RayC

1. Foreign Aid: We discussed this issue in detail in another thread. Clearly I didn't convince you to change your opinion. I haven't changed mine. There is little point rehashing the same argument. Suffice to say, I think that the foreign aid budget is affordable. 2. Public sector pensions: If these are now unaffordable, then the fault lies with the actuaries and/or previous governments and not the current administration. If pension rights are amended for the worse then we risk losing doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. 3. Net zero: Can we afford to do nothing? 4. Labour government: Labour has been in power for < 6 months and their first budget is less than a month old (!!), so it is far too early to tell what effect Labour's policies will have on the economy: I'm not sure whether you fall into this category, but I find it laughable that some posters who already claim that this Labour government is an economic disaster, also suggest that it is too early to pass judgement on Brexit 8 years after the referendum and nearly 5 years after we formally left the bloc. 5. NHS: I agree that the NHS needs reforming. We are having yet another review. I'm skeptical whether this review will have any more success in improving matters than previous ones. At least collectively, those in authority in the NHS now refrain from suggesting that the NHS is the 'envy of the world'. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case for decades. 6. Debt: The UK national debt at the end of the 23/24 tax year was 97.8% of GDP. It is forecast to reduce to 97% by the end of 25/26. High by traditional standards, but unaffordable? Not unless there is a marked decrease in government revenue and/or an upward movement in interest rates. 7a: Illegal immigrants: Agreed. The government should do all that it can to stop their arrival. 7b: Low skilled legal immigration: Yet another Brexit 'benefit'. Under EU freedom of movement, cyclical and seasonal jobs e.g. those in the agricultural and hospitality sector were often filled by transient workers from the EU. In effect, the market naturally found its' equilibrium. Post-Brexit the number of transient workers from the EU reduced significantly leading to a shortage of labour. This has been 'solved' by importing labour from further afield. To change this situation, native-born workers will need to fill these posts. The previous Tory governments failed to convince these individuals to do so. By all means, let working people keep more of their money, however, Hunt's 2% cut in NI contributions cost the Exchequer £10bn. Anything but 'peanuts'. There was no economic justification for this cut in rates at the time. It was nothing but an attempt at bribery which ultimately proved to be unsuccessful. Labour was dishonest with its' election promises and has been very 'economical with the truth' since taking office. However, in 4 or 5 years time, it will be judged on the success of its' policies. It is far too soon to declare it a one-term government.

Despite Trump's thin skin, I doubt that Lammy's ill-judged comments will have much effect wrt the US's attitude to the UK. The UK is unimportant to the US, even more so since the foolhardy decision to leave the EU. I think that Labour handled the PR side of things appallingly during the election campaign and the mismanagement of the PR side of things has, if anything, got worse since it was elected: Tax rises were always going to be inevitable. Labour should have been upfront about it and called out the Tories for their actions and promises. For example, I would have preferred Labour to have reversed the unaffordable 2% cut in employee NI contributions which Hunt made prior to the election - what a coincidence, eh? - rather than increase employer NI contributions as they have done. It remains to be seen what state the UK economy will be in 4-years time.

Stating the obvious, London is a big place and there are many areas which I know very little about (especially NE London), and which might have deteriorated. However, the areas with which I am most familiar (Inner South London, Westminster, the City and parts of West London) are imo, on the whole, much better places to live/ work today compared with 40 years ago.

The Trump effect: Probably. The Starmer effect: Unlikely.

Indigenous people: Who might they be? Pure blood descendants of the Celts? The Anglo-Saxons? The Romans? The Vikings? The Normans? Mix of (all) the above? That last one opens up a can of worms. 95%+ of immigrants to the UK work. In 2023, the unemployment rate among immigrants was less than that found among native-born Brits (Source: Migrationobservatory) Foreign aid as a percentage of UK GDP has been declining. Foreign aid often comes with restrictions e.g. having to buy goods from companies within the donor country The UK economy will inevitably crash. An opinion devoid of any facts or analyses.

Sterling hasn't "crashed" in the past week. Sterling has fallen significantly against the US dollar, but then so too has every other major currency. Sterling has fluctuated within a normal range against other currencies over the past week. It is a case of the dollar firming not sterling weakening. Mortgage rates have increased because lenders had previously priced in another cut in the base rate drop in December which doesn't now appear likely.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5m7mp96l8o

UK householders do not give EDF money, they purchase electricity - the price of which is regulated - from them.

Your first paragraph is simply untrue. France has been a net financial contributor to the EU budget - often contributing more than the UK - for all of this century. Your second paragraph: And ...? Bye.

I'm sorry that you got mugged but, unfortunately, it happens. However, it certainly doesn't prove that London as a whole is some crime-infested cesspit as some posters have suggested, or that London is a worse place to live than it was 40 years ago. The demographics change. Imo most of South London is a much healthy and wealthier place to live compared with 40 years ago. Some areas (e.g. Tower Hamlets?) may be worse.

I've no idea why you would reach that conclusion. She embellished her CV. Is this really that important? Why 'apparently' and quotation marks around economist? Is there any doubt that she was an economist at the BoE? So experience in a broad range of business related processes. False argument leads to false conclusion. Time will tell.

No it wasn't https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1330-1000914114en-7T4PD6PCHCKR3ERM89GBSJ3P0O#:~:text=In 2023 EDF was the,down by 26% from 2022.

Despite the categorisation of London as "crime infested" dump by some posters - whose recent experience of the UK capital city probably amounts to no more than a couple of hours every few years - London figures highly (top 20%) in many surveys such as the annual Berkshire Hathaway Safest Cities of the World and The Economist Intelligence Unit Livability Index, more often than not ahead of cities such as Bangkok, NYC and Paris. ahead of New York City, Tokyo, and Paris.

So the fact that Reeves hasn't run a business is irrelevant then? Running an economy is not the same as running an individual's personal finances.

How so?

That was in 2022. EDF returned €10bn profit in 2023.

Agreed but the post to which I replied seemed to imply that EU regulation was a barrier to member states' having an efficient energy industry. The French experience suggests otherwise.

Bad food? 50 years ago you were right. Nowadays - thanks to immigrants mainly - choice and quality of cuisine has greatly improved. Bad teeth? Maybe but those braces and uniform pearly whites seen in the US mean that sunglasses are a necessity. Speak funny? Now you are 'aving a larf?

And yet by following the same EU directives and regulations as the UK, the French energy sector has thrived. Very strange.

Neither have many recent chancellors e.g. Osborne, kwarteng.

Can I interest anyone in a bowl of whale head soup or, perhaps, some bear cub pate?

Another of your private conversations?😉 In any event, that may or may not be the case, but it's not the answer to the question which I posed.

Where is the evidence to support that contention?

Didn't you state previously that "Oirish" - your often used prefix - Joe Biden was anti-British? However, you now suggest that American Liberals - presumably this grouping includes Biden? - are obsequious in their dealings with British Royalty. Seems contradictory.

So basically women are money-grabbing prostitutes in your eyes?