Does May want to win?

[Deleted member 59730]

I guess Mrs May would have to resign.

Goody! We can then have a strong and stable Leader of the opposition. Boris, Gove, Hunt or Jacob Rees-Mogg. Come on Cyndy, who would you bet on?

 

[ffox]

A YouGov poll is suggesting that the Tories could lose their majority

Strange innit? This is a YouGov poll and YouGov is very blue on the political spectrum. Even they have had to explain how they screwed the stats around to arrive at the Teresa lost majority result.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-conservatives-labour-win-seats-a7764401.html

So what does the message say to you?
If you are Blue - get your finger out and vote or you might regret it?
If you are Red - it's alright chaps, relax Jezza is giving her a hard time?
If you are any other colour - you are not of interest, may as well stay at home on polling day?

Just asking the question

 

[Mr D]

And this is exactly what I was talking about earlier; people with good intentions but no understanding of life outside their sphere of privilege.

Your assumptions here are:
- Spare time
- Owning a computer
- Access to office programs
- Access to the interenet
- Ability/Education to use any of those
- Available utilities to operate the equipment (electricity, telephone line)
- Ability/Education to know where to start for job seeking at home, and how to go about it

Looking for work usually includes a prospective employer wanting references, which when checked alert the current employer to the employee's activity which can (despite current law) end in forms of constructive dismissal.

Honestly, I could write enough posts to fill a page on this sort of thing, but the key thing is that you are arguing from a position of victim blaming - the implied accusation that people in poverty are there because of some character flaw and that all they need to do is try harder.

Please try and consider that next time you're defending the current government's intent to make the poor poorer.

Over the past dozen years or more there have been numerous projects to get computers into community buildings, charities, libraries etc. The jobcentre also has usually a number of computers set up for jobsearch and staff to help newbies start looking.
Now if a person who is working doesn't have spare time then that is a good reason to look for a job.
Heck, our local homeless can access computers in at least 6 locations I know of to find work besides the jobcentre - they are usually the ones without computer and electricity access of their own.

When applying for jobs you can request (if its not on the form) that current employer is not contacted prior to interview.

Perhaps consider how much money the government and private bodies have put into helping people find work over the years. For those not wanting to search internet the local paper and free papers carry job adverts. Local newsagents often have adverts in shop windows.

Those who cannot find time in over a hundred hours a week to spend a few minutes looking for a job are pretty much stuck where they are. For the other 30 million plus who work the tools all exist.

No idea what privilege you think I have. You do not live this life, you live yours.

 

[Mr D]

Agreed but the government has to make sure the boat is stable before the lowly-paid take their feet off the pier.



Okay, you seem to have a real problem with this.
THEY DO NOT ALL PAY THEIR WORKERS ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.
The legally required minimums, sometimes, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.

Just because it is the current legal requirement does not make it sufficient through some dint of self-referential logic.

The above makes me think you are having a go at companies. You say you are having a go at government. Have you thought of campaigning to get wage level increased as a total per week to what you think is enough to live on? The usual policies made by governments so far is hourly rate. Which is not the same at all.

What makes you think we're 'having a go at companies'? We're very clearly criticising the government for it's low wage policies. Keep up.


This is the high-school level reasoning that seems to have been adopted by the right wing. Problem is, this isn't actually the effect that plays out. It probably *would* at a high enough rate of pay, but it hasn't in the past, probably because the wages are set unnaturally low for the market.
(A little bit about it here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/research/labour/minimumwage/WP1481c.pdf)

It is the effect that plays out. Have seen it happen.

 

[Cobby]

Over the past dozen years or more there have been numerous projects to get computers into community buildings, charities, libraries etc. The jobcentre also has usually a number of computers set up for jobsearch and staff to help newbies start looking.

You're still doing it. There have been lots of schemes set up to help people and that's the only thing you can see. You appear to believe that since you understand the system and have enough education and experience to be able to use the system, anybody else not doing it must simply be lazy and deserve their lot in life. This is extremely unhelpful in the national discussion and quite frankly it's not a valid argument against helping.

Now if a person who is working doesn't have spare time then that is a good reason to look for a job.

Cool! Circular reasoning. They don't have spare time to look for a job so maybe they should get a new job? Your logic is flawless!

Heck, our local homeless can access computers in at least 6 locations I know of to find work besides the jobcentre - they are usually the ones without computer and electricity access of their own.

Absolutely. They also sometimes lack education or have mental health issues or, barring those (or even if they are overcome) there are a number of issues reducing the chances that the homeless would be employed. That's a whole other kettle of fish though and the discussion here is the very real problem of working poverty.

When applying for jobs you can request (if its not on the form) that current employer is not contacted prior to interview.

You can, a thing that isn't always followed and sometimes overlooked. Risk.

Perhaps consider how much money the government and private bodies have put into helping people find work over the years. For those not wanting to search internet the local paper and free papers carry job adverts. Local newsagents often have adverts in shop windows.

Those who cannot find time in over a hundred hours a week to spend a few minutes looking for a job are pretty much stuck where they are. For the other 30 million plus who work the tools all exist.

Again, you are generalising about a huge swathe of people in poverty and near-poverty, struggling, because you look at the system and see provision for assistance without any understanding of how people in that position actually go about accessing those provisions (or not) in real life.

Working poverty is a thing that exists and no matter how you try to argue it, it's not something people can simply pull themselves out of with a stiff upper lip and positive mental attitude. Continuing to cut benefits and funding for support programs (living, employment, and health) is about moral judgement not about budgetary or fiscal responsibility.

 

[Cobby]

It is the effect that plays out. Have seen it happen.

That's not what the evidence has shown.

 

[UKSBD]

Working poverty is a thing that exists and no matter how you try to argue it, it's not something people can simply pull themselves out of with a stiff upper lip and positive mental attitude.

Working poverty is primarily due to housing costs.

The emphasis shouldn't be on pressurising employers to increase wages so that people can afford housing, the emphasis should be on reducing housing costs.

 

[Newchodge]

A YouGov poll is suggesting that the Tories could lose their majority

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-yougov-idUKKBN18Q2JW?rpc=401&

The polls have been noticeably inaccurate in recent times but if they are correct this would be a real bodyblow for the Government and I guess Mrs May would have to resign.

Or it could be the Tory spinners trying to make sure they get their vote to turn out.

 

[Newchodge]

What is the current benefit rate now? Can someone survive on that? Are there millions who do survive on it? How are they doing it?

Well, to start with they get their rent and council tax paid, free prescriptions and dental care and other benefits. Even so they struggle. They also manage,sometimes, to find work in the black economy.

 

[Newchodge]

Goody! We can then have a strong and stable Leader of the opposition. Boris, Gove, Hunt or Jacob Rees-Mogg. Come on Cyndy, who would you bet on?

Diane Abbott? She is as good as any of them. LOL.

 

[Mr D]

Well, to start with they get their rent and council tax paid, free prescriptions and dental care and other benefits. Even so they struggle. They also manage,sometimes, to find work in the black economy.

OK so rent and council tax covered. So not covering food, water, gas, lecky, insurance, phone, clothing etc - and still they survive. Dental? Its not necessarily much cost if anything on a yearly basis unless you have problems.
Prescription? If you have a lot you can pre pay for a card. For most people much of the time there will be little need of prescriptions. And far, far cheaper for some of us than buying the items ourselves.

 

[Mr D]

Working poverty is primarily due to housing costs.

The emphasis shouldn't be on pressurising employers to increase wages so that people can afford housing, the emphasis should be on reducing housing costs.

Yes, tell the housing associations, councils, private landlords, pension funds etc that they must reduce rents.
Perhaps they can reduce employment themselves while they are at it, what with less coming in.

 

[Mr D]

Cobby, some of us have intimate experience of the problems of poverty. And have since have years of experience working with projects to help others.
I am not generalising.

And glad you agree about the person who has no spare time. Most people get 120 plus hours spare time a week, some would say its not good for anyone to work more than that in a week on an ongoing basis.

 

[UKSBD]

Yes, tell the housing associations, councils, private landlords, pension funds etc that they must reduce rents.

You don't tell them anything, but for every profit making housing association building houses and charging an extra £200 a month to keep share holders happy you create non profit making housing associations who can charge £200 a month less.

 

[Ian J]

Well, to start with they get their rent and council tax paid, free prescriptions and dental care and other benefits. Even so they struggle. They also manage,sometimes, to find work in the black economy.

I moved to from the prosperous South to Newcastle in the mid eighties and according to all the statistics they were having a terrible time of it as the shipyards were all closing and there was high unemployment.

In the real world though the pubs and clubs were full and retail was buoyant with the manager of one hifi retail chain telling me that there were more units of the new fangled CD players sold in the North East than in any of the other region of the country.

All due to the thriving black economy

 

[Mr D]

You don't tell them anything, but for every profit making housing association building houses and charging an extra £200 a month to keep share holders happy you create non profit making housing associations who can charge £200 a month less.

Non profit still have to make a profit. To deal with years when major work is needed, to deal with increased costs that come in, to cover problems that crop up.
A non profit uses its money slightly differently. Can still go under.

 

[Newchodge]

Non profit still have to make a profit. To deal with years when major work is needed, to deal with increased costs that come in, to cover problems that crop up.
A non profit uses its money slightly differently. Can still go under.

Maintaining a sensible reserve is what all organisations should do. Paying a healthy dividend to shareholders is not the same thing.

 

[Mr D]

Maintaining a sensible reserve is what all organisations should do. Paying a healthy dividend to shareholders is not the same thing.

Indeed it is not. And not all for profit companies pay dividends every year either.
Some pay rarely if at all.

Right, so some group gets together finance to become a social landlord. They buy properties and charge just enough rent to cover expenses and put a little by for the future.
We are talking how much difference here?

How much is paid out in dividends by the owner / landlord of housing as a percentage of turnover? That is potentially how much the total rent can be reduced by. Less reduction if high cost of borrowing has to be accounted for...
How much are we talking about for say a £500 a month rental property being reduced to?

 

[UKSBD]

Price of land and panning laws should be taken in to consideration.

Rather than a council sell off land to a property developer for £10m it should build it's own houses on the land.

When a property developer obtains planning permission the % of social housing they have to build and give to non profit housing associations should be increased, this should be policed better too, so the ones given away aren't just the junk ones or ones in worst locations)

A mechanism should be devised that rewards land owners to sell land to non profits rather than property developers (don't ask me what, I'm not a politician or economist)

Businesses sitting on land should have a degree of fearing compulsory purchase.

Councils shouldn't be slated for being inefficient when housing/land and property is concerned.

 

[Newchodge]

When a property developer obtains planning permission the % of social housing they have to build and give to non profit housing associations should be increased, this should be policed better too, so the ones given away aren't just the junk ones or ones in worst locations)

One of the big issues on this is the definition of social housing (the bits no-one wants) and equally, the requirement for AFFORDABLE housing. When affordable housing costs more than 5 times average wage, it is not affordable. (I personally think that affordable housing should be 3 times average wage, but then I'm a left wing socialist who cares about people).

 

[UKSBD]

One of the big issues on this is the definition of social housing (the bits no-one wants) and equally, the requirement for AFFORDABLE housing. When affordable housing costs more than 5 times average wage, it is not affordable. (I personally think that affordable housing should be 3 times average wage, but then I'm a left wing socialist who cares about people).

One of the problems is the social housing and affordable housing is still in the ownership of businesses trying to make as much as possible from them as they can.

Something needs putting in place so that when developers have to provide a % of social/affordable housing it is given to non profits to rent out, not to their mates.

 

[UKSBD]

but then I'm a left wing socialist who cares about people

Aren't we all until the policies effect us

 

[Mr D]

One of the problems is the social housing and affordable housing is still in the ownership of businesses trying to make as much as possible from them as they can.

Something needs putting in place so that when developers have to provide a % of social/affordable housing it is given to non profits to rent out, not to their mates.

Yes that could be done. And those buying the other houses would pay for it.

You do not mind paying an extra 30 grand for a house so some company can get given a few for free?
Not to mention the extra mortgage you would pay... In a good cause.

 

[Mr D]

One of the big issues on this is the definition of social housing (the bits no-one wants) and equally, the requirement for AFFORDABLE housing. When affordable housing costs more than 5 times average wage, it is not affordable. (I personally think that affordable housing should be 3 times average wage, but then I'm a left wing socialist who cares about people).

The buyers appears to disagree with you regarding affordable.
If the housing was unaffordable it would not sell.

 

[UKSBD]

You do not mind paying an extra 30 grand for a house so some company can get given a few for free?

Market forces
Ae you saying a property developers builds 10 houses that sell for £300,000 will sell the same houses for £330,000 if they have to give one of the plots away?

 

[Mr D]

If the property developer wants the same total income then someone has to pay for the cost of giving away.
Who would you charge for the lost house?

 

[UKSBD]

So the property developers decides on the price of the property and not the market?

 

[Mr D]

If you purchased / made something to sell would you decide price based on factors including costs and how much profit you wanted or let the market decide?

If the total unit cost of the properties in the example you gave was 2.8 million based on 10 properties of cost and 9 properties that could be sold would you sell it at 300 grand each or sell it at a price accounting for your costs and expected profit?

 

[UKSBD]

If you purchased / made something to sell would you decide price based on factors including costs and how much profit you wanted or let the market decide?

On a product it would be based on the factors you suggest

On property (which may be being sold years after the plots have been bought) it would be based on the market price.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Yes that could be done. And those buying the other houses would pay for it.

You do not mind paying an extra 30 grand for a house so some company can get given a few for free?
Not to mention the extra mortgage you would pay... In a good cause.

As it happens often it seems to work except that the definition of affordable is still very high.

 

[Mr D]

On a product it would be based on the factors you suggest

On property (which may be being sold years after the plots have been bought) it would be based on the market price.

So you think the builders would ignore costs and go with market price rather than setting price and hoping market accepts it?
What is the difference between a product and a property?

 

[Mr D]

As it happens often it seems to work except that the definition of affordable is still very high.

Yes. So still affordable.
When market crashes - as it tends to do - the definition of affordable changes all over again.

So some looking to buy may wait until affordable changes in their favour.

 

[Newchodge]

Yes. So still affordable.
When market crashes - as it tends to do - the definition of affordable changes all over again.

So some looking to buy may wait until affordable changes in their favour.

And in the meantime they will live - where?

 

[sirearl]

As a young man in the early 60's I had bought a house that today would cost 1.6 million was married and had 2 small children.

I ran a car and worked as a Toolmaker a medium paid job.

I had reasonably comfortable life supporting my family working 8 to 5 for 5 days a week.

With all the technology,computers.robots e.t.c.

WHAT WENT WRONG.?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...reveals-a-deeply-divided-nation-10251573.html

 

[Newchodge]

WHAT WENT WRONG.?

The end of society, per May's predecessor Thatcher.

 

[Mr D]

And in the meantime they will live - where?

You know, some people choose to rent when they are not owning a property. Its not what everyone wants to do but to some its simpler than trying to get a mortgage too big for them.

 

[Mr D]

As a young man in the early 60's I had bought a house that today would cost 1.6 million was married and had 2 small children.

I ran a car and worked as a Toolmaker a medium paid job.

I had reasonably comfortable life supporting my family working 8 to 5 for 5 days a week.

With all the technology,computers.robots e.t.c.

WHAT WENT WRONG.?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...reveals-a-deeply-divided-nation-10251573.html

You didn't keep the house?

All the technology, computers etc - is toolmaking now a more efficient job? Can a toolmaker now produce the same work as you used to, faster and safer?

 

[Newchodge]

You know, some people choose to rent when they are not owning a property. Its not what everyone wants to do but to some its simpler than trying to get a mortgage too big for them.

The difficulty with that is that rents are so high that most people are unable to rent and save towards the cost of a deposit, even if they could afford a mortgage. In my area monthly rents are higher than the cost of a 100% mortgage would be (even if they were available). and the reason for that is obvious. So many people getting buy to let mortgages, who pay higher interest than those getting a mortgage to buy their own home, who then have to charge rent at a level that will give them a return on their (building society's) investment.

House prices are at an unsustainable level because of all the speculators buying properties as an investment, rather than as a home. It is like speculators buying all the tins of beans @ 50p per tin and selling them @£1.00. In that scenario, if you want beans you have to pay £1.00 for something worth 50p. But there are alternatives to beans and their supply is pretty much unlimited, so it can't really happen. Everyone needs a home and the supply is limited so no one can choose a cheaper alternative.

 

[Mr D]

Well their choices are usually rent or buy. If you know of other choices they have then by all means lets see them.
Perhaps when house prices drop the renters who are waiting will think about buying.

When rents are higher than mortgage then usually a good idea to think about mortgage. Some probably still are.
Others may be waiting. The trend for house prices is up, it does not go up every year.

Oh and those speculators buying property - if they rent them out they are providing a place for those who rent....
Not everyone wants to buy, not everyone can buy.

 

[Newchodge]

Does anyone have a spare brick wall handy? I have a compulsive need to hit my head against it.