Sir Ralph

Let’s see it appear mamdanis expected taxes will be notably higher than anything before

Stop listening to Gary economics. The bloke has socialist views. I assume you know he is known for being left leaning? I didn’t even watch the video. Can you remind me what credentials this guy has above some of the greater minds in this country. Being a Citibank trader really doesn’t count - two a penny. I could go down the local pub and find completely opposite views to him from another 10 traders

The WH have said in a press conference that hers is the redacted name. For them to explicitly say that and it to be incorrect would be a major major cover up, which would very quickly be shown to be so as the emails have been released. I’d be very surprised on that basis if the WH was lying. Remember the Democrats redacted the names knowing what Guiffre said about Trump.

Yes so the evidence to date doesn’t really do anything in respect of Trump. You have an email from Epstein referring to Trump and Guiffre spending some time together with no specifics but Guifree said they did meet and nothing happened and he was nice to her. That could change with the release of the new files and I don’t know if it will. However to date, based on evidence available, there doesn’t seem much of relevance to Trump so I’m not sure why everyone is getting excited…..yet. It either a cover up attempt by the WH or a smeer campaign by the Democrats

At the moment I've only seen Guiffre mentioned in relation to Trump. I havent read much though - where have the press said that these latest emails released potentially bring into question if Trump was involved with other Epstein victims, other than Guiffre? I'm not saying you are wrong but I havent seen it so it’s a genuine question

If he did anything it will come out in the wash and if this is a Prince Andrew mark 2 he desrves to be punished. The point is the victim, Victoria Guiffre is now dead but said that Trump had limited interaction with her and was only ever nice to her. How do you provide something if would be accuser is dead and said he didnt do anything in her book? If more evidence is released which categorically evidences otherwise but its going to have to be very strong if the would be accuser has said otherwise. https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-giuffre-said-donald-trump-bill-clinton-book-nobodys-girl-10917361

This. It’s not rocket science

I’m trying to be respectful but you haven’t tried to understand or can’t understand what I’ve said, even if you disagree with it.

I didn’t say that. I said the increase in minimum wage probably contributed to the increase in unemployment . I never said the minimum wage was a bad thing in principle.

Tell me where I said there should be no minimum wage. Also the minimum wage increase doesn’t impact my business.

No I would not. But I would think twice if my business was going to make cuts as a result and I might lose my job. Also do you think this may have contributed to the cost of living for people (including those on minimum wage) increasing? There is a time for increasing the minimum wage but it wasn’t then. The problem is you see everything in a very simple way (much like the government) without understanding the implications on the people you are trying to help and wider impacts such as inflationary impacts. It’s relatively predictable but if you look at everything through a socialist lens, that’s where things go wrong. Thats not a personal dig, that’s a wider point. There are lots of examples where the government has fiddled with business to help groups of people and, because they have f all idea, what they are doing, actually created worse outcomes for those people.

Not anything based on evidence if that makes me dumb so be it. Yes I know what it is.

When people make sensible points no need to get stupid. More and more I find the Labour supporters on here can’t answer questions on the state of the economy or revert to being sarcastic. I present stats all over the place and none of you ever do is offer speculative opinion

Unemployment rate has either reduced in uk (other than the covid period) or been relatively stable until it started to rise when the current government got into power. Seems like the government is linked to unemployment growth rather than Covid

I run a pub. Price of employment goes up generally but income remains the same. To maintain a profit margin that I need to keep running I have to reduce the employment budget. It’s really simple and lots of people saw it coming

No I didn’t to be fair, maybe I should, but I could see the impact their policies were going to have moving forward. This isn’t a partisan position as I don’t care who gets the economy moving. Why do you think our unemployment rate is increasing then compared to eu countries? I understand that economies are complex but we experience similar circumstances to the eu so not an unfair question to sender

The thing is I would explain to you why increasing minimum salaries has resulted in job losses but I don’t think you want to understand/ listen so there is no point. You just emoji everyone’s post you disagree with

Exactly it’s about changes in unemployment rates since the government has come in. Since the government came in unemployment in the uk has increased and decreased in the eu. Why? If we had a 0% employment rate before the government came in and now a 2.5% rate it would still be low but they would have done a bad job on the issue

Or more likely increasing the minimum wage and increasing employers NI caused this. Why has the EU employment rate decreased since last year but ours has increased?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxrp7znkdlo This is 100% unrelated to government policy.

You mean people who disagree with you

There is if they aren’t sufficiently accountable to put in a good shift each day. Why are the majority of businesses now making people come into the office for the majority of the week? They know it’s required to improve learning from colleagues and to maximise output. The public sector must not be any different. If anything it’s more accountable as it is using the public purse.

I actually think they should. If you think it’s too much to go into the office 3-4 days a week minimum then you aren’t sufficiently committed to your job anyway

Can you please tell me why Starmer is wrong and there are no savings to be had? @egg still hasn’t responded to this either. Remember evidence is important.

I agree they are conservative in nature. Does that mean all their ideas are wrong though? As I continue to mention, Starmer also says that there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed - is he also wrong? So a right leaning think tank and a Labour PM are saying the same thing in principle. What does this tell you? I will accept paying more taxes, if absolutely necessary, but dont believe its fair to do so when efficiencies can be made first.