Gareth E
-
Posts
498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Gareth E
-
-
7 hours ago, LadyG said:
that's a fallacy, there is a huge immigrant population, not sure how many, but probably a good twenty percent of the population.
I can remember seeing my first black man, it was Sauchiehall Street [Glasgow] and it was about 1953.
Nowadays lots of folk are coloured/mixed race, so I know that the population has expanded "organically" its not just the fact that the baby boomers are ageing. The bay boomers had lots of long term employment opportunities, I mean steady employment, a lot of them are quite comfortably placed, financially.
ps I AM NOT RACIST, just saying the UK population has grown too fast. We don't have the infrastructure/jobs/need for all these people, , I am not talking about "immigrants", I mean the total population is too great.
The very fact that you need to state that you aren't racist when suggesting gross over population says a lot. It shows how far socialism, and its associated curbs on free speech has come in this country.
Over population is not just a problem in the U.K., it's a problem throughout the world. So that covers all races. It also covers people of all religions and for that matter, people of all sexual persuasions too. That's the tick box completed, all the groups of humans that we can't discuss any more at fear of being branded a racist, a bigot, a dinosaur etc. etc.
Now this strangulation of freedom of speech has been debunked we can say that the problem is driven in different ways, in different parts of the world. In the third world and developing world having large families is cultural. It's also driven by the notion that a large number of children will protect the parents in later life.
In more developed countries, those with socialist welfare states like our own, there's no need for parents to rely on their children in later life; the state adopts this role. This might seem to be a great thing, in terms of limiting the drivers of population growth. However, at the other end of the scale, the government is very generous with its offers for those with children. So much so that someone with low paid or no work can propel themselves into greater riches by having children. No thoughts about the environment the children will exist in, no thoughts to the stability of the relationship that created them. No, however the kids were created and by who, the financial effect on the parents is a positive one.
The solution in the third world is tricky but I suspect human behaviour will cause incidents that will reduce or even completely solve the problem, unless someone with large cojones starts the discussion, rather soon.
In developed countries, with socialist inspired family friendly welfare systems, the solution is more simple: Freeze/ reduce/ end completely all the benefits that relate to having or bringing up children. Yes, baby boomers (I'm one of them) will get a painful shafting in their reduced pensions but we all know they are relatively wealthy. So, better this, surely, than the current steady fall downhill to a disaster that makes a few people being able to eat out a little less often seem like a total irrelevance.
-
1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
So I suppose that the logical follow-on from your position is that those who become sick should just die (survival of the fittest you say). Fine, so long as both the poor and wealthy are left to die the same deaths, unless you wish to conflate 'fittest' with 'wealthiest'. Those who can afford health care get it and the others are left to die. Don't bother treating poor people suffering from cancer since they are going to die sometime anyway. To me it doesn't seem a very moral position to take, that just because third world countries have this method of doing things (not entirely by choice) we should adopt the same. If that is the philosophy that you would wish to encourage, perhaps a third world country is the place for you.
The nature of the UK economy does not encourage welfare provision by family, on the one hand we have the Norman Tebbit approach the we need to 'get on our bikes' to go where the work is and once we've done that we also have to tend to the needs of our elderly relatives who may well be 200 miles away, doesn't really work does it?
I'm not advocating that society changes to fit with my views, socialism is too deeply embedded for that to be a possibility. I was simply trying to explain to Wanted that while our views might seem to be polar opposites where in reality, there are some similarities.
Seeing as you mention it though: another of my views (Wanted won't agree I'm sure) is that the world is over populated to the point where the existence of the human species is at risk. At the very least, serious conflict is looming due to the lack of resources, damaging climate change driven by human behaviour, together with a spiralling population, much of which is in developing countries, who will consume more in due course. A heady mix of challenges I hope you'd agree. The Paris agreement, where suited politicians were hugging each other as if they were some kind of modern saviours of the world made me feel sick. A broad brush agreement with no specifics as to how it might be achieved. As soon as they got back, no doubt, the focus switched to how they might encourage more (damaging) growth, more interested in being elected again than saving the world.
Not only do we need to begin having conversations about population levels, in my opinion, we also must start talking about what is the optimum level of further advance in medical science.
I often hear statements such as "what if you or someone in your family got cancer". Well, very recently it was suspected that I had a brain tumour. It turned out not so but did I spend all the time waiting for the result at my wit's end in a permanent state of worry? No I didn't. I won't pretend that I dismissed it from my thoughts but I thought more about the fact that I'm in my mid fifties, had a good and interesting life and what will be will be.
At the end of the day, I consider the human species as a whole to be more important than me, my family or my friends. This might seem to be a reversal of my politics but if that's so, a socialist who cares more about an individual than the wider human species is a hypocrite equal with me, if that's the term that's chosen.
-
1 hour ago, Wanted said:
Thing is, whilst most people think I am not realistic, I am fully aware that I doubt we will ever see my beliefs in action, or at least in my life time. The only thing I can do is to try and live in a way that emulates as many of those things as possible.
The bit that changes everything in your question for me is the bit about Government, as I said to Richard, I consider myself an Anarchist, there would be no Government. Self rule and DIY culture, seizing the means of production and living like humans and not robots.
OK it's a pipe dream, but an important one to you.
I myself am way to the right of centre, I'm all for deconstructing much of the welfare state. I believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest. I believe that welfare should first and foremost be provided by family, backed by community and charity, it should not be a role for government. Government's role should slimmed down which would allow individuals, families and communities, however they choose to organise themselves, greater means. There would be no special concessions for this group and that group, just a simple set of laws that everyone understands, rigorously enforced equally, to everyone, regardless of their family situation, gender, ethnicity or sexuality.
My views will be considered extreme by many in the U.K. but look around the world; this is the way that the majority of it operates.
I'm not an all out anarchist like you appear to be, but find the extent of government and its associated laws exhausting. So, I pick and choose which laws I obey, following the ones that are sensible for the safety and consideration of others, but ignoring the rest.
-
1 hour ago, Wanted said:
I would neither want nor accept one, I don’t really understand your point.
You are posing your questions as statements of fact and I’m finding difficult to respond, if you have made your mind up then we can’t discuss.
Nowhere have I suggested that people should live in the way I do, I was responding to a specific question.
But yes, I believe that choice would be increased given that ownership would not be an option.
I'm sure you've thought this all through, you come across as being passionate with your beliefs. Tell me this: if the ownership of a home would not be an option, does this extend to other things. For example, how about cars or if they aren't allowed any more, bikes. Would these all be owned by the government? would each citizen receive an allocated time to use one, a ration if you like? How about clothes, would people own these or would they all be pooled? How about leisure activities, would people be allowed to own the likes of skis and fishing rods? Would leisure activities even be tolerated?
I'm genuinely interested because I can't see how preventing ownership of things could do anything other than catapult us back into the dark ages. I speak as someone who personally doesn't care much for possessions. I have my near 40 year old motor bike which if a possession can be loved, I do, but other than that I don't really give a toss. I value having free time more than material goods. Consequently I don't have much money, but I don't need much.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Wanted said:
We’ll see, i’d Like to think that as me and my family live in a caravan on a yard with no excess room or belongings greater than our needs that we would be down the bottom of the scaffold rather than on it. I run as much on solar as possible and I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class.
Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe.
Well that's fine then. I'm wondering though, whether you'd see a risk to the security of your family as an acceptable risk, in order for the changes you seek to go ahead?
That's the problem you see. Although many people talk of support for far left ideologies, some to the point of apparent obsession; their families, friends and loved ones would still come first. This is human nature I guess, a natural instinct that the vast majority adhere to, above everything else. So, the changes you seek would never come about through the ballot box. Instead, they would require, as you stated earlier, a revolution, most likely a violent one. Unfortunately for those seeking this their thinking is that of a very small minority so naturally, counter revolution would follow, with inevitable success.
More likely I think is the opposite of what you aspire to. America achieved a revolution of sorts democratically, through the ballot box. It voted to protect its nation, curb globalism and remove some of the 'neo' from neoliberalism.
-
1 hour ago, Wanted said:
Quoting Marx doesn't make me a Marxist or even if I was it doesn't automatically mean I would support Pol Pot's ideology. If you understand anything about a Marxist theory you would know that Marx didn't see Pol Pot's version as his end game and actually looked towards a world that was symbiotic with human nature. But that is academic, I am not a Marxist.
The trouble I have with your theory is that you are still coming at it from a neoliberalist stance. Yes, if we are to live in a society that pits individuals against each other as a positive thing then, of course, nothing will change, however if we radicalised our financial systems in the same way as we managed to do so with our health and social care systems then we would start to see the huge benefits of global migration. Global GDP would rise and people would be in places without persecution. Migrant numbers would stabilise and actually people would begin to return home. let's remember that even now, the UK is far from the no1 destination of those seeking refuge. I genuinely believe that the actual numbers of people who would move are fairly small in comparison to the feeling of how many would move. there are in access of 68 million displaced people already in this world, we grant about 16,000 asylum a year.
I concede though that whilst we only count the money as our bottom line then we won't see change.
Incidentally, I am putting my money where my mouth is and am currently triple bottom line accounting for the community interest company that I manage. For those that are unaware of TBL accounting, it means that when we look at our profits we only consider the finances as one part of the bottom line, the environment and people forming the other two lines. We, as a registered company are prepared to go bust if we do not meet either our financial or ethical targets and consider them to be of equal importance.
When the revolution comes, I wonder if you feel that you and your family are exempt from having your house taken over by the workers?
-
If you're going to do the job yourself I'd suggest choice of paint should be well down the pecking order. Far more important is meticulous preparation. Even if you're not going down the bare metal route it really is hard work removing every tiny blemish that might just harbour a bubble of rust. And then rust treatment, primer, undercoat....
As for paint, Rylards green discoloured badly after not very long whereas Crown Solo is still perfect after 5 years, in the areas that I prepped properly.
-
6 hours ago, Wanted said:
Only when folk realise that the neoliberalist wet dream will devour everything in it's path, that individuals capitalising on the basic needs of others is wrong and that profit above humanity is in direct contradiction to natural evolution will we begin to live in a society that we can all enjoy.
The arrogance of those who believe we as a human race achieved all that we have in our time by working in competition with each other is staggering. We are sold the myth that our aspirations end at homeownership, however, a 3rd of our MP's are buy to let landlords literally blocking the so-called aspiration that their backwards political theology preaches.
I'd like to think that we are closer to a revolution than we have ever been in recent years, a revolution that I hope sees homes are taken and workers rising up. If that all sounds a bit far fetched, ask yourselves how the hell did that clown in America become president, it was a direct result of neoliberalism, the losers in this capitalist game become politically disenfranchised and inevitably get swept up in this populist brand of fascism that has reared its head.
What has that got to do with buy to let? essentially it's a transference of wealth, from poor to rich and as soon as folk can't afford the socks that they are told to continually pull up, they will turn, and as Marx said, 'The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains'
One of your answers to this great injustice, I understand, is to open all borders. Britain isn't the richest country in the world but it's certainly above average. It operates a socialist 'needs based' welfare system where, for example, if someone has nowhere to live, the government takes it upon itself to find that home, and pay for it. If the homeless person has children all the better for them, they will receive large sums of money each month, in the attempt to ensure that the family will receive a percentage of average income, so the children won't be living in poverty.
Most of these benefits, as alluded to earlier, are not based on contributions. Whilst some other western European countries may have welfare systems that are equally, or more generous even, they are mostly based on the notion that you put in, you take out. You cannot simply rock up, demand housing and a level of income that 'allows you and your family to take part in normal society'.
Considering the above, it's fair to say that Britain would be a highly desirable choice for many people, particularly families with children, once the borders come down.
Care to explain how triggering a massive new demand on housing will be of benefit to the oppressed working classes that you champion? And by the way, are you a fan of Pol Pot's ideology?
-
When I was younger I used to spend a fair amount of time in the pub. Other than that, my 'luxuries' were somewhat limited. I ran an old car, buying a new one was completely out of the question. If I was lucky I'd get away on holiday once a year, Ibiza or Majorca. I bought clothes that I though suited me, not too many. No way would I have paid 3 times as much for something with a 'desirable' label. Eating out was so uncommon it might as well have not existed and takeaways were limited to beer mopping up chips and curry sauce etc. In terms of technology, I rented a t.v.
I bought my first house at 25 it was just over 3 times my salary, my salary was pretty decent for the time.
Fast forward to now, people won't be seen dead in old cars, they have to be brand new. Spain is naff so to have street cred you have to holiday in Cuba or the Maldives. Clothes must have labels on them. Yes, even underpants. You're so bored of eating out at all the different restaurants that you go to the 'fusion' variety, and think nothing of spending a week's rent on a meal for two. The unbranded smartphone for 50 quid off Ebay would do everything your iPhone does but no, it has to be the one costing several hundred pounds. And several hundred more, when the latest one comes out.
Meanwhile in Stockport, houses are still 3-4 times an equivalent salary.
At the end of the day everyone knows the cost of things, and needs to make their own choices.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:
OK, I'll bite.
BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.
Having lit the blue touch paper I will now retire to play with my avatar at and leave the field of play open to BTL people complaining about rogue tenants, poor return on capital invested etc.
As do the shareholders of all the businesses out there that supply us with most of our needs and wants.
-
41 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:
This is my thinking too.
Before the industrial revolution wealth was with those who owned land.
Then wealth passed to those who owned factories, mills, mines etc.
In these post industrial times wealth now seems vested in those who own brick and mortar.
I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.
If you think buy to let is so bad please don't uproot and head for Europe where the majority of houses are owned and rented by private landlords. Not like here, where it's very much the minority. Also, if making profit from the essentials of life is so bad why is it allowable for privately owned supermarkets to dominate the food supply market? Would it not be more equitable to have all food supplied by charities, worker's co operatives or perhaps government owned businesses, all operating not for profit?
Unless we really want to regress to being like the old Soviet Union we should accept that for profit businesses are the best way. Too much governmental control not only stifles innovation, it also reduces human beings to a state of misery because, by and large, we thrive on being free, and suffer if freedoms don't exist.
I'd understand the hatred of buy to let if those so disposed had similar loathing of making profit on food which, at the end of the day, is more essential than housing.
-
14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
Would be interesting to discover the corresponding increase in housing stock since 1978 too. Anyone have any idea? Not that the two stats are closely related. 'Accommodation' is a weird thing, in that demand for it is very elastic. When we feel wealthy we buy more of it than we need (i.e. bigger houses, spare bedrooms etc) , and vice versa. When poor we squeeze ourselves into smaller properties.
The general rise in overall wealth since 1978 has resulted in more demand for limited stock of housing as well as falling interest rates. Lenders lend higher income multiples too when interest rates fall, which pushes up asset values.
I don't know but the demand has certainly risen by more than the increase in population. Higher divorce rates, more people choosing to live alone, government obsession with looking after single parents are all factors that suggest the demand might be 50% more than back then. Also we might look at new housing being built. The vast majority are family homes on new estates. All well and good but the higher demand is for smaller units, as less households are now husband, wife and 2 kids. The reality is that we should be building many more smaller homes (no garden required) for single people, the elderly etc. This won't happen because, I suspect, the profits are smaller for the house builders. Also, it doesn't fit with the notion of 'family Britain', a notion trotted out by political parties of all persuasions, despite it having little relevance to modern day Britain.
-
7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
I thought you were old enough to remember 1978, there is no way the rent would be £27 a week. I didn't earn over £100 per week until 1983, so a weekly rent such as that would have been more than I earned. At the time however I had little or no difficulty in paying my rent so we can assume that the £27 given is a fair reflection of general rents.
The Bank of England inflation calculator ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator )gives even worse details saying that £27 in 1978 is worth £147.26 today. This explains why it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone whose family do not already own property, to get on the housing ladder, you could look on it as the new 'Landed Gentry' if you like.
Talking of 1978, the population has increased by 35% since then. That should give a fair clue as to why rents have become more expensive. There again, you can still rent a house in the vast majority of the country for around £600 a month, less in many areas. Good luck trying to find a house to rent in the likes of Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc. for a similar figure.
I guess the other relatively rich countries in Europe must have sold off all of their council housing too.
-
I do hope CRT organised a fish rescue from the drained pounds?
-
Billinge Green, Cheshire. Is anyone familiar with this area? I've tried Google but it's not conclusive. Trying to work out whether I might be able to wheel my motor bike from the towpath onto Davenham Road at this bridge. An incline onto the road (without steps) would be fine.
Many thanks for any replies.
-
The problem is that the majority of the voting population want two things:
1/ High public spending on services and benefits.
2/ Low taxes.
Political parties of all persuasions know this, and form their policies accordingly. In the blue corner we have austerity, where the party tries to overcome the imbalance between government spending and tax receipts by pruning spending.
Over on the red side, further spending is promised, with the additional financial burden being placed upon the relatively rich.
The blue side leave personal taxes unchanged, they cannot rise, to even suggest so is sacrosanct. Instead they tinker around the edges, gaining a little more revenue from higher taxes on the likes of insurance products. It's a small amount though. Their efforts to execute austerity are constantly challenged. First by their political opponents, then by the media and finally by the house of lords.
Over on the red side, it seems that personal taxes are also sacrosanct. Unlike the blues though, so is all government spending, nothing can be cut at any time. This is core to the party's ethos.
'Taxing the rich' has and is failing, and will continue to fail in the future. Avoidance is rife, armies of respected 'professionals' make their living out of it. The global nature of the economic world makes it ever more easy to move things around to avoid the clutches of a relatively high tax regime. So, in reality, the only way a government can ensure sufficient funds for a socialist style spending and welfare system is to increase personal taxes. The vast majority of personal taxes are collected through the PAYE system, a fantastic tool for government, taxes cannot be avoided.
Perhaps Wilson was right, a starting rate of 35% is needed to fund a socialist spending regime.
Now, we have a problem. The voting public would like to at least maintain current spending, and possibly increase it. However, this is very much secondary compared to the prospect of higher taxes. No party proposing this could ever be elected in Britain or, I suspect, anywhere else in the world.
Conduct a poll: "would you prefer a/ to keep more of your money to spend as you choose or b/ entrust more to the government of the time for them to spend on your behalf" the result in Britain would be a landslide.
And so we have it.
-
3
-
-
Hmm it seems that the decision of the learned gentleman may prevent someone from claiming 'housing benefit' in the future, should they wish to continually cruise. Not a problem though, the benefit claimant simply needs to apply for a mooring as well (at further public cost, obviously), but not use the mooring. He or she is then free to go off cruising at the taxpayers' expense.
-
I have a Kipor 770 with 20a Sterling charger. Works for me and the genny is only 11kg so easy to handle and move around. It lives chained to the cruiser deck in the winter, when it's used. In the summer it's drained of fuel including carb etc. and chained inside the cratch.
-
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:
If one little black box feeds the starter solenoid it is very unlikely to be any thing to do with the ignition switch or cable.
Any thoughts what it might be? It's similar to the split charge relay near the batteries.
-
11 minutes ago, Onewheeler said:
Rylards is used on the cabin sides of our mainland boat share, it seems to last fairly well (in anchusa blue). Some fading, but it sees more sun than in the UK.
I'd not heard of Paintmaster. Did you use the one sold as "boat & barge enamel" or the basic gloss? Did you undercoat?
I used the basic gloss over a carefully prepped roof then primer and undercoat before the top coat. It's advertised as suitable for outdoor use so that's good enough for me. I'm forming the opinion that preparation is almost everything, the choice is paint is less important.
-
Like others earlier I mistrust expensive paints with a 'boat' badge. 3 years ago I repainted the rear cruiser deck rails in a boat paint, think it was Rylards. I chose it because it was the closest I could find to the colour the majority of the boat is painted in, now that Crown solo royal gala green is no longer available. 3 years on the Rylards has discoloured badly. A nearby area, painted with the Crown solo, maintains it's colour from 5 years ago. There's no chipping, it's still perfect, apart from where I didn't prep properly. How delighted I was when I found a stockist of the Crown, took the opportunity this summer to repaint the whole boat with the confidence that this will last more than a couple of years.
Regarding the roof I chose Paintmaster oil based grey, over sanded rectangles. The paint cost 12 quid for 2 1/2 litres. It went on nicely and although it's early days, is looking great so far.
So as has been said, a combination of experience and the desire not to be duped into paying 3 or 4 times as much for something, just because it has a badge.
-
For now I've re done all the connections, cleaned etc. It is a Vetus engine, I wondered what the little black box on the back of the engine was, now I know!
-
9 times out of 10 my starter motor turns and the engine starts, no problem. The tenth time (or so) I get the familiar clicking sound of the starter motor jamming. Or at least, that's what it sounds like. I replaced the motor last year as the previous one was knackered (constant clicking sound).
Before I consider taking the motor off to have it fixed is it possible that this could be caused by a poor connection somewhere? If so, any suggestions where I should check?
Thanks.
-
Picked up a litre from 3P paints yesterday. 8 quid cash, very happy with that.
Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.
in Living Afloat
Posted
Yes, everyone who is here already is part of the over population problem. We are where we are, nobody sensible would think of changing that. The challenge is to reduce the birth rate, but I'm sure you knew that already.