National News Sir Keir Starmer

[Scotchegg]

I wish this government would do something about net migration…

In fairness, much of the reduction in net migration is due to policies put in by the Tories. But what has happened since the last election is that asylum applications are being processed quicker and more people are being removed. At one point under the Tories, we were housing nearly 60,000 people in hotels. We're now at almost half that number, and this should continue to reduce over the next year.

 

[Marston Road yellow]

You’re not suggesting that the effects of policy will only be felt further down the line and that whilst the Labour Party are coming up to their anniversary in charge most of the actions that they have made won’t have taken effect yet.
But I thought everything was SKS fault???

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

I wish this government would do something about net migration…

Absolutely that is what matters. We have to many people here too many are not net contributors we hence we need a ponzi scheme of an ever increasing population.

 

[m]

Absolutely that is what matters. We have to many people here too many are not net contributors we hence we need a ponzi scheme of an ever increasing population.

Doesn't that just collapse the ponzi scheme?

Who are the non net contributors?

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

Doesn't that just collapse the ponzi scheme?

Who are the non net contributors?

It would and nothing wrong with that. Ponzi schemes collapse anyway eventually. Net contributors are pretty easy to work out in terms of salary it's the bottom 60% that aren't. Businesses should pay a living wage then there would be no need for winter fuel allowance you want heat in old age you save for it. of course it would be electoral suicide for a government. It would force people to pay the real price for their food and carers. Food is cheap historically because we don't pay farm labourers enough likewise People believe care in old age should be free and try to avoid care costs by putting the home in trust. State pension expansion in the late 40's should never have happened, people approaching pension age then signed future generations into a ponzi scheme. too many never contribite anywhere near enough to buy that level of income if they brought an annuity.

I've said before I'm an green meritocracist free speech absolutist. I am comfortable with poverty existing for those out competed. I am confortable with great wealth for those who are successful. I would stop them passing it on tgough. I would set inheritance tax exceptionally high and lower the point it kicks in. I would screw shut the borders and force people to pay the real fair cost forbthe goods and services they recieve because currently the UK government subsidises it by in work benefits and using immigration to fill low wage jobs which don't adequately pay into the tax pot.

 

[Marston Road yellow]

It would and nothing wrong with that. Ponzi schemes collapse anyway eventually. Net contributors are pretty easy to work out in terms of salary it's the bottom 60% that aren't. Businesses should pay a living wage then there would be no need for winter fuel allowance you want heat in old age you save for it. of course it would be electoral suicide for a government. It would force people to pay the real price for their food and carers. Food is cheap historically because we don't pay farm labourers enough likewise People believe care in old age should be free and try to avoid care costs by putting the home in trust. State pension expansion in the late 40's should never have happened, people approaching pension age then signed future generations into a ponzi scheme. too many never contribite anywhere near enough to buy that level of income if they brought an annuity.

I've said before I'm an green meritocracist free speech absolutist. I am comfortable with poverty existing for those out competed. I am confortable with great wealth for those who are successful. I would stop them passing it on tgough. I would set inheritance tax exceptionally high and lower the point it kicks in. I would screw shut the borders and force people to pay the real fair cost forbthe goods and services they recieve because currently the UK government subsidises it by in work benefits and using immigration to fill low wage jobs which don't adequately pay into the tax pot.

I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who thinks poverty is ok.

You sound like a really unpleasant individual.

 

[QR]

It would and nothing wrong with that. Ponzi schemes collapse anyway eventually. Net contributors are pretty easy to work out in terms of salary it's the bottom 60% that aren't. Businesses should pay a living wage then there would be no need for winter fuel allowance you want heat in old age you save for it. of course it would be electoral suicide for a government. It would force people to pay the real price for their food and carers. Food is cheap historically because we don't pay farm labourers enough likewise People believe care in old age should be free and try to avoid care costs by putting the home in trust. State pension expansion in the late 40's should never have happened, people approaching pension age then signed future generations into a ponzi scheme. too many never contribite anywhere near enough to buy that level of income if they brought an annuity.

I've said before I'm an green meritocracist free speech absolutist. I am comfortable with poverty existing for those out competed. I am confortable with great wealth for those who are successful. I would stop them passing it on tgough. I would set inheritance tax exceptionally high and lower the point it kicks in. I would screw shut the borders and force people to pay the real fair cost forbthe goods and services they recieve because currently the UK government subsidises it by in work benefits and using immigration to fill low wage jobs which don't adequately pay into the tax pot.

You should move to the USA. You'd love the next few years.

 

[chuckbert]

It would and nothing wrong with that. Ponzi schemes collapse anyway eventually. Net contributors are pretty easy to work out in terms of salary it's the bottom 60% that aren't. Businesses should pay a living wage then there would be no need for winter fuel allowance you want heat in old age you save for it. of course it would be electoral suicide for a government. It would force people to pay the real price for their food and carers. Food is cheap historically because we don't pay farm labourers enough likewise People believe care in old age should be free and try to avoid care costs by putting the home in trust. State pension expansion in the late 40's should never have happened, people approaching pension age then signed future generations into a ponzi scheme. too many never contribite anywhere near enough to buy that level of income if they brought an annuity.

I've said before I'm a green meritocracist free speech absolutist. I am comfortable with poverty existing for those out competed. I am confortable with great wealth for those who are successful. I would stop them passing it on tgough. I would set inheritance tax exceptionally high and lower the point it kicks in. I would screw shut the borders and force people to pay the real fair cost forbthe goods and services they recieve because currently the UK government subsidises it by in work benefits and using immigration to fill low wage jobs which don't adequately pay into the tax pot.

It’s rare to see an expression of Thatcherism that is substantially less compassionate than Thatcher herself.

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who thinks poverty is ok.

You sound like a really unpleasant individual.

It's meritocracy you earn what you get if you decide not to work shouldn't you be living in poverty. If you only work 20 hours in a nail salon and spend more than you earn shouldn't you expect a crap quality of life? Why is that nasty?

 

[QR]

It's meritocracy you earn what you get if you decide not to work shouldn't you be living in poverty. If you only work 20 hours in a nail salon and spend more than you earn shouldn't you expect a crap quality of life? Why is that nasty?

What absolute .

Distribution of the benefits of inputs is a human construct and in general is controlled by those who hold power and/or influence and is maintained by a combination of force and democracy. This leads to a world where the rich are overly rewarded for their efforts with the quid pro quo being poverty wages. Being able to convince those on the wrong end of this slice up that they are to blame is the biggest con ever carried out in the name of democracy.

 

[RgYellows]

It's meritocracy you earn what you get if you decide not to work shouldn't you be living in poverty. If you only work 20 hours in a nail salon and spend more than you earn shouldn't you expect a crap quality of life? Why is that nasty?

If you can’t see how being fine with people not having basic human needs met because they lost the “competition” of life makes you look like a Bond villain, I can’t help you with that, but I can take issue with several of the beliefs that underpin this callous attitude.

I do not work harder than a nurse. My work is not as important as the work of a nurse. I could not do the job of a nurse. I am paid more than a nurse. The idea that our salary is a perfect reflection of what we “deserve” is probably one of the worst I’ve seen.

You also wish to tell people how to spend their money (i.e. not to pass it down to their children). This is not very libertarian.

Further, it is naive in the extreme to think that rich people can only “rig” your perfect meritocracy by passing wealth on, rather than by private schools and tuition, introductions to business contacts, offering a first job, and the far more pervasive benefit of a stable upbringing with every need catered for or ‘optimised’. It would take their advisers minutes to game any tax rule you care to write. And these distortions, incidentally, are why people aren’t paid in line with their “value” (alongside good old dumb luck).

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

It's amazing that people have ignored my statements on businesses paying a living wage here that reflects the employees contribution. Putting money in the pockets of the poorest carers and farm laborers (only 2 examples provided) to pay more in tax. Simply stopping the state bailing employers out with in work benefits and access to cheap labor. Again my inheritance tax position is hardly thatcherism it positively well left of center.

I didn't say I liked poverty (I said i was comfortable with its existence and i dont think the state needs to eradicate all of it especially for those whocause their own) I simply said in a meritocracy there are winners and loosers. And the fairest way to make this is to tie it to merit in a free society where people can choose what to do and what they spend money on. Some people make poor decisions some good.

I was poor lived on minimum wage for years every time I got a wage increase it went straight into investments or pension. Amongst people I know I saw people spend money they didn't have. Not going out to work when I left at 8 and got home at 8 in the evening. I haven't been abroard in 7 years no propper holiday in 6 years, I feel bitter about those who are expecting me to fund the lifestyles of others because I have assets through hard work others have chosen not to do. When I am gone I expect them all to be swallowed by the state if I don't use them to pay for care ect. My children shouldn't be advantaged through unearned (by them) income.

 

[RgYellows]

Net contributors are pretty easy to work out in terms of salary it's the bottom 60% that aren't.

Oh just to point out another economic illiteracy - this is the figures for any given year. It makes far more sense to look at people over their lifetimes, in which case 93% take more from the state than they give.

Won’t someone think of the top 7%?

 

[Scotchegg]

It's meritocracy you earn what you get if you decide not to work shouldn't you be living in poverty. If you only work 20 hours in a nail salon and spend more than you earn shouldn't you expect a crap quality of life? Why is that nasty?

Why are you so bitter about everything?

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

I do not work harder than a nurse. My work is not as important as the work of a nurse. I could not do the job of a nurse. I am paid more than a nurse. The idea that our salary is a perfect reflection of what we “deserve” is probably one of the worst I’ve seen.

You also wish to tell people how to spend their money (i.e. not to pass it down to their children). This is not very libertarian.

Absolutely nurses are underpaid the nhs only functions because of immigration (stopping that would force nhs to pay higher wages and we would have to pay higher tax which I would support but at least it would be paying the true cost of the service). These would then become greater contributors to the state balance sheet.

On inheritance tax we tax all sorts of things to discourage its use from petrol to cigarettes. Inheritance is as deeply damaging to society in perpetuating unearned income reaching an individual. So I don't think it's wrong to target that. Other advantages should be looked at too you mentioned though. My post wasn't the matty green manifesto.

As I said those two points are hardly hard core Thatcherism.

 

[RgYellows]

It's amazing that people have ignored my statements on businesses paying a living wage here that reflects the employees contribution. Putting money in the pockets of the poorest carers and farm laborers (only 2 examples provided) to pay more in tax. Simply stopping the state bailing employers out with in work benefits and access to cheap labor. Again my inheritance tax position is hardly thatcherism it positively well left of center.

That’s because it’s a generic statement that means nothing and comes with several downsides.

How much are you paying for this living wage? If only 7% of people pay more into the state than they take out, are you advocating for everyone to be paid a minimum wage of £80k a year or for a cut in living standards for 93% so that the top 7% can afford an extra holiday? Neither sound like vote winners to me.

What happens to businesses that can’t afford to pay £80k a year to farm labourers? Do I have to pay £400 for my punnet of British strawberries, or do we just let all our farms fail, import all our food and let everyone who worked on farms die in poverty?

I didn't say I liked poverty (I said i was comfortable with its existence and i dont think the state needs to eradicate all of it especially for those whocause their own) I simply said in a meritocracy there are winners and loosers.

This meritocracy doesn’t exist. I am paid way more than I’m worth.

And the fairest way to make this is to tie it to merit in a free society where people can choose what to do and what they spend money on. Some people make poor decisions some good.

Unless they want to pay for their children to get ahead, which you’ll tax at 100%.

How free is this society? Should I be able to pay to own another human? Should I be able to pay to flood the factory of my competitor with cheap, low grade fentanyl, drive them out of business, and then smash up my prices whilst suppressing wages (as I’m now the only factory in town)?

My children shouldn't be advantaged through unearned (by them) income.

If you can only advantage your children by handing them money when you die, you lack imagination.

God willing, most of us will be 30-40 or older when our parents pass. By that time, it’s too late for many of us to become King of England or CEO of BP.

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

Oh just to point out another economic illiteracy - this is the figures for any given year. It makes far more sense to look at people over their lifetimes, in which case 93% take more from the state than they give.

Won’t someone think of the top 7%?

Sounds like a good reason to allow the 93% to earn more then paid for by their employers so they can pay more tax. If this means less profit for the 7% then fine it's the most wealthy that usually do best from surplus labor and immigration. Look what happened to the surviving peasants after the black death huge improvements in wages and legal protections. You could achieve better pay for those of the 93% who choose to earn more by increasing minimum wage. If that means you can't get your nails done every month because the cost is higher that's fine. If that means you can take the kids out to the cinima or end up with a 1950s spend on food as a percentage of income thst is also fine by me.

I've said before I am happy to pay more for food, clothes and healthcare costs (tax) If it stops the UK state being tun as a ponzi scheme.

 

[Marston Road yellow]

I still can’t get past you suggesting that poverty is anything other than abhorrent and we should be aiming to end it
I’d cope off you had come up with a plan to get the lazy so and sos off their a**e etc…….

I hope you never see people you love reduced to poverty through illness. addiction or affliction.

Frankly everything else you wrote becomes irrelevant if you can’t get past the basics in human rights.

 

[QR]

It's amazing that people have ignored my statements on businesses paying a living wage here that reflects the employees contribution. Putting money in the pockets of the poorest carers and farm laborers (only 2 examples provided) to pay more in tax. Simply stopping the state bailing employers out with in work benefits and access to cheap labor. Again my inheritance tax position is hardly thatcherism it positively well left of center.

I didn't say I liked poverty (I said i was comfortable with its existence and i dont think the state needs to eradicate all of it especially for those whocause their own) I simply said in a meritocracy there are winners and loosers. And the fairest way to make this is to tie it to merit in a free society where people can choose what to do and what they spend money on. Some people make poor decisions some good.

I was poor lived on minimum wage for years every time I got a wage increase it went straight into investments or pension. Amongst people I know I saw people spend money they didn't have. Not going out to work when I left at 8 and got home at 8 in the evening. I haven't been abroard in 7 years no propper holiday in 6 years, I feel bitter about those who are expecting me to fund the lifestyles of others because I have assets through hard work others have chosen not to do. When I am gone I expect them all to be swallowed by the state if I don't use them to pay for care ect. My children shouldn't be advantaged through unearned (by them) income.

So in your perfect world poor pensioners can die and rot in their own s**t, those with disabilities can exist in abject poverty for the few years they can avoid death, and if you happen to have a well below average IQ you can live the life of peasant from the dark ages. Nice.

 

[Londox]

 

[Symp59]

Yes and how many of those 1in 25 if there was a war would fight for our country ?

 

[Scotchegg]

Yes and how many of those 1in 25 if there was a war would fight for our country ?

Its the old "who do they support in cricket" rubbish!

We've got 250,000 ex pats living in Spain. Do you expect them to fight for their new country?

How about the 1m in Australia? Or the 1.5m in Canada and The USA? Are these all expected to go to war for their adopted countries?

 

[RgYellows]

This is far easier than actually engaging with the analysis, isn’t it? And it’s only got a track record of never working and making us worse off than before, so what’s not to love.

 

[Marston Road yellow]

Remember folks

Very clever people with clever degrees, with clever sounding accents, writing for clever newspapers, told you that Brexit would be good for the economy.

 

[Londox]

Its the old "who do they support in cricket" rubbish!

We've got 250,000 ex pats living in Spain. Do you expect them to fight for their new country?

How about the 1m in Australia? Or the 1.5m in Canada and The USA? Are these all expected to go to war for their adopted countries?

Scorchers even you know you're making a false equivalence there.

British nationals make up at most 2% of the population in Spain and I bet close to 100% of them travelled there legally.

I would be less concerned if we were having huge immigration from Australia or Canada. I do not foresee a culture clash with them on the level of Somalians or Syrians.

 

[Scotchegg]

Scorchers even you know you're making a false equivalence there.

British nationals make up at most 2% of the population in Spain and I bet close to 100% of them travelled there legally.

I would be less concerned if we were having huge immigration from Australia or Canada. I do not foresee a culture clash with them on the level of Somalians or Syrians.

Its not a false equivalent, its an example of double standards.

Its often said that those coming here wouldn't fight for this country, but no one puts those expectations on any ex-pats.

People keep saying that anyone coming to this country must respect our culture (not that anyone can explain what our culture is!) and should integrate, but again, no one expects that of brits abroad.

And as for legal migration, in the last 4 years, total migration has been around 4m. In the same period, around 160,000 arrived by boats. So 96% of all arrivals were perfectly legal by every measure available.

And of the 160,000 many would have had their asylum claims approved (making them also legal) or would have been removed. So the actually number of those here legally is much closer to the 100% that youve guessed for Spain.

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

This is far easier than actually engaging with the analysis, isn’t it? And it’s only got a track record of never working and making us worse off than before, so what’s not to love.

Just wondering if the "impartial" news provider GBNews have got confused here and are looking at the UK birth rate

For 2023, there were 591072 births in the UK
multiply that by 4years = 2,364,288, which as a % of the official population of 68.35 million (2023 figures), gives you 3.459%
Allow a bit of journalistic licence to round up and . . . .Bob's yer uncle . . . 4% "new arrivals"
And to think, our birth rate is lamentably low compared to the 1950's and 1960's


But I jest (I think). Let's give "GBNews" the benefit of the doubt and assume they are looking at the right kind of new arrivals. Have they said anywhere how many of those are legal as opposed to what some might refer to as illegal? Is that a net migration figure? Have they done any analysis into how long on average those people who have arrived in the last 4 years actually stay?

I'm guessing not, because it wouldn't have the dog-whistle impact they were going for

 

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[Marston Road yellow]

So handing back an island that the international court has told you to do and renting back some of the island where you have a military base seems reasonable. Not sure what the real argument is with this.

 

[Scotchegg]

So handing back an island that the international court has told you to do and renting back some of the island where you have a military base seems reasonable. Not sure what the real argument is with this.

There are no arguments. The entire opposition is made of soundbites and faux anger.

Thats not to say that Labour are getting everything right, far from it. But the opposition from all sides is pathetic.