Brexit Deal

Wattie

Wattie

Member
Messages
8,640
Wanderer said:
Have you ever had to live off benefits? I have. You have to have extremely low ambition or self esteem to want to live like that. I don't recommend it. I ended up a single father with five kids when they lost their mother and I was totally on my árse, ended up in Lochside, Dumfries amongst the druggies, whores, dickheads, thugs, villains, the detrius of life - some total mental tw@ts I can tell you.

I'd hit bottom, I fought out, I was/am intelligent but lazy hence needing to be kicked to do something.

Some people have no choice, they aren't clever, they can't comprehend ambition, they want things like we do, love, life, kids but can't escape. That can't be kicked, they have no reflex action, nothing to fall back on.

So please don't think people are happy on benefits, it's a shiite state of affairs for anyone, just a lot have no escape.

And UK benefits are just about the worst in Europe, so refugees don't come here for that...
Click to expand...
That’s quite a story. Well done you.
 
Wattie

Wattie

Member
Messages
8,640
Wattie said:
The latest act in the Europeans Ponzi scheme. Open ended money printing.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

Question- if QE is truly the answer, why didn’t the ECB do €100 Billion per month rather than €20 as that presumably would solve the problems 5x quicker.
Click to expand...
More modifications...... (rule changes, moving goalposts).....farce.
EU finance ministers eye simpler fiscal rules
European Union finance ministers were holding a first discussion on Saturday about how to simplify the EU's complex fiscal rules to help make public finances more sustainable and stabilise economies throughout business cycles.

Read in Reuters: https://apple.news/AsWO97pxdRyCryBOrjyB2Rw

Europe doesn’t have business cycles...it just has bust going even more bust. Hence the need to modify fiscal rules.
 
rockits

rockits

Member
Messages
9,172
Wanderer said:
Have you ever had to live off benefits? I have. You have to have extremely low ambition or self esteem to want to live like that. I don't recommend it. I ended up a single father with five kids when they lost their mother and I was totally on my árse, ended up in Lochside, Dumfries amongst the druggies, whores, dickheads, thugs, villains, the detrius of life - some total mental tw@ts I can tell you.

I'd hit bottom, I fought out, I was/am intelligent but lazy hence needing to be kicked to do something.

Some people have no choice, they aren't clever, they can't comprehend ambition, they want things like we do, love, life, kids but can't escape. That can't be kicked, they have no reflex action, nothing to fall back on.

So please don't think people are happy on benefits, it's a shiite state of affairs for anyone, just a lot have no escape.

And UK benefits are just about the worst in Europe, so refugees don't come here for that...
Click to expand...
I'll 2nd Wattie on this....great work and you should be applauded. If only the rest of the country had the same attitude, gumtpion and ability.

I have gone through varying degrees of self motivation over the years up and down. I'm sure we all have had our hard times. Of course these do vary as to what some call hard times but the emotional and mental strains can often be worse the higher and more complex up the so called ladder you are. Simple can often be so much easier to work through than complex. Also when you have to the motivation is sometimes simple and obvious. No less easy of course....just different.

Well done you
 
Phil the Brit

Phil the Brit

Member
Messages
1,499
I hate to ask but does anyone have any of Amber Rudd in a bikini (or less). I'd pay for those pics. I done enough google searches and can't find a thing.
 
RichardS

RichardS

Member
Messages
107
Wanderer said:
I like Corbyn because he's a human being, the social polices he plans are just what we need. Unfortunately he's no politician and has no leadership skills. He's done some stupid things but he's never wavered, stuck to his guns and ideals and as for as I know, never cheated, lied or fiddled. Somewhere I have a pic of him someone snapped of him on a bus some years ago, it was late/dark, he looked knackered, was standing, no taxi. no limo, no car even. You have to give him some kudos.

Look at the rest, for God's sake, £350 quid for a taxi, 21k for a flat nearer to HoC...
Click to expand...
The thing that best qualifies Corbyn to be PM is the fact that he never intended nor expected to be a contender. That alone makes him unique in my lifetime.

As for going back to the 1970s, that's just the stuff of Daily Fail headlines. The 2017 Labour manifesto contained policies that are considered mainstream across most of Europe. Successive British governments - of all parties - have ignored the ever-widening gap between those with the most wealth and those struggling at the bottom. That growing inequality was a major factor in the Brexit referendum. The EU (and migrant workers) were scapegoated. That's not to say that the EU doesn't have many faults.

Under-investment in public services is a great way for UK governments to guarantee those services will no longer be fit for purpose. It ensures that the public gets thoroughly disenchanted with the public sector, and the idea of public ownership, in general. And then, having manipulated public opinion, they can sell off those services to private enterprise, ideally at a knock-down rate. Later on, when their political careers are coming to an end, former ministers and special advisers can walk into highly lucrative jobs in one of the sectors that they were supposed to have been regulating when they were in government. Cronyism, bribery and misappropriation of public funds, in full view of, and with approval from the electorate.
 
breezer

breezer

Member
Messages
229
RichardS said:
The thing that best qualifies Corbyn to be PM is the fact that he never intended nor expected to be a contender. That alone makes him unique in my lifetime.

As for going back to the 1970s, that's just the stuff of Daily Fail headlines. The 2017 Labour manifesto contained policies that are considered mainstream across most of Europe. Successive British governments - of all parties - have ignored the ever-widening gap between those with the most wealth and those struggling at the bottom. That growing inequality was a major factor in the Brexit referendum. The EU (and migrant workers) were scapegoated. That's not to say that the EU doesn't have many faults.

Under-investment in public services is a great way for UK governments to guarantee those services will no longer be fit for purpose. It ensures that the public gets thoroughly disenchanted with the public sector, and the idea of public ownership, in general. And then, having manipulated public opinion, they can sell off those services to private enterprise, ideally at a knock-down rate. Later on, when their political careers are coming to an end, former ministers and special advisers can walk into highly lucrative jobs in one of the sectors that they were supposed to have been regulating when they were in government. Cronyism, bribery and misappropriation of public funds, in full view of, and with approval from the electorate.
Click to expand...
I mean, as someone with first hand experience of the public sector it’s not that the evil nasty tories want to destroy it, it’s that it’s run by incompetent ******* morons who think that money grows on trees.

There is no concept of limited resources. There is no concept of personal responsibility. It’s all about the extent to which the government will bail them out after their inevitable failure. And by government they mean us, the tax payer.

The public sector doesn’t need more money. That just what the incompetent morons who run it scream about the loudest because it’s an easy win. The public sector needs to be run by people who are aware of and understand the concept of limited resources and resource maximisation. Fat chance as long as the prevailing view is that we should just increase spending.
 
RichardS

RichardS

Member
Messages
107
breezer said:
I mean, as someone with first hand experience of the public sector it’s not that the evil nasty tories want to destroy it, it’s that it’s run by incompetent *** morons who think that money grows on trees.

There is no concept of limited resources. There is no concept of personal responsibility. It’s all about the extent to which the government will bail them out after their inevitable failure. And by government they mean us, the tax payer.

The public sector doesn’t need more money. That just what the incompetent morons who run it scream about the loudest because it’s an easy win. The public sector needs to be run by people who are aware of and understand the concept of limited resources and resource maximisation. Fat chance as long as the prevailing view is that we should just increase spending.
Click to expand...

But the Tories do believe that public services can be better run by people like Richard Branson. And they think that school books, libraries and youth centres are expendable. Cuts to such services are seen as a price worth paying, following the bailing out of banks, to the tune of many billions of pounds. Maybe those were banks which inevitably failed, having been run by incompetent morons with no concept of personal responsibility.

The same governments that bail out private enterprises like the banks, and help businesses with their wage costs (by providing in-work benefits to low paid employees) are also responsible for the management of the public sector, so it is within their gift to replace any incompetents and install people who would do a better job.

In terms of % of GDP spent on public healthcare, the UK ranks about 11th in Europe, so I think the argument that it is underfunded perhaps has some merit, irrespective of whatever mismanagement and waste there may be in the current system.
 
jasst

jasst

Member
Messages
2,316
Lozzer said:
Not the point, the point was why the UK? The UK has not acted alone against these countries, France, Germany, et Al were all in amongst it, yes I agree the UK has done wrong by a lot of countries, but guess what, when they fought for it they were given their independance back, then start crying when they royally **** it up? Never mind , while the UK continues to contribute to India's space programme while not being able to afford our own (not that we want one mind).
Ps have a look at pictures of Lybia in the 70s , absolutely beautiful, I guess they didn't want that.....
Click to expand...
They want to come her because of our lax benefits system, 'oh you poor people, here, have a house, and money for this, and money for that' stuff they wouldn't get anywhere else.
 
Wanderer

Wanderer

Member
Messages
5,791
jasst said:
They want to come her because of our lax benefits system, 'oh you poor people, here, have a house, and money for this, and money for that' stuff they wouldn't get anywhere else.
Click to expand...
What?

You've no idea mate, UK benefits system is no free ride, open your eyes. The social safety in the UK has been almost totally eroded away, just look, people sleeping on the streets, children stealing Ketchup sachets to eat, child poverty at record high levels, my friend Bila Ahmed (yes, a Muslim) every single night of the week feeds the homeless in Bolton Town Centre, because the UK can't/doesn't want to do it.

Foodbanks? Is that normal for the 5th richest economy in the World?

Genuine refugees get accommodation, usually the where no UK person would consider, and 35 quid a week in vouchers, not cash. These people are displaced through no fault of their own, do they not deserve help?

Going on benefits and having to cow tow to supercilious officials for a pittance is utterly demeaning, I would not wish it on anybody.

Or, maybe let them starve on streets, we do that anyway now.....
 
breezer

breezer

Member
Messages
229
RichardS said:
But the Tories do believe that public services can be better run by people like Richard Branson. And they think that school books, libraries and youth centres are expendable. Cuts to such services are seen as a price worth paying, following the bailing out of banks, to the tune of many billions of pounds. Maybe those were banks which inevitably failed, having been run by incompetent morons with no concept of personal responsibility.

The same governments that bail out private enterprises like the banks, and help businesses with their wage costs (by providing in-work benefits to low paid employees) are also responsible for the management of the public sector, so it is within their gift to replace any incompetents and install people who would do a better job.

In terms of % of GDP spent on public healthcare, the UK ranks about 11th in Europe, so I think the argument that it is underfunded perhaps has some merit, irrespective of whatever mismanagement and waste there may be in the current system.
Click to expand...

Provided the contracts are well specified, many public services could be better run by the private sector. Yet another problem seems to be that very few public sector managers are versed in basic procurement skills.

And since when is spending a good yardstick for quality? That’s the trap the NHS wants you to fall into. The US outspends the next 30 something countries combined on healthcare and yet leaves a huge proportion of its population unable to access basic healthcare. Spending does not equal quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.