No Fault Evictions

[woodieallen]

....

Regulate banks in the city which launder oligarchs stollen assets .

....

All very good points but, apart from the reference to oligarchs, all points refer to companies.

However, there are many individuals who are exceptionally wealthy such as the oligarchs you mention. The problem with your proposal regarding them is how does anyone prove what is/what isn't stolen? How does one unravel the offshore trusts, the shell companies etc in which they hide their wealth.

 

[woodieallen]

.......

I sincerely hope that legislation on assisted dying is passed so that I am supported to end my life at a time of my choosing. In the absence of legislation, I hope that I have the personal resolve to act independently.

Absolutely agree with you. My one concern is being able to act independently without running the risk that my wife is charged with aiding and abetting. And vice versa.

 

[mark w]

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

No it doesn't, look at the mess we're in at the moment.

 

[Jacob]

All very good points but, apart from the reference to oligarchs, all points refer to companies.

And all companies have CEOs, boards etc. even if they are owned by a hierarchy of lesser companies which have to be followed up. At the end of the chain are real people.

However, there are many individuals who are exceptionally wealthy such as the oligarchs you mention. The problem with your proposal regarding them is how does anyone prove what is/what isn't stolen? How does one unravel the offshore trusts, the shell companies etc in which they hide their wealth.

By the usual forensic means. Never be 100% but the more the better. HMRC needs large teams of trained experts. They already use specialists in tax avoidance- takes a thief to catch a thief!
Weird how so many people are lining up to find reasons for not taxing the mega rich.
In the meantime public services are weakened, on which these people all depend at points throughout their lives, however much they boast of being independent self-made hard-working Robinson Crusoes.
Is it just echoes of feudalism and the ghost of the divine right of kings? "Servile" is the word!

 

[ey_tony]

So you'd support more spending on home care for the elderly?
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/socia...e-services-equipment-and-care-homes/homecare/
More people survive into old age nowadays so it's a growing problem. I've already lived 7 years longer than my dad. Neither of my wife's parents made 70.
My parents were looked after by my two sisters, both taking turns and later retired and living close by, with a bit of help from me further away - plus NHS at home care when they needed much more attention than we could manage. Worked out OK.
You are blaming "Brits lifestyle" for not doing this, but for many it would be not so easy.
There's more to it than the blame game.
Ed Davey on the ball:
"Lib Dem policies include paying care workers a minimum of £2-an-hour more than the “national living wage”, as well as professionalising training and accreditation for the sector. The party also wants more help for personal and family carers, including more flexibility over work, to stop people being harshly penalised for inadvertently breaching rules."
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...udy-tories-ed-davey-lib-dems-party-conference
Good to know we have an opposition against our new conservative/Labour government!
Lib Dems could be on a winner - it's an open goal!

Over the years I've seen plenty of elderly people dumped into care homes by their offspring simply because caring for them was an inconvenience.
Of course it's an inconvenience...just like it was an inconvenience when they were raising those babies who now would abandon their parents in their hour of need.
Many offspring simply don't have the knowledge and skills required to help their aging parents but many could do far more than they do.

It's little wonder that society is fragmented...many family's structures have all but broken down so it's little wonder why society has too.

 

[Jacob]

Over the years I've seen plenty of elderly people dumped into care homes by their offspring simply because caring for them was an inconvenience.
Of course it's an inconvenience...just like it was an inconvenience when they were raising those babies who now would abandon their parents in their hour of need.
Many offspring simply don't have the knowledge and skills required to help their aging parents but many could do far more than they do.

It's little wonder that society is fragmented...many family's structures have all but broken down so it's little wonder why society has too.

So you keep saying but what solutions are there? The blame game doesn't help in any way.

 

[AJB Temple]

So you keep saying but what solutions are there? The blame game doesn't help in any way.

But it's OK to blame anyone considered to be to the right. It has been mentioned numerous times in this meandering thread.

Looked at logically, we have accepted as society that families are mobile and fragment. Parents choose to bring children into the world and IMO they should not do so in the expectation that the children will become carers half a century later. We need to take responsibility for ourselves, including our old age. To suggest that it is the state's responsibility in the absence of self funding, is akin to saying "I want everyone else to share the financial burden of looking after me". That is one end of a spectrum of rational arguments on this subject. At the other end is multi generational living and in house family care. Somewhere in between is a degree of state intervention and a myriad of views on cost and source of funding.

Personally I could not bear to live with my parents. Having left home at just over 17 to avoid a very violent situation, I don't feel motivated to move 200 miles to be a carer now. Everyone will have their own story, experiences and circumstances and all of them will be right for them. There is no solution as such in a diverse, multicultural society that is not all that well off in reality.

 

[Jacob]

.....We need to take responsibility for ourselves, including our old age. ....

...and society has to take of those who cannot take responsibility for themselves for whatever reason. Including yourself if the occasion arises - don't forget!
I really don't understand why you see this as an issue of any sort at all, other than the practicalities.
It's OK though - I suppose we have a group here somewhat lost and trying to rediscover basic morality and humane standards of behaviour. Or trying to evade them!
These aren't radical new ideas - ever heard of the parable of the good Samaritan? Strewth I'm reduced to sounding like a preacher!

 

[AJB Temple]

It seems you can't accept that people have a range of views Jacob and when they don't accord with yours you resort to being offensive. Why can't members here have a debate conducted in civil tones and without selective fragmented quotations?

You can't seriously say that you can't understand why I see an issue at all other than the practicalities? It seems to me that it is mainly about the practicalities. Once you set aside the political left vs right hot air and posturing, most things boil down to practical measures.

Nor did I take an actual position: merely set out the logical range. Clearly it is necessary for society to deal with those who cannot look after themselves. Stating such things does not enhance your position: it merely makes you selective in your statements. In your earlier posts you repeated your "blame game" remarks (with little reason) and asked for solutions. My perspective is that it is simplistic to ask for solutions because the range of problems is too complex and in the majority of cases we should be responsible for ourselves as that is generally preferable to having governmental "solutions" imposed on us.

 

[Jacob]

.... Clearly it is necessary for society to deal with those who cannot look after themselves.

Well done!

Stating such things does not enhance your position:

I'm not trying "to enhance a position".

it merely makes you selective in your statements. In your earlier posts you repeated your "blame game" remarks (with little reason) and asked for solutions. My perspective is that it is simplistic to ask for solutions because the range of problems is too complex and in the majority of cases we should be responsible for ourselves

We are talking about those who have failed to be responsible for themselves. The others aren't a problem, by definition.

as that is generally preferable to having governmental "solutions" imposed on us.

Right. Too complex, no solutions, or just accept the welfare state, one way or another?
The blame game doesn't help.

 

[ey_tony]

So you keep saying but what solutions are there? The blame game doesn't help in any way.

One part of the solution is the need for more personal responsibility where the needs of aging parents are concerned! Society simply can't expect the state to provide the amount of care that these people need.
People are simply going to have to devote more of their time to looking after aging family members until such times that there is the infrastructure in place to relieve them of some of their duties.
Your 'blame game' soundbite simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Jacob]

One part of the solution is the need for more personal responsibility where the needs of aging parents are concerned! Society simply can't expect the state to provide the amount of care that these people need.
People are simply going to have to devote more of their time to looking after aging family members until such times that there is the infrastructure in place to relieve them of some of their duties.

How would you bring that about? Just by explaining "the need for more personal responsibility"?

 

[Scruples]

Well for a start:
Preventing privatised utilities borrowing against assets transferred to them to pay dividends to shareholders, instead of borrowing to fund infrastructure investment as was the intention at the time of privatisation.

Tax multinational companies that structure their businesses so they appear to make a loss or minimal profit in this country but tell their share holders that their investments here are highly profitable. As is the practice of Starbucks and many others.

Regulate banks in the city which launder oligarchs stollen assets .

Don’t let our courts be used to impose SLAPS or exorbitant court charges that prevent the Serious Fraud Office (or whatever it’s called these days) pursuing criminal behaviour.

Agreeing with the international community to tax and regulate multinational giants.

Rejoin the EU and be part of a large powerful international regulator.

Too expensive to rejoin the EU. They would see that as a climb-dowm and make the most if, using the UK as an example to other EU members with ideas of moving on.
We will be better off out. It might have been happening sooner had it not been for the pandemic.
The EU, too, is changing, with less income and more poorer countries in or applying to get in, the EU is going to be a different place.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In 1990 the EU of 12 states made up 26.5pc of world GDP. Today the EU of 27 states makes up 16.1pc, while the US is still at 26pc. We were a big weight in the world but that is no longer the case. - Giorgia Meloni.

 

[niemeyjt]

Back on topic . . . I see the house round the corner that used to be let is now up for sale.

Whilst I do not know owners rationale for selling, I do know that unless another landlord buys it that is one less house to rent (these houses are all EPC B or C - so not that).

It is lucky that there is no housing crisis and sufficient housing for everyone.

 

[Scruples]

In 1990 the EU of 12 states made up 26.5pc of world GDP. Today the EU of 27 states makes up 16.1pc, while the US is still at 26pc. We were a big weight in the world but that is no longer the case. - Giorgia Meloni.

And the new southern European countries are beneficiaries of the EU fund rather than contributors. We got out in time, it seems.

 

[woodieallen]

Back on topic . . . I see the house round the corner that used to be let is now up for sale.

Whilst I do not know owners rationale for selling, I do know that unless another landlord buys it that is one less house to rent (these houses are all EPC B or C - so not that).

It is lucky that there is no housing crisis and sufficient housing for everyone.

And that rents are really low

I read that a record share of homes for sale at present are former rental properties, according to Rightmove, with London the hardest hit.
The property website said that almost one property in every five listed for sale was formerly rented out, up from 8pc in 2010. In London, almost one third of homes on the market were previously rented out. Well done, Kneeler.

 

[ey_tony]

How would you bring that about? Just by explaining "the need for more personal responsibility"?

Have you never heard of public information and education? You're sounding more like a right winger than your left wing outlook suggests.
Making people aware of their social responsibilities and duties is what is lacking in our society.
I see no issue with calling out people who would shirk their duties and abandon their responsibilities toward their elderly parents for the sake of their own convenience.

As I've said, even now at my age and with my health issues, as an only child I would have loved the opportunity to be 'inconvenienced' through having to provide some care for the people who brought me into the world.
Both my mother and father died in their early fifties and I feel both sad and in some ways guilty that I couldn't have given them the care they deserved had they lived longer.
That is why I have absolutely no time for people who would abandon their parents to a life in a care home because otherwise it would have meant being inconvenienced by them!

That's why I have no faith in the ideals of socialism as everywhere you look, it's everyone for themselves so that is why socialism could never possibly work.

 

[niall Y]

One part of the solution is the need for more personal responsibility where the needs of aging parents are concerned! Society simply can't expect the state to provide the amount of care that these people need.
People are simply going to have to devote more of their time to looking after aging family members until such times that there is the infrastructure in place to relieve them of some of their duties.
Your 'blame game' soundbite simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The world of our childhood is no longer with us. And, there is no way of going back to it. My parents generation could function with one main wage earner per household. Those were the days when married men were paid more than single men and women were paid a lot less. Those were the days when married women stayed at home to look after the children. They also kept an eye out for the older generation who were finding it difficult to cope. This in a sense was part of the 'social services' of the day

Things have changed to the extent that one wage is no longer enough to keep a family.
In fact.one is criticized if every working age member of the household isn't gainfully employed. This is the age when everyone has to work and ones children have to be looked after by others. If one can't look after ones own children then how is one going to look after ones parents?

There should , in a sense be a pact, between the government and its citizens. Which is , that if every citizen is expected to work , to ensure a healthy economy and lots of tax revenue, then the government in return has to supply the necessary child care, and care for the elderly

 

[ey_tony]

And that rents are really low

I read that a record share of homes for sale at present are former rental properties, according to Rightmove, with London the hardest hit.
The property website said that almost one property in every five listed for sale was formerly rented out, up from 8pc in 2010. In London, almost one third of homes on the market were previously rented out. Well done, Kneeler.

You couldn't make it up!
Most new PMs and governments have a honeymoon period but this clown is so stupid that he has got to be the most unpopular PM of all time at this early stage in their governance.
He should be walking around with a red nose and huge shoes...it would fit his persona.
First they take away the pensioner's winter fuel payments claiming there is a black hole of £22bn...they didn't say that £9bn is self inflicted by giving it away in above-inflation pay rises to their union paymasters.
I think it's great, they take away the winter fuel payments and give it to already highly paid train drivers...really good logic and I'm sure very popular with the pensioners.
How many billions does it cost to house and deal with the false claimants of asylum but who are in truth economic migrants? They will get put into hotels where they are fed and kept warm while pensioners will struggle to heat their own homes this winter!

Because of this shower's ideas, there are going to be far fewer rental properties available which will negate any housebuilding numbers for affordable rentals for some years to come especially given the numbers of migrants coming here. They will need housing so where are all these homes going to come from?
Rents are only going to get higher rather than lower with people chasing fewer and fewer properties to rent.

Not only that they're considering taking away the single occupant council tax deduction. It just gets worse. There's also a saving to be made with pensioner's free bus passes and that too has been mooted.
I can't wait until next May's local elections...that's when the pensioners will have their revenge

They're also going to tax private education and that in turn means many people can't afford to send their kids to private schools so it increases the load on state schools which can't even find the teachers to fill the posts already available let alone retain the staffing.

...and the voters thought the Conservatives were bad! I'll wager they won't be saying that in a year's time, that's for sure.