No Fault Evictions

[selectortone]

Well, as I said, that's life. I can see the unfairness of it, but I'm not wasting the little time I have left fretting about something over which I have no control. Let alone pontificate about it. There will always be freeloaders, con artists, cheaters, liars and all the other undesirables that make up a fair proportion of the human race. All part of life's rich tapestry - another of my dear old Irish mother's sayings.

 

[Jacob]

In a well functioning society, individuals within it have both rights and obligations. The right is the support of society in times of need. The obligation is to contribute (where possible) to society to allow it to function as it should.

Expecting society to support those capable but failing to contribute is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair to those who do properly play their part, and arguably immoral - similar to paying a thief to stop stealing.

It inappropriately feeds a culture of entitlement, and like any other parasite they may ultimately destroy the society on which it feeds.

Those failing in their reasonable obligations towards society should be denied its benefits. That the outcome will cause them real distress is tough, but a failure to do so will simply perpetuate their anti-social behaviours.

So it's "drop dead" then? A right-wing fundamentalist.
No return of the prodigal, return to the fold, second chances, good samaritans, forgiveness, redemption, charity?
Why do they worry you so much?
What about those at the other end of the wealth spectrum who are up to no good?
They cost society very much more than a few useless ne'er-do-wells trying to live on benefits.

 

[John Brown]

Gotta punch down!

 

[ey_tony]

So it's "drop dead" then? A right-wing fundamentalist.
No return of the prodigal, return to the fold, second chances, good samaritans, forgiveness, redemption, charity?
Why do they worry you so much?
What about those at the other end of the wealth spectrum who are up to no good?
They cost society very much more than a few useless ne'er-do-wells trying to live on benefits.

If you're referring to the successful as being at the other end of the spectrum then explain how they cost society very much more than the ne'er do wells when the the top 1% of earners contribute over 25% of the tax burden and where the top 10% of earners contribute over 60%... how on earth do they cost society much more?...it just shows what utter tribal nonsense you do spout!

The ne'er -do wells and the bottom 10% of earners contribute only 0.6 of 1%. Real world facts and figures unfortunately for you trump nonsense ideological arguments.
Socialism as an ideology is an abomination which will be proven over the next 5 years when everyone will be much poorer than they are now. Everything will be relatively much more expensive due to inflation and is so predictable.

 

[Jacob]

Gotta punch down!

Well yes it's very weird. And utterly pointless except in terms of any dubious satisfaction they might gain from kicking the underdogs.

 

[Chris152]

Expecting society to support those capable but failing to contribute is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair to those who do properly play their part, and arguably immoral - similar to paying a thief to stop stealing.
...
Those failing in their reasonable obligations towards society should be denied its benefits. That the outcome will cause them real distress is tough, but a failure to do so will simply perpetuate their anti-social behaviours.

The rights and wrongs are an issue, but a bigger issue is what happens if governments - of whatever persuasion - don't support those without, whatever reasons for them being without. It's not a question of fairness, or at base even of morality, just a social reality. Maybe think of social security as a way of buying a rather large group of people's silence. Your comparison with paying a thief to stop stealing is a good one.

What happens if you make enough people still more 'without'? Just look at the history of modern Europe. Government knows and budgets for this. The last thing they want is too many people getting the hump.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The rights and wrongs are an issue, but a bigger issue is what happens if governments - of whatever persuasion - don't support those without, whatever reasons for them being without. It's not a question of fairness, or at base even of morality, just a social reality. Maybe think of social security as a way of buying a rather large group of people's silence. Your comparison with paying a thief to stop stealing is a good one.

What happens if you make enough people still more 'without'? Just look at the history of modern Europe. Government knows and budgets for this. The last thing they want is too many people getting the hump.

It's a difficult balance. My personal take is that we should be significantly tougher than we currently are - but I accept there are those who would judge the existing practice as justified by the wider risks to society of a significant discontented minority.

My concern is the children - they have done nothing to create the problem yet they risk suffering as part of the solution.

 

[Jacob]

.......

My concern is the children - they have done nothing to create the problem yet they risk suffering as part of the solution.

Getting there slowly! Well done.
Worth revisiting @Croolis comment - he puts things very well. https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/no-fault-evictions.148471/page-68#post-1759714

 

[Yorkieguy]

What astonishing ignorance!
They were always there but hidden away.
Babies were often forcefully adopted, if not illegally aborted with risk of mother's death too.
Many died in "orphanages" and there have been some notorious cases uncovered over the years - literally so with discoveries of unmarked graves of unnamed children.
Others lived their lives pretending that their mothers were their elder sisters...and so on.
I've known many cases and some with happier endings where mothers and children have been re-united.
I recall helping to search for a local girl gone missing - her parents said maybe better to find her dead rather than pregnant. P.S. this was in the early 60s, not some long ago backwards era, and nothing to do with religion either - just some very awful normal middle class parents.
Attitudes were appalling but have changed dramatically for the better in my lifetime, thanks also to the welfare state.

You are are quite right in what you say about the past but you are conflating two eras with profound differences - pre-mid 1960s, and post 1960s.

In England and Wales, the percentage of children born 'out of wedlock' in 1939 was just 4.19%.

I know a bit about that - I was such a child born in June 1939. (More of that another time).

If you want to know just how wicked society was it's well worth reading the biography of 'The Last Foundling' - A little boy left behind, and the mother who wanted him back':

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Foundling-little-behind-mother-ebook/dp/B00HPYMV0Q#customerReviews

Due to transient relationships during the war years, the proportion of births out of wedlock rose to 9.18% by 1945. It then fell back to nearer 5% until 1954, only reaching 8.8% in 1974. Until the mid 1960s, an unmarried mother who wanted to keep her child faced almost, insurmountable difficulties for the reasons Jacob outlined, not least the societal and family stigma which attached to it. We know know of the wickedness of so called orphanages, of girls who gave birth, wanted to keep their child, but weren't even allowed to hold it before it was whisked away to an uncertain future. Abortion was illegal and when 'the pill' was made available on the NHS in 1961, it was only for married mothers for 'family planning'.

Two things happened in 1967 which changed that:

Firstly: The National Health Service (Family Planning) Act of 1967 empowered Local Health Authorities (LHAs) to give birth control advice, regardless of marital status, using voluntary organisations such as the Family Planning Association if they wished. (The Pill is now taken by 3.5 million women in Britain between the ages of 16 and 49).

Secondly: The Abortion Act 1967, meant that unwanted pregnancies could be legally terminated.

There have been profound societal changes since then. Marriage has gone out of fashion, many who have children are in a relationship, but equally so, no stigma attaches to single parenthood, and it's true that some women have several children with different absentee fathers. Even if they wanted to, without family support they'd be unable to find childcare to enable them to work, and in all likelihood would earn much less than they are able to claim of benefits. Hence all the fuss about the two-child cap on Child Benefit, which - if the cap was lifted, might incentivise mothers in such circumstances to have more children born into adverse circumstances.

By 1984 the proportion of live births in England and Wales were to women who were not married or in a civil partnership had risen to 25%, by 2014 to 47.5%, and in 2022, 51.4% with 2021 being the first time on record that more babies were born to unmarried mothers than to those in a marriage or civil partnership. That doesn't mean they're single mothers - they may be n stable relationships, but simply not married. If they're single, they may have well paid jobs and childcare provision.

The image of teenage girls getting pregnant when at school, not taking exams, treating 16 not as the school leaving age, but the 'retirement age' and getting a council house (like Angela Rayner did then sold it for a profit of £48,500), is an outdated one. Under-18 conception rate has decreased considerably since 2007. Between 2007 and 2021, the under-18 conception rate in England and Wales decreased by 68%, from 42 per 1,000 women to 13 per 1,000 women, resulting in 13,131 under-18 conceptions in England and Wales in 2021. The number of abortions for under 18s also saw a rapid reduction, going from 21,494 in 2007 to 6,999 in 2021 (a 67% decrease).

Teenage Pregnancies:

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/teenage-pregnancy

In 2022, there were 605,479 live births in England and Wales, which was a 3.1% decrease from 2021. This was the lowest number of live births since 2002 and is in line with the long-term trend of decreasing live births that began before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here are some other statistics on live births in England and Wales:

• Proportion of live births to non-UK-born women: In 2022, 30.3% of live births were to non-UK-born women, which is the highest proportion since records began.
• Total fertility rate: In 2021, the total fertility rate (TFR) for England and Wales was 1.55 children per woman, which was a decrease from 1.58 in 2020 and 1.65 in 2019.

Total conceptions and births:

Abortions 2021: 214,869. The highest since records began.(26% of total conceptions).
Births 2021: 605,469
Total: 820,348

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...21/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

The most dangerous place for a child to be is in its mother's womb. 1 in 4 won't make it to the outside world. How lucky I was to have been conceived in 1939 - not 2019, or the chances are that I'd never have seen the light of day. All rather sad, given how freely available and effective contraception is, including the 'morning after' pill.

Quite enough for now.

 

[Jacob]

You are are quite right in what you say about the past but you are conflating two eras with profound differences - pre-mid 1960s, and post 1960s.

Not at all. I'm talking about people of my generation (b1944) who I knew personally in the 60s or who told me their stories later.
But yes things had been a lot worse and were improving.
The orphanage scenario overlapped https://globalnews.ca/news/3733464/scottish-orphanage-mass-grave-children/ and the better known Magdalen Laundry story also was occurring elsewhere to varying degrees.
You have to say thank god/welfare-state that these notorious single-mothers-on-benefits are no longer punished for their alliances with dodgy partners; equally responsible but generally let off the hook.

​

 

[Jacob]

Getting there slowly! Well done.
Worth revisiting @Croolis comment - he puts things very well. https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/no-fault-evictions.148471/page-68#post-1759714

Coincidence but have just returned from a lecture by Guy Standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Standing_(economist)
who has a lot to say on this sort of thing, not least because he is proactively involved with UBI trials runs, around the world.
It is an obvious solution to a whole rake of social problems and is effective. It liberates people from basic survival issues and actually leads them to take up work, once they are free to run their lives.
Another list of heavy books to read, including Polyani who sounds a bit scary!
I'd never heard of Standing, heard vaguely about Polyani, ditto "The Charter of the Forest".
All this politico stuff has been a learning process for me and I'm grateful to the mods for putting up with it!

 

[AJB Temple]

Standing is of your generation Jacob and I've heard him speak a few times. He is anti-globalisation, which is a a theoretical perspective but demonstrably deluded. We currently have two axes of global power: the US and PRC. They can be mixed (eg phones designed in US but manufactured in China). Amazon dominates retail and is US. Chinese alternatives are increasingly prevalent. China is or will soon dominate the EV market. India pretty much captured call centre job exports from the UK. And so on.

People such as Standing can rail against it, but it's far too late as globalisation has already happened. These businesses are not UK based and they strip profits out of the UK and EU into other tax shelters. There is nothing politicians can do about it, unless they are willing to embrace taxes on revenues (VAT plus) which are politically very difficult as they tend to penalise the customer. Revenue taxes not via the VAT route always fall foul of global trade agreements and the price is inhibited exports.

I think Jacob you are a proponent of academic idealistic approaches to economics, whilst our actual economy has to grapple with the real world.

 

[Jacob]

Standing is of your generation Jacob and I've heard him speak a few times. He is anti-globalisation, which is a a theoretical perspective but demonstrably deluded. We currently have two axes of global power: the US and PRC. They can be mixed (eg phones designed in US but manufactured in China). Amazon dominates retail and is US. Chinese alternatives are increasingly prevalent. China is or will soon dominate the EV market. India pretty much captured call centre job exports from the UK. And so on.

People such as Standing can rail against it, but it's far too late as globalisation has already happened. These businesses are not UK based and they strip profits out of the UK and EU into other tax shelters. There is nothing politicians can do about it, unless they are willing to embrace taxes on revenues (VAT plus) which are politically very difficult as they tend to penalise the customer. Revenue taxes not via the VAT route always fall foul of global trade agreements and the price is inhibited exports.

I think Jacob you are a proponent of academic idealistic approaches to economics, whilst our actual economy has to grapple with the real world.

I think you need to catch up on what Standing and others are saying. Not least that "financialisation" (clumsy term, is there a better one?) is just one of many possible real worlds - but it most certainly doesn't work for the majority of people on the planet.
Google "precariat" for starters!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Many years ago some management consultants we had appointed suggested the route to career success was to develop an apparently new theory of business management capable of transforming companies, complete with buzzwords, jargon and some persuasive graphs, charts, etc.

Then sell it to beleaguered senior managers and directors as the answer to all their problems

Standing seems to have borrowed the technique and applied it to social engineering. Precariat -

"a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which means existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare"

This is not a new group - just new buzzwords to adorn an existing social issue. Whether such a group is increasing in numbers due to societal or economic pressures sufficient to be destabilising is another matter.

UBI is another concept which substantially already exists - it's semantics not radical thinking.

I am unclear how (for the UK) "universal basic income" differs in principle from the existing benefits system which provides a mish-mash of pensions, universal credit, disability payments, job seekers allowances, council tax reliefs, pension credit etc etc. It does need radical overhaul!!

 

[Jester129]

Jacob, you call them underdogs whereas the majority on here (I said majority, not all) call them layabouts!

 

[John Brown]

Jacob, you call them underdogs whereas the majority on here (I said majority, not all) call them layabouts!

Majority of those who can be bothered to get embroiled in often hate-fuelled arguments, maybe.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Majority of those who can be bothered to get embroiled in often hate-fuelled arguments, maybe.

How many posts have you made in this thread?

 

[John Brown]

How many posts have you made in this thread?

A fair few, I haven't actually kept count.

 

[Jacob]

....

I am unclear how (for the UK) "universal basic income" differs in principle from the existing benefits system which provides a mish-mash of pensions, universal credit, disability payments, job seekers allowances, council tax reliefs, pension credit etc etc. It does need radical overhaul!!

Dead simple. "Universal" means everybody gets it, without means testing.
https://citizensincome.org/?gad_sou...lbLqClNmA5inrtF3sBQ37FaLBswtB7HkaAkz4EALw_wcB

The term "precariat" was publicised by Standing.
Maybe coined earlier. https://www.worldwidewords.org/tp-pre3.html
But so what anyway?

https://tomstalesofwoe.com/2021/01/02/the-precariat/#:~:text=The 'Precariat', a term,an unstable relationship with employment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

 

[ey_tony]

Well yes it's very weird. And utterly pointless except in terms of any dubious satisfaction they might gain from kicking the underdogs.

There is a huge difference between so called underdogs where it may be due to personal circumstances or issues with mental or physical health all beyond their control and someone who could be labeled an underdog who knowingly chooses not to take responsibility for their own lives and expects the rest of society to support their lifestyle choice.
One is deserving and the other is a parasite and there are plenty of those in society.

If we can't criticise and stamp out this parasitic behaviour for fear of being labeled prejudiced, far right or whatever then it will only fester and destroy society from within. If you're happy to see your taxes squandered on wasters then fine but don't criticise others if they are not!

It's the same with criticisms of this country's and EU's migration policies...it immediately attracts the race card players when in fact most reasonable people in this country are not against migration per se but they can see what is happening on the ground but can't do anything about it.