Damage done to the UK ALREADY following the elction

Infrastructure and institutions in the US and the UK are showing signs of wear and tear because there is increasing inequality. Not enough is being invested in the public good.

Property is an example of a distorted market. Governments have made it more attractive for individuals to buy second (or third, etc) homes as an investment and/or for the rental market, so others don't get a chance to build up their own capital. Nobody's blaming individuals for doing that, but it would be better for communities as a whole if that money were to be invested in other areas, such as business (especially green businesses) or providing services which would benefit everybody. That's not going to happen while economies are stagnant and interest rates are being kept artificially low.

gmarie Are you American? In which case, ignore my previous post, as it was written to address the situation in the UK.

The UK does have enough land to build. For example, it's estimated that there are enough small areas of land in London within 800m of a tube station to house a million people. These pieces of land are currently "wasteland" with no public access. They're not sites of any beauty.

There are also thousands of empty dwellings which have been bought as an investment.

The barriers to building are complex. For example, landowners often get planning permission to build, which causes the value of the land to rocket. Sometimes it can be worth ten times more overnight. However, instead of investing in building, that land is then used as a trading commodity. Investors make a profit on the land without actually doing anything with it. There is an area of land not far from where I live, which has had planning permission to build up to 50,000 new dwellings. The original farmer now lives abroad somewhere and the profit he made from selling the land to a developer is in a tax haven and the details can't be accessed. Meanwhile, no dwellings have been built, although they're desperately needed. It really is like a real life version of Monopoly.

There are many other barriers, such as the inability of local councils to build social housing, even if they want to. Meanwhile, they're still being forced to sell off high value council housing at a discount, but can't re-invest the money in new housing.

New housing often means new communities need to be developed, but that requires planned infrastructure. It happened after WW2 and could happen again, but there's reluctance by central government to invest and, very often, local NIMBYism.

Additionally, there are issues with interest rates and local incomes.

All in all, leaving housing to the market is failing to deliver the housing which is needed and central government needs to intervene. However, it's unlikely to do that, unless votes are involved and there's a risk of upsetting people who are doing very nicely from a scarcity of housing.

I've read many, many contentious posts on Gransnet, Facebook, news sites, etc., covering various Conservative vs Liberal viewpoints (Torie, Labor, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, etc.). I can understand a lot of the points made by each "side". Quite obviously, most problems are pretty complex and difficult, if not impossible to fix. For example, how DO we accommodate growing populations and an influx of immigrants when most countries are dealing with some degree of financial instability and our infrastructures and institutions are showing wear and tear?

I've chosen to be a "loony, lefty" "snowflake", as I often see us called on here and elsewhere, not because I think we have all of the answers, but because I believe it's just as important for solutions to be based in compassion, tolerance, inclusivity, and kindness as it is for them to be hammered out using sound ideas and principles.

Whoever wrote it must have been read GN, Jura

Just seen this on FB- spot on, and made me laugh:

''Schrödinger's Reconciliation:

Leavers, simultaneously pretending to reach out to Remainers, while indulging in an orgy of spiteful triumphalism, as they celebrate the impending imposition of their clusterf**k delusions.''

Oh come off it - re-read your posts and see ...and stop playing the victim for your own obnoxious views and judgement.

Thank you Urmstongran !

The vitriol is extraordinary isn’t it, but it appears that is what happens to those who dare to express Right wing views.

I see I am now condemned for not only being a stay at home mum but also daring to be critical of couples who produce child after child whilst on benefits.

Who knew that was such a contentious view???

I can see now why Gabriella was driven away.

''I have no evidence as to how many will stay but if I was a betting woman I’d take a punt that most will stay here.

Do you really think otherwise? In huge numbers? What makes you think that way?''

just makes sense if you understand the economic, scientific, research and academic world of today - all linked internationally and for research/academic work (and that includes cancer and other medical research, as well as nuclear, etc) ... oft dependent on working with EU and other colleagues from around the world, and dependent on funding directly from EU or on that basis.

There is strong evidence those EU from the above, and many from other countries, are currently leaving in large numbers - our youngsters will follow as they cannot progress in isolation. Just common sense. And the atmosphere in the UK has turned toxic for many, including our own.

Yes, they did and the miracle is that they succeeded in pulling off a massive con trick.

Two wrongs, even if the proportions are massively different- don't make a right. The tax dodgers are 100% to blame and the major problem - for sure.

However I do not think we should use this as an 'excuse' for fraudsters at the other end, ever. They need to be dealt with too ...

The people who let this country down are the unpatriotic billionaire tax dodgsrs, like the owners of most of the right wing prsss.

I've just read Eloethan's post from 19.13.44 and suggest that anybody who still thinks most of the people claiming benefits are "scroungers" does the same. Thank you Eloethan.

Please feel free to challenge what she's written. It would be interesting to read what you have to write.

"Hard cases make bad laws" and our law is made on that basis so what do those who resent paying their bit to live in a country they seem to want to be in do when the actual average doesn't suit their thinking? I wonder what they would call someone who doesn't pay his taxes because that seems to be their problem. Scroungers, perhaps that they use the services provided for them but don't want to pay what has been deemed fair by governments of all colour. Frauds possibly. that is usually how we see the tax avoider.

How do they go about trying to achieve this? Look at the statistics in Eloethan's post. The average family claiming benefits is nothing like the descriptions we see on here. The cruelty is the most striking thing. Of course, there will be grandparents on here who are in a position where they are eligible for benefits and time, after time, after time these people pull them down, attempt to shame them, do what has been done before by countries we fought for what they did and scapegoat them, blaming them for our economic and social problems.

It's disgusting but these far-right activists on forums spread their venom and support the mainstream media and parties that do the same.

Indeed jura! There are very few families who intentionally have children which they can't afford. The majority of claimants for child-related benefits are over 30 and have previously been in a relationship, which for some reason or other didn't work out.

If JenniferEccles had ever stepped outside her gilded bubble she would know that the rules for claiming child benefits don't apply to any family with more than two children.

I don't think there is anybody who is denying that there is a handful of people taking the p*ss, although that's become much more difficult in recent years. Unfortunately, the p*ss takers are still being used by the ignorant as an excuse not to support families who genuinely need it - and who, in many cases, have paid income tax and National INSURANCE Contributions, which is more than JenniferEccles has done.

The problem is that JenniferEccles had the good fortune to be able to be a SAHM, but doesn't have the good sense or good manners not to appreciate her good fortune and has the nerve for criticising others for not getting off their backsides.

Urmstongran ''Poor youJenniferEccles the vitriol directed against you here is absolutely awful.

Seems to me all you’ve done (I’ve not waded through all the posts, just the recent ones) was to be a stay at home mum? ''

you say yourself you have not read the posts - so how can you judge? And who are you to judge anyhow?

The problem here is not about being or not a 'stay at home mum' - but judging others for doing so - without knowing their reasons- just because they are poorer than you.

I was a SAHM for quite a while - been crippled and unable to work for many years- were poor and even got int debt- and never ever claimed a penny - knowing things would improve with the years. Had OH's health issues turned bad, as could have done we now realise- when kids were young, I don't know what we would have done. It was very hard for us to get a mortgage because of this, cost us a fortune for the endowment- and those issues would not have been covered by life insurance ...

And yes, I agree that people who do have many children knowing that they are unable to look after them - is just wrong. They are very few indeed.

Very relevant

Maybe you're not the only one Urmstongran but I have no objection to what you rudely describe as GagaJo's "verbiage" and I guess some others found her OP interesting and relevant..

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JenniferEccles I think growstuff has already pointed out that if you live in this country you will have benefited from the social and physical infrastucture those who are or have been employed have paid for via income tax.

But, setting that to one side, what exactly do you think should happen to struggling families who, by your reckoning, are irresponsible because they have insufficient income to afford the basics for these supposed great hordes of children? It appears that you believe society as a whole has no obligation whatsoever to provide for families in such a situation. That it is just "hard luck" if those children cannot be properly, fed, clothed and housed. That it is desirable and necessary for them to pay for what has been described by some as the fecklessness of their parents. And how do you think these underfed, poorly housed and clothed and under-educated children are likely to end up? As upstanding citizens who are grateful to this society and who will work willingly and hard to contribute to it?

Or perhaps you believe that their children should be taken away and put into "care" (that would be expensive and doesn't have a great track record), or even that some women or men should be sterilised (there's certainly a historical precedent for that).

In reality, there are very few families containing large numbers of children, although according to right wing newspapers, you would think the country was overrun with them. The average number of children per family in this country is 1.7. On a personal level, I don't know many people who have more than two children.

In 2013, in an article about welfare provision, the Observer reported:

"To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

These days many working people - even people with professional qualifications - can hardly get by, even with two incomes. Do you suggest they never have children? Have you seen what is happening in Japan and China where people have been discouraged - or forced - into limiting their families? They now have a massive problem with too few young people to provide for the growing number of older people.

My son has 5 children, 2 came with the mum, 2 were planned and the last one was a surprise. So should he have not any children of his own because he already had two? Should the last one not been born? He has worked, he has also been out of work, due to wife having a stroke at an early age and he stopped work to bring up the children and care for the wife. Could he have done it any different?

We cannot as a society just close down any help needed because there are people who abuse the system. If you think that is the case then MP should not be claiming any expenses after their abuse of the system.

And yes JenniferE you have claimed benefits, family allowance for one.

Janpt Why on earth do you think that a lot of people on here are jealous. I haven't gained that impression at all. As for your hope that the government keeps the 2 children limit in place - it's outrageous. Child number 3 (or 4, or 5 or 6) didn't ask to be born. All children need the best possible chance in life.

I was a volunteer for Save the Children for over 20 years and one thing I learned was that the children are not at fault. As well as working abroad the charity works with families in the UK to narrow the gap between children living in poverty and their better off classmates. It's doing essential work, which shouldn't be necessary in one of hte richest countries in the world.

I don't like the way some people talk about children as if they are some sort of optional extra to society. Children are necessary to society or society will die. We should welcome them into our country and be glad to support them when they are vulnerable in the hope that they will support us when the positions are reversed. Young people pay our pensions, without young people there will be no future taxpayers.

I’m perfectly certain JRM doesn’t claim benefits so using him as an example is pointless.

I don’t care how many children people have so long as they don’t expect the rest of us to pay for them.

Incidentally my work record is irrelevant.