Member Info for Gray1

What has our children got to do with it. It is an illogical comparison. Why should we invest in mainly single men 18 to 30 have no cultural affinity to our country can barely speak English and have little or no qualifications you just spout nonsense.

That's me done can't be bothered to waste any more time on a fantasist enjoy the rest of your day.

And I identify as a giraffe about as relevant as your philosophy and it isn't complex lot of meaningless gobbledegook but each to their own.

They don't just pluck someone out of the ether and ask them.

"Likewise, the blanket dismissal of migrants—especially illegal ones—as pure cost ignores the nuance. First, we need to define who we’re talking about. If it’s asylum seekers in hotels, they’re legally barred from working and can’t access most benefits until granted leave to remain. If it’s those awaiting deportation, they’re under state supervision—not freely claiming anything. And if it’s undocumented individuals—including those who entered legally but overstayed—they’re subject to “no recourse to public funds” rules and can’t access mainstream benefits either. So the idea that all illegal migrants are lounging on benefits is not just misleading—it’s structurally inaccurate."

I didn't say they were lounging on benefits am I discussing with a person or a robot.

costs

accommodation

food

phones

football tickets

driving lessons

rent

rates

doctors

dentists

schools

hospitals

border force

transportation

policing

translators

legal aid

prescriptions

cost of processing

cost of criminal proceedings and investigations

cost of detainment, imprisonment

visits to the zoo

leisure discounts

I'm sure others can add more They should be barred from working until processed we have no idea who they are. Of course none of the above are "benefits" but someone has to pay. There are no nuances until all the above is paid for and they are given a right to stay and then to work.

I did a bit of research about french libertarianism and it has never formed a stable government in any country says a lot about it and you really.

How did you get on a government think tank? No don't answer that says it all about government think tanks and their quality you must spend all day batting back and forth ai generated answers until you end up coming up with no coherent answers or a bunch of soundbites.

Who said anything about getting rid of productive migrants? It is the unproductive ones that should be removed that would be a good start. Many pensioners still pay tax asi unlike illegal migrants who just drain the public purse cost is and has been enormous over the last 10 years with little benefits.

The tax pensioners pay would have to be deducted from the government pensions they receive to arrive at the net effect plus IHT. Didn't see anything about that in your AI generated reply back to the drawing board the net effect is lower than 135 billion unfortunately no figures are recorded for how much they contribute to this.

What about unpaid childcare, unpaid care, charity and community work and contributions that pensioners do need to factor that in also overall it may well be pensioners are still net contributers.

Now how much tax do we deduct from the benefits illegal migrants claim now let me see...... zero.

Just comparing paying out government pensions without comparing how much pensioners put back in is meaningless.

Asi,

So all the pensioners who paid NI and tax all their lives are now waste? How do you think the working migrants are going to feel paying in and becoming the new waste when they are pensioners? Ludicrous statement?

The problem is the government hasn't been dealing with waste benefits and migrants whether illegal of legal. Most pensioners have contributed and still do to the economy certainly far more than the boat people are doing:)

Interesting. Like it the FD has provided a link to address any questions to him. Step in the right direction for improved communications see how it goes. In the meantime back to waiting for copper to deliver for me.

The left of the government always go on about child poverty to justify increasing the two child benefit cap. It is measured on households having 60% of the average wage roughly.

So I looked at child poverty for the ages of 11 to 17.

There are roughly 5.3 million children in UK in this range.

There are no figures for how many of this age group is classed as in poverty but child poverty is measured at around 30% of all children in the country.

30% of 5.3 mill is around 1.7 million children potentially in poverty. You would think these children are poorly clothed, poorly fed and live in poorly heated homes which would be a priority for their parents to spend money on.

Yet between 96% and 99% of this children's range own a smartphone now the cynic in me would suggest that the metric for using child poverty isn't fit for purpose. Which comes first food, clothes, heating or a phone?

Just an aside and maybe a bit controversial but what has Palestine got to do with the UK? Apart from historical links nearly 80 years ago the landscape has changed since then by all means send aid but the UK has no political influence and should keep out of it. It is a local issue and the local Arab states plus Israel will need to sort it out among themselves eventually.

Gunsup,

At some point some government is going to have to face some unpalatable truths and deal with benefits, migrants legal or illegal, government waste etc. or the country will be bankrupt (it isn't that far off now £110 billion in interest and rising is unsustainable). They can't keep pushing taxes up all the time whilst outgoings keep rising ad finitum.

Seems a bit utopian to me asi but wish you the best of luck with it.

How do you support the disabled, disadvantaged and unemployed in that system?

Congratulations to her Humpy and the very best of luck to her in the future.

So you are an pseudo anarchist and communist lsi:)

And yet through all that we have the most expensive electricity in the western world artificially creating and increase in costs for all those you mention increasing the financial burden on government. You can't have it both ways.

You have just gone off on a tangent now:)

It has been a white elephant from the start there was no desperate need for it at the pace they have done it. Not saying having some renewables isn't a bad thing they have used climate change to force a policy and change on us that wasn't required.

Net zero was never fully costed in the first place because if they had done and told the electorate they would have been laughed out of office.

They will need 100 billion just to upgrade the grid and the transmission lines that they don't need to do if they don't keep adding more and more renewables. They don't know the true cost.

Solar panels can still be fitted nothing wrong with that if people want to pay for them. Repairs to turbines replacing the existing ones will still be there.

EVs are still there so will still need servicing and maintenance whatever the mix of EVs and ICE cars. Allow the market to dictate what people want and manufacturers adapt to demand instead of being forced to.

No requirement for heat pumps if you don't want one, gas boiler manufacturers would replace those jobs with no government subsidy required would be cheaper.

We need more battery storage anyway with what we currently have can always sell abroad.

Still have low emission zones many ICE cars conform to them now.

Won't need as much EV charging structure but will still require maintenance. Having more ICE cars will create more jobs to replace lost jobs with EVs.

No big deal money moves around jobs get created in other areas wouldn't make as much difference as you think overall some areas would suffer more than others some would benefit swings and roundabouts. We have always insulated houses that doesn't change.