Damage done to the UK ALREADY following the elction

Thanks for the updates. I don't think we will be told by the powers that be for some time - probably when it's too late to do anything about it.

Having said that I don't think most Brexiteers are bothered if they got it right or wrong; they just wanted to win.

ah well as long as Big Ben bongs - sure they will hear it all the way up there.

Link www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/hitachi-job-losses-durham-breaking-17540735

Hitachi in Durham are losing jobs-https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/hitachi-job-losses-durham-breaking-17540735
And Nissan in Sunderland are warning that the future is uncertain. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51064599
The future is bleak

Yes, but jura, people have been conditioned to think only the metropolitan elite will be affected by the loss of City jobs.

To be fair, some City people are rubbing their hands in glee. It depends what their involvement in finance is.

Research by Bloomberg Economics estimates that the economic cost of Brexit has already hit 130 billion pounds ($170 billion), with a further 70 billion pounds set to be added by the end of this year.

Have met several people with very high profile City jobs over the festivities- all say things are dire at the moment.

LONDON (Reuters) - Assets worth around a trillion pounds are moving from London to hubs in the European Union ahead of Brexit, with the parallel shift in jobs likely to top 7,000, consultants EY said on Wednesday.

Banks, asset managers and insurers in London are opening or expanding hubs in the EU to avoid disruption from Britain’s departure from the European Union.

Britain is legally due to leave next week, but the British government is asking Brussels for a delay.

In its latest Brexit Tracker, EY said that 23 companies have announced the transfer of about a trillion pounds in assets, up from 800 billion pounds in the last quarter.

Liverpool aren't going to go away and keep quiet!
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/surprise-fk-tories-rave-takes-17513712?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR2yqOxGdNYDmqNcJHy0K8WthoPJJZKe--sqSDTbAkVBizYlJwxKK_4ALwA

welfareweekly.com/iain-duncan-smiths-directory-death/

I knew Karen Sherlock and she was treated abominably by the DWP

Good for you Razzy!

However, I'm a bit curious about how you work out that country has more income support to pay for. It doesn't.

I also don't know how you work out that the Conservatives doesn't get the country into debt. It does. The national debt has more than doubled over the last ten years.

I'd also like to know how anybody can afford new clothes, mobile phones, Sky TV, eating out, etc. if they're receiving £73.10 a week plus child allowances for a maximum of two children. How do they do that? They must be amazing at budgeting.

Are you aware that the vast majority of people claiming benefits for children are in work and have been in a relationship, which has broken down or they've been badly affected by illness, disability or sudden unemployment?

BTW A diet of rice would quickly make somebody obese and malnourished, which can go hand in hand. Are you aware that older people are more obese than younger ones? Most of the population isn't obese anyway.

vote.conservatives.com/our-plan

This has the full Tory Plan. If they don't deliver, people can choose to vote for someone else. Labour have always been the party to spend and borrow and leave the country in debt, and traditionally the conservatives come in and pay the debt back. Obviously everyone loves some free money, whether that is less tax, more benefits, or whatever, but ultimately someone has to pay for it.

I think we as a nation are generally pretty well off. Yes things are more expensive. We also have more pensioners to pay for, more disabled people to pay for, more income support to pay. But when I see people on forums saying they had to use food banks, well, I would say that wouldn't have happened a few years back. People would have cut back on today's "necessities". There are of course people out there who do need food banks because of some problem with claiming benefits. There was definitely a problem with the changeover to Universal Credit. But on the flipside, I see loads of people having kids, loads of people with new clothes, mobile phones, Sky TV, eating out, etc. who then claim to be so broke they can't afford food.
When I could barely afford to live, I turned off the heating, found the cheapest most basic place to live, worked every hour possible, and lived on rice plus whatever else was cheap. I survived. Nowadays people tell me that you can't live without a phone or heating and that you can't live on "hardly any" food. Yet most of the population is obese.
So - I have great sympathy with those who really need help not getting enough. They should get more. And I have no sympathy with those who moan but could actually cope if they bothered to help themselves.

''Jura2 I am not condoning the plastic going into landfill etc. but this happens all through the year - weddings, parties, halloween etc. Shouldn't we rethink all those too?''

yes, we should, for sure.

Oopsminty By the way, I don't understand the claim that the Conservatives are doing magnificently with employment. The figures have actually remained quite steady and the quality of work (security of contract, pay, conditions, etc) is beyond the scope of this report.

So much for all those pesky foreigners taking our jobs. They haven't made any difference to the number of people employed.

What's your good reason Oopsminty. I've already explained that the vast majority of that 3.5 million are:

a) students or schoolchildren
b) caregivers or homemakers
or
c) severely disabled or ill.

68,000 25-65 year olds is an absolutely tiny percentage. Some of them won't have ever needed to work because they have private income, so it leaves very very few in the "lazy bums who have never got off their backsides to look for paid work" group.

So what's the reason for your amazement?

I haven't made up the data I provided and I've given a link for anybody who doesn't believe me or wants to read more.

Yes she has but not everyone seems to get it.

Hasn't Growstuff just explained about the 3.5 million in her post at 05.59?

Sorry but I think that the 2% growstuff is referring have never been employed. But I think you know that and it's just a chance to big up the Tories.

Sorry Dinahmo. I'm not bigging up the Tories at all.

I was just amazed at the 68,000 figure

And with good reason

news.sky.com/story/nearly-3-5-million-uk-working-age-people-have-never-had-a-job-report-says-11900778

Oopsminty Sorry but I think that the 2% growstuff is referring have never been employed. But I think you know that and it's just a chance to big up the Tories.

Only 2% are 24-64 year old and unemployed. That is 68,000 people.

The Conservatives are doing magnificently with employment then

Maybe the ONS and Resolution Foundation will produce data to show whether there's a link between receipt of benefits and size of smart TV .

Growstuff thank you for posting that information. Perhaps it will make some of the above re-thing their ideas about those on benefits

The Office of National Statistics has just released the data about the number of people in the UK who have never worked. The Resolution Foundation has analysed the data and produced a report.

www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/01/Never-ever.pdf

3.4 million 16-64 year olds have never worked. Of those the majority (63%) are students, 13% are full-time carers or homemakers and 12% are sick or disabled.

Only 2% are 24-64 year old and unemployed. That is 68,000 people. The data doesn’t give details of the reason for unemployment – some might be in prison, some might be so stinking rich that they don’t have to work, etc etc. Not all the 68,000 are claiming unemployment benefit.

68,000 is 0.164% of the total working age population, so “choosing” a lifestyle on full-time unemployment benefits obviously appeals to very few - with good reason.

I expect a lot of parents - both women and men - would like to have much more time with their children. It can't be much fun getting up at the crack of dawn, rushing to feed, wash and dress your child, rushing off to nursery - and then having to rush back after work to avoid being late and incurring late pick up costs. Then the evenings are spent cooking, helping older children with homework and putting them to bed, etc, etc, and weekends are spent shopping and trying to fit in all the chores that a SAHM would have had time to do during the week. Do you really think that people doing relatively mundane and not particularly fulfilling jobs do this for the fun of it? Housing costs nowadays are through the roof and most couples need two incomes to cope with the financial pressures.

Many of us have been stay at home mums for a couple of years or so - that was in the days when you could eat properly, heat your home and just about cover basic needs on one salary. Those days are gone. I returned to work when my daughter was around two and a half because, although we could afford to pay rent and other basic costs, we wanted to buy our own home and couldn't do so on just my husband's salary.

If a person had never gone out to work after the birth of his/her children but was still able to afford to buy two properties (even if one was tenanted a significant amount of money would be needed for a deposit, legal costs, stamp duty, etc, etc), then that couple could obviously afford for one to stay at home. Some people just don't have that choice - they might like to but they don't.

CraftyGranny If you scroll down a bit, I corrected all the links in the OP.