Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by byron78

  1. 15 minutes ago, spyguy said:

    You might be remembering it wrong.

    Up til the late 80s, our LA required people to have a local connection and be working to qualify for council housing.

    Single parents were discouraged from/banned from houses.

    Sometime in the late 80s, access to council housing - and benefits in general -  became turbo charge to helping/more points to  the dysfunctional rather than the local/working/functional.

    In my case, it means the last ~30 years has seen working local have to move and be replaced by scum from outside the area.

    The council estates are now a mix of old, nice. local couples and various younger scum families from outside.




    I'm not remembering it wrong. I'm just not approaching it from a "let's find a way to blame it all on Labour from 97 onwards" angle.

    But yes, that's absolutely what happens now - turbo charged this past decade even more.

    Inner city families moved out to the cheaper sticks so that London and Manchester etc can be gentrified. 


  2. 11 hours ago, spyguy said:

    I'd be deliriously if social housing was plentiful, cheap, basic accommodation, open to all.

    Its isnt.


    It was for about 35 years of my life until the mid 80s. 

    No problem with selling it, but we should have replaced with the funds raised and go again (instead of a brief tax cut to win the 87 election). I feel really bad being involved in all that now tbh. Tory Party has been captured by the greedy Etonian dunces Thatcher detested so much and the Housing Benefit bill is now absolutely criminal as a result.



  3. 3 hours ago, spyguy said:

    Looking at the local LR data, that's  lot of a money.

    If the LA etc were doing this properly youd expect them to get a much better price - well under 150k.

    As it stands, they seem to have paid top dollar yo get into an unusual scheme that most have cost a fortune, legally, and looks like it's going to very expensive to operate.

    Social housing needs a large number if changes.

    One, it needs to come with a hurdle - local connection and being employment.

    It also needs actively managing - remove people sho longer qualify, the rents to local earnings, etc etc.

    Just building more n more social housing  and letting the LHA dish it out is dumb. 



    I think Thatcher had it right myself.

    I don't think you need to put stipulations on who can rent social housing, but right to buy obviously comes with a price (your in work etc etc).

  4. 59 minutes ago, Si1 said:

    I don't take too much offense at it. I wonder if the saved up premium counts as savings and disqualifies them for housing benefit?

    It's an interesting point longterm, actually.

    Suspect not. 

    Given we now all know what a deregulated housing market with props for the big house building firms and no state support (outside housing benefit, that ultimately ends up in private landlords pockets anyway) looks like, though.... 

     I'd much prefer schemes like these that can then reinvest the rents back into building more affordable housing stock.

  5. 1 minute ago, msi said:

    I've seen a 2-4% increase in mpg with E10 so my experience of 1 means that E10 is great, yeah?


    All this talk of a 'hidden agenda' with E10 is straight out of the 5G in vaccines playbook.  Everyone here suddenly becomes a chemical engineer fully versed in internal combustion and power dynamics.



    What I find weirdest about the conspiracy wonks, is they never seem to go for the "Occam's Razor" conspiracy.

    It's never the powers that be (both states, companies, and individuals) that are the problem or pushing the agendas.

    Oh no. You should fear anyone opposing them in a convoluted manner...

  6. 24 minutes ago, kzb said:

    Look up Romney and Rye.   They were ports about 1300 years ago.

    Yes I am well aware coral and volcanic islands grow thank you.  All I am saying is, some things get sunk and other places are created.  It's the way of the world.  At a local level who knows what might happen, but if your local sea level is rising, the way to fight that is local defences, not converting from gas to electric.

    I'm not disputing that the global sea level is increasing slowly.  It has been for hundreds of years now, as we come out of the Maunder minimum era.  There might be a small acceleration caused by AGW, but it is a small increase on a trend that was already there.  The recent acceleration in the satellite data oddly seems to coincide exactly with new satellites taking over the measurement.

    Another thing is irrigation schemes using groundwater.  One author found this added 0.44mm/year to sea level increase.



    It's actually something Russia is actively pushing for (thawing the Artic). Not just the extra sea passage that potentially opens up to them, but all the minerals etc under arctic tundra presently.


  7. On 22/09/2021 at 15:50, winkie said:

    Our parents care for us when young, only right we care for them when they revert back to being child like when they are old and need care from us.......not all old people reach that stage.....not all old people require ongoing care....;)

    I'd say it does get close to 1 in 2 needing it, as you go on.

    I've lost several friends to dementia (which is the worse thing I've seen). 

    Must admit I've considered just ending it if I ever get that way. Dark I know.

  8. 1 hour ago, coypondboy said:

    Funny how we have left europe but they still all speak to each other at the council in English although the French insist on speaking in french and everyone else has to wear headphones for translation even though the french can speak fluent english.  Sums them up really and explains why they lost France in WW2 would love to see the French v Italians in a fight.  They would both lay down arms at first sight of a casulaty and sort it our in a local restaurant over finr food and wine and a visit to the local brothel.

    This annoys me. Sorry. Not intended personally.

    It's just I'm old enough to remember WW2. I remember the bombs and planes. I remember a really divided society strangely brought together by the far right in Europe, and the push (by Churchill) to form a union to stop it ever happening again.

    At 81, and having lived through all that, I really don't think I have the right to evoke WW2 rhetoric.

    I especially don't think Brexit - driven by far right sentiment and foreign money - is a particularly good analogy or place to envoke it.

  9. 19 minutes ago, yelims said:

    Most Western European countries already have better standards of living than uk with migration to uk usually being on very high end jobs that are great for uk economy 

    Eastern Europe is booming and seeing how UK now flat lined and not yet even recovered from covid falls their gdp per capita and standards of living will over take uk on 5-10 years too

    Whole “dey took our joobs” was nonsense as illustrated by gammons not getting of their **** to drive trucks or pick veg. And by neighbouring countries having more immigration as percentage of population and migration not even in top dozen issues as far as people are concerned 


    I don't think most Brits have ever lived in the EU (as in mainland Europe) tbh.

    You're right - standards of living and all the rest are pretty much universally higher (including pensions and benefits in most).

    Why do folk come here, then? Exactly the same reasons and factors we'd all consider. And the biggest is the reason most of us have never lived abroad for long.

    Language is MASSIVE (English being a global second tongue now). Living somewhere in a prison of ignorance because you just hear noise whenever someone talks is awful. 

    Existing family in a country = also massive.

    Both things that would sway most of us when choosing where to settle next tbh.


  10. 34 minutes ago, pig said:

    Sounds about right - only becomes a problem when it escalates to SM and the usual newspapers, and even then it only depends on what their understanding of the situation has been made to be.

    Last year we had the herd immunity disaster, it appears that Leave voters + the rest of us are now being put through a 'creative destruction' disaster so it seems as if the PM is being heavily influenced by the *RG in its different forms.

    Fishing clearly never was important to Leavers other than to promote the idea of 'furreners nicking stuff from us'

    Really astute reply. Thank you!

    Afraid mine isn't nearly as eloquent, but I think if we imagine it's the government holding the straps up...


  11. Is fishing still important to Brexiteers?

    I've just been told we're expecting HUGE numbers of small independent fishermen to go to the wall.

    Apparently the EU subsidise red diesel heavily (vile stuff btw).

    30p a litre is now close to £1.40 a litre for UK fishermen!

    The idea is they can claim a rebate back eventually via the UK Marine Voyagers Relief fund, but the reality is absolutely nothing has been done to support or ease that transition.

    By the time it is, it'll be a crisis. Because that's how this (vile stuff btw) government "work".

  12. 2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

    I will definitely take the opposite side of that bet.

    They will just continue inventing new wars with the EU and the demographic that keeps them in power will keep looking outward instead of inward.


    Oh, nailed on.

    The problem is, culture wars work as long as you don't break the UK at Xmas.

    I've yet to speak to anyone important or rich who thinks Brexit is going well, put it that way.

    Huge cost increases absolutely everywhere.

    The bet is really "How long until the Tories turn on Boris?" 


  13. 7 hours ago, kzb said:

    I'm saying a true scientist is always sceptical.  True science hardly exists.

    But they aren't sceptical?

    Ray Bates is not being sceptical about the climate denial groups he is associated with (he's even had to have an Irish judge point this out for him).

    He is not being sceptical about where the money to drive all this nonsense is coming from.


  14. 6 hours ago, kzb said:

    I'm simply questioning the assumption of automatic change, or that change is automatically desirable.

    Homo sapiens existed from 300,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago, i.e 288,000 years with hardly any tech changes.  A person's life would've been essentially the same as their great grandparents' lives.


    What is motivating you?

    Who is motivating you?

  15. 10 hours ago, kzb said:

    On the other hand, science is not a democracy.  And, it is never settled, otherwise it is not science.

    Anyway, he says himself that he counts as one of the 97% of climate scientists.  He's obviously more than a jumped up weather forecaster.  He has publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals.

    Well, as long as he says it himself.

  16. 11 minutes ago, kzb said:

    So a bunch of journalists (with hardly a science O' level between them I bet) know better than a professor of meteorology?


    Or, retired jumped-up weather forecaster (with hardly any other scientists in agreement) knows better than an Irish judge?

    I mean, I've met qualified doctors who also swear by crystals and/or various Gods.

    Someone being qualified doesn't always mean they're rational.

    Bates reminds me of many an old boy like myself who, up until a few years ago at least, could simply never be wrong. 

  17. 1 hour ago, kzb said:

    Let's just say I am scientifically qualified, which is one step up on the leader of the Green Party (English), the secretary of state for BEIS (Classics and History) and the Chairman of the UK's independent Committee on Climate Change (History).

    I'm pretty sure the Green Party leader has a history working in mechanical engineering.

    Nice of them to let her have a go without any science...


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.