Do we expect too much as a right in Great Britain?

Got it wrong girls, should have been CSS .

Iit must be the excitement of seeing Russell Crowe in "NOAH" this afternoon.

I am all of a flutter. !!

CSS.

'Screaming'?

Oh dear, just realised we've gone way off the point of this thread. Sorry!

"Smiling", golly gosh hope the thread police, don"t come chasing.

I'm sorry you've been made to feel like that Ninny

I just had visions of this posse of Gransnetters headed by a Company Sergeant Major demanding at 2am. Help yourselves, I will be asleep, I have a busy weekend coming up!

I am interested in everyone's opinion; don't have time at the moment to read all lengthy posts or follow all the links on many threads, but there have been some interesting and thought-provoking views on this thread.

It is very difficult for the State to provide help for those who do need it without giving to those who may not without means-testing, which is demeaning imo. Those who do not necessarily need the help (for instance prescriptions, bus passes, winter fuel allowances and the proposed school meals) should be covering the cost of these in the tax they pay - but of course not everyone pays the tax that they should.

Just like to say thanks to those who saw my posts for what they were and for supporting me, and to rose for trying to get the thread on track again. After all it began as her thread, so she must know what it was intended to be about.
If you want to know more about the Belgians of Birtley, I think it will be on the Who Do You Think You Are website; I'm sure it was that magazine I read it in, although I buy so many family history magazines and books.

Interesting final paragraph there, rose. I think I read somewhere that Australians get 52% of the average salary as their pension, whether from the state or private. In the UK it's more like 25% as state pension, and going down, which is probably why we need to rely on the state more than they do in Australia.
I know my brother-in-law refers to his state pension as pocket money. It's more than that to me, but he retired when annuities were good.

I did have an interrogation last time I was over there from someone approaching retirement, who told me that the basic state pension is means tested. She was surprised to hear that our basic state pension is paid to everyone regardless of other income.
However, the means-tested full Age Pension in Australia is reasonably generous, but on a sliding scale.

Anyone still working pays into a compulsory superannuation scheme to provide them with a pension and many people would top that up with private schemes. However, it has been possible to draw out a pension fund and invest elsewhere, with some disastrous results.

Yes, I think that's what I read, rose, that the system which Osborne wants us to adopt is already happening in Australia, and there are many people who regret it over there.
I think the government here is having a compulsory second pension, asking employers to take out pensions for employees, like a compulsory superannuation, unless employees opt out. I do not think that will help the employment figures.

I will have to leave you all to it as I am off for the weekend to somewhere which probably doesn't have wifi.

ROSE, enjoy your weekend break, whever you are going !

I just googled the Australian state pension scheme out of interest, but a few minutes reading through the rules and regs started to bring on a headache! It seems it is means tested, and by use of a very fine tooth comb - even the value of your household contents and your car is taken into consideration (though not the house you live in).

www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/assets

However generous it may be, administration of the scheme must be very costly.

I feel that as I paid into the state pension fund from age 16, my pension shouldn't be means tested. I paid full stamp at a time when many women didn't, on the basis they could rely on their husbands pensions. We all know what happened to so many women, don't we.

I understand the cost of living in Oz is very high, so high incomes are needed but not always achieved. My daughter spent a month in Oz recently, and found it very expensive. She was shocked by the number of beggars, homeless people and drug addiction. This from a young woman whose worked in the very deprived areas of the north west. It raises that issue about the gap between rich and poor. The Scandinavian countries seem to manage this better than many other countries, though of course, they pay high taxes.

In 2005, The King's Fund requested a review be carried out by Sir Derek Wanless to look into this problem and they opted for one of his options, The Partnership Model: 'providing a minimum guaranteed amount of care free at the point of delivery. The review team set this at two-thirds of the total care package, but it could be varied up or down. Individuals can then make contributions matched by the state (up to a limit): in the review's estimates, every £1 contributed by an individual is matched by £1 from the state until the benchmark (for example, economically justified) care package is achieved (thereafter extra private contributions are not matched). People with low incomes would be helped to make their additional contributions through the benefits system (at an annual cost estimated at £0.8 billion).'

'The Limited Liability Model, a hybrid model, effectively a means-tested system for the first three or four years of care and then free personal care thereafter was also considered.

The review concluded that the vast majority of older people would be better off under a partnership model or free personal care. The latter would be most expensive in terms of public funding and also puts the onus on social services in terms of what care is provided.'

For whatever reason, the Government opted for none of those choices (even though Wanless was asked to complete two reviews) at that time. I suppose it remains to be seen what the ultimate goal is of all these changes.

Iam64, an interesting article in the Guardian about London.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/21/london-internal-refugee-camps-homeless
The homeless problem is not just in Australia, unfortunately. The idea of a young woman sleeping out with her baby is quite shameful, or should that be shaming.

I wonder why people feel the need to leave their local home area and go to live in London.

It does not say in the article that they do not come from London. However, my nephew was told it was easier to get work there than in Hull. He spent a year living in a squat.
Dick Whittington became Lord Mayor. For every Dick Whittington there must be hundreds living in squats.

Your question answered jingle … Dick Whittington.

It's not that Dick Whittington felt the need to go to London, Jingle. He was sent there by his father to learn a trade. He became mayor three times, and set up lots of charities. As he was not the eldest son, he would not have inherited from his father, so had to learn to stand on his own feet.
People probably did it before him, but he is the most famous, I think.

Just watched the next instalment of the Tower Hamlets How to get a Council House. It seemed to me that there was not much help. Most of the people in the programme were just not believed.
Couldn't believe how many of them were living on the streets. One woman was not believed about having responsibility for her teenage children and had to go back a few times bringing bits of paper. Eventually she brought a letter from her solicitor and the children's birth certificates. They were given two rooms in a bed and breakfast.
Another family there were nine of them living in a 3bedroomed council house in the parents names. They had even turned the living room into a bedroom. The housing officer went to talk to the parents, and asked if they'd thought of a rota in the kitchen and bathroom!
Eventually, the son, his wife and two children were given a room in a bed and breakfast out of the area.
It makes me despair, and I've got a roof over my head. Many of them seemed to lose their tempers in this programme, but I can't say I blame them.

I think we should expect a roof over our heads and a decent health service. This is an excellent synopsis of the problems with the NHS.
www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/kailash-chand/moment-of-honesty-is-required-new-labour-began-dismantling-of-our-nhs

Where are we to find these roofs to put over heads durham? Let's hear some positive suggestions please.

People move from their place of origin to other places in search of work. Go round any place of work or housing estate and ask people where they were born and brought up and probably most will not be born locally. Ask them why they moved and they will say it was because they were offered a job locally or came here there searching work because there was more on offer. That is why DS lives in Yorkshire and DD started her working life living in London.

The way to provide roofs over heads is a massive public sector building programme combined with a massive market sector building programme. Why will this not happen? First and foremost because the areas of most housing demand/need are those with the most expensive land and a programme like this would send the price of land soaring even higher. Public funding could not afford the land prices and the prices of new properties would soar even further out of reach of most people.

The answer is control the price of development land. Now there really is a political hot potato.

People leave to live in London for other reasons than finding work.

Yes, build more social housing so the rents go back into the public purse and not to present-day Rackmans.