North-East families given emergency pay-outs to cover cost of "bedroom tax"

THOUSANDS of North-East families have been given emergency help after being hit by the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, in fresh evidence that the region has been hit the hardest.

Town halls shelled out almost £6.5m in ‘discretionary housing payments’ (DHP), the vast majority to ease the pain of soaring rents because of housing benefit cuts.

Durham County Council alone paid out almost £1m in just 12 months - of which 85 per cent was because of the bedroom tax, helping 1,681 households.

And every North-East council dipped into its own resources after running out of Government-funded DHPs, albeit with small amounts in some cases.

In stark contrast, local authorities in North Yorkshire – and elsewhere - paid back significant sums to Whitehall, after failing to spend it in 2013-14.

That prompted Lord Freud, the welfare reform minister, to say “Recent scare stories about councils running out of money were grossly exaggerated”.

But the figures show that is exactly what happened in the North-East, where every town hall exhausted its DHPs – and spent more to meet demand.

Hartlepool (a £115,239 top-up), Middlesbrough (£37,420), Sunderland (£22,911) and Gateshead (£89,241) were among councils busting their budgets.

Helen Goodman, the Bishop Auckland MP, said: “These figures show the desperate problems caused by the bedroom tax.

“The councils can help only those in the greatest need. This Tory-led Government is putting the burden of the fixing the finances on the poorest communities while millionaires get tax cuts.”

The removal of the "spare room subsidy" cut housing benefit by 14 per cent for one extra bedroom and 25 per cent where there are two.

Ministers argued that forcing ‘under-occupying’ households to move will free up larger homes for families living in cramped conditions, as well as save £465m.

But previous figures revealed that very few tenants have moved to a smaller home – backing up protests that those smaller homes are not available.

A Durham County Council spokesperson said it met all applications for DHPs in 2013-14, although some late bids would come from its 2014-15 allocation.

He added: “Demand has continued to rise at a steady rate and the council is currently working on forecasts to understand future demand.”

But Lord Freud said 240 out of 380 local authorities across the country had underspent their DHP funding - one in ten councils spending less than 60 per cent.

He added: “We tripled support for vulnerable people to £180m last year. It is good to see that people have benefited from that support as they adapt to the changes.

“Our vital reforms are fixing the broken welfare system by restoring fairness for hardworking people and making sure work always pays, as part of our long-term plan.”

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:48am Sat 28 Jun 14

punkrocker says...

Lord Fraud. Don't recall voting for him. Ah another Tory multi millionaire attacking the poor. What a surprise.
Lord Fraud. Don't recall voting for him. Ah another Tory multi millionaire attacking the poor. What a surprise. punkrocker
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Of course the region has been hit hardest - it has the largest number of workshy people in the country happy to vote for a cushy lifestyle on benefits. Interesting that the region also has one of the highest figures for smoking and alcohol. Perhaps, if less was spent on the latter two, more of those on benefits would be able to contribute to the cost of their overly subsidised lifestyles.
Of course the region has been hit hardest - it has the largest number of workshy people in the country happy to vote for a cushy lifestyle on benefits. Interesting that the region also has one of the highest figures for smoking and alcohol. Perhaps, if less was spent on the latter two, more of those on benefits would be able to contribute to the cost of their overly subsidised lifestyles. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 14

1:13pm Sat 28 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

I'll say it again....... It's not a Tax - a tax is a charge made upon you that you pay with your own money! It is an adjustment to the benefits system to provide people for FREE what they actually need - not what they would like.

If you wish to live in a property with more bedrooms than you need no problem - just pay for it yourself rather than expecting others to do so for you.
I'll say it again....... It's not a Tax - a tax is a charge made upon you that you pay with your own money! It is an adjustment to the benefits system to provide people for FREE what they actually need - not what they would like. If you wish to live in a property with more bedrooms than you need no problem - just pay for it yourself rather than expecting others to do so for you. DarloXman
  • Score: 24

4:31pm Sat 28 Jun 14

stevegg says...

Those on benefits will ever ever accept or understand that us taxpayers are sick of subsidising the chosen lifestyles of a significant number of them, many of whom have more of taxpayers money to spend as they please than the taxpayers themselves most of which is frittered away on non essential luxury items that us taxpayers have to ration. Welfare reform hasnt gone nowhere near far enough - why should someone not working on benefits receive more money in benefits than a full time worker on the minimum wage earning circa £13500 a year1 Reform of the ever expanding welfare state is decades overdue. The something for nothing, sense of entitlement culture is out of control and needs to be checked, I think you will find all taxpayers/workers not in receipt of free handouts will agree.
Those on benefits will ever ever accept or understand that us taxpayers are sick of subsidising the chosen lifestyles of a significant number of them, many of whom have more of taxpayers money to spend as they please than the taxpayers themselves most of which is frittered away on non essential luxury items that us taxpayers have to ration. Welfare reform hasnt gone nowhere near far enough - why should someone not working on benefits receive more money in benefits than a full time worker on the minimum wage earning circa £13500 a year1 Reform of the ever expanding welfare state is decades overdue. The something for nothing, sense of entitlement culture is out of control and needs to be checked, I think you will find all taxpayers/workers not in receipt of free handouts will agree. stevegg
  • Score: 25

8:11pm Sat 28 Jun 14

behonest says...

"240 out of 380 local authorities across the country had underspent their DHP funding"
But "in the North-East, .. every town hall exhausted its DHPs – and spent more to meet demand."

Good old Labour North East, wasting more taxpayers money than anyone else. Situation normal.
"240 out of 380 local authorities across the country had underspent their DHP funding" But "in the North-East, .. every town hall exhausted its DHPs – and spent more to meet demand." Good old Labour North East, wasting more taxpayers money than anyone else. Situation normal. behonest
  • Score: 11

11:18pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bbcid001 says...

The good people of the North East want work, they want the work, everyone wants work, no one wants to claim benefits to survive, however with employers shunning the North East, housing being so insecure and expensive for everyone in the UK, who can blame people for staying close to family and friends, hoping the economy will pick up. The good people of the North East know hard graft, they kept you warm in winter, with the lights on, when coal was in demand from the UK, risking their lives 6 miles out and under the North Sea so that you would have your comforts. How dare anyone call these good people who because of Thatcher's me, me, me economy is bringing the downfall of the UK today. The North East needs jobs, like the North West, and if UK Billionaires want to consider these great UK Regions for Investment, instead of India, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines etc then I am sure you would be obtaining a good return on your investment, making the UK taxman richer, the UK benefits payer much richer, and giving people of the UK pride again in working.
The good people of the North East want work, they want the work, everyone wants work, no one wants to claim benefits to survive, however with employers shunning the North East, housing being so insecure and expensive for everyone in the UK, who can blame people for staying close to family and friends, hoping the economy will pick up. The good people of the North East know hard graft, they kept you warm in winter, with the lights on, when coal was in demand from the UK, risking their lives 6 miles out and under the North Sea so that you would have your comforts. How dare anyone call these good people who because of Thatcher's me, me, me economy is bringing the downfall of the UK today. The North East needs jobs, like the North West, and if UK Billionaires want to consider these great UK Regions for Investment, instead of India, China, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines etc then I am sure you would be obtaining a good return on your investment, making the UK taxman richer, the UK benefits payer much richer, and giving people of the UK pride again in working. bbcid001
  • Score: -18

11:35pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

1. A substantial proportion of the north east do not want to work.
2. Of course employers shun the area - it is stuck in a mindset of the past and of blaming everyone else for its problems. Yes the miners 30 or so years ago got paid for a job - they weren't good enough at it and the product they got out of the ground was too expensive in a global market. Rather than economise they striked. Now, with reference to 'hard work' why hark back to an old industry and give not a single example of the last 30 years - wallowing in the mindset of the past.
3. Housing is not expensive in the north east.
4. The northweat does indeed also need jobs - the Liverpool region has the fastest growing economy outside London - Newcastle doesn't. Perhpas because the north west has 'picked itself up, dusted itself off and embraced modernity' whereas the north east spends its weeks commemorating stikes and getting excited byt he unveiling of banners of pits (thankfully) long dead.
5. In order to have 'pride in working' - one must work - pity more of the north east layabouts don't.
1. A substantial proportion of the north east do not want to work. 2. Of course employers shun the area - it is stuck in a mindset of the past and of blaming everyone else for its problems. Yes the miners 30 or so years ago got paid for a job - they weren't good enough at it and the product they got out of the ground was too expensive in a global market. Rather than economise they striked. Now, with reference to 'hard work' why hark back to an old industry and give not a single example of the last 30 years - wallowing in the mindset of the past. 3. Housing is not expensive in the north east. 4. The northweat does indeed also need jobs - the Liverpool region has the fastest growing economy outside London - Newcastle doesn't. Perhpas because the north west has 'picked itself up, dusted itself off and embraced modernity' whereas the north east spends its weeks commemorating stikes and getting excited byt he unveiling of banners of pits (thankfully) long dead. 5. In order to have 'pride in working' - one must work - pity more of the north east layabouts don't. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 19

11:44pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bbcid001 says...

and if people have jobs, good paying jobs, then bedroom tax will be history.

The Bedroom Tax was obviously brought in by the Tories to discourage breeding of the lower classes. How sick is that???

If the UK stopped giving its working class jobs away to India and China then UK people would be able to support themselves with work, instead of claiming benefits.

But no, the rich Billionaires want the working class jobs done as far away from them as possible so they do not have to see them, talk to them, smell them or see how the working class live, so they exploit the people in the Third World Countries - YOUR clothes are probably made by a 10 yr old Bangladeshi orphan who is paid survival rates. We CANNOT allow this in the UK. These people should have their basic infrastructure in place first at least - fresh water, proper drainage etc etc
and if people have jobs, good paying jobs, then bedroom tax will be history. The Bedroom Tax was obviously brought in by the Tories to discourage breeding of the lower classes. How sick is that??? If the UK stopped giving its working class jobs away to India and China then UK people would be able to support themselves with work, instead of claiming benefits. But no, the rich Billionaires want the working class jobs done as far away from them as possible so they do not have to see them, talk to them, smell them or see how the working class live, so they exploit the people in the Third World Countries - YOUR clothes are probably made by a 10 yr old Bangladeshi orphan who is paid survival rates. We CANNOT allow this in the UK. These people should have their basic infrastructure in place first at least - fresh water, proper drainage etc etc bbcid001
  • Score: -19

11:53pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bbcid001 says...

VOR. I'd like to see you dig out the coal people NEEDED at the time, 6 miles out under the North Sea, now that was the REALITY for these people.
How dare you say the North East miners were not good at their job, the North East Miners risked their lives to contribute to the 2nd WW victory, more than you could ever claim UC.
VOR. I'd like to see you dig out the coal people NEEDED at the time, 6 miles out under the North Sea, now that was the REALITY for these people. How dare you say the North East miners were not good at their job, the North East Miners risked their lives to contribute to the 2nd WW victory, more than you could ever claim UC. bbcid001
  • Score: -9

11:56pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

If people work - or cut their garment according to their cloth - the bedroom subsidy will indeed not be needed - I agree.
If you can't afford to pay for your children - you should not have them. They are your responsibility - no one else's. If the non working classes have fewer kids is a by-product of the policy - it is to be welcomed. Parents need to have 'the basic infrastructure' in place before conceiving - not just palm the results of their breeding onto the state.
The UK has to compete globally - if the working class in the UK want the jobs over their counterparts in India/China then they need to work harder, be more productive, and be competitive in wages - a further problem of the minimum wage - it has priced the lowest workers in the UK out of the market.
Finally, I applaud the 10 years old orphan in Bangladesh - rather than mewling and relying on the state he/she is striving to improve him/herself by working - an excellent example of entrepreneurial spirit
If people work - or cut their garment according to their cloth - the bedroom subsidy will indeed not be needed - I agree. If you can't afford to pay for your children - you should not have them. They are your responsibility - no one else's. If the non working classes have fewer kids is a by-product of the policy - it is to be welcomed. Parents need to have 'the basic infrastructure' in place before conceiving - not just palm the results of their breeding onto the state. The UK has to compete globally - if the working class in the UK want the jobs over their counterparts in India/China then they need to work harder, be more productive, and be competitive in wages - a further problem of the minimum wage - it has priced the lowest workers in the UK out of the market. Finally, I applaud the 10 years old orphan in Bangladesh - rather than mewling and relying on the state he/she is striving to improve him/herself by working - an excellent example of entrepreneurial spirit Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 16

12:03am Sun 29 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

The north east miners were not good at their job. They were not as productive as their counterparts in other countries, and their wages were comparatively too high. From an international perspective they were lazy, overpaid, and reluctant to change.

Yes they did a job in the war - so did lots of people - the major difference is that the miners continue to use 'their paid for job in the war' as a banner by which to try to excuse their failure to modernise, their decision to continually hold the nation to ransom, and as some form of 'divine right' to wallow in the past and claim that they deserved a job for life.

Oddly, those who served at Blethcley, or actually gave their lives, or served abroad (rather than having the rather cushy time of returning home everynight and getting free coal), have managed in the last seventy years to move on from the war, adapt to change and continue to be productive members of society - rather than relying on soup kitchen handouts (a result of thier own stupidity in the early 80s) and bemoaning 'their lot' - for which they are almost wholly, and solely, responsible.
The north east miners were not good at their job. They were not as productive as their counterparts in other countries, and their wages were comparatively too high. From an international perspective they were lazy, overpaid, and reluctant to change. Yes they did a job in the war - so did lots of people - the major difference is that the miners continue to use 'their paid for job in the war' as a banner by which to try to excuse their failure to modernise, their decision to continually hold the nation to ransom, and as some form of 'divine right' to wallow in the past and claim that they deserved a job for life. Oddly, those who served at Blethcley, or actually gave their lives, or served abroad (rather than having the rather cushy time of returning home everynight and getting free coal), have managed in the last seventy years to move on from the war, adapt to change and continue to be productive members of society - rather than relying on soup kitchen handouts (a result of thier own stupidity in the early 80s) and bemoaning 'their lot' - for which they are almost wholly, and solely, responsible. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 11

12:14am Sun 29 Jun 14

loan_star says...

VOR said "If you can't afford to pay for your children - you should not have them. They are your responsibility - no one else's. "

Couldn't agree more, these serial kid breeders should either get responsible for their actions and pay their own way or get the snip to stop themselves breeding. None of this "I have the right to have kids if I want to" rubbish.
VOR said "If you can't afford to pay for your children - you should not have them. They are your responsibility - no one else's. " Couldn't agree more, these serial kid breeders should either get responsible for their actions and pay their own way or get the snip to stop themselves breeding. None of this "I have the right to have kids if I want to" rubbish. loan_star
  • Score: 19

12:17am Sun 29 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Or, after 2 kids (arguably none) the state should turn around and 'have the balls' to state 'no more benefits until you are sterilised'.
Or, after 2 kids (arguably none) the state should turn around and 'have the balls' to state 'no more benefits until you are sterilised'. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 14

12:29am Sun 29 Jun 14

bbcid001 says...

VOR and LS. To be fair both if you are total idiots.
You speak the tongue of a wise business man but can you prove it.
Your both total idiots who have probably never done a proper hard days graft in your life other than typing on your keyboard OW!
VOR and LS. To be fair both if you are total idiots. You speak the tongue of a wise business man but can you prove it. Your both total idiots who have probably never done a proper hard days graft in your life other than typing on your keyboard OW! bbcid001
  • Score: -7

12:48am Sun 29 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

If you are going to comment on intellect, try to use the correct words in the sentences - it will give greater validity to the points you are attempting to make. Thus, in the first sentence you meant 'of' not 'if'. In the last sentence you should have used 'You are' not 'Your'.

The 'myth of the hard days graft' and the idea that if you haven’t sweated all day you haven’t worked. Utter bunkum. The 'human packhorses' to whom you refer tend to make less money for the country than those who are employed by virtue of the capacity of their brains. That the (by their own choice) human packhorses then whinge and expect to be supported by the tax payer makes them even more pathetic.

Personally, even though my working day is far longer, I would far rather earn more (and thereby pay more in tax than the ‘packhorses’ whom you seem to value) through working in a warm and cosy environment than scurry around in some dark little hole all day. It is of course, however, a personal choice – and that some would prefer to do the latter (frequently because they could not be bothered to apply themselves more diligently in early life) is their choice.

That many of those who chose to work in the pits then destroyed their own livelihood is a luxury that they could not afford and one that the rest of us should not have to pay for. Selfish, lazy, miners who have failed for in excess of thirty years to stand on their own two feet. Those who have failed to work since the strike should be ashamed of the example that they set to the younger generation.
If you are going to comment on intellect, try to use the correct words in the sentences - it will give greater validity to the points you are attempting to make. Thus, in the first sentence you meant 'of' not 'if'. In the last sentence you should have used 'You are' not 'Your'. The 'myth of the hard days graft' and the idea that if you haven’t sweated all day you haven’t worked. Utter bunkum. The 'human packhorses' to whom you refer tend to make less money for the country than those who are employed by virtue of the capacity of their brains. That the (by their own choice) human packhorses then whinge and expect to be supported by the tax payer makes them even more pathetic. Personally, even though my working day is far longer, I would far rather earn more (and thereby pay more in tax than the ‘packhorses’ whom you seem to value) through working in a warm and cosy environment than scurry around in some dark little hole all day. It is of course, however, a personal choice – and that some would prefer to do the latter (frequently because they could not be bothered to apply themselves more diligently in early life) is their choice. That many of those who chose to work in the pits then destroyed their own livelihood is a luxury that they could not afford and one that the rest of us should not have to pay for. Selfish, lazy, miners who have failed for in excess of thirty years to stand on their own two feet. Those who have failed to work since the strike should be ashamed of the example that they set to the younger generation. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 5

2:11am Sun 29 Jun 14

bbcid001 says...

VOR you have never worked a hard days graft in your life, you probably sit on your seat all day speaking Idiot jibberish banker drivel on the phone all day.
No offence :)
I
VOR you have never worked a hard days graft in your life, you probably sit on your seat all day speaking Idiot jibberish banker drivel on the phone all day. No offence :) I bbcid001
  • Score: 2

7:32am Sun 29 Jun 14

Jonn says...

I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day. Jonn
  • Score: 18

8:33am Sun 29 Jun 14

laboursfoe says...

bbcid001 wrote:
VOR. I'd like to see you dig out the coal people NEEDED at the time, 6 miles out under the North Sea, now that was the REALITY for these people.
How dare you say the North East miners were not good at their job, the North East Miners risked their lives to contribute to the 2nd WW victory, more than you could ever claim UC.
ALL industry workers that were on the work effort risked their lives during WW2. Not just miners.
Imagine being a dock worker or working in an ammunition factory during the war. That was pressure.
[quote][p][bold]bbcid001[/bold] wrote: VOR. I'd like to see you dig out the coal people NEEDED at the time, 6 miles out under the North Sea, now that was the REALITY for these people. How dare you say the North East miners were not good at their job, the North East Miners risked their lives to contribute to the 2nd WW victory, more than you could ever claim UC.[/p][/quote]ALL industry workers that were on the work effort risked their lives during WW2. Not just miners. Imagine being a dock worker or working in an ammunition factory during the war. That was pressure. laboursfoe
  • Score: 9

8:36am Sun 29 Jun 14

bambara says...

Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate.
Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party.

Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. -
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.-
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items.
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.

Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values.
Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate. Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party. Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.- Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items. Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values. bambara
  • Score: 4

8:43am Sun 29 Jun 14

laboursfoe says...

Jonn wrote:
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US.

The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.[/p][/quote]You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US. The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

8:43am Sun 29 Jun 14

bambara says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Or, after 2 kids (arguably none) the state should turn around and 'have the balls' to state 'no more benefits until you are sterilised'.
Ah so you are in favour of increasing the level of immigration then VOR.

As things stand approx 170,000 more people retire every year than the number of UK youngsters entering the workforce.

If you reduce the birthrate, then the number entering the workforce goes down and that gap gets wider. We then need more immigrants to make up the gap.

You want to choose which you hate more, poor people having kids, or immigrants?
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Or, after 2 kids (arguably none) the state should turn around and 'have the balls' to state 'no more benefits until you are sterilised'.[/p][/quote]Ah so you are in favour of increasing the level of immigration then VOR. As things stand approx 170,000 more people retire every year than the number of UK youngsters entering the workforce. If you reduce the birthrate, then the number entering the workforce goes down and that gap gets wider. We then need more immigrants to make up the gap. You want to choose which you hate more, poor people having kids, or immigrants? bambara
  • Score: -4

8:46am Sun 29 Jun 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate.
Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party.

Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. -
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.-
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items.
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.

Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values.
Surely sociopathic policies would not pay for them to live there at all??..... Not ask them to contribute in some way due to bigger space allocations than required.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate. Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party. Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.- Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items. Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values.[/p][/quote]Surely sociopathic policies would not pay for them to live there at all??..... Not ask them to contribute in some way due to bigger space allocations than required. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

9:08am Sun 29 Jun 14

bambara says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US.

The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.
Yes, true the trigger for the economic crash was as you say a global crisis initiated in the USA.
(Note it was not caused by the UK government.)

That does not change the fact that the impact of that on the UK economy was that the impact of the crash on the financial services sector caused a crash in the UK economy. The UK spent £1.162 Trillion pounds bailing out the banks.

So the financial services sector crashed the economy - check - true
We bail them out - check - true

What it does highlight is that the impact of the deliberate destruction of the uk industrial base caused the economy to become unbalanced, and over reliant on the financial services sector.
The destruction of the industrial base made the UK less resilient and meant that the impact to the economy of a failure in the global financial services sector had a greater impact on the UK than on other more balanced economies.

The depth and legth of the recession in the UK can as a result be seen to be directly affected by the economic policies enacted under thatcherism in the 1980's and 90's.

Looking forwards, wages are increasing in the overseas locations where the industries moved to (30% per year in some areas) and there is an increasing move to bring industrial production back on-shore.
The UK has the opportunity to re-balance the economy and bring some of these jobs here. What is needed is increased investment in infrastructure and transport links in and to the Northeast (currently £2500 per person per year spent in London and £5 per person per year in the Northeast.)
The Northeast faces out into the North Sea and the entrance to the baltic and the new european countries, baltic states, & Poland...
We should be well positioned given investment in infrastructure to build on that, but we risk missing out if government continues to concentrate all investment on the Southeast and to pull us ever further from the EU and access to those markets.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.[/p][/quote]You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US. The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.[/p][/quote]Yes, true the trigger for the economic crash was as you say a global crisis initiated in the USA. (Note it was not caused by the UK government.) That does not change the fact that the impact of that on the UK economy was that the impact of the crash on the financial services sector caused a crash in the UK economy. The UK spent £1.162 Trillion pounds bailing out the banks. So the financial services sector crashed the economy - check - true We bail them out - check - true What it does highlight is that the impact of the deliberate destruction of the uk industrial base caused the economy to become unbalanced, and over reliant on the financial services sector. The destruction of the industrial base made the UK less resilient and meant that the impact to the economy of a failure in the global financial services sector had a greater impact on the UK than on other more balanced economies. The depth and legth of the recession in the UK can as a result be seen to be directly affected by the economic policies enacted under thatcherism in the 1980's and 90's. Looking forwards, wages are increasing in the overseas locations where the industries moved to (30% per year in some areas) and there is an increasing move to bring industrial production back on-shore. The UK has the opportunity to re-balance the economy and bring some of these jobs here. What is needed is increased investment in infrastructure and transport links in and to the Northeast (currently £2500 per person per year spent in London and £5 per person per year in the Northeast.) The Northeast faces out into the North Sea and the entrance to the baltic and the new european countries, baltic states, & Poland... We should be well positioned given investment in infrastructure to build on that, but we risk missing out if government continues to concentrate all investment on the Southeast and to pull us ever further from the EU and access to those markets. bambara
  • Score: 6

11:18am Sun 29 Jun 14

loan_star says...

bbcid001 wrote:
VOR and LS. To be fair both if you are total idiots.
You speak the tongue of a wise business man but can you prove it.
Your both total idiots who have probably never done a proper hard days graft in your life other than typing on your keyboard OW!
Try telling that to the people who I employ. Ask them who does the longest hours too. You are the idiot for making presumptions.
I have had to make my own way through life by working hard and now other people are getting the benefit from the time I put in and now have steady job, not leaching off the tax payer.
This is why people who sponge off the rest of us get my back up.
[quote][p][bold]bbcid001[/bold] wrote: VOR and LS. To be fair both if you are total idiots. You speak the tongue of a wise business man but can you prove it. Your both total idiots who have probably never done a proper hard days graft in your life other than typing on your keyboard OW![/p][/quote]Try telling that to the people who I employ. Ask them who does the longest hours too. You are the idiot for making presumptions. I have had to make my own way through life by working hard and now other people are getting the benefit from the time I put in and now have steady job, not leaching off the tax payer. This is why people who sponge off the rest of us get my back up. loan_star
  • Score: 3

4:24pm Sun 29 Jun 14

bambara says...

So LS, people like my parents, father disabled, mother full time carer who spent 30 years watching the man she loved slowly go down hill. Reliant on benefits because he couldn't work once he fell ill.
People like my uncle, worked his entire life, then one day had a serious heart attack, after which he was in hospital for months, he had 6 more attacks while in hospital, had a defibrilator implanted and even then he tried to go back to work. Sadly he had to give it up, the heart attacks left him with brain damage, his ability to concentrate and his memory are not up to it. He can get to the shops and back, to the casual observer he looks ok. But after each little trip out he sleeps for 3-4 hours.
The woman who lives near my mum, mother of 2 her husband walked out on them when the kids were small, leaving her to look after both kids, 1 with learning difficulties.

It isn't just bbcid001 who makes presumptions about people. it is people like these who suffer from the benefits cuts, but the Tories and right wing in general assume everyone on benefits are spongers, and cut benefits for all of those people.

Nobody has issues with targeting those who choose not to work, but the bedroom tax hits those in the most ulnerable positions far more so than than the few fecless individuals.
If it had existed back in the 80's when I left home to go to Uni, then my parents would have been subject to it. My father was housebound at the time, the only way he could have moved house was in an ambulance. Before I left home we had installed a stair lift and a device to get him in and out of the bath.
Go on tell me how the bedroom tax is fair when it applies to people in this type of situation.
The bedroom tax, like so many of the tory cuts penalises those who are the most vulnerable, it penalises the weak, the elderly and the plain unlucky.
So LS, people like my parents, father disabled, mother full time carer who spent 30 years watching the man she loved slowly go down hill. Reliant on benefits because he couldn't work once he fell ill. People like my uncle, worked his entire life, then one day had a serious heart attack, after which he was in hospital for months, he had 6 more attacks while in hospital, had a defibrilator implanted and even then he tried to go back to work. Sadly he had to give it up, the heart attacks left him with brain damage, his ability to concentrate and his memory are not up to it. He can get to the shops and back, to the casual observer he looks ok. But after each little trip out he sleeps for 3-4 hours. The woman who lives near my mum, mother of 2 her husband walked out on them when the kids were small, leaving her to look after both kids, 1 with learning difficulties. It isn't just bbcid001 who makes presumptions about people. it is people like these who suffer from the benefits cuts, but the Tories and right wing in general assume everyone on benefits are spongers, and cut benefits for all of those people. Nobody has issues with targeting those who choose not to work, but the bedroom tax hits those in the most ulnerable positions far more so than than the few fecless individuals. If it had existed back in the 80's when I left home to go to Uni, then my parents would have been subject to it. My father was housebound at the time, the only way he could have moved house was in an ambulance. Before I left home we had installed a stair lift and a device to get him in and out of the bath. Go on tell me how the bedroom tax is fair when it applies to people in this type of situation. The bedroom tax, like so many of the tory cuts penalises those who are the most vulnerable, it penalises the weak, the elderly and the plain unlucky. bambara
  • Score: 6

4:40pm Sun 29 Jun 14

settheworldonfire says...

bambara wrote:
Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate.
Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party.

Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. -
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.-
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.
Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items.
Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you.

Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values.
Well said........My step mother has a 3 bedroom house....She is currently paying the extra £25 per week from her sickness benefit...She is on the sick due to having 2 recent operations on both of her feet......She wants to move to a bungalow, however in the Crook area there are none available.....Why does this ridiculous charge have to victimize genuine people who are on the sick.....I have a next door neighbour who is a single bloke on benefits....He gets this discretionary housing payment....HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK OUT THEN?...
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Same half a dozen right wing mouthpieces as ever showing utter contempt for ordinary people, for the sick, the old and the less fortunate. Sociopathic policies brought to you by the nasty party. Disabled and need an extra room for a carer, or for specialist equipment. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Moved into a place when you had a job, spent your money doing it up and got it nice, then got made redundant. - Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Can't find a place with the "correct" number of bedrooms, nowhere actually available to move to.- Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Found somewhere to move to, but don't have the resources to pack up and move. Don't have the money to bring in a removals firm. Too far to move by had, no way of moving bulky items. Tory answer- Don't care bedroom tax applies to you. Sociopathic policies from a party that doesn't care about human beings or human values.[/p][/quote]Well said........My step mother has a 3 bedroom house....She is currently paying the extra £25 per week from her sickness benefit...She is on the sick due to having 2 recent operations on both of her feet......She wants to move to a bungalow, however in the Crook area there are none available.....Why does this ridiculous charge have to victimize genuine people who are on the sick.....I have a next door neighbour who is a single bloke on benefits....He gets this discretionary housing payment....HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK OUT THEN?... settheworldonfire
  • Score: -3

4:41pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

There would, of course, have been nothing to stop your parents taking in a lodger.
Anyhow, I have nothing against more immigrants - provided that they are professional persons, speak the language (or are prepared to learn it) and will have no recourse to public funds for at least 10 years.
Those who illegally enter should be returned or incarcerated - or, upon 'illegally invading' shot.
There would, of course, have been nothing to stop your parents taking in a lodger. Anyhow, I have nothing against more immigrants - provided that they are professional persons, speak the language (or are prepared to learn it) and will have no recourse to public funds for at least 10 years. Those who illegally enter should be returned or incarcerated - or, upon 'illegally invading' shot. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 1

5:59pm Sun 29 Jun 14

loan_star says...

bambara wrote:
So LS, people like my parents, father disabled, mother full time carer who spent 30 years watching the man she loved slowly go down hill. Reliant on benefits because he couldn't work once he fell ill.
People like my uncle, worked his entire life, then one day had a serious heart attack, after which he was in hospital for months, he had 6 more attacks while in hospital, had a defibrilator implanted and even then he tried to go back to work. Sadly he had to give it up, the heart attacks left him with brain damage, his ability to concentrate and his memory are not up to it. He can get to the shops and back, to the casual observer he looks ok. But after each little trip out he sleeps for 3-4 hours.
The woman who lives near my mum, mother of 2 her husband walked out on them when the kids were small, leaving her to look after both kids, 1 with learning difficulties.

It isn't just bbcid001 who makes presumptions about people. it is people like these who suffer from the benefits cuts, but the Tories and right wing in general assume everyone on benefits are spongers, and cut benefits for all of those people.

Nobody has issues with targeting those who choose not to work, but the bedroom tax hits those in the most ulnerable positions far more so than than the few fecless individuals.
If it had existed back in the 80's when I left home to go to Uni, then my parents would have been subject to it. My father was housebound at the time, the only way he could have moved house was in an ambulance. Before I left home we had installed a stair lift and a device to get him in and out of the bath.
Go on tell me how the bedroom tax is fair when it applies to people in this type of situation.
The bedroom tax, like so many of the tory cuts penalises those who are the most vulnerable, it penalises the weak, the elderly and the plain unlucky.
Typical response from you. Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger but there are a lot who are and its these people that need weeding out, not the true needy people. Ever thought that if these scroungers were weeded out then there would be more available to people who really need it?
Why should families in genuine need have to cram into accommodation thats too small when there are people on benefits with houses that are too big for them?
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: So LS, people like my parents, father disabled, mother full time carer who spent 30 years watching the man she loved slowly go down hill. Reliant on benefits because he couldn't work once he fell ill. People like my uncle, worked his entire life, then one day had a serious heart attack, after which he was in hospital for months, he had 6 more attacks while in hospital, had a defibrilator implanted and even then he tried to go back to work. Sadly he had to give it up, the heart attacks left him with brain damage, his ability to concentrate and his memory are not up to it. He can get to the shops and back, to the casual observer he looks ok. But after each little trip out he sleeps for 3-4 hours. The woman who lives near my mum, mother of 2 her husband walked out on them when the kids were small, leaving her to look after both kids, 1 with learning difficulties. It isn't just bbcid001 who makes presumptions about people. it is people like these who suffer from the benefits cuts, but the Tories and right wing in general assume everyone on benefits are spongers, and cut benefits for all of those people. Nobody has issues with targeting those who choose not to work, but the bedroom tax hits those in the most ulnerable positions far more so than than the few fecless individuals. If it had existed back in the 80's when I left home to go to Uni, then my parents would have been subject to it. My father was housebound at the time, the only way he could have moved house was in an ambulance. Before I left home we had installed a stair lift and a device to get him in and out of the bath. Go on tell me how the bedroom tax is fair when it applies to people in this type of situation. The bedroom tax, like so many of the tory cuts penalises those who are the most vulnerable, it penalises the weak, the elderly and the plain unlucky.[/p][/quote]Typical response from you. Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger but there are a lot who are and its these people that need weeding out, not the true needy people. Ever thought that if these scroungers were weeded out then there would be more available to people who really need it? Why should families in genuine need have to cram into accommodation thats too small when there are people on benefits with houses that are too big for them? loan_star
  • Score: 6

6:02pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Jonn says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US.

The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.
I have read up on this.
I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.[/p][/quote]You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US. The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.[/p][/quote]I have read up on this. I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them. Jonn
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Sun 29 Jun 14

laboursfoe says...

Jonn wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US.

The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.
I have read up on this.
I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them.
Agreed, we did subsidise them and because the loan has not been paid back we continue to.

However unlike the Mining and Steel industry, we haven't subsidised them with payments year on year to prop them up.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.[/p][/quote]You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US. The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.[/p][/quote]I have read up on this. I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them.[/p][/quote]Agreed, we did subsidise them and because the loan has not been paid back we continue to. However unlike the Mining and Steel industry, we haven't subsidised them with payments year on year to prop them up. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families.
In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 2

7:44pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Jonn says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families.
You think the City has been reformed?
Then why since 2008, have we had one revelation after another concerning more dispicable underhand and illegal activities and general robbing of the public?
Why is it still being subsidised with QE? Why are the Government using taxpayers to bankroll mortgages?
What about the UK Debt, doubled overnight to save these criminals? I don't see them paying it back!
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families.[/p][/quote]You think the City has been reformed? Then why since 2008, have we had one revelation after another concerning more dispicable underhand and illegal activities and general robbing of the public? Why is it still being subsidised with QE? Why are the Government using taxpayers to bankroll mortgages? What about the UK Debt, doubled overnight to save these criminals? I don't see them paying it back! Jonn
  • Score: -1

8:51pm Sun 29 Jun 14

asiot66 says...

Can i please have an emergency top up too? As i pay more in private rent for renting a 3bed house as oppose to a 2 bed house in same street even though i dont need the extra room. People claiming housing benefit should just accept that more bedrooms will cost more
Can i please have an emergency top up too? As i pay more in private rent for renting a 3bed house as oppose to a 2 bed house in same street even though i dont need the extra room. People claiming housing benefit should just accept that more bedrooms will cost more asiot66
  • Score: 4

7:48am Mon 30 Jun 14

Jonn says...

asiot66 wrote:
Can i please have an emergency top up too? As i pay more in private rent for renting a 3bed house as oppose to a 2 bed house in same street even though i dont need the extra room. People claiming housing benefit should just accept that more bedrooms will cost more
Then move to a smaller property!
[quote][p][bold]asiot66[/bold] wrote: Can i please have an emergency top up too? As i pay more in private rent for renting a 3bed house as oppose to a 2 bed house in same street even though i dont need the extra room. People claiming housing benefit should just accept that more bedrooms will cost more[/p][/quote]Then move to a smaller property! Jonn
  • Score: 2

10:35am Mon 30 Jun 14

bambara says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
There would, of course, have been nothing to stop your parents taking in a lodger.
Anyhow, I have nothing against more immigrants - provided that they are professional persons, speak the language (or are prepared to learn it) and will have no recourse to public funds for at least 10 years.
Those who illegally enter should be returned or incarcerated - or, upon 'illegally invading' shot.
You it seems believe that a vulnerable elderly couple including a severely disabled person should take in a stranger with all the risks that implies.
Of course they couldn't do that anyway because it's covered under rules regarding sub-letting and they are not allowed to do that by the terms of the lease. It would also then assume the person could actually find a lodger, who would be obliged to share bills etc...

Regarding your response on immigrants:
170,000 highly skilled professional immigrants every year to fill the hole that a low birth creates. As the older generation retires we have 170,000 more people retiring than joining the workforce, you then suggest that we have 170,000 highly skilled professional immigrants come into the country, competing for jobs with our own next generation of youngsters.

So in effect you prefer to reserve high paid jobs for immigrants and push our own kids into the low pay, dead end, seasonal, short term vacancies.

Nice to see the right wing view on this, it is in summary:

Care for the elderly, sick and poor - Don't care, it's easier cheaper and they are not rich enough to actually matter.
Immigration - Only highly qualified rich immigrants wanted, we reserve highly paid jobs for immigrants. After all we don't want to spend any of our money educating our own kids, so they are only fit for menial jobs anyway.

Quite a clear definition of the sociopathic right wing of politics that cares little for human beings or human values.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: There would, of course, have been nothing to stop your parents taking in a lodger. Anyhow, I have nothing against more immigrants - provided that they are professional persons, speak the language (or are prepared to learn it) and will have no recourse to public funds for at least 10 years. Those who illegally enter should be returned or incarcerated - or, upon 'illegally invading' shot.[/p][/quote]You it seems believe that a vulnerable elderly couple including a severely disabled person should take in a stranger with all the risks that implies. Of course they couldn't do that anyway because it's covered under rules regarding sub-letting and they are not allowed to do that by the terms of the lease. It would also then assume the person could actually find a lodger, who would be obliged to share bills etc... Regarding your response on immigrants: 170,000 highly skilled professional immigrants every year to fill the hole that a low birth creates. As the older generation retires we have 170,000 more people retiring than joining the workforce, you then suggest that we have 170,000 highly skilled professional immigrants come into the country, competing for jobs with our own next generation of youngsters. So in effect you prefer to reserve high paid jobs for immigrants and push our own kids into the low pay, dead end, seasonal, short term vacancies. Nice to see the right wing view on this, it is in summary: Care for the elderly, sick and poor - Don't care, it's easier cheaper and they are not rich enough to actually matter. Immigration - Only highly qualified rich immigrants wanted, we reserve highly paid jobs for immigrants. After all we don't want to spend any of our money educating our own kids, so they are only fit for menial jobs anyway. Quite a clear definition of the sociopathic right wing of politics that cares little for human beings or human values. bambara
  • Score: -4

11:06am Mon 30 Jun 14

bambara says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families.
There are more people living and working in London (8.2 Million) than in the entire Northeast (2.6 Million). So yes of course it pays more tax.

Investment on transport infrastructure in the SE & London is 500 times as high per person as in the Northeast. Do they pay 500 times as much tax per person?
Investment in the arts in London was around 8 times as high as the Northeast. Do they pay 8 times as much in tax per person?
This disparity is continued across multiple areas, local government funding, government department jobs...

Yes the City produces more tax revenue, but it also receives a MUCH higher degree of investment than the rest of the UK. The transport investment alone represents nearly 3 times the total local government budget (on a per person basis) that is available to the NorthEast.
It is this massive disparity in investment that has allowed London to adapt, an investment level that the rest of the country does not receive.
I'm sure that if the investment level in the Northeast was to increase by £3-4000 to reduce that disparity (3-4k would even out the transport and culture gap only it wouldn't deal with the other elements) you would see a boom in the Northeast as well, all the extra work available building infrastructure, the additional money in the shops, in peoples pockets, more service jobs, more people in work, less of our economically active young people leaving to find work down south, less benefits claiments, more people paying council tax, more tax in general and an increase in inwards investment as a result of the improved general situation.

So yes the city pays more in tax, but in terms of the disparity what it takes in terms of public investment is massively more per head of population.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: In addition, the amount of tax paid by the City (and its employees) is still greater than that paid by the north-east, the City still subsidises the rest of the nation - even though it did have to be bailed out. Further, the City has been reformed and is being reformed and not only has it adapted to those changes but those made unemployed have, to a large extent, found new jobs rather than following the example of those in the north-east in the 80s who preferred to just give up and spend the next thirty years whinging as to their lot rather than reflect on their own pathetic inability to provide for their families.[/p][/quote]There are more people living and working in London (8.2 Million) than in the entire Northeast (2.6 Million). So yes of course it pays more tax. Investment on transport infrastructure in the SE & London is 500 times as high per person as in the Northeast. Do they pay 500 times as much tax per person? Investment in the arts in London was around 8 times as high as the Northeast. Do they pay 8 times as much in tax per person? This disparity is continued across multiple areas, local government funding, government department jobs... Yes the City produces more tax revenue, but it also receives a MUCH higher degree of investment than the rest of the UK. The transport investment alone represents nearly 3 times the total local government budget (on a per person basis) that is available to the NorthEast. It is this massive disparity in investment that has allowed London to adapt, an investment level that the rest of the country does not receive. I'm sure that if the investment level in the Northeast was to increase by £3-4000 to reduce that disparity (3-4k would even out the transport and culture gap only it wouldn't deal with the other elements) you would see a boom in the Northeast as well, all the extra work available building infrastructure, the additional money in the shops, in peoples pockets, more service jobs, more people in work, less of our economically active young people leaving to find work down south, less benefits claiments, more people paying council tax, more tax in general and an increase in inwards investment as a result of the improved general situation. So yes the city pays more in tax, but in terms of the disparity what it takes in terms of public investment is massively more per head of population. bambara
  • Score: -1

11:11am Mon 30 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Better to have either a rich immigrant come to the country or one who is prepared to work hard - both contribute to the community they wish to live in. As opposed to the ones who merely wish to claim benefits who are just a further drain on resources and for whom we, as a country, are not responsible for.
Lodgers were a traditional part of many UK families - providing additional monetary support for basic board. You now have two problems. First, a nation that is paranoid that anyone who they let into their house will murder or abuse them (generally they won't). Secondly, would be lodgers who believe that by the age of 21 they should either own their own house or have one supplied by the state.
As for educating our own kids - I would spend more on education - but I would have it firmly tied to ability.
Better to have either a rich immigrant come to the country or one who is prepared to work hard - both contribute to the community they wish to live in. As opposed to the ones who merely wish to claim benefits who are just a further drain on resources and for whom we, as a country, are not responsible for. Lodgers were a traditional part of many UK families - providing additional monetary support for basic board. You now have two problems. First, a nation that is paranoid that anyone who they let into their house will murder or abuse them (generally they won't). Secondly, would be lodgers who believe that by the age of 21 they should either own their own house or have one supplied by the state. As for educating our own kids - I would spend more on education - but I would have it firmly tied to ability. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 2

11:26am Mon 30 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

You also misinterpreted my City comment - I was not referring to the whole of London - which obviously is bigger than the north east. I was referring to the net contribution made by the City (ie. the financial district) and noting how it contibutes more to the GDP of the nation than the whole of the north east.
You also misinterpreted my City comment - I was not referring to the whole of London - which obviously is bigger than the north east. I was referring to the net contribution made by the City (ie. the financial district) and noting how it contibutes more to the GDP of the nation than the whole of the north east. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -1

11:31am Mon 30 Jun 14

bambara says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.
You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US.

The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.
I have read up on this.
I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them.
Agreed, we did subsidise them and because the loan has not been paid back we continue to.

However unlike the Mining and Steel industry, we haven't subsidised them with payments year on year to prop them up.
No so instead of subsidies to the mining and steel industries we chose to pay out more in benefits to a generation of people thrown onto the dole, people whose children grew up never seeing anyone in their family working for a living, we chose to produce a generation with no hope, with no expectation of ever getting a job. As detailed by the OECD we increased the base unemployment level that actually constitutes "full employment" by doing this.
Not only that, we produced a huge hole in our balance of trade as a result of choosing to pay to import the very products that these people had been producing locally.
So the question is, did we gain from this or did it cost the UK economy by closing down all this industry?
Was the net subsidy per person more than the cost of the increased unemployment, plus the balance of trade deficit, plus the long term economic damage?
We know from bitter experience that the unbalancing of the economy with an over reliance on financial services was in the long term a serious problem.
And IF you believe it was correct to just cut and close everything that was not making a profit in the 80's and 90's, then surely that same approach would also be the correct one for farming (in receipt of huge subsidies before, the 80's, during the 80's and after the 80's up to now) and of course for the Banks in 2008-2009.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: I find it odd how the Mining Industry, Steel Industry etc, employing hundreds of thousands (then chucked on the sick and now vilified) were deliberately destroyed due to it being uncompetitive and too heavily subsidised yet 25 years later, the City of London Financial sector crashes the entire economy, we all bail them out and is still heavily subsidised to this day.[/p][/quote]You need to read up on this, it is widely that known that the economic crisis was global and caused by toxic debt in the US. The UK organisations were affected due to exposure/investments to these US mortgage markets. They were high risk, high return investments but no one could forecast a crash of the proportions experienced or the ripple effect.[/p][/quote]I have read up on this. I didn't say the City of London was the root cause did I? But their bad practices exposed them to cause a UK crash, therefore, they did crash the entire UK economy and WE did and still are subsidising them.[/p][/quote]Agreed, we did subsidise them and because the loan has not been paid back we continue to. However unlike the Mining and Steel industry, we haven't subsidised them with payments year on year to prop them up.[/p][/quote]No so instead of subsidies to the mining and steel industries we chose to pay out more in benefits to a generation of people thrown onto the dole, people whose children grew up never seeing anyone in their family working for a living, we chose to produce a generation with no hope, with no expectation of ever getting a job. As detailed by the OECD we increased the base unemployment level that actually constitutes "full employment" by doing this. Not only that, we produced a huge hole in our balance of trade as a result of choosing to pay to import the very products that these people had been producing locally. So the question is, did we gain from this or did it cost the UK economy by closing down all this industry? Was the net subsidy per person more than the cost of the increased unemployment, plus the balance of trade deficit, plus the long term economic damage? We know from bitter experience that the unbalancing of the economy with an over reliance on financial services was in the long term a serious problem. And IF you believe it was correct to just cut and close everything that was not making a profit in the 80's and 90's, then surely that same approach would also be the correct one for farming (in receipt of huge subsidies before, the 80's, during the 80's and after the 80's up to now) and of course for the Banks in 2008-2009. bambara
  • Score: 3

11:40am Mon 30 Jun 14

bambara says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
You also misinterpreted my City comment - I was not referring to the whole of London - which obviously is bigger than the north east. I was referring to the net contribution made by the City (ie. the financial district) and noting how it contibutes more to the GDP of the nation than the whole of the north east.
Except of course you cannot disconnect the City of London from the "City".
The one provides the workers, services, utilities and infrastructure for the other.

It is roughly equivalent to regarding an industrial estate in isolation from the town that it is connected to.
The "City" can be regarded as a large services industrial estate connected to and serviced by the surrounding city of London and it's suburbs.
Hence it is reasonable to compare the wider city of London and the associated investment levels to the Northeast.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: You also misinterpreted my City comment - I was not referring to the whole of London - which obviously is bigger than the north east. I was referring to the net contribution made by the City (ie. the financial district) and noting how it contibutes more to the GDP of the nation than the whole of the north east.[/p][/quote]Except of course you cannot disconnect the City of London from the "City". The one provides the workers, services, utilities and infrastructure for the other. It is roughly equivalent to regarding an industrial estate in isolation from the town that it is connected to. The "City" can be regarded as a large services industrial estate connected to and serviced by the surrounding city of London and it's suburbs. Hence it is reasonable to compare the wider city of London and the associated investment levels to the Northeast. bambara
  • Score: 0

11:42am Mon 30 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

The miners chose to become unemployed by failing to adapt.
Their chidlren (the generation of not seeing anyone work) saw no one work because the parents were too lazy to apply themselves and find employment elsewhere.
That the parents instilled a 'give up' and 'expect the state' to pay for your lifestyle is a travesty. They should have been encouraging their children to 'do better' - even if it meant leaving the 'hallowed grounded' on the mining community.
Welfareism is indeed a problem - communities should be allowed to die out.
Specialisation is the answer to the balance of trade defecit.
I would agree with your comment on agriculture - the subsidies should be removed.
I disagree with regard to the City for the latter has been short-term and temporary - not a susbidy spanning decades (or in the case of agricultuire) hundreds of years.
The miners chose to become unemployed by failing to adapt. Their chidlren (the generation of not seeing anyone work) saw no one work because the parents were too lazy to apply themselves and find employment elsewhere. That the parents instilled a 'give up' and 'expect the state' to pay for your lifestyle is a travesty. They should have been encouraging their children to 'do better' - even if it meant leaving the 'hallowed grounded' on the mining community. Welfareism is indeed a problem - communities should be allowed to die out. Specialisation is the answer to the balance of trade defecit. I would agree with your comment on agriculture - the subsidies should be removed. I disagree with regard to the City for the latter has been short-term and temporary - not a susbidy spanning decades (or in the case of agricultuire) hundreds of years. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 2

12:30pm Mon 30 Jun 14

spyathome says...

A couple of things I want to comment on. I'll post separate comments so you can argues about them on their own thread.

But first a declaration - I'm from a Yorkshire mining family. The last lot of relatives to work were my Uncle and one cousin. Both were laid off way before the miners strike - late 70s and early 80s.

Mining was a hard job. It was getting less hard in the 70s as there was some more capital investment - my grandads both used to mine with a pick and pony. There's no point trying to glamourise the job, or talk rubbish like 'honest days work and sweat of my brow'. In my opinion, the people who tend to say that, tend to be lazy, work dodging sods. Mining was a c.p job. I'm gald I don;t do it. I very happy my kids won't.

You cannot blame Thatcher for killing off the mines. Mining is an extractive industry of a finite resource - eventually you'll extract all the economical seams. Mining in the UK finished at the same time as mining in France and Germany, for the same reasons - global competition from open cast mines. Putting 1000s of mners down a narrow, dangerous tunnel will always, always!, be beaten by having one bloke in a big digger, in a big hole in the ground. Its like the difference between a field being cut manually by a sycthe and one cut by a big combine. No brainer.

Things change. You cannot be an 'Easter leaver' as may cousin was, and expect to walk into what was then (78) one of the countries top paying jobs - with overtime, my cousin really raked it in.
A couple of things I want to comment on. I'll post separate comments so you can argues about them on their own thread. But first a declaration - I'm from a Yorkshire mining family. The last lot of relatives to work were my Uncle and one cousin. Both were laid off way before the miners strike - late 70s and early 80s. Mining was a hard job. It was getting less hard in the 70s as there was some more capital investment - my grandads both used to mine with a pick and pony. There's no point trying to glamourise the job, or talk rubbish like 'honest days work and sweat of my brow'. In my opinion, the people who tend to say that, tend to be lazy, work dodging sods. Mining was a c.p job. I'm gald I don;t do it. I very happy my kids won't. You cannot blame Thatcher for killing off the mines. Mining is an extractive industry of a finite resource - eventually you'll extract all the economical seams. Mining in the UK finished at the same time as mining in France and Germany, for the same reasons - global competition from open cast mines. Putting 1000s of mners down a narrow, dangerous tunnel will always, always!, be beaten by having one bloke in a big digger, in a big hole in the ground. Its like the difference between a field being cut manually by a sycthe and one cut by a big combine. No brainer. Things change. You cannot be an 'Easter leaver' as may cousin was, and expect to walk into what was then (78) one of the countries top paying jobs - with overtime, my cousin really raked it in. spyathome
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Mon 30 Jun 14

spyathome says...

The City and all that.

Posters are right to complain about the city of London. You cannot complain about the miners and give a blanket approval to the City of London. There are some good, profitable financial firms in the UK but there are a lot of over paid dross - there are way too many retail and investment banks which fail to make a return of their cost of capital - and a lot of figures have seen have underplayed the banks costs of capital and the risk being taken (VAR). Too many layers, all taking a slice and adding nothing but cost.

The problems leading up to 2007 were caused by a massive number of UK banks taking on more and more risk, to try and a leverage their returns. The problem did not 'come from the US' rather, we were doing the same things as the States - taking on more and more debt to get less and less growth.

And at the centre of this was the person who'll go down as the most disasaterous PM the UK have ever - Gordon Brown, whose 1000 year plan of Labour consisted of creating a big client state funded by big finance. Well, the big finance has gone bust, but we've still got a big state - way too many useless public sector workers (likes of DBC etc), and too many people, drawing too much benefits, for too long - tax credits and all that mental 'Vote Labour' bribes.
The City and all that. Posters are right to complain about the city of London. You cannot complain about the miners and give a blanket approval to the City of London. There are some good, profitable financial firms in the UK but there are a lot of over paid dross - there are way too many retail and investment banks which fail to make a return of their cost of capital - and a lot of figures have seen have underplayed the banks costs of capital and the risk being taken (VAR). Too many layers, all taking a slice and adding nothing but cost. The problems leading up to 2007 were caused by a massive number of UK banks taking on more and more risk, to try and a leverage their returns. The problem did not 'come from the US' rather, we were doing the same things as the States - taking on more and more debt to get less and less growth. And at the centre of this was the person who'll go down as the most disasaterous PM the UK have ever - Gordon Brown, whose 1000 year plan of Labour consisted of creating a big client state funded by big finance. Well, the big finance has gone bust, but we've still got a big state - way too many useless public sector workers (likes of DBC etc), and too many people, drawing too much benefits, for too long - tax credits and all that mental 'Vote Labour' bribes. spyathome
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Mon 30 Jun 14

spyathome says...

The UK client state.

We pay too much benefit to too many people, for too long.

The North East is full of benefit dependent doleys. They fail to achieve any qualifications at school then wonder why they cannot get a job - assuming they even try.

The most damming thing about the region and Labour is the number of foreign workers earning a living in these supposed job black holes. And these are not slave labour in some take-away.

Have you ever tried recruiting in the NE? Pay above minimum wage, GCSE pass in English and Maths - results very little. At best, you'll get a couple of single parents asking for 16hours.

Make benefits contribution based - you only get a pay out if you pay in.
Pay more when people loose their job, say 30% of their taxed earning. Cut off payments after 2 years and offer workfare. Have a 10 years lifetime claim limit.

I'm not that old but I remember a time when sons used to follow their dad into a trade or job. No the son just uses the same made up illness - bad back, depressed etc, to scam the DLA. Frankly, the NE embarasses me sometimes. We used to be known as workers. Now were known as idle, work dodging f-ckers. Thank you Labour.
The UK client state. We pay too much benefit to too many people, for too long. The North East is full of benefit dependent doleys. They fail to achieve any qualifications at school then wonder why they cannot get a job - assuming they even try. The most damming thing about the region and Labour is the number of foreign workers earning a living in these supposed job black holes. And these are not slave labour in some take-away. Have you ever tried recruiting in the NE? Pay above minimum wage, GCSE pass in English and Maths - results very little. At best, you'll get a couple of single parents asking for 16hours. Make benefits contribution based - you only get a pay out if you pay in. Pay more when people loose their job, say 30% of their taxed earning. Cut off payments after 2 years and offer workfare. Have a 10 years lifetime claim limit. I'm not that old but I remember a time when sons used to follow their dad into a trade or job. No the son just uses the same made up illness - bad back, depressed etc, to scam the DLA. Frankly, the NE embarasses me sometimes. We used to be known as workers. Now were known as idle, work dodging f-ckers. Thank you Labour. spyathome
  • Score: 9

12:48pm Mon 30 Jun 14

spyathome says...

Yep. CAP and all farming subsidies should removed ASAP.
Let's let Africa and the Middle East use their land and labour to compete and grow more stable.
Yep. CAP and all farming subsidies should removed ASAP. Let's let Africa and the Middle East use their land and labour to compete and grow more stable. spyathome
  • Score: 1

11:21pm Mon 30 Jun 14

spragger says...

Labour closed down more manufacturing than any other Government, even the feted Margaret
A fact lefties often gloss over
Labour closed down more manufacturing than any other Government, even the feted Margaret A fact lefties often gloss over spragger
  • Score: 3

5:43pm Tue 1 Jul 14

BMD says...

Labour want to give more money to these sqandering councils.
Labour want to give more money to these sqandering councils. BMD
  • Score: 0

6:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

bambara says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
The miners chose to become unemployed by failing to adapt.
Their chidlren (the generation of not seeing anyone work) saw no one work because the parents were too lazy to apply themselves and find employment elsewhere.
That the parents instilled a 'give up' and 'expect the state' to pay for your lifestyle is a travesty. They should have been encouraging their children to 'do better' - even if it meant leaving the 'hallowed grounded' on the mining community.
Welfareism is indeed a problem - communities should be allowed to die out.
Specialisation is the answer to the balance of trade defecit.
I would agree with your comment on agriculture - the subsidies should be removed.
I disagree with regard to the City for the latter has been short-term and temporary - not a susbidy spanning decades (or in the case of agricultuire) hundreds of years.
The City was a short term problem was it VOR- The Libor scandal, the insurance mis-selling, the packaging and selling of worthless investments targeted at ordinary investors to cream off profits for the big clients, all these and all the other dodgy dealing was a "short term" and "temporary".
The billions creamed off from the sale of public assets, under the tory privatisations of Gas, Electricity, Water, Rail, Post Office... I take it you think that was fair enough as well. Billions and Billions of pounds skimmed off the value of assets that were owned by the people of the UK to fund the profits of City investors, and to inflate the salaries and bonus payments of greedy bankers and Tory backers.
Decades and decades of the city being subsidised by profits from the sale of public assets, and then bailed out to the tune of 60% of the entire countries GDP. But that is all fine in your book?
Decades and decades of an investment disparity where transport infrastructure in London and the southeast get 500 times what is spent on the regions. Decades and decades where London and the southeast get far greater investment in culture and in many other areas. Decades and decades where London and the southeast benefits from the bonus that is attracted to the southeast due to it being the location of the centre of government.
Extra investment in London and the Southeast that runs to thousands of pounds per person per year, year after year, decade after decade.

Open your eyes VOR, London and the Southeast has benefited from a subsidy from the public purse for decades. Of course the economy in London and the Southeast is doing better. If you were to invest just the £3-4000 per person extra that is spent on transport infrastructure and culture alone in the Northeast every year you would see a noticable improvement in the economy of the Northeast as well. You couldn't very well not see such an improvement, it would be a £7-10 Billion investment. That is a lot of jobs VOR, a lot of people out of poverty, a lot of people off benefits, a lot of money back into the local economy, trade in the shops, people eating out, more money to be spent in local businesses, movement in the housing market...
Instead of which the Tories far from increasing investment to even out that disparity, have imposed even bigger cuts to the budgets of our local councils, while protecting councils in the south from those same cuts.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: The miners chose to become unemployed by failing to adapt. Their chidlren (the generation of not seeing anyone work) saw no one work because the parents were too lazy to apply themselves and find employment elsewhere. That the parents instilled a 'give up' and 'expect the state' to pay for your lifestyle is a travesty. They should have been encouraging their children to 'do better' - even if it meant leaving the 'hallowed grounded' on the mining community. Welfareism is indeed a problem - communities should be allowed to die out. Specialisation is the answer to the balance of trade defecit. I would agree with your comment on agriculture - the subsidies should be removed. I disagree with regard to the City for the latter has been short-term and temporary - not a susbidy spanning decades (or in the case of agricultuire) hundreds of years.[/p][/quote]The City was a short term problem was it VOR- The Libor scandal, the insurance mis-selling, the packaging and selling of worthless investments targeted at ordinary investors to cream off profits for the big clients, all these and all the other dodgy dealing was a "short term" and "temporary". The billions creamed off from the sale of public assets, under the tory privatisations of Gas, Electricity, Water, Rail, Post Office... I take it you think that was fair enough as well. Billions and Billions of pounds skimmed off the value of assets that were owned by the people of the UK to fund the profits of City investors, and to inflate the salaries and bonus payments of greedy bankers and Tory backers. Decades and decades of the city being subsidised by profits from the sale of public assets, and then bailed out to the tune of 60% of the entire countries GDP. But that is all fine in your book? Decades and decades of an investment disparity where transport infrastructure in London and the southeast get 500 times what is spent on the regions. Decades and decades where London and the southeast get far greater investment in culture and in many other areas. Decades and decades where London and the southeast benefits from the bonus that is attracted to the southeast due to it being the location of the centre of government. Extra investment in London and the Southeast that runs to thousands of pounds per person per year, year after year, decade after decade. Open your eyes VOR, London and the Southeast has benefited from a subsidy from the public purse for decades. Of course the economy in London and the Southeast is doing better. If you were to invest just the £3-4000 per person extra that is spent on transport infrastructure and culture alone in the Northeast every year you would see a noticable improvement in the economy of the Northeast as well. You couldn't very well not see such an improvement, it would be a £7-10 Billion investment. That is a lot of jobs VOR, a lot of people out of poverty, a lot of people off benefits, a lot of money back into the local economy, trade in the shops, people eating out, more money to be spent in local businesses, movement in the housing market... Instead of which the Tories far from increasing investment to even out that disparity, have imposed even bigger cuts to the budgets of our local councils, while protecting councils in the south from those same cuts. bambara
  • Score: -1

6:57am Fri 4 Jul 14

bambara says...

spragger wrote:
Labour closed down more manufacturing than any other Government, even the feted Margaret
A fact lefties often gloss over
No they didn't spragger, that is complete and utter rubbish.

Take a quick look at the unemployment statistics and the graph of unemployment over time. It tells the story very effectively.
In 1979 the tories ran a campaign "labour isn't working" if you were around at the time you may remember it. Pictures of long dole queues and that slogan. At the time unemployment was 1.4 Million. Approx 5% of the workforce.
Under Maggie that went up to over 3 million and over 11% of the worforce. And that doesn't even include the fact that the Tories changed the way the figures were calculated to massage them downwards.

Steel making, Car manufacturing, Ship building, Mining, heavy engineering, textile manufacture - All closed by the tories.

So please don't be so ridiculously innacurate, it just makes you look "barmy".
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: Labour closed down more manufacturing than any other Government, even the feted Margaret A fact lefties often gloss over[/p][/quote]No they didn't spragger, that is complete and utter rubbish. Take a quick look at the unemployment statistics and the graph of unemployment over time. It tells the story very effectively. In 1979 the tories ran a campaign "labour isn't working" if you were around at the time you may remember it. Pictures of long dole queues and that slogan. At the time unemployment was 1.4 Million. Approx 5% of the workforce. Under Maggie that went up to over 3 million and over 11% of the worforce. And that doesn't even include the fact that the Tories changed the way the figures were calculated to massage them downwards. Steel making, Car manufacturing, Ship building, Mining, heavy engineering, textile manufacture - All closed by the tories. So please don't be so ridiculously innacurate, it just makes you look "barmy". bambara
  • Score: -1

7:00am Fri 4 Jul 14

bambara says...

BMD wrote:
Labour want to give more money to these sqandering councils.
That would be the local councils like Durham which was given an award this year for being the most effective and efficient in the country would it BMD?
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Labour want to give more money to these sqandering councils.[/p][/quote]That would be the local councils like Durham which was given an award this year for being the most effective and efficient in the country would it BMD? bambara
  • Score: 0

7:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

bambara says...

http://www.ons.gov.u
k/ons/rel/lmac/worki
ng-and-workless-hous
eholds/2013/sty-perc
entage-of-workless-h
ouseholds.html

Worth a read, it gives the actual facts on the households where people are out of work. The myth of the fecless workshy is rather dented by this.

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2013
/apr/06/welfare-brit
ain-facts-myths

Then completely destroyed by the above. Less than 1% where it is 2 generations of a family who don't work, and the % is so low for 3 generations that they can't even measure it.

It shows just how far the right wing have to stretch the truth to label those on benefits as fecless scroungers who have no intention of working.
Under 1% and that includes those where they are unable to work due to ill health or disability.
http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/lmac/worki ng-and-workless-hous eholds/2013/sty-perc entage-of-workless-h ouseholds.html Worth a read, it gives the actual facts on the households where people are out of work. The myth of the fecless workshy is rather dented by this. http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2013 /apr/06/welfare-brit ain-facts-myths Then completely destroyed by the above. Less than 1% where it is 2 generations of a family who don't work, and the % is so low for 3 generations that they can't even measure it. It shows just how far the right wing have to stretch the truth to label those on benefits as fecless scroungers who have no intention of working. Under 1% and that includes those where they are unable to work due to ill health or disability. bambara
  • Score: -1

12:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

spyathome says...

bambara @ 7:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

I know of one family where 3 generations have never worked. Ever.

If you extend that selection to 'families where 3 generations have spent the majority (50%+) of their working age on benefits then I could come back with at least 20 others. This is Whitby.

I would like to know what effort the Joseph Rowntree researchers made. I doubt it amouted to much.
bambara @ 7:13am Fri 4 Jul 14 I know of one family where 3 generations have never worked. Ever. If you extend that selection to 'families where 3 generations have spent the majority (50%+) of their working age on benefits then I could come back with at least 20 others. This is Whitby. I would like to know what effort the Joseph Rowntree researchers made. I doubt it amouted to much. spyathome
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Fri 4 Jul 14

bambara says...

Rather more research than you though spy, as the guardian article points out it is less than 1% for 2 generations.
The right wing wants to tar the unemployed, and the poor in general with the brush of scroungers, when it appears from the ONS analysis as well as the guardian article that 99% do not fall into that category.
Over 60% of the population of the UK is in receipt of some form of benefit, the right want to label them all as scroungers?
Which is more likely are 60% of the population scroungers or are the Tories simply looking to justify cuts which are being made for ideological reasons and which target at the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
The ONS figures show that the vast majority of those unemployed are just ordinary people looking for a job in an economic situation where there are precious few to be had. What is worse the people most affected by the bedroom tax are single parents, the disabled and those on low incomes.
Check the ONS figures out, the scroungers are vastly outnumbered by the innocent, and it seems the tories just don't care.
Rather more research than you though spy, as the guardian article points out it is less than 1% for 2 generations. The right wing wants to tar the unemployed, and the poor in general with the brush of scroungers, when it appears from the ONS analysis as well as the guardian article that 99% do not fall into that category. Over 60% of the population of the UK is in receipt of some form of benefit, the right want to label them all as scroungers? Which is more likely are 60% of the population scroungers or are the Tories simply looking to justify cuts which are being made for ideological reasons and which target at the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The ONS figures show that the vast majority of those unemployed are just ordinary people looking for a job in an economic situation where there are precious few to be had. What is worse the people most affected by the bedroom tax are single parents, the disabled and those on low incomes. Check the ONS figures out, the scroungers are vastly outnumbered by the innocent, and it seems the tories just don't care. bambara
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Fri 4 Jul 14

loan_star says...

bambara wrote:
Rather more research than you though spy, as the guardian article points out it is less than 1% for 2 generations.
The right wing wants to tar the unemployed, and the poor in general with the brush of scroungers, when it appears from the ONS analysis as well as the guardian article that 99% do not fall into that category.
Over 60% of the population of the UK is in receipt of some form of benefit, the right want to label them all as scroungers?
Which is more likely are 60% of the population scroungers or are the Tories simply looking to justify cuts which are being made for ideological reasons and which target at the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
The ONS figures show that the vast majority of those unemployed are just ordinary people looking for a job in an economic situation where there are precious few to be had. What is worse the people most affected by the bedroom tax are single parents, the disabled and those on low incomes.
Check the ONS figures out, the scroungers are vastly outnumbered by the innocent, and it seems the tories just don't care.
Haway then Bambara, what about DBC giving execs a £10k pay rise whilst lower paid people are having their pay cut by the same council? Enlighten us as to your views on this please. You seem to have missed that article. Or is it because you can't beat the nasty tories with a stick over this one?
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Rather more research than you though spy, as the guardian article points out it is less than 1% for 2 generations. The right wing wants to tar the unemployed, and the poor in general with the brush of scroungers, when it appears from the ONS analysis as well as the guardian article that 99% do not fall into that category. Over 60% of the population of the UK is in receipt of some form of benefit, the right want to label them all as scroungers? Which is more likely are 60% of the population scroungers or are the Tories simply looking to justify cuts which are being made for ideological reasons and which target at the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The ONS figures show that the vast majority of those unemployed are just ordinary people looking for a job in an economic situation where there are precious few to be had. What is worse the people most affected by the bedroom tax are single parents, the disabled and those on low incomes. Check the ONS figures out, the scroungers are vastly outnumbered by the innocent, and it seems the tories just don't care.[/p][/quote]Haway then Bambara, what about DBC giving execs a £10k pay rise whilst lower paid people are having their pay cut by the same council? Enlighten us as to your views on this please. You seem to have missed that article. Or is it because you can't beat the nasty tories with a stick over this one? loan_star
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree