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.

No surprises there.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

„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.

‘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.

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.

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

I broadly agree with you on regional inequalities, but the standard of education and healthcare in the uk is uneven and in some cases poor in comparison to economy size and relevant countries. Both have been chronically underinvested.

For example, we have great universities but international students are propping those up, while teenagers’ basic skills are below OECD average. 1 in 8 young people are not in work, education or training. This is terrible - not just for them, for us. We have a massive problem with mental health and lack the resources to solve it, so people are stuck on welfare.

People are swayed by reform because things are so bleak, and they want to believe in a simple solution. You can see it on the thread. People always want the path of least resistance.

I don’t think Labour have any way out of it which is why there’s no answers for them.

But they walked into it with the decisions made.

I think it’s just a bit odd to criticise from
the sidelines - and so vociferously! - without knowing what you’d like to see instead. That was the question I asked, not ‘give Labour alternatives’.

No-one is suggesting it’s your job to do so, it just seems obvious that if you don’t like A, that might because you’d prefer B or C.

Given that the Tories were facing the exact same set of circumstances last July, what do you think they’d have done differently? Particularly since they promised tax cuts.

See below. I don’t think there are any answers for them. That’s the problem and why people are being critical.

That’s what painting yourself into a corner does. It’s incredibly hard to manoeuvre out of it.

Look at @ThisOldThangand possible options, they’ve put some down in the pp but I agree they won’t be easy so they are pretty much non options.

“For example, we have great universities but international students are propping those up, while teenagers’ basic skills are below OECD average. 1 in 8 young people are not in work, education or training. This is terrible - not just for them, for us. We have a massive problem with mental health and lack the resources to solve it, so people are stuck on welfare.”

Actually our recent PISA studies show strong academic potential amongst ours teens. However, the Covid school closures were way too extreme and have caused untold damage to children’s mental health. A lot is also to blame on the screen addiction that took hold as a direct result of Covid and awareness is now growing in this regard. Educated parents know all the harms and tend to breastfeed, read to their kids, exercise them and feed them healthy foods and limit screen time. Uneducated parents barely surviving looking after themselves tend to not do that (obviously vast generalisation, but that is where the funding needs to go). Most primary schools teachers will be able to tell you day 1 how kids are likely to do, based on the parents’ attitude or cicumstances. Single poor mothers get a particularly rough deal in this country and the fathers should be made to pay up or have their benefits cancelled for life.

How about a scheme where your ISA is invested in UK Government bonds long term? How about anyone who can does just that? I would be happy to lend to them if they turn the country around. Obviously very blue sky, but anyone got any better suggestions? Instead of more taxes, offer incentives that people will actually be happy to buy into.

Or social housing funds for female key workers in nursing, care home workers in poorer areas? Again, would be happy to invest my ISA in that if Government backed.