[ben_w]

I know you were. I’m saying that conditions in the UK are about to get a lot worse because the impoverished areas are about to lose support that Westminster doesn’t appear to understand that it needs to replace post-Brexit — support which would still be necessary even if Brexit had literally zero economic effects, which, given their track record of overconfidence since Austerity began, would be a surprisingly good outcome.

[growlist]

Come on though, this supposed austerity is nothing of the sort, with lavish benefits still in place and an unsustainable level of public spending, never mind the gargantuan debt - and we don't even have a proper low tax alternative political party anymore now that the Tories have decided to keep the spending taps turned on full. And no one really knows what's going to happen post Brexit. We could become the successful low-tax Singapore style trading hub that so terrifies Europe. I can speculate also.

[ben_w]

> We could become the successful low-tax Singapore style trading hub that so terrifies Europe. I can speculate also.

The UK’s main problem isn’t any particular UK goal, it’s the total lack of anyone competent in charge and, separately, the lack of anyone powerful/charismatic enough to pick only one of the, I count six, main mutually-incompatible post-Brexit targets (each of which comes in left and right wing variations) and say “this one and none of the others”.

Right now, becoming like Singapore wouldn’t have enough support from Brexiteers, never mind Westminster. Unfortunately, the same is true for 100% of the negotiating positions thus far named, and nobody (seems to have) thought about afterwards at all.

[growlist]

I agree with you on the absolute paucity of leadership - but I'd extend that to Labour also. And I suspect the lack of planning for afterwards was partly out of denial that the plebs would ever dare vote leave, and partly deliberately to make leaving so disastrous that it becomes impossible - something which the civil service has been accused of.

[ben_w]

I marginally agree about Labour: they mainly portray themselves better just because they don’t need to actually do anything. However, my agreement is not absolute: on the other hand everyone knows that none of the MPs like Corbyn yet the wider party loves him and MPs will therefore mostly do what he says, so he can — bizarrely — be the strong and stable leader that May thought she was, and May can be the leaf blowing in the wind that she thought he was.

As for the latter, I think only the first. The second component would require the government to be as smart as it thinks it is rather than as dumb as it is currently acting. While I am sure some in the government will make such accusations as genuine and sincere beliefs, the government reminds me of a former client who took something like four attempts at telling me to make a button “wider” and rejecting the changes before I ended up asking for a picture and discovering they meant “taller”.

By the way, thanks for keeping it polite! This is a massively divisive topic and I want to applaud every single involved person who avoids internet shouting.

[DanBC]

> with lavish benefits still in place

Without looking it up what's the current rate of universal credit? What's the current benefit cap level?

[growlist]

When a life on benefits is a viable career option for many and indeed the system discourages many from looking for work because they would make less that way than on benefits then perhaps there's a problem, and benefits are too generous?

I'm all for looking after the vulnerable, but we give so much money to the feckless that we cannot look after those that are most deserving. Lavish money on the disabled, elderly, and the genuinely incapable. Provide a bare minimum of essentials for the cynical, whilst making life unpleasant enough to encourage take up of opportunities to improve, of which there are no shortage. Why do we give up on people so easily?