"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.

10,000 employees is a large business.

If the 1.2% increase was followed by a hiring freeze and complete reorganisation, there were other issues driving it.

Absolutely not, they have and many still do contribute to society.

You and I both know that the Labour back benches will not countenance any reduction to the welfare budget.

It’s squarely on this government.

Nothing Starmer did was the truth. Labour is responsible for low growth low productivity high unemployment especially NEETs. The NI policy has been a disaster for business, along with business rates, high energy costs all this disincentivises investment and creates uncertainty. No you can’t flip a switch but you don’t just turn it off. That is basic economics.

Have look at increased costs for business it’s not unknown, the margins are often small.

Labour are a disgrace, the first responsibility of the government of a country is protecting the population, there will be no need for social security if we don’t have national security as a nation.

So you believe the NI changes were a positive for growth?

Classic.

Again, you’re happy to watch an ally commit atrocious and unjustified acts of violence and land grab. We don’t all agree.

I am just stating my professional opinion.
Out of date! Nice bit of attempted ageism there.
I am probably younger than you.

Exactly. I now weirdly look back at the Rishi years and think at least we had someone who understood economics.

Oh my. No, their purpose and impact isn’t on market or economic growth.
You would probably benefit from a bit of macroeconomics.

You can be young and out of date. If you're not in cut and thrust anymore I can see why you might believe such nonsense to be correct. If you ever were.

Is that more important than the national interest? No it isn't. We should be concentrating on our own problems not getting involved in other countries' issues. Why haven't we attacked China? They've been carrying out ethnic cleansing. Why don't we have comprehensive sanctions against China? Because it's not in our national interest. But the PLP and Muslim vote are fanatical about Palestine. So we ignore the national interest this time.

Hmm at this.

Digs aside are you able to say what taxes you want to see increased next?

Who was it that promised billions for the NHS if they got in?

Oh right. Completely wacky idea to disenfranchise anyone. UK has had universal suffrage for a long time, we're not going back to the dark ages.

Tbh I'm sick of people having zero democratic principles. Spouting rubbish all the time, undermining our systems. They should move somewhere less democratic rather than trying to mess up the UK.

That is where you are making the error: pro maximising business profits isn’t the same as pro economic growth.

Exactly, couldn’t agree more.

You're playing the person not the ball, their age is not relevant, neither is their retirement status.

Ok, here's the report about public support of PIP, quoted by BBC

BSA-43-Welfare.pdf

As suspected, it's lazy journalism.

Page 18 - support for all types of welfare is falling, and significantly.

Support for welfare of disabled people who cannot work is strongest amongst the other categories. It cannot be any different.

The questions which were not asked

• do we believe that all people who claim PIP are truly disabled and cannot work?
• do we believe that criteria for PIP awards are too lose and subject to "interpretation"
• do we support review of PIP criteria and making it dependent on objective diagnosis, not "how it makes me feel"

Well TBF the PP did claim she had particular qualifications. And as the Budget is relatively recent its useful to know whether she was actually consulting during this period. Or whether she had been retired say before Labour came in.

Do the NI was fine posters want more taxes again?

Anyone going to suggest which ones

So if Andy Burnham is not willing to cut welfare spending to fund increased defence spending, presumably because of backbench Labour MPs that would rebel then let's look at the other options:

1. Borrow more money- not really possible given that the money markets are already very concerned about the level of UK borrowing with bond yields increasing sharply to 5.8%. This feeds through to higher borrowing costs for companies that in turn further reduces economic growth.
2. Increase taxation- as seen with the NI increase on companies this also reduces economic growth.
3. Cut spending in other areas, well if Labour MPs won't allow welfare spending cuts then they certainly won't allow cuts in other high spend areas like the NHS.
4. Backdown on the promised defence spending increase- well John Healey resigned over this which triggered the downfall of Starmer. Now he is Chancellor.

Doesn't excuse ageist remarks or rudeness about retirement IMO.

Absolutely.

Remember Rwanda scheme - perfect deterrent. Yet we were so opposed it...