Breeding for Benefits

FATBALLZ

I like the interviewer's tact, when the fat woman came on, first question:

"How much do you spend on food a week"

Classy.

ILW

markharding557 wrote: »

Let me give you a clue as to why we are in hock to the far east-Thatcherism and its insane policies of de-industrializing the uk which were then continued by blair.
I would love to know how those people can get 45000 in benefits because my disabled dad and his wife get no where near that and his wife is a pensioner at that

It was Browns mantra of taking all children out of poverty. In the end it just involved throwing cash at people to have more children, making it a pretty good lifestyle choice for many. Sadly all the money squandered on this stupid idea tended to be at the expense of people with disabilities etc. There was never a policy of ending disabilty poverty because it is not such an appealing soundbite.

carolt

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I like the interviewer's tact, when the fat woman came on, first question:

"How much do you spend on food a week"

Classy.

I liked the way she looked really shifty and flustered and umed and ahhed for ages before giving a figure - one suspects the true figure was propbably somewhat higher, but she didn't want to admit it on the telly.

A._Badger

markharding557 wrote: »

Let me give you a clue as to why we are in hock to the far east-Thatcherism and its insane policies of de-industrializing the uk which were then continued by blair.
t

This is so historically inaccurate that it beggars belief. Do you really believe it was Margaret Thatcher who opened-up Chinese and Far East manufacturing?

That is what destroyed manufacturing in the West - the simple, inescapable, fact that GKN could make a wood screw for fractions of a penny.. and all that followed. The process began in the 1960s, when, first, the British motorcycle and the German photographic trades were imitated, and then obliterated, by the Japanese.

The process has continued inexorably snce then and nothing Margaret Thatcher, nor any other politician, could have done would have made a blind bit of difference.

Manufacturing follows cheap labour.

ILW

A._Badger wrote: »

This is so historically inaccurate that it beggars belief. Do you really believe it was Margaret Thatcher who opened-up Chinese and Far East manufacturing?

That is what destroyed manufacturing in the West - the simple, inescapable, fact that GKN could make a wood screw for fractions of a penny.. and all that followed. The process began in the 1960s, when, first, the British motorcycle and the German photographic trades were imitated, and then obliterated, by the Japanese.

The process has continued inexorably snce then and nothing Margaret Thatcher, nor any other politician, could have done would have made a blind bit of difference.

Manufacturing follows cheap labour.

That is to some extent true, but Germany seem to keep a large, high wage manufacturing sector going OK. They have done this by producing high quality items. BMW and Mercedes being good examples. When these were steaming ahead Britain seemed to build rubbish BMC cars and then devalued the Rover brand by sticking the badge on junk. Not sure where it all went wrong, but I don't think the 70s unions helped.

michaels

Manufacturing share of the economy fell faster under the labour govt than under the anti-manufacturing Tories.

Probably happened sooner to the UK because North Sea Oil resulted in sterling being overvalued for the rest of the economy (that and the fact that the Japanese also drive on the left).

The German model of running a never ending surplus is just the flip side (and therefore just as unsustainable) or the PIIGS running a constant deficit.

markharding557 wrote: »

Let me give you a clue as to why we are in hock to the far east-Thatcherism and its insane policies of de-industrializing the uk which were then continued by blair.

A._Badger

ILW wrote: »

That is to some extent true, but Germany seem to keep a large, high wage manufacturing sector going OK. They have done this by producing high quality items. BMW and Mercedes being good examples. When these were steaming ahead Britain seemed to build rubbish BMC cars and then devalued the Rover brand by sticking the badge on junk. Not sure where it all went wrong, but I don't think the 70s unions helped.

I knew someone would mention Germany!

You're right in that Germany adopted a strategy of shifting its product base up-market. To an extent it worked well - but don't overlook its simultaneous expansion into manufacturing in Spain (VW/SEAT and Bosch), Eastern Europe (VW/Skoda and countless others) - so it's not quite as straightforward as it seems.

France, too, managed to hang on to some manufacturing - its effectively nationalised Renault surviving, while our car industry bit the dust.

Personally, I am very upset we have lost so much manufacturing, but laying its absence at the feet of 'Thatcherism' is economic analysis of the Ben Elton school.

We lost, as you suggest, a great deal of manufacturing to idiotic union behaviour, but also pathetic management and investment strategy, coupled with a cultural unwilligness to back our own products. The French tend to buy French cars, whatever their problems. We tend to prefer Japanese ones. Who's the loser there? It's a moot point.

A way in which government interference really did scupper manufactruing was the government drive during the 1960s and '70s to force British manufacturers to combine. The idiotic forced marirage that gave birth to Britsh Leyland probably did more damage to the car industry here than any other, before, or since.

Germany kept its manufacturing by making good products and buying homegrown from choice, The French... well... I'd say by preferreing poorly made products, as long as they were French.

We let our manufacturing go. But it wasn't due to some mythical government policy. It was because the British public refused to buy bad British cars and domestic goods when there were better alternatives, because our unions and managers were neanderthals and our investors are tarts (and that still continues - look at the shameful sell-out of Cadbury, just recently).

So many contributing factors. So mindless, the knee-jerk warcry of the Left - 'Thatcherism!'.

If only it were that simple.

boydE

wow £686 per week, unbeliveable!
no wonder the country is screwed

skint-student-nurse

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I like the interviewer's tact, when the fat woman came on, first question:

"How much do you spend on food a week"

Classy.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously though, i would love to be able to spend £2k a year on christmas presents...but i cant as i have more financial responsibilities such as council tax,mortgage,etc and we are also set to loose our tax credits.

the shocking thing i found that is although they have shaken up the benefits system, me and my OH will be better off living apart and i will be able to save £200 a month,i can only manage about £20 atm.

excuse me while i ditch my OH and sign-on, ive got my eye on a pair of nike trainers that i cant justify buying atm.

kennyboy66_2

skint-student-nurse wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously though, i would love to be able to spend £2k a year on christmas presents...but i cant as i have more financial responsibilities such as council tax,mortgage,etc and we are also set to loose our tax credits.

The reason you don't is because you have earned that money. You can estimate how many days of toil it has taken to take home £2k.

You might feel differently if someone just gave you the money - and also new that you would keep getting that money regularly.

Someone should do a study on similar families with similar net incomes, one working and one on benefits. My guess would be that the people on benefits would spend more on Xmas than the working family.