BS: election uk

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 01:47 PM

Positive net migration may affect house prices and rents.

Presuming that positive net migration means that more people are coming into the country than leaving I have another question. Is the migration between the UK and other EU countries positive or negative? How many older couples leave their over large houses for a place in the sun while how many workers from the UK take up more than a shared house or flat? Immigrants driving up house prices and reducing wages may be good soundbites but need to be looked at more carefully. I quote once more

The (UN) High Commissioner noted that "while migration and refugee issues are completely valid topics for public debate, it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction, exaggeration or blatant xenophobia. History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonizing foreigners and minorities, and it is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used in a variety of countries, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers."

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 01:45 PM

just to point out....once again....that it was not me who referred to evolutionism in this thread, but since Richard has raised it yet again.......no I don't think God faked the ages of fossils....they don't come with an age on them, and frequently dating methods give varying ages, and even sometimes give millions of yrs on rocks of known more recent age. he obviously don't mind exaggeration though, since he reads far more into my post than I either expressed or meant.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM

I am being paid at the same amount as I was at about 1975, so allowing for inflation, I am being paid considerably less! "Sutch" is the job market in 2015.

But as "Sutch" said, best way to shorten the dole queues is to make them stand closer together!!!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM

Now Billyboy is starting to predict the lies he thinks I may tell. Very amusing. Now let me just tell you something, you offensive fellow. An 86-year-old close relative of mine has rheumatoid arthritis and COPD and can hardly walk. When we take her shopping we have to push her around in a wheelchair. She has heart failure that causes her legs to swell up like balloons. So three years ago I helped her to get a blue badge. It expired a couple of months ago so I had to go through the whole palaver again. The bureaucracy I endured both times was a bloody nightmare and you have to wait for weeks to find out whether you're going to get one. What I suggest you do, before slagging off people with genuine and severe disabilities, is to get down to your town hall and make some polite enquiries about what you do to get a blue badge (and don't think you can short-cut that by looking at nice friendly council websites - it ain't like that in real life, I assure you). I think you may find it an eye-opener. Oh, I forgot. You're Mr-I've-done-all-right-and-stuff-the-rest, aren't you, eyes tight shut. As for your slur about people defrauding the benefits system, last I heard it was about 0.5% of claims. Contrast that with the hundred billion not paid in tax by those who oughter and about whom you are silent (except for defending those non-doms, I seem to remember, on the grounds that they hold the country to ransom by threatening to move out). As for those zero-hour contracts, just think of how the unemployment figures would look if they didn't exist. Worse than anything under New Labour, and those zero-hour contracts shot up by 28% in one year. The Tories love them because you don't have to pay benefits and they make the numbers look good. But if you happen to on be one, you can't pay the rent, you can't borrow and you can't get a mortgage, exactly, can you?

And you can stop pretending that I supported Blair and Brown. I hereby declare, as I have often said, that I detest the pair of 'em. As Gorgeous George said, two cheeks of the same arse.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 12:26 PM

Last response to anonymous GUEST

You described your son as working for less than £400 per week, so it is close to that. Considering the packages that have been on offer for first time home owners neither yourself or your son could have tried very hard.

You say you were better off 36 years ago than he is today

1: Were you the same age as he was?
2: He works for the local council you say, who did you work for?
3: Your skill-set and your job was? Did you work for the council like he does?
4: What is his work ethic? what was yours?

You are comparing two specific cases I am speaking in general, you are therefore comparing apples to oranges. I will stand by what I said previously:

"In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago."

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 12:08 PM

Ah Stevie:

1: "why are you "better off" if you own your home? Because Thatcher sold off all except the rubbish council houses, cheap, that's why."

EHM Stevie, you are better off if you own your own home primarily because everything you then spend on accommodation you are in effect spending to your benefit, your mortgage repayments mean that you are acquiring an asset that is yours, you are not just handing money to someone else (i.e. Rent).

Town and City Councils could no longer afford the upkeep of their Council Housing Stock and they were rapidly falling into ruin creating new slums.

If selling such property off to those former tenants who wished to purchase the homes they had lived in for years was such a bad idea, why was the practice not halted when Liebour took over in 1997? Note your list of Prime Minister magically absolves Blair and Brown. Talking about selling stuff off cheap - Gordon of Cartoon could give Master-Classes at it.

2: "Tell that to the disabled people driven off benefits"

Does that include the "Ooooh me back, its me back Doctor"-types who are then given disability benefits and a blue badge and their next appearance in public is in a Crown Court charged with bilking the State for tens of thousands?

3: "those down the food bank"

Ah you'll be telling us all that the food banks and feeding over one million people a year next - hope you don't because that would be a lie wouldn't it. Food Banks are an emergency safety net, and they are used as such they are not the sole source of food for many, if any at all, according to the Trussell Trust issue of more than two three day food packs to any one individual throughout the course of a year is uncommon.

4: Living without job security - describes my working life from 1972 until 2001, but then Stevie-boy, I have always started looking for my next job early, I have been prepared to shift companies, working locations worldwide and take on what jobs were on offer. I also invested in myself to gain the skill-set that was going to be required to keep myself in work - didn't just sit back demanding a job on my doorstep, then mope about moaning about it all being someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility.

Get some sort of sense of perspective/proportion those on "Zero-hour contracts represent less than 3% of all those working in the UK? If such contracts did not exist they would be out of work.

You really are a clown, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 11:15 AM

Oxford University Migration Observatory.
"Positive net migration may affect house prices and rents. In the case of social housing, where there is no price mechanism,
positive net migration can lead to a shortage or increase shortage of social housing. The magnitudes of these impacts
depend on the responsiveness of the supply of housing to changes in demand. The impact of immigration on housing can
also be expected to vary across local areas with different housing markets and experiencing different scales of migrant
inflows and outflows. There can also be important inter-relationships between the owner occupier sector and the private
rented sector. For example, the increased demand for rented accommodation may encourage more investors to enter the
buy-to-let market, which in turn could increase house prices."
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Migrants%20and%20Housing%20in%20the%20UK_0.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 10:55 AM

What effect does net EU migration have on housing?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 10:02 AM

It was a Labour initiative and had nothing to do with EU.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

"But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage."
Still scoring points
The Tories only accepted the Minimum Wage when their masters (big business) told them it was in their favour to do so.
Membership of Europe puts Britain in the world spotlight - take that spotlight away and god knows what this particularly predatory pair would get up to.
"then two persons marrying should free-up a property"
Sorry Nige Dpn't follow that - what are you suggesting - that when I child leaves home to marry then it should be mandatory for those left behind to rent out his/her room?
Wouldn't put it past this lot to put that into practice either.
"I was far better of 36 years ago"
Thirty years ago I had far more security in my job because I had a voice in my working life via my Trades Union - all gone - no more tomorrow
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 09:00 AM

Musket,
I know there are three of us, but which of us said the minimum wage was provided by Brussels?

"But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage."

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 08:57 AM

The articles privided show clearly that the means to construct adequate housing exists and it is the failure to address that fact that cuases homelessness - not an increase in population
Of course an increase in population adds to housing needs, as does any child leaving home for the first time or any couple gegging married and starting families or the deterioration of existing housing stock.... or the hudred other neds for building.

Jim,
You can't have it both ways. If a child leaving home automatically requires an additional property, then two persons marrying should free-up a property, not require an additional one.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 08:43 AM

Cars on the road ... yes my son has a car to get to work as there is very little public transport. Round here the first bus is at 08.00pm he starts work at 07.30 last bus is at 18.50pm

House ownership .... on his salary he wouldn't even a interview with a bank never mind a mortgage

Foreign Holidays ..... in his dreams

I was far better of 36 years ago than he will ever be (at least until I pop my clogs)

The bank of Mum and Dad will no doubt be able to help him but that is not true of many, many people. He should be able to earn a living wage, as it is he is more or less on the poverty line.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 08:18 AM

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 08:14 AM

Causes of homelessnes, according to Shelter
"unemployment
poverty
a lack of affordable housing
housing policies
the structure and administration of housing benefit
wider policy developments, such as the closure of long-stay psychiatric hospitals."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 08:14 AM

"It is fact that despite an existing housing crisis, the population has been allowed to rise much faster than homes can be built."

Interesting use of "been allowed to" and "can be" in that sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM

"The CBI believes Britain needs to build 240,000 houses a year to keep up with population growth"
More attempts at out-of-context point scoring Keith- as with poverty, you are ever with us
The articles privided show clearly that the means to construct adequate housing exists and it is the failure to address that fact that cuases homelessness - not an increase in population
Of course an increase in population adds to housing needs, as does any child leaving home for the first time or any couple gegging married and starting families or the deterioration of existing housing stock.... or the hudred other neds for building.
It is the failure to deal with the facilities available that causes the problems - not the fact of a rise in population.
Addressing these problems not only provides houses, but creates wealth and most important - jobs.
Your crowd have neither the desire nor attention to deal with any of these.
Stop trying to win prizes - it underlines your idiocy
Jim Carrooll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

I know there are three of us, but which of us said the minimum wage was provided by Brussels? I can't really speak for the other two Muskets but by agreeing to share a log in, it helps if we all understand how government works. As opposed to your rather odd tirade over something else you evidently don't quite understand.

If you can't say anything useful, try not to make things up in order to shout at people who see through you eh?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM

From Jim's Telrgraph link.

2.) The number of housing completions has fallen behind population growth
The CBI believes Britain needs to build 240,000 houses a year to keep up with population growth, or around four homes for every 1,000 people. In some parts of the country, we're building half that, according ot the ONS.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:28 AM

Musket,
Keith 's shaky history

Will you identify any error of history from me.
No. You can't.

Can I identify an error of history from you.
Yes. Most recently your claim that our minimum wage was provided by EU.
It was a Labour policy implementation.

Steve, if there were plenty of houses to go around, prices and rents would not be inexorably rising.
If a landlord has people competing to rent his property, he will accept the highest not the lowest bid.

The result is that everyone has to accept a poorer property, but those already at the bottom have literally nowhere else to go.

It is fact that despite an existing housing crisis, the population has been allowed to rise much faster than homes can be built.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

Rising Child Poverty
Breadline Britain

Homelessness

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866675/Growing-gap-rich-poor-Britain-two-decades-means-economy-9-smaller.html

The Cost of poverty

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:25 AM

And why are you "better off" if you own your home? Because Thatcher sold off all except the rubbish council houses, cheap, that's why. Like she sold everything else off that she could, cheap, her and Major and Cameron. All the utilities, the railways, Royal Mail, you name it. All to get more and more people into having a stake in shareholding capitalism, all rewarded with a quick buck thanks to too-cheap selloffs, all to encourage them to keep voting Tory cos that what good Tories do, sell stuff that belongs to everybody, built up and paid for with our tax money, into the private hands of the few, cheap. In general people are better off, eh? Tell that to the disabled people driven off benefits, those down the food bank and all those who not only have no job security but who don't even know when their next working hours are coming. You really are an ostrich, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM

GUEST - 30 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM

What interesting metrics you use to chart progress - 227 pints eh?

Your son can only afford half that number today?

Half the numbers of cars on the roads today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO

House ownership down half today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO

Half the numbers going abroad and further afield for holidays today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO

Average number and variety of electrical and electronic goods in houses today less than 36 years ago? - NO

Half the numbers and types of benefits available today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO

So sorry Guest I will stand by what I said:

"In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago"

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:00 AM

Funny how Keith tried to avoid being obvious about his "population growing much faster" yet everyone seems to have noted the immigration note contained in his mealy mouthed UKIP manifesto styled posts.

If Keith doesn't want to be associated with UKIP, stopping chanting their scare propaganda would be a good start. oh and this "confident prediction that Musket can't find a silly quote by me."

In order for me to find them, at least try to hide them!

A psychiatrist friend reckons that if you give people long enough time to talk, their true take on life will come out eventually. Terribulus and Keith seem to be typical case studies. Sorry, but if this is a serious thread, it needs serious debate, not reiteration of political bullshit masquerading as opinion of "real" people.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 05:12 AM

What twaddle (1): how long did it take you to come up with that wriggle, Billyboy? 'Twas ever thus that some kids are forced by poverty to stand on their own feet and that others, including yours according to your claim, have their upward trajectory smoothed by mummy and daddy. You helped yours along, no criticism there, but kindly acknowledge that you are part of a broad spectrum and let's have a bit less of the "in my day" stuff.

What twaddle (2): the people who put rents up are landlords, Keith. No-one forces them. They could be stopped from doing it to excess by legislation. Labour wants that legislation, the Tories vehemently oppose the idea. Stop talking as though landlords are controlled by unstoppable forces. They are not.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 05:05 AM

" ... they could not inflate rents if there were plenty of houses.
As it is, there are insufficient houses for all the people who need them, and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built."

But there are houses EVERYWHERE! Next time you go anywhere on a train, note how houses are being/have been built on every scrap of land for mile after mile after mile. Are we going to go on building until every square inch of land has been built on? Where does it stop? to date, no politician seems to even be aware of this serious environmental issue/dilemma. My definition of a politician is a person who is wilfully ignorant of the fact that you can't get a quart of liquid into a pint pot!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 05:04 AM

"and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built."
Another anti-immigration myth
Lack of housing has nothing to do with population growth
It has to do with land distribution and planning, a crappy morgage policy and the capping of council spending levels - recognised by everybody except those seeking election
TELEGRAPH
ECONOMIST
GUARDIAN
Only the Farrageites try to pin it on imigration
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:37 AM

Well now that the thread has gone beyond Keith 's shaky history and we have a right wing government for the last few years bound by the social chapter, (not opted out any more, despite Keith's insistence) we see the main reason the Conservative party are all anti Europe (apart from their own leader oddly enough.)

Membership of a union that requires a level playing field where possible means giving people rights.

In any progressive society this is a good thing and it is up to trade and commerce to accommodate the social infrastructure, as we cannot have one without the other. We need to afford a welfare state and not see either trade and commerce as the spawn of the devil nor a welfare state as an imposition.

On balance, and despite my cringing on his behalf when you see him debating, Ed Balls is the only potential Chancellor who speaks ad if he realises this. Osborn sees small government as the way forward, which would be fine if we were a strong nation where everybody works for top money and saves up a proportion to look after themselves in later life.

Funnily enough, the communities that in the whole have a responsible attitude to caring for their elder relatives are the ones Farage, Daily M*il, Terribulus and bar room bigots dismiss as immigrant spongers.

Having spent time regulating residential social care, it seems to me that granny dumping is a traditional British sport enjoyed by the types of people Farage and Cameron seem to attract.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:37 AM

""Socialists" great at demanding that everything should be shared until it comes to sharing what they have"
Socialists do not demand that everything that should be "shared" - this is a hackneyed Tory myth Socialists demand that there should be an equality of opportunity for all so that all people should get an equal chance to compete for the wealth of a country - href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report">AS DISTINCT FROM TORY PHILOSOPHY
let's see if you do any better WITH THIS than you did with the other points you "rubbished" then ran away from.
"You got it wrong again. I put you right, again."
Back to "I win, you lose" again - the condition people are forced to live in and endure are all a bit of a game to you - is that what your church teaches?
"The minimum wage WAS "just a Labour manifesto promise"
Which the Tories bitterly opposed, claiming it would cause 2,000,000 to be forced on the dole - it was carried by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories only accepted The Minimum Wage when the employers decided they could - it has been used to oppose an enforcement of a Living Wage (a level established necessary for the necessities of living for a single worker or a family), which is significantly above the set minimum.   
22% of employers have refused to pay a living wage and there have only been 2 prosecutions of employers paying an unreasonable (starvation-level) wages.
Some employers have used the Minimum Wage to drive down the wages of the lower paid by reducing previously agreed levels down to the minimum required.
Thanks to Thatcher and her heirs having weakened workers Trades Union rights, employees are no longer able to oppose wage cuts.
The reality of the situation is that any sligt rises in workers living standards is being paid for by by those right at the bottom of society - the unemployed and those working at 'breadline' level.
And meanwhile, big greed, tax evasion and political corruption remains untouched.
Brave New World
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,30 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM

Don't compare pints, compare minutes on the phone.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:18 AM

Their rent bills have been inflated by greedy private landlords.

However greedy they are, they could not inflate rents if there were plenty of houses.
As it is, there are insufficient houses for all the people who need them, and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built.

Inevitably that forces up the rents and house prices, and greed is not the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM

If someone is looking for a job, or several small jobs, I would have though that a mobile phone was a neccessity, not a luxury.

How do people on zero-hours contracts know when they are needed ?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM

"So trickle down creates the wealth and it is then government's job to redistribute it. In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago."

But could it be that ordinary people would be even better off if the wealth wasn't all in the pockets of a handful of mega-rich people?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM

"In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago"

Interesting, 36 years ago I could buy 227 pints of bitter a week with my then income. Today my son have to earn almost £800 per week to achieve the same. He works for a local council and earns less than half of that.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 03:24 AM

can we get back to uk elections? paddy power has an inward market mover labour and the snp coalition 11 to one. here are the following odds
Labour Minority
13/8
        
Any Coalition involving UKIP
33/1
        
Labour Liberal Democrat Green Coalition
66/1
Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition
7/2
        
Labour Majority
33/1
        
Labour Green Coalition
66/1
Conservative Minority
9/2
        
Any Coalition involving the Green Party
33/1
        
Conservative SNP Coalition
80/1
Conservative Majority
6/1
        
Conservative UKIP DUP Coalition
40/1
        
Conservative Liberal Democrat Green Coalition
100/1
Labour Liberal Democrat Coalition
9/1
        
Conservative Labour Coalition
40/1
        
Labour UKIP Coalition
100/1
Labour SNP Coalition
11/1
        
Conservative UKIP Coalition
40/1
        
UKIP Majority
500/1
Conservative Liberal Democrat DUP Coalition
14/1
        
Conservative DUP Coalition
50/1
        
Liberal Democrat Majority
500/1
Labour Liberal Democrat SNP Coalition
25/1
        
Conservative Liberal Democrat UKIP Coalition
50/1
for the benefit of Steve Shaw this has been copy pasted from paddy powers website

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 02:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 29 Apr 15 - 07:59 PM

C'mon now Stevie Son quote the whole sentence:

"Bit different from when I started out, we were told when you start work you make your own way - exactly as described by GUEST,Pete - nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead."

The key qualifier there, oh former educator of the masses, and champion of the left, is to be found in the bit highlighted in bold. So absolutely nothing to do with "do as I say, not as I do" just an acknowledgement that things ARE different today, that attitudes ARE different today.

Trickle down Shimrod? I don't think anyone ever claimed that trickle down economics would produce more equality between earners, just that everyone would benefit to a greater or lesser extent. So trickle down creates the wealth and it is then government's job to redistribute it. In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago.

"Socialists" great at demanding that everything should be shared until it comes to sharing what they have.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 02:22 AM

"And btw, your cheap potshots at my faith don't do you any favours either!"

You should know by now, pete, that uttering the 'f' word around here doesn't automatically lead to people going all solemn, sombre and reverential!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 10:02 PM

Anybody spot the irony that Pete-with-the-invisible-friend ACTUALLY thinks his g-d pre-ordains and controls everything including faking the ages of fossils while crying out that the striving of the virtuous will enrich them at the expense of others? Doncha just lurve fundagelical Xtians?

Anybody who believes that a proper welfare state is a passport to luxury for spongers needs lessons in reality - and a blindfold and a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 07:59 PM

... nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead.

Well, lusty and virtuous, upstanding stuff indeed. Except that, in the same post, you tell us that you did absolutely everything for your kids including funding their cars and financing their steps on to the housing ladder. So what you're saying to us is, in moral high tones, "do as I say, not as I do", eh?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 07:26 PM

Expressing disgust at your attitude that poor people shouldn't lust after such incredible luxuries as mobile phones Is no cheap shot. That attitude confirms all too clearly that you believe in the undeserving poor. Or that it's virtuous to be poor. That evil sod Mother Teresa would have loved you. OK, wrong religion maybe, but same sentiment. I suppose poor people with no mobiles at least wouldn't waste all their days googling. They could pray more instead, eh? Maybe prayers of thanksgiving for their lot lest the Lord sees them as ungrateful wretches?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 06:28 PM

We have been involved with lots of youth, Steve, as parents and carers. We often help them out, but allowing them to foster the attitude that the world owes them the luxuries of life will not do them any favours in the long run. And btw, your cheap potshots at my faith don't do you any favours either!.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 06:18 PM

The housing shortage has inflated their rent bills, and their wages are being squeezed.

Their rent bills have been inflated by greedy private landlords. You know, those nice people who are paying sod all interest at the moment on their buy-to-let mortgages and who watch the level of housing benefit like hawks so that they can extract every last penny of it from their tenants. Yes, that's where the welfare money goes, Keith, right into the bank accounts of unregulated landlords. And if not there, into the coffers of Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury and M&S and the rest, who pay their workers so little that they have to claim housing benefit and tax credits. What Tesco ought to be paying, we taxpayers cough up, eh? There you go. Torybus's Britain! Never mind, though, at least his kiddies are sorted. They didn't earn it, but why should that bother us in a world in which most young people, through no fault of their own, don't have a cat in hell's chance? But you'd think Teribius actually cared about them, wouldn't you, what with him going on about all that youth unemployment in Spain and all that? You do have to wonder...

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 05:32 PM

You know very well, Teribus, that I couldn't give a shit whether your personal wealth trickles up, down or sideways! You may recall, though, that around three decades ago your idol, Thatcher, told us that if certain individuals became 'mega-rich (i.e. multi-millionaires or billionaires) that was OK because their wealth would "trickle down" to the rest of our society. Well we now find that a few individuals have become mega-rich but the gap between rich and poor has become wider and we're still waiting for the promised trickle down effect to happen. So when is the wealth of the MEGA-RICH going to start trickling down, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 05:28 PM

Rich westerners bollocking poor people for daring to have mobile phones? Yeah, right, Billyboy. Well I hope your trickle-downer kids are happy with your largesse. Don't forget to tell them that they got it through your efforts, not their own. A lot of young people aren't so lucky, are they. But sod 'em, eh? Sins of the father and all that?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:50 PM

"In 1971 the top rate of tax (on unearned income) was 90%."

Yes Bridge and that acted as a massive disincentive, those who made lots did so elsewhere where they did not have to pay 90%. Which is why Mr Ferguson got the information from HMRC that tells us that:

"In the last tax year {That would be 2013/2014 presumably because it would be too early for the 2014/2015 figures to be in}, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history," said Mr Nelson. "And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013."

Where has the money come from Gnome? The World as a whole has got richer, in the last two decades the world's wealth has doubled - hence the rise of the middle classes right across the globe (BBC World has had quite a good series of articles on it recently)

Who finances the candidates Gnome? For over half those standing for Labour at the forthcoming election it is the UNITE Trade Union who make no bones about those candidates being "theirs" to control and do the Unions bidding - just like in the good old days eh? - Three day week anyone? Winter of discontent? The nostalgia will be almost too much to bear, and oh my, how the country will prosper just as it did before eh? Tell us Gnome as an ex-Union Activist where is that Trades Unions get their money from? IIRC subscriptions from members, investments, etc, etc.

GUEST,Shimrod - 29 Apr 15 - 11:47 AM

Good example of indignant spluttering there Shimrod old son - so how much of your wealth are you trickling down and when?

Like you I am retired four pensions to your three, worked 50 years, paid to educate my children all to university level (i.e. did not make the mistake of relying on the State - consciously and deliberately made the necessary sacrifices to do so), assisted them all in purchasing their first cars and their first houses. That was my contribution to "trickling down". Bit different from when I started out, we were told when you start work you make your own way - exactly as described by GUEST,Pete - nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead.

What I was "entitled" to? - whatever I worked hard for and saved for.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM

(BTW, most food banks are run by churches)

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:22 PM

The poorest folk just now are the working poor.
They are the main food bank clients.
The housing shortage has inflated their rent bills, and their wages are being squeezed.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:06 PM

...together with an entitlement mindset , mean that even though they cannot afford it , too many still spend lots on mobile phones and suchlike, and order takeaways instead of preparing cheaper meals.

What a horrible, condescending, condemnatory attitude. Tell me, is that Christian doctrine?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM

Musket,
I wonder if Keith and Terribulus might start believing their own outrageously silly comments?

Identify a silly comment of mine Musket.
Confident prediction, you can't.

You showed your ignorance of how Britain came to have a minimum wage.
I put you straight on it.

Your outrageously silly comment was, "But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage."

WE were not bound by the social chapter.
We opted out of it.
Minimum wage had been Labour policy since 1986, long before there even was a Maastricht treaty.
You got it wrong again.
I put you right, again.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 12:29 PM

I suppose with statistics there needs to be agreement on the parameters of surveys, and agreed time frames. I have no doubt that our standard of living is higher than our parents. It is also our experience that our kids want today what it took my generation years to attain. There are undoubtably far more out of work than there were when we were younger, but unfortunately the success of media marketing, and general dissatisfaction, together with an entitlement mindset , mean that even though they cannot afford it , too many still spend lots on mobile phones and suchlike, and order takeaways instead of preparing cheaper meals. I remember that when I was on low wages or out of work we were more careful with money. That is our experience, but if yours is different, it may balance out ours.    I very much doubt though if the very poorest in the world are doing better. I suspect that many are doing worse.