"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

In person assessments by qualified/trained people cost money, which is why prior governments (looking at you IDS!) cut back on both the training and the person parts.

Disability payments is such a broad umbrella. FWIW I think there’s more constructive work that could be done to help disabled people who are not in work but could and want to be, or to increase their hours. But many disabled people are in work and face additional expenses to do so. The system should support people to realise their potential not just keep them alive.

Yes well increasing the ENI and all the other counter productive tinkering hardly helped businesses along did it. Another stupid move by Rachel Reeves.

Yes I agree and its a shame the EU were trying to get us to pay to chip in to be allowed to join in with the defence programme really.

Nominate - Chris Philp, now Shadow Home Secretary to explain the Rwanda policy

Chris Philp makes geographic blunder on Question Time

It depends on what we believe the society (taxpayer) has to compensate for. And in person assessments are a must in my opinion.

As to tax hikes - I hope that Oct 28 budget will be the last one for possible tax hikes. Labour have less than 3 years now. I believe they will go for "buy now pay later". There will be a number of measures to start in 2029. So to get a room for borrowing whilst trying to reassure bond markets that they will be able to pay for it.

And I believe election will be called in 2028 - based on vibes, not reality, so people won't feel the effect of planned hikes yet, but believe in "green shoots".

It’s not about the ability of some to absorb va others who can’t. Big businesses are able to absorb it because they have increased revenue through squeezing the supply chain and smaller competitors, using automation and therefore reducing staff. All of that has an impact on SMEs who see falling revenue /!: are faced with higher rents and utilities. All of that had a effect before the NICs issue. So yes, for some it might be the last straw, but for a business to say they were doing great until that 1%? Not credible.

Yes, but we would get more defence capability for our money than if we went solo. Again, this is not a hypothetical, there are successfully developed weapons systems deployed and operational that were developed cooperatively.

No Im asking you because you were the one who said there are "other ways to raise the money for defence" and I just wondered what ways you were thinking of. Showing a polite interest etc.

Really? You can’t think of a single option other than making people homeless?

The capacity for a big business to absorb ENI rises is larger than a small business with veey tight overheads. The PP was mainly referring to large businesses with thousands of employees. Not perhaps your local pub who can no longer take on extra bar staff in busy periods as theres a maximum of four now. Unless you want to pay the penalty.

And I disagreed in return. It's allowed.

We still need to spend 3.5% of GDP though....

Do you somehow think it can all be separated? Of course not. The scale of businesses - especially in retail and hospitality - and the costs of utilities (all big businesses) has an enormous impact on SMEs many of whom are within the supply chain, and on tiny local businesses.

Cap private rents and build or buy more social housing. Building it would benefit the economy, but we need to weigh that against the environmental impact.

Invest in actual training for in-demand industries such as engineering, AI, and green energy, not silly 6-week bootcamps; give people on low incomes/unemployment benefits actual, globally in-demand certifications and work experience.

The person just disagreed with you. It's allowed. If you have such a problem, grass her up to MN. I can't see why you would obviously.

Exactly, the budget isn’t welfare, defence and nothing else. There are other ways to fund/reduce the costs of defence needs. For example, the F35 was a multinational cooperative effort for development costs. We can do more of that via NATO and so we share the costs of defence upgrades with allies.

I wouldn't have remade my point if there hadn't been false justifications for it!

We shouldn't be taking money from foreign (or any) companies that want to build data centres everywhere and further screw up the country (in electricity, water etc and all the land they take up).

In terms of national security we should be concerned about creating much more food than we do and stopping the reliance on so many countries that hold all our utilities etc. They'd all just have to stop supplying whatever they do and we'd be wrecked.

So some actual long term plans for agriculture, green energy to name 2.

Legislation overruled that. What other countries do does matter. Politically and in terms of where people try to get to.

No the legislation had been passed so the Rwanda plan would have been allowed. Labour binned it in a haze of virtue signalling without a replacement plan to "smash the gangs!!!!".(hard to type that without the nasal tones of KS ringing in my ears).

we have one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe, and it shows.

Link please?

You understand that the previous government’s plans were found illegal by British courts yes? So what other countries do is neither here nor there, since they have different legislation. Had the Tories made small tweaks they could have made their plan lawful. I don’t personally believe they ever intended to carry it out, all a dead cat.

To be fair, you don't know what people mean. The survey is helpful - it's clear why all the parties are struggling to say anything other than broad statements on this topic.

If someone got through the PIP appeal process with acne vulgaris they'd have been supported by medical opinion. I'm not a medic myself. Presumably only a very low number ever apply with that, they'd have to evidence impacts. Something like arthritis would be a much bigger number of people.

Presumably this is why the IFS (mentioned a few pages back by someone) says the savings are not there to be made - if people are ill, they're ill.

Hello Walt.

Go for it. What ways. Other than raising taxes of course.