Although I think the war is probably a mistake, I reckon that Cameron thinks we will make a profit from it in the long term. Not only is it a 'good advert' for arms sales, a few days before the air strikes started, a U.K. 'negotiator' and a few SAS troops parachuted into the terrorist held territory, and I presume the reason was to ensure that if they succeed in taking control of the country, that the contracts would continue, and who knows what else.
Then we start a war in Libya
I heard the other day that the rebels have just filled up their first supertanker with oil, drilled in the territory they hold, which they are legally allowed to sell on the international market. No prizes for guessing who 'bought' it.
For many years most of the world has been solving its problems by borrowing from the future. Everyone knows that can't go on forever.
I agree. While our government is on the right track with regard to cutting spending, making it harder for those who simply don't want to work to claim welfare, and make it harder for healthy people to claim sickness benefit, when we see the rate the national debt is rising at, it's obvious that we need to cut spending by more, and the sooner the better.
Around 20% of total U.K. government spending goes on welfare, not including pensions, and another chunk goes on local government owned housing. Make publicly owned housing pay for itself, get rid of welfare altogether and we would not only slash spending at a stroke, but we could also transform the economy.
Where would all the people who can't support themselves and their families go? Workhouses were an important part of the industrial revolution, and that was when British industry led the world. Companies would queue up to open such workhouses if they could, and I'm not talking about 1800's style workhouses, I'm thinking more along the lines of the factory cities that the Chinese have. Workers work mainly for their food and board, and wages would of course be dictated by market conditions.
It would be in the employers' interests to feed them with healthy food, they wouldn't be able to afford drugs alcohol or tobacco, the National Health Service would still take care of them when they are sick, and their children would still go to school. I'll bet it would improve education standards at a stroke as well, as children would see where they might end up if they don't work hard at school.
While it might create a class division of those who are in the worhouse and those who aren't, to me that's preferable to the current division of those who will work and those who won't, and of course most employers would rather employ someone who is used to working as opposed to someone who isn't, so the knock on effect would be to increase the calibre of applicants for all jobs.
While it's nice to support our fellow citizens when they are out of work, history has shown that too many of them end up feeling entitled to what they are getting, and then so do their kids, etc. We've tried it, and it doesn't work. It only creates societies who think that they have the right to live off those who do work. That kind of means that those who do work, work for
those who don't, which is unacceptable IMO.
Take these measures and get rid of the minimum wage, and not only would we cut spending significantly, but then we could then compete with countries such as China. Get back to where we have a growing trade surplus rather than a growing deficit, pay off ALL of the national debt, and then watch wealth and prosperity increase for everyone.