Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[Gareth E]

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. 

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

20 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

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. 

 

 

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?

[Wanted]

54 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

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. 

 

 

On paper it would be easy to draw parity between our stances, the thing that I find sadly lacking in your pipe dream is the compassion, and unlike Nick who feels that whenever I talk about care and humanity I am virtue signalling, what I actually believe in is a very natural and honest realisation that we have never been a species that has progressed by means of ‘survival of the fittest’ 

our survival does and has always relied on deep symbiosis and no matter how hard the capitalists and neoliberalists push this warped agenda it has gone way past the point where we will only ever see it’s faults laid bare. 

The reality is that I’m not fully opposed to some of the fall out of your stance, but rather than survival of the fittest, I propose that we recognise that we are as smart as our least smart member, it should be our desire to want to make that person smarter. 

If we are all in a sinking boat, is it not wise to  share the bilge pump? 

 

(And that Ladies and Gents is possibly the best call back to boating you will ever see on this site..  ) 

[nicknorman]

15 minutes ago, Wanted said:

...unlike Nick who feels that whenever I talk about care and humanity I am virtue signalling, what I actually believe in is a very natural and honest realisation that we have never been a species that has progressed by means of ‘survival of the fittest’ 

our survival does and has always relied on deep symbiosis and no matter how hard the capitalists and neoliberalists push this warped agenda it has gone way past the point where we will only ever see it’s faults laid bare. 

I do. You talk the talk - somewhat unrealistically IMO. But I ask you this. If there was an emergency life-threatening situation in which people were going to die, and you had to choose between saving the life of your own child and leaving another child to die, or saving the other child and leaving your own to die, which would you choose?

 

I think we can be fairly confident that it would be the former. And that is the nub of the issue. People will always want what is best for their own little clan and are prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of other clans to achieve it. That is human nature. The “let’s all be pals and share nicely” idea only works when there is plenty to share. When there isn’t, it immediately goes back to dog eat dog and survival of the fittest.

[Wanted]

14 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I do. You talk the talk - somewhat unrealistically IMO. But I ask you this. If there was an emergency life-threatening situation in which people were going to die, and you had to choose between saving the life of your own child and leaving another child to die, or saving the other child and leaving your own to die, which would you choose?

 

I think we can be fairly confident that it would be the former. And that is the nub of the issue. People will always want what is best for their own little clan and are prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of other clans to achieve it. That is human nature. The “let’s all be pals and share nicely” idea only works when there is plenty to share. When there isn’t, it immediately goes back to dog eat dog and survival of the fittest.

I’d like to think I at least do my best to walk the walk as well Nick. 

 

I am not particularly interested in trying to prove myself when confronted with made up scenarios. But at risk of virtue signalling..., I have spent the last two weeks away from my wife and kids working with someone else kid. That particular kid is experiencing unimaginable trauma given their circumstance and I have made it my mission to try and help. I return to my own family tonight for three days before returning. 

 

I have no idea what I would do put under the pressure you describe and maybe, probably defiantly I would help my kids first, but that is a false set of circumstances in which it is unfair to develop a theory on. 

 

The human race would be non exsistant by now if your theory were true. 

[Ray T]

2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

 

 

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,

Just be hopeful that you and yours don't have a brush with cancer. If you do your attitude may well change.

Don't think I can't happen to me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31096218

 

What happens if the family cannot afford health care or have been denied insurance protection?

 

Worst case scenario?  As during the Plague - "Bring out your dead."

 

Care in the community equates to "Do it yourself mate."

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Ray T

[Neil2]

7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This 'traditionally seen' actually started in the early 1970's when house prices first started rocketting and gazumping became a national pastime. Between 1955 and 1969 when my parents paid off their mortgage, the price of their house had barely increased, merely kept pace with inflation. From the 1970's housing became an investment vehicle to make money for those who already had wealth.

You've chosen a very short period to back up your argument there.

 

We can argue about the use of the word "traditionally" but the tendency for the British to see their house as a sound investment goes back at least to the early 1930's.  That was when you could buy a house in London for a few hundred quid and after the Great Depression putting your money into property seemed like a good idea.  For most people it worked too, so it's not surprising that successive generations have followed suit, even if there are periods when house prices stabilise.  

 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Just be hopeful that you and yours don't have a brush with cancer. If you do your attitude may well change.

 

What happens if the family cannot afford health care or have been denied insurance protection?

 

Worst case scenario?  As during the Plague - "Bring out your dead."

 

Care in the community equates to "Do it yourself mate."

But why would his attitude change, survival of the fittest means exactly that, if cancer causes the ill health the family and community provide the protection and support,  worst case scenario, the family and community mourn the dead, much like what happens now. The community moves forward.

 

You say "care in the community equates to Do it yourself mate"  I say bring it on!   Community and myself could manage it very well. 

 

I suggest that you live by the third line of your signatures particularly well. 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Guest
careless typing...m is too close to n on the keyboard!

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, Wanted said:

I’d like to think I at least do my best to walk the walk as well Nick. 

 

I am not particularly interested in trying to prove myself when confronted with made up scenarios. But at risk of virtue signalling..., I have spent the last two weeks away from my wife and kids working with someone else kid. That particular kid is experiencing unimaginable trauma given their circumstance and I have made it my mission to try and help. I return to my own family tonight for three days before returning. 

 

I have no idea what I would do put under the pressure you describe and maybe, probably defiantly I would help my kids first, but that is a false set of circumstances in which it is unfair to develop a theory on. 

 

The human race would be non exsistant by now if your theory were true. 

It may be a hypothetical situation within your present urban western 1st world gamut of experience. Living in a city you are shielded from many of the harsh realities of life. Plenty of food is shipped in, power is cabled in, your excrement shipped out and all done in a fairly transparently to you. In Star Trek they have eliminated money and everyone has what they need, because technology has given them a plentiful supply of everything. Great. Only trouble is it is Science Fiction - a false idea of reality just as your urban environment is. Every time you eat an avocado, some indigenous peoples in South America are booted off their ancestral land which is then burnt and turned into avocado groves by Big Business. Of course all you see is the yummy green stuff.

 

As to virtue signalling, you could just have said you were away working for 2 weeks. But no, not virtuous enough so you have to include the superfluous detail that you were helping a kid. If you had been travelling around with a suitcase of wares to doorstep sell, it wouldn’t have seemed quite so good, even though the consequence to your family would have been identical.

 

Once the bubble of plenty is burst, true genetic behaviour comes out and as I said, human behaviour reverts to protecting and trying to benefit those closest to us.

[Ray T]

Just now, Winn said:

But why would his attitude change, survival of the fittest means exactly that, if cancer causes the ill health the family and community provide the protection and support,  worst case scenario, the family and community mourn the dead, much like what happens now. The community moves forward.

 

You say "care in the community equates to Do it yourself mate"  I say bring it on!   Community amd myself could manage it very well. 

 

I suggest that you live by the third line of your signatures particularly well. 

Not knowing me or anything about me you would be wrong.

[Guest]

Just now, Ray T said:

Not knowing me or anything about me you would be wrong.

I could indeed but you think enough of that third line to quote it! 

[Ray T]

Just now, Winn said:

I could indeed but you think enough of that third line to quote it! 

I do not need to justify myself .

My friends don't need it and my enemies wouldn't believe me anyway.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Ray T

[Wanted]

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It may be a hypothetical situation within your present urban western 1st world gamut of experience. Living in a city you are shielded from many of the harsh realities of life. Plenty of food is shipped in, power is cabled in, your excrement shipped out and all done in a fairly transparently to you. In Star Trek they have eliminated money and everyone has what they need, because technology has given them a plentiful supply of everything. Great. Only trouble is it is Science Fiction - a false idea of reality just as your urban environment is. Every time you eat an avocado, some indigenous peoples in South America are booted off their ancestral land which is then burnt and turned into avocado groves by Big Business. Of course all you see is the yummy green stuff.

 

As to virtue signalling, you could just have said you were away working for 2 weeks. But no, not virtuous enough so you have to include the superfluous detail that you were helping a kid. If you had been travelling around with a suitcase of wares to doorstep sell, it wouldn’t have seemed quite so good, even though the consequence to your family would have been identical.

 

Once the bubble of plenty is burst, true genetic behaviour comes out and as I said, human behaviour reverts to protecting and trying to benefit those closest to us.

And this is why you don’t come across as a very nice person Nick. I have been enjoying a debate with lots of people of differing opinions without this constant need to direct personal insult, yet it seems the only way in which you can discuss anything. 

 

I mention kids  because you did, I can only draw from my experience and as that is my vocation then I think it’s fair to use that as an example. 

 

Given that I live in the middle of nowhere with not even a pub with 10 miles and I have had to dig my own shit pipe into the ground and plumb in my own macerator, plumb in my own water I don’t get your blathering about Avocados. 

 

I made a decision to not get into personal spats with anyone on here anymore so here ya go, your ball, enjoy it. 

[Gareth E]

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.   

[Richard10002]

5 hours ago, Wanted said:

What Government?

The issues is all of the assumptions that are being made, I am not a Marxist, I consider my beliefs as an Anarchist, there would be no Government.

 

Aha! all becomes clear. I'm glad there is only one of you here, and that there aren't enough of you to make it happen. 

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Neil2 said:

You've chosen a very short period to back up your argument there.

 

We can argue about the use of the word "traditionally" but the tendency for the British to see their house as a sound investment goes back at least to the early 1930's.  That was when you could buy a house in London for a few hundred quid and after the Great Depression putting your money into property seemed like a good idea.  For most people it worked too, so it's not surprising that successive generations have followed suit, even if there are periods when house prices stabilise.  

 

According to their deeds the property was sold sometime in the 1930's for about £550 which remained broadly in line with the £1450 they paid for it in 1955 (in line with inflation).

 

This graph shows when homes became 'investment vehicles'

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

According to their deeds the property was sold sometime in the 1930's for about £550 which remained broadly in line with the £1450 they paid for it in 1955 (in line with inflation).

 

This graph shows when homes became 'investment vehicles'

 

 

So what do you propose is done about it?

 

[cereal tiller]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So what do you propose is done about it?

 

Regenerate Manufacturing ,attain full Employment ,Build lots of Affordable Housing and Encourage People to be less Greedy and Materialistic.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

Regenerate Manufacturing ,attain full Employment ,Build lots of Affordable Housing and Encourage People to be less Greedy and Materialistic.

 

Now one bit of that you KNOW is ridiculous and could never happen....

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Aha! all becomes clear. I'm glad there is only one of you here, and that there aren't enough of you to make it happen. 

 

 

Sorry, at least two... 

 But you're OK, we don't want to make it happen - there is an intrinsic problem in forming an anarchist government. We just get on with our own lives and let others do the same. 

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, Wanted said:

And this is why you don’t come across as a very nice person Nick. I have been enjoying a debate with lots of people of differing opinions without this constant need to direct personal insult, yet it seems the only way in which you can discuss anything. 

 

I mention kids  because you did, I can only draw from my experience and as that is my vocation then I think it’s fair to use that as an example. 

 

Given that I live in the middle of nowhere with not even a pub with 10 miles and I have had to dig my own shit pipe into the ground and plumb in my own macerator, plumb in my own water I don’t get your blathering about Avocados. 

 

I made a decision to not get into personal spats with anyone on here anymore so here ya go, your ball, enjoy it. 

So can you possibly see any irony in your post? Recently you said I was a nasty person. You say it again here. It is hard not to see this as a personal attack, and a repeated one. I have never called you a nasty person nor have I personally attacked you. What I have tried to do it to take your unrealistic ideals and try to show you how they would pan out when applied to your personal circumstances. It’s called trying to empathise with someone. Maybe I didn’t get it quite right, but at least I tried.

 

Only one of us has personally attacked the other and it isn’t me. But I am used to it. Whenever I say something you disagree with, your standard response is simply to say that I am a nasty person.

When you are not doing that, you spend quite a bit of keyboard time telling us what a good person you are. Well I suppose if you repeat something often enough, people are likely to believe it.

 

Quite sad, really.

Edited August 23, 2018 by nicknorman

[Wanderer Vagabond]

37 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

Regenerate Manufacturing ,attain full Employment ,Build lots of Affordable Housing and Encourage People to be less Greedy and Materialistic.

 

27 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Now one bit of that you KNOW is ridiculous and could never happen....

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So what do you propose is done about it?

 

Of the suggestions by CT I'd settle for restoring the 4 million council houses that we've lost since the inane policy came about, the only thing stopping it, and the reason it will not happen is dogma and skills shortage. One could be overcome by training but there is no cure for the other, so we will just have to put up with a crap system producing a crap outcome for what is rapidly becoming a majority whilst us baby boomers life a life of comfort.

[LadyG]

I'm not sure what is going on round here [Scotland], but what is happening is that "Housing Associations" hand in glove with property developers are building flats for dependent people.

 These people then claim benefit from UK government, to pay Local Authorities Council Tax.

Its obviously a great deal for the LA.

There is no "planning" as we used to think, , just, get them up,  build fast, get the money in asap. 

There are plenty of people on benefits here, no one in my ghetto works [except for me!], of ten residents, three are OAP's [inc me], the rest MUST be on benefits. They don't work, what is the point?

The ex council houses are in a poor state of repair, the council properties are very costly to maintain. They were built post war and to minimal standards.

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I'm not sure what is going on round here [Scotland], but what is happening is that "Housing Associations" hand in glove with property developers are building flats for dependent people.

 These people then claim benefit from UK government, to pay Local Authorities Council Tax.

Its obviously a great deal for the LA.

Down here in England however, if the government succeed in their stupid proposal for Housing Association tenants to be able to buy their properties at a similar discount to the right to Buy debacle, Housing Associations, like council housing will become a thing of the past.( https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7224  ) And the real killer is that they want Local Councils to sell their council houses to finance the discount, amazing just how generous the Government can be with other people's money, isn't it?

 

Apparently, Scotland displaying more intelligence than our lot, have abolished RTB.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[LadyG]

I have to say that "the country" was far better off forty years ago than it is now, and a lot of that is due to gross overpopulation. People have kids, right left and centre, they can't afford them, but the government takes care of that for the first twenty years. 

It does not make sense. All this technology, all this commuting by car, and by train, high cost of living, 

high cost of housing, people can't afford it, so now its "rent for life" and work till you're seventy.

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG