Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[KevMc]

9 hours ago, LadyG said:

What relevance has "65" got, folks are expected to work on, and on. BUT,  in what jobs?

I worked in racing, the best age is 19, very few get to 45., I retired myself, aged 50, I was the oldest, by far. I could not get a decent job when I was 50. 

People rarely die of overuse of antibiotics by the way. Nor measles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cancer of course, but obesity is the killer:

I currently swim every day as I have "let myself go"

There are ten year old boys with "beer bellies" these kids are obese, they are not healthy. They won't "age"

Not directly ... but with anti-biotic resistant infections appear we will start dying from those

 

We don't die from measles 'cos we're mostly inoculated against the disease ... the death rate in Europe from measles has rocketed in the last year !

[LadyG]

17 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

This is the nub of the problem. The 'system' relies on perpetual growth as the contributions of a flatlining population are insufficient to pay for the needs of the elderly. It's a kind of ponzi scheme but the eventual inevitable breakdown won't just be a few hapless people losing their savings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

 

I hope I won't be around when the Biggest Bang occurs in the UK.

 

I think you should all be aware that life expectancy in a nursing home is, shall we say "short term".

Its those who are in hospital who will come across raging antibiotic resistant infections, those in nursing homes are just poor souls living in difficult circumstances. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been around for at least a hundred years, that is to say, pretty much forever.

I don't think many first world people have children primarily to support them in their latter years., if they do, they are in for a shock.

 

I need to get out more, but its raining again, and my van is on SORN.

Edited August 24, 2018 by LadyG

[Jerra]

31 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been around for at least a hundred years,

Absolutely astonishing!   If I remember my schoolboy science correctly Penicillin was the first antibiotic, discovered 90 years ago in 1928.

 

Didn't you say you used to work in microbiology?

[Mikexx]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Absolutely astonishing!   If I remember my schoolboy science correctly Penicillin was the first antibiotic, discovered 90 years ago in 1928.

 

Didn't you say you used to work in microbiology?

 

I think it goes to prove that anyone who works in microbiologoy will know Penicillin wasn't the first discovered antibiotic.

 

If it wasn't for Arsphenamine / Salvarsan being introduced in the early 1910s Syphylis might still be a hazard for a sexually active person.

 

I have no idea why it is astonishing Penicillin wasn't discovered over 10 years later and only available as a antibiotic in the 1940s?

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, Mikexx said:

If it wasn't for Arsphenamine / Salvarsan being introduced in the early 1910s 

I have frequently seen that referred to as the first modern  chemotherapeutic but never as the first antibiotic.       Having had a trawl through all my references they all credit Penicillin as being the first antibiotic.

 

I suppose it all rests on 2 things.

 

1.  What you class as an antibiotic as opposed to a chemotherapeutic.

 

2.  Just how many references can be wrong.

[Mikexx]

9 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I have frequently seen that referred to as the first modern  chemotherapeutic but never as the first antibiotic.       Having had a trawl through all my references they all credit Penicillin as being the first antibiotic.

 

I suppose it all rests on 2 things.

 

1.  What you class as an antibiotic as opposed to a chemotherapeutic.

 

2.  Just how many references can be wrong.

 

I associate chemotherapeutic drugs with chemotherapy and cytotoxic drugs. Antibiotics are cytotoxic drugs where defined as being toxic to cells.

 

It is astonishing, yes I've used that word, but I am truly amazed how discoveries are attributed. You would be forgiven if you thought Edison invented the light bulb or that the Wright brothers were the first to fly.

 

There are many others where politics has played its part. One other comes to mind is the Crooke's radiometer and James Clark Maxwell where Maxwell's explanation was wrong but the Royal Society didn't want to publish a critique, even after Maxwell's death!

[Robbo]

The antibiotics boom, where a lot were discovered was in the 50's.

[Neil2]

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

According to their deeds the property was sold sometime in the 1930's for about £550 which remained broadly in line with the £1450 they paid for it in 1955 (in line with inflation).

 

This graph shows when homes became 'investment vehicles'

 

I think we're at cross purposes here, I'm talking about the long held British obsession with house prices you're talking about the get rich quick attitude that took off in the 1980's.  Even if all a house does is keep pace with inflation, the all important factor is that it does continue to appreciate in value.  Imagine the situation in this country if it wasn't a cast iron certainty that your house went up in value at least in the long term.  But if we truly solved the housing shortage that is the likely outcome.  If demand no longer exceeds supply your house is not an investment at all and every Daily Mail reader would be up in arms.

 

Your point about Council Housing is well made.  The sale of Council Houses contributed massively to the mess we are now in, though it's worth remembering that the Labour party at the time were broadly in favour as well.  Even the extreme left thought it might be a good idea - provided we nationalised the building industry... 

You are right in that dogma is the major obstacle in any attempt to replace true public sector housing.  I worked in the Housing profession for 25 years and the Holy Grail was always how to persuade central government to redefine the PSBR so that local authorities could borrow against the value of their assets.  For governments of every colour this has always been a bridge too far, but there are those of us who believe that if local government had been allowed to invest properly in the housing stock in the first place, the Right to Buy might not have taken off in the way it did.    

 

  

[Wanderer Vagabond]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So once the children of people ‘not born here’ are included, it’s easy to see how the estimate of 20% was arrived at. 

Why would you include the children of people not born here? Depending upon how far back you would want to take it probably half the population could fall into that category; Donald Trump certainly falls into that category but given his rhetoric on immigrants he may take umbrage if you were to include him in US immigrant statistics. For the other poster to refer to London statistics is disingenuous in extremis, I could quote the Jewish population of Golders Green and claim that the country is being overrun with Jewish people (another favourite right wing target).

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

In what way do you mean ‘interesting’? I would still be able to identify traffic congestion if I didn’t have a car, in the same way over population can be recognised by people who are part of the over population. 

The problem is that whilst overpopulation is a global phenomenon people tend to see it more parochially. The mere fact that you are here makes you part of the global overpopulation problem, whether you actually see yourself as part of the problem is somewhat different. It is always the other people that are the real problem (which rather ignores the fact that us Brits have liberally spread ourselves around the globe). Third world countries with high birth rates are often quoted, despite the fact that they also have high infant death rates as well. If the only way in which you were going to be fed, housed and cared for in you dotage was by having kids (which is the Third World situation) that is quite an incentive to have kids, particularly if several of them aren't going to make it to adulthood, this was much the same as the situation in the UK in early Victorian times where big families were a necessity. 

 

What people usually mean when they talk of overpopulation is that they believe that there are too many people here, around them. What they really want is to send some of them 'home' to increase the overpopulation somewhere else (drawbridge thinking). We are all part of the problem but those of us in the First World just happen to consume a massively larger share of resources.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[MtB]

16 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What people usually mean when they talk of overpopulation is that they believe that there are too many people here, around them.

 

Well when say something I mean what I say, not the words you are trying to put in my mouth.

 

The trouble with any technical debate about the sustainability of world population levels, is how it gets perverted with this silly politicisation of the technical issue you are embarking on with your insinuations. 

 

 

[LadyG]

On 24/08/2018 at 10:44, Jerra said:

Absolutely astonishing!   If I remember my schoolboy science correctly Penicillin was the first antibiotic, discovered 90 years ago in 1928.

 

Didn't you say you used to work in microbiology?

cough cough, sorry, I was being rather too clever: I was thinking about naturally occurring antibiotics, and naturally occurring antibiotic resistant organisms. yes antibiotics have been "discovered", but they existed world wide, and some were probably used by the indigenous peoples long before they were identified  by scientists.

AND 

In an isolated village, unexposed to western medicines  scientists "found that the Yanomami gut bacteria had nearly 60 unique genes that could turn on and rally to fend off antibiotics, including a half-dozen genes that could protect the bacteria from synthetic antibiotics. This is particularly troubling, Dantas says, because researchers have thought that it would take bacteria longer to evolve resistance to human-made antibiotics not found naturally in the soil."

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by LadyG

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well when say something I mean what I say, not the words you are trying to put in my mouth.

 

The trouble with any technical debate about the sustainability of world population levels, is how it gets perverted with this silly politicisation of the technical issue you are embarking on with your insinuations. 

 

 

So to take the 'technical' approach, if you wish, how do you want to define overpopulation? If we all consumed resources at the same rate as third world countries, there would be no overpopulation since resources are adequate for that low level of consumption. You probably consume more non-renewable resources driving to work than a third world resident consumes in a month. Any suggestion that First World residents should reduce their consumption is denigrated as an attack on the West lifestyle and since most Western economies rely on ever increasing consumption, it would crash their economies as well. This isn't politicisation, it is reality.

[Gareth E]

18 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So to take the 'technical' approach, if you wish, how do you want to define overpopulation? If we all consumed resources at the same rate as third world countries, there would be no overpopulation since resources are adequate for that low level of consumption. You probably consume more non-renewable resources driving to work than a third world resident consumes in a month. Any suggestion that First World residents should reduce their consumption is denigrated as an attack on the West lifestyle and since most Western economies rely on ever increasing consumption, it would crash their economies as well. This isn't politicisation, it is reality.

You've summed it all up quite nicely there, possibly without realising it. Western economies do indeed need to 'crash' in order for the world to continue to be a suitable place to live. No current politicians have the will to crash their respective economies, favouring their own career over the future of the human race.  

[MtB]

 

20 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Any suggestion that First World residents should reduce their consumption is denigrated as an attack on the West lifestyle

 

You're STILL doing it, insinuating I said things I didn't. Where did I ever express this viewpoint?

 

 

20 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So to take the 'technical' approach, if you wish, how do you want to define overpopulation? If we all consumed resources at the same rate as third world countries, there would be no overpopulation since resources are adequate for that low level of consumption. You probably consume more non-renewable resources driving to work than a third world resident consumes in a month. Any suggestion that First World residents should reduce their consumption is denigrated as an attack on the West lifestyle and since most Western economies rely on ever increasing consumption, it would crash their economies as well. This isn't politicisation, it is reality.

 

But to continue the technical discussion, I agree with you here but I was meaning something far more direct. Food supply. Globally, at some point the human race is going to become so numerous the resources will not exist for it to feed itself with the resources at its disposal. So if we don't limit our numbers voluntarily nature will limit us anyway. Already there are famines in third world countries so the effect is starting. More people just makes it worse. One partial solution is for us to stop eating meat, and use the land for food production directly which is far more productive. Only a stop-gap though, if the human race just breeds some more and soaks up the improved food supply. 

[Laurie Booth]

On 20/08/2018 at 18:18, Arthur Marshall said:

I think most people would prefer to earn a wage that pays them enough to live on, rather like it did when i started working fifty years ago.  Sadly, this is in most cases  not the way it works, as anyone who has kids struggling to make their way knows well.  Housing benefit is needed because virtually all council housing got sold off and ended up in the hands of private landlords, who could raise rents as much as they wanted because the government essentially paid (and still does) the bit of the rent that the renter couldn't afford.  It was an "unintended consequence" of the Tory concept that homeowners voted Conservative - worked out well, because landlords even more so.

Works exactly the same as letting employers pay crap wages because the Government makes up the difference with tax credits - one's a subsidy to landlords, the other to employers.  What neither of them are is a "benefit" or a handout to the person receiving it - all the benefit, and the handout,  goes to the aforesaid landlord or employer.

Seems interesting to me why most landlords/agents do not want tenants on housing benefits. Some agents at the moment are being accused of discrimination against people on benefits.  

[Dyertribe]

On 22/08/2018 at 12:59, Athy said:

Good point. When my Nana found it hard to look after herself any longer, she came to live with us for about the last two years of her life (thus freeing up her former house for, I assume, family occupation). This was considered normal in those days of 50+ years ago, but I suspect that it happens less nowadays.

Thing is, in our parents generation once they were 50 very few people had parents still alive, it’s very different today so there are many more elderly people living alone, “hogging” the housing stock. 

On 22/08/2018 at 15:20, Victor Vectis said:

OK, I'll bite.

 

BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper I will now retire to play with my avatar at and leave the field of play open to BTL people complaining about rogue tenants, poor return on capital invested etc.

Ooooh, much like civil servants then?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Dyertribe said:

Thing is, in our parents generation once they were 50 very few people had parents still alive, it’s very different today so there are many more elderly people living alone, “hogging” the housing stock. 

 

Yes. 50% of my customer base is older couples or widows/widowers living in four bedroom detached houses with 1/3 acre gardens in nice areas. Kids all left home long ago so definitely 'over-consumers' of accommodation resources. 

[Dyertribe]

On 23/08/2018 at 09:57, Wanted said:

We’ll see, i’d Like to think that as me and my family live in a caravan on a yard with no excess room or belongings greater than our needs that we would be down the bottom of the scaffold rather than on it. I run as much on solar as possible and I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class. 

Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe. 

 

 

 

 

Worked well in the USSR didn’t it?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

On 24/08/2018 at 17:46, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What people usually mean when they talk of overpopulation is that they believe that there are too many people here, around them. What they really want is to send some of them 'home' to increase the overpopulation somewhere else (drawbridge thinking). We are all part of the problem but those of us in the First World just happen to consume a massively larger share of resources.

 

23 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 Any suggestion (did I say by you?) that First World residents should reduce their consumption is denigrated as an attack on the West lifestyle and since most Western economies rely on ever increasing consumption, it would crash their economies as well.

 

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

You're STILL doing it, insinuating I said things I didn't. Where did I ever express this viewpoint?

 

 

You seem to have this odd belief that there are only two people in this thread/discussion.

 

Since you bring up the subject of the Third World famines, they do actually limit their numbers not necessarily voluntarily, but with low life expectancy and high infant mortality which is why they tend to try to have more children (as we in the UK did in Victorian times). What are we doing to assist the overpopulation problem? hanging around into our 80's and 90's that's what. The other side of that is because we live longer and don't lose as many children in infancy we don't need as many children as Third World countries do, but there is the tendency to look at the Third World birth rates as the main part of the problem ignoring the fact that they are all dying sooner.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Seems interesting to me why most landlords/agents do not want tenants on housing benefits. Some agents at the moment are being accused of discrimination against people on benefits.  

Mostly because tenants are being moved onto Universal Credit, which means their housing benefit often stops completely for months (the system is notoriously inefficient) so the tenant ends up in arrears, which odds on he'll never be able to catch up with. And then, unless the tenant requests it strenuously, it's paid direct to the tenant while HB went to the landlord - which means sometimes the tenant will use that bit of money to buy food instead and not pay the rent.  Either way, arrears mount up quickly.  Not too bad if the landlord is just renting one house and has other income, but if it's a business it's likely to go bust.

Which is a good thing for the housing market, but not for the landlord.  And most parliamentarians just happen to be landlords...

[Dyertribe]

On 23/08/2018 at 22:05, cereal tiller said:

Regenerate Manufacturing ,attain full Employment ,Build lots of Affordable Housing and Encourage People to be less Greedy and Materialistic.

Manufacturing has declined because other countries do it cheaper.

Full employment will never be achieved not least because there are those who do not want to work..

Who is to build this affordable housing economically?

Human nature is what it is. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

32 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

Manufacturing has declined because other countries do it cheaper.And the UK approach is that cheaper is always better. We just chose not to go down the 'quality' road

Full employment will never be achieved not least because there are those who do not want to work..The definition of full employment is "... the situation where everyone willing to work at the going wage rate is able to get a job....". I am able to work but I choose not to because I don't need to. I don't claim any benefits but in your definition I should be counted amongst the unemployed. Doesn't work, does it?

Who is to build this affordable housing economically? The same as built it last time around before they were forced to give them away at a discount, only stop them having to give them away.

Human nature is what it is. 

 

[Dyertribe]

29 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

You are conflating cheaper with inferior, the British public choose to buy things based on cost and quality, if the UK cannot match imports in these two areas then there will not be a market for items manufactured in the UK.

 

So full employment should be defined as “no one claiming benefits due to not working”? This would exclude disability.

As there is no cash from the government for this affordable housing, the Local Authorities are cash strapped as it is and commercial builders dont have the skilled workforceor materials to do it, again I ask, Who does it? Those that built the post war council houses are either dead or retired. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Dyertribe

[Mikexx]

38 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Who is to build this affordable housing economically? The same as built it last time around before they were forced to give them away at a discount, only stop them having to give them away.

 

This was never an issue. No houses were ever destroyed in the process of selling them off.

 

If anything flooding the market with low cost housing actually reduced the value of houses. What has happened in the meantime is increased demand through demographics and immigration and a lack of housing stock. It doesn't matter who owns what, but by analogy, when the music stops when playing musical chairs, some are inevitably are not going to have houses if there's a shortage.

 

[mayalld]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 14:24, Victor Vectis said:

This is my thinking too.

 

Before the industrial revolution wealth was with those who owned land.

Then wealth passed to those who owned factories, mills, mines etc.

In these post industrial times wealth now seems vested in those who own brick and mortar.

 

I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.

 

OK, now before I respond, let me nail my colours to the mast here. I am not in the position of having sufficient capital to involve myself in the buy to let market (keep wasting it on boating!)

 

However, if I were more prudent with my income, and spent less of it on living the high life, I suppose I could be in that position.

 

If I were to find 200k in the bank next week, what would you have me do? Should I keep it there, or use it to both provide me some small return, and provide a home for others?

 

Or perhaps you are of the view that if I have anything, it should be expropriated by the state. Seems a good idea, because it has worked well in Zimbabwe.