Brexit

[Barrykearley]

^exactly that. Thatcher steered the country through the very toughest of times.

familes of pit workers and steel workers unfortunately have sat on their asses since - due to little or no employement in the area. The failure of the government to do something about that and the workless folks however is criminal 

[C8RKH]

^^^^  But there really is no excuse for sitting on your ass and waiting for the work to come to you. I grew up just outside Liverpool - my parents had to move out as no council houses in Liverpool were available (and those that did come up where for family and friends of councillors etc) so they moved to a small town that a new industrial estate and factories and my dad got a job and they managed to get a council house.

After 17 years of living in it, Thatcher gave them the chance to buy it and for the first time my parents became home owners, it was a massive step for them. Yes, yes, i hear you all cry, but today' housing problems are all down to Thatcher selling off the housing stock. What total crap. The councils were supposed to use the money they got to build more - instead they squandered it on vanity projects and other stuff. Also, it has been nearly 30 years since Thatcher was in power and we've had many governments, both red and blue, who had an opportunity to build more social housing. the fact is they chose not to. Hardly Thatcher's fault that one....

A year later i left school after 6th form and A levels and wanted a job. I applied for over 100 jobs in 4 weeks, got 7 interviews and was offered a place with Barclays Bank. I was a lucky shit (or was it the fact i wrote off 100 letters to firms I recognised from the telephone directory?  hmmmm) as Barclays recruited me as trainee computer operator. Only problem was the job was in Wythenshawe in Manchester, some 28 miles away. So I did a Tebbit. I got on my bike and I rode to work and rode home 4 days a week (i guess it helped i was a cyclist anyway and work had showers). I saved enough money to buy a clapped out 1.1 Escort and eventually I could drive to work, but shared with another guy a week about as in the 80's old Escorts did not cope well with large mileages!

Some 33 years later I have had a fantastic career. It's taken to me to the US, all over Europe, Africa and beyond. It's been amazing. I've managed to stay working, but only through finding where the jobs where and moving myself and, when they came along, my family. So i've lived and worked in Edinburgh, Perth, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, London, Havant, Northampton. It was not easy. But never once did I just sit on my arse and expect the job, or jobs to come to me. There were some tough times - me and my wife skint, 350 miles from the nearest family member (think they are called support networks these days - jeez, what bollocks), in a strange country with people speaking a strange language neither of us understood (well, have you ever been to Dundee or Perth?), with a 6 month old screaming brat of a child to deal with.

What is it with people who slag off the aspirational types like Thatcher (she really did a lot to improve the prospects for my parents generation and during the 80's when I started to work we really did start to turn the economy around so i would say she did a lot to lay the groundwork for my generation today too),  who sit on the arses and whinge about there being no jobs, then whinge about Jonny Foreigner coming here to steal the jobs - oh, wait, sorry, there are no jobs... Oh, but, hang on, those foreigner types are stealing the jobs.... ooo, oooo, Mr. Peevely, Mr. Peevely...ooo ooooo my head hurts.

I think we are heading back to the dark dangerous times of the 70's with Corbyn and Farron et al. Dumbing everything down, power to the people, nationalise everything (I remember how shit BR could be and you think Virgin East Coast or GWR is bad now.....), treat them with kid gloves etc...

We need another Thatcher and in her own way, i think in May we have got one.  She knew she would lose the court case and she had the wording for the new bill ready to go. She just did not tell anyone. She had a plan, all along, she's shared it now. But only when she was ready to share it. I think she's been quite clever and if you listen to the rhetoric out of the EU just now, they are now really really worried. She's played a blinder with Trump. Her speech yesterday has gone down a storm. First EU leader to meet the new president. She is in danger of becoming our answer to Merkel the all powerful. She's totally screwed over the SNP and Sturgeon - in fact, I would not be surprised if she turned round to Sturgeon and said "stop being a wind bag, go on, call your independence referendum and call it now! - Sturgeon would run for the hills. She knows she cannot win, which is why we get the threats but not the action. She's like the school bully throwing threats from behind his mother's apron.

For the first time in years, I'm not ashamed to be British. i'm not ashamed to be aspirational. I'm not ashamed to be patriotic. I do think we need a strong leader now, liked we need back then. We had an iron Lady back then, I think we may just have a stainless Steel one for now. Hopefully she is not for turning either. 

I'm also sure that just like Thatcher, may will get some things wrong. But just like with Thatcher, i think history will tell the real story and the good that was done will outweigh the bad.

 

[silverfrost]

I have high hopes for Mrs May,   I remember been quite sad when watching Mrs Thatcher hand over the postion of Primeminster.  i was in an religious education lesson at secondary school at the time and the teacher brought the tv in for us to watch. Ah those old wooden tv sets that weighed more than a cast iron 4 pot 

[Chillidoggy]

Given the length of time since Thatcher was PM, I find all the hatred very strange, as if some people need a Thatcher-hate comfort blanket.

It's a bit like us apologising for the British Empire which in reality none of us alive today had anything to do with, and thus we can do absolutely nothing about it, either.

[oilmagnet477]

I remember feeling very rebellious about the Poll Tax as an 18 year old - suddenly being landed with a tax bill that I hadn't expected and couldn't afford.

My Dad then reminded me that under the pre-existing system he had to pay the total household bill but out of 4 voting adults in the household - he only had 25% of the voting power.

I couldn't really argue with that then and even now the current system still fails to address this.

The biggest problem was that the old rates system was totally out of date and needed revaluing and overhauling. By trying to do everything in one go (which was actually more efficient), the Tories became vilified for a Generation.

That's the trouble with politics - Governments who tackle the real issues and try to solve problems become unpopular in the short term. Governments who spend spend spend without solving anything just store up problems for someone else to solve later on.

It appears we aren't very good at learning from History

[silverfrost]

Council tax was just another way for the goverment to open another vein, oh i mean venue stream from the people,  I personally think its an unfair tax and should not of been introduced.  If the goverment past and present spent the tax income of this country well it would be fine,  the local council tax was just a con in my mind to pass the buck onto local councils.  

When you see other countries which just have one tax system and how well looked after the people and the local area and amunities are looked after it makes the UK look like the dark ages imo.

[oilmagnet477]

In general I agree Dan, especially about ensuring tax is spent effectively and efficiently but if money is being spent locally, decisions taken about how it is spent should be 'governed' locally by those impacted - ie us. As long as safeguards are in place for those in genuine need, why shouldn't everyone have to cough up something towards the provision of services. Basing tax on the value of property is bonkers - it takes no account of affordability - services are provided to individuals, not houses.

Simplicity is generally best - we could sweep away masses of bureaucracy but one size fits all approach which would be adopted by doing everything centrally wouldn't work either.

[Andyww]

Local government has become unfit for purpose, with so-called "Chief Executives" on massive salaries and a huge proportion of council tax going on index-linked pensions.

During the Blair years, it ceased to serve the public and turned into a self-serving entity, with pensions and pay put above all else including provision of services. I have a friend who worked for a council and he said that they could have cleared out half the staff in the town hall and made no difference to services as there were staff which did no work at all, and were hardly ever there, and never got disclipined.

On the subject of services, this might be rather an extreme example but our house in Bangkok gets daily rubbish collections and the residents are currently protesting that the charge for this is going up to 150 Baht a month (£3.50) !!

 

[molemot]

3 hours ago, C8RKH said:

After 17 years of living in it, Thatcher gave them the chance to buy it and for the first time my parents became home owners, it was a massive step for them. Yes, yes, i hear you all cry, but today' housing problems are all down to Thatcher selling off the housing stock. What total crap. The councils were supposed to use the money they got to build more - instead they squandered it on vanity projects and other stuff. Also, it has been nearly 30 years since Thatcher was in power and we've had many governments, both red and blue, who had an opportunity to build more social housing. the fact is they chose not to. Hardly Thatcher's fault that one....

Totally wrong. I bought my family's council house too...and councils were expressly banned from spending the 50% of the money they received on anything other than reducing their debt...most definitely NOT on building new housing stock... quote from Wiki...

 

"Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England. This trend was exacerbated by a government imposed ban on local authorities using their revenues from council house sales to fund new housing."^[

[andydclements]

Although the councils couldn't use more than 50% on new housing stock, they could have used the 50% allowed.Also,the cost of building is probably less than the market value, so they'd have been able to replace more than half of the properties they sold off (they had to sell at a massive discount so lost out on most), but however many they built would have been a reduction in their housing waiting lists. Add to that, they had much lower debts and so could then afford in later years to divert income to more social housing instead of servicing debt.

[C8RKH]

6 hours ago, ian29gte said:

It's a bit like us apologising for the British Empire 

Why would we want to do that?  It was a vehicle and product of its time. Do we expect the Romans to apologise for the Roman Empire. The Ottomans for theirs. The Turks for theirs? I mean, when you look at them now you can legitimately go - yuck, hmmmm.  But that is to base them against our values and progress now.  

Yes, lots of bad things done. lots of people got wealthy. Here and abroad. But that was then...

I'd no longer expect anyone to apologise for the two world wars we had than expect anyone to want apologies for the empires etc.

[Kimbers]

Many European Countries had Empires. France, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Turkey (Ottoman), Even Russia can be considered to have had an Empire. And all of them used them the same way. You don't hear any of them having to apologise for what happened Centuries ago!

[Chillidoggy]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

Why would we want to do that?  It was a vehicle and product of its time. Do we expect the Romans to apologise for the Roman Empire. The Ottomans for theirs. The Turks for theirs? I mean, when you look at them now you can legitimately go - yuck, hmmmm.  But that is to base them against our values and progress now.  

Yes, lots of bad things done. lots of people got wealthy. Here and abroad. But that was then...

I'd no longer expect anyone to apologise for the two world wars we had than expect anyone to want apologies for the empires etc.

 

There are some who feel we should keep on apologising.

They can get f*&^ked.

[molemot]

The councils were specifically banned from using any monies so raised on building new housing stock. The 50% they did get had to be used on reducing their debts...nothing they could do about it. The cost of building is miniscule compared to the value of the completed property...there's a huge difference between the insurance value, that covers rebuilding the property, and what it would fetch if sold. Had they been able to use the funds to build new properties, then the available housing would have increased....until those renting the new houses took up the "right to buy". The discount available has varied widely over the years, and because of the increase in property values, does not allow the average working joe to buy under the scheme any more. I got in when the going was good, and paid the mortgage off, too.

[Barrykearley]

And over the last 30 years - parties of all colours have just pointed at each other and said "your fault"

tossers the lot of them - we NEED a Donald 

[C8RKH]

Agreed ^^^- take the argument to it's logical conclusion. Councils use the 50% to pay down the huge amount of reckless debt they had been building up which has a huge servicing cost.  once paid down, the "free cash" within the council increases as the debt is no longer being serviced.

Use that cash to build houses - for a council houses the cost to build:value ration would have been about 10 - 25% - So 10 - 25% cost to build versus market sales vale. They could have been building 1- 2 houses at that point for each one that had been sold. But they did not choose to do that. instead, they took the free money (from not having to service the debt) and they spent it elsewhere. Councils of all colours failed to invest in the future. They were all culpable.

Single biggest problem with this country is that we do not understand the value of investing for the future. Whether that is homes, infrastructure, education, health. We think in 3 year cycles - government might be in for 5 years but year 1 - blame the previous and say what a mess it all is. Y2-4 do something to show you did something. Y5 do nothing as you do not want to leave a positive legacy for the next lot. So out of every 5 year government term we generally get 3 good years, 2 years wasted. Again, does not matter which party or which colour - blue, red, yellow etc...

[C8RKH]

9 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

Simplicity is generally best - we could sweep away masses of bureaucracy but one size fits all approach which would be adopted by doing everything centrally wouldn't work either.

But then were would the legions of senior Public sector managers go to? They would not go to the private sector as they'd need to work. But then paying them to sit in an office doing nothing is no different to paying them to sit at home and do nothing I suppose!

[molemot]

I realise I persist in beating my head against a wall...but I would suggest that this article says what I fear better then I can, and will repay reading.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html

[Barrykearley]

Umm - toss them straight on the scrap heap - let them sort themselves out. They would qualify for zippidy squit as they would have too much in assets and cash that they've leached off the system.

next

It's easy to say trump is a nightmare and a bad thing.

lets face it - what we have had so far - is that great ?

in our country - we have ex service men sleeping rough - while our government pump hundreds of millions into foreign aid. Then prioritise "asylum seekers" over anyone else.

its high time we pulled up the bloody draw bridge and forced the lazy back to work whilst sorting our own country out.

we can all wear rose tinted specs - but ffs - the system absolutely friking stinks

[C8RKH]

I read that @molemot and personally, yes, some interesting points, but I do not subscrie to the view that history foretells the future. That's all a bit too groundhog day for me.

He uses the same sort of imagery as trump to be honest - by that, I'm talking style over content. but let's take one point:

"Trump says he will Make America Great Again, when in fact America is currently great, according to pretty well any statistics "

I wonder. What statistics is he referring to?

Is it the ones for murder - I guess it is true to say America is great at that

What about gun crime - yup, great at that too compared to most other places in the world.

Drugs - yup.......   You get the gist.

 

There is so much that is great about America. Great that is if you have money, wealth, privilege and most of all health.  But there is so much in America that is, just like over here, totally fooked up. I stopped reading after that quote, I just thought oh, here we go again. My bad.

I'm not going to defend the indefensible. Some of the things Trump has said are damn right wrong. Totally appalling. However, some of what he says makes a huge amount of sense to me.

He wants to get Americans back to work. if you are an unemployed American in 2017, i can guarantee you the last word you be thinking of was "great"! What is wrong with wanting to protect your home industry. To give jobs to your own people.To give them a sense of purpose and an opportunity to earn and to build wealth and security? Why is that bad?

Oh, i get it, because it is protectionist and prevents trade. So, the fact that if you want to setup your stall in China, you need a "local" partner, and the stuff needs to be made there so Chinese workers have jobs. That's OK then. that's not protectionist as they are not as wealthy as we are so we can afford to pay to make them wealthy whilst our own workers become destitute, lose their jobs, lose their homes, lose their dignity. But hey, it's OK, because we have levelled the playing field!

One of the things that is killing our planet is the movement of goods around the world. Vast container ships, with 20,000, 25,000, 30,000 or more containers continually moving stuff around the globe. Damn, these things are so big they do not even notice when a 100 containers fall off mid journey in the middle of the ocean!

Pure and total waste of resources etc.So make more of what you need in your own country with your own workers. it's better for the planet and will probably stop the wasteful throw away society we have become as things will be more expensive so we will look after then better and make them last. a novel concept I learnt from my grandparents and parents. If you need something, buy the best you can. if you look after it, you'll not need to buy another one.Cheaper in the long run.

I think his messages are largely sound. they resonate with me. i don't like "what" he says, or "how" he says it. But I get it the simple message behind the rhetoric. Make America Great Again is not really about projecting American power. We had Bush, Bush, Clinton, Obama to do that and where did it get the world really? Is it really a safer place? Pah!

Trump's message resonates not with the people who have in the US - regardless of colour or sex or race or religion. It resonates with the people who DO NOT HAVE in America regardless of colour, race, sex, or religion etc.  The millions of Americans who struggle day to day to live and clothe, feed and nurture their families..

Both in the US and over her, it seems that the ordinary people are speaking, and the Surbiton/Hamptons middle class tree huggers with their designer teas etc. are the ones that are whinging that the people "below" them have dared to have their say.

Around me,the ones who are screaming the most about Brexit are the professional middle classes who are worried about whether they will still get to their ski lodges in Chamonix post brexit. In the US, it's probably the ones wondering about their lodges in Colorado or their condo's in Florida.

If we tske awaythe emotion of "how" Trumpo says it, and strip back to the core message. i think that's why it is resonating with those that support him. many who oppose him do not want to hesr the message, so they focus on "how" he says it, not "what" he is really saying.

Just my view. However, I do value debate and like the fact that even on here, many of us have so many different views and are happy to share them. long may it continue.

[pete]

48 minutes ago, molemot said:

I realise I persist in beating my head against a wall...but I would suggest that this article says what I fear better then I can, and will repay reading.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html

https://medium.com/@zacha/history-is-about-the-past-thats-kind-of-the-point-d89e0fd9b995#.99j1egl7r

[oilmagnet477]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

But then were would the legions of senior Public sector managers go to? They would not go to the private sector as they'd need to work. But then paying them to sit in an office doing nothing is no different to paying them to sit at home and do nothing I suppose!

If we sack them all, their benefits would cost considerably less than net cost of salaries and they stop accruing gold plated pensions. Time for some belt tightening Sir Humphrey, wouldn't you say lol

[oilmagnet477]

Following another thread on here talking about providing Lotus Storage for projects, I've been looking into it in more detail.

There's a cracking site just up the road from me that would not only provide plenty of storage but also has big workshops and a large pit.

I would be seriously tempted but the site is £300k (an acre overall), add to that £5-10k per annum business rates and insurance, electric, repairs etc and the whole thing falls flat which is a real bugger.

I'm currently out of work, not claiming benefits and really keen to do something that allows me flexibility and also the opportunity to help like minded folk.

why the fk do the Council think they have first call of £500-£1000/month before I even make a living?

[PaulCP]

13 hours ago, C8RKH said:

But then were would the legions of senior Public sector managers go to? They would not go to the private sector as they'd need to work. But then paying them to sit in an office doing nothing is no different to paying them to sit at home and do nothing I suppose!

It's not only about paying them for doing nothing, the cost to councils to maintain those gold plated public pensions must be enormous. I'd love to see what % the total employee benefit cost represents on the annual council tax statement .

Time to come in to line with the private sector !

[Barrykearley]

They really need to cap salaries and pensions for the public sector. It's an utter joke just how much money is showered on these utterly incompetent muppets