Farmer Saint

But you're the one who said it, you tell me.

You seem to think I'm defending Reeves here - that is also an issue. What I'm trying to do is show you that what you are saying the article says, it doesn't. We need to encourage investment and spending, and to do that we need to massively decrease interest rates to start with. But let's not kid ourselves, the current deficit needs to be dealt with and we need further investment in public services, alongside forcing the whip on tighter benefits controls. The Business NI increase was stupid. The Tories should not have decreased personal NI contributions - that was done to fuck up Labour in this government.

I'm not traditionally pro-tax by any means, and considering I spent the majority of my working life running my own businesses your second assertion is wrong. Where have I shown I am anti-business? I don't think you quite realise what a mess this country has been left in, and that's where we differ.

What would leaving the ECHR allow us to do?

Won't we find that out at the budget? I'm not sure why you're getting annoyed at that article, and what you think it proves.

I never said it has nothing to do with government policy, I said that the vast majority of inflation was due to external factors and not to do with interest rates, hence why I was encouraging large cuts to interest rates as it shouldn't affect inflation. This should encourage growth by the way. You've clearly not spent a lot of time in boardrooms, but I am genuinely interested in what you think my views are?

What things?

Really, where?

No, you certainly don't patronise me. How have you got to your age without really understanding macro-economics and taxes, because you consistently show a poor understanding of how economies work. It has nothing to do with agreeing with a world view, it has to do with how capitalist economies work. You consistently say I'm a socialist. I'm not. I'm a traditional Conservative voter. However, the state the country is in and was left in after years of pathetic Tory re-distribution of wealth has led us to a situation where taxes have to be increased.

Sorry, what? It's a BBC news article, not a Reeves news article. If you read it then it will give you your answers if it has them. Show us where Reeves has said that increasing taxes will grow the economy.

You do know they're not trying to increase growth with higher taxes, don't you? And do we really have the highest tax burden since the 1940s, because I don't think we currently do.

He reminds me of me when I got out of University - he's very headstrong with very little knowledge but thinks he's world-wise. I assume he is quite young judging by his frame of references and lack of empathy.

No, if we have a National Health Service, we need higher taxes. There is no way around that. But that's fine, perhaps if we want to keep low taxes we need to look to fund the NHS in a different way. https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally You have clearly never looked at process and system improvements for large companies. As it is where I made my living I can tell you it will cost tens of billions to do, and by the time it's done the technology and processes will be out of date and need replacing again. All we can do is small iterative changes, but unfortunately that means the scope remains small and tends to be dealt with in silo's with no real thought to integration to the rest of the "company". If you want a root cause analysis and process improvement for public services, the only realistic way to do that is to privatise as they will look to save everywhere to ensure efficiencies. This is not a green field architecture you're talking about here, it's embedded with legacy systems, architecture and processes.

Sorry, what do you think it would allow the country to do? Or are you just saying we could do something? Is this like saying that we "could" just shoot them as they get to our beaches?

What do you think leaving the ECHR will allow you to do?

But it's not just the ECHR we have to leave. It's the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh I know, I'm not saying we feasibly can - it's more a muse of types.

We need tax rises. We have the NHS and a relatively low tax burden, and we're £40bn a year light from not being in the EU. What do you expect? https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

We could pull out of them, but I think then we'd be akin to Russia and Belarus, and I don't think that is what we really want, is it? What we need to do is deal with them quicker. More cash, more people, shorter stays. Maybe the way to deal with it is open up all channels to apply from overseas. You can then rightly make coming across on a boat illegal, with anyone coming across on a boat being automatically detained. The problem is these people will look to disappear rather than claim asylum...but then if we have ID cards then this should help. If we also moved to a cashless society then they would no longer be able to live here.

In what way were they welcoming them across? And what does political will mean in this situation?

I've voted Conservative 3 times the amount I've voted for any other party...

You say that, but France and Germany have more immigrants stay than we get coming over on boats. A lot come over due to language, some family etc.

The issue is, and no-one has managed to argue the process properly, is how.

Good, glad you're not supporting Netanyahu then.

If we had the space to house people now we would already be using it. We don't, and that's why hotels have had to be used. What's happened to all the old Pontins sites? Although not sure they deserve to be put in places like that.