Now that Britain has voted to leave the EU, what comes next?

[GuestHouse]

Wonder who will bear the cost of all the welfare cuts we will be having. Personally given the spread of voters I would say the elderly were most for Brexit so it's only fair they should be first in line. Regrettable.

I've never claimed welfare, don't see the need for it, work or starve.

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

[Naam]

My bad.

Whilst I appreciate your sracasm, I wouldn't put it beyond some of the Brexiteer posters to state something similar and actualy mean it.

[jpinx]

Wonder who will bear the cost of all the welfare cuts we will be having. Personally given the spread of voters I would say the elderly were most for Brexit so it's only fair they should be first in line. Regrettable.

I've never claimed welfare, don't see the need for it, work or starve.

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

[Thaiwine]

The EU has found the answer to the proplem of so many migrants drowning trying to cross the med

Give them safe passage

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/16/eu-1safe-routes-migrants/

[Mangostin]

Is anybody else finding amusing the fact that the people which are now complaining about massive immigration, are often the very same ones which kept glorifying the attacks being made from our armies which were at the base of it all? Why these people aren't protesting against the millions and millions of public money being spent to destroy entire countries??? (standing up against the killing of other human beings would be too much for them, so lets just put it on financial terms)....

[jpinx]

Is anybody else finding amusing the fact that the people which are now complaining about massive immigration, are often the very same ones which kept glorifying the attacks being made from our armies which were at the base of it all? Why these people aren't protesting against the millions and millions of public money being spent to destroy entire countries??? (standing up against the killing of other human beings would be too much for them, so lets just put it on financial terms)....

Putting it into financial terms would mean accepting the fact that about 15% of USA's GDP is arms exports. They *need* a few wars to be going on.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Industry%20and%20Arms%20Sales.htm

Edited July 16, 2016 by jpinx

[GuestHouse]

Wonder who will bear the cost of all the welfare cuts we will be having. Personally given the spread of voters I would say the elderly were most for Brexit so it's only fair they should be first in line. Regrettable.

I've never claimed welfare, don't see the need for it, work or starve.

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Edited July 17, 2016 by GuestHouse

[Mangostin]

citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Well maybe they are right? So let's just put them into the labs to develop some special piece of machinery or simply an intelligent material which will not requires them to do tasks that just lower down their status, it's a win-win for all...

[dick dasterdly]

Wonder who will bear the cost of all the welfare cuts we will be having. Personally given the spread of voters I would say the elderly were most for Brexit so it's only fair they should be first in line. Regrettable.

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

[dick dasterdly]

Is anybody else finding amusing the fact that the people which are now complaining about massive immigration, are often the very same ones which kept glorifying the attacks being made from our armies which were at the base of it all? Why these people aren't protesting against the millions and millions of public money being spent to destroy entire countries??? (standing up against the killing of other human beings would be too much for them, so lets just put it on financial terms)....

Not all those who are complaining about unskilled workers entering the UK (and thereby reducing wages for the poorest paid) supported the UK sending troops to various wars. Personally, I've been opposed to every Brit. 'war' since (and including) the Falklands.

[Mangostin]

Not all those who are complaining about unskilled workers entering the UK (and thereby reducing wages for the poorest paid) supported the UK sending troops to various wars. Personally, I've been opposed to every Brit. 'war' since (and including) the Falklands.

That's why some people will use the word "often" instead of "always", we can i think very safely came to the conclusion, that the vast majority of those belligerent souls backing up wars are the same ones that backed the Brexit.

The problem behind the low wages are not the people willing to take up jobs for less, but the employers which couldn't care less if someone couldn't survive on what they paid, and this is possible because there are complacent laws in place which not only accept it but encourage it.

I have seen plenty of staff's meetings where the main point was not just how to lower down wages, but to eliminate them completely by removing the old personnel and putting in place some uni's students, to gain "precious" experience in exchange for meals and an overcrowded lodgement, do you think most company's directors would give the slightest fleaking fluck about your nationality or general welfare? All it matter it's profits, money money money, as they can always find plenty of gullible people around to let them to believe the reason behind their problems, are some other chaps which have even more problems then them......sometime it all looks as we are doomed, really.

[dick dasterdly]

Not all those who are complaining about unskilled workers entering the UK (and thereby reducing wages for the poorest paid) supported the UK sending troops to various wars. Personally, I've been opposed to every Brit. 'war' since (and including) the Falklands.

That's why some people will use the word "often" instead of "always", we can i think very safely came to the conclusion, that the vast majority of those belligerent souls backing up wars are the same ones that backed the Brexit.

The problem behind the low wages are not the people willing to take up jobs for less, but the employers which couldn't care less if someone couldn't survive on what they paid, and this is possible because there are complacent laws in place which not only accept it but encourage it.

I have seen plenty of staff's meetings where the main point was not just how to lower down wages, but to eliminate them completely by removing the old personnel and putting in place some uni's students, to gain "precious" experience in exchange for meals and an overcrowded lodgement, do you think most company's directors would give the slightest fleaking fluck about your nationality or general welfare? All it matter it's profits, money money money, as they can always find plenty of gullible people around to let them to believe the reason behind their problems, are some other chaps which have even more problems then them......sometime it all looks as we are doomed, really.

Re. the first para. - you didn't use often or IMO....

I agree with the rest of your post, except having 'open borders' for unskilled workers helps employers easily find workers that are prepared to live in overcrowded housing for a while, as the money is still better than in their home countries - and consequently they can then send money to their families back home.

Edited July 17, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Khun Han]

Alrticle on the Beeb which briefly highlights ministerial attitudes to several issues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36818055

[mommysboy]

This is a turn up: voters want neither a second ref. or an election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-second-eu-referendum-brexit-theresa-may-general-election-voters-a7140721.html

I wonder how many remainers were 'reluctant remainers' like me just wanting to avoid the fallout.

Edited July 17, 2016 by mommysboy

[dick dasterdly]

Despite the EU's claim that there will be no negotiations before article 50 is applied - does anyone think that there are no negotiations going on behind the scenes amongst the various politicians and countries?

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that deals will not be agreed until article 50 has been activated.

Even so, I can understand the Brit. govt. waiting a while before activating article 50 for a few reasons:-

1) let everyone get used to the idea to minimise market and exchange rate fluctuations

2) the EU also needs time to get used to the idea that the member countries need Brit. trade

3) the EU is under pressure from various fronts at the moment as poor (non-contributing) countries are in trouble as are some banks etc.

Good idea then to wait for a few months IMO.

[dick dasterdly]

This is a turn up: voters want neither a second ref. or an election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-second-eu-referendum-brexit-theresa-may-general-election-voters-a7140721.html

I wonder how many remainers were 'reluctant remainers' like me just wanting to avoid the fallout.

Know what you mean, but my main concern was always that the Brit. govt. are FAR less sympathetic towards workers' rights than the EU.

I'm more hopeful now that the Brit govt. will tread carefully (as they finally realise that poor people are extremely pissed off) - but I'm still worried in this respect.

[mommysboy]

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/canada/

This is the Canada Model that UK would likely push for if any trade deal is to be struck.

Note: it does not actually exist yet.

It would likely not take long (in treaty terms) to invoke. As UK already conforms 100% to the EU trading model.

Like any deal it is dependent on EU being receptive to it. Personally, I don't think EU could refuse, as UK would be a much bigger trading partner than Canada.

Again personally, this would remove one very big reservation I have about leaving EU, and would more or less conform with what was promised by the Brexiteers.

Edited July 17, 2016 by mommysboy

[Mangostin]

Is anybody else finding amusing the fact that the people which are now complaining about massive immigration, are often the very same ones which kept glorifying the attacks being made from our armies which were at the base of it all? Why these people aren't protesting against the millions and millions of public money being spent to destroy entire countries??? (standing up against the killing of other human beings would be too much for them, so lets just put it on financial terms)....

Re. the first para. - you didn't use often or IMO....

I agree with the rest of your post, except having 'open borders' for unskilled workers helps employers easily find workers that are prepared to live in overcrowded housing for a while, as the money is still better than in their home countries - and consequently they can then send money to their families back home.

Do you see why they can cheat and twist people up so easily? It's because most of us wouldn't pay attention to some very important details that can set the outcome of an argument.

For how strange it might sounds, when i was referring to universities students, i wasn't specifically pointing out to the "foreigner" ones, there is still plenty of british students which are eager to embrace those exploiting practices, but that's not their faults, more of the previous generations which have set up a similar utterly disgraceful system for them to go trough.

It's time to stop this "is always the farang's fault" BS, worldwide, i for one i am totally sick of it

[dick dasterdly]

Is anybody else finding amusing the fact that the people which are now complaining about massive immigration, are often the very same ones which kept glorifying the attacks being made from our armies which were at the base of it all? Why these people aren't protesting against the millions and millions of public money being spent to destroy entire countries??? (standing up against the killing of other human beings would be too much for them, so lets just put it on financial terms)....

Re. the first para. - you didn't use often or IMO....

I agree with the rest of your post, except having 'open borders' for unskilled workers helps employers easily find workers that are prepared to live in overcrowded housing for a while, as the money is still better than in their home countries - and consequently they can then send money to their families back home.

Do you see why they can cheat and twist people up so easily? It's because most of us wouldn't pay attention to some very important details that can set the outcome of an argument.

For how strange it might sounds, when i was referring to universities students, i wasn't specifically pointing out to the "foreigner" ones, there is still plenty of british students which are eager to embrace those exploiting practices, but that's not their faults, more of the previous generations which have set up a similar utterly disgraceful system for them to go trough.

It's time to stop this "is always the farang's fault" BS, worldwide, i for one i am totally sick of it

My mistake - I entirely missed the word 'often' .

No idea what you are going on about in the rest of your post, but my comment was just that - a comment - and I certainly didn't 'hang' the rest of my points on that detail.

[Mangostin]

That's okay DD, this what the TV brotherhood is all about, knowledge is power and reading back previous posts might help understanding what you might missing, if however you prefer to list what point(s) you are not understanding, i can further elaborate it for you

[dick dasterdly]

That's okay DD, this what the TV brotherhood is all about, knowledge is power and reading back previous posts might help understanding what you might missing, if however you prefer to list what point(s) you are not understanding, i can further elaborate it for you

[Mangostin]

If it was for me, i would completely remake the rules of how political's decisions should apply.

You are a "Brexiter" ? Fine, just leave, or you prefer to remain? That's even better, let's fight all together to fix this mess, then people will see which system would better works for them and choose appropriately, but they will NEVER allow us to do it, because those decisions in the ends are all meant to be in favour of a restricted part of society and never the people, they simply mask them in a way to deceive (almost) everyone....please note the <----"almost" on the left if you missed it

[mommysboy]

Wonder who will bear the cost of all the welfare cuts we will be having. Personally given the spread of voters I would say the elderly were most for Brexit so it's only fair they should be first in line. Regrettable.

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

Truth be told the putative average Brit won't work for the going market rate. Sadly, we've assumed a certain standard of living way beyond our means: one based on what our parents and grandparents had. It is this wish for that life, which only fleetingly existed, that people express as 'being British again'. You have to ask yourself why it is EU economic migrants can come over, work, live and still send money back home.

The impossible job the Government has is to convince 10-15 million people they must live a relatively impoverished life, though in truth it is still better than most people experienced in the 50's for instance. Being a home owner never was a given fo most working class people. As for going to university, that really should be about being very intelligent; most people aren't (myself included). Holidays! not really no, not unless you had a relative in Margate for instance.

[jpinx]

.................

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

Truth be told the putative average Brit won't work for the going market rate. Sadly, we've assumed a certain standard of living way beyond our means: one based on what our parents and grandparents had. It is this wish for that life, which only fleetingly existed, that people express as 'being British again'. You have to ask yourself why it is EU economic migrants can come over, work, live and still send money back home.

The impossible job the Government has is to convince 10-15 million people they must live a relatively impoverished life, though in truth it is still better than most people experienced in the 50's for instance. Being a home owner never was a given fo most working class people. As for going to university, that really should be about being very intelligent; most people aren't (myself included). Holidays! not really no, not unless you had a relative in Margate for instance.

I could not agree more -- well said. Living beyond our means is the greatest scourge of happiness. Governments do it all the time and set an extraordinarily bad example to the people whose best interests they claim to represent. The level of consumerism is staggering, and the wastage is obscene. We can all have the good life, if only we stop all credit and waste.

Edited July 17, 2016 by jpinx

[dick dasterdly]

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

Truth be told the putative average Brit won't work for the going market rate. Sadly, we've assumed a certain standard of living way beyond our means: one based on what our parents and grandparents had. It is this wish for that life, which only fleetingly existed, that people express as 'being British again'. You have to ask yourself why it is EU economic migrants can come over, work, live and still send money back home.

The impossible job the Government has is to convince 10-15 million people they must live a relatively impoverished life, though in truth it is still better than most people experienced in the 50's for instance. Being a home owner never was a given fo most working class people. As for going to university, that really should be about being very intelligent; most people aren't (myself included). Holidays! not really no, not unless you had a relative in Margate for instance.

Are you saying that the bottom level Brits should work for the wages paid by India, poor EU countries etc.?

Britain is pretty prosperous - but it probably comes back to the divide between rich and poor .

[dick dasterdly]

The middle class isn't immune either - as I worked during the period when one man's salary was enough to support his family well - to nowadays when ordinary middle class salaries need both partners to work.

Not to mention the destruction of pensions during this period!

[nausea]

Apparently, Australia has publicly announced it wants a free trade deal with the UK, which I must say, even though I'm a bit of a Brexit sceptic, I find very encouraging. Not the only one, it seems, who's interested either.

[jpinx]

It all depends where you draw the line when analysing who receives welfare.

There are plenty of people in the UK who, despite working long hours, don't earn enough to feed and provide a home for themselves, they rely on welfare handouts to help them bridge the gap in their earnings and the provision of basic needs.

Before jumping on these individuals and blaming them for sponging off the welfare state we perhaps need to consider the possibility that it is their employers who are having the low wages they pay subsidised by welfare.

A friend commented recently about the numbers of eastern europeans who come to UK and work -- all very laudable but by providing labour at a rate well below the "market rate" for their job, they squeeze out the uk worker who would not be able to accept such a wage without applying for income supplement.. As soon as the Eastern worker has been here long enough, they apply for the same income supplement anyway - so who's winning from the "free movements" -- only the employer.

I disagree its only the employer, people who use the services of companies employing cheap labour also benefit, but in principle I agree entirely with your analysis and I have frequently made the same argument myself.

That said, Andrew Dunn (University of Lincoln) has produced a study which indicates that people choose unemployment and benefits over taking jobs they do not wish to do. http://discoversociety.org/2015/02/01/voluntary-unemployment-and-left-dominated-social-policy-academia/

It seems there are arguments for immigration driving down wages (which I agree with) and arguments that British citizens will reject work that they feel beneath them (which given the evidence in Dunn's research is difficult to argue against).

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

Truth be told the putative average Brit won't work for the going market rate. Sadly, we've assumed a certain standard of living way beyond our means: one based on what our parents and grandparents had. It is this wish for that life, which only fleetingly existed, that people express as 'being British again'. You have to ask yourself why it is EU economic migrants can come over, work, live and still send money back home.

The impossible job the Government has is to convince 10-15 million people they must live a relatively impoverished life, though in truth it is still better than most people experienced in the 50's for instance. Being a home owner never was a given fo most working class people. As for going to university, that really should be about being very intelligent; most people aren't (myself included). Holidays! not really no, not unless you had a relative in Margate for instance.

Are you saying that the bottom level Brits should work for the wages paid by India, poor EU countries etc.?

Britain is pretty prosperous - but it probably comes back to the divide between rich and poor .

Other countries have different wages because they have different standards of living. The problem in UK is that the credit boom allowed everyone to have a bigger house, 2 TV's, 2 cars, etc, etc. and that has become an expectation now, so family incomes have to rise to meet the expectation. The cart is now in front of the horse. It's not a reduction in wages that is needed in UK -- it's a reduction in expectation, but that's a hard sell and no politician will dare grasp it.

[dick dasterdly]

Perhaps better to say SOME British citizens will reject work they feel beneath them.

One of the worst 'show offs' (re. money) that I ever knew found herself and her family in financial difficulties when her husband's small 'factory' failed. Even so, she took an additional job as an evening cleaner in the school where we worked - so all her colleagues knew about it.

Actually, I know quite a few people who took on additional low-paid jobs when they were in financial trouble, plus other people who took on 'inferior' jobs when they were made redundant etc.

Truth be told the putative average Brit won't work for the going market rate. Sadly, we've assumed a certain standard of living way beyond our means: one based on what our parents and grandparents had. It is this wish for that life, which only fleetingly existed, that people express as 'being British again'. You have to ask yourself why it is EU economic migrants can come over, work, live and still send money back home.

The impossible job the Government has is to convince 10-15 million people they must live a relatively impoverished life, though in truth it is still better than most people experienced in the 50's for instance. Being a home owner never was a given fo most working class people. As for going to university, that really should be about being very intelligent; most people aren't (myself included). Holidays! not really no, not unless you had a relative in Margate for instance.

Are you saying that the bottom level Brits should work for the wages paid by India, poor EU countries etc.?

Britain is pretty prosperous - but it probably comes back to the divide between rich and poor .

Other countries have different wages because they have different standards of living. The problem in UK is that the credit boom allowed everyone to have a bigger house, 2 TV's, 2 cars, etc, etc. and that has become an expectation now, so family incomes have to rise to meet the expectation. The cart is now in front of the horse. It's not a reduction in wages that is needed in UK -- it's a reduction in expectation, but that's a hard sell and no politician will dare grasp it.

I largely agree, but at the same time I worked for a long time with men who had a good standard of living for them and their families. They had houses well beyond the expectations of most people now.

Perhaps they had family money behind them. It never crossed my mind to question them as to how they had such lovely houses because I was young and didn't care.

But they were working in the same job as myself - except I was paid less money as a new lower 'grade' had been introduced .

Things only got worse as time went on and 're-structuring' became the norm....

And I'm talking about 'middle class' jobs - the poor suffered even more as they had few skills.

[jpinx]

.............................................

I largely agree, but at the same time I worked for a long time with men who had a good standard of living for them and their families. They had houses well beyond the expectations of most people now.

Perhaps they had family money behind them. It never crossed my mind to question them as to how they had such lovely houses because I was young and didn't care.

But they were working in the same job as myself - except I was paid less money as a new lower 'grade' had been introduced .

Things only got worse as time went on and 're-structuring' became the norm....

And I'm talking about 'middle class' jobs - the poor suffered even more as they had few skills.

There was a lot of inherited money around in the 70's and 80's or so - when parents who had learned to save were dying off and the 60's babies suddenly got "rich". This contributed greatly to the rise of consumerism and it's associated wastage. Those deceased parents must have been spinning in their graves to see their hard-earned savings being put to such extravagances as they would never have bothered with.

As you rightly say - the poor are always poor - nothing to inherit, no way to improve easily. Trapped by the socio-economics of the day, the problem being that their end of that economy never really changes much. There are some exceptional cases of breakthroughs which the politicians hold up as examples of how egalitarian our society is, but they are flashes in the pan - the main body of the poor just don't have the will to self-improve much. Ask any social worker,,,,,,,,,

Edited July 17, 2016 by jpinx