Will the UK Recover From Financial Decline ?

[supa]

We are also self employed, and what I would say about Britain is that it is a great place to be self employed, albeit meaning 7 day weeks and long days. But not everyone is cut out to be self employed. For starters it can mean, in the early years, managing pennies rather than pounds. And the long hours do start to take their toll after a while. Until you've been unemployed for a long time, it's hard, imho, to understand how demotivating it is, to send out 200 CVs and hardly get any replies, let alone interviews. Also, you hardly get any money when you are unemployed. By the time you pay the phone - which you have to have just to get work - not to mention the electricity and gas, there's only money left for food. £3.70 for a return bus fare to get to an interview is just pie in the sky.

 

AGREE, THIS IS THE SORT OF SITUATION THAT WELFARE IS INDEED JUSTIFIED - NO QUESTION. I WAS ONLY ON THE DOLE FOR 6 WEEKS ONCE AND TOUTING AROUND COMPANIES AND KNOCKING ON DOORS WAS A GRIND; I DID GET THERE EVENTUALLY THOUGH.

 

If you can't get a job in Britain, then you may as well have children, because that's the only way you can get enough money to survive.

 

APPALLING. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN THAT THESE WOMEN PRODUCE? IT'S PERPETUATING THE CYCLE.

 

As to the ciggies and booze, I think it is a bit on the nose for taxpayers to have to stump up for either, and there's no council estate bad enough in Edinburgh that would drive me to either. Up here, they don't even wait for the buildings to get to the decrepit state - they just pull them down long before that point (Gracemount, recently). But there are parts of England where living there AND working would drive me to cigarettes or booze or both, let alone living there and not working.

 

MY POINT IS, HOW CAN THEY AFFORD IT? IN THE PAST, I DID VOLUNTARY WORK IN ORDER TO HAVE IT AS A PLUS ON MY CV; I SIMPLY WOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT I COULD DO NOTHING. WHY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOCAL AREA BY HELPING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER? POOR ME, PASS ME THE FAGS DOESN'T CUT IT WITH ME I'M AFRAID.

 

As for people destroying property and kicking in doors, sure it's outrageous. But for whatever reason, in Britain it is politically incorrect to require people to work at a job they don't choose to do. And rage at being poor is a consequence of that kind of attitude.

 

I WANTED MY ACCOMODATION TO LOOK AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE WHEN I WAS DOWN ON MY LUCK. I WAS HACKED OFF, BUT NO WAY WOULD I HAVE TAKEN TO DESTROYING THINGS TO VENT MY ANGER. THIS IS JUST NOT A DEFENCE.

 

We can't afford this level of welfare as a nation. The American model, thank goodness, is never likely to take route here, but I do see a time when the Australian model arrives, as in only part of your rent paid, not all of it, and you have to take whatever training and job they say you have to take, i.e. you don't get to live on the dole forever.

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT ANYONE IN REAL NEED SHOULD BE DENIED ASSISTANCE. I'M PROUD THAT I LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT HELPS THOSE IN NEED AND IT MUST CONTINUE. HOWEVER PEOPLE WHO DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES (AND CERTAINLY REPEAT OFFENDERS) SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED. ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVES ON THE ESTATE MY OH VISITS SET FIRE TO HIS FLAT BECAUSE HE SAYS HE COULDN'T AFFORD THE RENT; HE WAS THEN RE-HOUSED. ANOTHER TENANT WHO WAS MOVED FROM HIS HOUSE BOOBYTRAPPED IT WITH HYPODERMIC NEEDLES WHICH THE HOUSING ASSOCIATION THEN HAD TO CLEAR UP FOR PETE'S SAKE. WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THAT?

 

The most bizarre thing in Britain we have come across since we got here is the practice of paying more than the actual private rent in housing allowance, in the interests of "fairness". That local housing allowance rort has now changed, but even to this day, the housing benefit is the actual rent plus £15 a week. Fair to whom, for goodness sake?!

 

RIGHT-TO-BUY IN MY OPINION WAS A BIG MISTAKE AND HAS HELPED THE HOUSING SHORTAGE TO GET WORSE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT FOR HOUSING TO BE TAKEN FROM THOSE IN REAL NEED AND SOLD TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD A MORTGAGE. YES YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE TO PAY PRIVATE LANDLORDS, BUT THERE ISN'T THE HOUSING STOCK AVAILABLE TO ACCOMODATE, AND A PRIVATE LANDLORD WILL CHARGE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN GET - THEY AREN'T CHARITIES I GUESS, AND IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH CHARGING MORE, THEN COMMON SENSE SAYS THAT YOU WOULD DO IT IN THEIR POSITION. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT I KNOW.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Guest kyeandgem]

well said,

 

its simple scum breed scum and no matter how much help you give them they will only waste it on drugs and alcohol instead of using to try and better their situation, and I for one am sick of seeing my tax monet go to these wasters.

Yes a benefit system is needed but why should someone who is on benefits bring in more money than someone who works, its about time the system had a massive restructure.

[KIRK AND CO]

well said,

 

its simple scum breed scum and no matter how much help you give them they will only waste it on drugs and alcohol instead of using to try and better their situation, and I for one am sick of seeing my tax monet go to these wasters.

Yes a benefit system is needed but why should someone who is on benefits bring in more money than someone who works, its about time the system had a massive restructure.

lets hope you are not in need of it then. Glade to see you know whats round the corner.

[Guest kyeandgem]

Lets hope so,

like i said i think their is a need for it for genuine cases but how many do you know or heard of that have never worked in their lives and have no intention of working. If your happy to pay for them then fair play but I am not.

I never said a restructure was coming I was emplying it was needed!!!!

[Guest Andy]

lets hope you are not in need of it then. Glade to see you know whats round the corner.

If he/she ever does need the help of the welfare system then they should get it as my guess is they have probably paid into the system for donkeys years and are exactly the sort of people who should get the help and i for one as a taxpayer would be more than happy to contribute. The argument that the poster is referring to is those that continuley go through life bleeding everyone else with no intention of ever helping themselves, and more likely than not bringing there kids up to be the same.

[Guest treesea]

If he/she ever does need the help of the welfare system then they should get it as my guess is they have probably paid into the system for donkeys years and are exactly the sort of people who should get the help and i for one as a taxpayer would be more than happy to contribute. The argument that the poster is referring to is those that continuley go through life bleeding everyone else with no intention of ever helping themselves, and more likely than not bringing there kids up to be the same.

 

Maybe that's true in some cases, but perhaps that's the fault of our style of welfare, not to mention post code prejudice on the part of the employers, rather than their fault completely. What's the point of a welfare system that throws people out of work on the scrapheap, without either retraining them or setting up incentives for employers to take them on and retrain them? Not to mention a welfare system where people can elect to stay on welfare rather than take any of the jobs currently on offer.

 

I remember seeing a young guy on TV one day turning down vegetable picking, saying he'd rather be on the dole. In the UK he gets to make that choice, but if you did that somewhere like Australia, they would stop your dole.

[exenger]

I also trained a lad for 4 years and paid for him to go through college only to have it thrown back in my face. QUOTE]

 

I am not sure of your exact circumstance, but we regulaurly employ young staff, apprentices, they get put through college then leave after qualifing...but on the upside, you get a member of staff who is paid less, willing to work to 'prove themselves' usually works to a good standard, they train the new trainees and happily leave after four years.

 

Not all trades are the same but unqualified first and second years get less than $10 an hour in my trade, thats 20 less than a fully qualifed.

[Guest treesea]

RIGHT-TO-BUY IN MY OPINION WAS A BIG MISTAKE AND HAS HELPED THE HOUSING SHORTAGE TO GET WORSE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT FOR HOUSING TO BE TAKEN FROM THOSE IN REAL NEED AND SOLD TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD A MORTGAGE. YES YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE TO PAY PRIVATE LANDLORDS, BUT THERE ISN'T THE HOUSING STOCK AVAILABLE TO ACCOMODATE, AND A PRIVATE LANDLORD WILL CHARGE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN GET - THEY AREN'T CHARITIES I GUESS, AND IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH CHARGING MORE, THEN COMMON SENSE SAYS THAT YOU WOULD DO IT IN THEIR POSITION. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT I KNOW.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Right to buy is a bit daft - if the government want council tenants who can afford it to buy a house, then they can cooperate with private builders, build social housing, and co-purchase it together with the tenant, freeing up the original council house.

 

What I think is worse though, and quite a rort in a way, is if, for example, you eventually qualify for a four bedroom house, on account of the number of kids you have, then time goes on, the children grow up, marry and move on into their own (council? probably!) houses, you and your OH get to keep the nice, four bedroom council house. That's something that definitely doesn't happen in Australia (once your children turn 16 and are entitled to their own place, if they then move out, you get reassessed and are required to move into a smaller place) and is the main reason why there are not enough affordable council houses for families. Why should a couple get to keep a four bedroom house just because it has been their home for the last 20 years or so, when all they now need is a one or two bedroom flat? But oh no, say anything like this in Britain and it is shot down in flames. A man's home is his castle.

 

When we first came up to Scotland, we went with a friend who had two children to help him get housing benefit, because English was not his mother tongue. The assessment came through and he was entitled to local housing allowance for a "five room house". So three bedrooms and TWO reception rooms (the council's fancy word for lounges/sitting rooms). I queried it, in case they had made a mistake in assessing him, but no, two children meant you qualified for enough local housing allowance to fund a five room house.

 

That's probably a big factor as to why people on benefits and getting housing benefit don't go back to work - not because work pays less than the dole but because if they had to fund their rent out of their after tax wages, they wouldn't be able to afford the kind of house they can afford on the dole/invalid benefit.

 

Yes a benefit system is needed but why should someone who is on benefits bring in more money than someone who works, its about time the system had a massive restructure.

 

But that's just it. Britain is a high benefits BUT low wage economy. If all you can get is minimum wage work and you rent, then once children come along you probably would be better off on benefits and not working. If you have children, you'ld have to be earning well over £10 an hour before tax to make it worthwhile to work compared to being on benefits.

[Guest kyeandgem]

But that's just it. Britain is a high benefits BUT low wage economy. If all you can get is minimum wage work and you rent, then once children come along you probably would be better off on benefits and not working. If you have children, you'ld have to be earning well over £10 an hour before tax to make it worthwhile to work compared to being on benefits.

 

Thats my point, their is no incentive to get these people back to work whether it be min wage or not, Sorry incentive is the wrong word for scroungers the word should be threat. Their benefits should be cut every 6 months until they reach a basic amount for basic necessities, im not saying give them nothing but it should not be enough to live a very comfortable life being able to afford cigarettes, alcohol, holidays etc etc

 

Why should people go through the majority of their working lives and do nothing but take take take from a system which was designed for helping people over short transition periods between jobs, illnesses etc while other people work their balls off contributing to the system and society.

 

My opinion only but have a crack if you must.

[Guest treesea]

Thats my point, their is no incentive to get these people back to work whether it be min wage or not, Sorry incentive is the wrong word for scroungers the word should be threat. Their benefits should be cut every 6 months until they reach a basic amount for basic necessities, im not saying give them nothing but it should not be enough to live a very comfortable life being able to afford cigarettes, alcohol, holidays etc etc

 

Why should people go through the majority of their working lives and do nothing but take take take from a system which was designed for helping people over short transition periods between jobs, illnesses etc while other people work their balls off contributing to the system and society.

 

My opinion only but have a crack if you must.

 

Maybe the Robin Hood psyche is so deeply buried in our collective consciousness, we are forever doomed to robbing the rich (21st century translation: whoever manages to earn some money during the week, however small an amount), via taxes, to give to the "multiplying like rabbits" poor. Well, they would be multiplying if they had any sense, because having a child is the way to the biggest unearned pay rise they are ever likely to get.

 

Then there's the rest of the world we seem to let in indiscriminately. If we had a Statue of Liberty over here, we could just inscribe on it the same poem as on New York's one:

 

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

Perhaps we could add a couple of lines:

"Here, we fleece the taxpayers,

And gift it to the poor."

 

I'm all for supporting the poor, provided it is coupled with retraining and a requirement to take up the job offered at the end of it. We know there is plenty of work here, even unskilled work - a few hundred thousand illegals plus another million recent immigrants from the EU can't all be sleeping rough and eating grass. And that's before even counting those who legitimately arrive to work here from the rest of the world.

 

The government is really stubborn on this point, determined not to pay the unemployed to go on suitable training courses and up-skill. And no, I don't count the "training" that all these fancy consultancies are getting paid handsomely to deliver. I understand the payoff - that they don't want a skilled worker to lose his or her job to make way for a subsidised, unskilled worker to learn the trade, but surely millions upon millions of unemployed - it isn't as if we only have a couple of hundred thousand - is too big a price to pay?

[Lanky Lad]

well said,

 

its simple scum breed scum and no matter how much help you give them they will only waste it on drugs and alcohol instead of using to try and better their situation,........"

 

I cannot subscribe to that maxim. Social problems beit with families or societies in general, develop over time and not overnight.

 

You first need to define "scum". Would it be those who are poor, have had little education and came from troubled background?

 

In my grans day, many "poor" families were described as "poor but proud" taking handouts from the "social" was a last stand and resulted in a loss or pride.

Men felt "useless" if they ended up on the dole. That work ethic has been lost.

Now its a case of why work, when benefits and freebies gross more than a wage.

 

So who is too blame the individual using the system - or the people who put the system in place?

 

I agree the benefit system in the UK is abused as is the "asylum" system, which is why from Africa westwards....they head in droves for the UK and Africa eastwards, Aussie seems to be the target. And it is a ( published in Aussie ) fact 3 out 4 asylum seekers never look for work and draw benefits.

 

Have I digressed from your "scum breds scum " theory, not really. As I see it your definition stems from them being on benefits.

My "Would it be those who are poor, have had little education and came from troubled background?" just about inlcudes most of those claiming asylum in rich countries. Apart from claims if a brutal political/police system coming from mid to far east Asians and the outright poverty in African countries, most have little eductation and have usually lived in home made "houses".

By the wonders of our modern world even these have TV sets where they learn about countries who are a soft touch with a benefit system in place.

Living in poor housing in aus or UK is far better than what they had.

 

The "scum" who begat scum, are usually those who were ever unable to get a decent job and make a life.

 

As a kid in post war UK I grew up poor with no father in the house and we lived on the NAB.

I went on to manage a few business's and eventually started my own company.

I can agree my biological father was scum, so maybe I could have spared myself all that stress and responsibilty of managment and business ownership and a never ending duel with the tax offices - and just sat at home.

 

The difference is I had and made opportunities, others may not be so lucky and some just get sucked in and swamped by the system and lack of self respect due to the percieved status.

 

However, I concede that the system of the rich countries are being abused so maybe they should adopt what one state in the USA put in place.

Anybody claiming welfare payments were made to turn up to be allocated work. If they refused to do the work...they got no welfare. A lot found work of choice and the others admitted they felt better working for the money.

The remaining dissenters are presumably the scum who bred scum!

[Sydney]

Long thread,I am mainly reponding to the OP.Yes the UK will recover from financial decline.We are alot better off even now than America and Australia for example.--It is just going to take a little more time to get back on track.-

The UK is worse off debt wise than the US and worse off in so many other ways than Australia. I'm not sure how you arrived at your statement. I see an enormous amount of reform in the UK when the Tories get back in. The recent scare about the economy in certain Arab States looking shaky was just another delayed shock, with UK banks particualrly exposed. The fact Britain secretly lent an extra 60 billion quid to UK banks to keep them going without public knowledge is again an indication of how desperate the situation is. And of how much we still don't know.

In another statement I found ironic, someone on here made a reference to Australia "only" having mining, gas etc, and other commodities. That's quite a lot to fall back on in this economic mess. Personally I think the gap in haves and have nots in the UK is about to broaden. The welfare system is so top heavy and along with the NHS is unsustainable. Unemployment will be a huge burden on the government at a time when it's going to have to repay it's debt. No choice there at all. The Tories love these challenges. This is a lot worse than when Thatcher took over, and yet she so dispirited the the UK public with reforms that she'd have been voted out in early eighties but for the Falklands conflict. Tough times ahead for the UK I think.

[Guest kyeandgem]

I cannot subscribe to that maxim. Social problems beit with families or societies in general, develop over time and not overnight.

 

You first need to define "scum". Would it be those who are poor, have had little education and came from troubled background?

 

In my grans day, many "poor" families were described as "poor but proud" taking handouts from the "social" was a last stand and resulted in a loss or pride.

Men felt "useless" if they ended up on the dole. That work ethic has been lost.

Now its a case of why work, when benefits and freebies gross more than a wage.

 

So who is too blame the individual using the system - or the people who put the system in place?

 

I agree the benefit system in the UK is abused as is the "asylum" system, which is why from Africa westwards....they head in droves for the UK and Africa eastwards, Aussie seems to be the target. And it is a ( published in Aussie ) fact 3 out 4 asylum seekers never look for work and draw benefits.

 

Have I digressed from your "scum breds scum " theory, not really. As I see it your definition stems from them being on benefits.

My "Would it be those who are poor, have had little education and came from troubled background?" just about inlcudes most of those claiming asylum in rich countries. Apart from claims if a brutal political/police system coming from mid to far east Asians and the outright poverty in African countries, most have little eductation and have usually lived in home made "houses".

By the wonders of our modern world even these have TV sets where they learn about countries who are a soft touch with a benefit system in place.

Living in poor housing in aus or UK is far better than what they had.

 

The "scum" who begat scum, are usually those who were ever unable to get a decent job and make a life.

 

As a kid in post war UK I grew up poor with no father in the house and we lived on the NAB.

I went on to manage a few business's and eventually started my own company.

I can agree my biological father was scum, so maybe I could have spared myself all that stress and responsibilty of managment and business ownership and a never ending duel with the tax offices - and just sat at home.

 

The difference is I had and made opportunities, others may not be so lucky and some just get sucked in and swamped by the system and lack of self respect due to the percieved status.

 

However, I concede that the system of the rich countries are being abused so maybe they should adopt what one state in the USA put in place.

Anybody claiming welfare payments were made to turn up to be allocated work. If they refused to do the work...they got no welfare. A lot found work of choice and the others admitted they felt better working for the money.

The remaining dissenters are presumably the scum who bred scum!

 

Lanky lad

 

I see what you are saying especially about yourself coming from a far from perfect background, but you hit the nail on the head when you said you grew up in a post war era, a totally different generation where you rightly stated accepting benefits resulted in a loss of pride.

 

In todays society I ask you this (this is not just aimed at asylum seekers but all ethnicities)

 

if you go to any inner city estate and take a look at all the kids taking drugs, committing crime etc etc, what kind of family do you think they have come from

 

1, a hard working law abiding family who are paying taxes and contributing.

2, social degenerates who live on nothing but handouts all their lives.

 

and heaven forbid these SCUM kids go ahead and procriate what kind of person do you think will be the outcome from that.

 

I know it is not the kids fault where they have come from which proves my point if they come from a family/ background like that they will not know anything else and go on to become the the next generation in a family of social cheats.

 

Hence the phrase scum breed scum

 

sorry if you do not agree, but if not I urge you to take a walk around any inner city estate and open your eyes. If you dare!

 

Kye

[Lanky Lad]

Lanky lad

 

I see what you are saying especially about yourself coming from a far from perfect background, but you hit the nail on the head when you said you grew up in a post war era, a totally different generation where you rightly stated accepting benefits resulted in a loss of pride.

 

In todays society I ask you this (this is not just aimed at asylum seekers but all ethnicities)

 

if you go to any inner city estate and take a look at all the kids taking drugs, committing crime etc etc, what kind of family do you think they have come from

 

1, a hard working law abiding family who are paying taxes and contributing.

2, social degenerates who live on nothing but handouts all their lives.

 

and heaven forbid these SCUM kids go ahead and procriate what kind of person do you think will be the outcome from that.

 

I know it is not the kids fault where they have come from which proves my point if they come from a family/ background like that they will not know anything else and go on to become the the next generation in a family of social cheats.

 

Hence the phrase scum breed scum

 

sorry if you do not agree, but if not I urge you to take a walk around any inner city estate and open your eyes. If you dare!

 

Kye

 

 

I accept I have a bias.... I grew up in a different social climate than todays. I raomed free and lived with teh local old biddies berating me and saying " tha's no fayther and tha'l end up being locked like yer belong" ( bit of owd lany dialect for you )

 

According to statistics... I was bound for a life of petty crime or worse. However, although I had no father I did have three uncles, all times served engineers, who put the male control over my life.

 

To confound your theories about good families.....

 

Long ago when I was just out of teh Army with a young wife and a 6 month old kid... I worked at night as a barman in the local pub. The landlord was previouly a department manager at the factory where I worked.

Sam and his wife were old school, good parents and "middle class" his first was a daughter and progressed through school to university eventually. Sam and his wife, like many suddenly found an unplanned addition to the family and mark was born around 1968 from memory. This kid had all the advantages of a good home, loving caring parents and the best of anything he needed that money could buy.

 

He was forever in trouble at school and ended up a thieving little scum bag with teh police forever at the pub looking for him.

He was an angelic looking kid, blonde hair blues eyes....

Sam and May both died a long time ago and I lost track of him.

 

But, Mark also confounds your theories..... born into a good family, solid middle class parents, money etc, and hi his/was a scumbag!

 

I know another family...similar story..... eldest kid went off the rails ended up on heroin.

 

Could it be that living in a area known to be full of malcontents in a low employemt area where there is no work and in effect forces peopel to live on benefits - brand them all as scumbags.

 

I once had to kids out of school interviewing for a low paid job. One I knew from his CV ticked all the nice guy boxes, while the other lived in a Hattersley ( yes where teh Moors Murders lived ) which still has a bad name. I employed them both, the "nice" kid was forever late and bone idle, the bad guy was a grafter and turned ito one of teh best I had on the shop floor.

 

Sometimes, where you come from should not be used to type brand anybody.

Giving people a chance and helping them develop self respect can break the social cycle basiclaly foeced onto people in certain area's and allow that some, irrespective of background and social status or the family.... are actually born bad!

[Guest kyeandgem]

Lanky lad,

 

like I said earlier I see what you are saying and you cant generalise an entire population and I too can give examples of good families with little sh*ts, and yes you get a lot of bad apples from a good back ground and agree with you they are probably born bad but I would bet you get less good apples from a bad back ground.

 

As i said in an earlier post, most (not all) of people from a certain background/ family lifestyle will end up spending the majority of their working life on benefits because they have been raised like that not knowing anything different, believing society owes them a living.

 

I fail to understand how you cant see that in a country like the UK, examples are rife in every town and city.

[Life on easy street]

The public debt is close to a trillion pounds.

 

UK National Debt Clock - DebtBombshell.com

 

And that's the official figure which doesn't include off balance sheet tricks like PFI, the liabilities of the bankrupt banks that may never become profitable again etc).

 

Gordon brown may want to ignore the debt but unfortunately international markets will not.

 

At some point our creditors will loose there sense of humor.

 

Very tough times ahead for the U.K.

[Guest kyeandgem]

Back to the thread in hand,

 

humourous but accurate

 

It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town.

 

 

He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.

 

 

The hotel proprietor takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

 

 

The Butcher takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the pig raiser.

 

 

The pig raiser takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

 

 

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute that in these hard times, gave her "services" on credit.

 

 

The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 dollar bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

 

 

The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 dollar bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

 

 

At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 dollar bill, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

 

 

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.

 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the British Government is doing business today.

 

 

[Guest Andy]

The UK borrowed £20.3 BILLION in November a new record, that takes us to £850 billion in total debt:shocked:. Anyone got any ideas how we are going to pay this back?:unsure:

[Guest LukeSkywalker]

The UK borrowed £20.3 BILLION in November a new record, that takes us to £850 billion in total debt:shocked:. Anyone got any ideas how we are going to pay this back?:unsure:

 

We are going to inflate it away to nothing. Same as the rest of the world.

[janieco]

The UK borrowed £20.3 BILLION in November a new record, that takes us to £850 billion in total debt:shocked:. Anyone got any ideas how we are going to pay this back?:unsure:

Do you think it will turn out to be heaps more after the election ....... just wondering lol

[Guest Andy]

Do you think it will turn out to be heaps more after the election ....... just wondering lol

I am no great expert on finances Lukeskywalker knows his stuff, but the way i see it is that as soon as the Tories or heaven forbid Labour have won the election then the **** will hit the fan as either party will have 4 years to sort it and that is going to mean pain and more pain for us as surley they will tax us even more if that is possible as what other way is there to try to get solvent?

[Guest pegasus 90]

Maybe that's true in some cases, but perhaps that's the fault of our style of welfare, not to mention post code prejudice on the part of the employers, rather than their fault completely. What's the point of a welfare system that throws people out of work on the scrapheap, without either retraining them or setting up incentives for employers to take them on and retrain them? Not to mention a welfare system where people can elect to stay on welfare rather than take any of the jobs currently on offer.

 

I remember seeing a young guy on TV one day turning down vegetable picking, saying he'd rather be on the dole. In the UK he gets to make that choice, but if you did that somewhere like Australia, they would stop your dole.

You paint a rosy picture, but the reality is that unemployment for young people in Aus is also very bad. The way Oz Govt gets round it is to subsidize large amount of university places to keep them off the unemployment figures. There is also a massive incentive for the Uni's to attract the kids as we only have a small population & we have five universities in the metropolitan area all jostling for the business.

That's great you may say; but whilst this has been happening the construction industry cannot attract apprentices, so what happens is we end up with tons of kids with degrees who can't find work.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Well anyone who is banking on a recovery anytime soon had better hope that Brown and the Labour party don't close the gap on the Tories,at least that is according to the Times Online.

The pound is trading at 1.10 against the euro after hitting a low of 1.02 a year ago. However, currency markets are reflecting the expectation of a win for the Conservatives in next year’s election, raising hopes of tougher action to tackle the deficit. Any signs of Labour closing the gap ahead of the election would result in the pound plunging, according to the cebr.

Pound may fall below parity with euro, economists warn - Times Online

[Guest Guest31881]

Well anyone who is banking on a recovery anytime soon had better hope that Brown and the Labour party don't close the gap on the Tories,at least that is according to the Times Online.

 

Pound may fall below parity with euro, economists warn - Times Online

 

 

If you think that’s bad. Just think how the money markets will react if there is a 'Hung Parliament' and no one gets an overall majority, there is a real risk of this and then the fighting will start to see who the smaller parties support to try and get a working majority,

:arghh:

[exenger]

You paint a rosy picture, but the reality is that unemployment for young people in Aus is also very bad. The way Oz Govt gets round it is to subsidize large amount of university places to keep them off the unemployment figures. There is also a massive incentive for the Uni's to attract the kids as we only have a small population & we have five universities in the metropolitan area all jostling for the business.

That's great you may say; but whilst this has been happening the construction industry cannot attract apprentices, so what happens is we end up with tons of kids with degrees who can't find work.

 

maybe they are the ones who go and do the global traveling, work abroad for a bit, save some cash return to Oz with good experience. After all, someones got to pay the taxes to keep the other half in benefits.