"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.

The target itself of 50% is a good one. A highly educated workforce tends to increase productivity for the nation as a whole. However, it was the introduction of the student loan system by the Tories in 1990 (Thatcher) that is also hindering our prosperity as a country. The public debt is at £300bn by now (£295bn in March ) and will be over £500bn by 2040.

It will get really painful for the Chancellor in 2042 when likely half the education budget will go direct to paying off the Plan 2 student loans of the first students from 2012 who started to pay £9k/yr in tuition.

No I hope not, but think there will be more cyber, sabotage on infrastructure etc.

Which ever way we still need to spend 3.5% GDP. Stopping all non essential training due to budget restrictions does not raise confidence that this will be fulfilled.

Well you were the one saying wouldnt it be nice if we joined up with other defence manufacturers and I agreed. Shame theres a penalty for us to do so. Perhaps they could pay us instead. Or both of us look to our own national interest and decide its a good idea to rearm Europe in the best and most practical way possible. Rather than being...again...ideological about it.

The private sector drives wealth creation. Not the public sector.

The private sector is made up of businesses. So helping businesses will always help the economy. Why would you argue otherwise. You seek to be mistaking the "wealthy" for people who create wealth.

You've mixed me up with another poster I think!

We left the EU, we knew this was one of the consequences, Brexit voters were not concerned with defence/security impacts unfortunately.

Is there currently a target for 90% of school leavers to go to university? I think we need some evidence of this.

Oh yes sorry I did.
You chipped in having missed the point. Have a reread of the chain and then you will have some context.

How does this explain the success of the Nordic model?

I understood the context fine.

Wealth isnt created by the public sector. The public sector spends wealth. Wealth is craeted by the private sector.

Norway has about 3 people so no need to have such a vast state. It also has the sovereign wealth fund as it dealt with its oil profits in a sensible way unlike us.

Norway has a private sector driving growth. They also pay taxes and high wages to ensure that wealth is redistributed fairly.

The PP suggested we join up with other countries to manufacture weapons. I said yes good idea and its a shame the EU had a penalty to join their weapons programme. Perhaps the EU could pay to join ours instead. Or maybe we could join in with a country like Norway which is a big weapons manufacturer and not in the EU. Or we could crack on alone. But in any event it wasnt my suggestion in the first place.

The point stands about the EU. So ideological. But I suppose ideology drove the continent to war twice. Seems a shame they are so shortsighted about defence cooeration bearing in mind the UK were fairly helpful in both wars but thems the rules. And cannot be broken! Until later on when they realise they have to...like the brakes on immigration which the EU refused Cameron (leading to Brexit) and yet now have....

As I said they have 5 million people.

Its lovely in Norway.

Seems he failed GCSE Maths,

But security is having enough food produced and relying less on imports. Not having all utilities owned and run by other countries for profits for their shareholders etc etc. We are wide open to any or all of them deciding to cut us off and we couldn't do a lot about it as we are ill prepared for anything. Especially things like just in time ordering with supermarkets etc.

WRT building new houses, we first need to use the housing stock being sat on and not used. Bring in penalties to those hoarding it and then in can be modernised and made habitable. Would solve a big part of the housing issue without having to build a load more that would be contested in some areas.

Red tape is usually there to protect the worker's rights and often hard won by unions over decades. Ripping it up sounds good but is not in reality.

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

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”.

Taxation which does not directly impact the poster.

Just a hunch.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.