|
Post by aubrey on Sept 17, 2016 16:39:16 GMT
I've said before, I torrent everything I want to see. I get the reasons for advertising, and for taking advertising; what I can't stick are the airs put on by advertisers, that they're doing art or just providing information, that their work is so good that people would watch it regardless: and then when people who can, like Gus, fast forward through the ads they start kicking up a fuss, wanting that technology to be blocked. Just goes to show, eh?
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Sept 18, 2016 9:31:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2016 10:11:26 GMT
It would be nice if it worked, one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 11:08:55 GMT
But are those headlines a reflection of what is happening in society If you cannot get your child into your local school because they are full up, if you are on a waiting list to rent a house and your place on that that list never seems to get nearer the top, if you are waiting in pain or discomfort fo an operation or treatment at your local hospital, you will tend to agree that we have allowed too many immigrants in
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2016 11:23:02 GMT
It's nothing to do with immigrants: it's planning.
The Govt were told in the 80s that selling off council houses would lead to a shortage; but a housing shortage (and the ever increasing house prices that accompanied the shortage) were a part of Govt policy; as well as council houses being a breeding ground for Labour supporters).
If a school's too crowded it's because the council didn't (or couldn't) plan for increased numbers; the NHS, the same. It is known that the population will increase, and by approximately how much. With the NHS, the increasing age of the population is known as well; it's no good the Govt or anyone else trying to blame immigrants for something they failed to plan for in the first place.
Immigration has always benefited Britain. All the problems (except the NHS) that are usually based on immigration - lack of housing, crowded schools, unemployment, low wages, etc - were being experienced before long before it was practical to blame them on immigration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 14:55:51 GMT
It's nothing to do with immigrants: it's planning. The Govt were told in the 80s that selling off council houses would lead to a shortage; but a housing shortage (and the ever increasing house prices that accompanied the shortage) were a part of Govt policy; as well as council houses being a breeding ground for Labour supporters). If a school's too crowded it's because the council didn't (or couldn't) plan for increased numbers; the NHS, the same. It is known that the population will increase, and by approximately how much. With the NHS, the increasing age of the population is known as well; it's no good the Govt or anyone else trying to blame immigrants for something they failed to plan for in the first place. Immigration has always benefited Britain. All the problems (except the NHS) that are usually based on immigration - lack of housing, crowded schools, unemployment, low wages, etc - were being experienced before long before it was practical to blame them on immigration. This is typical Corbynism, his disciples say they will spend lots more on building more houses and schools, invest more billions in the NHS, and renationalise the railways. When asked how they will pay for it they glibly say "We haven't worked that out yet" I can tell them, massively increased taxation. Try getting that past the electorate
|
|
|
Post by althea on Sept 18, 2016 15:33:56 GMT
When I was on Fleet Street the idea was to inform the public, not to prejudice them. Those were the days. Sadly long gone now. Maybe I was naive,but I always thought the BBC was unbiased. Now it is just as biased as other media.Shame on them!
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2016 15:38:21 GMT
More council houses would mean less spent in housing benefit (there's more housing benefit paid to people who are working than otherwise); same thing with schools: you have got to educate people for them to be able to pay their taxes later on. But the housing thing was a deliberate policy; the aim was to reduce genuinely affordable housing. If you are warned selling council houses causing a shortage and ignore it, and then it does cause a shortage, you can't blame anyone else for it but yourself; you especially can't scapegoat immigrants.
Cutting the NHS ends up costing more in the end, and cutting council services for old people is the same.
Maybe if instead of talking about taxes as a burden the Govt talked about them as an investment.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Sept 18, 2016 17:17:48 GMT
Aubrey, nothing winds me up more than this. You are right, of course, that the sale of council houses was deliberate policy...in fact one that the Conservatives were extremely proud of, can you believe! I just cannot think what it was supposed to achieve... A knockdown price property for the tenant...yes, but were they going to be the last people to ever need social housing? The need is greater than ever! As you say, the government is paying housing benefit to those renting ex-council properties from private landlords. Maybe the aim was actually simply to turn Labour voters into Conservative voters? This is not just my moan of the day...it's my moan every day!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 17:22:47 GMT
Aubrey, nothing winds me up more than this. You are right, of course, that the sale of council houses was deliberate policy...in fact one that the Conservatives were extremely proud of, can you believe! I just cannot think what it was supposed to achieve... A knockdown price property for the tenant...yes, but were they going to be the last people to ever need social housing? The need is greater than ever! As you say, the government is paying housing benefit to those renting ex-council properties from private landlords. Maybe the aim was actually simply to turn Labour voters into Conservative voters? This is not just my moan of the day...it's my moan every day! A council tenant has a tenancy for life, what is the difference between that tenant owning that house or the council owning it - ownership removes the financial burden from the council/taxpayer. The mistake was not reinvesting the proceeds from sales into building more stock. Ed Miliband proposed ides such as yours to limit HB payments, he was soundly rejected by the electorate Socialists believe there is a fruitful money tree of plenty from which they can spend spend spend. That money tree is the taxpayer who are wise to their antics and beliefs that they know better than us on how to spend our money
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2016 17:32:11 GMT
The mistake was not reinvesting the proceeds from sales into building more stock.
The point was, about selling, is that that place was not available for rent to someone on a low income any more; they were often sold on a few years later (or the buyer had to move because they couldn't afford the service charges). The not reinvesting in more stock - or really, forbidding the councils to use the proceeds of the sales to build more; it wasn't an oversight, it was deliberate.
A council property, once built, makes money for the council, it is not a financial burden; our flat has been bringing in money for Lambeth for the past 70 years: much, much more than is ever spent on repairs and administration.
"Rejected by the electorate", in favour of scapegoating immigrants - does that make it right? Of course it doesn't. Miliband was rejected as much for a photo of him eating a bacon sandwich as any other single thing (the "Bacon" bit was particularly illuminating); you yourself say that the councils should have been allowed to build more council houses, which is all that he was saying.
That money tree thing: building council houses would save money - at the moment it's being pissed away in high rents paid to private landlords.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Sept 18, 2016 19:01:41 GMT
I agree. Rent = income. A commodity ALL local authorities need. Selling off council houses short sighted in so many ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 20:05:26 GMT
"A council property, once built, makes money for the council, it is not a financial burden; our flat has been bringing in money for Lambeth for the past 70 years: much, much more than is ever spent on repairs and administration."
Money for the council from rents comes mainly in the form of Housing Benefit which you complain about upthread It is the taxpayer who is providing that income, which is not provided to owner occupiers
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 19, 2016 8:17:29 GMT
Most people in council properties are working, and can pay the rent (which many of them - those on minimum wage, say - wouldn't be able to afford if they were renting privately).
Even if they weren't, it is much cheaper to pay Housing Benefit for the rent on a council property than somewhere private. Council properties are an investment; they produce far more money than they cost (which is another reason for the Conservatives not liking them: income for councils).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 10:14:30 GMT
People who won't let go of elderly pets. I know someone with a 15 y o cat, losing blood everywhere, injections, loads of medication. Why not do the loving thing and have it out to sleep? Criminal. Can't say anything really... If it was a picture of a suffering creature in a Russian zoo, you'd be up in arms... People get too emotional and attached to pets, treating them like members of their family. I have to see owners kissing cats or dogs or letting the animal lick their faces, usually just after the animal has licked it's bottom My first dog in my own home as opposed to being at my parents was the cutest cleverest animal ever put on this planet. I taught her to do every trick you could think of, today I would be on BGT with her. She started fitting which the vet described as petit mal, this got worse and worse until she was so bad it was becoming a permanent fit. So he advised putting her down, which I had to agree to but I could npt stay whilst he did it Many years later we had an Irish Setter puppy which always had a funny look in it'd eyes, and if it had the chance off lead would take a childs arm or leg in it's mouth without breaking the skin. I took that dog straight to the vet and had it put down, the vet told me that he had put others from the same breeder down
|
|