nothernsoul

It obviously helps if you are in the building trade or have relatives/ close friends who are. Will be able to get accurate information about what needs to be done/costs and recommendations for reliable people to do the work. Over a decade ago I had to renovate a house and didn't have this advantage. I found it quite stressful finding good people to do the work. Something that I would advise if a bid is accepted on a house. Get a mid level survey and if possible go round the house with the surveyor. They will let you know if the the roof is sound, damp course, repointing etc which could save you thousands. Although it is more stressful than buying somewhere ready to move in, rewire, central heating should be cheaper and easier to do on an empty property. If you spend 30 to 40 grand( sounds about right) everything should be good for a long time. Worst option, in my opinion,( compared to something that requires a full renovation that is reflected in the price ,or somewhere mostly up to date), is buying somewhere for near top money( especially a new build), that cosmetically looks quite nice but nothing has been done, except maybe a conservatory, for 20 years. Over next few years, strong chance lots of things need replacing one after the other.

Eventually, it takes time, the education system of a country will come to reflect the wider society. Just as work has become more performative, demanding and stressful, so has education. I work in primary education, and pupils are under far more pressure than we were in the 1980s. Lots of primary schools don't even have art on the weekly timetable. Every last thing has to have an objective. There is an obsession with data. Constant testing, even for very young children. I am not advocating some hippy ideal, but things have gone too far. Unfortunately, certain pupils suffer in this stifling environment and will misbehave.

The problem with charging to see the doctor, is in the current climate there would be exemptions for children, those on benefits, the long term sick and pensioners. So it would just become an additional tax on those working, who generally only visit the Drs when they really need it. Hardly fair.

It is very easy for people to become spoiled. If a person is currently living in a spacious five bedroom house with large garden in an affluent area, they may turn their nose up at living in a cheaper( albeit perfectly nice) house in a less desirable area. They may also become accostomed to more space than they actually need( we need at least one spare bedroom for when the grandkids stay and another for Jim to make his models etc). Conversely, somebody who lives in a two bed terrace may be happy once the mortgage has been paid off just to own their own property outright. And once there their kids move out the extra bedroom feels like a luxury. Of course individuals should be able to spend their money as they wish, but too often you hear I NEED instead of the more accurate I WANT.

Read a similar article in the guardian, "my only asset" is a house worth 600 thousand pounds. Plenty of people would love to have that problem.

Yes, this is the worst government ever.

I assume on a 200 grand house the deposit is 2 grand and the bank lends 198. Appalling policy, the government choosing to underwrite what will be risky home loans. Appealing to the government ,as for relatively little initial outlay, they can prime the pump to allow the banks to lend millions into the bottom of the pyramid. But of course when it goes wrong the taxpayer has to pick up the tab and people shrug and say " well with hindsight......"

Clarkey is correct about unemployment benefit in the UK, I have only ever claimed it for three months after college decades ago and wouldn't want to again. An unlivable amount of money with the highest level of scrutiny for those collecting it. For those who have had enough of work in their 50s and want to play the system,( unfortunately I have seen someone do this first hand, I am not unsympathetic to those genuinely ill, but this person was a particularly unpleasant individual) they go on the sick. First it is a long period off work with an unprovable illness ( mental health, back problems, fibromyalgia). They will then claim money from the state or if they are lucky claim an early pension. If most people legitimately wanted to give up work a year before retirement, had a decent pension coming, everything paid for( including house), it doesn't make sense to claim unemployment benefit. You could easily get more than the 84 pound a week benefit, by doing a day or two of cash in hand work. Most people would probably rather do that if they could than the hassle of visiting the job centre, pretending to apply for jobs, going for interviews, being sanctioned for not trying hard enough etc. Of course working cash in hand and not paying tax is a crime, but most people feel better about that than fraudulently claiming benefits.

No evidence for this, just a thought, maybe now the boomers have reached a certain age, are looking to downsize, don't want as much furniture as before, the rest of the population doesn't have the same disposable income( or inclination) for expensive furniture? SPXY mentions most of the other furniture shops in his area have shut down. I remember most of these would rely on older people being willing to shell out a lot of money for a full dining table and chairs or a display cabinet. Although to modern eyes, this stuff was pretty unstylish, it was well made and people would keep it for a lifetime.

The large developers are primarily land speculators, which isn't surprising when you consider how houses in Britain have become financial instruments ahead of homes. A while back, just as the BOE started to raise rates, I heard someone on a podcast( I forget who) who was on the board of a housebuilder, mention most developers had already planned to massively cut back on planned developments. Remember they have form on this, going into hibernation following the financial crisis, mothballing or renting out blocks of new build flats to avoid dumping them on the market.

As well as the internet allowing people to sit on items for no effort or cost, I also think some people are expecting to get back what they paid on generic items. I went on gumtree, looking for a cheap telly. Someone wanted £180 for a used TV that was currently£220 in Argos. Using their logic they expect to effectively pay £40 for an item new, with a guarantee, while somebody else pays 180 quid for something used without recourse if it goes wrong the next day.

In the past I have bought a few items of vintage clothing for myself, mainly because they were much better quality than you can get on the high street today. Bought from professional sellers with a stall or even bricks and mortar shops. Prices were usually fair, mainly because they had the knowledge of what things were worth, knew what was a reasonable profit to be made on each item, wanted cashflow instead of excess stock. With the internet everyone can be a bit of an " expert", they will see something overpriced online and price accordingly. Unless they sell, no costs or overheads. The problem with vintage clothing is there is only so much quality stuff. And as time passes, items that are becoming vintage ( I think the official definition of vintage is over 20 years old?) is just shoddy sweat shop rubbish.

The problem is power isnt symmetrical with this issue. On the side of cashless society the government, banks, credit card companies, big business versus certain individuals, the poor, small business.

Banks did indeed warn there was lack of oversight for the loans and asked to be protected from liability if they were responsible for handing them out. However, although incompetence is obviously at play here, there is an underlying economic narrative. And that narrative was the government/ BOE fear of deflation on an over indebted economy. A far worse consequence for them than loans not getting paid back in a decade( when most of the politicians will have moved on).Hence QE, extremely generous furlough and COVID loans. I think the government basically viewed COVID loans as helicopter money. And with this objective in mind, much better a fraudster uses the loan for a car purchase, housing deposit, home extension etc than a legitimate business putting the loan to one side for emergencies.

I thought Freeman on the land as well. Basically a man ( nearly always a man) who has got in trouble drink driving, debt to bank, building without planning permission, owing back tax etc who thinks you can get out of it by saying certain things in court. They basically think you can defeat the power of the state with magic words.