B & Q to vastly reduce over 60s discount

[Skyline2uk]

Of course, the younger folk could always get their parents to buy stuff with a discount for them but that option is gone after next week. Mind you, if my nephew is anything to go by he'd just get me to buy it for him from my pocket

Indeed Nobby, yesterday I was lucky enough to have my father in law in a B&Q on the last Wednesday the offer was valid on everything and he just so happened to pick up a new power tool. As if by magic the exact amount of money needed appeared in his account shortly after he left it in my car boot.

Strange that 

Skyline2uk

[MalcolmInN]

Drat. Sounds like I might have to get wed (again)

Eeek!
mind-u, it could help the housing crisis / house price problem, >  two people needing two houses become one family needing just one house ?!

Now if only we could get grandparents living with , , , and bring back SuperMac and a house building program.

Not sure you would need to get wed, you could try a civil partnership ??

[Newportnobby]

you could try a civil partnership ??

The 2 marriages I've had have been very uncivil, Malcolm

[MalcolmInN]

I am sad to hear that, oh dear, what can I say ? (only one in, soon fingers xxed, 50y here)

My use of modern-civil in respect of partnerships and the law obviously does not encompass (our?oldie) onetime usage of the word.
Just like to be gay may or may not be joyful ? , , , oooops,,, pass ,

But I did have a serious intent to explore the current extent of protections, the oldie 'spouse' may not cover all modern liens on property. I did ref briefly earlier to tenants in common, which does give protection to a part of the property for the other interested parties, AND they can be anyone, neither spouse, related, nor even acquainted except via lawyer(s)

[MalcolmInN]

People in their 70s now benefitted from a post-war booming economy, strong unions, cheap houses, and generous ratios of workers to pensioners that mean their overall taxation was relatively low.

That would be just after the (dont mention it) war when we were broke ? but we could still afford a health service. Then superMac spent so much on house building that most everyone could get on the ladder. Then later we were so kernacckered (thanks to the power of the unions)  that DennisH had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan (weak man of EU and look where that ended us ,,, in the EU !)

I could go on !  ! but maybe best not, but this idea that the oldies are creaming it and the teens have nowt to look forward to is just not the whole story.

cheers !

[njee20]

I understand about 1/3 of that! You seem to agree with NeMo though?

[The Q]

I spent £140 on Wednesday,  they've sent a voucher,  £2 off the next £10 spend.  It would cost me that in petrol to go use it..

Actually  I've spent more than that each Wednesday for the last 3 weeks, so  unless there is something urgent I won't be going back before the voucher runs out.

[daveg]

We lost our Our B&Q, it closed and the site became a Bunnings (and the old Homebase site became a bargain store), and is now a Homebase. Ho-hum.   It's still full of expensive barbies that no-none wanted.  Bunnings really got their target demographic wrong where we are.

Still wish we could have a B&Q back.

Homebase perhaps at risk again as they try and negotiate lower rents for their non-profitable sheds.

Dave G

[MalcolmInN]

You seem to agree with NeMo though?

(sorry, I was trying to be brief as we are well OT !!)

Yes and no ! There was a post war boom but it took a while to kick in. (rationing continued for some time after the war ended) Then it did not last for long and we squandered it in the Wilson-Unions era when our economy was a basket case. Then the inflation of the Wilson-Heath years wiped out savings. So it was not all quite as rosy as NeMo's points make out
However one good effect of that inflation was that the real value of our humungously large 90% mortgage (about £7000 !) became relatively trivial and was paid off in a few years not the 25 previously envisaged.

The matter of 'only' 3 workers instead of 10 to support an increasing pensioner burden (much talked about in the media) is not the big problem. (A) those 3 workers generate much more wealth than the 10 of ye oldie times.
(B) a small problem is that only the 3 workers are taxed whereas the 7 robots that took the other jobs are not taxed. OK the robot owners, the large corporations are taxed but it could be argued that corporation tax is not high enough. Big problem is that that tax cannot be higher else even more robots will migrate to the east !!

Cheers.

[njee20]

But I don't think the 3 workers earning today do earn that much more than back in the day. Obviously they do numerically, but that's moot when houses don't cost £7000 anymore!

It's well publicised that the millennials are going to be worse off than their parents, which is the first time that's happened. I still think property prices are the prime driver for that - which includes private rent as a direct correlation, and there's little way to escape that.

The idea of people now just buying up houses in their early 20s is laughable - even with huge loans from the government in Help to Buy people still can't manage it in many parts. We can obviously talk about right to buy reducing housinjg stock, but that's a tangent even on a tangent!

[Shropshire Lad]

I visited my local B&Q and was surprised to find a lot of items such as wood screws etc not only out of stock but also with 'clearance' stickers on them.
It seems likely that they are looking carefully at what makes them money and what doesn't. The rights and wrongs of the over 60s discount are for others to debate but you don't have to be a detective to see how openly abused the system is.

[ColinH]

Don't forget that the 'Pensioners' are still paying tax on their pensions as well. So it is not just the 3 workers who are contributing.

[NeMo]

That would be just after the (dont mention it) war when we were broke ? but we could still afford a health service. Then superMac spent so much on house building that most everyone could get on the ladder. Then later we were so kernacckered (thanks to the power of the unions)  that DennisH had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan (weak man of EU and look where that ended us ,,, in the EU !)

Quick history lesson for those who aren't keeping up.

Britain joined the EEC (as the EU was then) on January 1st 1973. That was under a Conservative administration, Ted Heath, probably the last 'post-war consensus' Tory prime minister. He failed to win the next general election convincingly in February 1974, and completely lost the  follow-up one in October in that year, resulting in a Labour administration under Harold Wilson with a majority of just 3 MPs.

Denis Healey was the chancellor of the exchequer in March 1975 when he went to the IMF for a loan. This was over two years after Britain joined the EEC, so @MalcolmAL's suggestion that the IMF caused the UK to join the EU is back to front in terms of timing.

Healey's actions were entirely defensible, even if undesirable. History has judged him favourably, and as a chancellor, he's considered to be one of the more competent ones we've had, especially given the very difficult times when he was working. Let's not forget that he wasn't some Eton-educated gentleman, but an ordinary man who worked his way from grammar school to an Oxford scholarship, then fought in the Army during WW2 (including the notorious Battle of Anzio). Nor was he some left-wing agitator -- Healey was always on the moderate wing of the Labour Party, something many militant activists in the party have never forgiven him for.

In any case, history (as opposed to politics, dear moderators) now considers the IMF loans to have been helpful. By 1976-1977 the economy was much better, balance of trade was in a surplus, and North Sea oil revenues were pouring in. While the subsequent Thatcher administration gets a lot of credit for reshaping the British economy during the 1980s, historians now judge the work to have started under Callaghan and Healey, both of whom were written out of the story by right-wing politicians and journalists at the time.

Yes, the 1970s were tough, for all sorts of reasons, not just the unions. The 'energy crisis' caused by Mid East events was a huge factor, as was lack of investment in UK infrastructure (not just railways, but industry as well) compared with the Continent. The Thatcher administration was keen on painting themselves as the great reformers who fixed all of that, but to a large degree they benefitted from good luck (North Sea oil revenues plus less reliance on the Mid East) so it's a shame that the important work the previous government did has been forgotten.

In any case, for those interested in the history it's all been gone over in many popular books. There's an excellent little book called 'Thatcher's Britain: The Politics and Social Upheaval of the 1980s' that provides a surprising balanced primer by someone who describes himself as a critic of the Thatcher myth, while any of the Dominic Sandbrook tomes on the era, such as 'Seasons in the Sun: The Battle for Britain, 1974-1979' would provide readers with much more detail.

Cheers, NeMo

PS. With regard to 'still being able to afford a health service', always remember that in the 1940s and 50s people didn't live as long after retirement; there were many more diseases considered terminal; there were far fewer treatments for long-term health problems; and people with disabilities received far less physical and medical support. In other words, fewer people were drawing money out of the NHS, and when they did, it was for shorter periods of time and for a smaller number of things.

Healthcare spending will continue to go upwards for the foreseeable future, and the question is really how do we pay for it all. Nobody in either party really has a clue, because the reality is that whatever we do, it'll be very much more expensive than the electorate is willing to accept.

[MalcolmInN]

That would be just after the (dont mention it) war when we were broke ? but we could still afford a health service. Then superMac spent so much on house building that most everyone could get on the ladder. Then later we were so kernacckered (thanks to the power of the unions)  that DennisH had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan (weak man of EU and look where that ended us ,,, in the EU !)

so @MalcolmAL's suggestion that the IMF caused the UK to join the EU is back to front in terms of timing.

Ah ! the written word is such a poor thing ! I am so sorry, I did not mean to imply that, but re-reading my convoluted sentence I see now how you got that mistaken idea ! I have highlighted in green the meaningful related bits. The healy/imf bit was just a supporting detail to the state we were in and was not meant to be a causative agent !
Infact you can delete the healy/imf bit and see my true meaning of the economic circumstances of that era.

phew

[Newportnobby]

I visited my local B&Q and was surprised to find a lot of items such as wood screws etc not only out of stock but also with 'clearance' stickers on them.

Please don't go off topic by talking about B & Q
Oh sorry, the subject matter of the thread is B & Q.
Far too much political 'venting' going on so please desist, everyone. I appreciate what actually occurred is 'history' but there are personal political opinions being included and that is most definitely against the rules.