Sir Ralph

An extract from the BBC” The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says the figures reflect "weak hiring activity". Chancellor Rachel Reeves' 2024 Budget hiked employer National Insurance contributions and saw a rise in the minimum wage, leading some businesses to slow down hiring and replace outgoing workers.”. So yes it is a factor. Anyone who has ever run a business would put two and two together. When referring to economic growth I assume you are referring to GDP growth. In 2021 it was circa 7.4% and 2022 was circa 4.3%. The Labour government is nowhere near this.

Glad to see I’m still living rent free 🤣

My 5 year old could have told the treasury this would happen. Welcome to a Labour government. Big increase in youth unemployment - as I was mocked on here before for saying, linked to minimum wage increase. You increase your costs for struggling businesses and guess what, they reduce the workforce! Just a reminder before the 5 year period was Covid19 shutdown so at least they haven’t matched that (yet). Good to see public sector pay growth more than doubling private sector pay. So basically, more unemployment and people on welfare (higher tax burden) and significant public sector pay increases (higher tax burden) and lower growth predictions. This is all very predictable. “Growing the economy day by day” 🤣 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62756plrp6t

Welfare helps some people that need it, such as the example you referred to, but it’s gone too far and supports people who abuse it and don’t want to work. The increase in welfare benefit is a move in the wrong direction. In this forum my view may be in the minority but in normal circles it is well publicised so not a controversial one and an approach that a number of well supported political parties will be promoting as they are voted for by hard working tax payers. A successful economy does not allow welfare reliance for certain parts of society to occur to this extent, hence the reference to decline in this respect. Obviously it’s fine for us to disagree on his point.

I didn’t mention Labour. You said that. I made a non political party statement. The decline is also not just business related in my personal opinion This is a cross party failure over the past twenty years. I agree that Labour are trying to reduce regulation to encourage business in part but have contradicted themselves in other parts by increasing taxes on business and business owners to fund increased state and welfare spending, thereby increasing the attractiveness for investment and reducing it in other parts. As I said, I didn’t mention Labour speciifically it’s a cross party failure that has allowed the decline

Being tolerant is again in principle a good thing. Being tolerant of certain ideologies is, in my opinion, naive and damaging, particularly where discourse about the acceptablility of those ideologies is shut down. This is where tolerance has been taken to an extreme. This is where we may diverge but that’s fine.

Like I said there are some things to be proud of but what I perceive to be the decline over the last 20 years which is what my concern is and what I am becoming less proud of. Do you think the country has declined in the last 20 years or so? i also agree we should count our blessing and how lucky we are in some respects. However I don’t want my kids to be raised in a country that has declined over recent years. It’s incumbent on us to make sure they have similar opportunities

In principle it’s needed but in my opinion nowhere near the extent that it is now. It’s created in some a mentality of reliance on the state which is not healthy for them or tax payers and negatively impacts overall productivity

I suppose if you benefit from a ballooning state and welfare budget this is the type of comment you would make.

Says you as an American citizen.

In my opinion a Lack of encouragement for business growth and a positive business environment, increase in growth of the state and state intervention, key institutions becoming woke and promoting these ideologies, increased reliance of the population on welfare to start with. Being proud of the heritage or tradition of your country is something that, till recently, was something that many of the supposed metropolitan elite would sneer at. Hopefully we are at some form of turning point though but we will have to see.

I don’t want to say it, but not at the moment. I used to be but agree with him about managed decline. There are some things to be proud of but fewer than there were.

Good on Rubio. Calling out the decline of the west again and said they won’t be custodians of managed decline. Doing Europeans leaders job for them

I’m just glad you don’t make any discussion about colour or race……

I agree neither should be charged. I think people can say this stuff in robust conversation which is why I referred to applying this to peoples standards today and not mine. We disagree which was worse as a comment. My point is that if the standard of the FA is to charge people for meeting a certain threshold it needs to apply it across the board and not selectively. Maybe leave it there without ripping strips out of each other

I do - you make bizarre points that are frankly difficult to follow to suit you’re predetermined view. i imagine they are mainly Caucasian based on the demographics of the area where the flags are located. Not sure how this is related to why Ratcliffe is investigated and Neville isn’t but I’m sure you will find a contrived way to justify it

Well I disagree and by today’s standard (not mine) what Neville said is more racist than Radcliffe but the FA and PM seem to want to target only one. In fact I don’t think either comment is that bad but in today’s snowflake society people can’t deal with robust discussion. I’m not getting into a description of people putting flags up as I can’t comment on it. I imagine people have their different reasons. My personal view is that I agree with it in principle if people are doing it for patriotic purposes. I think Neville was wrong to say what he said.

So if I call someone “(fill in the colour) c-bomb” that’s not racist because I’m not saying all people of that race are?! That logic doesn’t follow to me at all particularly in relation to why ratcliffe is being investigated. My point is unrelated to putting flags up it’s about Radcliffe, Neville and the FA

We are talking about the FA investigating a football club owner for comments that they perceive could bring the game into disrepute. i use the Neville example of an owner of a football who targeted a group of people based on their colour and age. The fa didn’t investigate as I understand it. Why is that if they want to investigate ratcliffe? If Ratcliffee had replaced the words that Neville said with a different colour or religion he would be hung drawn and quartered by the FA (which he may well still be) and politicians. I’d argue that Neville’s word are actually more offensive than Ratcliffes as Neville targeted a specific race of people My Point is these are similar positions for football club owners. One is called out by the FA and the PM, the other conveniently ignored. In normal society that’s called “double standards”

He singled out a group of people based on their age and skin colour. He said “the division is being created by angry middle aged white men”. You don’t think that’s racist based on today’s standards? He is the owner of a Manchester football club

As an owner of Salford, when did the FA investigate Gary Neville for his racist comments? Remember “angry middle aged white men”.

When did Neville get investigated by the FA?

I referred to his personal tax specifically as that is what he moved to monaco (which you were attacking). His business setup is separate. Do you know how much tax he paid before? If you’re a net taker it’s easy to point the finger at others and tell them to pay more

They aren’t investigating him for the figures he quoted. From the Independent: Should the FA decide to launch a formal investigation, the focus is likely to be on Rule E3.1, which governs general conduct within the sport. This rule mandates that: "A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour." The FA are a bunch of woke snowflakes. As an owner of Salford, did they investigate Gary Neville for his racist comments?

From a personal perspective he will have paid multiple times in tax more than any of us ever will. Why would he want to pay more tax here when he just explained that the welfare bill is too high. Maybe if those who blamed others for not paying more than they already do, had worked harder and taken risks they could have contributed more.