BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 08:12 AM

Any response to this - or is it to be yet another of your runners?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:39 AM

"We were talking about back in the 1970s YOU PRAT."
Where housing estates throughout Britain were inundated with rent strikes and protests because of the constant rent rises YOU FECKIN' EEJIT
obviousl didn't live in council property in 1970s Britain - my family did and still do.
Despite all your insulting invective, you have yet to provide one shred of evidence of a link between rate increases and Council Housing.
You really do believe you can bully and bluster your way through life - did you end up in the galley cooking bad fry- ups because weren't to be trusted with anything else?
In fact, the housing estates I experienced (three in the North of England), one in London) were not being "turned into slums" - they were well maintained both by the tenants and by the councils - I worked on Council maintenance both in Liverpool and Manchester.
The slum properties were in private hands - that's where the term Rachmanism came from.
The problems with council living began when the high-rise dwellings became the order of the day and we were shoved into concrete boxes - a planning disaster.
Tory policy regarding where working people should live was typified by Mrs Thatchers friend, Lady Porter, in Westminster.
She decided that in order to maintain Tory influence in the borough, she would privatise council property so, under the pretence of maintaining their homes, she moved them into asbestos-riddled 'temporary' dwellings, where they remained while she modernised their former homes and sold them off to private buyers.
Eventually, she fled to Israel, owing Britain millions
HOMES FOR VOTES
You will almost certainly not respond to any of this - I doubt if even you would sink as low as to defend it - though, on second thoughts......!
Not only do you believe working people should be treated like profit-making machines - you seem to belive we live like pigs, incapable of looking after ourselves.   
You really are a nasty, insulting class-superior bastard, aren't you?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 07:26 PM

Well I lived in a council flat in Poplar in east London for three years in the 1970s and my bloody rent went up! What the hell are you burbling on about?!

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 03:06 PM

Oh WOW Jom:

Rents didn't go up he screams then gives information leading to an article penned on the 1st February 2016 FFS!!!!!

We were talking about back in the 1970s YOU PRAT.

Now tell us how much they increased the rents on those Council houses back then when all those Council Estates were turning into slum dwellings because no Council could afford to maintain them.

How come you always introduce links and date of no relevance to the discussion whatsoever - it is an art.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 09:59 AM

Rents didn't go up!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/council-house-tenants-rents-rise-four-times-quicker-than-average-wages-a6847421.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 06:40 PM

Domestic rates/poll tax/council tax have never been more than the minority contribution to "the council's" income, and you know it. Most of what councils have to spend comes from central government. The latter maintains draconian control over council spending by imposing arbitrary "caps." Talk about democratic deficit...

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 03:35 PM

Hmmm.

My Mother still lives in the council house (2016) that she and my Father first rented into in 1951. I'm sure that between 1951 and 1979 when they bought the house (against my wishes) the rent increased quite dramatically.

Rents didn't go up! ............. yet more uninformed Taurus excreta.

Just in case you don't understand that Teribus that means BULLSHIT.

Please note I am still using your preferred name not Jom or Shaw which someone else has already pointed out is vaguely juvenile.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 02:14 PM

"Now back in the time that rates were the means by which Councils got their money,"
The council was responsible for much more - I asked how you identified a specific link between rates and council houses - you have not replied so you made it up again.
The rest is meaningless smoke and mirrors
Stop making tings up - you only make yourself look even more foolish
You might produce some actual linked facts, but why break the habit of a lifetime?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 01:51 PM

Let me see now Jom:

As far as Council Houses go the council is responsible for making sure:

1: The structure of your property is kept in good condition – this includes the walls, ceiling, roof and windows;

2: Gas and electricity appliances work safely;

3: Shared parts of a building or housing estate are kept in good condition.

Now back in the time that rates were the means by which Councils got their money, Council House rents were fixed, so the Councils had a finite and "known" income from renting. Unfortunately costs for upkeep and maintenance were not fixed, they were subject to increases due to inflation, wage rises and increases in material costs. So tell us all Jom how did Councils raise the money to maintain their housing stock? They did it by increasing the only thing they could increase - domestic rates on privately owned houses.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 07:31 AM

The 'Homes for all' scheme instigated by Labour after the war was a modern miracle and recognised as such (but you can't expect a patriot who claims "British Steel was crap" to admit that) - "Great Britain' only refers to 'The Great and the Good Britain' to these State suck-holes.
It came at a time when Britain desperately needed homes and it fulfilled that need - it certainly would have left the British lower paid in the hends of predatory landlords had it not been the success it was - look out Ken Loach's magnificent documentary, 'The Spirit of '49' if it's still available.
The film also shows how politicians, Conservatives mainly, joined by the growing Labour right, systematically smashed Labour's dream and turned Britain back into an exploiters' paradise it now is.   
"That should be Rachman of course before someone pulls me up on it."
Stop spoiling his fun - leave him something significant to say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 06:01 AM

That should be Rachman of course before someone pulls me up on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 05:51 AM

"they realise that councils are not in the business of housing, as they know nothing about it"

Yet another example of the utter bollocks that I have come to expect from this "man"

He'll be telling us Rackman was a superb landlord next.

As far as I am aware every council in the UK had a housing stock up to the late 70's early 80's are you seriously trying to tell us that they knew nothing about housing despite having decades of experience of building and maintaining good quality (for the most part) housing stock.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 05:35 AM

"Oh no you bloody well don't - you swallow and believe "hook-line-and-sinker" " No I don't - I credit everything i put forward, you deny it or ignore it, you never put up alternatives, As an instance, you are not going to qualify this statement "£3-15 shillings a week as an Apprentice?" When you've paid your whack at home and your bus fare, there was little left to save unless you spent your leisure hours staring at the wall - don't be a prat all your life. It was only that ware because, at the time, ship repair firms were paying a bonus anyway - the actual level was below that. Beside the point anyway - that's the level we were all on - I'm not complaining and I didn't do so then - neither did any of us. I was putting into context the old Tory claims of greedy, lazy workers. Don't tell me how I spent my youth - I became seriously involved in music in my teens. Who nthe **** are you to tell youngsters how they should spend their time anyway Don't know why on earth you are talking about - council raising the rates of privately owned property to maintain council housing - utter nonsense - but a total waste of time asking for proof of your stupidly made-up claim. My first job on finishing my apprenticeship was with Liverpool Corporation Housing Department, whose job it was to maintain all aspects of local life, housing, parks, roads, public buildings, local facilities... anything that fell within their area of responsibility. Where on earth did the idea that rates were in any way affected by council housing (won't get an answer to this one either) THatcher destroyed council housing because she regarded them as the privatation she dedicated herself to destroying, and in doing so, she caused many families to be thrown onto the street You obviously haven't come across many former council tenants around your particular ivory tower. Any word on where you are going to house your itinerant work force yet - won't get a reply but I enjoy you humiliating yourself by your silence. You really are a caricature establishment arse-licker Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 03:54 AM

£3 15s per week!   He was a bloody "Fat Cat", my wages as an apprentice stonemason were £1 19s 6d, from which I paid National Insurance and PAYE.

It wasn't about money...we boys were proud to be learning a trade, having the opportunity to contribute to our family income and learn skills which would benefit society.
In saying that, none of the local employers were wealthy by todays standards...it was more about status, they sincerely believed that they were the backbone of the local community, providing employment to a large number of people, keeping costs down for necessary maintenance work and keeping society reasonably stable.

Today these principles have been abandoned....personal wealth is the driving force and a huge number of people have become redundant in every respect.
Teribus, as you must have guessed, I agree with your thoughts on personal responsibility and the need for all of us to contribute to society, but the excesses of the hugely overpaid in many sectors of employment is surely wrong and an inhibitor to poorer people contributing fully?

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 03:12 AM

"I never rely on just personal experience - my world is as narrow as is most peoples
I linfk all my claims to actual information"

Oh no you bloody well don't - you swallow and believe "hook-line-and-sinker" any story told you provided it suits your point of view. Example: The tales of Tommy Kenny of summary executions of British soldiers in the trenches by British soldiers, or at least "special squads of Military Policemen" - all of that you said was gospel because you said you "got-it-from-the-horse's-mouth" - he was there - so it must have happened. Only problem was Jom you didn't cross-check a single thing did you? But I did and the more holes I made in your narrative the more you changed the story and at the end of the exchange we finally got the admission that he had never ever seen anything of the sort.

As far as the welfare system as operated in Scandinavia goes I think that that has been fully explained - a support system is in place to provide help for those who find themselves out of work, that system is not open ended and retraining and alternative work is provided which the recipient of benefits is fully expected to take up. That is NOT the case in the UK, where we now have people living on benefits who have never worked a day in their lives, if they have never worked a day in their lives then they have never contributed anything to the system that now supports them. Our point of contention, you claim that such people do not exist, I say that they do.

£3-15 shillings a week as an Apprentice? That's £15 a month or £5 more a month than I got and we were forced to save £4 of that every month and live off the remaining £6. Maybe that was the difference I was taught to save, spend money on what you need, not what you think you want, application of common sense. All of life is made up by choices and people from the time they are children have to make them based upon the information and advice on hand, which they can take onboard or reject. Good advice that I was given as a youngster that I ignored in later years I came to regret and I fully realised the wisdom in what I was being told at the time. When you are young, having fun and having a good time to many may seem to be the "be-all-and-end-all" of existence - but fun and good times come at a price if in having them you ignore or neglect what is important. Living for today and letting tomorrow look after itself is a recipe for disaster - all a matter of choice. So going back to your UK pension you got the pension commensurate with what you paid in, which is fair - don't therefore tell people on this forum that the pension you receive is the maximum UK State Pension - it isn't.

Our "professional" politicians set what they see as being the "Living Wage" - Very well let them live on it.

Our "Professional Politicians" set what the UK State Pension is - Very well let that be their pension.

All expenses paid must be receipted and those with primary homes close enough to be commutable have no allowances for second homes

Apply those rules and just see the rush to leave our "politics" industry and gravy train.

Trouble with Council Housing Stock Jom, was that the Councils because of various Rent acts and their own fixed rents could no longer afford the upkeep of the properties they had. There are no "Council Estates" in Scandinavia, they realise that councils are not in the business of housing, as they know nothing about it. What sets rents in "social" housing in Scandinavia are the actual costs of running and maintaining the properties literally block by block and it is the residents and tenants who pay for it. In the UK those in Council Houses paid their fixed rents and that was all they paid whether it cost the Council more or not. The Council then raised the rates on privately owned property to make up the shortfall, which could lead to the situation where a widow, living on a pension, in a home that she and her husband had worked for and paid for, ended up subsidising a family with four wage earners living in a council house.

The only people I know who got into trouble through the right to buy scheme were those who having bought their property were stupid enough to believe that the price of property could only go up and used their homes through re-mortgage schemes to raise money which they just frittered away - again Jom all a matter of personal choice based upon information available and advice.

Having said that Jom you have the example of two maths teachers in Kent who took advantage of the right to buy scheme back in the early 1980s, they re-mortgaged and bought even more property and rented it out. Just recently they sold up their rented property portfolio of over 700 homes for £70 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 03:52 PM

"So you approve of the right to buy as pioneered by Lady T?"
Not council homes I don't
I have never objected to people owning their own homes, but council property was devised for those who could not afford to do this, my family were typical examples of this
I grew up on two large council estates in Liverpool - the alternative would have been to rent from Rackrent landlords.
Thatcher destroyed that opportunity for poor families - some may have benefitted at the time but many thousands were conned into taking out mortgages they could not afford - result mass evictions.
Social homes are now a thing of the past in Britain and very few who bought gained anything from having done so.
As with the now silent Teribus - what planet are you living on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 03:23 PM

Had we not lived in London and had a couple of incredibly lucky opportunities to buy our home and sell it

So you approve of the right to buy as pioneered by Lady T?
You forgot to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 06:11 AM

"But Jom I thought you were a great believer in personal experience, "
I never rely on just personal experience - my world is as narrow as is most peoples
I linfk all my claims to actual information - you refuse to do so making your claims unsubstantiated and, when examined, made up by you.
AS far as Sweden is concerned, is you are suggesting that they no longer offer the safeguards they once did, then they are no better than Britain where they refuse to provide a safety net from poverty for workers who cannot find work - is that what you are suggesting?
What is important in all this is the rights of British people not to be forced into poverty by governments who are not doing their job of creating a situation where work is available for all who want it.
There is no meaningful work to be had outside the Sounth-east in Britain even though there is plenty of wealth to be had for those with access to it - Thatchers Two Nations.
As a worker I paid what I could afford - my income was eaten up by daily living, rent and little more.
I was in a far better position than most people with my background.
I ask again, what planet are you existing on - this is the situation of the vast majority of people in these Islands.
When I was young in Merseyside workers on our estate where sneered at by scum like you for buying televisions, then colour televisions, then taking holdidays.....
Why the fuck shouldn't we want these things - I started work at £3-15 a week, which rose to £14 when I finished my apprenticeship.
Eventually, thanks to hard struggle and efforts by Trades Unions, my wages rose to a level where I could afford a few luxuries (not many) - pricks like you started screaming "greedy, overpaid workers ruining Britain"      
I started work doing 50 hours - five and a half days per week, that was brought down through hard slog to 40 hours a week thanks again to the unions - you pricks howled about "lazy workers" every single inch of the way.
My father worked all his life without ever once being unemployed - he died prematurely, worrying about how he and my mother were going to survive on the old age pension when he had to retire.
You once claimed that there was nothing wrong with offshore accounts and hiring experts to dodge tax - you suggest that there is nothing wrong with the rich not contributing fully to the running of Briatain yet, when people fall out of work and are forced to draw dole, toy are up there demanding they leave home families and go look for work elsewhere.
You describe unemployment benefit as "sponging" and suggest that rights to it be reduced.
To are an archetypical Tory prick - you contempt for British working people is palpable and your views on how they should be treated pre-date the Industrial Revolution.
I have no idea whather you clai to be a Chriatian, I suspect you do, but your inhumanity towards your fellow human beings is well in line with teh other "Christians" who stur their stuff on this forum
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 05:24 AM

"I do love where you type masses and say nothing"

Really Jom? I appear to have said a great deal more than you, both in terms of detail and accuracy - 10 year old papers that pre-date the financial crisis of 2008 are a bit irrelevant. Now does that serve to cover addressing the long out of date links supplied by you.

"Not interested in Scandinavia other than to show they are above the barbarity of Britain's treatment of the unemployed - which you put forward as an example of how Britain should treat the unemployed - no more."

Ah more spittle-flecked indignation and a classic example of your inability to understand what has been written. Tell me Jom how can me saying in answer to your question relating to the unemployed in the UK:

In the following post - Teribus - 13 Jul 16 - 01:54 PM

Jom said: "as you offer no suggestion of what you intend should happen to the unemployed "scroungers" - it seems pretty well in line with your general attitude to "lazy" workers.
If you don't have the bottle to explain your appalling Toryisms, you must leave us to draw our own conclusions.
The same goes for your itinerant labour force."

To which I said in answer: "The system they use over in Scandinavia seems quite a good model"

So as you uphold and advocate the Scandinavian model as well as I do we are in agreement. The only thing is Jom, I know what the Scandinavian system delivers, I know what contributions in terms of tax go into making it possible, I know those things from experience. Very true that you are not interested in Scandinavia, you cannot even be bothered to research it sufficiently to substantiate your case.

"Respond to the position a British person out of work finds him or herself in and stop trying to create a diversion.
You have yet to tell us where all these cycling workers are going to live as they travel around the country seeking work."

No Jom - YOU tell them, after all you did it quite successfully didn't you? Or is what you have been telling us all a pack of lies? You probably did exactly the same as me. If there is no work in your particular field on your doorstep and you are not prepared to turn your hand to anything else then you cast round and find some other location where your skills can be utilised. that is what any person out of work has to do.

Unfortunately Jom, there are more than enough British youngsters who have never, ever been in work, they have never ever contributed anything to the system that they take from who believe that it is their "right" to live off the state until something comes along that they might like to have a go at. Perhaps while the going is good they should toddle over to "your" Scandinavia - they'd be in for one f**k of a shock.

"Stop bullshitting and tell us how all your Brave New World schemes for the poor are going to be put into operation"

Fortunately for me that is not my job - you appear to be pretty clueless - you are good at pulling things down, not so good at being constructive - I stated that the UK should follow the Scandinavian model which is one that will support anyone who is unemployed for a while then put them into retraining programmes and place them in work - if anyone does not accept retraining or if they do not accept placement in work then things get very, very hard for them, so hard in fact that very, very few people make those mistakes.

The Scandinavian model does not allow unchecked streams of foreigners to arrive in their country and immediately have access to the full benefits of the Norwegian Welfare System.

"what are you going to do about those who can't find work?"

Nothing Jom, I am not an employer, there are no positions open working for me.

"Why have you people closed off one of the main sources of work?"

I haven't and neither has anybody else - you typically are jumping the gun and presenting a problem that at the moment does not exist and most likely will never exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 04:31 AM

Talking of getting a grip on reality Jom:

Your SWEDEN link concerns the situation in Sweden in 2006 FFS - That is a decade ago and it states very clearly all the ills and trends in Sweden that you condemn in the UK. The information I have given you is current.

"I don't give a fuck how long you worked in Scandinavia"

But Jom I thought you were a great believer in personal experience, weighting what could be learned from it far greater than from any book learning. There you go Jom another one of your contradictions.

"I worked all my life in Britain, when I retired I was presented with the grand sum of £119.30 per week pension - the maximum."

In which case Jom you must have paid in the minimum in NI contributions. I too managed the required number of contributing years both as a self-employed man and as an Agency worker - My pension through the UK Pensions Service amounts to almost double yours. I suppose what helped it Jom was the fact that while working in Scandinavia for the first four years you work there you are not allowed to pay fully into their welfare and NI Scheme as a Brit you pay into the UK one. It means that you have no claim whatsoever on the National Scheme for the country you are working in - no unemployment pay, no benefits, you have to up sticks and return to the UK. But then you would have known all that had you actually read up on the Scandinavian Welfare System as it applies to foreign workers. But wait a minute, this no benefits thing for four years, isn't that what Cameron suggested? And was howled down for.

Norway makes an absolute fortune from foreign workers who transit through the country not stopping for longer than four years - the "Domestic" element of their Sovereign Wealth Fund derives its income from the reduced NI contributions from foreign workers and the employers full contributions, all gathered in by the Norwegian Authorities knowing full well that they will never have to pay out a single penny collected as those who paid in will not be there to pick it up and because they did not pay full whack are not entitled - brilliant scam isn't it. The money collected in this "Domestic" element of the Sovereign Wealth Fund derived from NI contributions is used solely in investing in Norwegian Companies, R&D and technology, while the other part of the Sovereign Wealth Fund that is derived from Norway's Oil & Gas Industry is invested globally - both make the country a fortune.

"Had we not lived in London and had a couple of incredibly lucky opportunities to buy our home and sell it when we moved"

Now those incredibly lucky opportunities wouldn't have had anything to do with "Thatchers home ownership con" would they? I know shed loads of people who did take advantage of the right to buy scheme and did very well out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 04:26 AM

And I do love where you type masses and say nothing
You have not responded to one single point I've made.
You've been linked to the posuition in Scandinavia - go argue with those links, not me.
Not interested in Scandinavia other than to show they are above tha barbarity of Britain's treatment of the unemployed - which you put forward as an example of how Britain should treat the unemployed - no more.
Respond to the position a British person out of work finds him or herself in and stop trying to create a diversion.
You have yet to tell us where all these cycling workers are going to live as they travel around the country seeking work.
Stop bullshitting and tell us how all your Brave New World schemes for the poor are going to be put into operation
THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL WORK IN BRITAIN APART FROM A FEW BETTER OFF AREAS - what are you going to do about those who can't find work?
Why have you people closed off one of the main sources of work?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 03:47 AM

I do love it when Jom comes up with what he calls "facts" like the ones he turned up on Scandinavia:

"Employment rates are so high in all three countries that it is possible to find work without too much inconvenience."

Now unemployment in the UK at present is standing at around five percent, or as Jom prefers it percent five.

In Sweden it is 6.7%; in Norway it is 4.7%; in Denmark 4.3%.

So not much difference there Jom. Where the main point of difference lies Jom between the UK and Scandinavia is that a section of our unemployed believe that they have the right to live off the state permanently and our system allows them to do it - the Scandinavian system does not.

Social Housing was the next load of distorted bollocks Jom tried to feed us:

Percentage of Swedes living in social housing is 14% not 33.3% as Jom would have us believe. In Denmark it is 20% and in Norway only 4.2% of the housing stock is available for rented social housing.

Jom would also have us believe that this type of housing is the direct equivalent of the British Council House - simply put it is not, not by a long shot. His "Non-Profit" Housing comes at quite a price through what could be described as "Housing Associations" called "boligbyggelags" - they are non-profit organisations but of course salaries and expenses must be paid, the company does not run for free. Here is how it works (From personal experience).

1: You become a member of the boligbyggelag that costs you around the equivalent of about £30 per year. Your membership has "seniority" privileges which I will go into later.

2: Properties owned by the boligbyggelag are sold to the tenants and the stock of properties generally consists of 1, 2 or 3 bedroom apartments in tenement blocks or terraced houses.

3: Now when one of these properties becomes vacant it goes on the open market (In my case the old woman who owned it could no longer manage the stairs and was going into an old folks home). Here is where the membership privileges come in. I wanted the property, but I did not go to see it, I did not even bid on it. I waited until the price had been agreed and established that the prospective buyer was not a member of the boligbyggelag. The boligbyggelag then sent out a notice to all it's members who had advised them that they were interested in that type of property and I stated that as a member of the boligbyggelag I wanted it - under their rules the flat was sold to me for the agreed price. If some other boligbyggelag member who had more seniority in terms of years of membership than me had also wanted the Flat then he would have got it.

4: Having bought the property I become responsible for all "inside costs" except electricity which is included in a thing called "Fellesgjeld" this is the overall loan the boligbyggelag took out from the bank when they built the block and it covers all outside maintenance, windows, and doors and also covers any improvements that the block management committee decide to have done. Now for my apartment that stood at roughly £37,250 and resulted in a monthly payment of around £500 over and above my mortgage repayments, included in this Fellesgjeld was electricity which was averaged out, at the end of each year they actually compared this averaged out cost to what you had used and in our case we normally got about half of it back. Once you have bought into this your block is run as a separate co-operative with a tenants committee and a dedicated management team supplied by the boligbyggelag. What is decided is what is done and you stump up for it - you cannot opt out. It is all very well organised and once a year the boligbyggelag supplies skips and containers for clearing stuff out and twice a year all residents get together and clean up the entire surrounding area. The boligbyggelag make sure the grass, shrubs, flowers and trees are looked, while the Kommune makes sure that the streets are swept and all roads and paths are cleared of snow and gritted. The Kommunes costs are paid by a proportion of your income tax.

5: When you come to sell the property the whole process is repeated.

6: In the small numbers of properties that are classified as being rented social housing in Scandinavia the rents are based on "historic" costs i.e. rents are not fixed and protected, they fluctuate to meet the actual costs of the buildings upkeep and running costs - As the buildings are kept up they do not degenerate into slums, as was all too often the case with council houses in the UK with fixed rents and ever spiralling maintenance costs.

Most of the rental properties in Norway are private sector rentals and the basic cost for a two bedroom apartment, normally in the basement of a private house, is around £1,200 per month in a city.

The other massively important difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that each and every person in Scandinavia is identified by their personnummer (an eleven digit code) without which you can do and get nothing so the latitude to operate a "black economy" is massively reduced almost to the point of elimination. We could have had the same in the UK but the "left" under "human rights" concerns objected to I.D. Cards.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 03:44 AM

"Talking of a load of complete and utter bollocks, anybody has the "right" to plan anything they want."
In the situation people find themseves in Britain today, people cannot afford to provide for themselves, particularly in the poorer parts of the country (basically outside the South-East soft underbelly)
That has long been recognised and is why a State system was established in the first place - if you don't understand that you must be living on another planet.
You brought up Scandinavia - a perfect example of the State and the Trades unions cooperating to ensure that working people are not left to weather recessions and economic downturns.
I am in no way putting forward Sweden as a perfect system, but it appears to have raised itself above the level of Britain's state barbarity as far as the poor are concerned
SWEDEN
That is not the case in post-Thatcher Britain, where, if you're out of work you're on your own.
The minimum legal wage does not allow poorer families to pay for back-up pension schemes - many families live below subsistence level and things are getting worse.
Thatchers home ownership con has even placed a question-mark over having somewhere to live.
All the schemes introduced by the Labour Government following W.W.2. and bitterly opposed by the Tories, have been gradually dismantled with the exception of the Health Service and that has been rendered virtually useless by under-funding, enforced bureaucracy aimed solely at saving money rather than improving services, and predatory drug companies.
The massive wealth gap in Britain is an indication that society is openly geared to giving the haves more and those in need less - the system no longer serves all of the people.
You have been given the facts of the wealth gap many times; you irst denied its enormity, then you went silent on it - as you do with all these awkward facts.
I don't give a fuck how long you worked in Scandinavia - the unemployment schemes are there to read up - you have a nasty habit of making claims you then refuse to back up with facts and expect us to swallow them - truth and accuracy is not one of your finer features.
One of the major benefits to being part of the E.U. is that, is you find yourself out of work, those in the position to do so are free to seek it outside their own countries - you twots have closed that door to the poor of Britain in order to satisfy your own bigotry.
British people do not "pull the stunt of living of the state - how fucking dare you denigrate working people who are having trouble finding work in a State that cannot provide it -
Have you ever tried living on the pittance that is paid out in unemployment benefit?
"Job Seekers Allowance for a single person is changed annually, and at August 3, 2012 the maximum payable was £71.00 per week for a person aged over 25 and £56.25 per week for a person aged 18–24.[29] The rules for couples where both are unemployed are more complex, but a maximum of £112.55 per week is payable, dependent on age and other factors. Income-based JSA is reduced for people with savings of over £6,000, by a reduction of £1 per week per £250 of savings, up to £16,000. People with savings of over £16,000 are not able to get IB-JSA at all.[30] The British system provides rent payments as part of a separate scheme called Housing Benefit."
I worked all my life in Britain, when I retired I was presented with the grand sum of £119.30 per week pension - the maximum.
Had we not lived in London and had a couple of incredibly lucky opportunities to buy our home and sell it when we moved, we would be living on that sum now.
The vast majorty of people did not have the opportunities we had,; I know that as a fact from the situation members of my family are facing.
Get a grip on reality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 09:08 PM

Two points Jom:

1: "Up to comparatively recently we all had a right to plan to raise a family where we were born and brought up"

Talking of a load of complete and utter bollocks, anybody has the "right" to plan anything they want. That means and suggests that those doing the planning actually take some responsibility for ensuring that they work towards their desired goal. But in the real world, where us human beings live there are no such rights. But as you - Jom the Infallible - have spoken - Please tell us all where and when this RIGHT was ever established.

2: How many years have you lived and worked in Scandinavia? In my case, off and on, it totals over 20 years - Don't you dare attempt to presume to tell me what and what is not the case, when it comes to working there.

As previously stated just try to pull the stunt of living off the state in Norway, Denmark, Sweden or Finland as people do in the UK and you will find yourself coming unstuck very quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 03:25 PM

"The system they use over in Scandinavia seems quite a good model:"
What a load of distorted bollocks
Scandinavian unemployment schemes are backed up by compulsory unemployment coverage by the trades unions, and also by European safeguards deliberately designed so that no unemployed worker will suffer greatly by the lack of employment.
Employment rates are so high in all three countries that it is possible to find work without too much inconvenience.
In Sweden, around one thirs of the population live in affordable, non- profit-making rented homes
In Denmark, %25 of building is designated to affordable rented homes.
Norway has similar schemes operating in order to make homes affordable.
All Scandinavian workers have the option to work in the E.U. zone and have their benefit safeguards transferred to wherever they go.
(At the present time there are 30,000 British workers on the claiming
Your comparisons are a total distortion.
Apart from the rich South East underbelly, there is in incentive to work as there are no jobs.
"Well if your requirement is for a job for life on your doorstep"
Up to comparatively recently we all had a right to plan to raise a family where we were born and brought up - that is not a "job for life" - it is social stability.
We are no longer a prehistoric nomadic society
Where are those forced to look for work expected to live in your Brave New World and how can we raise families on bikes
Right wing ***** arrogant nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 01:54 PM

"as you offer no suggestion of what you intend should happen to the unemployed "scroungers" - it seems pretty well in line with your general attitude to "lazy" workers.
If you don't have the bottle to explain your appalling Toryisms, you must leave us to draw our own conclusions.
The same goes for your itinerant labour force."

Ah but Jom I love it when you are left to form your own conclusions - they are absolutely hilarious and they serve as examples and exercises in complete and utter, lack of reasoning, common sense and logic and as such they are unsurpassed and unparalleled.

The system they use over in Scandinavia seems quite a good model:

1: Put yourself out of work you get nothing for the first two months
2: If you lose your job through no fault of your own you get 80% of your working wage for a time limited period, after that it decreases quite dramatically.
3: No question of you sitting back and doing nothing at the expense of the state indefinitely. After a given time you are offered retraining so that you can search for work. Refuse the training - your benefits get cut. Complete the training and refuse work found for you - your benefits get cut.

In short Jom the incentive is there to ensure that those out of work are better off in employment and no comparison can drawn that would ever prompt anyone to think - "Oh stuff that I'm better off on benefits".

Itinerant workers? Well if your requirement is for a job for life on your doorstep then I can say in all honesty that, although now retired, I was an extremely successful itinerant worker for 50 years, and in all that time found it no hardship whatsoever - If I can do it anybody can.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 12:02 PM

Finished with the itinerant workforce and the "scrounger" death camps then?
Another runner, it would appear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 11:53 AM

Sorry to disappoint you Stu but the Civil Service in the UK and in almost every Parliamentary democracy I know has NO Legislative initiative power - those powers are normally the sole preserve of the elected Government and Parliament. In other words Stu the absolute opposite of what happens in the EU.

No yes and no about it Alan Conn - to become an EU Commissioner you must comply with the following criteria:
1: You must proposed by your own National Government
2: You must have no other post, elected or unelected as this would compromise your duty to the EU Commission (Any other post would be viewed as a conflict of interest)

As the last three people proposed by the UK prove EU Commissioners need never have been elected to any position in their lives.

"there is no stated Spanish veto on Scottish membership of the EU. During the 2014 referendum a story broke in the UK media claiming that the Spanish would block Scottish membership, however the Spanish Foreign Minister clarified that because the referendum was a legal referendum they had no problem with it."

Of course there is no stated Spanish veto on Scottish Membership of the EU. Foreign Ministers of foreign governments generally do not jump their fences until they have to. There are however at least six European countries who I could see vetoing Scotland' application for EU membership. Naturally the Spanish Government would have no problem with a duly initiated Independence Referendum - it has nothing to do with them - what might subsequently happen however would.


"Likewise at the moment there is not any stated opposition in principle to Scottish membership."

Nor will there be until an independent Scotland applies for membership, even then they have no need to state it, they will simply exercise their veto without explanation when the application is considered.

According to Juncker's edict banning all discussion with anyone from the UK until after the UK has formally triggered Article 50 there can be no negotiations. There will also be no legal or binding referendum related to Scottish independence until after the UK has left the EU, because it requires an act by the Westminster Parliament for any such referendum to take place - they not the Scottish Parliament set the question to be asked, the timing and dictate who is eligible to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 09:43 AM

"I suspect that the most likely outcome is Scotland failing to get special status while part of the UK, going independent, and negotiating a Norway style relationship with the EU for the time being, with freedom of movement, until a Spanish government eventually lifts any veto on Scotland rejoining the EU."

Quite plausible possible scenario excepting that there is no stated Spanish veto on Scottish membership of the EU. During the 2014 referendum a story broke in the UK media claiming that the Spanish would block Scottish membership, however the Spanish Foreign Minister clarified that because the referendum was a legal referendum they had no problem with it. Likewise at the moment there is not any stated opposition in principle to Scottish membership. It is that, like the French and several others, the Spanish believe formal negotiations with Scotland couldn't be held whilst Scotland was still a member of the UK. They are sticking to the EU rules that only the national gvt can be party to negotiations. Obviously because they are terrified it would set a precedent to Catalonia. So the stated problem is to the timing and procedure - not to Scottish membership itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 09:26 AM

"No EU Commissioner has to have ever stood for election, or indeed have ever been elected for any public office before being appointed as an EU Commissioner."

I googled the first 4 commissioners I came to including Juncker himself and all had previously either been elected members of the European Parliament or elected members of their own national parliaments. So yes and no. They don't need to stand as commissioners an won't be serving elected members anywhere at the time they are appointed by their respective governments for the post. Not ideal but kept in perspective the EU has 28 unelected appointed members in the commission at anytime - the UK currently has many hundreds of unelected members in parliament. Some aren't even appointed as they are hereditary. We have an unelected Head of State. And prior to his resignation the UK had one appointed unelected member of the commission - but at the same time we had two unelected appointed members of the Cabinet in Baroness Anelay and Baroness Stowel.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 09:06 AM

"No EU Commissioner has to have ever stood for election,"

Tezza: Your argument is based on a false analogy because the EU Commission is the equivalent of the Civil Service and so no-one will ever stand for election. Do you know how much power the unelected bureaucrats of Whitehall wield?

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 07:23 AM

Not lately, but as you offer no suggestion of what you intend should happen to the unemployed "scroungers" - it seems pretty well in line with your general attitude to "lazy" workers.
If you don't have the bottle to explain your appalling Toryisms, you must leave us to draw our own conclusions.
The same goes for your itinerant labour force.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 04:56 AM

"Gassed any unemployed people lately?"

Has anyone ever done that Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 03:31 AM

"- I will treat that post (So good you posted twice) with the utter contempt it deserves."
What you are trying to say is you will continue to refuse to respond to the implications of your 'Brave New World' Tebbitisms - why wouldn't you?
Your running away from awkward questions on the grounds that responding to them mught expose you for the rightist twerp you are has become your hallmark.
'He who spouts and runs away, lives to run another day' - as the saying nearly has it.
"Thrown any bricks through any windows of late?
Gassed any unemployed people lately?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 01:58 PM

all the European Commissioners are appointees from elected members

Sorry Jom you will have to explain that. No EU Commissioner has to have ever stood for election, or indeed have ever been elected for any public office before being appointed as an EU Commissioner. Currently as you have been shown 94% or %94 of the UK Cabinet had to be elected Members of Parliament in order to be considered for appointment as a Cabinet position.

Jim Carroll - 12 Jul 16 - 12:26 PM - I will treat that post (So good you posted twice) with the utter contempt it deserves.

Thrown any bricks through any windows of late?

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 12:26 PM

Can we assume we have to wait till you announce where you intend to erect your extermination camps for the unemployed and the tent towns for the itinerant fork-force you propose?
Another couple of classic retreats!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 12:26 PM

Can we assume we have to wait till you announce where you intend to erect your extermination camps for the unemployed and the tent towns for the itinerant fork-force you propose?
Another couple of classic retreats!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 12:16 PM

And all the European Commissioners are appointees from elected members
seme as the Cabinet - what's your point?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 08:47 AM

"Nice and succinct Mac" says Jom - but Jom did you understand what it said? Somehow doubt it.

Like the British Cabinet says Jom let us examine it then:

The Prime Minister – an elected member of Parliament
First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer – an elected member of Parliament
Home Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Foreign Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Work and Pensions Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Defence Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – an elected member of Parliament
Health Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Leader of the House of Commons – an elected member of Parliament
Justice Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Education Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Leader of the House of Lords – Former Civil Servant and Ambassador to the USA member of the House of Lords
Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Energy and Climate Change Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
International Development Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Transport Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Communities and Local Government Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Northern Ireland Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Wales Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Scotland Secretary – an elected member of Parliament
Chief Secretary to the Treasury – an elected member of Parliament
Chief Whip – an elected member of Parliament
Minister for Small Business – an elected member of Parliament
Minister for Employment – an elected member of Parliament
Minister without Portfolio – an elected member of Parliament
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General – an elected member of Parliament
Attorney General – an elected member of Parliament
Mayor of London – an elected official appointed by invitation does not attend full cabinet
Conservative Party Chairman – by invitation

So Jom although all Cabinet members are "appointed" all but two have been elected by their respective constituents, that amounts to just under 94% (Or %94 – as you seem to prefer it) of the Cabinet of the UK have been elected to represent the people by the voters in their constituencies, prior to being made members of Cabinet.

The EU Commission on the other-hand are all appointees put forward by their own governments, only the President is "selected" (Note "selected" not elected) subject to the approval of the EU Parliament.
The UK's last three EU Commissioners have never been elected to any public office in their lives, those from other countries are former Government ministers or civil servants. Their days of being elected by constituents was over long before their Governments "appointed" them as Commissioners to the EU, appointments that no-one can challenge. The EU Commissioners have the power of legislative initiative, i.e. they and only they have the power to introduce the legislation that governs the EU and not one single one of them have been elected to their office.

From the link supplied by MGOH and Jim Carroll -

"it is worth noting that legislative proposals in the EU almost always become law eventually."

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 06:45 AM

When I say "The Brexiteers", I mean the leaders rather than the voters themselves. It's become obvious that the motives of many who voted to leave are more complex that the remain side ever gave them credit for.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 06:34 AM

Fair point that 'wishes' is the wrong word, but the Commission is there as a legistlative body and implements legislation voted on by the elected representatives of the member states.

Meanwhile, UK scientists are being dropped from EU funded projects due to uncertainties over future funding. The Brexiteers, not content with trying to keep their constituents as dumb as possible by telling them to ignore 'experts' are now trying to drag those in science who do world-leading research which is vital to our economy into their morass of ignorance and wilful stupidity.

Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 03:57 AM

Mac's Link
Nice and succinct Mac
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 04:38 PM

https://europeplanetearth.wordpress.com/what-is-the-eu/4-how-are-eu-laws-created-and-enforced/

Thw process of law making is in fact no less democratic within the EU structure than in that of Westminster. Follow the above link to confirm that.

Of course that doesn't mean that either system doesn't badly need improving.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 01:37 PM

The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners").[4]There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3]
Wiki

MORE DEMOCRATIC
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 01:27 PM

"but has no choice in any appointment of any individual EU Commissioner,"
Just like the British Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister
Parliament cannot object to the appointment of any Minister and his or her job is to follow the orders of the Party - they are appointed on the basis oF their commitment to the party line rather than their abilities.
Parliament also has a history of totally unelected and highly paid advisors - QUANGOS
Whence the difference?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 12:36 PM

"The European Commission is there to enact the wishes of the EU parliament" - Best laugh I've had so far this month - where on earth did you get that from?

The EU Commissioners are nominated and put forward by their own Governments they most certainly are not selected by any Council (The members of the Council of the European Union are all national ministers from each member state the composition of the Council has ten different configurations depending upon what is being discussed.).

The European Parliament gets final choice of a list of candidates for EU Commission President but has no choice in any appointment of any individual EU Commissioner, they cannot object to any individual Commissioner, they get to rubber stamp the composition of the Commission not who sits on it. It is the Commission acting in what THEY and the Council of the European Union see as being the best interests of the EU who make the rules that govern the running of the EU. While the EU Parliament posses limited legislative power it does not have the power of legislative initiative (It cannot introduce laws or rules - only the Commission can do that)

I'd love to have an example of when the EU Commission ever enacted something that could even be remotely described as being the wishes of the EU Parliament - nice thought though.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 11:13 AM

It gets better! With the nasty Leadsom doing one this morning, the collapse of the Brexiteers right-wing cabal is complete. All of the main leaders have done the cowardly thing and refused to stand up for their principles by sodding off at the first opportunity.

This is utterly laughable. The remaining Brexiteers, those rebellious souls standing up against the nasty establishment (of which they are all a part, of course) are now trying to circumvent parliament by triggering Article 50 by Royal Prerogative; precisely the sort of thing the fibbing hypocrites are supposed to be against.

Meanwhile, Labour are taking full advantage of the demise of the politics of truth and evidence (damn those 'experts'!) by having the sort of inter-party bunfight that wouldn't be amiss in a 1920's comedy film.

This is beyond satire.

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 10:50 AM

"Anglophobes who constantly talk the country down "
The only "Anglophobes" here are those who claim the working people are lazy scroungers and the industries we once had were crap - recognise the description?
The strength of any country is its people, not the predators who milk it dry and stick their money in off-shore accounts.
Didn't you once say that it was the duty of investors to avoid paying tax if humanly (or inhumanly) possible?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 09:04 AM

The European Commission is there to enact the wishes of the EU parliament, and it's members are elected by the council (elected representatives of the member states) and the EU parliament (elected). There has to be a bureaucracy to run any organisation, and the EU's was relatively small compared even to our bloated gutbucket of a civil service. The Lords meanwhile, is an anachronism that desperately needs reform, as it's full of bishops and folk who have arse-licked to paid a bung ("funding", "donations" etc) to get in. It's so undemocratic for anyone to support it and then whine about the EU Commission stinks of rank hypocrisy.


"Manefestos"

Sp.


"Hardly, NATO is safe from being undermined by any grandiose ideas of a Chocolate Box European Arm"

Not everything has military solution T, and Putin's strategic aims can be achieved in many ways that don't require guns, and the Brexiteers have partly facilitated this for him. The EU army would never have happened, that was more scaremongering and speculation from Leave. Ireland would never compromise it's neutrality and although I think some military operations occur with EU co-ordination these are humanitarian and peace-keeping operations.


"Listening to the Remain moaners and Anglophobes who constantly talk the country down you'd think it was."

Turn it up Tezza!

Subject: RE: BS: Whither Scotland, Northern Ireland?
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 08:10 AM

By Jingo, the things you "learn"