RE: RNS14 Nov 2022 19:45
My thoughts are that Rishi Sunak with his background in finance and a good education should prove a stable and better leader than his predecessors. Truss imho hadn't a clue and May just didn't get the support of her party. Boris (considered a " mini-me Trump wannabe over this side of the pond was a show-off and clearly different to your average suave, neat Tory politician....I wouln't trust him one inch!. So collectively this kinda makes conservative folk over there hanker for the likes of Thatcher....and over here for Reagan.
Neither were popular with folk who would rather not support the "Right Wing". Personally I have no time either for Tebbit or Farage so I guess that puts me on a collision course, Paul, with your Bruges Group.
Clearly both the UK and the US have a similar problem with migrants who believe they can secure a better personal life style. You have a slight advantage of "policing" your border because of the dangers in getting across The Channel. We have a huge economic disadvantage because of the sheer length of both our southern and northern borders and the greater numbers of people attempting to get in. Most of Western Europe is fairly free of "restrictive government "and its dangers to those inhabitants who disagree with the regime whereas it is a very different situation in Central America and Mexico simply cannot cope with the influx. Likewise there must be similar problems over in France which creates costs for that country.
Trump saw a Wall as the answer and labelled Mexico as a haven for criminals who would otherwise enter the US and commit heinous crimes. Americans (and especially the NRA) are all out for easily acquired guns but fail to recognize that it is the same guns (and gun sales profits) which are shipped across the border into the hands of cartels and Central American gangs. Over in Canada, their PM has drastically clamped down on guns and ownership. (I'm not sure that Brits are aware that gun ownership in Mexico is illegal) .
Now as to your tax becoming a "killer" ......It all comes down to how much a country is prepared to shell out for the poorest people or those who cannot afford a basic standard of life (health or whatever). The bottom line is that Social Welfare has to be paid for and those who don't (or can't ) are in no position to pay.
Personally, as a Democrat here and more likely a Liberal or Labour voter if I was your side of the pond, I can see some relevance in Trade Union thinking which could perhaps be summed up as : Marketing needs to be supervised in the public interests, Public Ownership is Bad, Privatization is Good and the " holy trinity" of Corporates ( High Prices, High Profits and Low Wages ) make the big earners the obvious source to put wealth into the National Budget because the lower earners may not even qualify for tax payments anyway. So now what?
Sign In
Follow the stocks
