to believe Rachel Reeves was crying because

Here you go. These are viable options. Still not great for Labour and as I said political turmoil gets more likely

Why do you need me to give Labour alternatives?
If it’s the party you vote for ask them

It’s their corner they’ve painted themselves in to after all.

Read the on @thisoldthangpossible options and whether they’d work.

‘The markets have much more sway than I do on borrowing.

No shit!

Ok so no real alternatives, just you don’t like what they’ve done. Fair enough.

„That’s what got us into this mess, bias and half-truths to a chronically uneducated population that still believes Britannia rules the waves and thought relying on (legal) foreign labour would last forever. No investment in the British population, a skewed idea of who and what British is and now blame the foreigners“

What do you mean by no investment in the population? Everyone here gets free health care and a generally good standard of education. What you do have is generational dysfunctionality in some regions and gassing/addiction/laziness. You still have London funding the rest of the country whilst London is still Labour, including much of the metropolitan elite. It’s the poorer regions who voted for Brexit and will vote for Reform. We need companies subsidised via tax incentives to move to poorer areas and young people to settle there as house prices in other cities are too high anyway. We need a plan to turn around all unproductive areas but it needs buy in from everyone from education to health to business. This has been the case for many many years and I guess they will just keep protest voting until there is change but ironically their protest votes make things worse for them. My generation of Metropolitan Elite will never vote for Reform, the man who brought us Brexit is a snake and we won’t be charmed by his poison.

Realistically, the only things that can be cut are Old Age pensions, UC, PIP/DLA, Civil Service and public sector pensions.

Public sector pay can be frozen or cut by lower than inflation pay rises.

Cuts are coming one way or another, but I doubt Labour will manage it - so we're probably looking at debt spiral > collapse > IMF bailout> government collapse > huge cuts.

The markets have much more sway than I do on borrowing. We’re at the limit hence the reaction to the PMQs last week. No one can touch it.

I would have preferred no squashing of the private sector to start with, but Labour were convincing enough to get the approach over the line. Labour have made the mistakes and they’ll have to work it out.

There’s no easy way to deal with those decisions, I’m guessing some political turmoil is incoming for them.

So you do t want more borrowing, you don’t want more tax, what do you actually want to see?

The mistake is one that is fundamental though. The meant to be one off £70bn hit at last budget in borrowing and taxes isn’t the case due to that mistake.

Reeves / Starmer will go for higher taxes in the autumn. Higher borrowing is out thankfully, they probably would if they could but the markets won’t allow.

So back to taxes. It’s easy to see that a cycle of tax rises leading to more is the opposite to what we need.

LOL - don’t say you weren’t warned’? FFS, do you think you’re educating anyone about anything here?

Who said anything about unchecked migration? Almost all migration to the UK is legal. I expressed no support for migration or its restriction. I pointed out that some of these arguments made are false. You’ve taken to veiled threats because you have no argument, no solutions, just lies and opinion. That’s what got us into this mess, bias and half-truths to a chronically uneducated population that still believes Britannia rules the waves and thought relying on (legal) foreign labour would last forever. No investment in the British population, a skewed idea of who and what British is and now blame the foreigners.

It would be laughable but we are ALL affected by this. ‘Don’t say you weren’t warned’ indeed.

GDP and net contribution per capita aren’t the same thing.

A white paper is a political document not an economic one, and the IWP 25 doesn’t contain enough data to argue migration is the cause of stagnating GDP. It would be odd if it did, since higher net migration tends to raise overall GDP, mainly by increasing the number of people working and paying taxes (have a look at the OBR’s fiscal risks reports in prior years).

The main causes of stagnant GDP (according to OBR) are weak investment since the financial crisis (2008!!) and Brexit, and the political uncertainty that followed, low productivity, skills gaps and regional inequalities, and public service impacts on labour force participation (e.g., lack of affordable childcare, health or social care).

Some of these have been - or are starting to be - addressed, but it’s always easier to blame migration, it’s what the Tories did for years. Unfortunately it’s more complicated than that, and the years of underinvestment in health and social care, infrastructure, education and stagnating growth are all biting at once, so we’re all feeling it and doing what humans do in the face of limited resources, blaming each other and trying to grab ‘our’ slice of the pie.

Tbf her policies are relevant as they’ve led to the need for cuts. Not just Reeves but Starmer and all involved.

An Elysée source warned that Mr Macron expected measures “addressing the root causes of the factors that attract people to the United Kingdom”, adding: “These causes must also be addressed by the British.”

They added that France would be willing to discuss ways to stop more small boats leaving its shores during the Anglo-French summit on Thursday.

Mr Macron’s allies have said the ease in which migrants can get under-the-table employment means Britain is viewed as “an El Dorado” – a city of riches, where it is easy to work.

You reap what you sow, as they say - we are already seeing the consequences.
Unchecked immigration simply does not work.

Who knows what your reasons are for supporting it, but a significant number of us do not. And no, it’s not racism. It’s pragmatism and a cold assessment of what is happening to the UK (not just the UK).

There will be a reckoning - a swing to the right - it’s already happening in the US, and in parts of Europe. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

I think she was crying as the has to deal with bone-headed idiot MPs in her party. They made her withdraw the main guts of the welfare bill and yet they didn’t provide any example of how they propose to fund the £30bn explosion in welfare. How is she supposed to react to that? These MPs are so dense light bends around them. What is she supposed to do? And yet she’ll get the blame when the IMF is called in to bail the UK out and no welfare of any sort is given to anyone.

I’m not sure what your point is re children - yes, of course that needs investment. I’ve said earlier that the only route to growth is through investment in education, welfare, training and shared a thread on kids living in appalling conditions. I’m sure we’re in agreement on this.

That’s the theory yes. It’s not the sole solution obviously, but there’s a reason so many Syrians left Syria. The purpose of the funding is quite clear. www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-re-establishes-diplomatic-relations-with-syria-in-first-ministerial-visit-for-14-years

From memory, the 7/7 bombers were British and were motivated by the Iraq war.

This is why everyone must call out open border supporters like @Allisnotlost1 so that the we stick to facts.

No surprises there.

@ladywindemeresbucket yes, I read the white paper at work yesterday (checking for the changes to the sponsored visa salary threshold coming in on 22 July). It uses surprisingly tough language, particularly coming from Labour, in terms of the adverse financial impact of lower-skilled immigration and dependents. It’s pretty much a mea culpa regarding the previous “come one, come all” immigration policy and requires businesses to basically train/use UK-born people in future (or explain why if they want to sponsor a visa). Implementation will no doubt be a challenge A small step in the right direction.

We could if we stopped giving so much in handouts to migrants coming over the channel.
Macron was correct when he said we were too generous.

If we put them in tents they'd soon stop coming !

https://www.ein.org.uk/news/new-nao-overview-shows-home-office-total-spending-asylum-and-migration-2023-24

Richard Hughes, Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility:

“the UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”.

For a long time, it has been claimed that migration has economically benefited the United Kingdom.

However, the government’s own immigration White Paper from May 2025 admitted this was false, detailing stagnating GDP growth (just 3.4% since 2019, compared to the US’ 12% in the same period); immigration from low-skilled workers “distorting the labour market”, and displacing workers in six out of 10 key industries; and, most worrying, conceding GDP per capita has fallen. This means the average Brit is worse off, (continually since 2022.)

So much so that our GDP per capita is now lower than before the Covid pandemic, as explained in the May 2025 Immigration White Paper:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Young students with no kids and family coming over entering professional jobs (an example would be your high achieving Chinese student who does end up staying) will be the type of immigrant we need to build tech/AI/services etc

The politicians’ job is to educate the general public on matters of immigration and not let the populist narrative harm our future further.
It is true that Boris Johnson’s policies, in particular, unleashed a wave of lower skilled immigrants with families arriving (some not very young either) that could be a long term significant cost, but it is easy to change these policies.
The whole idea that the country is full etc is not true. The country needs to grow and needs young skilled immigrants and will likely always need them. Certain social groups and people from certain countries are also more likely to contribute.

Typically, also those entering the best universities here as foreign students will also likely contribute more in the future.

It is all common sense really. Someone highly educated, at the cost of another country, entering here as a student into a great university will be a good thing for us. Someone very low skilled arriving with a wife and 6 children with different cultural expectations and lower educational values will likely be a long term cost. Quite often the children will not speak English, will not be fully vaccinated etc and these issues need sorting out and are costly. However, once here it is still better to integrate and educate them fully so that the 6 children will become future workers. The reality is that the children of those from poorer countries are less likely to return to those countries in the future, whereas the children of immigrants from richer countries may well just get their education here and bounce. If they were privately educated, it is less of a cost as well.

They are a net cost. That’s absolutely correct which intensifies as they age.

I’m not wrong, the vast majority of immigrants are net cost. You’re blurring the issue saying ‘after 10 years’ and low paid and ‘under appreciated’.

OK I posted the wrong piece, but this isn't two years old https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c391n03eydxo

and are you seriously telling me that giving Aid to far flung counties will stop the boats coming over the Channel or stop attacks like 7/7 in London ? Really ?