The concept that the national debt is a burden is yet another neoliberal myth

Repaying the national debt is entirely notional. That is because whenever a government bond is due for repayment that repayment is not funded by taxation but is, instead, always funded by new bond issues.

The UK national debt represented about 250% of GDP just after World War 2 when the Labour government created the NHS, a fully inclusive state education system, the welfare state, and nationalised a wide range of key industries, all of which resulted in a period of substantial economic growth.

By 1955 it was down to about 120% of GDP and continued falling

Debt service payments also would not be materially more difficult as long as tax receipts were to rise. Something which is expected with inflation being high and fiscal drag being enforced. But yes, it would become problematic if this were not the case, likely when nominal output grows below the level of interest service costs.

100%

And there are links with demographic trends.

The Japanese take the view that a declining population will bring benefits as well as disbenefits, and that importing massive numbers of foreigners in an attempt to make productivity gains could have various adverse side effects and not actually be a workable or sustainable response to whatever the problems are, so they aim for technological solutions. Automation, robotics, etc. They are miles ahead of us in these respects.

The solution here seems to be: let's take the lazy route, bring in millions of people each decade in the hope of suppressing wages and getting an extra 0.1% of GDP growth, overwhelm the NHS and public services generally, the housing market and infrastructure, and hope it all works out. Let's not worry too much about the actual skills of those coming here or that a large number won't be paying any tax, or what the social and cultural implications might be. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's introduce a raft of laws to penalise anybody who dares to question or criticise our reckless gamble and endlessly harass the native population with a stream of gas lighting propaganda.

What we really need are significant cuts to public spending; reduce the public sector by at least 50%; reduce the role of government in people's lives; be more business friendly; and reduce immigration down towards zero. Train people who are already here to fill vacancies and make it more desirable for companies and public services to invest in technological solutions - which can then also be sold to the rest of the world. With all of this, productivity will increase, government spending will decline relative to income, debt will fall, public services might adjust and be more able to cope with demand, and this country will be less crowded and more harmonious in the long run.

Or carry on as we have been...

I can understand the desire to bolster domestic manufacturing and energy production, but offering such extreme incentives and subsidies could come with significant long-term costs. A more balanced, sustainable approach focused on innovation, infrastructure, and environmental responsibility may be a wiser path forward. It's a complex issue without easy answers.

Isn't it great to see the French finally getting the stick they deserve. The UK is not the outlier that it's frequently portrayed to be. Europe as a whole is dependent on service industries i.e. tourism in a broad sense. Challenging times lie ahead. Unless there's a change in mindset.