On 19/11/2017 14:43, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:14, Mark wrote:

[ ... ]

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.
Perhaps you meant central heating, which I never had until I was just on
40 years old. It ought to be clear that I cannot agree that it is in any
way essential.

I don't mean central heating. OK. I did exaggerate. The place which
I am referring to had a small electric fire in the lounge (which was
ineffective) and *no* other heating. It looked like it used to have
fireplaces in some of the rooms but they were all blocked up.
It was bloody cold in the winter. I think the other residents
suffered more than me.

The first house I had (bought when it was four years old, for £700+ in
1977) had exactly the same facility. Just an electric fire in the open
plan living room.

I didn't regard it as unacceptable. Life within the house simply differs
from season to season, with the main living room in more use in the
colder months. T'was ever thus until I was nearly 38 years old (when I
moved into the first place with central heating).

It isn't credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

No, you don't need any of those things so much that your fellow
taxpayers should provide you with the means to get them (and the word
"need" is so often misused in any case). They're nice to have, but you
have to get them by your own efforts.

OK. I will explain it to you. They need a phone so that they can
search for jobs. It's no good if a potential employer cannot contact
you by phone. You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes
have closed down. You need a fridge to stop your food going off and
giving you food poisoning. You need a motor vehicle since public
transport is virtually non-existent [1].

Hmmm...

You are making me smile for reasons I don't want to go into in too much
depth. Let's just say that many, many, people earnestly assure "the
authorities" that their need for a car is greater than average because
they have to go to work at unsocial hours when there is no public
transport. This even if they work in the city centre in an office or
shop. Every single one of them goes to work at unsocial hours before the
buses are running. There are never any exceptions to the "unsocial
hours" mantra.

But oddly, I worked for more than seven years before I learned to drive.
And my mother never learned to drive and worked all her (working) life.

As some would say, go figure.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I don't know that food is dearer in real terms than it has ever been.
What is commonly agreed is that it has fallen - a lot - as a proportion
of household income. That must also mean that food now accounts for a
smaller proportion of benefit income.

Food inflation is very high ATM (4%).

[1] In many areas.

TRANSLATION: "Ah, but...".

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 02:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message

I was also thinking of this article:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

That says absolutely NOTHING about what percentage
of native adults in Britain are unable to read and write.

Erm pardon me getting involved in some one else's argument, but the
first words are 1 in 20

But it doesnt say that 1 in 20 adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

It claims that 1 in 20 would be unable read a bus timetable and
I dont believe that 1 in 20 school leavers can't use facebook or
twitter either. And plenty like cleaners dont need to do better
than literacy level 1 anyway. And I bet plenty who the official
test claim are at literacy level 1 or below can use facebook
and twitter fine, so the literacy level test is just another
academic wank as far as the real world is concerned anyway.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:39:40 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:27, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:49:23 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:19:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:19, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

You have the whole day/week/month to wash your cloths by hand in the
bath if you are unemployed.

In cold water, I assume you mean.

There are houses with baths in bathrooms that have no means of providing
hot water, are there?

If these people are on such low incomes, maybe they can't afford to
heat the water.

Another "ah, but", eh?

I've been in this position in the past.

Even if there were, not many people used to wash clothes in the bath.
The kitchen sink was usually regarded as the place for that.

Few houses have large Belfast sinks nowadays. Imagine washing clothes
in a modern 'tiny' sink?

Yes. Imagine it. The bath is always available, of course.

You said people used the kitchen sink, not the bath.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings
are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close to
where
well paid work is available? So much for the North/South divide.

sigh

The discussion was about *average* property prices and an assertion
that
everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by increases in them.

The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

The fact that houses are cheap in areas where there is little well paid
work to be had?

Goal-posts shifted While-U-Wait?

Is that an admission there is "little well paid work to be had"?

Doesnt have to be well paid to be viable.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

because the current test for being able to read and write sets the barrier
stupidly high

They have replaced the simple check of reading and writing with the term
"functionally literate"

which doesn't just check that you can read, for example a daily newspaper,
but that you understand current technology

It's nonsense check IMHO

In some ways its the reverse too. I bet the official test claims
that plenty of those who can use facebook and twitter fine
are functionally illiterate and that would be just plain wrong.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:21:05 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:14:05 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:44:39 +1100, Rod Speed

wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that
20-25%
of
the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****.

You are right - but the real numbers are still shocking, and 1 in
20 adults reportedly only have the reading age of a 5 year old.

Sure, but presumably most of those are recent immigrants and the
problem is with the language and not that they cant read or write at
all.

That is not how I took the reports that google popped up when I
searched
before writing that and I believe they were referring to native English
speakers.

Nope, that particular 'report' that claimed that 1 in 20
adults reportedly only have the reading age of a 5 year
old was talking about adults, not native english speakers.

The report is clearly referring to general literally skills,
not how badly (or otherwise) new arrivals speak English.

Yes, but if they can't speak english, they wouldn't be able to read or write
it.

Couple of my mates have married women who migrated here when they were
3, migrating with their parent in the late 40s. The parent have no english
at all
and the only communication with my mates is a wave when they show up.

That academic test of literacy level would claim that they couldn't
read or write but that just because they don't bother with english.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 21:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 18/11/2017 18:59, pamela wrote:
On 13:53 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£7.50 is a lot more than the folks from Latvia, Poland and
other places can earn. This is the problem, their sheer weight
of numbers means that employers and parastitic agencies can
operate the sort of 'flexible' employment that employers could
only dream about 20 years ago. And they are happy to live 12 to
a house to save money.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.
Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is largely
irrelevant.

Meanwhile down in Mythyr Tydfil there is an army of unemployed
folk who have spent a whole generation on the dole, or more
likely 'disability' benefits and they cannot even be arsed to
get the bus or train down to Cardiff where there is plenty of
work. They don't even have to learn another language on the job
either.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good work
ethic for UK workshy to see.

Two employers I have spoken to some time ago, who have a significant
proportions of migrant workers, say that after 18 months to 2 years
they seem to acquire British work ethics.

Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****. And plenty of jobs dont need you to be able to do either
anyway.

No, but they tend to pay minimum wage.

Sure, but the reason its the legal minimum is because
it is possible to 'live' on that. And quite decently too.

well the loony lefties will tell you otherwise

Doesnt matter what they say.

in fact some not quite so loonies will tell you otherwise

Ditto.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment benefits
are linked and cannot be considered in isolation. Obviously there
should be incentives to work, but that means work should pay well,
not that benefits should be squeezed so that people cannot manage.

But the notion that cutting benefits will force everyone into taking a
job is standard Tory mantra. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who
it hurts.

And a standard socialist mantra is that giving people benefits will win
them votes. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who it hurts.

If there are people abusing the benefit system, the law already covers
this.

In theory. In practice its perfectly possible to volunteer to 'live' on
benefits for the whole of your life if you decide it’s a viable income
and plenty do just that.

On 19/11/2017 15:55, Rod Speed wrote:

But it doesnt say that 1 in 20 adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

It claims that 1 in 20 would be unable read a bus timetable and
I dont believe that 1 in 20 school leavers can't use facebook or
twitter either. And plenty like cleaners dont need to do better
than literacy level 1 anyway. And I bet plenty who the official
test claim are at literacy level 1 or below can use facebook
and twitter fine, so the literacy level test is just another
academic wank as far as the real world is concerned anyway.

Headline :-

"Illiterate Britain: 1 in 20 adults have reading age of a 5-year-old."

I take it 'they' take a reading age of 5 as functionally illiterate

It 'says' a quarter of adults can't understand/use a timetable

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 09:37, soup wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message

I was also thinking of this article:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

That says absolutely NOTHING about what percentage
of native adults in Britain are unable to read and write.

Erm pardon me getting involved in some one else's argument, but the
first words are 1 in 20

Perhaps Wodders is that 1 in 20?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 09:34, soup wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:46, Fredxxx wrote:

I was also thinking of this article:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

1 in 20 is not 25% .

The definition of literacy is a moveable feast. Either way Wodders is in
denial that anyone can't read and write.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I never ever said no one couldnt read or write, I JUST
said that your stupid claim that 20-25% of the natives
cant read or write is a bare faced lie.

There are also articles like:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

Which doesnt say ANYTHING about what percentage cant read or write.

though as I've said before, there is no single definition for being
illiterate.

And it would be completely stupid to claim that someone who
can use facebook and twitter is illiterate and I bet that all but
say the legally moron and some of the blind wouldnt be able
to do that when they have just left school recently.

And that would be quite adequate for a cleaner etc that only
needs to be able to read a text message and work out when
they need to show up at work to do more cleaning etc.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:55:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:43, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:14, Mark wrote:

[ ... ]

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.
Perhaps you meant central heating, which I never had until I was just on
40 years old. It ought to be clear that I cannot agree that it is in any
way essential.

I don't mean central heating. OK. I did exaggerate. The place which
I am referring to had a small electric fire in the lounge (which was
ineffective) and *no* other heating. It looked like it used to have
fireplaces in some of the rooms but they were all blocked up.
It was bloody cold in the winter. I think the other residents
suffered more than me.

The first house I had (bought when it was four years old, for £700+ in
1977) had exactly the same facility. Just an electric fire in the open
plan living room.

Bloody hell! My first non-rental house, which I bought in 1987 cost
me £50K. It was a 3 bed end terrace starter home, with a driveway
(luxury). It was a few years old and in the cheapest area nearby. It
did have central heating though.
You may say I was ripped off but this was the market price. Just
before I had been gasumped on a 2 bed mid terrace (asking price £46K).

I didn't regard it as unacceptable. Life within the house simply differs
from season to season, with the main living room in more use in the
colder months. T'was ever thus until I was nearly 38 years old (when I
moved into the first place with central heating).

It isn't credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

No, you don't need any of those things so much that your fellow
taxpayers should provide you with the means to get them (and the word
"need" is so often misused in any case). They're nice to have, but you
have to get them by your own efforts.

OK. I will explain it to you. They need a phone so that they can
search for jobs. It's no good if a potential employer cannot contact
you by phone. You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes
have closed down. You need a fridge to stop your food going off and
giving you food poisoning. You need a motor vehicle since public
transport is virtually non-existent [1].

Hmmm...

You are making me smile for reasons I don't want to go into in too much
depth.

Sorry, but this statement seems to show a deal of naivety. Not
everyone can copy you.

Let's just say that many, many, people earnestly assure "the
authorities" that their need for a car is greater than average because
they have to go to work at unsocial hours when there is no public
transport. This even if they work in the city centre in an office or
shop. Every single one of them goes to work at unsocial hours before the
buses are running. There are never any exceptions to the "unsocial
hours" mantra.

FWIW I've never worked in a city centre. My first job I needed
personal transport because there really was no public transport.
Imagine a bus service from one village to another miles away in the
evenings in a rural area - can you?

But oddly, I worked for more than seven years before I learned to drive.
And my mother never learned to drive and worked all her (working) life.

As some would say, go figure.

I had to.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I don't know that food is dearer in real terms than it has ever been.
What is commonly agreed is that it has fallen - a lot - as a proportion
of household income. That must also mean that food now accounts for a
smaller proportion of benefit income.

Food inflation is very high ATM (4%).

[1] In many areas.

TRANSLATION: "Ah, but...".

You seem to have an obsession about this phrase. Why?

--
insert witty sig here

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 10:18, Yellow wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:21:05 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:14:05 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:44:39 +1100, Rod Speed

wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that
20-25%
of
the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****.

You are right - but the real numbers are still shocking, and 1 in
20 adults reportedly only have the reading age of a 5 year old.

Sure, but presumably most of those are recent immigrants and the
problem is with the language and not that they cant read or write at
all.

That is not how I took the reports that google popped up when I
searched
before writing that and I believe they were referring to native English
speakers.

Nope, that particular 'report' that claimed that 1 in 20
adults reportedly only have the reading age of a 5 year
old was talking about adults, not native english speakers.

The report is clearly referring to general literally skills, not how
badly (or otherwise) new arrivals speak English.

We seem to have hit a raw nerve with Wodney, he seems to demonstrate an
issue with reading skills.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
I'm curious as to how much you think you need to live 'comfortably'?

It depends on your circumstances - obviously.

For a single person who is set up, without rent or mortgage but paying
all other bills including running a car and council tax, with no
benefits or tax credits, £9,000.

I73 a week


On top of that you need the allow for
breakages and replacements so add another couple of thousand for that.
So £12,000 plus housing.

230 a week.

Both very short of the basic unemployment benefit.

Because the basic unemployment benefit isnt intended
to be something you 'live' on for the rest of your life.

If you have kids, a partner, other mouths to feed, pets, a tumble drier
on the go every day and holidays to Disneyland, then obviously you need
more.

So - I have answered your question so please will you now answer mine.

Do I think many on the current levels of unemployment benefit - even long
term - get a raw deal? Yes.

But with the current very low unemployment rate,
only those who choose not to work see that and
there has to be a real incentive to work.

Judging by what I've seen with my own eyes.
And mainly talking about the single.

Who arent prepared to do the work that immigrants are prepared to do.

On 19/11/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.

You've not looked very hard. My parents house built in the '30s had no
form of heating in the bedrooms. Not even a power socket as built.


As a youngster, I lived in several council houses built in the '50s or
'60s which had bedrooms without heating. As I recall, the 'master
bedroom' had a radiator heated via a radiator which was heated by the
coal fire in the sitting room. The other bedroom/rooms had nothing. I
think the kitchen had a similar radiator. I think the system was
referred to as a 'back boiler' and also heated the hot water.

Even the most modern flat we later moved to, which had under floor
heating, had no heating in the bedrooms- just the sitting room and hall.
That was built in the mid 60s, we moved into it in 1968.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:35:58 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:32, Mark wrote:

Yellow wrote:
ave Plowman (News) wrote:
Mark wrote:

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under
25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.
Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live
on,

That £119 figure is incorrect.

The current pension starts at £155 (plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

I just missed that (by a matter of weeks!) and consequently get less
than that amount.

But I'm not complaining or bitter. I understand that changes only take
place from when they take place.

just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The young person's benefit is supposed to be a stop-gap, not a life
style choice, and if they cannot afford to live on their benefits then
they have the option of getting off their arse and working.

So do retired people, and many do. It's not an ideal situation, but
it's the way of the world.

It's a choice for people over retirement age (I still do a bit of
freelance).

What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Iff they want to work and are able to do so.

And I find it as depressing as hell that there are people out there
that
think we should encourage young people not to work by paying them
enough
in benefits so that they never need to.

I don't accept that idea. There is plenty of incentives to work right
now.

There is clear reason to believe that the incentive effect is currently
inadequate.

If it was inadequate, why would anyone work?

Because they prefer to work than to veg out in front of daytime TV etc.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:43:56 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:54:44 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under
25
is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live
on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The proof is in the pudding: if it weren't generous and provide them
with comfortable enough life, then they would be forced to try and find
work (which they are not doing).

Who isn't?

the people who you see on various TV documentaries living a life on
benefits
(because they can)

I'm sure these "documentaries" are fake, just to make 'sensational' TV.

Yes, you actually are that stupid.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Some companies went out of business through union action. Red Robbo
comes to mind.

BL went out of business because of Red Robbo, did they? Rather shows
you know as much about the motor industry as anything else.

His philosophy was difficult to eradicate. He caused the fire-sale of
BL, and its now derelict site at Longbridge.

Thanks for confirming you know nothing about BL. ;-)

Are you the sort to support the supply of labour in protectionists
schemes.

'Labour' doesn't need protection. It does, however, require decent
management. Like all the car firms currently in production in the UK seem
to manage well enough. Using the same sort of workforce as BL did.

Nope, they deliberately chose to not use any of the BL workforce, for a
reason.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25
is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?

Its not enough to live COMFORTABLY on.

What if they get evicted from their home

They get housing benefit so they can get another. .

and become homeless because they
can't afford their rent, for example?

No reason to become homeless, you share
a house or flat until you have work again.

It would become even more difficult for them
to get a job, without somewhere to live.

They always have somewhere to live.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 02:03 19 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:17 18 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget
that 20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable
to read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum
was so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even
encourage the likes of me who were sitting on the fence to
vote Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a
vote? Perhaps you're the sort to say that women shouldn't
have had the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially
sectors most likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax
wasn't extended to precisely the group occupying larger than
required properties. Or is this kind of thought beyond your
pay grade.

What the **** has any of that to do with your claim that
20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable to read
and write ?

It's a lie.

Google is your friend.......
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=literacy+in+uk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/britain-named-
worst-in-developed-world-for-literacy-so-yes-school-
reform-is-needed/

Usual mindless silly journalism.

Usual mindless silly comment, if I may say so.

Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else either.

If you are not illiterate then why couldn't you
use Google to find the OECD survey for yourself?

Its completely irrelevant to the bare faced lie that 20-25% of
the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

It doesn’t even claim to measure that.

They can ALL read and write well enough to use their
smartphones and facebook and twitter quite adequately
unless they are blind or are legally morons.

Being able to use a smartphone doesn't establish literacy.

Corse it does when you have to be able to read what on
it to use it to do anything on facebook and twitter etc.

Also, is "legally moron" as Australian concept

It’s a concept used in all societys.

or something of yuor own?

Nope.

And that stupid article doesn’t even say what percentage of
the indigenous adult population arent able to read and write.

Its nothing even remotely like 20-25%

You can use Google to find that. Let me help you......

http://www.google.com

"15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England,
can be described as "functionally illiterate".

That is nothing even remotely like arent able to read and write.

More will be only partially literate but not dysfunctional.

That is nothing even remotely like arent able to read and write.

"Also, 24% of adults scored at or below Level 1 in numeracy".

That is nothing even remotely like arent able to read and write.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:06:27 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119

Not since April 2016. Much more now, and many people have Serps
entitlements too.

Many have private pensions too.

Plus free bus travel, heating and council tax discount for those
with less than ~£16,000 in savings.

I get council tax discount as a single person. What heating discount are
you talking about?

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

Depends how much you make use of it. Morally, it would make sense to
give
free travel to the unemployed, to make it easier to go looking for work.

in London, they do (or did anyway)

Should be a national policy, not limited to London.

Nope. Then those who choose not to work would have free travel for 'life'

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 00:55, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for the
unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at the idea
of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.


Nonsense - at least IME. I don't think many take industrial action for
their own benefit.

So those train drivers do it for the public benefit eh ? BULL****.

Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:46:56 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 12:14, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark wrote:

[ ... ]

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits
are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low.
However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever
were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were
able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)?

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.

Perhaps you meant central heating, which I never had until I was just on
40 years old. It ought to be clear that I cannot agree that it is in any
way essential.

I don't mean central heating. OK. I did exaggerate. The place which
I am referring to had a small electric fire in the lounge (which was
ineffective) and *no* other heating. It looked like it used to have
fireplaces in some of the rooms but they were all blocked up.
It was bloody cold in the winter. I think the other residents
suffered more than me.

Anyone with even half a clue uses a heated throw which is
like an electric blanket but is used on the armchair or sofa.

It isn't credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based
"social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the
expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

No, you don't need any of those things so much that your fellow
taxpayers should provide you with the means to get them (and the word
"need" is so often misused in any case). They're nice to have, but you
have to get them by your own efforts.

OK. I will explain it to you. They need a phone so that they can search
for
jobs. It's no good if a potential employer cannot contact you by phone.

Costs almost nothing on PAYG with a used phone.

You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes have closed down.

That last is a lie and you are free to wash you clothes in the bath by hand.

You need a fridge to stop your food going off and giving you food
poisoning.

Nope, you just buy your food every few days instead.

Even you should be able to manage that if someone
was to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

You need a motor vehicle since public
transport is virtually non-existent [1].

Just another bare faced lie.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I don't know that food is dearer in real terms than it has ever been.
What is commonly agreed is that it has fallen - a lot - as a proportion
of household income. That must also mean that food now accounts for a
smaller proportion of benefit income.

Food inflation is very high ATM (4%).

[1] In many areas.

Still another bare faced lie.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:06:28 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 17:36, tim... wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...


You will find that you can go to college for free if you are
unemployed.

but as you are not "available for work" you won't get benefits

You do, at least in part, whilst in training.

Maybe things have changed but you never used to get benefits whilst in
education/training. I doubt this has changed for the better recently.

It has anyway.

And there are usually tuition fees to consider,

Not for the unemployed there arent.

and you may not be eligable for a loan.

Don't need one with no fees.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 14:27, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:49:23 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:19:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:19, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent

wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses
with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never
received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at
recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines,
refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based
"social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the
expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater
than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is
clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have
gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

You have the whole day/week/month to wash your cloths by hand in the
bath if you are unemployed.

In cold water, I assume you mean.

There are houses with baths in bathrooms that have no means of providing
hot water, are there?

If these people are on such low incomes, maybe they can't afford to
heat the water.

Another "ah, but", eh?

Even if there were, not many people used to wash clothes in the bath.
The kitchen sink was usually regarded as the place for that.

Few houses have large Belfast sinks nowadays. Imagine washing clothes
in a modern 'tiny' sink?

Yes. Imagine it. The bath is always available, of course.

Not always, plenty of places only have showers now.

But its trivial to get one of those big plastic storage boxes or a new
big plastic rubbish bin and wash clothes by hand in one of those.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:18 19 Nov 2017, soup wrote:

On 19/11/2017 15:55, Rod Speed wrote:

But it doesnt say that 1 in 20 adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

It claims that 1 in 20 would be unable read a bus timetable and
I dont believe that 1 in 20 school leavers can't use
facebook or twitter either. And plenty like cleaners dont
need to do better than literacy level 1 anyway. And I bet
plenty who the official test claim are at literacy level 1 or
below can use facebook and twitter fine, so the literacy level
test is just another academic wank as far as the real world is
concerned anyway.

Headline :-

"Illiterate Britain: 1 in 20 adults have reading age of a
5-year-old."

I take it 'they' take a reading age of 5 as functionally
illiterate

It 'says' a quarter of adults can't understand/use a timetable

If you want to see a country with really bad literacy rates then
take a look at Australia. The figures from the Audtralia Bureau
of Statistics is shocking. I wonder if any of their illiterates
post here.

"Eight million Australians with inadequate skills is about 53
percent of the working-age population"

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/0...cannot_read_or
_count/

And yet all but 5% have jobs. Just goes to show
what a complete wank the 'literacy rates' are.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:10 19 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:


We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment
benefits are linked and cannot be considered in isolation.
Obviously there should be incentives to work, but that
means work should pay well, not that benefits should be
squeezed so that people cannot manage.

But the notion that cutting benefits will force everyone
into taking a job is standard Tory mantra. Doesn't matter if
it works or not. Or who it hurts.

And a standard socialist mantra is that giving people benefits
will win them votes. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who
it hurts.

If there are people abusing the benefit system, the law already
covers this.

In theory. In practice its perfectly possible to volunteer to
'live' on benefits for the whole of your life if you decide it’s
a viable income and plenty do just that.

How do you "volunteer" to do that?

By choosing not apply for any of the jobs available.
By ****ing and ending up with kids. Etc etc etc.

Maybe in Australia you volunteer for life-long benefits but not here.

BULL****. That reality TV doco series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefits_Street
shows them doing it.

We were talking about lack of literacy before.

Nope, we were discussing the stupid claim that 20-28% of british natives
cant read or write.

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 15:55, Rod Speed wrote:

But it doesnt say that 1 in 20 adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

It claims that 1 in 20 would be unable read a bus timetable and
I dont believe that 1 in 20 school leavers can't use facebook or
twitter either. And plenty like cleaners dont need to do better
than literacy level 1 anyway. And I bet plenty who the official
test claim are at literacy level 1 or below can use facebook
and twitter fine, so the literacy level test is just another
academic wank as far as the real world is concerned anyway.

Headline :-

"Illiterate Britain: 1 in 20 adults have reading age of a 5-year-old."

Which is nothing even remotely like CANT READ OR WRITE.

I take it 'they' take a reading age of 5 as functionally illiterate

It 'says' a quarter of adults can't understand/use a timetable

All completely irrelevant to the bare faced lie that
20-25% of native adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

And 1 in 20 isnt anything like 20-25% either.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:31:22 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 13:20, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 13:03, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

[ ... ]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html
House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to
£205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.
Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to
£28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National
Statistics.
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in
the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for
sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags
up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average
house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes
it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

None of them are the whole of England either.

True, but irrelevant.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for
£7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better
kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind
of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like
subsidence.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

What? Even with all that research you have been doing into house
prices?

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire
Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Now tell us all why and how you are comparing like with unlike.

You're the one who is doing this. What's the relevance of the prices
of houses in Lancashire, for those who need to live elsewhere?

Before I do that, please explain why you compared like (average prices)
with an unlike (lowest prices).

Lowest price isn't very useful since most people
will be unable to take "advantage" of this.

Bull****. Those who can't afford the higher prices can.

Average prices will dictate what the majority need to consider.

Nope, what matters is the lowest prices for those who cant afford
to buy their own home.

And what's the relevance of your question, when the information was
given in order to counter the (untrue) assertion that house prices have
shifted upwards in real terms everywhere, when it is clear that they
haven't?

If a few areas have not had the same trend, how is this useful for
those who need to live elsewhere?

They can go there.

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

Not as cheap as you might think?

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate
local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those
improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to
average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings
are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Not everyone has the choice to move to Lancashire.

Do you have to?

You are suggesting that everyone does.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the "semi-official" narrative
to the effect that housing is uniformly unaffordable is untrue.

You said "go north young man" ;-)

"Mark" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:38:19 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:10, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under
25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live
on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?

That's what a stop-gap is: enough to tide you over for essentials only
for a limited period, not intended to be a long-term solution (that's a
job, that is).

So what do they go without during this period?

Non free entertainment, time down the pub, smoking and
drinking, more expensive than cheap food, renting a house
or flat that is more than they need, owning a car etc etc etc.

What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

So some people say.

It's true.

Nope.

Are many convinced by such obvious appeals to mawkishness?

It's nothing to do with mawkishness, call it realism.

That would be a lie. There is no need to be homeless when unemployed.

On 19/11/2017 15:18, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:38:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for
the unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at
the idea of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.

Yup. A train driver can simply get a job as a merchant banker at 300 grand
a year. Problem solved.
Do love the way many think others should do such and such. But never
themselves, of course. Their job is essential and worth every penny.

It was one reason why Maggie Thatcher rose to power. A large section of
the electorate wanted Arthur Scargill to sport a blooded nose. She
kindly served that on a plate, the rest is history.

Yes it is. The current housing mess very much down to her. And so much
else. Making naked greed fashionable being the most obvious.

Absolutely right.

So, another 3 million people that NuLab allowed in, and the longest
period of negative interest rates had absolutely nothing to do
with fact that a £65,000 house in 1997 now costs £325,000 ??

How, precisely did Mrs T manage to achieve that ?.

On 19/11/2017 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like all the car firms currently in production in the UK seem
to manage well enough. Using the same sort of workforce as BL did.

Like hell they do. When Nissan was recruiting for Sunderland
they made a point of not employing a single person who had ever
worked in the British car industry. They took people from all
sorts of engineering and non-engineering backgrounds and
trained them up in the Japanese way.

On 19/11/2017 12:09, bm wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
I'm talking about the basic pension that all will be getting.

Which is now £155 (plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced).

More ********. I'm an OAP and don't get anything like 155 per week.

Mine's more like £122.


Which entitles you to pension credits if that is your only
income and you have less than ~£16,000 savings.

Dave Plowman wrote:

BL went out of business because of Red Robbo, did they?

Passed me by that he died last month ...

On 19/11/2017 13:57, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 19:32:30 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 17:40, tim... wrote:
No it doesn't

It is a pretence by HMG that it does.

If you retire now and have never been contracted out
and have at least 35 years of full rate NI contribs
then you will get £155 a week. In fact you will get a
lot more than £155 because you will also have serps
entitlements and your benefits will be calculated
under the old and the new schemes and the higher
amount paid.

Only people who have been substantially contracted-out
will get somewhere between £119 and £155.

Does having been "contracted out" affect the basic state pension or
just the SERPS/S2P portion?

If you request a pension forecats (BR19), it will state how many
years of full rate NI and contracted-out years you have accrued.

If there are any contracted-out years then it will clearly state
what the contracted-out-deduction (COD) will be. This will
reduce your basic state pension on the assumption that your
occupational or personal pension will make up (and exceed)
the difference, as well as being paid before SPA.

This has always been the case. It is nothing to do with the
new flat rate pension.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 18:03:13 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 15:18, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:38:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for
the unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at
the idea of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.

Yup. A train driver can simply get a job as a merchant banker at 300 grand
a year. Problem solved.
Do love the way many think others should do such and such. But never
themselves, of course. Their job is essential and worth every penny.

It was one reason why Maggie Thatcher rose to power. A large section of
the electorate wanted Arthur Scargill to sport a blooded nose. She
kindly served that on a plate, the rest is history.

Yes it is. The current housing mess very much down to her. And so much
else. Making naked greed fashionable being the most obvious.

Absolutely right.

So, another 3 million people that NuLab allowed in, and the longest
period of negative interest rates had absolutely nothing to do
with fact that a £65,000 house in 1997 now costs £325,000 ??

We haven't had negative interest rates in this period.

How, precisely did Mrs T manage to achieve that ?.

Greed.

--
insert witty sig here

On 19/11/2017 11:55, Yellow wrote:
Everyone gets the £155 (if you are
paid up on NI) but if you have SERPS you can get more and it is
calculated under the old scheme in that case.

Wrong. For each year of contracted-out NI, there will be a
contracted-out deduction from that £155. Request a BR19
and it will be shown.

On 19/11/2017 15:39, JNugent wrote:
Few houses have large Belfast sinks nowadays.Â* Imagine washing clothes
in a modern 'tiny' sink?

Yes. Imagine it. The bath is always available, of course.

As are builders buckets or similar containers previously used
to hold all manner of stuff that can be washed out and
re-purposed.

On 19/11/2017 16:28, Mark wrote:
You may say I was ripped off but this was the market price.

If you had been able to wait until 1992 you could have
bought the same or similar house for £35K (or less).

It could have been worse, by August 1988 your house
would have been over £60K.

On 19/11/2017 17:10, Rod Speed wrote:
Costs almost nothing on PAYG with a used phone.

PAYG not that cheap in the UK any more.


You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes have closed down.

That last is a lie and you are free to wash you clothes in the bath by
hand.

Or wear things for longer between washes.

You need a fridge to stop your food going off and giving you food
poisoning.

Nope, you just buy your food every few days instead.

Few people outside Suva and the main towns in Fiji had fridges
or washing machines. A bit of rough-sawn 6 by 1 timber, rubbed
on a lovo stone to knock off the splinters and a big bar
of wash soap is all you need.

Milk was the tinned, condensed type. You sit it in a
saucer of water to keep the ants and cockroaches out of it.

This is how the US peace corps and VSO volunteers, plus the
locals lived.