No Fault Evictions

[Spectric]

At what point does the natural world not sustain life on earth?

I think we are either there or very close because we are having a major impact on our enviroment and traditional farming methods can no longer provide the food, hence the need for intense farming where we have large fields and no hedges. Unfortunately this is also having a negative impact on our enviroment and luckily some people are starting to realise we need to work with nature and not keep on fighting it.

 

[NorthernSteve]

Most of the problems which beset large numbers of people were around just as much in the old days when populations were smaller.
In fact more so - the quality of life for most is now much better than it was say 150 years ago.
In any case the big problem of climate change is largely caused by our "first" world where energy consumption and CO2 generation is highest per capita but population growth is fairly low.

The question remains, do you agree that at some point, population will outweigh natures ability to sustain it and as such, this topic will need address?

 

[NorthernSteve]

Was Covid a man made attempt to reduce population size? Why have we not heard anything regarding the search into the source? Why has there been no governmental updates stating the current prevalence and risk exposure to the population?

 

[Jacob]

The question remains, do you agree that at some point, population will outweigh natures ability to sustain it and as such, this topic will need address?

The topic is being addressed, under the heading of "Climate Change".
We need to adjust our behaviour so that we are not destroying our environment.
The bulk of CO2 generation is from a relatively small sector of the Worlds population - our "first" world of advanced economies. Hard to see how you could reduce the numbers of climate wreckers (our affluent selves that is), other than by making them behave differently.
Population expansion is a species survival mechanism anyway, throughout the living world. It helps to ensure that there will be a few survivors when things go wrong.

 

[Jacob]

Was Covid a man made attempt to reduce population size? Why have we not heard anything regarding the search into the source?

We have heard. It has been heavily researched. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2

Why has there been no governmental updates stating the current prevalence and risk exposure to the population?

There have been updates and it's continually under review. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports

 

[NorthernSteve]

The topic is being addressed, under the heading of "Climate Change".
We need to adjust our behaviour so that we are not destroying our environment.
The bulk of CO2 generation is from a relatively small sector of the Worlds population - our "first" world of advanced economies. Hard to see how you could reduce the numbers of climate wreckers (our affluent selves that is), other than by making them behave differently.
Population expansion is a species survival mechanism anyway, throughout the living world. It helps to ensure that there will be a few survivors when things go wrong.

Is your contention that so long as people 'behave' in a certain way, the world will sustain an ever increasing population? If the differentiating factor for civilised society is to overcome evolutionarily determined characteristics, then why not limit population growth, rather than allow evolution of the species in terms of numbers prevail to avoid extinction?

 

[ey_tony]

And what do you think would happen to the private sector if the public sector didn't exist? The infrastructure and services of the public sector are a precondition for the private sector to succeed. I ask because you seem to focus on the necessity of privately generated wealth for the public sector, as if the public sector is parasitic on private businesses. It should be seen as a symbiotic relationship that produces wealth, and a key thing is to ensure that when profit is generated, taxes are paid on the profit to ensure proper working of the public sector. Too often the profits seem to disappear off-shore, taxes don't get paid (for a variety of reasons), and public infrastructure suffers.

There are essential workers in all societies. That has been the norm since humans first began living in communal groups millennia ago and rationally it makes sense but the public sector arguably relies upon the rest of society providing the means for them to be able to live.

Symbiosis is only effective when the ratio of essential workers to wealth makers is at or below a critical ratio. The same applies to any business. For every extra person employed, if they don't improve product sales then they are dead weight.
Even if productivity is increased by employing extra staff due to shorter working week, unless the numbers of products being sold can be increased to match the potential increased productivity then extra productivity is wasted if it can't be sold..ie if there is no market for extra sales of the product.

All this nonsense about extra staff will increase productivity is fine if one doesn't understand how the world works.

The short answer to all the issues of taxation is quite clear....
You have 1% of highest earning taxpayers paying 30% of the tax burden. The top 10% combined contribute over 60% to the tax burden and still socialists want more... it's not difficult to see where the problems lie. Too few are paying too much tax so that is why infrastructure is struggling.

The Labour government is determined to hammer non-doms... fine but I'll wager now that it will lose more than it raises in the coming parliament and the taxpayer will be left holding the dead tax-baby. Why would they live in the UK if taxation is too aggressive? It's obvious what is going to happen but stupid is as stupid does with regard to any government.
The same will apply to the attacks on private education. Many parents struggle to afford to send their kids to private schools often giving up many things that the average person wouldn't in order to give their kids a perceived better education.
They won't be able to afford to educate their kids privately so the burden will fall upon the state due to the utter stupidity of the backward socialist mindset of prejudice and envy.

Raynor hasn't even ruled out discontinuing the 25% discount on Council Tax. They're going to remove the winter fuel allowance and may even remove the 25% discount on CT for single house occupiers. What kind of a government would do that to millions of people already struggling?
If this is an example of socialism then the sooner it's booted out the better.

 

[Jacob]

.... but the public sector arguably relies upon the rest of society providing the means for them to be able to live.

and t'other way around - the public sector provides much of the means for all of us to live. The rest of society relies upon it to a very great extent.
They are inseparable, two sides of the same coin, we are all socialists now.
In any case there is no clear boundary between them, try living by the private sector alone. For a start, no use of public roads?

 

[Chris152]

... try living by the private sector alone. For a start, no use of public roads?

And the list is almost endless and fundamental. As I wrote earlier, the public sector is the precondition of success in the private sector.

You have 1% of highest earning taxpayers paying 30% of the tax burden.

And less than 1% of the UK population owns 50% of the land. Little wonder housing is so terribly expensive in the UK and there is a housing crisis.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The reaction was to the losing of livelihoods, not just to "changing circumstances".
A large proportion of workers have always lived by the paypacket with little or no reserves to cope with unemployment.


Somewhat far-fetched idea. What sort of positive response would you have advised? Putting a brave face on it? Smiling in the face of adversity?
People join unions, and/or go on strike as a last resort, because it can be effective, when other negotiations have broken down.

A positive response - face up to what is happening. With, say, the mines:

• agree closure timetable,
• full cooperation in exchange for training in new skills,
• negotiate regional grants to attract new employers,
• negotiate support for new industrial and commercial facilities,
• active training in interview skills,
• engage in plans for environmental reinstatement,
• campaign for new and improved transport links to area where jobs available,
• etc etc

No guarantee of success. But the outcome could hardly have been worse than the what actually happened - strikes, disruption, protest etc - simply created antagonism, distrust. The result - entire communities left to fail.

Unions would be far more effective if they recognised a mutuality of interest with employers in creating businesses which seek to operate efficiently for the benefit of both workers and shareholders.

Instead actions were too often the mirror image of exploitative employers (which do exist) in single minded pursuit of members interests to their ultimate detriment.

Conflict (strikes) only work where the one party has a clear advantage It may allow short term victory, possibly at the expense of long term relationships. In the case of the mines the unions massively overestimated their advantage - Thatcher simply closed the mines.

BTW responsibility for the decline of the UK manufacturing sector is not the sole responsibility of the unions - some truly deficient management attitudes unquestionably contributed.

 

[Jacob]

Is your contention that so long as people 'behave' in a certain way, the world will sustain an ever increasing population?

No.

If the differentiating factor for civilised society is to overcome evolutionarily determined characteristics, then why not limit population growth, rather than allow evolution of the species in terms of numbers prevail to avoid extinction?

How would you limit population growth?

 

[Jacob]

.....

Unions would be far more effective if they recognised a mutuality of interest with employers in creating businesses which seek to operate efficiently for the benefit of both workers and shareholders.

Absolutely, that's how they'd like it to be.
You just have to convince the employers too.

 

[woodieallen]

And less than 1% of the UK population owns 50% of the land. Little wonder housing is so terribly expensive in the UK and there is a housing crisis.

Shouldn’t there be an ‘IMO’ after this little dig? Sure they may own 50% of the land but if you’d bothered to dig a little deeper you’d have discovered that a lot of it you can’t build on.

 

[woodieallen]

There are essential workers in all societies. That has been the norm since humans first began living in communal groups millennia ago and rationally it makes sense but the public sector arguably relies upon the rest of society providing the means for them to be able to live.

Symbiosis is only effective when the ratio of essential workers to wealth makers is at or below a critical ratio. The same applies to any business. For every extra person employed, if they don't improve product sales then they are dead weight.
Even if productivity is increased by employing extra staff due to shorter working week, unless the numbers of products being sold can be increased to match the potential increased productivity then extra productivity is wasted if it can't be sold..ie if there is no market for extra sales of the product.

All this nonsense about extra staff will increase productivity is fine if one doesn't understand how the world works.

The short answer to all the issues of taxation is quite clear....
You have 1% of highest earning taxpayers paying 30% of the tax burden. The top 10% combined contribute over 60% to the tax burden and still socialists want more... it's not difficult to see where the problems lie. Too few are paying too much tax so that is why infrastructure is struggling.

The Labour government is determined to hammer non-doms... fine but I'll wager now that it will lose more than it raises in the coming parliament and the taxpayer will be left holding the dead tax-baby. Why would they live in the UK if taxation is too aggressive? It's obvious what is going to happen but stupid is as stupid does with regard to any government.
The same will apply to the attacks on private education. Many parents struggle to afford to send their kids to private schools often giving up many things that the average person wouldn't in order to give their kids a perceived better education.
They won't be able to afford to educate their kids privately so the burden will fall upon the state due to the utter stupidity of the backward socialist mindset of prejudice and envy.

Raynor hasn't even ruled out discontinuing the 25% discount on Council Tax. They're going to remove the winter fuel allowance and may even remove the 25% discount on CT for single house occupiers. What kind of a government would do that to millions of people already struggling?
If this is an example of socialism then the sooner it's booted out the better.

Is this the same Rayner who pocketed nearly £50k when she sold her council flat who now wants to stop Right to Buy.

 

[Chris152]

Shouldn’t there be an ‘IMO’ after this little dig?

No. And how does it constitute a 'dig'?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

For a start, no use of public roads?

Which are paid for by the private sector.

 

[Ozi]

Unlike you to be so out of touch.
Agricultural jobs disappeared due to automation? I think not. Due to ‘demand’ change? Wrong again. Not many Brits want to work in the fields and orchards. No foreign pickers. Hence a lot of orchards, for example, being grubbed up.

‘Vast swathes of poverty’ proven to be ill-founded. Might be the case in sunny Taunton but suggest you spend some time up in the North East.

And lets not forget Kneeler and his gang getting ready to grind the country down further into the mire.

As a boy I used to harvest potatoes, they were lifted by a machine and I could collect 20 ton a day paid by the bag. When my Dad was a boy he used to harvest potatoes with a fork, I can't remember the weight he could harvest a day only that it was a lot less so a lot of jobs disappeared, the same thing happened throughout the industry. Go back to medieval times nine out of ten people had to work on the land. Things really started to change after the first wold war, a man and two horses cannot plow like a tractor.

When I was inspecting lifting machinery on farms I remember when the Polish arrived in large numbers displacing UK seasonal workers. Uk workers had been paid minimum wage, so were the Poles but they could be charged board and lodging ie. given bunk beds in sheds and fed potatoes, effectively working for £2 per hour. Some very rich people made a lot of money, you and I paid for a lot of people to go onto benefits.

Thinking of changing my name to Jacob2

 

[Scruples]

Your confusing poverty with unemployment. They are most definitely not the same thing.View attachment 187467

Ah, the new-era poverty. That's the one with the new definition, isn't it? The one we used to call relative poverty where some people couldn't afford a TV or a washing machine or freezer etc,. I grew up with real poverty so I speak from experience when I say, we don't have real poverty these days but we do have the entitled ones...

 

[Jacob]

Ah, the new-era poverty. That's the one with the new definition, isn't it? The one we used to call relative poverty where some people couldn't afford a TV or a washing machine or freezer etc,. I grew up with real poverty so I speak from experience when I say, we don't have real poverty these days but we do have the entitled ones...

What, food banks just a passing fashion? Or evictions and homelessness?

 

[ey_tony]

and t'other way around - the public sector provides much of the means for all of us to live. The rest of society relies upon it to a very great extent.
They are inseparable, two sides of the same coin, we are all socialists now.
In any case there is no clear boundary between them, try living by the private sector alone. For a start, no use of public roads?

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.