Value Trends

[Boomstick 0]

Whilst watching the current silver values plummeting, a thought occurred to me - has anyone ever plotted out value against time for any particular denominations? Obviously the higher grade coins will be less tied to base values, but there must be other market forces that dictate rises and falls in perceived values. This exercise would be particularly useful if you're holding out for a big purchase - if there is a "bubble" in you particular area, you might want to wait for a correction, for instance.

Just a thought. And no, I'm not volunteering!

[Rob 3,152]

Whilst watching the current silver values plummeting, a thought occurred to me - has anyone ever plotted out value against time for any particular denominations? Obviously the higher grade coins will be less tied to base values, but there must be other market forces that dictate rises and falls in perceived values. This exercise would be particularly useful if you're holding out for a big purchase - if there is a "bubble" in you particular area, you might want to wait for a correction, for instance.

Just a thought. And no, I'm not volunteering!

I think the only area in which you need play the waiting game is bullion value or close to items. Top grade pieces will always command a premium to bullion and rightly so with the exception of modern isues which are rarely encountered in worn condition and generally found only as collectables of bullion value in the secondary market. The intrinsic value of silver coins is not a primary consideration for anything vaguely collectable. The current fashion for snapping up the low grade silver is entirely driven by bullion values which attracts far more people than there are collectors. From the collecting point of view, individual denominations are varyingly popular at any point in time. Historically, the most popular pieces were the largest - probably driven by the ability of people to easily identify what they were holding. Conversely smaller coins suffer a greater likelihood of being passed over as a casual glance will probably not lead to the mental recognition of the item. So hammered farthings will not be as popular as milled ones for example which retain a sentimental attraction. However, outside of bullion, the majority of prices are driven by collector pressure being as they are well in excess of the scrap price.

Whilst I haven't plotted out a value/time graph for individual denominations, their values relative to each other have broadly stayed in the same ratios over quite a long period of time. Any divergence from this relationship tends to be the result of collector pressure to acquire what is perceived to be a real rarity, be it the huge prices currently seen for minor varieties or the premiums paid for specific types in the inter war years. In the case of the former they are probably rare because nobody apart from a few individuals really cares about the actual variety detail, but greed dictates that everybody wants to find one to sell and so they will be found in the fullness of time. In the case of the latter, communications were considerably more difficult and so the awareness of relative numbers was the driving force. A crown with only 3 or 4 known examples might have sold for £20-30 in the inter-war years relative to a common issue selling for £2-3 each. Now however that price differential has been largely eradicated because we now know there are several times the number of pieces extant than was thought at the time.

You do get fluctuations between denominations which I would suggest are driven by new collectors entering the market and looking for something cheap to collect at the bottom end value-wise whilst being aesthetically attractive enough for the collector to want to look at them. The top end is driven as always by a relatively few individuals with deep pockets. Most of these are successful in business being driven by personal ambition - a trait which in all probability will carry over into their collecting habits with the desire to acquire a better collection than the competition.

With the accumulation of large amounts of data over time, there is also a better appreciation of what is genuinely rare and what is not. This is a moving attribute and always open to the possibility of having to be revised as a result of hoard finds. Today we have information that our predecessors could only have dreamed of, but we all have to bear in mind that we too do not have the definitive answers to the various factors that shape demand and hence prices.

As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years?

[Rob 3,152]

As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years?

Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS

[Peckris 579]

As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years?

Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS

That's true! By the way, did you know that the payment on the debts run up by John Major's government were higher than the current debt repayments? So much for 'Britain's credit card is overspent'

[Rob 3,152]

As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years?

Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS

That's true! By the way, did you know that the payment on the debts run up by John Major's government were higher than the current debt repayments? So much for 'Britain's credit card is overspent'

The danger here is the question of lies, damned lies and statistics. I just read the article where you got your figures from which was hardly a paragon of political neutrality. Public debt rose in the recession of the early 1990's and consequently so did the repayments as there was a concerted attempt to balance the books as the economy came out of the recession. The problem was that Ken Clarke wasn't given the credit due for running a tight ship and rebalancing the books post-Lawson which he was due in my opinion. The FT was emphasising in 1995-6 how important it was for which ever party to form the next government as the economic tea leaves were so favourable. Consequently, when TB came to power he enjoyed the best economic situation for an incoming leader in decades (perhaps even millennia!!). If GB had sat on his hands and done nothing we would still be ok, but as with virtually all politicians, the temptation to bribe the electorate for their votes using their own money proved too much of a pull. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of prudence changed post-2000 to reflect GB's excessive expenditure over income receipts and became yet another acronym - P(ersonal) r(esponsibility for the) u(nfettered) d(estruction) of the E(nglish) n(ational) c(urrency &) e(conomy). I like that one!! The problem was that GB at no point in time embarked on an exercise to balance the finances. Consequently it is easy to pay less back in interest than your predecessor if there is no policy in place to repay debt. You also have to remember that interest rates in 1990 were much higher than they currently are. You are comparing borrowings at double digit rates of interest compared to a fraction of that on recent debt.

I know we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature, but don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of some social benefits as a safety net. If the country was wealthy enough with surplus cash coming in from trade and services supplied to other countries I would advocate spending some of the excess on structural social benefits. The quid pro quo though is that structural benefits require pruning if a structural negative cashflow situation occurs. Sharing is not a one way street, so just as we all want a share of a benefits handout, equally we all get a share of the crap. Indefinite debt financing is not an option because the creditor nations such as China, India, Brazil etc owe the inhabitants of this country nothing. They lend us money; we have to pay it back with interest - lots of it. Ultimately it is the greatest social leveller of all, as their standard of living will rise just as ours must fall until we approach global parity. If you want to buck this trend, you will have to export our problems to another country in the form of goods and services that they pay us for over and above what we import from them.

Sorry - I get going too easily. Possible case of topic drift here, so rant over.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Rob

[Cerbera100 0]

The danger here is the question of lies, damned lies and statistics. I just read the article where you got your figures from which was hardly a paragon of political neutrality. Public debt rose in the recession of the early 1990's and consequently so did the repayments as there was a concerted attempt to balance the books as the economy came out of the recession. The problem was that Ken Clarke wasn't given the credit due for running a tight ship and rebalancing the books post-Lawson which he was due in my opinion. The FT was emphasising in 1995-6 how important it was for which ever party to form the next government as the economic tea leaves were so favourable. Consequently, when TB came to power he enjoyed the best economic situation for an incoming leader in decades (perhaps even millennia!!). If GB had sat on his hands and done nothing we would still be ok, but as with virtually all politicians, the temptation to bribe the electorate for their votes using their own money proved too much of a pull. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of prudence changed post-2000 to reflect GB's excessive expenditure over income receipts and became yet another acronym - P(ersonal) r(esponsibility for the) u(nfettered) d(estruction) of the E(nglish) n(ational) c(urrency &) e(conomy). I like that one!! The problem was that GB at no point in time embarked on an exercise to balance the finances. Consequently it is easy to pay less back in interest than your predecessor if there is no policy in place to repay debt. You also have to remember that interest rates in 1990 were much higher than they currently are. You are comparing borrowings at double digit rates of interest compared to a fraction of that on recent debt.

I know we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature, but don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of some social benefits as a safety net. If the country was wealthy enough with surplus cash coming in from trade and services supplied to other countries I would advocate spending some of the excess on structural social benefits. The quid pro quo though is that structural benefits require pruning if a structural negative cashflow situation occurs. Sharing is not a one way street, so just as we all want a share of a benefits handout, equally we all get a share of the crap. Indefinite debt financing is not an option because the creditor nations such as China, India, Brazil etc owe the inhabitants of this country nothing. They lend us money; we have to pay it back with interest - lots of it. Ultimately it is the greatest social leveller of all, as their standard of living will rise just as ours must fall until we approach global parity. If you want to buck this trend, you will have to export our problems to another country in the form of goods and services that they pay us for over and above what we import from them.

Sorry - I get going too easily. Possible case of topic drift here, so rant over.

I couldn't have said it better myself! When children are getting paid to go to school, teenage girls are getting paid to get pregnant and asylum-seekers have the right to live in multi-million pound mansions in Chelsea, something is wrong!

I'm all for debt reduction, but feel that DC and GO are attacking it arse-about-face - cutting NHS/Police etc budgets whilst still p1ssing money away on social benefits!

We also need to take a significantly firmer line on foreign-national (serious) convicts... Rather than giving them free board and lodgings for X day/weeks (do sentences still run into months and years?!) we need to send the back to where they came from and revoke their right to ever enter the UK again!

Apologies - I too will put my soap-box away!

[Red Riley 2]

The danger here is the question of lies, damned lies and statistics. I just read the article where you got your figures from which was hardly a paragon of political neutrality. Public debt rose in the recession of the early 1990's and consequently so did the repayments as there was a concerted attempt to balance the books as the economy came out of the recession. The problem was that Ken Clarke wasn't given the credit due for running a tight ship and rebalancing the books post-Lawson which he was due in my opinion. The FT was emphasising in 1995-6 how important it was for which ever party to form the next government as the economic tea leaves were so favourable. Consequently, when TB came to power he enjoyed the best economic situation for an incoming leader in decades (perhaps even millennia!!). If GB had sat on his hands and done nothing we would still be ok, but as with virtually all politicians, the temptation to bribe the electorate for their votes using their own money proved too much of a pull. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of prudence changed post-2000 to reflect GB's excessive expenditure over income receipts and became yet another acronym - P(ersonal) r(esponsibility for the) u(nfettered) d(estruction) of the E(nglish) n(ational) c(urrency &) e(conomy). I like that one!! The problem was that GB at no point in time embarked on an exercise to balance the finances. Consequently it is easy to pay less back in interest than your predecessor if there is no policy in place to repay debt. You also have to remember that interest rates in 1990 were much higher than they currently are. You are comparing borrowings at double digit rates of interest compared to a fraction of that on recent debt.

I know we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature, but don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of some social benefits as a safety net. If the country was wealthy enough with surplus cash coming in from trade and services supplied to other countries I would advocate spending some of the excess on structural social benefits. The quid pro quo though is that structural benefits require pruning if a structural negative cashflow situation occurs. Sharing is not a one way street, so just as we all want a share of a benefits handout, equally we all get a share of the crap. Indefinite debt financing is not an option because the creditor nations such as China, India, Brazil etc owe the inhabitants of this country nothing. They lend us money; we have to pay it back with interest - lots of it. Ultimately it is the greatest social leveller of all, as their standard of living will rise just as ours must fall until we approach global parity. If you want to buck this trend, you will have to export our problems to another country in the form of goods and services that they pay us for over and above what we import from them.

Sorry - I get going too easily. Possible case of topic drift here, so rant over.

I couldn't have said it better myself! When children are getting paid to go to school, teenage girls are getting paid to get pregnant and asylum-seekers have the right to live in multi-million pound mansions in Chelsea, something is wrong!

I'm all for debt reduction, but feel that DC and GO are attacking it arse-about-face - cutting NHS/Police etc budgets whilst still p1ssing money away on social benefits!

We also need to take a significantly firmer line on foreign-national (serious) convicts... Rather than giving them free board and lodgings for X day/weeks (do sentences still run into months and years?!) we need to send the back to where they came from and revoke their right to ever enter the UK again!

Apologies - I too will put my soap-box away!

Quick! Head for the bunker chaps...

[Cerbera100 0]

Do you think we've drifted off topic a little?! All of two replies and we're talking politics!

[Peckris 579]

I couldn't have said it better myself! When children are getting paid to go to school, teenage girls are getting paid to get pregnant and asylum-seekers have the right to live in multi-million pound mansions in Chelsea, something is wrong!

I'm all for debt reduction, but feel that DC and GO are attacking it arse-about-face - cutting NHS/Police etc budgets whilst still p1ssing money away on social benefits!

We also need to take a significantly firmer line on foreign-national (serious) convicts... Rather than giving them free board and lodgings for X day/weeks (do sentences still run into months and years?!) we need to send the back to where they came from and revoke their right to ever enter the UK again!

Apologies - I too will put my soap-box away!

Facts.

1. I'm disabled, so I know damn well what I'm about to talk about.

2. The welfare cuts are being driven by a Daily Mail-driven culture of attacking and vilifying the sick and disabled - and the Government does nothing to contradict this - i.e. "all people on Incapacity Benefit are either cheats, scroungers, and/or work-shy."

3. There is an organisation called Atos Healthcare who won a contract from the Government (starting under New Labour, by the way) with a brief to reduce the welfare budget by getting the numbers on IB down. Yes, the exercise was cost-driven, not needs-driven. Their so-called HealthCare Professionals have 6 weeks training, but apart from that are not required to have any medical qualification. These HCPs administer a series of 'tests' that involve getting people to stand up, walk, sit, and bend down to pick up a £1 coin off the floor. On the basis of these tests, many people who are blind, arthritic, with severe neurological illnesses, amputees, people with mental health problems, terminal patients, etc, have been declared 'fit for work'. No doubt you've read the scurrilous headlines in the press and tut tutted over your breakfast?

4. GPs and consultants, those who actually know the medical history of the patient, are ignored. They are regarded as 'biased', or 'too close' to the patient and God forbid that true knowledge be brought to bear on a cost-cutting exercise.

5. The exercise has so successfully exceeded initial Government targets (ignoring the fact that 40% of people declared 'fit for work' have the decision overturned by independent tribunal) that they now plan to implement it for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) benefit too, as from 2013. So despite my being awarded DLA 'for life' ten years ago in recognition of the fact that I have a progressive, incurable, and irreversible condition, which means I now cannot walk, I piss into a bottle, I have spasms, and crippling fatigue, I must go through the humiliation of one of these assessments - two in fact, one for IB and one for DLA. I am "merely" very stressed about this, though there are a few claimants who have committed suicide.

6. David Cameron had a disabled son. Yet he goes along with this gross injustice, which makes him an unspeakable hypocrite.

7. Every disabled person thrown back on the jobs market is supposed to receive help and support back into work. Do you actually think they get it? Don't make me laugh. There aren't even jobs or jobs advisors for the young and fit who really should have priority for jobs.

Ian Duncan-Smith has referred to the 'freedoms offered by work'. Perhaps he, and you, should reflect on the German phrase 'Arbeit Macht Frei'. In case you're wondering where you heard of that before, it was on the gates at Auschwitz.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Facts.

1. I'm disabled, so I know damn well what I'm about to talk about.

2. The welfare cuts are being driven by a Daily Mail-driven culture of attacking and vilifying the sick and disabled - and the Government does nothing to contradict this - i.e. "all people on Incapacity Benefit are either cheats, scroungers, and/or work-shy."

3. There is an organisation called Atos Healthcare who won a contract from the Government (starting under New Labour, by the way) with a brief to reduce the welfare budget by getting the numbers on IB down. Yes, the exercise was cost-driven, not needs-driven. Their so-called HealthCare Professionals have 6 weeks training, but apart from that are not required to have any medical qualification. These HCPs administer a series of 'tests' that involve getting people to stand up, walk, sit, and bend down to pick up a £1 coin off the floor. On the basis of these tests, many people who are blind, arthritic, with severe neurological illnesses, amputees, people with mental health problems, terminal patients, etc, have been declared 'fit for work'. No doubt you've read the scurrilous headlines in the press and tut tutted over your breakfast?

4. GPs and consultants, those who actually know the medical history of the patient, are ignored. They are regarded as 'biased', or 'too close' to the patient and God forbid that true knowledge be brought to bear on a cost-cutting exercise.

5. The exercise has so successfully exceeded initial Government targets (ignoring the fact that 40% of people declared 'fit for work' have the decision overturned by independent tribunal) that they now plan to implement it for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) benefit too, as from 2013. So despite my being awarded DLA 'for life' ten years ago in recognition of the fact that I have a progressive, incurable, and irreversible condition, which means I now cannot walk, I piss into a bottle, I have spasms, and crippling fatigue, I must go through the humiliation of one of these assessments - two in fact, one for IB and one for DLA. I am "merely" very stressed about this, though there are a few claimants who have committed suicide.

6. David Cameron had a disabled son. Yet he goes along with this gross injustice, which makes him an unspeakable hypocrite.

7. Every disabled person thrown back on the jobs market is supposed to receive help and support back into work. Do you actually think they get it? Don't make me laugh. There aren't even jobs or jobs advisors for the young and fit who really should have priority for jobs.

Ian Duncan-Smith has referred to the 'freedoms offered by work'. Perhaps he, and you, should reflect on the German phrase 'Arbeit Macht Frei'. In case you're wondering where you heard of that before, it was on the gates at Auschwitz.

The reality is, of course, that employers do not want disabled people on their payroll. Not because they are any less committed or intelligent, but because adaptations have to be made quite frequently, and they are not as easy to move round different jobs, as the able bodied. In what is now, once again, a very competitive jobs market, it will be very difficult for the government to accommodate the disabled in meaningful paid employment ~ especially those who have been out of work for a number of years, and very especially in the private sector which is not as hot on diversity principles as the public. So one gets the feeling that this initiative is a complete waste of time anyway.

[declanwmagee 122]

I'd like to see the cost-benefit analysis for the Libyan adventure.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. These people are not your friends. Don't expect them to do anything for your benefit. Cameron/Clegg/Miliband(s) etc are actors playing a role. They are not in charge. Those who really are in charge are not on the telly. Ever. The whole setup is organised crime, pure and simple.

[Gary D 76]

Just call me a party pooper for bringing this thread back on topic. I have just got a copy of Spinks 2011 to bring my coin collection value up to date ready for the annual insurance, I always leave getting Spinks a few months to give time for the price to drop, I don't like to pay much over £15 for a copy.

Anyway it would appears that the value of my collection has gone up by an eye-watering 22% since last year, there have been some editions but Edward VII and early George V have risen strongly. My 1922 penny has gone up something like £2k unless it's a typo, the values have stayed the same but moved down a grade. And where has £115 for a 1937 proof silver 3d come from, it was £12 last year?

[Cerbera100 0]

Just call me a party pooper for bringing this thread back on topic.

Party pooper!

And where has £115 for a 1937 proof silver 3d come from, it was £12 last year?

Thats gotta be a typo... unfortunately, the proof-reading exercise on the book seems to get less important with each passing year!

And Peckris - I apologise, that wasnt the drive I was making... If I came across as callous, I assure you that was not intended.

Unfortunately, there are a contingent of cheating, lying, work-shy layabouts - my ex-next door neighbour being a prime example. Claiming in the region of £30k of benefits (including IB for a dodgy knee - supposed work-place accedent, I know he was talking to the ambulance chasers) as well well as working cashinand at the local builders merchant as a hod-carrier! He only got busted when the SS went round - or should that be social services - and found him off on holiday the next day... for three weeks... to Aspen... with his own personalised skis/boots etc!

You also make a fantastically valid point about there not being enough jobs full-stop without 'creating' more applicants!

[declanwmagee 122]

The last thing they want is free-thinking independent people making their own way in the world as best they can. The whole purpose of the system is to make people more dependent on it, thus justifying a bigger and bigger system.

[Peckris 579]

And Peckris - I apologise, that wasnt the drive I was making... If I came across as callous, I assure you that was not intended.

Unfortunately, there are a contingent of cheating, lying, work-shy layabouts - my ex-next door neighbour being a prime example. Claiming in the region of £30k of benefits (including IB for a dodgy knee - supposed work-place accedent, I know he was talking to the ambulance chasers) as well well as working cashinand at the local builders merchant as a hod-carrier! He only got busted when the SS went round - or should that be social services - and found him off on holiday the next day... for three weeks... to Aspen... with his own personalised skis/boots etc!

You also make a fantastically valid point about there not being enough jobs full-stop without 'creating' more applicants!

The problem is that the minority (and that's what they are) of fraudsters, shysters and layabouts are the rope which the Government, The Daily Mail, The News Of The Screws, The Sun, The Star, ITV, and all the rest use to hang the genuinely sick & disabled. I'll put one more fact your way then I'll shut up on the matter (I've become way too sensitive to what's going on) : the fraud rate for DLA is less than 1%, and the total benefit fraud for IB and DLA amounts to £1.5bn. Ok, not a sum to be sniffed at, but when you consider that Count Dracula Osborne is cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and that tax evaders cheat us all of more than £120bn annually ... well, it makes you think (I hope).

Apologies for ranting but life for disabled people in this country just gets worse and worse.

[argentumandcoins 70]

And Peckris - I apologise, that wasnt the drive I was making... If I came across as callous, I assure you that was not intended.

Unfortunately, there are a contingent of cheating, lying, work-shy layabouts - my ex-next door neighbour being a prime example. Claiming in the region of £30k of benefits (including IB for a dodgy knee - supposed work-place accedent, I know he was talking to the ambulance chasers) as well well as working cashinand at the local builders merchant as a hod-carrier! He only got busted when the SS went round - or should that be social services - and found him off on holiday the next day... for three weeks... to Aspen... with his own personalised skis/boots etc!

You also make a fantastically valid point about there not being enough jobs full-stop without 'creating' more applicants!

The problem is that the minority (and that's what they are) of fraudsters, shysters and layabouts are the rope which the Government, The Daily Mail, The News Of The Screws, The Sun, The Star, ITV, and all the rest use to hang the genuinely sick & disabled. I'll put one more fact your way then I'll shut up on the matter (I've become way too sensitive to what's going on) : the fraud rate for DLA is less than 1%, and the total benefit fraud for IB and DLA amounts to £1.5bn. Ok, not a sum to be sniffed at, but when you consider that Count Dracula Osborne is cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and that tax evaders cheat us all of more than £120bn annually ... well, it makes you think (I hope).

Apologies for ranting but life for disabled people in this country just gets worse and worse.

I think you can remove the disabled people line from your sentence Peck, the country is rapidly heading down the shitter. Everything is being cut to the bone apart from the prices we pay for essentials like food, fuel and utilities which are all rising faster than a teenage boy at an all girl pool party.

[Peckris 579]

And Peckris - I apologise, that wasnt the drive I was making... If I came across as callous, I assure you that was not intended.

Unfortunately, there are a contingent of cheating, lying, work-shy layabouts - my ex-next door neighbour being a prime example. Claiming in the region of £30k of benefits (including IB for a dodgy knee - supposed work-place accedent, I know he was talking to the ambulance chasers) as well well as working cashinand at the local builders merchant as a hod-carrier! He only got busted when the SS went round - or should that be social services - and found him off on holiday the next day... for three weeks... to Aspen... with his own personalised skis/boots etc!

You also make a fantastically valid point about there not being enough jobs full-stop without 'creating' more applicants!

The problem is that the minority (and that's what they are) of fraudsters, shysters and layabouts are the rope which the Government, The Daily Mail, The News Of The Screws, The Sun, The Star, ITV, and all the rest use to hang the genuinely sick & disabled. I'll put one more fact your way then I'll shut up on the matter (I've become way too sensitive to what's going on) : the fraud rate for DLA is less than 1%, and the total benefit fraud for IB and DLA amounts to £1.5bn. Ok, not a sum to be sniffed at, but when you consider that Count Dracula Osborne is cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and that tax evaders cheat us all of more than £120bn annually ... well, it makes you think (I hope).

Apologies for ranting but life for disabled people in this country just gets worse and worse.

I think you can remove the disabled people line from your sentence Peck, the country is rapidly heading down the shitter. Everything is being cut to the bone apart from the prices we pay for essentials like food, fuel and utilities which are all rising faster than a teenage boy at an all girl pool party.