to believe Rachel Reeves was crying because

[LargeDeviation]

1. she was upset when Lindsay Hoyle told her to keep her answers short

2. she had an argument with Keir Starmer (possibly about her keeping her job, or about how to handle the inevitable questions about the new £5.5bn per annum black hole) just before PMQs

3. Keir Starmer refused to say she would keep her job in front of the whole country. If he genuinely wanted her to stay, he would just say 'of course she's going to still be Chancellor' and that would be that.

4. she is under immense pressure because she knows she will have soon to breach her fiscal rules, she knows she is responsible for many of the decisions that will lead to that, and she knows the how serious the consequences of her failure will be. We have seen recently (even just today) how vicious the bond market can be.

In short, I believe she was crying because of professional pressures (understandable ones, though largely of her own making, and about which I have little sympathy) and not nebulous 'personal' reasons.

If her parent or partner or child or grandparent or pet is ill the natural thing is to just say 'sorry, a close relative is in hospital and my emotions got the better of me'. Everybody would understand. You don't need huge reams of evidence but you need to give the bare bones of an explanation. She is trying to style it out but we can all see through it.

I will apologise if I'm wrong but long experience shows that 'personal reasons' almost always means 'I'm skiving or jobhunting' when a colleague in the workplace uses it to excuse their time off.

I believe it means even less when uttered by a politican.

Funnily enough I don’t advise Rachel Reeves. Were you as anxious to point out the flaws in previous incumbents’ policies?

The vast, vast majority of immigrants are a drain on the Exchequer. If we only took the people you're describing, our fiscal position would be fantastic.

Especially whilst putting in policies that have the opposite impact.

Same.
RR thinks you get growth by taxing SMEs out of existence.

Yes. Rachel Reeves deserves all the criticism she gets. She out of her depth and unfit to continue as chancellor.

…and improve education by taxing schools out of existence.

I don't give a flying bollock about what other incumbents did. We are where we are now and it seems Ms Reeves has done everything she can to wreck the economy.

What I would like to know is who signed off the recent £94.5 million aid package to Syria ?

And this when our our own SEN children are missing out

news.sky.com/story/why-thousands-of-children-with-special-educational-needs-are-missing-out-on-education-12920518

Outrageous !

Yes! Whilst simultaneously making private schools even more elite. Genius.

This just isn’t true. You can’t treat ‘immigrants’ as a single group but if you do, most research suggests that immigrants broadly contribute more in taxes than they receive in services. People in relativelu low paid jobs may also be on receipt of in-work benefits but are doing essential roles in shortage occupations.

This story is two years old. It’s a travesty, but not something you can pin on the Chancellor.

Aid is part of keeping the UK safe.

The PP didn’t treat immigrants as a group, they said the ‘vast majority’ are a drain. Which is true. Your reply is also true in that as a group they contribute more than they put in due to some very high tax payers. Maybe we lower immigration to those who contribute? Crazy idea I know right?

Do you think the anti growth policies such as NI which hits businesses are problematic?

Or do you think Reeves is making the right decisions

It’s not true that ‘the vast majotity’ don’t contribute, that’s simply false. A small group of highly skilled visa holders are one factor, but not the only one.

I think NI raises were a mistake. They don’t just affect business but also non-profits, many of which are picking up the slack of depleted public services, which has a further knock on effect on productivity because some of that support was keeping people in work, above the poverty line, mentally well etc.

However I think the principle of big employers contributing more is a necessary one, given the right mechanism. Volume employers have benefited from in-work benefits by keeping workers on low wages, part-time hours and zero hour contracts. And then as soon as NI goes up they put up prices rather than see a dent in their enormous profits. It’s cakeism really, there needs to be a way to rebalance that but it can’t be done overnight.

I disagree, but it’s beside the point. Why not only allow immigration that financialy benefits the U.K.

You can disagree but you’re still wrong.

The groups that show the most mixed contribution are family reunion and asylum/refugees. The former often a necessity to ensure the primary visa holder comes, or stays. And their children are usually net contributors over their lifetime. latter show net contribution after about 10 years, with decent integration policies (which we broadly have). Unemployment and wage stagnation has probably made it harder, and there’s probably more challenges with integration now because, politics.

So, broadly we do only have immigration that financially benefits the UK. In some cases that’s because people are coming to do low paid and under appreciated but necessary jobs.

@Blossomtoes

Jeremy Corbyn held an event in Wes Streeting’s constituency hours after announcing that he would help to create a new Left-wing party.

The former Labour leader, now an independent MP, spoke in Ilford North alongside Leanne Mohamad, the pro-Palestinian* *candidate who came within 528 votes of defeating the Health Secretary at last summer’s general election.
Mr Streeting will face an uphill battle to keep his seat if the backlash over Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war continues.

He is one of the most prominent MPs in Labour’s moderate wing, and widely tipped to run for the party leadership when Sir Keir Starmer’s tenure comes to an end.

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 ?

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’.

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

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.

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:

Richard Hughes, Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility:

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

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

@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.