Hundreds of people in homes too big for them (From Echo)

Seems logical as we the tax payers own the properties.

HOWEVER!!!

Tenants that are good tenants and never missed rent payments for years should be treated with respect, and consideration and offered nice appropriate smaller accommodation AWAY FROM THE DISRUPTIVE ANTI SOCIAL LOW LIFE SHY THEADS.

Those that are beggars should not be choosers and appreciate what accommodation we actually provide for them whilst they are on on housing benefits, which myself and my Hard working tax paying family are sick to death of paying in ever increasing amounts often to people that have created their own circumstances through drink and drugs.

And YES I do not what it is like to live on a Council estate I did for 15 years.

The last paragraph should read ' yes I do know what it is like to live on a council estate I did for 15 years'

Maybe they could billet all those sleeping rough along the seafront into these spare bedrooms.

So will the tax funded Queen be moving out of her palace to live in a flat?

Whilst having a go at tax payer funded things, Why should MPs get £160 a WEEK grocery allowance?

To start with i was criticle of people living in houses too large for them but they just want to move families from london into them, no thanks, there's enough muggings in southend since they started this without importing more

I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

Brunning999 wrote:

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

A satellite dish is not an indication of wealth. Ever heard of Freesat? Many satellite dishes have been up for years now, there is no evidence that a current tenant is even using a dish. You might as well judge wealth by TV aerials. Whining about satellite dishes is a bigoted and blinkered argument direct from the pages of the Daily Mail.

You also have no evidence at all that your "hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops " are making any benefit claims at all. You don't know if they're retired or on their day off.


If you so hate paying contributing to society for the good of all there is one country where no-one pays tax at all and everyone looks after their own. You should move there. It's called Somalia.

Personally, i believe that benefits should be by means of vouchers (such as luncheon vouchers) and not hard cash that is used on holidays, cigarettes and alcohol !

I have to work hard to provide for me and my family, and live within my means without handouts allowing me to fund a lifestyle which i could not fund myself !

Put the underclass and lying benefit cheats - who have stolen large properties off the tax payer- and make them share these very large homes or put them back on the street .
And no more cash just vouchers.
Trouble is it will put Brighthouse out of business...shame!!!!
!

Confusing headline Noddy!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

A satellite dish is not an indication of wealth. Ever heard of Freesat? Many satellite dishes have been up for years now, there is no evidence that a current tenant is even using a dish. You might as well judge wealth by TV aerials. Whining about satellite dishes is a bigoted and blinkered argument direct from the pages of the Daily Mail.

You also have no evidence at all that your "hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops " are making any benefit claims at all. You don't know if they're retired or on their day off.


If you so hate paying contributing to society for the good of all there is one country where no-one pays tax at all and everyone looks after their own. You should move there. It's called Somalia.

Look in the doors either side SC!

Very insular look at life!

Your requirements in life is what we would all like but that would mean we all contribute not just a few paying for everything.

The ideal world will never exist.

It failed miserably in Russia.

It is not only benefit claimants that occupy council housing. We live in a council house and it is all I have known, all my life. I was born in one. We do not and have never claimed benefits, but do not earn enough money between us to afford a mortgage, nor to buy the house from the council (when this was offered). Please do not group all council tenants together and brand them as scroungers or trouble makers! I also do not think it is fair to force people to move when they are under occupying their home. It is their home after all, and many have spent money decorating and making it their home. The government should be building more affordable housing, and also limiting the incoming foreigners who seem to be getting allocated the council housing recently. Rant over.............

This article is RUBBISH!
.
Firstly, Council housing is ring fenced so all costs have to be paid from the rental income, in other words none of our local Council housing is subsidised by Council Tax payers in any way whatsoever.
.
Secondly I know two of these people, they are both elderly ladies in their 80s whose husbands were respectively a postman and a dustman in the days when a postmans/dustmans wages simply weren't enough to cover a mortgage. These elderly ladies have lived most of their lives in their houses and you uncaring lot want to throw them out? Bet you wouldn't say that if they were your Mothers.

High five Rayleigh Mum. We wouldn't have a housing problem if the Labour party had allowed local authorities to build new houses with the cash they received from Council house sales but they didn't, they wanted all the cash for themselves to keep income tax down. All politicians are liars and cheats.

Obviously this is a complex issue. I do not see the benefit of getting people who have been homeless etc but get social housing to move on once their family has flown the nest. Ever heard of children coming back home if they lose their jobs - not good if there is nowhere for those children to go because then they need one bedroon housing if single of which there is little because that is where those who are under-occupying have been put. Also if they are given short term tenancies as they will be why decorate etc.

If people are willing to pay the rent they are entitled to live in the size house of their choosing. I now have a "spare" bedroom but i also have step sons, a daughter and grand children who live out of this area but come to visit. If I had down sized when my son left home he would have had nowhere to go when his ex partner kicked him out of their property at 11.30 at night. Two sides to every story.

this story was brought to you by possibly the worst piece of journalistic/editori
al work ever.

council hosing is cost neutral. (it pays for itself)

the Tory council seem happier to pay housing benefit top ups to hard pressed working tenants so that wealthy and influential landlords reap the rewards as opposed to paying a zero percentage in council housing provision..

I guess that due to European tendering the days of giving the councillors mates the Maintenance contract are over.

dear echo, please try to do some homework prior to publication.

hosing benefit is awarded on how many children require rooms or how many can share rooms. the award is based on this and how much the rent is.

so there is no extra benefit paid for empty rooms.

so if the tenant is paying for extra rooms then that is there business and has nothing to do with the council.

housing benefit is also capped..

can I get a job in the echo?... i guess I cant until im a card holding member of the Tory party...

Brunning999 wrote:

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

what you propose and what you imply is nothing more then the return to mass slums prior to the slum clearances.

because that is the private developers standard for social housing.

why do you think council houses where built in the first place..

and what is Southend turning into?.. a borderline slum! look around and judge by the standard of investment that landlords have put in to there dilapidated cash-cows.

the private landlord sector is one area of society that requires massive legislation, especially in Maintenance of property and capping of rents...

Brunning999 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

A satellite dish is not an indication of wealth. Ever heard of Freesat? Many satellite dishes have been up for years now, there is no evidence that a current tenant is even using a dish. You might as well judge wealth by TV aerials. Whining about satellite dishes is a bigoted and blinkered argument direct from the pages of the Daily Mail.

You also have no evidence at all that your "hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops " are making any benefit claims at all. You don't know if they're retired or on their day off.


If you so hate paying contributing to society for the good of all there is one country where no-one pays tax at all and everyone looks after their own. You should move there. It's called Somalia.

Look in the doors either side SC!

Very insular look at life!

Your requirements in life is what we would all like but that would mean we all contribute not just a few paying for everything.

The ideal world will never exist.

It failed miserably in Russia.

Failed miserably in Russia… that's why we're all paying through the nose for Russian gas is it?

I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

council tenants are tenants end of. want security of tenure you gotta get your cheque book out. else foxtrot oscar

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

Lillybelle wrote:
I don't agree with people having to downsize some of thease people have lived in there property's for years and making there houses nice . I do understand there is a need for family's but why is the council not building more social affordable housing instead the councils are letting private developers come along selling off land and either building flats or 5 to 6 bedroom exective housing don't make sense and then they like to pick on the average council tenant who might have come on hard times by losing a job but has been paying there rent for years no problem . This country is getting worst it's all about the haves and the have nots

Should the have' s be expected to pay for the have not's then forever regardless of what they do, how they behave, in fact what ever they do won't do, etc.

Because my family are getting pi55ed off with having to pay for their own family plus many other worthless lazy selfish lawless parasites.

We do not mind helping to pay for those who genuinely deserve help, as my father did after the 2nd World War when he deserved and appreciated a Council home.

BUT:

We get some what annoyed to see hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops gambling with our money or driving past Council homes with Sky Dishes when we cannot even afford to have Sky due to our bloody tax demands!!!

Sorry stop penalizing the genuine wealth creators with the expectancy that we should pay for everyone.

A satellite dish is not an indication of wealth. Ever heard of Freesat? Many satellite dishes have been up for years now, there is no evidence that a current tenant is even using a dish. You might as well judge wealth by TV aerials. Whining about satellite dishes is a bigoted and blinkered argument direct from the pages of the Daily Mail.

You also have no evidence at all that your "hoards of fag smoking boozed or drugged up parasites each day in betting shops " are making any benefit claims at all. You don't know if they're retired or on their day off.


If you so hate paying contributing to society for the good of all there is one country where no-one pays tax at all and everyone looks after their own. You should move there. It's called Somalia.

Look in the doors either side SC!

Very insular look at life!

Your requirements in life is what we would all like but that would mean we all contribute not just a few paying for everything.

The ideal world will never exist.

It failed miserably in Russia.

Failed miserably in Russia… that's why we're all paying through the nose for Russian gas is it?

your agenda is clear for all to see.

The extreme right wingers leaving their blinkered views on here should have their human being status revoked (because they are not normal humans) and be banned from expressing their opinions anywhere public.

one month's notice either side. gotta keep the scroungers on their toes

5600 people waiting for a council house in southend. oh goody eh evilc

and here was me making a promise to myself that I would never again engage in on-line debate with a right wing troll.

burning 999 has forced me to break that promise... lol

Aint it just the truth wrote:
High five Rayleigh Mum. We wouldn't have a housing problem if the Labour party had allowed local authorities to build new houses with the cash they received from Council house sales but they didn't, they wanted all the cash for themselves to keep income tax down. All politicians are liars and cheats.

Another Right wing rag reader.

Tory inspired council house sales took how many houses from the council list?

What did that Tory Government say the money from the sales had to be used for?

How much of your taxes goes towards council rents?

Why were council houses built in the first place?

How much deposit was needed to buy your own house?

How much money was Mr. Average paid, and how would he raise the deposit to buy?

How many times over would the council house have been bought had the rent gone into a mortgage for that house.

Who shut this country down and threw thousands out of work, failed to update our car industries, instead moving their millions into Japanese, then German car industries.

I rattle on about Gillette, who shut down production in this country, moved razor production to China and doubled the price to us!

Who bleeds the money out of everything in this country, protects themselves with Limited liability, then call themselves "The wealth creators" even though they are the biggest tax cheats in history. They don't pay for the out of work, we tax payers down alongside the poor do that!

Not Labour!

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: High five Rayleigh Mum. We wouldn't have a housing problem if the Labour party had allowed local authorities to build new houses with the cash they received from Council house sales but they didn't, they wanted all the cash for themselves to keep income tax down. All politicians are liars and cheats.

Another Right wing rag reader. Tory inspired council house sales took how many houses from the council list? What did that Tory Government say the money from the sales had to be used for? How much of your taxes goes towards council rents? Why were council houses built in the first place? How much deposit was needed to buy your own house? How much money was Mr. Average paid, and how would he raise the deposit to buy? How many times over would the council house have been bought had the rent gone into a mortgage for that house. Who shut this country down and threw thousands out of work, failed to update our car industries, instead moving their millions into Japanese, then German car industries. I rattle on about Gillette, who shut down production in this country, moved razor production to China and doubled the price to us! Who bleeds the money out of everything in this country, protects themselves with Limited liability, then call themselves "The wealth creators" even though they are the biggest tax cheats in history. They don't pay for the out of work, we tax payers down alongside the poor do that! Not Labour!

Oh dear, a comitted Labourite. You should open your eyes up sunshine, they're all as bad as each other and I know this because I was deeply involved with the Council and local politics for years. Oh, and if Brown hadn't chosen to ignore the advice he was given by Canada, Australia and others we wouldn't be in this mess today (look at Canada and Oz). Labour always messes the money up, they have done that every time they've been in power since WW2 and they have really messed it up royally this time, as well as flooding the country with people who should not be here. And the Tories are just as bad, they only care about encouraging big business and don't give a stuff about the poor and vulnerable, I'm sure they would bring back the workhouse if they could. The Tory/Labour gang mentality has a lot to answer for, why do you think so few people vote today?

Aint it just the truth wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: High five Rayleigh Mum. We wouldn't have a housing problem if the Labour party had allowed local authorities to build new houses with the cash they received from Council house sales but they didn't, they wanted all the cash for themselves to keep income tax down. All politicians are liars and cheats.

Another Right wing rag reader. Tory inspired council house sales took how many houses from the council list? What did that Tory Government say the money from the sales had to be used for? How much of your taxes goes towards council rents? Why were council houses built in the first place? How much deposit was needed to buy your own house? How much money was Mr. Average paid, and how would he raise the deposit to buy? How many times over would the council house have been bought had the rent gone into a mortgage for that house. Who shut this country down and threw thousands out of work, failed to update our car industries, instead moving their millions into Japanese, then German car industries. I rattle on about Gillette, who shut down production in this country, moved razor production to China and doubled the price to us! Who bleeds the money out of everything in this country, protects themselves with Limited liability, then call themselves "The wealth creators" even though they are the biggest tax cheats in history. They don't pay for the out of work, we tax payers down alongside the poor do that! Not Labour!

Oh dear, a comitted Labourite. You should open your eyes up sunshine, they're all as bad as each other and I know this because I was deeply involved with the Council and local politics for years. Oh, and if Brown hadn't chosen to ignore the advice he was given by Canada, Australia and others we wouldn't be in this mess today (look at Canada and Oz). Labour always messes the money up, they have done that every time they've been in power since WW2 and they have really messed it up royally this time, as well as flooding the country with people who should not be here. And the Tories are just as bad, they only care about encouraging big business and don't give a stuff about the poor and vulnerable, I'm sure they would bring back the workhouse if they could. The Tory/Labour gang mentality has a lot to answer for, why do you think so few people vote today?

I'm a bit old for sunshine, but still, call it what you will. You would still have a dickens of a job when you go to world comments and what other nations say. The US have admitted cause and effect of world banking. The loans we have given to other countries since this planned blow up go a long long way towards showing how much capital we have locked away.
The new high bracket cars that are appearing on our roads, coupled with the patent arrogence of the owners are old, old pointers toward the fact that Elitism is once again the theme of Government.
You will argue about labour allowing immigration, yet if you know the truth it was the Tories that allowed immigrants here to work in the 1950's that opened a door that could not be closed (under no less than Racist Enoch!) It was the same party that brought Russian labour here to work in the mines.
The Labour movement was for the hard pushed working classes, and brought political equality to all people not just the super rich men that the Tories allowed to vote.
It is no good at all reading newspaper to find the political truth, You would never have known the truth about the South sea bubble if you just read the papers! That was saving money to enable a war with the French, by the way. Do you think this current "grab every penny" that this mob are conniving with is for peaceful purposes? I fear the leads of the Dogs of war are being readied to slip. that is more important than petty politics!

please do not forget Cameron's rich who he does not tax for there meany big homes ??

nothing said there my mother has lived in here home 60 odd years she lost my dad there and brought up here family now they are forcing her out as they want her pay £25 for each room they say she does not need as she cannot afford it looks like she is going be put in a one room box as she is 89 and this is a shock for her in her time of life as she is not in that good heath its a joke and for what so they can house some foreigner in it and people are going on about people on the dole etc well as people are losing there jobs by the day just think it could be your one day soon that's if your not one of Cameron's rich who have got money as they have no tax to pay on there one of meany homes and take there money out the country so they do not pay tax
i wounder who votes for this party ?

Aint it just the truth wrote:
The extreme right wingers leaving their blinkered views on here should have their human being status revoked (because they are not normal humans) and be banned from expressing their opinions anywhere public.

If you EVER went behind the iron curtain which is VERY painfully obvious to me that you did not but if you did then you would know exactly what I object to passionately.

I DID WORK BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN !!

Freedom of the press by allowing comments is a luxury we take for granted, and must NEVER lose EVER.

Extreme right and extreme left politics are truly truly terrible, and press freedom is non existent in fanatical countries neither is politics other than their selected politics.

The problem with most extreme left or right political people is that because you do not agree with their politics you must be extreme opposite, which is foolish, very sad and very wrong, SC never looks in doors either side of a corridor he is extreme left and will go straight to the door at the end of a corridor missing life improvements in doors either side of the corridor.

His view about Russian oil is an odd comment to make especially as he has ignored all the astrocoties committed in their communist past and their current mafia style future politics.

Social welfare I agree for the deserving but it must be fair reasonable and sensible and most of all affordable, and to do that we must have more people paying in than taking out, my family feel they are doing over their share of paying in for drinkers, gamblers and heavy smokers or young designer clad chavs pushing prams in Southend town centre/ Shoeburyness etc with loads of unwanted kids and fighting dogs in toe often entering or leaving betting shops which are busy all day with parasites, a great shame SC does not see it because they are the ones which abuse your wanted political system JUST OPEN YOUR COMMY brainwashed EYES!!!

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

bumper wrote:
please do not forget Cameron's rich who he does not tax for there meany big homes ??

nothing said there my mother has lived in here home 60 odd years she lost my dad there and brought up here family now they are forcing her out as they want her pay £25 for each room they say she does not need as she cannot afford it looks like she is going be put in a one room box as she is 89 and this is a shock for her in her time of life as she is not in that good heath its a joke and for what so they can house some foreigner in it and people are going on about people on the dole etc well as people are losing there jobs by the day just think it could be your one day soon that's if your not one of Cameron's rich who have got money as they have no tax to pay on there one of meany homes and take there money out the country so they do not pay tax
i wounder who votes for this party ?

Tories don't care about people they only care about money. The mosy laughable thing the current bunch of tory shysters said was 'We're all in it together'. No we're not, they're all multi-millionaire posh boys who've never don e a day's work in their lives. They haven't got the faintest idea of what life is like for ordinary people.

we need a cultural shift in this country. kids in italy live at home into their 30s until they get married. moving out and expecting the state to pick up the tab is not an option. at the other end of life the elderly relatives are cared for by the same children. no sucking, no impregnating solely for the purposes of obtaining free accommodation. yes benefit junkies - there is a solution and it doesn't involve paying you money!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

asbo industries inc wrote:
we need a cultural shift in this country. kids in italy live at home into their 30s until they get married. moving out and expecting the state to pick up the tab is not an option. at the other end of life the elderly relatives are cared for by the same children. no sucking, no impregnating solely for the purposes of obtaining free accommodation. yes benefit junkies - there is a solution and it doesn't involve paying you money!

Well said the Socialist party started the welfare state with good intent, they started it when folk were thankful for it what they didn't have then I'd people that totally rely on it and contribute nothing whatsoever to it.

The Labour Party actually acknowledge the fact that we have to many benefit junkies and they will be no different from the current useless Government because they know reforms are necessary otherwise the Welfare system will collapse and that will be a tragedy.

Going back to local authority houses (us) any sensible,reasonable, caring person must admit living in a property to big for them is selfish, greedy and not true to the socialist values of sharing and caring.
I care do they ?

A big discussion on a big picture, but finding the answer to large problem is always done in small steps. The first question is where is the money going?

1. Benefits (in the main this can be justified)

2. Overseas aid (why are we still giving aid to India??

3. Europe (Another layer of bureaucracy, what do we get and how can we solve our problems when the required decisions are not within our power to take?

4. Mass Immigration - this was the ultimate Labour deception done by the back door without the consutation or, in many cases, knowledge of the public. Immigration has to be capped / restricted to those with skills which we need

My answer, a least for the first small step, is vote UKIP.

Brunning999 wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: The extreme right wingers leaving their blinkered views on here should have their human being status revoked (because they are not normal humans) and be banned from expressing their opinions anywhere public.

If you EVER went behind the iron curtain which is VERY painfully obvious to me that you did not but if you did then you would know exactly what I object to passionately. I DID WORK BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN !! Freedom of the press by allowing comments is a luxury we take for granted, and must NEVER lose EVER. Extreme right and extreme left politics are truly truly terrible, and press freedom is non existent in fanatical countries neither is politics other than their selected politics. The problem with most extreme left or right political people is that because you do not agree with their politics you must be extreme opposite, which is foolish, very sad and very wrong, SC never looks in doors either side of a corridor he is extreme left and will go straight to the door at the end of a corridor missing life improvements in doors either side of the corridor. His view about Russian oil is an odd comment to make especially as he has ignored all the astrocoties committed in their communist past and their current mafia style future politics. Social welfare I agree for the deserving but it must be fair reasonable and sensible and most of all affordable, and to do that we must have more people paying in than taking out, my family feel they are doing over their share of paying in for drinkers, gamblers and heavy smokers or young designer clad chavs pushing prams in Southend town centre/ Shoeburyness etc with loads of unwanted kids and fighting dogs in toe often entering or leaving betting shops which are busy all day with parasites, a great shame SC does not see it because they are the ones which abuse your wanted political system JUST OPEN YOUR COMMY brainwashed EYES!!!

Brunning you are an idiot, and your assumptions are all wrong. As it happens I DID visit East Germany in the early eighties before the wall came down and it was one of the most sad, depressing places I have ever been to. But what on earth has this got to do with changes in housing benefit or anything else being discussed on this page? You are clearly obsessed with communism for some reason I do not understand. Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey.

Brunning999 wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:
we need a cultural shift in this country. kids in italy live at home into their 30s until they get married. moving out and expecting the state to pick up the tab is not an option. at the other end of life the elderly relatives are cared for by the same children. no sucking, no impregnating solely for the purposes of obtaining free accommodation. yes benefit junkies - there is a solution and it doesn't involve paying you money!

Well said the Socialist party started the welfare state with good intent, they started it when folk were thankful for it what they didn't have then I'd people that totally rely on it and contribute nothing whatsoever to it.

The Labour Party actually acknowledge the fact that we have to many benefit junkies and they will be no different from the current useless Government because they know reforms are necessary otherwise the Welfare system will collapse and that will be a tragedy.

Going back to local authority houses (us) any sensible,reasonable, caring person must admit living in a property to big for them is selfish, greedy and not true to the socialist values of sharing and caring.
I care do they ?

I agree, people benefits should be encouraged off benefits for better chances in life, aspiration is the goal that should be in the harts of many.

however.

until the housing market (both rented and owned) is brought down to obtainable levels individuals will be in no position to pay the astronomical rents and house prices of today's market. How can you expect anyone to aim for better. How can it be said that there is room at the top of society for everyone when there is nothing more at the top then a razor sharp pinnacle.

we need a few more rungs in the property ladder for people to climb. this does not include selling what little council housing we have left or tarring everyone with the same brush, despite the Tory impulse to do so...

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

How do any of your arguments apply to the people I mentioned? To recap...
.
"I know two of these people, they are both elderly ladies in their 80s whose deceased husbands were respectively a postman and a dustman in the days when a postmans/dustmans wages simply weren't enough to cover a mortgage. These elderly ladies have lived most of their lives in their houses and you uncaring lot want to throw them out? Bet you wouldn't say that if they were your Mothers". (copied from previous posting)
.
If any of you knew anything at all about this subject you would know that the vast majority of people in Council housing are also elderly, like the two ladies I mention above (many are the original tenants who moved in during the 50s when most Council housing was built). Incidentally I happen to know that neither of them claims benefits, they both receive state pensions plus works pensions, either their own and/or their ex husbands, so they don't qualify for housing benefit. They have to pay full rent and by law their Council rent has to cover all costs associated with the housing - Councils are actually very efficient housing providers, far better than any "social" or private landlord. Also the article does not differentiate between Council and private tenants but there is no doubt that the real burden is mostly down to profiteering private landlords who charge excessive rents which the Council are then obliged to pay. Get your facts right!

Brunning999 wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote:
The extreme right wingers leaving their blinkered views on here should have their human being status revoked (because they are not normal humans) and be banned from expressing their opinions anywhere public.

If you EVER went behind the iron curtain which is VERY painfully obvious to me that you did not but if you did then you would know exactly what I object to passionately.

I DID WORK BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN !!

Freedom of the press by allowing comments is a luxury we take for granted, and must NEVER lose EVER.

Extreme right and extreme left politics are truly truly terrible, and press freedom is non existent in fanatical countries neither is politics other than their selected politics.

The problem with most extreme left or right political people is that because you do not agree with their politics you must be extreme opposite, which is foolish, very sad and very wrong, SC never looks in doors either side of a corridor he is extreme left and will go straight to the door at the end of a corridor missing life improvements in doors either side of the corridor.

His view about Russian oil is an odd comment to make especially as he has ignored all the astrocoties committed in their communist past and their current mafia style future politics.

Social welfare I agree for the deserving but it must be fair reasonable and sensible and most of all affordable, and to do that we must have more people paying in than taking out, my family feel they are doing over their share of paying in for drinkers, gamblers and heavy smokers or young designer clad chavs pushing prams in Southend town centre/ Shoeburyness etc with loads of unwanted kids and fighting dogs in toe often entering or leaving betting shops which are busy all day with parasites, a great shame SC does not see it because they are the ones which abuse your wanted political system JUST OPEN YOUR COMMY brainwashed EYES!!!

Firstly, as I have mentioned to you before, I actually have worked in Russia. I also took an interest in their politics, read up on their version of democracy and, guess what? I actually believe it is a better system than ours. It is not party divided but rather you vote for the person that you think would best represent your interest. This means that the leadership is built from the bottom up, so the wishes of the lowest are carried to the top. Compare this with what we have now. General election nomination £500 that is the first barrier. Choice of candidates. with the majority parties, the party choose your representitive so, unless you affiliate to that party, you have their choice not yours.

"Just open your Commie brainwashed eyes?" That I think takes the biscuit. Pick any comment anywhere you like on these pages. Tell me who is not quoting the rules and apportioning the blame according to what is printed in the right wing press.

Who on here do you really believe to be communist? What does it matter if they are? You believe in democracy? Then why the hell do you make that kind of insulting statement about someone who does not do exactly what you would have them do? That is pure Eliteism, and whatever way you phrase it, it shows your true belief.
Your next statement will probably read: "We all have the same opportunity to do as well as anyone else!" ( The flagship right wing statement) so if you claim that belief then you are and can only be, a true right wing politician. As such you should admit it and print your real name!

Just out of interest, what did you do behind the iron curtain?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

Not much point. Unless you are PAYE you won't pay the taxes anyway, according to even the tory Government that is!

Of course, put everyone on some form of PAYE with equal rules and perhaps you could then have grounds to moan about what it is spent on!

Nobody though, seems to take up the argument of applying limits to childbirth on those who have a child and no means of supporting that one, so how do they get "All expenses paid" on the next five or six kids they manage not to avoid? I think it is because the right wing Governments (who avoid taxes) want people like you to moan about benefits and so do all you can to stop them.

The old old Tory weapons of mass destraction being used again!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

so the parents are council tenants and their children are now expecting housing benefit having moved from the council funded accommodation to be "nearer to their place of work". what a virtuous circle you draw. so their place of work doesn't pay them a high enough wage to rent a room somewhere?

do they need their bottoms wiped too?

Two of my old neighbours live in houses that are now too big for them. The older lady's mother died and she's now living in a two bedroom house by herself. The other was living with her daughter and her mother until the mother died. That's a three bed house for two people. And they aren't being moved because it would be too upsetting for them.

asbo industries inc wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

so the parents are council tenants and their children are now expecting housing benefit having moved from the council funded accommodation to be "nearer to their place of work". what a virtuous circle you draw. so their place of work doesn't pay them a high enough wage to rent a room somewhere?

No their pay doesn't cover it. The truth is the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to working families.

As I said, the problem is too high rents and too low wages, but you tories won't do anything about that.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

So you would prefer them to not move to where there is work? To remain unemployed?

You complain when people are unemployed and draw benefits.

Now you complain when they look for work but have to draw benefits in order to afford to live where the work is.

Make your mind up.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote: I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits. So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties. Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong? Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights. If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it. As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE. Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords. Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords. The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that. AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

so the parents are council tenants and their children are now expecting housing benefit having moved from the council funded accommodation to be "nearer to their place of work". what a virtuous circle you draw. so their place of work doesn't pay them a high enough wage to rent a room somewhere?

No their pay doesn't cover it. The truth is the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to working families. As I said, the problem is too high rents and too low wages, but you tories won't do anything about that.

Too true SC.
.
Alimac69, so these people you know have a whole box room spare do they? Oh horrors! Let's demonise them for having a spare box room like the Tory Govt is demonising the disabled right now. Do you by any chance have a box room not occupied, like most people do? Your comment is pathetic.

Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves.

With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life!

I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Easy target syndrome is not just for right wingers then?

Devils Advocate wrote:
Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Easy target syndrome is not just for right wingers then?

Not an easy target, just the case that proves the rank hypocrisy of tories, they condemn the lower classes when the draw benefits but turn a blind eye to the biggest ponce in the country.

Crazy Brunning ... "I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits. So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties".
.
MOST recipients of Housing Benefit are working, that is a fact. Also Housing Benefit does not come from Council Tax, it is paid for out of the national tax pot. And you should be grateful for Council housing as the Councils are much more cost effective at providing housing than private landlords. If all rented accomodation was privately owned the Housing Benefit cost would be much higher.
.
"Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?"
.
You are thinking wrong, as usual. Until we become a police state an Englishmans home is his castle, by law, whether it is owned or rented. Fact.
.
As usual loads of people are leaving derogatory comments without knowing the first thing about this issue. I call that dumb.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Easy target syndrome is not just for right wingers then?

Not an easy target, just the case that proves the rank hypocrisy of tories, they condemn the lower classes when the draw benefits but turn a blind eye to the biggest ponce in the country.

There are many on the civil list who fit your description. Duchesses of this and that, Dukes of the other who do nothing for this country whatsoever. Yet you choose to use the Q as an example (all be it a poor one).

Are the French in any better condition than we are? No - because the real problem is the EU, the new layer of royalty in our time.

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Easy target syndrome is not just for right wingers then?

Not an easy target, just the case that proves the rank hypocrisy of tories, they condemn the lower classes when the draw benefits but turn a blind eye to the biggest ponce in the country.

There are many on the civil list who fit your description. Duchesses of this and that, Dukes of the other who do nothing for this country whatsoever. Yet you choose to use the Q as an example (all be it a poor one).

Are the French in any better condition than we are? No - because the real problem is the EU, the new layer of royalty in our time.

Yes, because they had the foresight to rid themselves of their 'aristocracy'.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Here's a benefit scrounging sponger who has far too many rooms in her house: http://bit.ly/VDNrK4

Easy target syndrome is not just for right wingers then?

Not an easy target, just the case that proves the rank hypocrisy of tories, they condemn the lower classes when the draw benefits but turn a blind eye to the biggest ponce in the country.

There are many on the civil list who fit your description. Duchesses of this and that, Dukes of the other who do nothing for this country whatsoever. Yet you choose to use the Q as an example (all be it a poor one). Are the French in any better condition than we are? No - because the real problem is the EU, the new layer of royalty in our time.

Yes, because they had the foresight to rid themselves of their 'aristocracy'.

...and that makes so much real difference today between austerity here and austerity in France. Bring back the guilotine and look out for the pimpernel.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

so the parents are council tenants and their children are now expecting housing benefit having moved from the council funded accommodation to be "nearer to their place of work". what a virtuous circle you draw. so their place of work doesn't pay them a high enough wage to rent a room somewhere?

No their pay doesn't cover it. The truth is the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to working families.

As I said, the problem is too high rents and too low wages, but you tories won't do anything about that.

so many hard luck stories. so can't afford £60 to rent a room. landlord rents at the lower end have historically been driven by overly generous housing benefits.
you'd better get some more andrex...your mission is clear.

Interesting defence by the old left wing comrades who cannot actually defend anti Social 'ist' behaviour as is happening by some lonely tenants of municipal housing.

Surely if you are a real Socialist you must believe in providing municipal provided properties to the long waiting list of homeless folk!

And one way of doing it is by control of the masses as is done in Socialist countries past and present, and a good start would be comrades sharing wealth and living conditions so Mum or Dad please move out of you 3 bedroom municipal house owned by the comrades into a smaller municipal house also owned by your fellow comrades.

SIMPLE !! That's brotherly and sisterly love surely.

Or will the comrades argue yet again right and wrong or even blame me for the housing shortage.

Brunning999 wrote:
Interesting defence by the old left wing comrades who cannot actually defend anti Social 'ist' behaviour as is happening by some lonely tenants of municipal housing. Surely if you are a real Socialist you must believe in providing municipal provided properties to the long waiting list of homeless folk! And one way of doing it is by control of the masses as is done in Socialist countries past and present, and a good start would be comrades sharing wealth and living conditions so Mum or Dad please move out of you 3 bedroom municipal house owned by the comrades into a smaller municipal house also owned by your fellow comrades. SIMPLE !! That's brotherly and sisterly love surely. Or will the comrades argue yet again right and wrong or even blame me for the housing shortage.

No such thing as socialism in the UK, just politicians greedy for power who are to blame for everything that is wrong with the country today.

Brunning999 wrote:
Interesting defence by the old left wing comrades who cannot actually defend anti Social 'ist' behaviour as is happening by some lonely tenants of municipal housing.

Surely if you are a real Socialist you must believe in providing municipal provided properties to the long waiting list of homeless folk!

And one way of doing it is by control of the masses as is done in Socialist countries past and present, and a good start would be comrades sharing wealth and living conditions so Mum or Dad please move out of you 3 bedroom municipal house owned by the comrades into a smaller municipal house also owned by your fellow comrades.

SIMPLE !! That's brotherly and sisterly love surely.

Or will the comrades argue yet again right and wrong or even blame me for the housing shortage.

Go back to the 1950s and take your dinosaur opinions with you.

spot the poncing sector employees on the blog. no knowledge of rocket science required...

question....what happens when the poncing sector gets bigger than the private sector? answer moving to china might be the best option

Spot the blinkered right wingers who really should get out more.

what's up old man...couldn't cut it in the private sector?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

So you would prefer them to not move to where there is work? To remain unemployed?

You complain when people are unemployed and draw benefits.

Now you complain when they look for work but have to draw benefits in order to afford to live where the work is.

Make your mind up.

What job did they get that doesn't pay enough to rent a room? Or do the children expect their own house or flat from day 1?

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

So you would prefer them to not move to where there is work? To remain unemployed?

You complain when people are unemployed and draw benefits.

Now you complain when they look for work but have to draw benefits in order to afford to live where the work is.

Make your mind up.

What job did they get that doesn't pay enough to rent a room? Or do the children expect their own house or flat from day 1?

And what about those in their twenties in relationships? On the news tonight there was an item about sky high rent and low pay forcing people out of London. People like nurses and teachers.

You tories haven't got a clue.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

So you would prefer them to not move to where there is work? To remain unemployed?

You complain when people are unemployed and draw benefits.

Now you complain when they look for work but have to draw benefits in order to afford to live where the work is.

Make your mind up.

What job did they get that doesn't pay enough to rent a room? Or do the children expect their own house or flat from day 1?

And what about those in their twenties in relationships? On the news tonight there was an item about sky high rent and low pay forcing people out of London. People like nurses and teachers.

You tories haven't got a clue.

er commute

a chemistry teacher at whsb until last year lived in birmingham and rented a room locally during the week. there are other non locals there who do the same. no hard luck stories just rolled up sleeves and hard work

asbo industries inc wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
I would love to know how many people are actually paying no rent whatsoever by getting full housing benefits.

So please do not tell me that tax payers are not paying for council properties.

Surely if you do not own property you would not expect to be able to do whatever you want,when you want or am I thinking wrong?

Finally as for decorating etc the choice is yours you make it look nice for your use that does not give you exclusive rights.

If the house is to big for your use and you are living housing benefit paid by the taxpayers don't be greedy allow a family that needs it have it.

As for your kids returning home TOUGH sleep on tne kitchen floor what right have kids that are grown up and left home have answer NONE.

Just do tne right thing give up your big rented house to someone that needs it that is common sense.

How does that apply when kids who have left home, are working but need help with rent, and the tories remove housing benefit for under 25s? They can't go 'home' because their parents have been moved to smaller accommodation because they had too many bedrooms. So where do they go? Onto the streets? Tory Victorian values at work again, creating more homeless, more slums run by more slumlords.

Typical right-wing thinking. They can't see that the problem is soaring rents and low pay, they won't cap rents because most landlords are tory voters or tory ministers, they won't provide more council housing because Reich Chancellor Thatcher sold it off, so more and more housing benefit drains out of the system and straight into the pockets of private landlords.

The tories sold off social housing, and now we are seeing the result of that.


AS for forcibly moving people from larger to smaller accommodation, that means filling up bedsitland with poorer people. That sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me. But then the tories are no strangers to gerrymandering, I remember the homes for votes gerrymandering that went on at Westminster council under Shirley Porter.

Why did they move out in the first place, if they can't afford to buy or rent their own place? If they stayed at home then they would be better off, and their parents would not be moved.

It hasn't crossed your mind that they moved to be near their work?

So they made a conscious choice to move, and expect you or me to pay for their choice?
Why don't we just tax everyone at 100 percent, and then you can dish out all the money as you see fit.

So you would prefer them to not move to where there is work? To remain unemployed?

You complain when people are unemployed and draw benefits.

Now you complain when they look for work but have to draw benefits in order to afford to live where the work is.

Make your mind up.

What job did they get that doesn't pay enough to rent a room? Or do the children expect their own house or flat from day 1?

And what about those in their twenties in relationships? On the news tonight there was an item about sky high rent and low pay forcing people out of London. People like nurses and teachers.

You tories haven't got a clue.

er commute

They need to live near their jobs because the costs of commuting are too high. You tories haven't got a clue.

ever heard of london weighting?

asbo industries inc wrote:
ever heard of london weighting?

You mean the payment with no set amount which varies enormously between employers and which rarely meets the extra costs of sky high London rents, or sky high commuting costs around London? Is that the London weighting you mean?

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:
Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement.

If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage.

Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires.

Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants.

Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea.

This is in regard to the miners.

When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning.

As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

As for the view that council houses are "social housing" this is not the USA or Canada. Social housing is an entirely different concept. The majority of hard working people lived in council houses. Many many still do. why do you aim your vindictive venom at those honest souls that worked hard and were underpaid, thus preventing any advancement in their standards?

al coniston wrote:
Personally, i believe that benefits should be by means of vouchers (such as luncheon vouchers) and not hard cash that is used on holidays, cigarettes and alcohol !

I have to work hard to provide for me and my family, and live within my means without handouts allowing me to fund a lifestyle which i could not fund myself !

the biggest problem is scrounging MP's, i say we cut all their perks etc and make them live on a single wage :)

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot.

Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case.

Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have.

The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it.

The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

largo1 wrote:

al coniston wrote:
Personally, i believe that benefits should be by means of vouchers (such as luncheon vouchers) and not hard cash that is used on holidays, cigarettes and alcohol !

I have to work hard to provide for me and my family, and live within my means without handouts allowing me to fund a lifestyle which i could not fund myself !

the biggest problem is scrounging MP's, i say we cut all their perks etc and make them live on a single wage :)

second that!

I believe it depends to an extent on who the registered rent payer is.

I know of a house where a family has lived ever since I have known them.(early 50s)

Now it's just the mother and daughter living there. The mother is in her 90s and the daughter 60.

When the mother dies, the daughter will be left in a three bedroomed house.

Should she then move into a flat, and give up the house to a family on the waiting list ?

Probably yes

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot.

Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case.

Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have.

The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it.

The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

It's about time we looked at reopening the mines.

Nebs wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot.

Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case.

Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have.

The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it.

The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

It's about time we looked at reopening the mines.

The mines that were closed by the tories.

Nebs wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot. Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case. Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have. The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it. The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

It's about time we looked at reopening the mines.

What planet do you live on? We have known since the late 60s that coal is the most damaging, most polluting fuel on earth and that we had to stop using it. Now you are suggesting that we start burning coal again? You are only forty years behind the times. Doh.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot.

Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case.

Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have.

The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it.

The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

It's about time we looked at reopening the mines.

The mines that were closed by the tories.

yep.. though British coal is high in sulphur content which has environmental implications (though the sulphur can be scrubbed using filters). there remains massive seems of coal as yet un-mined and the pits that where in use in the 1980's prior to state closure where only 40% extracted. our greatest source of fuel security lay under our feet in this country. its just economics. open cast mining is devastating to the environment but its cheap. that's why we are coal rich in this country yet we import over 90% of our coal for our power stations.

Tory socio-economics!

with investment and modern extraction methods we could mine in this country and secure our fuel needs whilst being non-reliant on Russian gas..

It is a totally different situation today with no comparison to the past.

"its just economics" Jayman? A shame nobody could explain that to king Arthur at the time - and coal was worth less back then. It is notable that nobody here has attempted to justify the wage demands being made by the miners in the 70s.

asbo industries inc wrote:
one month's notice either side. gotta keep the scroungers on their toes

think you'll find MP's are the biggest scroungers.

jayman wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot. Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case. Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have. The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it. The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

It's about time we looked at reopening the mines.

The mines that were closed by the tories.

yep.. though British coal is high in sulphur content which has environmental implications (though the sulphur can be scrubbed using filters). there remains massive seems of coal as yet un-mined and the pits that where in use in the 1980's prior to state closure where only 40% extracted. our greatest source of fuel security lay under our feet in this country. its just economics. open cast mining is devastating to the environment but its cheap. that's why we are coal rich in this country yet we import over 90% of our coal for our power stations. Tory socio-economics! with investment and modern extraction methods we could mine in this country and secure our fuel needs whilst being non-reliant on Russian gas..

Rubbish! Scrubbers cost a fortune and don't work very well and it's not only excess sulphur that's the problem. And out remaining coal fired power stations have to GO. Asap.

largo1 wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:
one month's notice either side. gotta keep the scroungers on their toes

think you'll find MP's are the biggest scroungers.

top of the list margaret moran. but it's a drop in the bucket (600 mps vs 6mio benefit scroungers) so let's try to keep it in context.

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Isn't it funny how the middle always manage to carp about those under themselves but never about those above themselves. With the desperation of these tory created "Hard times" is it surprising that some of the "middle classes" could afford to buy a £160,000 car for their wife's pleasure this August, spend three months of this year abroad, live in a 12 bedroom house, of which only four are occupied, then tell us about hard times being upon us. The cost of that one car is more than what a lot of real working people can afford on a lifetime mortgage, but this is never mentioned by the wannabies that provide the middle ground barrier between the haves and the have nots, thus preserving the "Investors" way of life! I also dropped the capital off of tory because I am sick of their capitalisation. Making money out of money is like vampirism. Leeching of the work of others!

If you have a good business idea do you expect, or even consider it right, for the finance to be free?

A good business idea. what an immensly grand yet simple statement. If you would answer me one or two honesties. You contract someone to work full time for you. You are then expected to pay him a living wage. Should that wage be enough for that person to enable him to pay cash for food for his family, clothe his family, provide accomodation for his family. Maintain their health/ welfare and enable him to live on a comfortable pension when he retires. Before you enter too far into my little quiz, remember that lunch for the employer meant, in most employers cases a 9 course meal delivered by servants. Lunch for the worker meant a couple of slices of bread and jam along with cold tea. This is in regard to the miners. When you can truthfully answer that simple question, then I will move on to stand by savings, wild investment savings gilt edge returns and loads of other claptrap where your "man with business idea" pays someone to manage his investments in the risk quadrent. He does not have to work, he has millions in "safe" money and cannot possibly go broke. But, it is the workforce who actually do the hands on money earning. As you think your way through the working class dilemma, try to imaging why the socialists began building Council houses. Then try to understand why the worker could not afford to buy his own house, especially when he worked 12 hour days yet did no make enough money to pay for his food as he needed it. Do you think this was in the dark ages?

If that was simple question i would hate to see a complicated one but i will give it a shot.

Firstly, You are under the misapprehension that everyone who owns a business is very rich and has some kind of duty to provide for everybody else. This is just not the case.

Also the idea that many investors are so rich they could not possilbly go bust is wrong. Ever heard of Lloyds names? Gambling money away is very easy no matter how much you have.

The average business man has had no more than an average start in life. But they have had an idea, worked to secure (and yes, pay for) the finance, and work even harder to keep the company afloat in hard times. If they employ someone full time, the salary of that employee is dictated only by that employee's value to the company. i.e. Their capability, skills, productivity and potential to further develop the business. This is not a box! it is exactly what the employee want to make out of it.

The world has changed a lot since the miners strike and people have to change with it. I do remember very well the lights going out and evenings spent lighting candles. I also remember that the miners were already on a wage far in excess of anything the average worker could dream about when their union decided to flex its muscles and hold the rest of the country hostage to strike. Thatcher is always blamed for the demise of the mining industry but, would if have happened if Scargill had not brought down a previous government through pure greed?

You are so wrong on so many counts. But, first and foremost, you have the "Miner's wealth" totally wrong. There were far more better paid jobs with every single element better than the miners lot.

You remember sitting without lights? Good. Have a taste of the miners life. they had to work under that light. Now add the thick dust, the high humidity, the cramped conditions, the high risk element and you begin to see why many men, given the choice of fighting or the mines, opted for the bullets.

The miners settlement at the end of the first strike was a rise given accross 18 months. That devalued the rise by a third. And the rise included lots of little conditions.

The "18 month" settlement was to move the miners from the critical time that gave them strength.

As a power worker I had then to partake in the build up to the most orchestrated counter strike ever. We had to increase our sustainability to outlast the miners. Then, when all was ready, The incomplete list of mine closures was leaked. Arthur Scargill was completely boxed, he had no options left but to take the action he did. the government denial of the list they leaked was given maximum publicity, at the same time as the Derbyshire section was baited to return to work on a false promise. The rest was history. Your love of thatcher probably blinded you to the baiting she did to precipitate Argentina's action as well!
Do you really believe the miners went on strike through pure greed? Then you are a political fool!
There is a mine in Wakefield you can visit. It is free, and you get the chance to go underground and learn the facts of the miners life and demise. Please go and listen and learn. I did. Then I read up on the history of miners. Do that, and I promise you will never claim the Tory propoganda as truth again.

there is no reason that british industry, british consumers and british taxpayers should subsidise loss making mines when there are cheaper alternatives elsewhere. this is before we even start talking about coal being the dirtiest fuel on the planet. alternative energy is the only way...oil at $120 per barrel should be a good thing...a break from our dependency on the arab producers not "let's re-activate our coal mines" omg!!

asbo industries inc wrote:
there is no reason that british industry, british consumers and british taxpayers should subsidise loss making mines when there are cheaper alternatives elsewhere. this is before we even start talking about coal being the dirtiest fuel on the planet. alternative energy is the only way...oil at $120 per barrel should be a good thing...a break from our dependency on the arab producers not "let's re-activate our coal mines" omg!!

But your party say they are going to begin open cast mining in this country. How do you stop this minority government from doing just that?

arthur scargill was the prime architect of the coal industry's demise in this country. he is a dinosaur without a femto-gram of foresight in his head.

Devils Advocate wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:
there is no reason that british industry, british consumers and british taxpayers should subsidise loss making mines when there are cheaper alternatives elsewhere. this is before we even start talking about coal being the dirtiest fuel on the planet. alternative energy is the only way...oil at $120 per barrel should be a good thing...a break from our dependency on the arab producers not "let's re-activate our coal mines" omg!!

But your party say they are going to begin open cast mining in this country. How do you stop this minority government from doing just that?

you are mistaken if you think the current rabble are my party. would gordon bust and clegg the phony have been a more legitimate minority government for you?

asbo industries inc wrote:
arthur scargill was the prime architect of the coal industry's demise in this country. he is a dinosaur without a femto-gram of foresight in his head.

That is not true. I have just rattled on and on about the end of the mining industry told you how I arrived at my opinion and you just blithely continue your Sun worshipping statements.

Just try this: You are the NUM leader. You obtain (are actually fed) a leaked document that claims all the mines on that document are to close, most of your members are about to be slung out on their ear. As their leader you need to act.
(Incidentally, there was an authentic documentary about this on the TV. It is not secret.)
Now, you called Mr. Scargill a lot of offensive names.
So, tell us briefly, how would your strategy differ from his. (Remember, the Thatcher Government's think tank worked for a couple of years planning this trap, but you don't know that!)

Ready...... Go!

If Scargill had any sense he would have grasped that coal was the fuel of the past and bowed out quietly. Who cares about Scargill and his rabble rousers now, they are all history.

Aint it just the truth wrote:
If Scargill had any sense he would have grasped that coal was the fuel of the past and bowed out quietly. Who cares about Scargill and his rabble rousers now, they are all history.

Well, with that leadership and foresight you have just displayed I am truly overawed. I take it your not a worker, or you would realise how much those "Rabble rousers" achieved!

Sadly you are: Don't care. I'm OK . Why the hell do you bother writing on here?

So the solution is, (your version) "I am a leader of a Trades Union, My members, who look to me for leadership, are about to see their lives, their families, their whole communities ground under the Jackboot of the evil Missus. Right Jeeves, start the car.

You just scored major points in the fight for fairness of the slave society.
Back to the late 1800's you go.

By the way, Nuclear energy was developed in this country to build first the atom, then, with the help of the USA, the Hydrogen bomb. It is looking more and more likely you will see the result of my colleague's hard work in that field. This so called "Recovery" is very much like all previous Antebellums. Sadly I will not be here. Enjoy!

if all these coal mines were so viable why has private money, after 30 years, not reopened any of them? their existence was funded by the taxpayer and we were better off without them.

asbo industries inc wrote:

largo1 wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:
one month's notice either side. gotta keep the scroungers on their toes

think you'll find MP's are the biggest scroungers.

top of the list margaret moran. but it's a drop in the bucket (600 mps vs 6mio benefit scroungers) so let's try to keep it in context.

On thing I would ask because I am not sure of your figures.

How do you arrive at your figure for "Benefit scroungers?"

How many people do you think are receiving benefits and are not Scroungers?

Are you saying that everybody who receives state benefit are scroungers, or are the ones you write about known to be scrounging?

When you say benefit, do your figures include only those without work or do they also include those who are unfit to work. If it includes the unfit, what percentage of those are genuinely unfit and how many are swinging the lead?

If you absolutely know who are genuine then you are a sight better than those paid to decide who is ill and who is not. (Regarding recent "Get them back to work!" decisions made by a certain doctor!)

I think you are on dangerously right wing ground when and if you start mixing you beliefs with facts. There are a lot of unfortunates who are on benefits because of industrial injuries etc. so please tell us.

How do you know your "Scrounger" figure is right? I bet there are a lot of disabled people hanging on your words right now, Even if only to find out what 6mio is!

there are more than 5mio people in the UK claiming housing benefit alone.
did you not see the recent report that 1 third of incapacity benefit claimants assessed between dec11 and feb12 were deemed fit for work? extrapolate that across total of 2.6mio incapacity benefit claimants.

Lets take the emotion out for a minute and just look at the known (checkable)facts.

--

In 1972 inflation was at 3.5% but by 1974 it had risen to between 10 to 12% depending on which source you are looking at. In 1972 the miners were at the TOP of the earnings league table but by 1974 they were 18th. The original pay demand made by the miners before the second strike was for an increase of 45%. The final agreement after the Heath government was fully defeated was for 27% plus a raft of other concessions.

--

It is not just the lights going out that i remember. In 1972 the average house was heated with a coal fire. Central heating was a dream and smokeless zones were a fantasy.

The effects on huge numbers of people unconnected to mining or politics were immense. Secondary picketing and propoganda left people who were earning much less than miners unable to earn anything. Almost 2 million people were laid off during the 3 day week. My father was a socialist and he thought he was doing the right thing at the time showing solidarity with the strikers. The miners did not care for him or the many like him. The strike was about greed and it is him (and you) who are blind.

--

It is clear that coal mining is a dangerous industry. Today there is still no cure for the variety of lung deseases caused or vibration white finger. Add in your own previous comments and todays compensation culture and why would anybody want to bring coal mining back?

Alekhine.

Firstly, the miners had seen a drop in their living standards which effectively amounted to a percentage pay cut way beyond any other sector.

Ted Heath was, somewhat surprisingly for many of us, the first Prime minister to link pay to the cost of living.It also made him the first Tory politician to try to move towards the only creed I ever believed in, A fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Sadly, with a little help from the far right, it became an inflation spiral. But Full marks Mr. Heath for trying to be fair.

You did not mention the fact that the miners had to agree to an 18 month agreement, which was, in fact, the largest single factor of their demise.

You did not mention the Tory denial of pit closures and the "There is no list."

I too am a lifetime socialist as was my father before me.

However, as I mentioned I was part of the demise of the miners because we had to build the defences against the expected long and protacted strike the government had prepared for (I was a power worker).

To say the miners did not care for other workers such as your father is, I feel, an unwarrented accusation. They believed they were fighting for their very existence. They also asked for help from other people to try and preserve their very way of existence. Sadly, carefully crafted politics and Tory "Reform" of the Trades Unions had influenced far too many working people, plus the fact, believe it or not, the TV's had gone off. that alone was enough to make peoples blood boil.

Did you know that, when my industry went on a work to rule, which led to the Wilberforce inquiry, Area electricity board engineers were instructed to switch off supplies to some hospitals to help lose support for the power workers.

The resulting death was given much unfair publicity in order to achieve this.

It was shown to be untrue in the inquiry, but no heads rolled in the guilty party for what would amount to manslaughter!

The press was given instructions in those major disputes and, with the miners police were used for political purposes for the first time.

Yes, miners were on a hiding to no where with their health problems. I have a few friends who were miners and suffered from pneumosilicosis, (please forgive spelling) which led to their early demise, (Incidentally, there was a highrate of Bronchial disease in Coal fired power stations!)

But, what would be good to understand for everybody is the fact that in the vast majority of cases, workers were barrack room lawyers, trying to continue their day to day lives whilst also trying to improve their impoverished living conditions in the only way they could. They were up against huge conglomerates that had whole armies of lawyers behind them, and a media controlled by the right wing people. Was it ever surprising that the workers were defeated?
Then there was Fords, who brought down the Labour Government and used provoked strikes to cover their over prodution, but that's better best forgotten?

The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Aint it just the truth wrote:
The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Well, as before you sre ill informed and politically driven in that cause. However, because you shoose not to discuss the truth but only keep knocking out your propoganda, welcome to 6 more years of your version of the truth, with no one to defend your corner. Hope you like the Austerity that will arrive at your doorstep soon. Who will you blame for that? For sure it won't be Labour or Scargill! Even brainwashed morons will have to come to terms with the truth soon!

Oh, and when do you think the real damage to the environment started? Before or after we drowned the coal mines! Could actually pay you to read a little about combustion chemistry, and what gases do what!

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote:
The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Well, as before you sre ill informed and politically driven in that cause. However, because you shoose not to discuss the truth but only keep knocking out your propoganda, welcome to 6 more years of your version of the truth, with no one to defend your corner. Hope you like the Austerity that will arrive at your doorstep soon. Who will you blame for that? For sure it won't be Labour or Scargill! Even brainwashed morons will have to come to terms with the truth soon!

Oh, and when do you think the real damage to the environment started? Before or after we drowned the coal mines! Could actually pay you to read a little about combustion chemistry, and what gases do what!

this is not about politics - it's about common sense. why would you keep subsidising a loss making business? the loss making business being the extraction of the dirtiest fuel on the planet.

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Well, as before you sre ill informed and politically driven in that cause. However, because you shoose not to discuss the truth but only keep knocking out your propoganda, welcome to 6 more years of your version of the truth, with no one to defend your corner. Hope you like the Austerity that will arrive at your doorstep soon. Who will you blame for that? For sure it won't be Labour or Scargill! Even brainwashed morons will have to come to terms with the truth soon! Oh, and when do you think the real damage to the environment started? Before or after we drowned the coal mines! Could actually pay you to read a little about combustion chemistry, and what gases do what!

I am not political at all, and I have a science degree so don't patronise me. Coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, fact, and Scargill was a loud mouthed blinkered muppet, fact. It is you who is the narrow minded political nerd matey, not me.

austerity may not be good for the mood but it's good for the soul. bring it on.

Aint it just the truth wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Well, as before you sre ill informed and politically driven in that cause. However, because you shoose not to discuss the truth but only keep knocking out your propoganda, welcome to 6 more years of your version of the truth, with no one to defend your corner. Hope you like the Austerity that will arrive at your doorstep soon. Who will you blame for that? For sure it won't be Labour or Scargill! Even brainwashed morons will have to come to terms with the truth soon! Oh, and when do you think the real damage to the environment started? Before or after we drowned the coal mines! Could actually pay you to read a little about combustion chemistry, and what gases do what!

I am not political at all, and I have a science degree so don't patronise me. Coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, fact, and Scargill was a loud mouthed blinkered muppet, fact. It is you who is the narrow minded political nerd matey, not me.

Yipee! then you know coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet!
I try not to patronise anybody, and I will not boast my education.

So please help me. Teach me a little if you can. Chernobyl shocked most scientists as you know, because of the mistake they made about the half life of Strontium 90.

How come you think that nuclear fuels are cleaner than coal, when the measured half life after two years of weathering and recycling actually increased?

You will have read about the rotational speed of the earth and the fractional reduction of it's speed when large tidal stations go online. Not harmful?

I worked in a triple powered generating station. We had a very efficient sulphur extraction sytem which effectively reduced sulphur Dioxide levels to lows that were well below the EEC demands.

When we ran gas, we produced very high levels of carbon Dioxide, you know what that is chief among. Which fuel, considering the effective emission rates of the gases concerned, was actually the dirtiest.

With the modern designs (on paper) of coal fired stations the mean level of Sulphur dioxide is going to be negligable.

Scargill was the leader of the miners. He had the job of trying to defend the miners. He was set up to be the fall guy by people who were working as a co-ordinated team, employing the best legal brains in the country.

Blinkered? He showed the press the list of closures he had obtained, and did his best to save the jobs of the miners. Money was not the factor in that dispute, but you know that.

Loud mouthed? If you say so. muppet? I thought that was a TV show.

As for narrow minded political nerd, maybe you are right.

I studied a little science, but I still do not understand how the most basic force that allows us all to live in harmony on this planet works.

So what exactly is Gravity? I do know it is an energy form but, how?

We obviously will never agree on political subjects so divert me on that one can you?

You know when puff daddy is about as the comments always exceed 100 and the conversation turns into some childish banter about who is cleverer than who ....... Ology pfft !!!!!!

Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey."

Interesting statement you make there.

Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice?

As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China.

We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China.

Communism is dead? I don't think so.

And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

Devils Advocate wrote:
Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey."

Interesting statement you make there.

Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice?

As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China.

We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China.

Communism is dead? I don't think so.

And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:
Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey."

Interesting statement you make there.

Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice?

As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China.

We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China.

Communism is dead? I don't think so.

And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!

Devils Advocate wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:
Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey."

Interesting statement you make there.

Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice?

As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China.

We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China.

Communism is dead? I don't think so.

And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!

next time i'm in basildon i'll buy you a beer

So to summise. To resolve the issue with housing we need to open up the mines again.

Awesome discussion.

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey." Interesting statement you make there. Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice? As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China. We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China. Communism is dead? I don't think so. And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!

next time i'm in basildon i'll buy you a beer

Well, you know your history even if you have a different take on it from me.

I doubt that we invented slave labour, it was used by the Incas and Romans (bloody woamans and their woads). I have never figured out why we still whip ourselves about it almost 200 years after we (William Wilberforce) were the first to get it abolished.

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

Aint it just the truth wrote: The bottom line is that we have known since the late sixties that we had to stop burning coal because it damages the environment so much. Scargill and his cronies were fighting a losing battle from the start and they knew it but greed and their political views kept them going where more sensible people would have just walked away. I say good riddance to dinosaurs like Scargill and his kind.

Well, as before you sre ill informed and politically driven in that cause. However, because you shoose not to discuss the truth but only keep knocking out your propoganda, welcome to 6 more years of your version of the truth, with no one to defend your corner. Hope you like the Austerity that will arrive at your doorstep soon. Who will you blame for that? For sure it won't be Labour or Scargill! Even brainwashed morons will have to come to terms with the truth soon! Oh, and when do you think the real damage to the environment started? Before or after we drowned the coal mines! Could actually pay you to read a little about combustion chemistry, and what gases do what!

I am not political at all, and I have a science degree so don't patronise me. Coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, fact, and Scargill was a loud mouthed blinkered muppet, fact. It is you who is the narrow minded political nerd matey, not me.

Yipee! then you know coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet! I try not to patronise anybody, and I will not boast my education. So please help me. Teach me a little if you can. Chernobyl shocked most scientists as you know, because of the mistake they made about the half life of Strontium 90. How come you think that nuclear fuels are cleaner than coal, when the measured half life after two years of weathering and recycling actually increased? You will have read about the rotational speed of the earth and the fractional reduction of it's speed when large tidal stations go online. Not harmful? I worked in a triple powered generating station. We had a very efficient sulphur extraction sytem which effectively reduced sulphur Dioxide levels to lows that were well below the EEC demands. When we ran gas, we produced very high levels of carbon Dioxide, you know what that is chief among. Which fuel, considering the effective emission rates of the gases concerned, was actually the dirtiest. With the modern designs (on paper) of coal fired stations the mean level of Sulphur dioxide is going to be negligable. Scargill was the leader of the miners. He had the job of trying to defend the miners. He was set up to be the fall guy by people who were working as a co-ordinated team, employing the best legal brains in the country. Blinkered? He showed the press the list of closures he had obtained, and did his best to save the jobs of the miners. Money was not the factor in that dispute, but you know that. Loud mouthed? If you say so. muppet? I thought that was a TV show. As for narrow minded political nerd, maybe you are right. I studied a little science, but I still do not understand how the most basic force that allows us all to live in harmony on this planet works. So what exactly is Gravity? I do know it is an energy form but, how? We obviously will never agree on political subjects so divert me on that one can you?

Fool. Of course communism is dead, in truth there has never been a single proper communist state in the history of the earth, and that includes China. Have you ever actually read the Communist manifesto? Then you should know that what I am saying is true.
.
As for scrubbing sulphur dioxide in coal fired power stations, if you think sulphur is the only pollutant released then you are sadly mistaken, or incredibly biased. I would guess the latter judging by your support for that brainless extremist Scargill.
.
Of course we do not understand gravity yet but if you know anything at all about science you should also know that this is one of the few things we do not fully understand yet. Give it time.
.
You are clearly a blinkered Labour supporter who believes I support the Tories. I don't. I abhor the arrogant toffs and their war on the poor. However, I also despise the Labour party who chose to allow the recession to happen, who have ALWAYS messed the money up whenever they have been in power (true?) and who have destroyed this country by allowing loads of people into the country who should not be here. Maggie may have started it by opening the door but Blair did the real damage by flinging it wide open. If you disagree with that you should get out more. I will never again vote Labour but then I will never again vote for the nasty party either, they are all self seeking fools and liars.

DA ... "Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!”
.
Shame you don't know your history, slavery was endemic amongst the arab nations and others long before we got involved, not that we ever had many slaves in this country, and we were the first to ban slavery.

Alekhine wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey." Interesting statement you make there. Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice? As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China. We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China. Communism is dead? I don't think so. And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!

next time i'm in basildon i'll buy you a beer

Well, you know your history even if you have a different take on it from me.

I doubt that we invented slave labour, it was used by the Incas and Romans (bloody woamans and their woads). I have never figured out why we still whip ourselves about it almost 200 years after we (William Wilberforce) were the first to get it abolished.

you're right. if self flagellation was an olympic sport the brits would take gold every time.

Devils Advocate wrote:

asbo industries inc wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:
Aint it the truth: "Communism is dead, it is a footnote in history and has no relevance to anything being discussed here today. Get with it matey."

Interesting statement you make there.

Had the most progressive and rapidly becoming the most powerful country in the world, China actually escaped your notice?

As I mentioned in some of my earlier Nerdy politics, A large proportion of our day to day products, from laptops to Gillette razors and all stations to shoeburyness are now made in China.

We have huge amounts of money invested in that country. People have been thrown out of work by leading trougholites to enable their move of production to China.

Communism is dead? I don't think so.

And you said Arthur Scargill was blinkered? Missed that one didn't you matey?

communism is dead...god (don't) rest its soul. however slave labour is very much alive and well and thriving in china...(home of the sweat shop). wonder why they're able to produce crapp so cheaply?

Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!

buy british and vote with your feet. who needs disposable razors anyway...didn't the devil have a beard?

Aint it just the truth wrote:
DA ... "Dunno, but as the inventors of slave labour, someone here must know!”
.
Shame you don't know your history, slavery was endemic amongst the arab nations and others long before we got involved, not that we ever had many slaves in this country, and we were the first to ban slavery.

I'm on a hiding to nowhere here. Facts don't mean a thing. I do read my history, including modern history. I do know about the Egyptians and the Abbysinians, I also was aware of Arthur Scargill's position as the leader of the miners. What his job was and what he had to do. But of course, that will never make sense to a press governed truth. If you were a miner and your leader discovered that almost every one of the members that pay you to guide them through difficult times, would you then say, "Sorry lads, I'm gone?"
Your tory government played all there aces in one go. Thousands upon thousands of jobs on the line, they really left him no choice!

Did you know who the main slave traders were with the USA?
Do you know about Serfdom? Do you know how apprenticeships' were first used? Do you know about the "Day underground" that young boys had to be able to do to be able to becoma an apprentice? Did you know that the apprenticeship would not allow them to leave the job, let alone the village in which they lived? I have read a little about miners history.
Anyway, in all fairness, I am totally on the side of the decent hard working man and his trades union and what they acheived in this country for every single person who works for another.

Oh, and for those who fully understand Communism on here, how come they never mentioned the Kabutz?