Starmer’s chronicles

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Nobody's criticising taxpayer support for deserving cases. It's the undeserving masses that are the problem.

That said, without economic growth, the deserving people become an unaffordable problem. This lies at the bottom of Ratcliffe's remarks. I've certainly not carped on "about how billionaires are right and know the problems of everyday folk". Ratcliffe simply happened to be right about some of what he said. Pity it was him - could have been anyone. Me, for example.

You were and so was he when you lumped 64% of 9.2 million claiming one or fewer benefits in together, just assuming we are all work shy scroungers and how unsustainable it is

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You were and so was he when you lumped 64% of 9.2 million claiming one or fewer benefits in together, just assuming we are all work shy scroungers and how unsustainable it is

I don't know why you're posting like you do. For a country to pay benefits, it needs money. This comes from taxation. When the country is as screwed as the UK is, and with 9.2 million claiming benefits, there isn't enough cash raised by taxation to pay those benefits without borrowing on the currency markets.

Thus the economy has to grow so that taxation receipts by the government can rise. That's not happening. So it's unsustainable.

It matters not that Ratcliffe said that, nor that he is rich. He can be a bad person and still be right.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't know why you're posting like you do. For a country to pay benefits, it needs money. This comes from taxation. When the country is as screwed as the UK is, and with 9.2 million claiming benefits, there isn't enough cash raised by taxation to pay those benefits without borrowing on the currency markets.

Thus the economy has to grow so that taxation receipts by the government can rise. That's not happening. So it's unsustainable.

It matters not that Ratcliffe said that, nor that he is rich. He can be a bad person and still be right.

Not helped by those living in Monaco…

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And....


as regular as clockwork, here comes the "Great Replacement Theory"...

Tell you what we haven't seen reported much in the Press - the fact the Net Migration was 204k in 2025, down from 944k under the Tories...

Of course you forget to mention that the reduction was largely down to new Conservative rules on visas. And that the previous figures were inflated by Ukrainians and those from Hong Kong. So nothing to with Labour.
Those that come into this country tend to bring nothing in the way of money or assets. One exception is footballers. The UK citizens that leave tend to take their money with them. They also don't expect the destination country to house them etc.


Look at the change in demographics in various UK towns and cities.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Of course you forget to mention that the reduction was largely down to new Conservative rules on visas. And that the previous figures were inflated by Ukrainians and those from Hong Kong. So nothing to with Labour.
Those that come into this country tend to bring nothing in the way of money or assets. One exception is footballers. The UK citizens that leave tend to take their money with them. They also don't expect the destination country to house them etc.


Look at the change in demographics in various UK towns and cities.

And in your eagerness to rebut, you missed the point I was making - the fact that Net Migration was down to 200k last year isn’t being reported…

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And in your eagerness to rebut, you missed the point I was making - the fact that Net Migration was down to 200k last year isn’t being reported…

BBC, The Guardian, The Times, etc.

[Carth]

I really don't see the point of saying 'net migration' was down to 200k last year as a positive, when the damage has probably already been done by the couple of million in the previous 5 years.

And before anyone has a pop, I don't care what colour, race, or religion they are, we just don't (and probably never will) have the means to accommodate them all . . and their offspring.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't know why you're posting like you do. For a country to pay benefits, it needs money. This comes from taxation. When the country is as screwed as the UK is, and with 9.2 million claiming benefits, there isn't enough cash raised by taxation to pay those benefits without borrowing on the currency markets.

Thus the economy has to grow so that taxation receipts by the government can rise. That's not happening. So it's unsustainable.

It matters not that Ratcliffe said that, nor that he is rich. He can be a bad person and still be right.

64% or close to 6 million are claiming one or fewer benefits, possibly some took their pensions at 55, some are full time unpaid carers, some are students, some are ill possibly with long covid, in other words they're not claiming benefits, that's why I'm posting like I do

Originally Posted by nomadking

BBC, The Guardian, The Times, etc.

I subscribe to the Times, and read the BBC news site most days, and I can guarantee you that the drop in Net Migration was not reported with the prominence that rises were (front page/website landing page).

Felel free to show otherwise…

Amusingly, one of the major reasons for net migration rising was Brexit…

https://www.thetimes.com/article/501...d5a011efde7b3b

One of the reasons for this considerable increase in the number and proportion of the population being foreign-born is immigration changes after Brexit, which led to a surge in immigration from outside the EU. These people tend to stay in the UK longer and are more likely to settle long-term.

Another interesting point

Modelling by James Bowes, a researcher at the University of Warwick, suggests that the fresh immigration restrictions announced by Sir Keir Starmer’s government last year will push net migration to below zero as an estimated 45,000 more people leave the UK than arrive over the course of 2026. The last time the UK recorded net-minus migration was in 1993.

The dramatic decline in immigration has been driven by the increasingly restrictive measures announced by Conservative and Labour governments since 2023 as they responded to growing public anger at the scale of change. It has significantly slowed immigration but also led to the biggest outflow of people leaving the UK since 1923, and 693,000 left last year alone.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Amusingly, one of the major reasons for net migration rising was Brexit…

https://www.thetimes.com/article/501...d5a011efde7b3b

An uncomfortable truth as "We knew what we voted for!"

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

An uncomfortable truth as "We knew what we voted for!"

Ah, but its politicians fault, never the voters.....

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Ah, but its politicians fault, never the voters.....

Yes - of course. How can the voters be wrong? That the politicians screw it up is the disgrace here.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yes - of course. How can the voters be wrong? That the politicians screw it up is the disgrace here.

Lol, you still cling onto the lipstick-on-a-pig belief.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Lol, you still cling onto the lipstick-on-a-pig belief.

That's a meaningless remark, Andrew. The EEC was fine; the EU is bad - at least as currently configured.

But my head is not in the sand. We are so weakened as a country (because of the politicians, not Brexit, not the voters), that we might not even meet the criteria for joining the EU.

Then they'd fudge it to allow us to rejoin because they want out money - top-sliced from the exchequer. It's that fudge (as per Greece) that makes the EU a bad place; it is self-serving, uncompetitive and corrupt.

All we need is an honest government that obtains the voters' trust. Difficult.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's a meaningless remark, Andrew. The EEC was fine; the EU is bad - at least as currently configured.

But my head is not in the sand. We are so weakened as a country (because of the politicians, not Brexit, not the voters), that we might not even meet the criteria for joining the EU.

Then they'd fudge it to allow us to rejoin because they want out money - top-sliced from the exchequer. It's that fudge (as per Greece) that makes the EU a bad place; it is self-serving, uncompetitive and corrupt.

All we need is an honest government that obtains the voters' trust. Difficult.

We're weakened as a country due to all three:
- Politicians because they make promises they know they can't keep and can't do the basics competently
- Brexit because it reduces our productivity and GDP thereby puts more of a squeeze on the public finances v tax dilemma. And reduces our global influence.
- Public in wanting Nordic-level social benefits and Dubai-level taxes and falling for grifters who say this can easily be achieved.

If you can't accept that, then I suspect there's an element of deniability going on. But I certainly wouldn't call it head in the sand.