Raise the voting age!

That's not the point he was making. I think he was referring to the hypocrisy of those who opposed council sales on principle but nevertheless benefited by buying their own council house - or those who oppose private education for everyone else but have their own kids privately educated. Do as I say . . .

You miss the point. Socialism is about what you say and how you feel. How you act simply doesn't enter into it.

You are treading on the face of the working class as an act of solidarity.

Just wait and see what happens to the country when there is no longer a source of labour from elsewhere.

We likely have a very different notion as to who is vulnerable.

And not all 80 year olds are vulnerable. Unless you class the POTUS as vulnerable and in need of state help. ;-)

I'm not against the sale of council houses in priciple. Making them available at well below the true value, a different matter. And not allowing the proceeds to be used to build more, disgraceful.

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

Wages will go up esp for the low paid. Then they won't vote Labour (except for the overpaid luvvies at the BBC).

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

But that was the point, they weren't going to be available for those who needed them.

In article snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk>, charles snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk> writes

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

You have no argument at all.

You show the blinkered socialist view. No room for alternative solutions.

Labour needs the poor to vote for them, that's why they keep them poor and on benefits.

quite

You think you can fill all those jobs purely by increasing wages?

Tell me, Bert. If you were on the lowest rate of universal credit but prefer that to labouring on a building site at about the minimum wage, how much pay would you need to change your mind?

Hardly any of them left. Do keep up, bert.

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit culture.

No, only the ones who get £1m pay raise for losing 1m listeners from their radio program. But interesting you don't regard over £1/4m per annum for reading an autocue as overpaid.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the OAP.

Do try and keep up, Bert. Those luvvies are not BBC employees. The BBC simply has to pay the going rate. And if they lose audience, it suggests the BBC can't afford the best.

BTW, it would be a very unusual radio programme that used autocue.

Yes, in the same way manufacturing jobs have been exported because they don't pay enough to compete.

For the average person, obviously not Bert, that would depend on circumstances such as family etc[1]. The same could be levelled at you. How much would you have to be paid to be willing to go back to work?

A chap who used to do some plastering gave up work as taking into account travel costs and other expenses, he was only a few £ better off working. Its a bit rich to expect anyone to work 40 hours for £10.

I guess its the combination of a welfare state and means testing.

Quite, and the more demand for labour the quicker those who don't work will accuse those who do to be overpaid.

Does the BBC need an audience? Their revenue stream is all about working TVs. No one actually has to watch a BBC program for luvvies to get paid.

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken a great deal out.

Oh no they were (wrongly) advised by the BBC to be self employed to avoid tax and NI. They are supposedly the best. The BBC sets the rate.

BT can't you hold more than one idea in your head at any one time?

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for. Everyone else being scroungers.

Perhaps you'd let us all know those in front of the microphone or camera are full time BBC staff? Rather than on a fixed term contract?

Bit difficult when you jump around so much. Your jealously of others seems to have affected your reason.

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

Fort he record I am happy with the welfare state as a safety net fort hose of working age and to provide for those above or below working age. and have contributed to that all my life. However you were implying that working v benefits should be a lifestyle choice which I disagree with. No-one is owed a living.