Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Govement u-turn

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315362 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 10:38 PM


Quote: Why else would the houses have been sold for knockdown prices?

To stimulate the housing market and encourage people to get off there arses, this actually worked, but it backfired, local authorities ended up getting capped, and nobody wanted new housing estates to be built on greenbelt land.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 8 Feb 2013 - 10:39 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
8 Feb 2013 - 10:38 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 10:56 PM


Quote: Maybe it's fair and I'm an old curmudgeon but I feel that if we make working and ambition worth little more than not being so, we are subverting something important

I fear its not a new thing Lemmy, also back in the '60s I rmember a conversation where a proud mum was telling her mates down the pub that her son had done alright for himself, he'd "got on the social" and they'd sorted him out with a flat. Once he got married they'd "have to give him a proper house" (it stuck in my mind because I was engaged to be married at the time, working full time was bringing in less than £500 / year and my digs were costing me around £400 / year, seemed I was wasting my time trying to make a career and pay my way)

I think its just become more prevalent and socially acceptable these days.

Mind you, consider the defintion of "Poverty" set by the previous Government:


Quote: Poverty is defined by the Government as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is the income earned by the household in the middle of the income distribution.[26]

In the year 2004/2005, the 60% threshold was worth £183 per week for a two adult household, £100 per week for a single adult, £268 per week for two adults living with two children, and £186 per week for a single adult living with two children. This sum of money is after income tax and national insurance have been deducted from earnings and after council tax, rent, mortgage and water charges have been paid. It is therefore what a household has available to spend on everything else it needs.[27]


which means that how ever the economy improves and the distribution of wealth changes we will always have people defined as being "in poverty" in the UK (unless of course everyone earns exactly the same amount of money after the above deductions)

So long as we live in this sort of insane asylum the problems we have will never be faced and hence never be sorted out

mikehit
mikehit  56457 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 11:04 PM

One of the drivers of the council house sale was that many had been neglected for decades and were badly in need off repair, and at that time a lot of the bills would have fallen to central government. So one solution was to sell it off and get the new owner to pay for it. I am not denying the political expediency of the sell-off but the knock-on effects have had huge ramifications for social housing, and we are reaping much of that whirlwind.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315362 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 11:12 PM

Some of the countries most deprived areas have whole estates empty and boarded up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256796/Rows-boarded-terraced-houses-Acc...
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Stoke-Trent-families-offered-pound-1-homes-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertyadvice/propertymarket/3305295/The-wa...

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 8 Feb 2013 - 11:15 PM
LVanDhal
LVanDhal  1126 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 11:50 PM


Quote: Why would I report someone to social services when that is who she is dealing with already? Her daughter is disabled and the woman finds it hard to cope, understandably.

But my point was that she regards her daughter's well-being as the state's responsibility rather than her own. As for the phone, she does have the phone, since she uses it as her MP3 player at the gym so it is on show. All I know is her contract costs £24 per month.

in your earlier post you knew exactly how much the phone cost, "£400"- but omitted to mention you also knew it was on a contract
and therefore the only probable outlay was the cost of the contract.
( BTW you also changed the gender of the child, typo perhaps?)


Quote: Of course the 50s was a different time, the fact that it was called the 1950s rather than the 2010s tells you that doesn't it? I brought it up because we had people there able to afford a good car but living in subsidised housing. It shows warped priorities, as does the phone.

How is it "Warped priority's" to have a mobile phone on contract, that costs 24 pounds per month if she has a disabled (or for that matter able bodied) child to care for ?
makes sense in-case of emergency's etc especially with a child with disability.


Quote: That is what a welfare state does when it goes too far. One particular case I know is my daughter's flat mate, a lovely guy. His £800 per month shared rent is paid by the state. He gets just under £100 per week on top of that in disability benefits. He is depressed and has been for seven years. Of course he pays no tax or council tax.

All in all he has not a lot less spending money than my daughter, a nurse, after she pays her fearsome London fares to work, council tax, national insurance, rent, income tax etc. Maybe it's fair and I'm an old curmudgeon but I feel that if we make working and ambition worth little more than not being so, we are subverting something important.

Why are you comparing your Daughters circumstances with that of her disabled flat mate, why are you not even considering comparing your daughters circumstances with that of your local Constituency MP ? who also has to travel to London, and is paid for entirely by the tax payer,
Both Nurses and MP's deliver a service to the public both have expenditures both are waged, should she not enjoy the same level of financial
expectations in return for her work with and for the public ?
Why by making her flat mate more poor will it help her in any way ? or the country? I have yet to hear of an MP having to give up being an MP because they cannot afford to continue, but i have heard of nurses leaving nursing for that very reason.
How is taking money from the disabled, and the unemployed going to change that?



Quote: Even in saying that I can see how old fashioned it must seem and that somehow we do have the money, we are rich enough to continue this way. I can’t see it but maybe someone can explain it to me.

Your not that much older than me lemmy, you've seen them come and go just as i have.

keith selmes
9 Feb 2013 - 9:11 AM


Quote: How is it "Warped priority's" to have a mobile phone on contract, that costs 24 pounds per month if she has a disabled (or for that matter able bodied) child to care for

I wondered about that myself. For a lot of people now the phone is also the primary tool for internet access, which you need if you want to get a job. Nowadays it seems you need a phone, email and a CV to get any kind of job. The phone with internet is also the extended family support system. People need a decent phone. They don't necessarily have landline and computer as well.

(I think extended family is supposed to be family all living together, now I'd suggest it's family all networked together)

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2013 - 9:48 AM


Quote: How is it "Warped priority's" to have a mobile phone on contract, that costs 24 pounds per month if she has a disabled (or for that matter able bodied) child to care for I wondered about that myself. For a lot of people now the phone is also the primary tool for internet access, which you need if you want to get a job. Nowadays it seems you need a phone, email and a CV to get any kind of job. The phone with internet is also the extended family support system. People need a decent phone. They don't necessarily have landline and computer as well.

But to have an operational mobile phone does not need to cost you that kind of money. I have a contract at £10 per month where I get 3000 texts, 360mins of calls and some internet access which I don't use. £24 pm is taking the p***.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2013 - 9:57 AM


Quote:
How is it "Warped priority's" to have a mobile phone on contract, that costs 24 pounds per month if she has a disabled (or for that matter able bodied) child to care for ? makes sense in-case of emergency's etc especially with a child with disability.


Because she could use Pay-as-you-go for NO monthly fee.

Quote:

[quote]
Even in saying that I can see how old fashioned it must seem and that somehow we do have the money, we are rich enough to continue this way. I can’t see it but maybe someone can explain it to me.


I will explain it to you, we don't have the money, the country is skint! Remember Byrne's comment to the incoming chancellor? I will remind you, it was "The money has all gone".

And whilst your line of thinking about not making somebody poorer, that is what happens everytime somebody becomes a senior citizen, What I am getting at is that the concept is not new!

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 9 Feb 2013 - 9:58 AM
lemmy
lemmy  71869 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Feb 2013 - 10:35 AM


Quote: Why else would the houses have been sold for knockdown prices?

One of the major reasons was that the estates built in the late 40s and early 50s, by the 80s were becoming run down and in need of repair. The councils simply didn't have the money for it and were happy to hive off the problem.

It manifested itself again when people who had bought their council homes realised that they now had to pay for the repairs themselves. Many are broke to this day as a result. However, if their neighbour had not bought their flat the council would pay it.

My next door neighbours with their nice car had always moaned about how long it took the council to get around to redecorating the house and repairing broken windows etc. My mum and dad used to redecorate and do minor repairs on the place themselves. Why? Because they lived there and preferred to do it themselves than wait months or years for the council to do it.

I know some people here would say that they were fools (that was our neighbours view) but they just preferred to live somewhere decent.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2013 - 10:46 AM


Quote: My next door neighbours with their nice car had always moaned about how long it took the council to get around to redecorating the house and repairing broken windows etc

We always reckoned you could tell which council house the Councillor's son lived in as it was immaculate and was always being "improved" with new kitchen, bathroom etc (but I'm sure that can't happen these days Wink )

lemmy
lemmy  71869 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Feb 2013 - 10:58 AM


Quote: We always reckoned you could tell which council house the Councillor's son lived

That's really funny - we had the same thing Grin He was actually a councillor himself but when, for example, everyone else's window frame needed replacing and had been deteriorating for years, his were brand spanking new.

There must be a lot of memories us council housers have in common.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2013 - 2:26 PM


Quote: What do you think of this new bedroom tax that is coming out.

There are many elderly people living in social housing and receiving help through benefits who now risk having this cut.



The first part of this statement is erroneous, the second part is the truth so there is NO BEDROOM TAX proposed.

LVanDhal
LVanDhal  1126 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2013 - 3:23 PM


Quote:
I will explain it to you, we don't have the money, the country is skint! Remember Byrne's comment to the incoming chancellor? I will remind you, it was "The money has all gone".

And whilst your line of thinking about not making somebody poorer, that is what happens everytime somebody becomes a senior citizen, What I am getting at is that the concept is not new!

My point of view is this,
if a business is told by its accountant that all the money has gone, and that all the staff must take a huge cut to their wages in order for the business to survive,
and the staff in horror turn round and ask "Where did all the money go! you kept telling us we were doing fine"
and the Accountant says "It was the cleaners,
they have wiped us out with their demands for rubber gloves, when they could have used bare hands,
they insisted on using mops when they could have got down on their knees and scubbed the floors, just my like my mother did,
and they would have benefited from the exercise"
would you think the staff of that business were right to believe that,
and then okay to yell abuse at the cleaners for having overalls provided by the business when the rest of the staff had to buy their own working clothes?
Or would it make better sense to look long and hard at the Bentley the accountant was driving away in,
and think Hmmmmm, must have cost a packet, and it was provided by the business as an necessity.
Would you say to the boss of this business " your totally right to have absolute faith in that accountant, he is right its the cleaners fault and we have every right to give them a hard time morally and physically",
or would you say
" look mate, I know you hired that accountant, I know you think he talks sense, but I think you should go and take a long hard look not at the cleaners, but at the accountant, maybe the rubber gloves do have to come off, and perhaps the deferential attitude as well.

The unemployed are not signing on with mont blanc fountain pens, yet MP's who out right swindled you with false and ridiculous expenses claims
are using those mont blanc pens to write those neat little biography's of "How we got away with it"

triumphv8
triumphv8  7450 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Feb 2013 - 3:55 PM

Liz, sorry, bad argument -

- try this as closer to the facts as to where the money has gone -

if a business is told by its accountant that all the money has gone, and that all the staff must take a huge cut to their wages in order for the business to survive,
and the staff in horror turn round and ask "Where did all the money go! you kept telling us we were doing fine"
and the Accountant says -
- I gave it all away to people who don't work, to try to give them the same living standard as you.

Would the cleaners accept that, or say, - hold on so we've been working our asses off to support the business and keep our jobs, and you've been giving it away, and now you are telling us WE have to take a pay cut ?

triumphv8
triumphv8  7450 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Feb 2013 - 3:58 PM

Oh forgot the next bit - at the next board meeting the Accountant is sacked and replaced with an accountant who has to make some tough decisions to keep the company afloat and return it organic growth so it can employ more people.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.