youreavinalaff

I didn't.

I'm not a teacher. Not that it matters. Don't need to be a teacher to spot your howlers.

No hopes to pin. I don't even know him. I'm correcting your mistake. You denied he'd work in any of the industries under discussion. He has. Your mistake.

That's not what you said. How about 17% interest rates in 1979? Was it easy then? Was it easy in the late 80s early 90s when interest rates were sky high, families were left in negative equity? When people were stuck paying a mortgage worth more than their property? When there was much more disparity between salaries of males and females? Right now in many areas of the country a couple working 35 hours a week on minimum wage can buy a property. With interest rates at what they are and likely to go down, now is not a difficult time for many.

You know what you wrote. It's there to see. That's probably why you cropped my comment and then ignored part of what you did quote.

He said he worked in Aviation. You must have a short memory.

You said 60s and 70s. Then you changed it to 70s. Now you've changed it to 70s who bought a house when they were 20.

I suggested a while ago that this discussion is meaning less. It's taken you this long to agree.

Now you are changing the story, I guess to suit yourself. Here is what you wrote:

You said "people in their 60/70s." Then you confirmed " now" when referring to that age group. I'm quite sure people of that age were buying properties in 1989. In fact I know they were.

Exactly my point. A futile discussion. No one can say what would gave happened in comparison had utilities not been privatised. Not ignoring any evidence, by the way.

Actually, no. They were publicly listed. Anyone could buy shares in the floatation. No need to be anyone's chum. I won't comment on the first incorrect part of your post. I'll let you go back and modify it.

He has. The industries under discussion are privatised industries. I believe there have been privatisations within aviation.

Incorrect. The issue is that the scaremongers use average national house prices to compare salaries for first time buyers. They shouldn't. They should use mean prices by region. In the area where I live there are 3 bed houses for £170k. That's 4x salary at minimum wage 35 hours a week. In 1989 my partner and I could only afford a 1 bed flat at 37.5 hours a week and 4.5x salary. The same 1 bed flat now is 3x salary. Interest rates were also higher. At least 2x compared to current rates and,at one time, 3x.

Nothing to do with my circumstances. I'm not young so not the topic of conversation. Many young people get on the housing ladder.

You've supplied link, I agree. Now, supply a link of what would have happened had no utilities been privatised. It will then be possible to see what would have been the best way forward.

Then why did you say what you said. Why suggest the poster had no experience working inbsaid industries when it's perfectly plausible he could have. In fact, he's confirmed he did.

These days are just as easy. For people willing to work and not feel entitled. The problem is the list of items people think are essential has drastically increased, people think it's OK to only work 20 hours a week, people don't plan ahead before taking life changing decisions and people can't understand the difference between "want" and "need".

Why? PhD gives you the right to be called Doctor.

Using what alternative as proof? There is no way of comparing. Would nationalised utilities have performed better? Would energy prices be cheaper? Would the consumer have been better off, possible higher taxes to pay for improvements and research? We'll never know.

The privatisations were designed to negate the need for many billions of tax payers money being spent. In that regards, they were a success. Without knowing how things would have worked out if utilities had remained nationalized, how much of a tax burden they would have been and would still be, it's difficult to quantify the overall success.

You are mistaken. "A million" migrants refers to legal migrants. Many of who work and pay tax, NI, IHS and can't claim benefits. Many of them also work in NHS and Healthcare which, without the migrants workers, would collapse.

I don't think anyone is talking about Denmark. Besides, you've not published data regarding how many of those who break the law are taxpayers. Your figures are also 2 years out of date.

Are you saying there are no tax paying immigrants? Are you also saying only immigrants don't respect the law?

Finance?