Declining birth rate is a global phenomenon, but it's not rectified by mass immigration. The people coming in will get old and have the needs of the older domestic population (without having contributed anything in many cases). We are definitely not short of people of working age right now. We are however short of them actually working.

Problem with UK politics is everything has been sticking plasters and short termism.  Decades of insufficient house building being one very good example.  The NHS has arguably never been short of investment.  One of the few areas in the UK that hasn't.  Problem with immigration is to sort it you have to break International Law.  We don't have the infrastructure to process the numbers so breaking International Law is the only option.  Reform will prolly break it, but what that'll mean I've no idea.  It's prolly dependent on several other countries doing the same (which they may well do)

Imo we need a lot of immigration, but of course we want working immigration.  We also don't want to lose qualified working people born here to Australia, Dubai or wherever.

I want immigrants that countries like Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, S Korea, Australia and even China would like to have. I also would like a diversified band of immigrants, not confined from S Asia and Afghanistan.

I like immigrants who appreciate UK Plc for its political stability; freedom of speech and movement; economic opportunities; law and order; welfare state; nhs; etc.

I do not want immigrants who sponge off UK Plc eg repeated on benefit handouts upon qualification; in the black economy and non-tax paying; repeatedly rubbish UK Plc; do not integrate or speak English in public or at major retailers; etc.

What kind of concoction are you taking today? Nothing stops EU people from applying to work in the UK. What Brexit did was give the government the opportunity to remove the discrimination, all people applying are treated equally.

What they did was make the rules of entry so weak that anyone from anywhere could come if they fancied it (not just EU)

the basic premise absurd, there are upwards of 70 million people total in the UK. and we can't create our own plumbers

Polish plumbers (for example) did come to the UK, as their earnings were so low in their home country, they could afford to undercut domestic plumbers. Removing the incentive for domestic people to be plumbers.

At the same time, the Labour gnvt wanted everyone go to 'uni' and accumulate a lifetime of debt, rather than learn a lucrative, useful and practical skill (such as, becoming a plumber).

Of course, now it's actually pretty lucrative to become a plumber, as due to the EU, Poland has caught up with the UK. British school leavers are brainwashed into wasting 3 years + at 'university', most of them certainly wouldn't wish to lower themselves into such a demeaning job.

Cheaper, obviously.

Better, nonsense.

As for the 'scapegoat'. I've already coached you on that. For decades, politicians blamed the EU and freedom of movement for excessive immigration. Now, they can't. It's no surprise therefore, that so many of them loved the EU is it, as now the responsibility can't be side stepped. That is of course, also why they love a quango (or 400).

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make with that (I'm assuming doctored) image.

You appear to be claiming that a country of 70 million is incapable of creating its own plumbers. I'm not aware of any widespread shortage of plumbers before freedom of movement.

Very interesting bit at 10.30 and the next 3 minutes.  Caller calls in and says "I've never heard anyone say I want a wealth tax and I want to stop the immigrants coming in"

I've being saying both.  But it's spot on.  There is an impasse because of that.

He's very likely right that Starmer will be replaced before the election, and Labour's only chance of re-election is to support a wealth tax

Even more ignorant than the likes of the last few Tory Chancellors and Rachel from Accounts?

Ironically, only KK had a decent budget. Not without error. Funnily enough, one of his proposals was to cut stamp duty !

I would definitely agree with what Farage posted.

For what it's worth, Labour's initial reaction was that the only change they would reverse was to the top rate of income tax.

It was actually a pretty modest budget, not like the gaslighting would have you believe. For example they were only proposing to reduce stamp duty, not eliminate it.

I agree CB. As I alluded to yesterday, it's not that simple. The liberalists in the obr and treasury would be demanding to see what you would replace the lost tax revenue with. Which doesn't happen in a party conference speech.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, pretty much every stakeholder wanted KK and Truss to fail. Including the majority of their own party. Who literally would rather sacrifice the next election, rather than have supported the non wets. They made plenty of errors but doomed to fail, especially with no public mandate.

You are inconsistent CB. You appear to support the removal of stamp duty, but at the same time, deride the KK budget (which reduced stamp duty).

What was it in that budget that you particularly objected to?

Stamp duty on main homes is a minor thing.  In principle it's daft.

Sunak predicted what would happen if they adopted said budget, but then Sunak is much smarter than Truss and Kwarteng.  One of the few good guys in politics imo.  Unfunded tax cuts and a black hole in government finances.  Principles over common sense.  It would also increase inequality which is bad for the economy imo.  The argument for trickle down economics is flawed imo.  I used to buy into it, and there's an element of truth in it, but it hasn't worked in practice at all, and the reason for that is to work the wealth of the rich needs to be used for new infrastructure and building new assets.  In practice, they are just buying up existing assets with their wealth.  That pushes said limited assets out of the hands of more and more people every year.  It's not rocket science imo

It's not so much 'trickle down', but bl00dy common sense. You don't have to look too far (Ireland) to see that low long term corp tax brings in much more tax (for example)

If very wealthy people used their wealth like Sir Jim Ratcliffe to finance, research and regenerate in the UK, then there wouldn't be this issue, but most don't.