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

[Binnyforthewin]

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And I disagreed in return. It's allowed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

Chris Philp makes geographic blunder on Question Time

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.

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

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.

We won’t have an economy if Russia decides to take over.

Perhaps, but that compounds the many stupid moves that came before and resulted in various deregulations, zero hour contracts, the selling off of gas storage, ‘eat out to help out’ austerity, 90% of young people to go to university…

And do you actually think that will happen?

So Labour made things worse. We knew that already. Its rather why Keir Starmer isnt PM any more.

The mental uni target was set under a Labour government.

Most businesses have tight overheads regardless of size.

In addition, Labour made sure to protect small businesses.

The NI rise for a small business (less than 50 employees) may have increased NI by £4,312/yr (49 employees, aged 21 and over in the UK working a 40-hour week for minimum wage is £26,437 for 2026/27, resulting in approximately £1,109/yr NI per employee of which £88/yr per employee is due to the increase.) Labour doubled the EA deduction from £5k to £10.5k, meaning for many small businesses the entire increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% was offset.

The drop in threshold to £5k/yr earning will have also generated additional NI costs but really that is correcting an injustice for workers in often zero hour contracts or very part time work where no NICs are credited for their future state pension even if they are working several of these jobs so they are working full time overall.

Your local pub is not likely to employ 50+ full time employees. It was likely to be abusing workers rights and preventing them from accruing NICs towards a state pension by using zero hour contracts to keep annual wages below £10k (now £5k). The change removes much of the incentive to use zero hour contracts.

A large business of 10k employees will have many highly paid employees, their bill is going to be around £18m/yr. The EA offset is still only £10.5k. Depending on the overall financials of the business this could be easy or difficult to absorb.

Helping businesses isn’t necessarily going to help the economy.
You seem to be an advocate of trickle down economics which has always failed and has been widely discredited.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics

We left the EU, so of course we have to pay the one off non member entry fee.

Labour's target was 50% go to uni, in line with the US, Japan etc. I thought.

We're no longer members of the EU.

I don't get why people still don't understand what leaving the EU means.