Sir Ralph

Relevance to this point?

I find it amusing that people that have no idea support labour still and pretend they are pro business..#mainlytheunemployedorgovernmentemployees

Yes I don’t support the triple lock. Welfare was bloated already it didn’t need adding to. Most other parties would have reformed it. Whether Starmer tried or not, the Labour Party has increased welfare spending at the cost of the tax payer and business I added Ireland because I realised I hadn’t responded to your question in this respect. Of course it’s not that straightforward but countries like Ireland and Poland who have performed better over recent years have encouraged pro business policies like lower tax. Unlike the uk. I’m not saying it’s easy to facilitate growth but they have gone about it the wrong way and I believe there should be a better business environment than has been developed over the past 18 months

Great response. A quality argument. Genuinely no disrespect but based on your previous explanation of your work background I doubt you are really commenting from a place of experience.

They have increased day to day public spending and welfare spending at the cost of the tax payer and business. Do you dispute that and do you think you grow an economy doing that?

By business person I am referring to a wide range of people. A few of them voted Labour because they were fed up with the Tories and I think most of them said they wont do it again or are certainly thinking of voting for someone else. Labour states it is pro business. It courts business on the face of it and sticks to fiscal rules which is good. However, it achieves this by taxing businesses and those that own them to achieve this. Not pro business in reality - when the Cabinet say this I do not believe they understand what they are saying or how to get there. What policies has it brought in to help businesses day-to-day? Ireland is a good example of a western country that has achieved economic growth. Do you know how?

Not one business person you speak to has a good word to say about them. They then claim that they are helping to reduce inflation (still highest in the EU under their watch) but one of the reasons this is happening because of a lack of growth. Its an economic illiterate party

It was supported by two Tory governments so there was mixed opinions. It was supported by other politicians who are better placed to make a call than you are.

The example I gave was of a convicted extremist!

The problem was it was never given the chance. With political will it could have been ramped up and then there could have been a lag until numbers reduced. People saying there are no good solution but dismissing this which could have been enacted legally. Again, its political will.

It doesnt matter whether it was expensive to start with. It was a disincentivising plan. once it had started and people know thats what happened when you come to Britain they would more likely have stayed in Europe. You have too much regard for human rights of some people and not others. Human rights lawyers are principle good but many of them are financially incentivised to protect bad people, like convicted extremists.

Every Government is worried about the optics of breaking international law thats the problem. This is why Rwanda was a good idea. It would have shipped people out and disincentivised people not to come if they know they were going to end up in Africa. But no, this Government scrapped it. Each crime committed here is on the head of the current government as they could have persisted with the plan. I'm not saying the Tories didnt allow this to occur but at least they had a disincentivising plan. Unfortunately, if you want change you need a Government in place that is willing to challenge or ignore these laws and suffer the consequences. Unfortunately it will be an ongoing battle against a vocal minority of loonies who will legally challenge all the way.

Bit strange he was responding to my posts earlier today then wasnt it. Maybe you can explain on his behalf why he doesnt want to reply now all of sudden?

Funny he was happy to respond to me earlier today. Maybe things got a bit sticky for him.... Also he appears to think that stating something as fact that appears to incorrect, based on what I’ve read, shouldn’t be challenged. I can only take it as an acceptance of being incorrect. Bearing in mind he could easily explain the source he quoted it seems strange he has clammed up all of a sudden.

Convenient that. No part of my message was aggressive it just challenged something you stated as a fact, which it appears was completely incorrect. It appears that being challenged is uncomfortable for you. So you have made up something to suit your narrative. Base your comments on fact.