I never for one moment thought you meant me. I was just raising a valid point about the new world of sensitivity post Brexit.

Every one is a racist that voted out and everyone who disagrees is a bully! then there is populism which leads to both racism and bullying

The worlds gone soft

Anyway answer the Tory question you soft sod

Quote ="Dally"Aside from the fact that mine was not a string of remarks: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... sions.html'" You're a troll, and a predictable one.

Quote ="Dally"Aside from the fact that mine was not a string of remarks: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... sions.html'" You're a troll, and a predictable one.

Good grief. You can have any opinion you like, just stop whinging.




Hahaha I hardly think supply managers and section managers are classed as wealthy. But yes, I speak occasionally with the wealthy Board members (actually, their PAs more often than not), what of it? It's called 'my work role'.

You have zero idea whether anyone will be worse off after we leave, or to what degree. You're clearly in the 'fingers crossed it will all fail' brigade.


$4?? Not since 1945.



(after which the USA shafted us royally)

Meanwhile the rate has (marginally) topped $2 only 2 or 3 times in 35 years, averaged around $1.6 over the same period and was much lower in 1985.


Removing ourselves from the shackles of an unelected and unremovable cartel desperate to enforce 'ever closer union' and creep towards an 'EU nation-state' regardless of their constant failures and the enormous economic differences across EU nations. Removing ourselves from ridiculous rules such as 'Freedom of Movement' which is a feckin idiotic idea for the same reason. Remove ourselves from the shackles of laborious and largely unsuccessful EU trade negotiations. Remove ourselves from the EU Customs Union, which erects tariff walls around all members and removes their right to make individual deals. Remove ourselves from the Structural and Cohesion Fund, which the European Court of Auditors has [url=https://euobserver.com/news/126405refused to sign off for 20 YEARS[/url. Remove ourselves from the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, which resulted in massive waste of agricultural products and millions of tonnes of dead fish being dumped back in the sea. Remove ourselves from the failed Dublin Regulation, which is largely ignored by countries not wishing to burden themselves.

Remove ourselves from a dysfunctional institution that has handled the Eurozone crisis terribly - resulting in enormous national debt across member states and huge levels of unemployment - handled the refugee crisis just as terribly, the Balkan conflicts worse still, squabbles constantly over lawmaking, can't decide on trade deals and in general destroys national sovereignty whilst demanding their courts take precedence over ours in the event of a dispute.

And yes, stop handing over such huge sums of cash to prop up Eastern and Southern Europe.

Remove ourselves from all of that and give ourselves the freedom to manage our own affairs.


Erm...that's kinda how business works. If your company is poorly led, poorly managed or even poorly conceived, it will wither and die (unless you're a big bank of course). At the risk of repeating myself, innovative and strong companies adapt, change, find new markets, new suppliers, new opportunities. This has been true of every recession and if our economy dips, the same may be true again.


And a crying snowflake Remoaner is still crying.

They do tax the better off we pay 40% tax - we will pay more in VAT as it is likely our discretional spend will be much higher too.

There are people who are getting 20k yes 20k in benefits to get that you have earn approx. £30k that simply cannot be right but I suppose that is what you mean by a fairer society a few working hard to support a lot who just can't be bothered!!

I agree with the need to do something with regards to the claimants getting such astronomical figures, which is quite ridiculous.
However, what I dont agree with is halving the benefits for those right at the bottom of the scale, who, in some cases, can barely afford to feed themselves.

If Thatcher hadnt sold off so much of the social housing stock, perhaps there would have been somewhere to house many of the claiments, without needing to dole out such huge amounts of housing benefit but, at least it got her another 4/5 years in office

Blaming Thatcher again, we've had years of Labour since, just think, if Tony Blair hadn't invaded Iraq we'd have enough money to build more houses, what about PFI finance? You can blame successive governments, regardless of "colour" (and I don't mean skin colour), until we face facts we can't move on. But that won't matter once the US and Noth Korea start blowing us all up!

Thanks for giving me permission to post, very noble of you and very humbling for me, thank you.

We are in agreement on some of the aspects of the EU that are not working very well.
Where we are poles apart is the perceived outcome, post Brexit.

The "removing of shackles" that you refer to is also the removing of the "glue" that has allowed us to trade very successfully with the EU over the past 40 years and although this may allow us to trade with other parts of the world, what do you think will happen to trade with our largest and geographically closest market.

Under what conditions would the EU allow us to source product form Asia/China etc with potentially improved tariff rates and then supply goods into the EU, when their member nations dont have the same , theoretical advantage.

There is no way in the world that IF, the UK can agree preferential trade deals with certain nations, that we would then be allowed to be some kind of cut cost gateway outlet into the EU, that simply cant happen.

I totally agree with your comments on free movement and this issue needs addressing whether the UK was part of the EU or not, it clearly no longer works. Although, we have now sacrificed our own freedom to move around the EU, which is an own goal.

Again, some of the EU policies on agriculture and fishing certainly havent worked to the UK's benefit so there is possible improvement there.

However, the risk to our much coveted financial sector is absolutely huge and as probably the largest part of our "invisible" exports this moving across to the EU would take funds from the exchequours purse at a rate not seen in the last 50/60 years and whilst you are clearly right about companies adapting and the strong surviving, the numbers employed in manufacturing, notwithstanding the improvements in mechanisation, are pitiful.

Must get back to the freezer, I can feel myself melting !

News Flash, it's not 1960 anymore!

What ??

You bark constantly about Thatcher and manufacturing, you're a stuck record at 75rpm. Open your eyes and see the MODERN world, Labour had their shot and just spiralled into more debt.

Thatcher destroyed (gave away) the majority of the nations social housing stock, which isn't even open to debate.
Labour didn't do too much about it during their "reign" and the coalition followed by the current Tory govenment are also doing little, meanwhile we pay substantial sums to claimants towards their housing costs !!

Come on then hot shot, tell me about the modern world, i literally cant wait and please do all the work yourself, without hiding behind other people's comments.

Nothing was given away, it was sold to people with aspiration, not those who haven't worked for years and think the world owes them something, out of interest, how old are you, something like 65+ from a Northern former pit/mill town?

Yes they were sold, very cheaply (hence the "given away" comment and this was done deliberately to try and rid the country of housing for the less well off AND it was done, not to help aspirational people but, to encourage a number of people who would usually vote Labour, to vote in the opposite direction AND, it destroyed the stock of social housing.
The stock had taken 50 years to build up (the time since the end of the second world war) and just a couple of years to decimate, a position which still remains.
I'm not 65+ but you may be less than the total of the 2 numbers.

There was a promise, at the time, to use the receipts, from the mass sell off, to build new social housing and if the sale, as was said at the time, was to free up money to build new stock, why did it not happen.
Barely a brick was used in the remainder of the Thatcher era, mind you we were in "boom time" all paid for on the "never never", a bubble that began to burst at the end of Labours time in office and we all know what happened there.

If it's not your school holidays, perhaps you could ask your economics/history teacher to explain.

Capital receipts from sales were NEVER promised to be reinvested. You seem to think belittling people makes you look clever, it doesn't, it exposes you for what you are.

Sorry, but you are wrong.
Although the "pitch" for selling off social housing was "to increase home ownership for aspirational families", it was like you had copied and pasted your previous answer from the Daily Mail website, the monies raised, although not all of it, were supposed to be used to replace the stock of social housing.
Indeed, under Camerons re-vamped scheme, there was a commitment for a one for one replacement, which, surprisingly hasn't happened and going back to the original point, this is part of the reason why we (the tax payer) pay huge rental subsidies for some benefit claimants.

"The commitment to build a replacement for every social rented home sold through the Right to Buy scheme is not being fulfilled in London, just as across the country. In 13 boroughs there have been exactly no replacement homes built for the 2,877 social rented homes sold."

Over 2 million homes have been sold since the introduction of the original scheme with only a small fraction replaced and we wonder why there are so many homeless people and a general shortage of social housing available for the less well off.

Have another look and come back with a proper answer.

No, the monies were never promised (certainly from what I have read), and Labour did nothing to change it. As said before, successive governments had chance to change the scheme if they wanted to. But this has nothing to do with Article 50...

I'll tell you about the modern world. It is summed up in microcosm by the doctor getting dragged off the United Airlines flight by police because the airline overbooked the flight by virtue of it deciding it wanted 4 seats for its own employees. Basically, large, faceless money-grabbing companies are aided by the instruments of the state to the detriment of individuals.

You mean the Doctor that was disruptive?

Was he disruptive before he was told that his seat had been sold or, whilst being dragged off the plane

The only person who thought that was the CEO of the airline.

Neither the witnesses or the evidence support that point of view

Both of my Grandmothers were able to buy their houses that they had spent years paying rent on thanks to the right to buy scheme. I cannot criticise it as it has meant that my parents were able to actually inherit something which none of their ancestors were able to do so.

Although I believe that for every council house that was sold off another one should have been built in its place.

I think that youve helped make my point very well.
The tenants who bought their properties did very well indeed and in a way good luck to them.
However, surely, social housing is for the poor and needy and should never be sold cheaply to anyone.
Of course you are pleased, as your family made money out of the deal and they had the chance to own their property, although, the maths is fundamentally flawed.
If the housing stock is sold cheaply, which it was (up to 75% discount IIRC), how can you build a new property when you recover only 25% of the value on the properties that were sold ?

As I said, it was a crude vote catching mechanism, specifically aimed at traditional Labour voters and should never have been allowed.

Simply really - these houses would have been 30-40 years old and as such would have had 30-40 years of rental income so the initial investment would have been paid many times over. So selling them off at that point was possibly a good decision as they would have been at a point where they need significant sums to maintain them.

The problem is where did the monies go - managed correctly there should have been plenty of surplus to build more

There are a few more things than social housing that require an answer to that question!

Can we get back on topic, activating article 50 (which nothing to do with social housing)