to think that Jim Ratcliffes statement is not an apology.

[PyongyangKipperbang]

If you looked up the meaning of "sorry not sorry" there would be a link to this!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cdjm3n8yrwnt

Brilliant small minded comment with no understanding of economics for the country as a whole. If billionaires cream off money without paying anything back into the UK we're screwed.

Agreed

UK voters want better public services, paid for by cutting waste/reducing tax loop holes, not increasing taxes.
In fact they think lower taxes are the solution..

I think immigration is not the answer either BUT in the short term, getting migrants from Europe, with quite similar cultures is far far preferrable than taking people from Asia and Africa, these are cultures often at odds with our own.

The Tories and Nigel Farage have altered the mix of the country in ways that we could never have imagined, 3million people allowed in over 4 years, no country can manage that, housing and infrastructure are overwhelmed.

Yet both have portrayed the "left" as the cause of all of this.

I think you're mistake is seeing the Tories and even Farage as "right wing", they're liberals first and foremost

Oh really!

I'm not religious but i do remember one biblical quotation, something like "they shall come to you as Wolves dressed in Lambs clothing"

Reform are to the right of even the RN, in France, considered as Far Right and the Tories are aping Reform.

Jim Ratcliffe tax dodger. We don’t need lessons from him.

These people are charlatans, they had power in the Tory party, they did whatever it took to stay in power, they'll do whatever it takes to get power again with Reform.

You think Muslims cannot be far right??

Farage makes the policy, people like Jenrick will follow, so long as NF gets them what they want.... Power.

Well what are they? Dangerous nazis or power hungry cowboys blowing in the wind.

The point is, a genuinely racist party, would not be a comfortable home for Muslims. You know that. But political discourse is virtually impossible now because people just pretend not to understand very obvious points.

But if they are naive enough to join, they make an excellent smoke screen.

That may be so, but a huge chunk of benefits go to people who don't work full-time.
I think the figures are about 38% of those claiming UC are in work and of that 38% only about 6% are working full-time.
I work with people who won't increase their hours or work full time because they would lose benefits.
Can't say I blame them as that is the system but it is too simple to say that it is simply employers not paying enough.
And, of course, if 38% are in full or part time work - that's 62% who are not.

A lot of these people are single parents, who would really struggle to do part time, or have another reason (health etc) that means they struggle to take on full time work. It's not as simple as "choosing" not to do full time hours.

I fully agree that voters want better services without having to pay for it.

Unfortunately what one person views as wasteful Government spending another person views as essential Government spending.

As for tax loopholes- there have always been tax loopholes and as soon as you close down one loophole then a new Government policy will open a whole new set of loopholes.

I also fully agree that cutting taxes (provided it's done in the right way) will help to create economic growth.

But as I've previously said that in an election where there are two candidates
A) that promises higher spending and lower taxes funded by cutting wasteful spending, closing tax loopholes and economic growth (even though they know this is not possible or realistic) and
B) that promises higher spending (with higher taxes) or lower taxes (with lower spending)
Then Candidate A will always be elected as a politician, they will always fail to deliver what they promised (because it was never possible in the first place), they will always blame the previous Government and the public will always complain that all politicians lie.

The truth is that if politicians didn't lie then they would always be political candidates and never elected politicians.

So who is to blame here - the politicians or the voters?

I go back to my point "Wolves in Sheep's clothing.....

Even the Nazi's accepted some Germans with Jewish Ancestry in the 1920s and early 30s.

I think the many who are delighted with the launch of Restore would argue is that Reforms problem is that they are sheep in wolves clothing. For all the hysteria, they are shaping up to be Tories 2.0

Wolves in sheeps clothing indeed though, the rabid genderism of the left proved an education - they're all wolves. I feel safer with one's whose bark is worse than their bite.

Why should he apologise

Cause he's sponging off the UK, doesn't pay any tax here, has a responsible role as head of different companies and dares to blame our financial woes on immigrants who pay billions in tax vs his complete zero. He's an embarrassment and a leech.

This!

Add to that his figures were made up.

Trouble is, people have lost all faith in the current government.

I don't blame people for not wanting to hand over their hard earned cash to people who think they're obliged to provide housing to fighting-aged men from Syria, Afghanistan etc, but not obliged to provide housing to our homeless veterans with PTSD.

What a pathetic mindset from our government.

Where Jim Ratcliff did get it right was in highlighting the disaster-in-waiting that is having 9 million people of working age who are economically inactive.

The Nazis never had Jews as Head of Policy, though, or as candidate for Mayor of Berlin.

The 'Boriswave' was a decision taken by the Tories to appease their friends in big business who were worried about their supply of cheap labour being cut off.

There was nothing inevitable about it. It was not what the electorate wanted. We have 9 million people of working age who are economically inactive.

Lots of single parents work full time. Yes there are genuine people who struggle, but I've worked with people who definitely worked part time as a lifestyle choice while claiming top up benefits.

Veterans have first call on housing.
Why ‘fighting age’? Why not ‘working age’?

No he wasn't, the actually numbers of people seeking out from these 9m is small, majority are SAHMs, Early retirees, students, carers.... etc.

Number of long term unemployed is around 350k, the remaining unemployed is churn.