# Privatisation of national industries



## Tashyboy (Jan 3, 2017)

Delc am sorry but having read your piece on prices of train fares I think you are being a bit of a pussy.

Train fares are going up and massively, for anyone to say otherwise is related to an ostrich with its head in the sand. If you have travelled by train abroad you will be able to relate to cheaper rail fares Irrespective of whether they are subsidised or not. And if they are, ask yourself why ? The government has gone on record and said massive amounts need to be spent on the railways to update them, including new trains/carriages. Yet they push ahead with HS2.

Electricity and Gas, again de nationalisation was going to provide competition and drive prices down. Yet they continue to rip off customers.

Water, again de nationalised yet Mr ombudsman when companies do not repair leaks. Do not fine said companies because to do so would mean less spent on repairs.

Royal Mail, now costs more for a flippin stamp than it does for a Christmas card.

on a positive note. All those people who managed to get shares at knock down prices, if they were part of a select affluent group did well at the time ( like me ma and pa). shame they have had to pay for it ten times over since.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 3, 2017)

Tashy, you were doing great until you went on to say affluent group. I couldn't even afford a second, battered car but could by the time I'd finished carpet bagging shares from the industries you speak of. There was a report x years ago about who bought shares back then, and it was, in the main, the working man. But then, like me, sold up quickly and making a wacking great profit, e.g. I bought BT at Â£3.30 a share and sold for Â£12.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Tashy, you were doing great until you went on to say affluent group. I couldn't even afford a second, battered car but could by the time I'd finished carpet bagging shares from the industries you speak of. There was a report x years ago about who bought shares back then, and it was, in the main, the working man. But then, like me, sold up quickly and making a wacking great profit, e.g. I bought BT at Â£3.30 a share and sold for Â£12.
		
Click to expand...

The affluent group were me mum and dad. I can remember them asking me if I was going to buy shares in BT, ( was it Busby that was the advertising bird) anyway I had all on getting by from week to week. They made a killing on all the shares inc X number of banks. She had a right Royal moan a couple of months ago about the price of gas and leccy. I reminded her of her killing with the shares. She had a face like thunder.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 3, 2017)

Typical Thatcherite policies.

Oh you'll have more choice (they said).........on who will rip you off, and have pensioners paying over Â£1,000 a year on both.

Food or fuel,this month?


----------



## Ross61 (Jan 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Tashy, you were doing great until you went on to say affluent group. I couldn't even afford a second, battered car but could by the time I'd finished carpet bagging shares from the industries you speak of. There was a report x years ago about who bought shares back then, and it was, in the main, the working man. But then, like me, sold up quickly and making a wacking great profit, e.g. I bought BT at Â£3.30 a share and sold for Â£12.
		
Click to expand...

when did you buy the BT shares? The offer price when privatised was Â£1.30.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 3, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			The affluent group were me mum and dad. I can remember them asking me if I was going to buy shares in BT, ( was it Busby that was the advertising bird) anyway I had all on getting by from week to week. They made a killing on all the shares inc X number of banks. She had a right Royal moan a couple of months ago about the price of gas and leccy. I reminded her of her killing with the shares. She had a face like thunder.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody made a "killing" from these shares, they were so over subscribed that nobody got enough to make a real difference to their lives
may have made a hundred quid here or there, but not enough to buy a new driver, let alone retire.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 3, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Nobody made a "killing" from these shares, they were so over subscribed that nobody got enough to make a real difference to their lives
may have made a hundred quid here or there, but not enough to buy a new driver, let alone retire.
		
Click to expand...

Hundred quid to me mum was a killing. &#128513;


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 3, 2017)

Whilst the whole privatisation push in the 80's has created problems now, the biggest Thatcher screw up was the "Right to Buy". Not only did it create the housing bubble and crash, but the legacy of almost no social housing is totally disgusting,


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 3, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Whilst the whole privatisation push in the 80's has created problems now, the biggest Thatcher screw up was the "Right to Buy". Not only did it create the housing bubble and crash, but the legacy of almost no social housing is totally disgusting,
		
Click to expand...

Nah then bunker, this is the bit that grips mah poo. If a house was worth 100k theoretically you could buy it for 50k half the value. But only 25K went to the council that sold the house. The other 25k went to maggies central government fund. So Maggie wins. Mr council tennant wins ( and some are now in Â£1 million houses). But the council and generations of future potential tenants lose out.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 3, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Whilst the whole privatisation push in the 80's has created problems now, the biggest Thatcher screw up was the "Right to Buy". Not only did it create the housing bubble and crash, but the legacy of almost no social housing is totally disgusting,
		
Click to expand...

But it didn't make less houses. Most of the houses sold are either still lived in by the people that bought them or the proceeds have been left to their children who will be able to use it towards buying a house.  Ex Council houses on Council Estates are not exactly being lived in by the filthy rich.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 3, 2017)

I seem to remember you paid a quarter of its true value, or family members who weren't living in the house did.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 3, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			Nah then bunker, this is the bit that grips mah poo. If a house was worth 100k theoretically you could buy it for 50k half the value. But only 25K went to the council that sold the house. The other 25k went to maggies central government fund. So Maggie wins. Mr council tennant wins ( and some are now in Â£1 million houses). But the council and generations of future potential tenants lose out.
		
Click to expand...

The proceeds went to local authorities.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 3, 2017)

Liverbirdie said:



			Typical Thatcherite policies.

Oh you'll have more choice (they said).........on who will rip you off, and have pensioners paying over Â£1,000 a year on both.

Food or fuel,this month?
		
Click to expand...

Would that be the same greedy pensioners that have had life easier than any following generation, who are swilling with cash and living on gilt edged pensions?

Only asking.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 3, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I seem to remember you paid a quarter of its true value, or family members who weren't living in the house did.
		
Click to expand...

I think the amount was based on how long you had paid rent and you needed to have paid in for over 20 years for the maximum discount.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 3, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Would that be the same greedy pensioners that have had life easier than any following generation, who are swilling with cash and living on gilt edged pensions?

Only asking.
		
Click to expand...

So all pensioners have private pensions, and arent just living off state pensions?

Maybe different in the south.........only asking.:thup:


----------



## Ross61 (Jan 3, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			The proceeds went to local authorities.
		
Click to expand...

Only half the proceeds went to local authorities who could only use the money to reduce the council debt until the debt was cleared. Hence very few new council houses were built and the queue for a house to rent stayed the same. 
  All this achieved nothing to solve the problem for the young adults to obtain a dwelling in the town where they worked.... which job they probably lost in the recession's and the closure of so many companies.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 3, 2017)

Ross61 said:



			when did you buy the BT shares? The offer price when privatised was Â£1.30.
		
Click to expand...

Dodgy memory. I worked for BT. Got a load free, and a matched offer to purchase others. There was also a savings scheme straight from salary.


----------



## Ross61 (Jan 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Dodgy memory. I worked for BT. Got a load free, and a matched offer to purchase others. There was also a savings scheme straight from salary.
		
Click to expand...

I think it was Something like 100  free plus buy 3 for 2 up to a max of Â£200 pounds and then a 10% discount on any further purchases.
 I had only bought my flat the year before and was struggling to pay the mortgage, so borrowed Â£200 off my mum and dad for the 3 for 2.

 By the way you would have had to keep your shares for 14 years to sell for Â£12.

the saving schemes still exist. I have 4 running at present


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 3, 2017)

Ross61 said:



			Only half the proceeds went to local authorities who could only use the money to reduce the council debt until the debt was cleared. Hence very few new council houses were built and the queue for a house to rent stayed the same. 
  All this achieved nothing to solve the problem for the young adults to obtain a dwelling in the town where they worked.... which job they probably lost in the recession's and the closure of so many companies.
		
Click to expand...

yup that's how I understand it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 3, 2017)

Liverbirdie said:



			So all pensioners have private pensions, and arent just living off state pensions?

Maybe different in the south.........only asking.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

That's what the Remainers keep telling us.


----------



## woody69 (Jan 4, 2017)

Privatisation of the railways was flawed from the beginning. It was because of the insistence that the infrastructure is owned and looked after by the state owned Network Rail.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 4, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			The proceeds went to local authorities.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong again.


----------



## bigslice (Jan 4, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Would that be the same greedy pensioners that have had life easier than any following generation, who are swilling with cash and living on gilt edged pensions?

Only asking.
		
Click to expand...

Theres still time for a cold winter


----------



## bigslice (Jan 4, 2017)

Ross61 said:



			I think it was Something like 100  free plus buy 3 for 2 up to a max of Â£200 pounds and then a 10% discount on any further purchases.
 I had only bought my flat the year before and was struggling to pay the mortgage, so borrowed Â£200 off my mum and dad for the 3 for 2.

 By the way you would have had to keep your shares for 14 years to sell for Â£12.

the saving schemes still exist. I have 4 running at present 

Click to expand...

I remember going with my dad when he went on strike (i think ) years later my mum said they struggled. I was like is that why theres money missing from my woolich account. Which she shut before i was due a windfall. I blame thatcher


----------



## delc (Jan 5, 2017)

I worked for a Water Company when it was privatised. The first thing that happened is that the salaries of the top management went rocketing up while quite a few middle managers were made redundant, particularly if they were over 50. I was a worker shareholder for a while, but then the company was taken over by the French who bought out our shares. So far from the workers having some say in the running of the company, they now had none. Basically privatisation is a Government and City racket to sell back to us what we already own. I am sure that the Mafia would end up in jail if they tried something similar!


----------



## delc (Jan 5, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Would that be the same greedy pensioners that have had life easier than any following generation, who are swilling with cash and living on gilt edged pensions?

Only asking.
		
Click to expand...

Even with a gilt edged final salary pension, you still end up with a smaller income when you retire, but with more time to spend it. The way things are going, people will have to work until they drop, or end their days in Victorian style workhouses!


----------



## chrisd (Jan 5, 2017)

The posts on selling council houses forget one important point, as the houses were council owned they were responsible for repairs and even decorating and this was costing the councils enormous sums of money each year, so, selling off their housing stock made money for the coffers and saved every council millions in costs/ wages each and every year since.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 5, 2017)

chrisd said:



			The posts on selling council houses forget one important point, as the houses were council owned they were responsible for repairs and even decorating and this was costing the councils enormous sums of money each year, so, selling off their housing stock made money for the coffers and saved every council millions in costs/ wages each and every year since.
		
Click to expand...

It was the same when the NCB sold off its pit houses at half there value. The estates dept did all the repairs on the housing. They were the first to lose there jobs.&#128577;
A Scotish guy next door to me dad called Wally ( honest ), said he is not buying his house until the guttering and coal house door is repaired, a bracket had broken on the guttering and a hinge had broke on the coal house. It took 18 months to get them done, When it was repaired the value of the house had gone up 2K. It had cost him 1K to get a door and guttering repaired, which he paid off over 15 years &#128513;


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

chrisd said:



			The posts on selling council houses forget one important point, as the houses were council owned they were responsible for repairs and even decorating and this was costing the councils enormous sums of money each year, so, selling off their housing stock made money for the coffers and saved every council millions in costs/ wages each and every year since.
		
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the Tennant's paid rent... That's what paid for the wages and upkeep.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 5, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			You are forgetting the Tennant's paid rent... That's what paid for the wages and upkeep.
		
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that a huge number of tenants were on benefits and the rent was also cheap by comparison to the cost of buying, particularly in the early '70's when mortgage rates were around 12%


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

chrisd said:



			You are forgetting that a huge number of tenants were on benefits and the rent was also cheap by comparison to the cost of buying, particularly in the early '70's when mortgage rates were around 12%
		
Click to expand...

i don't think its comparable for either point. Houses were not sold off till the 80's on the whole and there were less people on benefits then than now. Also the council don't pay for the HB, but they did pay to build all those council houses only for them to be sold of cheap. Then the councils didn't see any or very little of what they were sold for. one of the reasons most councils are now in the financial state they are in today.

Maggies 40 pieces of silver


----------



## chrisd (Jan 5, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			i don't think its comparable for either point. Houses were not sold off till the 80's on the whole and there were less people on benefits then than now. Also the council don't pay for the HB, but they did pay to build all those council houses only for them to be sold of cheap. Then the councils didn't see any or very little of what they were sold for. one of the reasons most councils are now in the financial state they are in today.

Maggies 40 pieces of silver

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I was initially pointing out the savings to the councils of repairs, maintenance etc etc of looking after the housing stock which I don't think was offset  by the rental income.


----------



## Craigg (Jan 5, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			i don't think its comparable for either point. *Houses were not sold off till the 80's on the whole and there were less people on benefits then than now.* Also the council don't pay for the HB, but they did pay to build all those council houses only for them to be sold of cheap. Then the councils didn't see any or very little of what they were sold for. one of the reasons most councils are now in the financial state they are in today.

Maggies 40 pieces of silver

Click to expand...

Do you have any figures for this? My memory of 1982 were 3 million people unemployed. Just about twice the figure of today, with a lot less people in the country.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 5, 2017)

chrisd said:



			You are forgetting that a huge number of tenants were on benefits and the rent was also cheap by comparison to the cost of buying, particularly in the early '70's when mortgage rates were around 12%
		
Click to expand...

How would someone who is on benefits be able to get a mortgage to buy a house ?


----------



## chrisd (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			Do you have any figures for this? My memory of 1982 were 3 million people unemployed. Just about twice the figure of today, with a lot less people in the country.
		
Click to expand...


Pretty much the figure I'd have in my memory too



Tashyboy said:



			How would someone who is on benefits be able to get a mortgage to buy a house ?
		
Click to expand...

I never suggested they did


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			Do you have any figures for this? My memory of 1982 were 3 million people unemployed. Just about twice the figure of today, with a lot less people in the country.
		
Click to expand...

unemployed yes on benefits.... that is another matter


----------



## Craigg (Jan 5, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Pretty much the figure I'd have in my memory too
		
Click to expand...



Then how do you reach the conclusion that there were less people on benefits in the 80's than now?
13% unemployment in 1982. 3 million unemployed
 4.8% at the moment. 1.6 million unemployed


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			Do you have any figures for this? My memory of 1982 were 3 million people unemployed. Just about twice the figure of today, with a lot less people in the country.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a good point... we had had Maggie for 3 years, best growth we had in this country during her time in power...... unemployment


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			Then how do you reach the conclusion that there were less people on benefits in the 80's than now?
13% unemployment in 1982. 3 million unemployed
 4.8% at the moment. 1.6 million unemployed
		
Click to expand...

what about on benefits... ????


----------



## Craigg (Jan 5, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			what about on benefits... ????
		
Click to expand...

People claiming Unemployment related benefits in 1986 was 3.1 million.
People claiming unemployment related benefits in 2016 was 0.8 million.


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			People claiming Unemployment related benefits in 1986 was 3.1 million.
People claiming unemployment related benefits in 2016 was 0.8 million.
		
Click to expand...

again that's unemployment again... but thats not my point.

Chris d was making out that selling all the council houses was a positive because of the number of people on benefits.... a few years before Maggie came to power Unemployment was at its lowest level ever..  

and i imagine.. that paying the housing benefit he mentioned in his post to make that point would have cost the economy less than paying the amount of private landlords we do today... buts that's progress for you


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 5, 2017)

Craigg said:



			People claiming Unemployment related benefits in 1986 was 3.1 million.
People claiming unemployment related benefits in 2016 was 0.8 million.
		
Click to expand...

But that's not a true reflection on the benefits being paid.  In 1986 their was not the raft of benefits like tax credits, income support, JSA etc that were brought in under Blair and Brown.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jan 5, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			But that's not a true reflection on the benefits being paid.  In 1986 their was not the raft of benefits like tax credits, income support, JSA etc that were brought in under Blair and Brown.
		
Click to expand...

Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family  "getting Â£30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 6, 2017)

Fyldewhite said:



			Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family  "getting Â£30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.
		
Click to expand...

.......And a totally skewed SE England housing market means that the poorer regions of the UK pay a fortune in subsidy to the richest region.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 6, 2017)

Fyldewhite said:



			Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family  "getting Â£30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.
		
Click to expand...

Welfare costs went up 40% under Browns watch.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 6, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			You are forgetting the Tennant's paid rent... That's what paid for the wages and upkeep.
		
Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			You are forgetting that a huge number of tenants were on benefits and the rent was also cheap by comparison to the cost of buying, particularly in the early '70's when mortgage rates were around 12%
		
Click to expand...

My point about benefits in the 80's was solely an answer to Patrick's posting that the rental income paid the councils redecorating and maintenance bills.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 6, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.......And a totally skewed SE England housing market means that the poorer regions of the UK pay a fortune in subsidy to the richest region.
		
Click to expand...

Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 6, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.
		
Click to expand...

Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 6, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -
		
Click to expand...

And don't forget we also pay more for our golf memberships


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jan 6, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Welfare costs went up 40% under Browns watch.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 6, 2017)

Fyldewhite said:



			Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago) have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.


----------



## bigslice (Jan 6, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.
		
Click to expand...

It can also be paid direct to landlord


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jan 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago) have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.
		
Click to expand...

So we should scrap tax credits then and leave it to "the market" to pick up the slack? That'll happen 

I'm not a massive fan of Tax Credits btw. They have led to wages being suppressed and seen by employers as a wage subsidy for their benefit rather than the employee....especially in smaller empoyers. I was just trying to illustrate that SR's post above saying it "went up 40% on Brown's watch" was actually a stated objective of the 1997 election win and it is far, far too simplistic to say increase in welfare spending = bad.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 6, 2017)

Fyldewhite said:



			So we should scrap tax credits then and leave it to "the market" to pick up the slack? That'll happen 

I'm not a massive fan of Tax Credits btw. They have led to wages being suppressed and seen by employers as a wage subsidy for their benefit rather than the employee....especially in smaller empoyers. I was just trying to illustrate that SR's post above saying it "went up 40% on Brown's watch" was actually a stated objective of the 1997 election win and it is far, far too simplistic to say increase in welfare spending = bad.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be left to the market. But imagine going to a particular industry and offering a decent subsidy providing they increase wages. The business becomes more successful, staff are also more motivated, profits go up and the business is weaned off some of the subsidy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 6, 2017)

Fyldewhite said:



			Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I do.  I see no good in subsidising low pay through benefits, all this does is encourage Employers to pay low wages and impose zero hour contracts.    Since welfare was increased by this amount has it actually improved the lives of the lower paid or given more time off work, I dont think so, all it has achieved is lower wages and people forced to need benefits to get by.    While we are on the subject I would also point out that the other side of this double edged sword was the policy of bringing in low skilled immigrants who are happy to work for these low wages as they are much higher than in their own countries and our top up benefits make coming to the UK double attractive while pushing low paid Brits noses into poverty.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and *zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago)* have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.
		
Click to expand...

Any chance of links to back up this claim?  

As seems to me that in most EU countries zero hours contracts are unknown, heavily regulated or banned  https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jan 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes I do.  I see no good in subsidising low pay through benefits, all this does is encourage Employers to pay low wages and impose zero hour contracts.    Since welfare was increased by this amount has it actually improved the lives of the lower paid or given more time off work, I dont think so, all it has achieved is lower wages and people forced to need benefits to get by.    While we are on the subject I would also point out that the other side of this double edged sword was the policy of bringing in low skilled immigrants who are happy to work for these low wages as they are much higher than in their own countries and our top up benefits make coming to the UK double attractive while pushing low paid Brits noses into poverty.
		
Click to expand...

My oh my, you really are a one trick pony aren't you?  I actually feel sorry for you. So much anger. As usual you bring a complex issue down to simple soundbites that say a lot more about you than adding anything to the argument.


----------



## shagster (Jan 8, 2017)

if the same stats were used to calculate unemployment now as in the late 70's and early 80's people would be in for a big shock
selling off of council stock was a disgrace, and most of the money did not go to local council
benefits now have to pay for sky high rents which is a large drain on the welfare
as for selling off our utillites, well what can you say, the very reason capitalism is a joke, it shafts most people
we need a government with real balls to take back the utillities, and start a building programme of affordable housing for both private or council use and invest in industry
it needs to utilise waste ground and redevelop run down areas, stop building on flood plains and actually have a plan for the long term, not short term knee jerk politics that we have with the current set of clowns.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

I wonder how many of those bemoaning the high costs of rent from the welfare budget were against the so called "bedroom tax". It seems that the government can't win. Either the government carries on paying all the high rents or they try to bring down costs by putting families in suitably sized homes. Why should a family with two sons be in a four bed house? Let the kids share a bedroom and save a few hundred quid a month by putting them in a two bed house. Multiply that by a few thousand families and the savings start stacking up.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -
		
Click to expand...

Kent?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I wonder how many of those bemoaning the high costs of rent from the welfare budget were against the so called "bedroom tax". It seems that the government can't win. Either the government carries on paying all the high rents or they try to bring down costs by putting families in suitably sized homes. Why should a family with two sons be in a four bed house? Let the kids share a bedroom and save a few hundred quid a month by putting them in a two bed house. Multiply that by a few thousand families and the savings start stacking up.
		
Click to expand...

Were are all these 2 bedroom houses?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

Well there are between 20 and 30 two bed houses or flats currently available to rent in my town of approx 10000 people.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			Well there are between 20 and 30 two bed houses or flats currently available to rent in my town of approx 10000 people.
		
Click to expand...

What about the other 970 families in 4 bed houses were do they go?
No issue in principle, we just haven't got the housing stock.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

What other 970 families?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			What other 970 families?
		
Click to expand...

The ones you said "Multiply that by a few thousand families and the savings start stacking up."
As you didn't quantify how many thousands, I went with 1000.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

Well I'm assuming at not all of those 1000 families live in my one town and it seems reasonable to suggest that there are other towns with properties available. There are over 900 towns and cities with a population over 10000. An average of 25 available two bed properties in each (which is clearly ridiculous as some of the big cities will have hundreds available) gives 22500 available 2 bed properties in total.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			Well I'm assuming at not all of those 1000 families live in my one town and it seems reasonable to suggest that there are other towns with properties available. There are over 900 towns and cities with a population over 10000. An average of 25 available two bed properties in each (which is clearly ridiculous as some of the big cities will have hundreds available) gives 22500 available 2 bed properties in total.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that was the problem with the Policy, all based on unrealistic figures, they've tried up here in the NE and there are no were near near enough 2 beds available, so people who are willing and want to move are stuck, until we build more "council" properties the wheel is stuck.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 8, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Any chance of links to back up this claim?  

As seems to me that in most EU countries zero hours contracts are unknown, heavily regulated or banned  https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I can't provide a link to the contracts my employer has been using in Germany for many years. Heavily regulated they may be but production line staff have had them for at least 10 years. When there's a glut of orders they're called in to the line, and when its quiet they're not required.

However, thanks for the link that shows there are only 7 countries where they are banned... not quite sure what point you're trying to make????


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

On Rightmove today for the Northeast......

Sunderland has 339 2 bed properties available to rent
Newcastle 1644
Hartlepool 131
Middlesbrough 257
Scarborough 64
York 283
Durham 140
Seaham 27

So it seems as though there are plenty of 2 bed properties available in the northeast.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			On Rightmove today for the Northeast......

Sunderland has 339 2 bed properties available to rent
Newcastle 1644
Hartlepool 131
Middlesbrough 257
Scarborough 64
York 283
Durham 140
Seaham 27

So it seems as though there are plenty of 2 bed properties available in the northeast.
		
Click to expand...

And how many are suitable for disabled or take pets or other needs families may have, how does that compare to the No needed, I'm going by the local councils in the media who say they are struggling.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			And how many are suitable for disabled or take pets or other needs families may have, how does that compare to the No needed, *I'm going by the local councils in the media who say they are struggling.*

Click to expand...

Local Labour councils trying to make political capital out of a Tory policy?


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			On Rightmove today for the Northeast......

Sunderland has 339 2 bed properties available to rent
Newcastle 1644
Hartlepool 131
Middlesbrough 257
Scarborough 64
York 283
Durham 140
Seaham 27

So it seems as though there are plenty of 2 bed properties available in the northeast.
		
Click to expand...

How many of these are council properties and how many of these have been offered to those you currentlyboccupied of under sizes families.  I have no problem with the so called bedroom tax being applied to those that refused to move to smaller properties when it was clearly reasonable for them to do so,  but that is not how it worked.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

The original point raised was with regards to how much was being paid in rent to private landlords. My point was that by downsizing families in houses that are rented through a private landlord there are considerable savings to be made.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			The original point raised was with regards to how much was being paid in rent to private landlords. My point was that by downsizing families in houses that are rented through a private landlord there are considerable savings to be made.
		
Click to expand...



The Labour Government, in 2003, introduced Local Housing Benefit (LHB) this restricted payments to Private Landlords in the way you describe.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 8, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			And how many are suitable for disabled or take pets or other needs families may have, how does that compare to the No needed, I'm going by the local councils in the media who say they are struggling.
		
Click to expand...

How about disabled pets?


----------



## shagster (Jan 8, 2017)

some people on here talk absolute BS
so a family with two strapping teenage sons should move to a two bedroom house to save a few quid on welfare
20 odd homes available in a town of 10000, wow lets all move there
perhaps people should think about realities more instead of trying to write headlines for the daily scum


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 8, 2017)

shagster said:



			some people on here talk absolute BS
so a family with two strapping teenage sons should move to a two bedroom house to save a few quid on welfare
20 odd homes available in a town of 10000, wow lets all move there
perhaps people should think about realities more instead of trying to write headlines for the daily scum
		
Click to expand...

If they have two strapping sons why are they on welfare?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

doublebogey7 said:



			The Labour Government, in 2003, introduced Local Housing Benefit (LHB) this restricted payments to Private Landlords in the way you describe.
		
Click to expand...

So would that have been a precursor to the "bedroom tax"?


----------



## shagster (Jan 8, 2017)

there sons could be 15 - 16 still at school and parents in low paid jobs
not complicated


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 8, 2017)

shagster said:



			some people on here talk absolute BS
so a family with two strapping teenage sons should move to a two bedroom house to save a few quid on welfare
20 odd homes available in a town of 10000, wow lets all move there
perhaps people should think about realities more instead of trying to write headlines for the daily scum
		
Click to expand...




shagster said:



			there sons could be 15 - 16 still at school and parents in low paid jobs
not complicated
		
Click to expand...

So what's the problem with them having a two bed house/flat and the two teenagers sharing a bedroom?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 8, 2017)

shagster said:



			there sons could be 15 - 16 still at school and parents in low paid jobs
not complicated
		
Click to expand...

Not what 'Strapping Sons' visualises.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 8, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			So what's the problem with them having a two bed house/flat and the two teenagers sharing a bedroom?
		
Click to expand...

Just one small minir point, what if they have to move to a new school because of house move? Timing could be no worse, what if they have elderly relatives close by that they are responsible for? 
I guess you realise it's not just a simple case of here's the keys and no impact on the family, tell me you're just playing devils advocate?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 8, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Not what 'Strapping Sons' visualises.
		
Click to expand...

There was me thinking "strapping sons" is the sort of comment you would make on young teenage sons growing rapidly - mainly aimed to someone who is more than likely tall for their age. 

What else can it visualise ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 8, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There was me thinking "strapping sons" is the sort of comment you would make on young teenage sons growing rapidly - mainly aimed to someone who is more than likely tall for their age. 

What else can it visualise ?
		
Click to expand...

A couple of grown up strong young men.


----------

