No Fault Evictions

[AJB Temple]

I’ve heard that said a few times - what leads you to say it? There’s obviously a difference between being economically literate and having a view on how to deal with matters that not all the electorate agree with.

I should add I didn’t vote Labour but have met her last year through work and she was imho pretty switched on.

Speech plus Q&A I attended in CoL somewhat pre-election where it was clear (also from her writings) that she had a strong feminist bias and (obviously) left wing ideology brought with her having studied PPE at New College and developed her thoughts on securonomics at LSE. She made it clear from that platform that she thinks global economics is misguided which flies in the face of reality from a UK perspective when you look at China and the US. She also talked quite a lot about running a household budget, which came across as sweetly naive. She had a junior job at the BoE and similarly junior role at a retail bank and reminded me of idealistic new graduates who arrives at a financial services business eager to tell them how it should be done.

I think she graduated from LSE somewhere around 2002 from memory of what she said, and was seeking political office as an MP from around 2005. She has little business experience and none at a senior level, and glosses over that. She talked about creating a hundred thousand new businesses but was unable to say how labour would do that apart from phrases such as "by stimulating the ecomony" and her global stance came across as isolationist and idealistic. Did not convince me or many there that she was knowledgeable beyond academia.

 

[Scruples]

Forgot to add - two extreme examples of "posh idiots getting into positions of power and influence" both ex Eton and Bullingdon Club, are Cameron and Johnson.
They gave us Brexit.
Cameron also gave us the bonfire of the red tape leading to the bonfire of Grenfell Tower.
Two national tragedies/disasters within a few years of each other.
Public schooling should be a bar to public office!

I didn't like Cameron much but he did give the people a choice on whether to remain in the EU. He went up in my book after that. Johnson was a great and the economy was improving during his time in office. He balanced all of the advice from the different sources and did the right things at the right time. We came out of the pandemic better than some countries and, for such a small island, we manged to achieve a lot, including keeping people in jobs, and keeping companies afloat. It cost the country but it seemed the only way to survive at the time and, looking back, it still seems the only way today.

The aftermath, the reviews and the criticisms were all done in hindsight. Easy to do anything in hindsight. Not so easy at the time. There wasn't any other party who would/could have 'stepped up to the plate' as the Americans say.

 

[woodieallen]

Has anyone else noticed Jacob’s posting style? I was going to say rational arguments but that would be wrong.

He posts soundbites from the Janet and John book of Socialism but when the flaws in that get exposed by enlightened posts from AJB Temple, ey_tony et al then Jacob rarely returns to expand the debating point and defend his original post.

 

[Jacob]

Has anyone else noticed Jacob’s posting style? I was going to say rational arguments but that would be wrong.

He posts soundbites from the Janet and John book of Socialism but when the flaws in that get exposed by enlightened posts from AJB Temple, ey_tony et al then Jacob rarely returns to expand the debating point and defend his original post.

Enlightened? Just repetitive right-wing ideology mixed with trickle-down and Laffer-curve theory. Neo liberalism has failed.

 

[Fergie 307]

Forgot to add - two extreme examples of "posh idiots getting into positions of power and influence" both ex Eton and Bullingdon Club, are Cameron and Johnson.
They gave us Brexit.
Cameron also gave us the bonfire of the red tape leading to the bonfire of Grenfell Tower.
Two national tragedies/disasters within a few years of each other.
Public schooling should be a bar to public office!

Not defending Cameron as such, I think he was a bit of a dullard.
I do think blaming him for Grenfell is a bit of a stretch though.
Could you be more specific as to exactly what red tape he did away with that led to the fire?
The risks had been known since Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the sad fact is that successive governments of all persuasions did nothing about it.

 

[Jacob]

Not defending Cameron as such, I think he was a bit of a dullard.
I do think blaming him for Grenfell is a bit of a stretch though.
Could you be more specific as to exactly what red tape he did away with that led to the fire?
The risks had been known since Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the sad fact is that successive governments of all persuasions did nothing about it.

The risks have been known about since the fire of London.
Cameron not alone but was a significant supporter of de-regulation, and the expression "the bonfire of red tape" was his own.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rs-david-cameron-claim-inquiry-red-tape-ex-pm

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk...ictory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations

https://www.google.com/search?q=cam...CDU4NDFqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[BC'er]

"Mr Mullins, a campaigner for state-funded apprenticeships"
What??? How many apprentices did he ever employ - none - not one, because he was he wasn't an 'employer'.

But wait - in the next breath, he says his is an' employer':

'Mr Mullins, whose company employs 260 people with a turnover of £24mill'....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ded-obe-for-services-to-plumbing-9950689.html

Others may disagree, but to my mind, he's Just a spiv living on his wits - a classic example of the term 'you can take the boy out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter out of the boy.

Sadly rats and weasels, like gentlemen, are found in every social stratum, but those who originate "in the gutter" probably have more excuse than those who went to public schools? In fact what excuse do the latter have, except that they are like the rest of the population three quarters followers and follow a bad example as well as ordinary folk?

 

[Fergie 307]

The risks have been known about since the fire of London.
Cameron not alone but was a significant supporter of de-regulation, and the expression "the bonfire of red tape" was his own.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rs-david-cameron-claim-inquiry-red-tape-ex-pm

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk...ictory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations

https://www.google.com/search?q=cam...CDU4NDFqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So no specifics then. There's a surprise.

 

[Jacob]

So no specifics then. There's a surprise.

You are free to research the details yourself!
Cameron was specifically PM and specifically campaigned for the bonfire (specifically) of the regulations, which in turn led to Grenfell Tower fire, falling standards and a housing crisis around fire risk.
He was not alone of course, but a leading figure in the de-regulation process.
How specific do you want it to be?
n.b. if you have the power and campaign enough against standard regulations you get falling standards.
Tories don't seem to able to put 2 and 2 together on this, but it was their choice and Grenfell Tower was one of the outcomes.
The enquiry report comments repeatedly on the culture of de-regulation, along with the culture of misanthropy and neglect from a wealthy tory council https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/grenfell-re...y/open-letter-bereaved-and-survivors-grenfell

 

[Fergie 307]

You are free to research the details yourself!

Yes Jacob, as are you.
The stuff you link to took place after the decisions as to what Grenfell would be clad in had already been taken.
So yes the coalition government were guilty of ignoring the various concerns that had been raised about fire safety, but so had every previous government.
That isn't an excuse but I do feel it is unjust to single him out , rather than apportion blame equally to him and his immediate predecessors, all of whom could and should have acted but did nothing.
As for now the situation is a farce. All well and good to say those responsible should pay, practically speaking it's never going to happen. Many of the developers responsible will have long since disappeared.
Even if they can be found there is a powerful case that if they acted in good faith at the time, and complied with building regulations etc then why should they be expected to pay if it turns out in hindsight that the regulations had got it wrong?
One way or another it could drag on for years.
Given the safety concerns I believe the government should step up and pay for replacement. They can then spend the time tracking down those who might still be liable, if that is likely to be cost effective, which I doubt.
To expect people to continue to live in these premises whilst attempts are made to identify who ought to pay is absurd.
However you look at it it is ultimately a regulatory failure by successive governments, so they should pay for rectification.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yes Jacob, as are you.
The stuff you link to took place after the decisions as to what Grenfell would be clad in had already been taken.
So yes the coalition government were guilty of ignoring the various concerns that had been raised about fire safety, but so had every previous government.
That isn't an excuse but I do feel it is unjust to single him out , rather than apportion blame equally to him and his immediate predecessors, all of whom could and should have acted but did nothing.
As for now the situation is a farce. All well and good to say those responsible should pay, practically speaking it's never going to happen. Many of the developers responsible will have long since disappeared.
Even if they can be found there is a powerful case that if they acted in good faith at the time, and complied with building regulations etc then why should they be expected to pay if it turns out in hindsight that the regulations had got it wrong?
One way or another it could drag on for years.
Given the safety concerns I believe the government should step up and pay for replacement. They can then spend the time tracking down those who might still be liable, if that is likely to be cost effective, which I doubt.
To expect people to continue to live in these premises whilst attempts are made to identify who ought to pay is absurd.
However you look at it it is ultimately a regulatory failure by successive governments, so they should pay for rectification.

Jacob relies heavily on hind sight but unfortunately the blinkers prevent it from being 20/20.

 

[Jacob]

......
That isn't an excuse but I do feel it is unjust to single him out , rather than apportion blame equally to him and his immediate predecessors, all of whom could and should have acted but did nothing.
......

I did say "not alone". Cameron was PM and just happens to have been caught out lying about it so he is high up the list of those responsible. Pickles is another.
Difficult in any case to distribute the blame "equally".
I guess The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea should take most of of it and their building inspector certainly seemed to think so, as the front line of the regulatory process. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...grenfell-reviewing-130-projects-at-once-68074.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...-grenfell-report-is-damning-for-david-cameron

 

[selectortone]

Will anyone ever go to prison for Grenfell? Or Post Office/Horizon? Or the contaminated blood scandal? (To name just the ones that immediately spring to mind) No one was ever found guilty for Hillsborough (apart from a club official for a minor H&S breach). These public inquiries are all very well, but where's the justice?

 

[John Brown]

Will anyone ever go to prison for Grenfell? Or Post Office/Horizon? Or the contaminated blood scandal? No one was ever found guilty for Hillsborough (apart from a club official for a minor H&S breach). These public enquiries are all very self-righteous but where's the justice?

Prison, like taxation, is for little people.


Although, to be fair, Leona Helmsley did serve 19 months in prison.

 

[Fergie 307]

Will anyone ever go to prison for Grenfell? Or Post Office/Horizon? Or the contaminated blood scandal? (To name just the ones that immediately spring to mind) No one was ever found guilty for Hillsborough (apart from a club official for a minor H&S breach). These public inquiries are all very well, but where's the justice?

Many senior police officers should have gone to prison for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, instructing junior officers to change statements and so on. All got off on a technicality. Still don't understand why they weren't charged with anything else.
As for the others, damn right they should but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Speech plus Q&A I attended in CoL somewhat pre-election where it was clear (also from her writings) that she had a strong feminist bias and (obviously) left wing ideology brought with her having studied PPE at New College and developed her thoughts on securonomics at LSE. She made it clear from that platform that she thinks global economics is misguided which flies in the face of reality from a UK perspective when you look at China and the US. She also talked quite a lot about running a household budget, which came across as sweetly naive. She had a junior job at the BoE and similarly junior role at a retail bank and reminded me of idealistic new graduates who arrives at a financial services business eager to tell them how it should be done.

I think she graduated from LSE somewhere around 2002 from memory of what she said, and was seeking political office as an MP from around 2005. She has little business experience and none at a senior level, and glosses over that. She talked about creating a hundred thousand new businesses but was unable to say how labour would do that apart from phrases such as "by stimulating the ecomony" and her global stance came across as isolationist and idealistic. Did not convince me or many there that she was knowledgeable beyond academia.

Time will tell but it sounds more like as I suspected it’s a case of not liking her views rather than her actually being financially illiterate.

 

[ey_tony]

Enlightened? Just repetitive right-wing ideology mixed with trickle-down and Laffer-curve theory. Neo liberalism has failed.

I'll make it clear. I'm not remotely right wing, far from it. I just don't subscribe to an ideology that is prejudiced against success and the people who are successful. An ideology which it seems entitles them to the fruits of someone else's hard work.
If the rewards for one's hard work are unfairly taken from them and shared with those who 'could' but didn't work hard, then that is a sure fire way of stifling aspiration and ambition. Why would anyone wish to work hard only to find that a large proportion of what they earned was taken from them? That isn't right wing thinking, it's simply common sense which seems to elude many of those with left leaning views.

I base my views on actual business experience and common sense which is why I could never follow an ideology like socialism which is so highly flawed.

The same as the disgusting thing called inheritance tax! Most parents who own they own home will pass away at some point and members of their family will likely inherit it.
The owners when they were alive will have paid their fair share of taxes throughout their lifetime so why should inheritance tax be applied to the dead person's estate? It's a disgusting tax and I can see this bunch of looters right now in charge of the UK upping it even higher. What a disgusting tax it really is. Even in the event of the property owners death the government still wants its pound of flesh! What an awful system we have.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"When people are presented with the alternatives of hating themselves for their failures or hating others for their success, they seldom choose to hate themselves." - Thomas Sowell

 

[Jacob]

I'll make it clear. I'm not remotely right wing, far from it.

You are, by definition, apparent in every post you make!

I just don't subscribe to an ideology that is prejudiced against success and the people who are successful. An ideology which it seems entitles them to the fruits of someone else's hard work.

A very conventional right wing view. There is no "prejudice against success and the people who are successful" it's just that taxation has to be taken from those who happen to have surplus wealth however they came by it. And more often than not it is not simply the product of hard work but is inherited

If the rewards for one's hard work are unfairly taken from them and shared with those who 'could' but didn't work hard, then that is a sure fire way of stifling aspiration and ambition. Why would anyone wish to work hard only to find that a large proportion of what they earned was taken from them? That isn't right wing thinking,

yes it is

it's simply common sense which seems to elude many of those with left leaning views.

No it isn't, it's right wing nonsense.

I base my views on actual business experience and common sense which is why I could never follow an ideology like socialism which is so highly flawed.

Socialism isn't so much an ideology - it's more simply just the recognition that things have to be done to make society work "for the many, not the few". It also benefits businesses in many ways - first as client for services, then the massive infrastructure of health, education, R&D, investment etc , without which the private sector could not possibly function.
Public spending is about 50% of GDP and most of it trickles down into the private sector.
What goes around comes around.

The same as the disgusting thing called inheritance tax! Most parents who own they own home will pass away at some point and members of their family will likely inherit it.

If not taxed wealth slowly creeps ever upwards. Inheritance is an ideal target and the allowances are very generous.

The owners when they were alive will have paid their fair share of taxes throughout their lifetime so why should inheritance tax be applied to the dead person's estate?

Taxing the dead seems a very good idea to me!

It's a disgusting tax and I can see this bunch of looters right now in charge of the UK upping it even higher. What a disgusting tax it really is. Even in the event of the property owners death the government still wants its pound of flesh! What an awful system we have.

Do you have an alternative system in mind? Which nation uses this system and how successful is it?

 

[ey_tony]

Socialism isn't so much an ideology - it's more simply just the recognition that things have to be done to make society work "for the many, not the few".

If not taxed wealth slowly creeps ever upwards. Inheritance is an ideal target and the allowances are very generous.

Taxing the dead seems a very good idea to me!

Do you have an alternative system in mind? Which nation uses this system and how successful is it?

It's just like people who see a need for a religion in order for their lives to work.. They DON'T need one! Society can function quite well without one.
Similarly Socialism isn't necessary for society to function and is probably the biggest reason why the UK isn't prospering as well as it should...precisely because socialism depresses society to it's lowest denominator level of aspiration.

Until the UK gets rid of this left wing socialist nonsense and accepts that a meritocratic society rewards those who work hard and prosper, this once proud nation will never prosper to the level it could attain if it wasn't held back by left wing dinosaurs who believe that it is their right to share the fruits of other people's hard work.
We've got a historical record of what happens when socialism and socialists exceed their remit, Russia being a prime example. You can't get a more socialist country than Russia and look at its history since the 1917 revolution. That is ultimately where socialism leads.