1960 Where the UK went to rat shit

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Jack_McHammocklashing, Jun 23, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. At tge beginning of the 60's the man of the house worked and paid for the family, and the wife brought up the family and did the housework/housekeeping

    Then electronic factories sprang up, and women who could not work in the mines and shipyards, took employment, but only the pioneers, most continued bringing up families

    Now you had a majority of families, with the man working and wife keeping home, but others with no children and both working so double income

    They could pay over the odds for a home they wanted, thus pushing up prices of homes
    They could pay over the odds for commodities, food, and meals out further pushing up prices

    So everyonelse had to give up the good life to compete
    Thus both partners working to achieve what one partner did prior to that
    The kids left with their own keys to get in the home and make their own meals as both parents are out at work

    To, today where the family has broken down and everyone is dog eat dog to stay on the treadmill of life

    The Gubernment assists this, with families must have what is needed partner or not, so if you ditch your man and have six kids you are equal to a family of two professionals with kids in private school, so provide benefits which equal or indeed exceed the professionals

    Even to the extent that families on benefit feel the need to take holidays abroad, If you can take holidays abroad then benefit is too good

    Benefit should be that you have a roof over your head and three meals a day, not bingo, fags, holidays abroad, colour tv ,dvds,play stations, pizza hut and the latest style of clothes

    (sorry I did not reply to your mail, we were in the Gambia for four weeks - well they did not say sorry just We were in the Gambia for four weeks what yer want then - well we want to stop your benefit for not responding to our request, having asked politely for six months for you to pop in and renew your £46kpy benefit)

    Jack McHammocklashing
  2. J McH
    Its very near to what you say has happened .

    However slight difference is that people recieving benefits get things
    too easily ---the qualify lines are very broad and open to suggestion .
    Thus they can be manipulated .

    Classic case ------job seeker asked why they hadn't taken job offered was
    the fact that they are better off recieving benefits----true
    And the guy behind the desk agreed and continued the benefits and allowances !!

    Children in Poverty is the latest Gubernment mover .
    In the old days when parents had a slightly 'backward child ' they managed themselves ---------in modern times there are allowances and carers allowances etc etc the money train is endless if you know the strings to pull.

    Disability ------the diagnosed 'disabled ' reasons and illnesses preventing
    a person working are endless ---and with all the modern medical sciences
    these people never seem to be able to be cured enough to return to work
    or even begin to work. With the added on carers and perks its a very comfortable way of life.

    :nemo: :nemo:
  3. When I used to work in the DHSS in 1983 many of my colleagues' pay was so low they were having to claim benefits themselves! When a full time job doesn't pay there's something seriously amiss.

    Most disabled people don't work because they find it impossible to get a job in the first place. There are a small number of non-disabled scroungers (I encountered quite a few when I was Hon.Sec. for the Klinefelter's Syndrome Association) who are only pretending to be disabled but they are a minority - other than the able bodied people encouraged by the government to claim disability benefits to massage the unemployment figures in a downward direction.

    Many employers make disabled employees redundant on dubious grounds. Another is to offer you a full pension, to enable an employer not to have to take steps to make reasonable adjustments. I have remained in work and been prepared to finance the adaptations if necessary. Not everyone can afford to do this, thus limiting their options. Two of my disabled colleagues were forcibly medically retired. I did not wish to be forced to take this route.

    The benefits are extremely difficult to obtain and are insufficient to pay for proper care, or at least they are in London, though there are plenty of myths. The problem is that some people are adept at working the system - but not usually those who actually need the help!!! :threaten:

    Git yer 'at Greenie! :twisted:
  4. J McH

    Come on plenty of women worked long before the 60s, just think of who worked in the wool and cotton mills, remeber the clippies on the trams and buses, most shop assistants, nurses, teachers, and so on.

    Personally I place the biggest factor in our downward slide as a shared event between the luddites in the unions and H Wilson's use of Fiscal Drag to fund excessive public spending. Of course these had their main effect in the 60s.
  5. This is broadly true. Whoever thinks disabled people on benefits have a 'comfortable' standard of living is kidding themselves. As someone who has worked with the disabled and also has a disabled family member, I know for a fact this isn't the case.

    The problem of course is with the minority - and it is a minority, however sizeable - of claimaints who are fraudulent. The big problem for the disability lobby in recent years is that every political party has seen 'scroungers' as an easy vote-getter with the Daily Mail/Sun-reading tabloid vote. If that meant fraudulent claimants alone it would be no bad thing, but it doesn't; it plays into a general belief (evidenced here) that the disabled in general are 'scroungers' and need to be 'punished.' I agree that measures need to be taken against benefit fraud, but when it gets to the stage where doctors are to be paid to reject claimants the balance has gone too far the other way.

    Peope who do not have to live or work with the problem are far too complacent about how easily the dignity of disabled people is stripped away, particularly in this climate; blanket reassesments of everyone to placate the tabloids puts people who are often severely disabled under extreme stress. This hasn't happened yet, but it is mooted. Having said that there are plenty of individual cases I can think of where seriously disabled people have been degraded both before and during medical exams, some of which in the past have seemed rather Victorian to me.

    As I say I'm not denying there are fraudulent claimants; in any system of provision there will be; but they are far from the majority. We've got to be very careful - in a way governments haven't been - when targetting fradulent claimants that it doesn't just turn into knocking the disabled as a whole.
  6. With you on some of it JMac.
    However I do not believe the working wives had very much to do with the situation.
    I've been shouting from the rooftops for years that the benefit system needs a complete overhaul.
    Now how about this for a suggestion?
    Lose your job and you get one year on reasonable benefits to find another.
    After one year if you haven't found employment you lose benefits and receive the minimum wage for 40 hours a week. They will also pay national insurance and tax. The government employs you and you report to government centres. By this time you will have been interviewed to find both your weak points and your strong points. The new government employment department will then allocate work suitable for you. In the case of those with low education this would include attending classes in English & Maths. All employees would attend classes in Citizenship so they would be aware of where their pay was coming from.
    No attendance at the work centre would equal no pay.
    Those with children would be entitled to all benefits that any other tax paying member of the public receives (tax credits etc,)
    Now if a government had the balls to do this I wonder how many would suddenly be able to find jobs paying more than the minimum wage?
  7. So Nothing to do with Margret Hilda Roberts policys after that? :w00t: :thumright: [ Thatcher :pukel: ]
  8. Not really, she simply tried to clear up some of the mess that Harold and his fellow travelers made. Mind you both she and TB showed why there should be a limit on how long some one should serve as PM and that large majorities are not good, thus first past the post is not good.
  9. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Never mind Maxi, it looks like another winter of discontent is being lined up by the present lot, then of course after the election there will be several years of trying to get the financial side sorted out for the country, of course as it gets straight labour will be voted back in and so the whole thing starts again.

    Any bookies taking bets that Brown will lead the party into the next election, or how much longer he will be PM. Who will be the next leader of the labour party??
  10. why not just go the whole hog and run the UK along fully communist lines? Saves the hassle of transitioning people from one state of being to the other...

  11. [quote="Karma............. go the whole hog and run the UK along fully communist lines? ..... :D[/quote]

    Thought that was what this mob were doing already ...

    'We will listen (but we're still going to do it our way)'

    'Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others' - hence they wanting huge rises but telling everyone else to 'tighten the belt' ?

    Anyone else see a similarity to 'Animal Farm' ?
  12. This is utter fcukin nonsense. People did not pay over the odds for homes, no-one could afford to do that. They did not pay over the odds for food and meals - thats just bollox. Where is your evidence that this is the case?
  13. I think he might be right on the housing bit but I would say that was more '90s, late '80s when deposits became optional and Building Societies would lend several times more than could be comfortably earned.


    I hated the '60s. The decade when duty and responsibility dropped from the Nation's vocabulary.
  14. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    Dam I believed the TV when "our Cilla" told me the 60's where great. I blame the dope smoking LSD poppn leaders at the reins of power. I imagine them sitting around the cabinet table chatting "Its ok Gordon, its just a bad trip, flashbacks, things will mellow soon" :afro:
  15. Having got my first mortgage back in the 60s they certainly didn't give them away with sweety papers then. You needed at least a 10% deposit, have saved with the society for some time and if possible some influence.

    Certainly Maggie made buying a house the in thing to do on the basis a property owning worker was far less likely to strike than one in a council house. The fundamental problem for the past 10 years or so has really been the supply of new house into the market, too many places have restricted new build planning permission which has allowed builders to escalate prices seriously, the increase in supply was to late so we have ended up with a real burst bubble as the money dries up at a period of peak supply.

    Once again it was the socialists who championed the concept of entitlement to credit, rather than the older concept of earning the right to credit by showing creditworthyness. As a result we have sub-prime mortgages and equally sub-prime second mortgages and loans.
  16. The real rat-shit arrived in the 60's only it was known at ratt shit - ask any sparker !
  17. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Just SOME of the factors:

    A. The was the wimmins' insistence that married women's income should be taken into account for mortgage eligibility. (Building Socs' take had always been that when Mrs got pregnant there would be a crisis followed by repossession). Results:

    1. Increase in money available to pay mortgages with, of course, no magical instant increase in number o fhouses, so house prices shot up.

    2. Therefore in any couple wanting to buy a house the wife HAD to go out to work otherwise the house would be unaffordable.

    3. Couple then has to choose between kids and house. Which is no fun for them and no good for society.

    B. Technological changes in society including computers and the Pill.

    C. Unions' insistence on killing off docks, mines, shipbuilding, car-making etc because the Union leaders were Communist stooges dedicated to wrecking our system, and their members were too thick to see which way the wind was blowing.

    Of course there's a lot more to it.
  18. Thanks shipsnthat. If more RR'ers knew or worked with disabled people they would be able to speak from the orifice below their noses than the other one! :tp: :thumright:

    Scouse, I couldn't agree more: Thatcher :puke:
  19. Old Maggie was not all bad, she managed to do a fair ammount of correcting of the bad governance by the previous Labour government. Her biggest problem was in many respects that because she was so tough in the end she was surrounded by yes men so she didn't see that she was losing her grip on reality. I was interesting seeing T Blair go the same way.

    Brings me back ti my key figure of hate, H Wilson, whose only saving grace was he was smart enough to know when to jump ship.
  20. Just change the UK to US and I would think you all were talking about my country. Seems the same problems are everywhere. The producers take it up the arse and the slackers line up to get the bennies the government finances through taxes. Over here we would say it is time for another Boston Tea Party. The politicos are the ones out of touch with reality. All of them should be locked up for what they have done to the working people. Frigging social engineers and their made up disabilities and their trying to even the playing field. Hell they need a real job!

Share This Page