gomgeg

I understand that, but if someone is living in a property bigger than is needed surely the economic rent should be payed, especially when there are families living in over-crowded accommodation. Nevertheless I tend to agree with geared that it was a good idea poorly executed.

As usual with you, it's impossible to debate without you trying to show your own perceived superiority. Why don't you try to be a bit more pleasant? You never know you might even make a friend. I know it sounds unlikely but it might even work on your interview technique and manage to get a job, then you won't have to spend all day in your bedroom.

If your child has medical problems and needs their own room surely you will not have to pay extra.

At least he'll know what tomorrow's going to be like, as Mackay said in 'Porridge' "Exactly like today".

There's no such tax, it's a removal of a spare room subsidy. If a house or flat is bigger than another one and everything else is equal it will be more expensive to either rent or buy. That's economics for you.

Why pay a divorce bill at all? If the remoaners are so desperate to throw money at the EU I'm sure you can all have a whip round.

Quite right, you do only get financial support if parents can afford it. I hate having to keep quoting our own situation but it's what I know best. I'd only just finished my apprenticeship when we decided to get married, and as I said earlier we saved as much as we could in two years while continuing to live with our respective parents, we managed to save what would have been over a years wages in that time and were able to put down a good deposit on our first house, mind you we couldn't afford fitted carpets, central heating, double glazing,or a phone in the house and sometimes on Thursdays just before payday there wasn't much in the pantry, but I wouldn't change a thing of it. It would seem that priorities have changed for some people just as times change. Anyway, good luck on the house I'm sure you'll get there.

Our eldest grandkid and partner are going through the process at the moment, mind you they haven't put the cart before the horse and started having kids til they can afford it and both carried on living with their parents while saving up.

It's interesting that the same sore losers in the referendum are quite prepared to throw up to a hundred billion quid at the EU in a so called divorce settlement then complain about a billion going to a part of the UK. What the DUP have done is what any politician worth their salt would have done, that's what they were elected for, to represent their constituents and get the best deal. It's only here in the socialist republic of South Yorkshire where our politicians didn't force the Labour governments to direct more spending here, but were just content to carry on supporting them whatever happened, and moaning about the pits closing under Thatcher

Of course we listen to them, and yes the ones old enough to vote voted different to us, their priority at the moment is tuition fees. In fact Labour winning the election would have been better for us in the short term, as pensioners Corbyn promised to protect the triple lock, do something on social care fees should we ever need it, and certainly his spending commitments would have led to rocketing inflation which would have led to higher interest rates on any savings pensioners might have. But that would have affected the grand kids more than us, costing them in the long term. There's a commonly held belief by some on here that pensioners had it easy in buying their homes and don't care about the younger generation. Well, when we were saving to get married and buy a house we hardly went out for two years, didn't have a car at the time, virtually stopped drinking and worked over fifty hours a week, which I carried on doing after getting married and having two kids, (which was all we could afford), we were also paying between six and seven percent interest on our mortgage. I find it bit ironic that you as someone who is always espousing socialism are living according to your profile in the USA, the most successful, capitalist and entrepreneurial country in the world, try asking your neighbour's if they want to be more socialist. Our grandkids have all been to the USA at least once, something there was no chance of us doing at their age, and have much more material things than we ever had and good luck to them, and we will continue to help them as much as we can, as far as we're concerned if we've got it and they need it they can have it.

Of course they love him. I wouldn't blame any youngster at university for voting for him. But if Jeremy Kyle, sorry I meant Jeremy Corbyn I always get them mixed up, ever gets elected PM reality will soon kick in. The last labour government skint the country and it will be worse than that when he starts re-nationalising every thing, throwing more money at the workshy and benefit breeders, and raising the minimum wage by a third. Just to take the minimum wage, the thing that probably cost the Tories a majority was social care, where most of the careers are probably on minimum wage in a sector which is extremely labour intensive, to raise costs by a third would probably close quite a few care homes, wouldn't it be better to raise tax thresholds for lower paid workers? He's also wanting to raise wages for public sector workers, we keep hearing how dedicated they are, well they are no more dedicated than workers in the private sector, a lot work there because conditions are better, better job security, sick pay, holidays and in quite a few cases early retirement.

Well this one doesn't, applied for and refused, blah blah, but then again she's a responsible person so the left aren't bothered about people like her.

You can only live in one house at a time, but we still pay council tax when we are away on holiday.

There will be plenty of jobs for you there then, sorted.

As usual you've managed to turn my post round to something else. I originally said it's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than someone working forty hours a week on minimum wage, and I stand by that. We know a single person working in a care home doing that who doesn't get housing benefit, free prescriptions or any of the other things people on benefits get. That's why even allowing for the disaster that was Theresa May more people voted Tory than Labour at the recent election because of Labours policies of throwing money at the feckless and benefit breeders. You, like all the left wingers start quoting the ones who've fallen on hard times conveniently forgetting the ones who are having kids to avoid having to work. It's a generational thing, the ones who aren't capable of supporting their family are likely to have kids who are just the same, but the left wing answer as always is to impose more tax on others to pay for it.

That sums you up as well, where did I mention childcare. As a matter of fact yes the father should be paying for the kids. It's called personal responsibility, but I suppose you've never heard of that. Sums you up really.

So it's official then. Irony is dead.

It's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than somebody working forty hours a week on minimum wage. what about trying something different and don't have kids until you can afford them. The other week on radio they were discussing the manifestos and the Tory proposal to stop free school meals. A woman from Sheffield rang up and bleated on about how she would suffer financially, well why not think about that before having them, anyway what's child credit and other children's benefits for? I expect she also wants someone to go round and wipe her backside for her.

Tony Currie for me as well, if I could have picked any Owl to come and play for the blades it would have to be Tony Kay, what a player he was. ---------- Post added 03-06-2017 at 16:53 ---------- I think he also held the course record at Beauchief at one time, so also not a bad golfer.

I'm sure the fact that Chelsea weren't playing in Europe this season gave them a big advantage over the other genuine contenders. I know it's a completely different level but I was quite pleased when the Blades got knocked out of the cup fairly early and were able to concentrate on promotion with less chance of injuries.

Blair won because he made Labour electable, by appealing to middle England. It's always said that elections are won by the 150 so called swing seats, and I ain't seen anything yet from Corbyn's team that is likely to appeal to them. It's OK saying that people have woken up to the intrinsic unfairness but the left just comes across as being jealous of anyone who is successful. I suspect that you like me have never been an employer, but I have been self employed and worked in the private and public sectors and know which is the most difficult. Labour are now wanting to re-nationalise everything, well when I worked in the public sector for a while I couldn't believe the number of people who'd never worked anywhere else and spent most of the time complaining about how hard worked they were but when they were asked why didn't they leave and get another job everything went quiet, even when they got a chance of redundancy. And to say the retirement age is now going to rise it's amazing how many were retiring in their 50s. I also thought about retraining as a doctor because I became quite good at diagnosing when someone would be going off sick, usually during the kids holidays. You also keep complaining about austerity, I think your sympathy should be aimed at the people working 40 hours a week on minimum wage. It's diabolical that someone on benefits and I don't include the disabled in this, should be getting more than those on minimum wage and I don't care how many kids they've got, there's such a thing as personal responsibility.

How do you work that one out? We're over 60 and own our own house and there's no land near us that could be built on, even though some has in the past. And I've always taken the view that we bought this house and land and not the surrounding area. And what happens around us is the right of the owner of that land. So I also wouldn't be out protesting about things like fracking or cutting down trees.

I know I'm a bit late on reading this one as it's been out a few years, but I bought it in a charity shop last month, at the moment I'm reading Bill Bryson's 'A short history of nearly everything'. Different from his usual travelogues of which I've read quite a few but still a good read, explaining some of the things I've never had any idea about so that even I can understand some of it (I think). Mind you there's been quite a bit of going over the last few pages. But I finally understand what 'half life' means.(I think).

Why shouldn't the Conservative party accept any vote for them? After all the Labour Party accepted the loony left as members, and you are asking will UKIP voters vote Tory not join the party. A fairly typical post from you, implying that UKIP voters are right wing, it might come as news to you but I suspect that the majority of UKIP voters are like me, someone who voted labour since the 60s until Gordon Brown became PM. And yes I will be voting Conservative. After seeing the totally unfunded manifesto where Labour would be scattering money around like confetti I can't see any alternative. The money (if any) raised on extra taxes will have been spent many times over. Don't you remember the last time Labour raised taxes and the wealthy just left the country, or when Callaghan came back from a trip abroad when the public service unions were all on strike, rubbish not collected from the streets, people unable to arrange funerals and he said 'crisis, what crisis?' That led to Margaret Thatcher spending years as PM because Labour were totally unelectable, and this situation looks like a repeat of that to me. But of course the left aren't bothered about that because they've got the lovely Jeremy as leader.

Never noticed that. But no, never had either.