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

Im not following your argument. Correct. The legislation was in place therefore the legislation was possible. A country had to be found to be ready to go once the legislation was ready to go. This takes time. Germany is now taking up the Rwanda policy as are other EU countries.

Yes of course Keir was entitled to cancel the policy of a previous government. You would have thought a prudent government, when cancelling a workable policy, would have had something to replace it with. But as we all know we are not dealing with a prudent government. We are dealing with a group of mad hatters who are running around like headless chickens (ive slightly mangled that..hats and no heads..)

I am saying that International Law was not understood by successive Tory governments, from Johnson on, and £300 million was wasted on this scheme. EU countries may have more understanding of this - the key word is defoulement - Philps certainly didn't understand this at QT.

Well we’ll see how it goes. You might not be looking at more and more EU countries set up similar and be pleased you voted to scrap what was here, but others may feel differently.

The Tories took years to get it resolved and it cost the country £300 million. Some of this discussion on here has made me realise why the country voted them out. Starmer put in place other measures - look at the statistics on the illegal migration in boats. It is a fact.

Legislation overruled it. Labour scrapped it. One thing the equivalent party got right in Australia was not to scrap a policy that completely stopped deaths at sea and boats arriving.

Even if they had opposed it heavily before the problem was resolved. And citizens will never vote it out.

You’re not following. The previous government should have known their proposal would be unlawful. It was obvious. They should have proposed the legislative change before paying Rwanda. Had they done so, they may have put that plan in place.

The current government is entitled not to proceed with a policy from the previous government. This is totally normal.

The legislation was in place (finally). Such a shame Keir took the ideological route rather than continuing with the solution.

It didnt happen because Labour got in and cancelled it just as it was ready to go. Rishi could have delayed the election so that when all the ducks were in a line we could see if Rwanda would work. The Conservatives would still have lost but at least it would have been a solution that would be proven to have worked...ideological Labour strikes again at the expense of the national interest.

No it was unlawful - ruled in the court, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Last night, I shared a video of the incompetent Chris Philp not understanding why it was a problem, on QT. Rwanda was a bad choice. It took a PM, that was an eminent lawyer to throw it out.

Yes, the same parliamentary process that was followed after several years wasted touting a plan they knew would never happen.

And of course the state enables - or disables - wealth creation and economic value through its actions, whether that’s investment (or not) in education, infrastructure, health, or through regulation or trade or foreign policy.

There is a parliamentary process to follow unfortunately. Thats democracy for you!

So why not change that legislation before? It was obvious it wasn’t lawful in the form they initially proposed. Poor legal advice or legal advice they ignored?

Netanyahu has caused this situation - he continues to fail to protect those in the lands he has occupied. A report from Independent International Commission of Inquiry:

The Commission finds that the State of Israel bears legal responsibility for failing to protect Palestinian children from settler violence in the West Bank. It acquiesces in, permits and fosters a sustained campaign of settler violence against Palestinians, including children, in violation of its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law to accord children special protection.407 Despite periodic token government statements condemning settler violence and the occasional dismantling of one or two unauthorized outposts, Israeli authorities have taken no meaningful or sustained measures to curb settler attacks. The Commission concludes, on the basis of all examined evidence, that settler violence functions not as a deviation from state policy but as a means of implementing it. Both the State of Israel and violent settler groups share and collaborate in the same strategic objectives: the entrenchment of Israeli settlement on Palestinian land, annexation of Palestinian territory and the displacement of Palestinian people from their land.

The state cannot "create" wealth. The state supports wealth creation in many different ways. But it spends wealth. That is why "investment for growth" is a load of rubbish. Tbe private sector grows the economy. Or tries to although is finding it tricky at the moment with people running the country who don't understand economics.

As I said, Rishi is the last Chancellor we have had to really did understand the job.

Why on Earth would you be sharing Netanyahu’s propaganda? Genuinely appalled to see someone do this to score party political points.

So a private company installing telecommunications is creating wealth but a state owned company doing the same isn't. State owned utilities in France own utilities in the UK are creating wealth for who exactly.

The state does create wealth and so do private companies just on different ways.

Without infrastructure and state investment the private sector can't flourish.

Has the UK flourished since leaving the EU. Losing 12 percent of our GDP has done what exactly for wealth creation other than led to more austerity which in turn has held back growth.

I'm afraid the private and state are very much joined at the hip and you'll find much of the private sector tied up with public spending.

I think your post sums up the misapprehension the left are under and why the economy is getting worst under Labour. They really do need someone as Chancellor that understands where wealth comes from.

The public sector does not create wealth. Create being the operative word. A teacher does not create wealth.

Not sure what you mean by blind people. Are there no blind people in the public sector?

I think the point you are trying to make is whether people contribute in other ways other than creating the wealth the economy needs to function. Yes of course people contribute in a myriad of ways. But it was wealth I was discussing as in what would finance an increase in defence spending. Which is the topic of the thread.

Actually it's a mixture, wealth is created in many ways. Do teachers not spend money? Do doctors not have an economic value? Does a blind person not support their country?

You have a distorted view on what is wealth.

Those lines that get repeated a lot, the trickle down one and the not a household budget one. I can imagine many Labour meetings see similar.

It means taxes keep being hiked and borrowing gives us even more massive debt servicing costs.

And you will believe a war criminal charged with genocide. A compulsive liar and a person with no regard for international law over your own government.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a nasty bit of work and we should not let harsh words interfere with good judgement.

I think I agree with the PM, you can't sacrifice welfare for increased military spending. We do still have a very capable military and that has been demonstrated in the Ukraine. It's our technology that is helping the Ukraine beat Putin.

Our military is in a better state than it was under Margaret Thatcher, and if Argentina were stupid enough to attempt to take the Falklands they would be in for a pretty nasty surprise.

Could we take on Russia, well absolutely not and we have never been in a position to do that. We are a small island and we have to accept we simply don't have that sort of capacity. But we are a member of NATO and that alone means we have more capability than any country on the planet.

So it's people, infrastructure, education and health before military expansion. Makes perfect sense to me.

Taxation which does not directly impact the poster.

Just a hunch.

Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Labour of sanctioning Israel to help it win a by-election in London.

On Tuesday, Ed Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, unveiled trade restrictions against Israeli businesses operating in settlements in the occupied West Bank.
A spokesman for Mr Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, told GB News that sanctions had been applied “nakedly for domestic politics”.

He claimed the move was designed to increase Labour’s chances of holding on to Sir Keir Starmer’s seat of Holborn and St Pancras on Oct 8 against an expected challenge by Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader.

David Mencer, Mr Netanyahu’s spokesman, said Labour was “trying to do British politics and masquerading it as foreign policy”.

Yet another complete fuck up by Labour…. Votes over security of our nation . He should be hung for treason.