No Fault Evictions

[paulrbarnard]

Charley Mullins is an odious person.

 

[brocher]

Nothing to do with sour grapes, woodie, unless I totally misunderstood Aesop, I just don't believe that many of the super rich contribute much to society.
And I never said that he hadn't paid his taxes.

Agreed John,

The need by some of these people to accumulate money for money's sake and then foist their morals on everyone is in my view immoral. I don;'t see them investing in society but instead taking from us.

 

[TRITON]

What is interesting to me is wondering at what point we handed the reins of managing 67 million people to a small group of businessmen.
All policy must first be cleared to this group, and that to me is very wrong, very wrong indeed.

But one of the things i find most disturbing is how people insist that this is the way things should be. And that is clear from the number of people on this very thread who seem to be siding with the concept.

Decades ago I predicted that politicians would go from working for the people and the country, to working as what is effectively hedge fund management, and seeking those monetary rewards, rather than having their names down in the history books as people who have worked to make Britain a great country. And that we would eventually have Parliament filled with millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose this is why they are so afraid of socialism.
So to be a socialist is to look to help your fellow man. rather than feed off his corpse.

Some people on this thread certainly appear to know their place.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

What is interesting to me is wondering at what point we handed the reins of managing 67 million people to a small group of businessmen.
All policy must first be cleared to this group, and that to me is very wrong, very wrong indeed.

But one of the things i find most disturbing is how people insist that this is the way things should be. And that is clear from the number of people on this very thread who seem to be siding with the concept.

Decades ago I predicted that politicians would go from working for the people and the country, to working as what is effectively hedge fund management, and seeking those monetary rewards, rather than having their names down in the history books as people who have worked to make Britain a great country. And that we would eventually have Parliament filled with millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose this is why they are so afraid of socialism.
So to be a socialist is to look to help your fellow man. rather than feed off his corpse

Some people on this thread certainly appear to know their place.

We have an opportunity to elect those who represent and lead at least every five years. We are responsible for our politicians which includes some (but not all) million and billionaires, or are beholden to such.

Perhaps it is because we (the electorate) are fed a diet of data to describe the progress and state of society in objective and quantifiable terms - GDP, inflation, interest rates, economic growth, employment, per capita incomes, public spending deficits, etc etc.

We use these statistics to judge our progress against other economies.

There are projects and analyses which seek to measure happiness, contentment, stress, quality of life. They are substantially subjective and seem unable to carry the authority of objective analysis.

Possibly most individuals simply place more importance on the material - cars, houses, food, holidays etc. Many don't get much above the bottom two levels of Maslows hierarchy where physiological needs dominate - food, water, shelter, stable job, family and relationships.

Self actualisation is incomprehensible to those whose happiness is defined by two weeks on the Costas or replacement central heating system.

 

[mark w]

We are not all socialists now.
Capitalism can provide everything needed for a society to function correctly and arguably fairer and better balanced.
Socialism had a part to play in the past but now it's just a millstone that society could well do without.

Maybe capitalism could provide everything but it doesn't.

 

[Scruples]

People seem to forget that the banks are businesses and as such there responsibility is to make money for there share holders!

And not forgetting to pay their staff and maintain their buildings and equipment, of course.

 

[Scruples]

Just trying to encourage people to find out for themselves instead of relying on their prejudices or the Daily Mail. You should try it yourself!
Also it's tedious having to dig out facts for people who can't be bothered to do it for themselves.

One could argue that if you're not prepared to provide the evidence for your comments then, perhaps, you shouldn't comment. Or, if commenting is essesntial to your day, then let the reader know that it's just an opinion.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Jacob, of course, relies on his prejudices, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star.

 

[Scruples]

So poverty is OK then? But taxing the rich is not?

There were two types of poverty, Jacob. The first is the actual poverty where the means to survive is difficult. That was in the age I grew up in and knew it well. The second type was relative poverty which is described as not being able to afford the 'necessities' of life like a washing machine, a car, a tumble dryer etc..

Over the last 10 years, or so, the latter has taken hold but we seem to have lost the adjective now.
There is no need, anywhere in the UK, for actual poverty as there are many benefits to help those who need it.

 

[selectortone]

Like children's education being wrecked because their parents can't afford the VAT uplift of private schooling..

As the father of a daughter who has taught conscientiously for the last 15 years in the same comprehensive school, and seen many of her kids go on to university, I find that rather insulting.

 

[flying haggis]

It was a great opportunity for the promotion of privatisation and neo-liberalism, and the government took it repeatedly through the 80s. Flogged off cheap for short term financial gain and political expediency.

Ahem, a certain G Brown and the countries gold....

 

[niemeyjt]

Snigger and belittle all you like. Let's see where we are in six months time, eh ?

Six months - they will be hauling in record amounts of taxes as everyone sells up and pays taxes due at the current rate.

A better indicator will be to see where we are in 18 months time.

Former French President Francois Hollande learned all about increasing taxes and crteating tax exiles - it is sad that Ms Reeves is too stupid to see. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[niemeyjt]

Spot on. Like children's education being wrecked because their parents can't afford the VAT uplift of private schooling...another Labour vindictive act. I see Buckinghamshire are saying that all the 'good' state schools are full. As are most of the others.

Yes - parents seeking state school places are not equally spread across the country.

Surrey is another place where there are no places left.

 

[ey_tony]

Maybe capitalism could provide everything but it doesn't.

It works far better than socialism that's for sure.

 

[ey_tony]

Loudly shouting rubbish about "Soviet funded corrupt left wing union bosses who were effectively holding the country to ransom" doesn't make it true.

Well loudly shouting rubbish seems to work for you on many occasions but what I said was actually factual. Soviet influences were involved and anyone who couldn't see that the unions were holding the country to ransom at that time should have gone to SpecSavers if they were open at the time.

You couldn't even sack people who slept on their job when they should have been working or you couldn't have a man putting a screw in which was supposedly someone else's job because of stupid unions....what kind of a backward socialist mindset was that?

The British industries were ruined by left wing unions so don't give me that socialist nonsense.

 

[Jacob]

.....

The British industries were ruined by left wing unions so don't give me that socialist nonsense.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Rather sad that you laugh at the truth.

 

[niemeyjt]

Whilst I recall pictures of Leyland workers in 70s sleeping on the back seats of half made cars on the production line and the antics of Red Robbo I think the demise of the British Car industry can be traced further back - to a tax system that favoured the production of narrow bore long stroke side valve engines whilst other countries were producing the wide bore overhead valve shorter stroke and higher revving engines we now all use today - going to prove, once again, there is no situation a politician cannot make worse.

 

[NorthernSteve]

The UK poverty line:

Using the current definition of poverty, it's facile for anyone to feel it can be eliminated, and it's far broader than most might imagine.

Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is below 60% of the median household income after housing costs (‘AHC’) for that year. The relative poverty threshold for a couple with no children was £327/week in 2022/23 AHC. A single person with no children is in poverty if they earn £190/week or less AHC

Absolute Poverty – number of people affected in the UK

Absolute poverty measures the number and proportion of individuals who have household incomes 60% below the median average in 2010/11, adjusted for inflation. It is used to look at how changes in income for the lowest income households compare to changes in the cost of living.

The median income threshold is the mid-point income in the UK population.

It means that half the population in the UK are earning the median income or less, and the other half earn that income or more. The median household income in the UK it's £578 per week, before housing costs are deducted from that income (BHC), and £498 per week, after housing costs were deducted (AHC).

60% of that median income is £347/week BHC and £299/week AHC. Therefore, when discussing Absolute Poverty BHC, the analysis represents the number and proportion of people from households earning £347 per week or less. When discussing Absolute Poverty AHC, the analysis represents people from households earning £299 per week or less.

On these definitions in 2022/23, 9.47m million people (14% of the UK) were living in absolute poverty before housing costs were deducted (BHC). Almost 12 million people (18% of the UK) were living in absolute poverty after housing costs were deducted (AHC).

The inescapable fact is that too high a proportion of the population have lost the work ethic, and whereas welfare benefit is meant to be a safety net to catch people when they fall, for too many, it's become a spider's web in which they get entangled, and becomes a subsistence level lifestyle choice getting by on a raft of benefits. 'If I got a job I'd lose my benefits, so I'd be working all week for just a few pounds more". (The 'non-Working Class?').

The UK is the only G7 country where employment is not back to pre-pandemic levels. The welfare bill is soaring - it's expected to top £300 Billion by the end of the year. Starmer says: 'those with the broadest shoulders should bear the load'. On any definition of 'broad shoulders', that would surely not include pensioners and the cancelling of the winter fuel allowance. How much will that shave off the the £300 billion welfare bill? £1.4 Billion - just 0.46%. (Don't train drivers have broad shoulders?)

When they sprung the cancellation of the winter fuel allowance after the election, the Labour Party keep repeating that they had no choice because no-one told them about the £22 billion 'black hole', but the Lab committed itself to protecting the non-means tested winter fuel allowance in every one of its manifestos in 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2019. It was only in 2024 that is was quietly omitted so it seems clear to me that it was their intention all along but they kept quiet about it as they knew it wouldn't have been a vote winner, and had the outcry that's now ensued occurred before the election, they wouldn't now be in power. I had high hopes when Labour was elected, but in just a few short weeks, I think Starmer has blown it. Can't afford winter fuel payments, but can afford huge inflation busting pay rises to appease the unions. - He'll now be in hock to the TUC.

And before anyone makes subjective judgements, yes, I do know what real poverty looks like - I was born into it in 1939, and coped with it well, but I lifted myself out of it. In all my working life I only had six weeks off work in one stretch in 1985 to recover from a major back operation. Until I became a pensioner I never had a penny in welfare benefit, and apart from a mortgage, never went into debt. I'm not crowing about that - I think most of my generation could say the same.

Yorkie guy - 6 weeks absence in a career speaks volume about your character well done. Average sick leave in NHS over a 35 year career is 63 weeks! Over double the private sector, which also speaks volumes. The social net has been spread too widely, with many working the system who should not be. Lots of people earning and claiming that I have met in the course of various activities. Needs to be much more robustly applied.

 

[Jacob]

.....Lots of people earning and claiming .....

Usually legally. Low wages are supported by a network of welfare benefits, effectively subsidising the employers paying the low wages. One of many ways that tax revenue finds its way straight back into their pockets. It also keeps workers on the hook in many ways.
Benefits illegally claimed are tiny compared to tax evasion but punished more severely and investigated in much more depth.