiscal irresponsibility. It cannot be fiscally irresponsible to spend money on education or health for example. Both of these have only faced effective cuts versus inflation over the years so there's no possible way that spending could be judged to be irresponsible.This is the kind of Labour-oriented, financially irresponsible nonsense that has got us into this mess.
If we weren't borrowing £2.8 Trillion pounds already (£95,000 per household in the UK) then the government would have an extra £120bn per year to spend on public services. Reeves would not have had to introduce tax rises in the last budget, cut the winter fuel allowance, raid family farms and everything else. She'd now have a surplus to spend and wouldn't be looking at further tax rises in November.
Yes, Labour are low in the polls for the reason you suggest. But that's because far too many people are idiots who have no fucking clue about fiscal responsibility and the calamity that would follow if we just went spend, spend, spend even more than we already have done.
So why are we in this mess? It started in around 2008. Prior to that we had growth of around 2% per year, but the financial crash stopped that in its tracks and we've never recovered. We didn't stop our spending though. Sure Osborne and Cameron put us through a bit of austerity, but even then we were still borrowing more and more and the debt was rising further and further. The country has been living beyond its means for nearly 20 years.
And you want to make it worse.
Just as a caution/prediction, someone will likely post to say that PFI was introduced by John Major. But you are indeed wholly correct, it was when Blair was PM - and more importantly Brown was chancellor - that the use of PFI was made normal - practically mandated! as a means to avoid visibility of the level of public debt they causedThey never will, all Labour do is borrow. We’re still paying massive interest rates on Blair’s PFI fiasco, I knew this would happen. Because none of them have ever run a business, they’ve no idea. They talk a lot, navel gaze, sit round tables and pay other people to come up with the ideas. People who voted for them will get just what they deserve. It’s a shame, but a fact.
Regards your last sentence of course that was part of it. It would be daft for me to argue otherwise.Maybe I’m wrong but just googled anti immigrantion demonstrations for 2022 and 2023 and can’t find any of note . Agree that the issue of illegal migrants was occurring during the last governments tenure but the media has certainly inflamed the issue with greater enthusiasm since the last election.
I’d put the Tory defeat at the last election down to the sleaze and lies of Johnson and the ineptitude of Kwarteng and Truss .
So what's your alternative? Just spend more money we haven't got?We're not in this mess because of fiscal irresponsibility. It cannot be fiscally irresponsible to spend money on education or health for example. Both of these have only faced effective cuts versus inflation over the years so there's no possible way that spending could be judged to be irresponsible.
Let's get this right, we're in this mess because in 2008 a ton of greedy bankers and financial companies committed fraud and crashed the global economy. None of them went to prison and taxpayers had to bail them out and we are paying for that fraud through the massive fiscal debt.
We therefore are not living outside of our means in terms of spending and have you seen the state of our public services? What we are really doing is paying for one of the biggest frauds in history plus wars, COVID and so on too. The last thing that we are paying too much for is the very things that people need.
What you're really saying is that we should cut our public services to remain fiscally responsible to enable tax cuts for the very people who are responsible for this mess. No thanks!
I think that there is some 'slight of hand' going on hereWe’re not talking about the £150bn figure that’s being banded around today, the point you made yesterday was in relation to specific investments which have been driven by the more favourable regulatory attitude the UK has adopted in relation to AI. A regulatory divergence that could only happen outside of the EU, something which you failed to realise.
Whether the regulatory divergence is the right thing or not, only time will tell.
That the US has been and will remain the largest investor in the UK - and that high levels of investment would occur inside or outside of the EU - isn’t up for debate. But that wasn’t the issue you raised yesterday, so please don’t pretend that it was.
Apart from after the Crash, Labour governments finished their term with a lower national debt.They never will, all Labour do is borrow. We’re still paying massive interest rates on Blair’s PFI fiasco, I knew this would happen. Because none of them have ever run a business, they’ve no idea. They talk a lot, navel gaze, sit round tables and pay other people to come up with the ideas. People who voted for them will get just what they deserve. It’s a shame, but a fact.
Everything's relative ;-) But you'd have to say yes. No-one has had to resign today have they?Genuine question - good day for Labour?
Interesting stat. I was unaware of that. Are you equally pleased with their record on unemployment, which is the exact opposite of the above? Always strikes me as somewhat ironic that the "Labour" party puts people out of work.Apart from after the Crash, Labour governments finished their term with a lower national debt.
I really don't think we can "spending cuts" our way out of this mess, the amount is just too big. Efficiency savings are constant and look where we are. I honestly don't know the answer. If history repeats itself the can will just be kicked down the road.So what's your alternative? Just spend more money we haven't got?
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, so it's somewhat academic how we got here. It might make you feel better having a good rant about a system and people you don't like, but that changes nothing.
Fact is we are spending £125bn per year on debt interest as it is. Increasing that further would be utter madness. And also the fact is, you cannot just keep increasing taxes and expect it to not have a negative effect upon an economy that is not even growing as it is. And finally, Reeves has ruled out breaking her fiscal rules.
We have 3 options: Spending cuts, tax even more or borrow even more. Given the humungous size of the welfare bill, which is expected to balloon even further, spending cuts (and efficiency improvement wherever possible) has to be the focus no matter how unpalatable. The other two options won't work, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
I hear you. It's a right old mess, it really is.I really don't think we can "spending cuts" our way out of this mess, the amount is just too big. Efficiency savings are constant and look where we are. I honestly don't know the answer. If history repeats itself the can will just be kicked down the road.
"Slight of Hand" by who?I think that there is some 'slight of hand' going on here
Interestingly the question to LBC was framed:
"LBC asked the direct question about the £150bn investment and AI in particular whether it could have happened pre-Brexit. The reply was "much of it, yes""
Rather than pre-Brexit, perhaps a more pertinent question would have been.............
"Had the UK remained in the EU would the investment being made by the USA in the UK AI sector have been subject to regulatory controls that may have deterred the investment?"
I say this because the EU introduced the AI act in 2024 - therefore pre-Brexit those regulations were not in place.
Here's another way of framing the question:
"Having left the EU is the UK now better placed to attract inward investment in the AI sector?"
This question attracted the following answer:
"Yes — and the numbers are striking. Since leaving the EU, the UK has carved out a distinct regulatory and investment identity that’s proving highly attractive to global AI investors."
There followed a lot of detail to support that answer that might make uncomfortable reading for some
It does apply to every election with this last one being particularly bad, I dont think I said it was just this time, in fact I even mentioned the last lot, the lower the vote that wins the less democratic our system becomes.Surely this applies to every election though. I mean, has any party ever gotten over 50% of the vote? Certainly not in modern times. None of Thatcher’s 3 election wins and Blair’s landslide 1997 win garnered more than 44% of the popular vote.
Whatiffery and deflection from Chippy? The thing he has a go at everyone else about.Interesting stat. I was unaware of that. Are you equally pleased with their record on unemployment, which is the exact opposite of the above? Always strikes me as somewhat ironic that the "Labour" party puts people out of work.
So what are you, or, more importantly, others prepared to go without?So what's your alternative? Just spend more money we haven't got?
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, so it's somewhat academic how we got here. It might make you feel better having a good rant about a system and people you don't like, but that changes nothing.
Fact is we are spending £125bn per year on debt interest as it is. Increasing that further would be utter madness. And also the fact is, you cannot just keep increasing taxes and expect it to not have a negative effect upon an economy that is not even growing as it is. And finally, Reeves has ruled out breaking her fiscal rules.
We have 3 options: Spending cuts, tax even more or borrow even more. Given the humungous size of the welfare bill, which is expected to balloon even further, spending cuts (and efficiency improvement wherever possible) has to be the focus no matter how unpalatable. The other two options won't work, no matter how much you wish otherwise.