No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

We are not all socialists now.

You have been availing yourself of the half of the economy which is state funded, just like everybody else.

Capitalism can provide everything needed for a society to function correctly and arguably fairer and better balanced.

Well it never has in the past! Can you give us an example of a capitalist utopia?

Socialism had a part to play in the past but now it's just a millstone that society could well do without.

You seem to be ignoring the last 14 years of tory rule.

 

[ey_tony]

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...

Ahhhh poverty. That thing that most vociferous socialists have never seen as they've never travelled across the world to places where REAL poverty exists.

As a child I lived in a houses with no bathroom, with earth closets on the opposite side of the back street.
My mother used to do washing with a tub and dolly. It was all done by hand the same as everything else.
We couldn't afford a TV until I was around 14 .
When I hear people bleating on about poverty, they need to have lived it to understand it.
We don't have poverty in this country, it's relative poverty which is not the same and if we do have examples of poverty it's mostly self inflicted so I don't even begin to listen to all this socialist nonsense. They should get a life of their own instead of wanting what others have worked hard for.

 

[ey_tony]

You have been availing yourself of the half of the economy which is state funded, just like everybody else.

Well it never has in the past! Can you give us an example of a capitalist utopia?

You seem to be ignoring the last 14 years of tory rule.

The Tories were definitely not Capitalists. They were more like the socialists of the past. This rag bag of a Labour government is an utter disgrace and so far I couldn't see them being trusted to run a bath let alone the UK. Starmer is a totalitarian and if not stopped this country will fail completely.

I could never be a socialist as I have a brain that can understand economics and is not fettered by an outdated, outmoded and largely irrelevant ideology.
Capitalism provides the means for society to improve and progress. Socialism is the opposite in that it is regressive and reduces aspiration and ambition.

 

[paulrbarnard]

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

I think the point is they likely have freezers, TV, mobile phones and probably an overseas holiday as well as needing to use a food bank.

 

[niall Y]

There is a world of difference between being poor in a fairly affluent country, and being poor in somewhere like India. At least there, there are the ( illegal) options of hitching a ride on the back of a train to get from A to B, building a shanty out of scrap, or stealing electricity. In a better ordered society these are not options. One needs more money to be poor in a country like the UK.
When cigarette firms price their wares, they realistically have to charge different prices in different countries. Poverty will always be relative.

 

[AJB Temple]

This is heading towards a "my childhood was poorer than yours" pi**ing contest. Then it will morph into the joke thread.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You have been availing yourself of the half of the economy which is state funded, just like everybody else.

The state is funded by the private sector. It's all private sector money, the state may well be necessary but it creates nothing.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Some endeavours are rightly shared across a society, rather than the product of pure capitalist endeavour where those who fund a service charge all who use it.

Roads could be a wholly capitalist endeavour. Owners and operators could charge for their use as already happens in a small way in the UK with some bridges and tunnels. However as the basis for a coordinated national network it would be both expensive and inefficient.

Similarly societies seem to function better, more fairly and efficiently with law and order, defence, treasury, foreign policy, etc provided by a central rather than independently funded regime.

Other needs - provision of healthcare and education to all - is arguably a moral choice but also makes society as a whole more prosperous and safer where all have access to opportunity.

Thus socialism partially prevails - the state is the capitalist. The state determines the charges made, upon whom the tax burden falls, and the quality and scope of the service provided (possibly informed by public opinion).

There is an inevitable tension between that which the state may sensibly provide, and private sector capitalist endeavour deliver. The fundamental distinction seems to be that:

• private sector success relies upon delivery of that which people want and are prepared to pay for. They need regulation and legal framework in which to work and avoid market abuse
• public sector is both poacher and gamekeeper - manifesting itself in an arrogant "we know best" rather than responding directly to public needs expressed through market forces

Thus I favour a small state delivering only that over which can overwhelmingly demonstrate benefits over private sector endeavour.

Current news easily demonstrates how poorly socialist governments (Kemi Badenoch was right about the Tories talking "right" and behaving "left") prioritise:

• it has taken 8 years for the Grenfall enquiry to report with criminal prosecutions (if forthcoming) not expected for another 2 years
• Starmer getting involved in the Oasis flexible ticket sales - relative to all other problems currently confronting government, an issue of absolute triviality

 

[NorthernSteve]

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.

The hypocrisy gets me - Starmer - privately educated on a bursary, yet wants others to pay VA, Rayner - benefitted from right to buy, yet wants to stop others, Starmer and Rayner slating Conservative for the possibility of limiting winter fuel allowances, yet do the exact same thing. Ed Milliband - lectures about electric cars, yet drives a petrol car ...

 

[ey_tony]

The hypocrisy gets me - Starmer - privately educated on a bursary, yet wants others to pay VA, Rayner - benefitted from right to buy, yet wants to stop others, Starmer and Rayner slating Conservative for the possibility of limiting winter fuel allowances, yet do the exact same thing. Ed Milliband - lectures about electric cars, yet drives a petrol car ...

Long before they won the election I predicted that Starmer was going to be useless. He was useless and clueless as an opposition leader and clearly nothing has changed unfortunately for the people of the UK. They wanted the Tories out but it was a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire with this lot.

Starmer is a liar and hypocrite in as much as he made references to the so called black hole a year ago when he admonished the Sunak for even looking at the winter fuel payments and then he a Reeves have the audacity to say they weren't aware of the black hole ....they are liars and added to that they are already introducing sleaze into the mix with their cronyism appointments to top civil service jobs and above inflation pay awards to their union bosses.
The speed at which they've started their sleaze campaign makes the Tories of the past look like amateurs.

Let's hope the media driven anti-Tory rhetoric which got the Tories out is as vociferous about this bunch no-hopers! I can't wait to read the rubbish of the gutter press Guardian et al better known as the Pravda of the left trying to put a spin on their ****-ups.

 

[woodieallen]

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

The dig is aimed at landowners.

 

[woodieallen]

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...

You're missing the point. One post referred to 'unemployment' but then referred to in another post as 'poverty'. You can be employed but still be in poverty. No dig aimed at you by the way.

 

[woodieallen]

.......

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.

....

I don't see the link, TBH. If UK workers were on minimum wage and the Polish workers were on minimum wage, are you saying that the farmers sacked all the UK workers ?

 

[Chris152]

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.

Yes, I should have considered that you can't build a housing estate at the apex of a mountain etc without considerable expenditure, I guess I just didn't bother to look any deeper. So, since you have bothered to look deeper, what percentage of the 50% of land that is owned by less than 1% of the population can't be built on, and why?

ps It's a good job you're there to defend the less than 1% whose ownership of so much land led me to suggest it's a significant factor in the cost of land and housing crisis. Poor things.

 

[Chris152]

The state is funded by the private sector. It's all private sector money, the state may well be necessary but it creates nothing.

In no small part due to the govt flogging off state-owned British industry from 1979 on. Much of which is now owned abroad.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It was sold off precisely because it was a liabilty not an asset.

 

[Chris152]

It was sold off precisely because it was a liabilty not an asset.

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.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Which doesn't/didn't make it less of a liabilty.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Let's hope the media driven anti-Tory rhetoric which got the Tories out is as vociferous about this bunch no-hopers! I can't wait to read the rubbish of the gutter press Guardian et al better known as the Pravda of the left trying to put a spin on their ****-ups.

It was not the media driven anti-Tory rhetoric that lost them the election.

After 14 years of (TBH) a very mixed performance the Tories were incapable of coherent policy or action. Infighting split their vote between Reform and traditional Tory,

Between them they won more votes than Labour (10.9m vs 9.7m). Had all Reform votes stayed with the Tories (a somewhat simplistic assumption) there would have been a hung Parliament - probably with Tories having most seats.

Labour did not win the election. The Tories screwed up and unambiguously lost it. They did it all on their own - little media input was required.

 

[Jacob]

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.

Whatever happeed to ICI? It seemed to simply disappear.