# Ed Miliband and the Labour Party



## JCW (Nov 10, 2014)

It seems the are moves to get him out , they are behind in the ratings so want a change . His image to the public is not at its highest at the moment and if you look back in history you will see a Michael Foot up against Mrs Thatcher , only ever going to be one winner as even if he was a good MP he did not appeal to the voters . since then there has always been and image thing and Tony Blair fitted that to the tee , I am not talking about policies just image . will there be a change if so who ? Do you think it matters at all , I think it does


----------



## Ethan (Nov 10, 2014)

I agree that Ed has been a disaster and the Labour Party regrets choosing him over David, who is politically little different but comes across a bit better. There is no obvious alternative. Alan Johnston would be a caretaker and none of the prospective future leaders have established themselves enough, and then ghosts of Blair and Brown still haunt the party. Labour has a crisis of identity. It is now a centrist pro-private, pro-business party which is trying to distance itself from its past, and as such doesn't really know what it is. There is no left in UK politics any more. I have never voted Tory, but at this election find myself in a dilemma, because none of the big three parties are any better than each other, although UKIP are much worse. So as a left leaning pro-European, who do I vote for? Greens?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 10, 2014)

Ed was the wrong choice in the first place imo! His brother would have been a better choice imo, but apparently not seen as sufficiently 'Union-friendly' for those with influence over that election. Won't be a change, disasters not-withstanding, until after the election - which they will lose! That might be the time for Yvette Cooper to step up! Certainly preferable to 'her old man'!  And would remove any misunderstanding when referring to 'Ed'!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2014)

Milliband is like Foot and Kinnock....unelectable.

Agree with Foxy that Yvette Cooper is the only option.

I only hope that the Scottish 'Home Rule' is decided before then as I hold out little hope for the UK with UKIP making major inroads.
I do not think there has ever been a time when the quality of the leadership of all the major parties has been so low.
The days of an experienced old hand at the helm seem to have gone.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 10, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Milliband is like Foot and Kinnock....unelectable.

Agree with Foxy that Yvette Cooper is the only option.

I only hope that the Scottish 'Home Rule' is decided before then as I hold out little hope for the UK with UKIP making major inroads.
I do not think there has ever been a time when the quality of the leadership of all the major parties has been so low.
The days of an experienced old hand at the helm seem to have gone.
		
Click to expand...

Yvette Cooper? Are you serious. OK, she is the most electable person in her household, but I think that is as far as it goes.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 10, 2014)

It should be Chukka Umunna in my opinion as he will change the image of the Labour Party in one fell swoop.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 10, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			It should be Chukka Umunna in my opinion as he will change the image of the Labour Party in one fell swoop.
		
Click to expand...

The same one who mixed up the Miliband brothers recently ?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 10, 2014)

Blair (good public image - at the time!) delivers three terms for the first time. Has the Tories in turmoil and basically unelectable for a large slice of that (IDS? lol), hands over to Brown (poor image) and the Tories get in by the back door with a Tory version of Blair at the helm. They have a leadership election and David Miliband (pretty good image) loses to brother Ed (nice guy, so called "ideas man" but again poor image), largely because he is seen as too close to Blair!!! Comedy, you couldn't write this stuff. Unfortunately, modern politics is all about image when it comes to leaders and I think Labour will get hammered by SNP in Scotland and UKIP across the north and have no chance.

There is no natural successor though so I don't think he'll go. Best chance is to get in coalition with Lib Dems (if they have any seats) and hope that in government he could turn the image thing around. Strange how Gordon Brown was perceived in the Scottish debate compared to a few years ago....things can change. If they lose then he's gone.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 10, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			B...Strange how Gordon Brown was perceived in the Scottish debate compared to a few years ago....things can change. If they lose then he's gone.
		
Click to expand...

'Broon' was/is the classic 'hustings' style politician - as he proved in September!  It's something I believe Labour is far better at than Tories - all a bit beneath their dignity in stereotype - or LibDems - far too 'fair-minded'. It's something I actually, if begrudgingly, admire about Farage - a right-winger who is prepared to 'kick-ass'! There have only been a few of those, and the one with a brick in her handbag was a bit too single/narrow-minded for my taste!  Heseltine and Clarke have been the Tory 'big-hitters' that I have 'connected to' most! They happen to be seriously pro-Europe, but that's probably pure coincidence! They come (came these days) across as simply full of common sense, while other politicians trying to get a message across were/are just 'full of it'!


----------



## Ethan (Nov 10, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			Blair (good public image - at the time!) delivers three terms for the first time. Has the Tories in turmoil and basically unelectable for a large slice of that (IDS? lol), hands over to Brown (poor image) and the Tories get in by the back door with a Tory version of Blair at the helm. They have a leadership election and David Miliband (pretty good image) loses to brother Ed (nice guy, so called "ideas man" but again poor image), largely because he is seen as too close to Blair!!! Comedy, you couldn't write this stuff. Unfortunately, modern politics is all about image when it comes to leaders and I think Labour will get hammered by SNP in Scotland and UKIP across the north and have no chance.

There is no natural successor though so I don't think he'll go. Best chance is to get in coalition with Lib Dems (if they have any seats) and hope that in government he could turn the image thing around. Strange how Gordon Brown was perceived in the Scottish debate compared to a few years ago....things can change. If they lose then he's gone.
		
Click to expand...

Blair is a strange case. He raised expectations so much that the disappointment was ever more crushing when all was revealed. I remember that election night in 1997 when he won, watching the election coverage into the night and going to bed happy when Portillo lost. Now Blair continues to lurk at the fringes as a reminder of just how much Labour sold its soul, and "Blairite" is almost as damning a description of a politician as "Thatcherite", although, ironically, they are actually very similar. Funnily enough, I quite like Portillo these days. He seems to have settled into a less arrogant persona. 

David Miliband is a much more capable politician than Ed and would have been a stronger opponent against Cameron, although that chance has now passed. I assume most Labour types assume that they will regroup after an election loss and prepare for 2020, or maybe hope that UKIP and Europe will sink Cameron.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The same one who mixed up the Miliband brothers recently ?
		
Click to expand...

Depends if you think it was purely accidental or if it was a deliberate gaff to further undermine Ed and enhance his chances of becoming leader if Labour do poorly at the next election with Ed in charge.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 10, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Depends if you think it was purely accidental or if it was a deliberate gaff to further undermine Ed and enhance his chances of becoming leader if Labour do poorly at the next election with Ed in charge.
		
Click to expand...

So either he isn't very clever and can't remember peoples names 

Or a snake in the grass trying to undermine his boss

Perfect MP then


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 10, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Blair is a strange case. He raised expectations so much that the disappointment was ever more crushing when all was revealed. Now he continues to lurk at the fringes as a reminder of just how much Labour sold its soul, and "Blairite" is almost as damning a description of a politician as "Thatcherite", although, ironically, they are actually very similar. 
...
		
Click to expand...

Just to divert - again!...

Blair has always struck me as like Private Walker (from Dad's Army). But he did get Labour elected, something that Kinnock failed to do - though it was close in his last effort, so getting Labour electable wasn't something just down to 'Tony'! Blair also managed the media far better than anyone had before him - even if , in the end, it was down to bullying! Will never forgive him, and his government machine, for driving Dr David Kelly to suicide! :rant:


----------



## Ethan (Nov 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Just to divert - again!...

Blair has always struck me as like Private Walker (from Dad's Army). But he did get Labour elected, something that Kinnock failed to do - though it was close in his last effort, so getting Labour electable wasn't something just down to 'Tony'! Blair also managed the media far better than anyone had before him - even if , in the end, it was down to bullying! Will never forgive him, and his government machine, for driving Dr David Kelly to suicide! :rant:
		
Click to expand...

True, he did make them electable, at least in the short term but he may have ruined them for the long term by dragging them into the Tories natural territory of business and abandoning their traditional electorate of the working man. Then it turned out that business was in fact the big evil in the world. Oops. Now they have severed a lot of links with the unions and have a party made up of a mixture of old Labour union types and new professional politicians who have been at the same PPE courses at Oxford as the Tories from whom they are indistinguishable, and Labour is talking about private providers in the NHS, and trying hard to show they won't spend money on public services. They can't out-Tory the Tories, so perhaps they should stop trying.


----------



## MarkE (Nov 10, 2014)

I agree. Labour have blown their chance big time with Ed at the helm. They have absolutely no chance next year. Get Chukka in now to invigorate Labour. I don't agree with the notion of getting in an old head to see them through the election (may as well stick with Ed). Let Umunna get settled in with his team for another 5 years of opposition.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 10, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I agree that Ed has been a disaster and the Labour Party regrets choosing him over David, who is politically little different but comes across a bit better. There is no obvious alternative. Alan Johnston would be a caretaker and none of the prospective future leaders have established themselves enough, and then ghosts of Blair and Brown still haunt the party. Labour has a crisis of identity. It is now a centrist pro-private, pro-business party which is trying to distance itself from its past, and as such doesn't really know what it is. There is no left in UK politics any more. I have never voted Tory, but at this election find myself in a dilemma, because none of the big three parties are any better than each other, although UKIP are much worse. So as a left leaning pro-European, who do I vote for? Greens?
		
Click to expand...

You need to vote for Big Eck


----------



## Ethan (Nov 10, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			You need to vote for Big Eck

Click to expand...

I think Salmond is a masterful politician. He took an issue which was a fringe romantic ideal of a small minority and against the massed ranks of all three of the major UK parties, brought it close enough to realisation that it made the Government very nervous indeed. Like Seve said after the 1983 Ryder Cup at PGA National, it wasn't really a loss.


----------



## c1973 (Nov 10, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I think Salmond is a masterful politician. He took an issue which was a fringe romantic ideal of a small minority and against the massed ranks of all three of the major UK parties, brought it close enough to realisation that it made the Government very nervous indeed. Like Seve said after the 1983 Ryder Cup at PGA National, *it wasn't really a loss*.
		
Click to expand...

It really was you know.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 10, 2014)

Ed is a disaster. Yvette Cooper is a soulless politician. All very dispiriting. Chukka is good as is Andy Burnham. The rest are forgettable. Big brother Dave was the answer but the unions scuppered that. Considering how poor Dave "U turn" Cameron is the Labour party should be ashamed that they are not a mile ahead in the polls.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			You need to vote for Big Eck

Click to expand...

Soooooooooo yesterday

Its Ms Legohair now.


----------



## JCW (Nov 13, 2014)

He is -44 points in the polls , thats the worst ever for a party leader , will there be a change at the top , looks like he is doomed to fail for now and is there anyway back for him


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 13, 2014)

When I look at the Labour front row I cant see a credible leader, come to that I cant see one in the back rows either.   Maybe they need to move further left of centre and put someone like Diane Abbott in the chair.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			and put someone like Diane Abbott in the chair.
		
Click to expand...

.......... Then plug it in!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 14, 2014)

chrisd said:



			.......... Then plug it in!
		
Click to expand...

No! They need to show people what they really stand for but your suggestion is good :thup:


----------



## CMAC (Nov 14, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			When I look at the Labour front row I cant see a credible leader, come to that I cant see one in the back rows either.   Maybe they need to move further left of centre and put someone like Diane Abbott in the chair.
		
Click to expand...

thats just putting a (large) bum on a seat- token stuff and could do more harm than good


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 14, 2014)

CMAC said:



			thats just putting a (large) bum on a seat- token stuff and could do more harm than good
		
Click to expand...

More the better from my POV, although Ed is doing that superbly.   Labour just needs to come out the closet and admit what it stands for instead of just rubbishing everyone else. IMO it really wants high taxes, high borrowing, high public spending, cowtowing to the EU and Unions.  If thats what they want why not stand on that platform.


----------



## Tiger (Nov 15, 2014)

They're all careerist politicians these days - minimal real world experience, no connection to their voters and incapable of inspiring an electorate. I voted for David in the leadership election but when the union vote swung the ballot that killed it for me. Left the party and have been politically lost ever since. Have absolutely no idea who I'm going to vote for come the election


----------



## Ethan (Nov 15, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			More the better from my POV, although Ed is doing that superbly.   Labour just needs to come out the closet and admit what it stands for instead of just rubbishing everyone else. IMO it really wants high taxes, high borrowing, high public spending, cowtowing to the EU and Unions.  If thats what they want why not stand on that platform.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish but even if true better than sinking the NHS, robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy, scapegoating foreigners for everything, cowtowing to big business and serving their non domiciled rich donors.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 15, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Rubbish but even if true better than sinking the NHS, robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy, scapegoating foreigners for everything, cowtowing to big business and serving their non domiciled rich donors.
		
Click to expand...

But still, enough about New Labour!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 15, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Rubbish but even if true better than sinking the NHS, robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy, scapegoating foreigners for everything, cowtowing to big business and serving their non domiciled rich donors.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree with you.  (The polite way)


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 15, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Rubbish but even if true better than sinking the NHS, robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy, scapegoating foreigners for everything, cowtowing to big business and serving their non domiciled rich donors.
		
Click to expand...

Ethan.

How about a discussion that debates the subject matter and does not attack the poster.   Using terms like 'rubbish', suggesting someone with a contrary view is of low intelligence or reads a particular news paper is not the way educated people should be making reasoned arguments.

Lets hear what you have to say and the reasoning behind your views but please allow others do the same. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall   "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			But still, enough about New Labour!
		
Click to expand...

I actually agree. New Labour sold their souls in a desperate attempt to get elected, and now the consequence is they have no credibility or more authority and will never succeed as a tory-life party.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 16, 2014)

Interesting that at the packed SNP Conference they now see themselves as taking over from Labour as the party of social inclusion.

Sturgeon gave a good speech, saying that if they hold the balance of power after the 2015 election they will never make a pact with the Tories, avoid a coalition, and press Labour to enter a pact to get rid of Trident in return for SNP support on other issues.

Amazing that the SNP membership is now bigger that the COMBINED memberships of UKIP and LibDems. Fast closing in on the Tories.
.....and still the BBC will deny them a voice at the 2015 election debates.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting that at the packed SNP Conference they now see themselves as taking over from Labour as the party of social inclusion.

Sturgeon gave a good speech, saying that if they hold the balance of power after the 2015 election they will never make a pact with the Tories, avoid a coalition, and press Labour to enter a pact to get rid of Trident in return for SNP support on other issues.

Amazing that the SNP membership is now bigger that the COMBINED memberships of UKIP and LibDems. Fast closing in on the Tories.
.....and still the BBC will deny them a voice at the 2015 election debates.
		
Click to expand...

The Scottish Independence campaign has been good for the SNP because it separated them from the others. 

They probably are basically like old Labour.

The problem with the current state of political discourse is that the big parties are all so much in bed with big business, banking, finance and non-domiciled newspaper proprietors, all the people who currently finance them and provide post-political directorships for them, that they can't point the finger of blame in the right direction and instead have to distract the feckless public with lurid stories of illegal immigrants and welfare scroungers. These are not the people who almost torpedoed the economy, but if the big parties go after the right people, they will sink themselves too.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			More the better from my POV, although Ed is doing that superbly.   Labour just needs to come out the closet and admit what it stands for instead of just rubbishing everyone else. IMO it really wants high taxes, high borrowing, high public spending, cowtowing to the EU and Unions.  If thats what they want why not stand on that platform.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			Ethan.

How about a discussion that debates the subject matter and does not attack the poster.   Using terms like 'rubbish', suggesting someone with a contrary view is of low intelligence or reads a particular news paper is not the way educated people should be making reasoned arguments.

Lets hear what you have to say and the reasoning behind your views but please allow others do the same. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall   "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish doesn't mean someone is of low intelligence, it means I strongly disagree with their statement. 

To start off, look at the economies of Scandinavian countries (including Denmark). They are, compared to the UK, high tax economies, but they also have high incomes, excellent public services and buoyant economies. The old cry of high tax, high spend isn't actually true of Labour, but even if it was, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. It all depends what the spend is used for. If it is used to fund lots of PFI payments, it is money wasted. If it is used for wise investment in infrastructure, better.

Anyway, the problem with New Labour is that they have moved too far away from the traditional positions. After Thatcher, Blair and his kind decided that they needed to distance themselves from the unions and show they were friendly to big business. They certainly achieved the latter, helping ease financial regulation to the extent that allowed the economic crash to land here too, and nearly brought down the world economy. They also pushed privatisation within the NHS and other public sector areas to the extent there are now crippling liabilities. 

The irony is that the great improvements in the economy and life in general were driven by improvements for the working man, and that was supported strongly by unions. The same working men (and women) do more for the economy than the rich. Ordinary people spend money which then circulates round in the economy (multiplier effect), whereas the rich non-doms silt off their untaxed money for offshore investments. Giving money, including welfare payments, to ordinary people does the economy more good than the absurd trickle-down economics. Labour would do well to remember where they came from, even if they can't get back there.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 16, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Sturgeon gave a good speech, saying that if they hold the balance of power after the 2015 election they will never make a pact with the Tories, avoid a coalition, and press Labour to enter a pact to get rid of Trident in return for SNP support on other issues.

.....and still the BBC will deny them a voice at the 2015 election debates.
		
Click to expand...

So policy for the UK as a whole is to be controlled by a party representing one very small part of the country, which, by the way, they don't wish to be part of.

You are always bleating about Scotland being under represented (despite having more MP's per capita than England) and yet you seem happy about this.

More double standards and hypocrisy!


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			So policy for the UK as a whole is to be controlled by a party representing one very small part of the country, which, by the way, they don't wish to be part of.

You are always bleating about Scotland being under represented (despite having more MP's per capita than England) and yet you seem happy about this.

More double standards and hypocrisy!
		
Click to expand...

Depending how the electoral results go, any of the small parties could be in a position of power - SNP, DUP, UKIP if they have a good election. Some are geographically fringe, some ideologically fringe, and in the DUP's case, both.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The irony is that the great improvements in the economy and life in general were driven by improvements for the working man, and that was supported strongly by unions. The same working men (and women) do more for the economy than the rich. Ordinary people spend money which then circulates round in the economy (multiplier effect), whereas the rich non-doms silt off their untaxed money for offshore investments. Giving money, including welfare payments, to ordinary people does the economy more good than the absurd trickle-down economics. Labour would do well to remember where they came from, even if they can't get back there.
		
Click to expand...

Were you around in the 1970's?

Irresponsible union leaders supporting local union organisers who had political agendas leading to the collapse of much of our manufacturing base.

I appreciate that for those on the Left Thatcher is a convenient scapegoat but in reality the destruction of industries such as mining, ship-building and automobiles arose from the ineffective Governments led by Wilson, Callaghan and yes Heath.

The job had been made easy for Thatcher and our post-war recovery had been blown, unlike Germany.

Unions have been a source of benefit for the working man and the economy in general but their (in)actions in the '60s & '70s undid a lot of that good work.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Were you around in the 1970's?

Irresponsible union leaders supporting local union organisers who had political agendas leading to the collapse of much of our manufacturing base.

I appreciate that for those on the Left Thatcher is a convenient scapegoat but in reality the destruction of industries such as mining, ship-building and automobiles arose from the ineffective Governments led by Wilson, Callaghan and yes Heath.

The job had been made easy for Thatcher and our post-war recovery had been blown, unlike Germany.

Unions have been a source of benefit for the working man and the economy in general but their (in)actions in the '60s & '70s undid a lot of that good work.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I was. Some of the union stuff was provoked by Thatcher and she had an ideological belief in their destruction. It really wasn't much to do with helping the economy. It also helped that most of the mines were in non-Tory voting areas. I agree that some of the unions were suckered into the trap Thatcher laid for them. 

Trade unions were powerful in post-war Germany, and still are.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Yes, I was. Some of the union stuff was provoked by Thatcher and she had an ideological belief in their destruction. It really wasn't much to do with helping the economy. It also helped that most of the mines were in non-Tory voting areas. I agree that some of the unions were suckered into the trap Thatcher laid for them. 

Trade unions were powerful in post-war Germany, and still are.
		
Click to expand...

Thatcher did not come to power until 1979 so I don't really think she was in a position prior to that to provoke or lay traps for the likes of Scargill or Red Robbo at British Leyland since much of the damage had already been done. 

Personally I found her idea that there was no such thing as society distasteful in the extreme but it is ridiculous to suggest that she was solely responsible for our industrial demise. It smacks of the Left not being prepared to acknowledge its own, or at least the unions, culpability.

Strong, responsible unions are vital for good labour relations but the example of Germany is misleading in that they had greater flexibility in negotiations by having, amongst other things, fewer unions and a lack of the old restrictive practices.

I accept that many of the old problems have been addressed by today's union leaders. My point is that the damage had been done 40 to 50 years ago.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 16, 2014)

@Ethan

The latest economic crisis was always going to hit UK - along with the rest of the (Western) world! Labour were exposed (both meanings of that word) because they were in power at the time.

PFI in UK was begun by the Conservatives. It can/should be a way of optimising risk and capital (both government and private) for major projects. There are examples where it has worked, and is working extremely well - from both sides points of views. The biggest issue/fault PFIs had was that they were 'off balance sheet', an area Gordon Brown was keen to exploit!

NHS is a bottomless pit for expenditure! However much improvement is made by throwing money at deserving areas, there will always be a demand to throw even more money at it. The 'queue-jumping' that is available to private clients - involving the same teams and facilities - clearly demonstrates that there is a funding need! I believe PFI is appropriate for building hospitals. Any creeping privatisation of NHS should be resisted, though, generally, medical/clinical staff should employed for medical/clinical work, not management ones so 'outsiders' should be encouraged to manage medical facilities.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 16, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			So policy for the UK as a whole is to be controlled by a party representing one very small part of the country, which, by the way, they don't wish to be part of.

You are always bleating about Scotland being under represented (despite having more MP's per capita than England) and yet you seem happy about this.

More double standards and hypocrisy!
		
Click to expand...

Boots on the other foot for a change.........not nice is it.

Read your first sentence again, How can a small party control, influence perhaps, not control.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 16, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Boots on the other foot for a change.........not nice is it.

Read your first sentence again, How can a small party control, influence perhaps, not control.
		
Click to expand...

So, as I thought, a complete hypocrite or do two wrongs make a right.

Having listened to Ms Sturgeon on last night's news programme she certainly did not appear to be someone likely to be satisfied with mere influence rather than control.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 16, 2014)

JCW said:



*It seems the are moves to get him out *, they are behind in the ratings so want a change . His image to the public is not at its highest at the moment and if you look back in history you will see a Michael Foot up against Mrs Thatcher , only ever going to be one winner as even if he was a good MP he did not appeal to the voters . since then there has always been and image thing and Tony Blair fitted that to the tee , I am not talking about policies just image . will there be a change if so who ? Do you think it matters at all , I think it does 

Click to expand...

do you, and the rest of the posters baying for his blood, realise that it's only a few newspapers and the BBC who have portrayed him this way- there is not one piece of tangible evidence from anyone prepared to go on record saying this (correct as of last night in case anythings popped up today)


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			@Ethan

The latest economic crisis was always going to hit UK - along with the rest of the (Western) world! Labour were exposed (both meanings of that word) because they were in power at the time.

PFI in UK was begun by the Conservatives. It can/should be a way of optimising risk and capital (both government and private) for major projects. There are examples where it has worked, and is working extremely well - from both sides points of views. The biggest issue/fault PFIs had was that they were 'off balance sheet', an area Gordon Brown was keen to exploit!

NHS is a bottomless pit for expenditure! However much improvement is made by throwing money at deserving areas, there will always be a demand to throw even more money at it. The 'queue-jumping' that is available to private clients - involving the same teams and facilities - clearly demonstrates that there is a funding need! I believe PFI is appropriate for building hospitals. Any creeping privatisation of NHS should be resisted, though, generally, medical/clinical staff should employed for medical/clinical work, not management ones so 'outsiders' should be encouraged to manage medical facilities.
		
Click to expand...

PFI was indeed begun by the Tories, but really took off in 1997 when New Labour wanted to prove they were pro-business and the city. Conceptually PFI might be OK, although that is questionable, but in practice the DH has negotiated NHS PFI deals so badly that they have turned out to be punitively expensive with famous examples such as the Â£100 light bulb and many terrible service contracts. Early PFI deals were immediately flipped for large profits and Trusts are going bust trying to service them.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 16, 2014)

Ethan said:



			PFI was indeed begun by the Tories, but really took off in 1997 when New Labour wanted to prove they were pro-business and the city. Conceptually PFI might be OK, although that is questionable, *but in practice the DH has negotiated NHS PFI deals so badly that they have turned out to be punitively expensive with famous examples such as the Â£100 light bulb and many terrible service contracts.* Early PFI deals were immediately flipped for large profits and Trusts are going bust trying to service them.
		
Click to expand...

That's the REAL problem with them! It's not the initial contract, though typically the cost of inevitable changes is exorbitant - I believe some sort of contingency for minor changes should be included in the contract, returning to government if not used (that never happens, but it does mean that the 'finished' project is more likely to be fit for purpose). Unjustified charges should mean that the contractor gets hit even more-so! And while I posted 'PFI fine for Capital Works', I merely implied my view that it is an extremely  poor vehicle for Service type activities! It was only Broon's enthusiasm for 'off Book' expenditure that made it popular imo!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ethan said:



			PFI was indeed begun by the Tories, but really took off in 1997 when New Labour wanted to prove they were pro-business and the city. Conceptually PFI might be OK, although that is questionable, but in practice the DH has negotiated NHS PFI deals so badly that they have turned out to be punitively expensive with famous examples such as the Â£100 light bulb and many terrible service contracts. Early PFI deals were immediately flipped for large profits and Trusts are going bust trying to service them.
		
Click to expand...

But surely that is the fault of NHS management rather than the concept and those same managers are likely to make a mess of funding resources from wherever it arises.

Obviously it is not scientific research but over the last 15 years I have seen the insides of hospitals as an in and outpatient as well as visiting family rather more than I would like. The one constant observation is that whilst there may on occasions have been a shortage of medical staff there always seems to be plenty of clip-board carrying admin staff and managers.

Similarly the number of staff attending meetings and conferences in London seems designed to keep the rail companies in business.

A first class public medical service that the professionals wish to deliver requires much better management from the Minister right down to local level. I don't think this is currently the case.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 16, 2014)

Current funding of services like the NHS are unsustainable and driving the National Debt to levels where the interest payments are larger than defence spending. 

Some suggest that Governments need to consider what their role should be.  Should they try to provide services that can be provided adequately by the private sector at lower costs with similar or even better results.   Canada went through such a process and emerged very well from it.

I know many will think such a policy unimaginable but when needs must we should consider all possibilities, the country going bankrupt being one of them.

Whichever group form a Government next year they will be faced with cutting expenditure to an extent we have not seen yet.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 16, 2014)

Strange how people now think that you could not put a fag paper between labour and the Torys.

me dad said that during the first few weeks of the miners strike in 1984, how I laughed. Not quite sure when it was I stopped laughing at the realisation he was right.

re ed and the Labour Party. Yawn. He just comes across as having no personality what so ever, and he's not the only one.

. Open question coz I don't know the answer. Why was ed voted as leader of the party and not his brother. 

What i do know is that with Blair now knocking about on the fringes it is doing Labour no good whatsoever. People have still not forgot his legacy.
 Problem is as well whilst taking about legacys, is that whether people want to talk about immigration or not. It is a massive issue to a lot of people and the same people see labour as the main instigators of it, so how can they be believed when it comes to trying to rectify it. It could also be said that the Torys have not exactly pulled there fingers out, but at least they are finally putting out some kind of response. An interesting political 7 months me finks.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 16, 2014)

Re funding of the NHS, having spoken to Missis tash, getting rid of a lot of management and making them more accountable for a start would help.

accountability of purchasing overpriced equipment and drugs.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 17, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			. Open question coz I don't know the answer. Why was ed voted as leader of the party and not his brother. 

What i do know is that with Blair now knocking about on the fringes it is doing Labour no good whatsoever. People have still not forgot his legacy.
 Problem is as well whilst taking about legacys, is that whether people want to talk about immigration or not. It is a massive issue to a lot of people and the same people see labour as the main instigators of it, so how can they be believed when it comes to trying to rectify it. It could also be said that the Torys have not exactly pulled there fingers out, but at least they are finally putting out some kind of response. An interesting political 7 months me finks.
		
Click to expand...

I think it was with Union support, the same people who gave us Foot and Kinnock.

They finally got it right with John Smith who sadly died far too young. If ever a man was missed it was him.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 17, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			Re funding of the NHS, having spoken to Missis tash, getting rid of a lot of management and *making them more accountable* for a start would help.

accountability of purchasing overpriced equipment and drugs.
		
Click to expand...

The problem/challenge I see with this is that it has to be 'target based' which really doesn't work properly in an organisation like a Hospital, except in specific areas. 

Supposedly 'overpriced' equipment may fulfill a serious need - and both need and usage can be measured. Drug cost/benefit value is actually undertaken by NICE.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 17, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			The problem/challenge I see with this is that it has to be 'target based' which really doesn't work properly in an organisation like a Hospital, except in specific areas. 

Supposedly 'overpriced' equipment may fulfill a serious need - and both need and usage can be measured. Drug cost/benefit value is actually undertaken by NICE.
		
Click to expand...

NICE is just a pseudo-scientific veneer for crude rationing decisions. Their methodology revolves all around the assumptions (or prejudices) of the health economists commissioned by NICE. The NICE process also does not take into account other systems for capping the medicines budget like the PPRS, which limits how much companies can take in the UK.

Anyway, the issue with the NHS is political. Politicians who set up the ludicrous Trust system which have pretended to give local accountability but instead has massively increased bureaucracy, corporate structures and transaction costs as well as political targets such as the 2 week wait for cancer diagnoses, the 4 hour A&E waiting time and many others. These sound reasonable things to do, but they distort the system and lots of parts of the NHS game them. The same politicians also raise expectations among the public at the same time as they show their contempt for the people who work in the NHS. That is a bad combination. One would almost think they are trying to force a crisis for which the best solution is entry of private companies to take over Trusts and staff contracts.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 17, 2014)

Ethan said:



			NICE is just a pseudo-scientific veneer for crude rationing decisions. Their methodology revolves all around the assumptions (or prejudices) of the health economists commissioned by NICE. The NICE process also does not take into account other systems for capping the medicines budget like the PPRS, which limits how much companies can take in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you are correct - and you are certainly better placed than I am to know! But my point was that that the cost of drugs wasn't something that individual NHS units needed to be specifically accountable for - though 'excessive' use of expensive drugs might be something to be justified.



Ethan said:



			Anyway, the issue with the NHS is political. Politicians who set up the ludicrous Trust system which have pretended to give local accountability but instead has massively increased bureaucracy, corporate structures and transaction costs as well as political targets such as the 2 week wait for cancer diagnoses, the 4 hour A&E waiting time and many others. These sound reasonable things to do, but they distort the system and lots of parts of the NHS game them. The same politicians also raise expectations among the public at the same time as they show their contempt for the people who work in the NHS. That is a bad combination. One would almost think they are trying to force a crisis for which the best solution is entry of private companies to take over Trusts and staff contracts.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much totally agree! Nice intentions, maybe, but doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. Where PFI was/is meant to combine the best aspects of Public/Private combination, Trusts (and any service/non-project activity) can easily combine the 'worst' aspects of them!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 17, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Anyway, the issue with the NHS is political.
		
Click to expand...


No, the issue with the NHS is financial.

Insatiable demand which all Governments have attempted to satisfy with limited supply.

It is not a criticism of the NHS but the difficulties arise as a result of continuous developments in treatments and drugs making it possible to treat conditions that were previously untreatable, also improved lifestyles have led to an ageing population also making demands upon the service.

Three largest Government budgets are, I believe, Health, Welfare and Education. If we are to spend significantly more on Health which of the others do we cut? That is when it becomes political.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 17, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			No, the issue with the NHS is financial.

Insatiable demand which all Governments have attempted to satisfy with limited supply.

It is not a criticism of the NHS but the difficulties arise as a result of continuous developments in treatments and drugs making it possible to treat conditions that were previously untreatable, also improved lifestyles have led to an ageing population also making demands upon the service.

Three largest Government budgets are, I believe, Health, Welfare and Education. If we are to spend significantly more on Health which of the others do we cut? That is when it becomes political.
		
Click to expand...

The NHS has traditionally been a supply based system - there were so many hospitals, GPs etc and queues determined by priority filtered the cases. Demographics have resulted in an ageing population, but also one which is, on the average, healthier than before. Inflation has occurred in terms of the scope and cost of treatment, and all of these have an effect on the service needs. 

But the biggest changes have been through increased expectations, and those are fuelled by politics. Many of the targets and barmy initiatives that currently bog down the NHS are political. I used to be a public health doctor (working in a Health Authority) and these would come across our desks all the time. 

People often say demand is insatiable and a bottomless pit. Perhaps in some ways that is true, but it was kept in check for years by gatekeeping in general practice, and limited but adequate supply in secondary care. Now we have a pseudo-market model, that has gone out the window. The NHS has plenty of money but much of it is wasted before it gets to healthcare. On a small scale, that kid who went to Prague for proton-beam therapy is a waste of money, homeopathy hospitals funded by the NHS are a complete waste, much of the apparatus of Trusts and almost all the management consultants are a waste of money, worse still, they generate stuff which wastes other peoples time as well. 

Health is a huge drain on every civilised economy. The US spends more than twice (in $) or almost twice ( in terms of % of GDP) as the UK, yet health outcomes are worse overall. The NHS is still pretty efficient overall, but if we stripped it back to a more directly managed service and abandoned a lot of the political fluff, it would be better value still.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 17, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The NHS has traditionally been a supply based system - there were so many hospitals, GPs etc and queues determined by priority filtered the cases. Demographics have resulted in an ageing population, but also one which is, on the average, healthier than before. Inflation has occurred in terms of the scope and cost of treatment, and all of these have an effect on the service needs. 

But the biggest changes have been through increased expectations, and those are fuelled by politics. Many of the targets and barmy initiatives that currently bog down the NHS are political. I used to be a public health doctor (working in a Health Authority) and these would come across our desks all the time. 

People often say demand is insatiable and a bottomless pit. Perhaps in some ways that is true, but it was kept in check for years by gatekeeping in general practice, and limited but adequate supply in secondary care. Now we have a pseudo-market model, that has gone out the window. The NHS has plenty of money but much of it is wasted before it gets to healthcare. On a small scale, that kid who went to Prague for proton-beam therapy is a waste of money, homeopathy hospitals funded by the NHS are a complete waste, much of the apparatus of Trusts and almost all the management consultants are a waste of money, worse still, they generate stuff which wastes other peoples time as well. 

Health is a huge drain on every civilised economy. The US spends more than twice (in $) or almost twice ( in terms of % of GDP) as the UK, yet health outcomes are worse overall. The NHS is still pretty efficient overall, but if we stripped it back to a more directly managed service and abandoned a lot of the political fluff, it would be better value still.
		
Click to expand...

Very interesting since you are clearly well informed by experience.

From your comments the question that arises is which political party, if any, would be prepared to put the genie back in the bottle by managing the public demand and expectations. 

The seemingly insatiable demand for resources maybe a problem of a "better informed" society who, via the media etc; hear of various new treatments and therapies which they then, perhaps understandably, expect to be available to them or their families.

One only had to look at the recent case in Southampton where the medical professionals were vilified by some as they were considered to be denying a young boy life saving treatment. Truly a PR nightmare.

So, as I say, which of our politicians is prepared to explain the facts to the electorate?


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 17, 2014)

Missis tashyboys role in the in NHS is as a urology outreach nurse. The GPs love her coz she's saves them loads of money, the trust love her coz she makes them tons of money. The patients love her coz they get treated in there own homes and do not spend half a day travelling to and from hospital waiting hours for 30 mins treatment/care. In some cases they cannot get to hospital with out the added cost of expensive transport. Everybody is in a win win win situation.

yet this is where we start to fall out. If it is so fantastic and everyone tells me who is associated with this department that it is, why is it not used as a template for other trusts to use.

she tells me it is the same with GPs surgerys some are fantastic, and the next village along they are well rubbish. How can we get it so wrong within such a small area. Why are the better performing GP surgerys not used as a template for failing surgerys.

fortunately Missis tash says our surgery is one of the best she deals with.:swing:


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 17, 2014)

I think that ignoring the growing population as a reason for the NHS being under pressure is avoiding the 'Elephant in the room' Our population has increased by almost 10 million people in a relatively short period and continues to increase at a rate that just has to create pressure on services.   We do indeed have an ageing population due to increased post WW2 birth rates but as our population increases at the current level, not only through immigration but high birth rates these people will age and add significantly to the problem.

If I take my local GP group surgery for example: Not long ago it was possible to walk in and see a Doctor within the hour, it is now almost impossible to arrange a future appointment,  you are asked to ring in at 8:am to arrange an appointment that day.  My experience of this is its pot luck, you ring and just get an engaged tone as everyone is trying to do the same.    No wonder people turn up at A&E with minor ailments.   Why has this happened, there is actually one more Doctor in the practice, is it due to the NHS barmy initiatives and structures or just overload! 

This problem is also there in our schools and demand for housing so whats the answer?   Voting in a Labour government, borrowing more money, sacking bureaucrats, pumping up the population further or blaming the Daily Mail!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2014)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-bombshell-ed-milliband-shows-4646014

Wow.
When the Mori poll came out a month ago predicting 40 SNP seats the company thought they had made a mucking fuddle and re-ran it.

This lot are predicting up to 52 SNP seats, quite amazing.
2% of those who responded 'trusted' Milliband.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 18, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I think that ignoring the growing population as a reason for the NHS being under pressure is avoiding the 'Elephant in the room' Our population has increased by almost 10 million people in a relatively short period and continues to increase at a rate that just has to create pressure on services.   We do indeed have an ageing population due to increased post WW2 birth rates but as our population increases at the current level, not only through immigration but high birth rates these people will age and add significantly to the problem.

If I take my local GP group surgery for example: Not long ago it was possible to walk in and see a Doctor within the hour, it is now almost impossible to arrange a future appointment,  you are asked to ring in at 8:am to arrange an appointment that day.  My experience of this is its pot luck, you ring and just get an engaged tone as everyone is trying to do the same.    No wonder people turn up at A&E with minor ailments.   Why has this happened, there is actually one more Doctor in the practice, is it due to the NHS barmy initiatives and structures or just overload! 

This problem is also there in our schools and demand for housing so whats the answer?   Voting in a Labour government, borrowing more money, sacking bureaucrats, pumping up the population further or blaming the Daily Mail!
		
Click to expand...

The issue of growing population is not a problem per se so long as the tax base increases proportionally, and keeps it in balance. The NHS is funded out of public taxation, so more people paying more tax provides more funding. The ageing of the population is a problem, as, despite being generally healthier for their age than people used to be, older people still consume more healthcare. You are wrong on the demographics - immigrants of working age and with young families actually help balance that shifting age demographic, and many will return to their original countries before getting to that point of high consumption. As an aside, health tourism is such a small issue as to be essentially inconsequential. 

HM Govt have created this problem of pressure on GP appointments by loading GPs up with all sorts of rubbish to do, as well as increasing expectations of patients. Most of the GPs I know (and I know quite a few) would quit if they could. The number of medical students opting for GP is dropping like a stone. 

Did you hear David Cameron say that one of the effects of creating weekend GP appointments will be to lose the same number during the week? No, nor did I.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 19, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The issue of growing population is not a problem per se so long as the tax base increases proportionally, and keeps it in balance. The NHS is funded out of public taxation, so more people paying more tax provides more funding. The ageing of the population is a problem, as, despite being generally healthier for their age than people used to be, older people still consume more healthcare. You are wrong on the demographics - immigrants of working age and with young families actually help balance that shifting age demographic, and many will return to their original countries before getting to that point of high consumption. As an aside, health tourism is such a small issue as to be essentially inconsequential. 

HM Govt have created this problem of pressure on GP appointments by loading GPs up with all sorts of rubbish to do, as well as increasing expectations of patients. Most of the GPs I know (and I know quite a few) would quit if they could. The number of medical students opting for GP is dropping like a stone. 

Did you hear David Cameron say that one of the effects of creating weekend GP appointments will be to lose the same number during the week? No, nor did I.
		
Click to expand...

Its not that simple.   many immigrants are low paid so pay little tax and often their benefits like working tax  credits, child tax credits, family allowance and housing allowance can total more than their wages.   Also the lazy British people who wont do these low paid jobs have to be taken into account.       

In the area I live there are a great deal of Eastern Europeans and I notice lately that there are also a number of older ones, I can only guess they can also claim housing allowance and pension credit.   I still cant accept that its reasonable for this country to absorb 250,000 additional people each year, I cant even contemplate what that number looks like.   I live in a medium size town of 30,000 souls, so the equivalent of eight times that number net arrive here


----------



## Ethan (Nov 19, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Its not that simple.   many immigrants are low paid so pay little tax and often their benefits like working tax  credits, child tax credits, family allowance and housing allowance can total more than their wages.   Also the lazy British people who wont do these low paid jobs have to be taken into account.       

In the area I live there are a great deal of Eastern Europeans and I notice lately that there are also a number of older ones, I can only guess they can also claim housing allowance and pension credit.   I still cant accept that its reasonable for this country to absorb 250,000 additional people each year, I cant even contemplate what that number looks like.   I live in a medium size town of 30,000 souls, so the equivalent of eight times that number net arrive here 

Click to expand...

It is that simple really. The equation is tax receipts and other positive effects on the economy versus cost of healthcare and other payments, or put another way, people contributing versus people consuming. No doubt there are some low earners and older people among immigrants, but there are also a lot of people earning decent wages who are not consuming much healthcare or drawing benefits, and they are often doing a job that the feckless local patriots need done but won't do themselves. The idea that there are hordes of immigrants just here to get benefits is simply untrue. Check the recent UCL report on the net effect of immigration. 

The country can easily accept a lot more than 250,000 more people. OK, perhaps not all of them should go to your town.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 19, 2014)

Ethan said:



			...Check the recent UCL report on the net effect of immigration.
		
Click to expand...

A Classic pair of Newspaper headlines about that report...

The Telegraph: "Immigration from outside Europe 'cost Â£120 billion' "

The Guardian: "UK gains Â£20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal"


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 19, 2014)

Ethan said:



			It is that simple really. The equation is tax receipts and other positive effects on the economy versus cost of healthcare and other payments, or put another way, people contributing versus people consuming. No doubt there are some low earners and older people among immigrants, but there are also a lot of people earning decent wages who are not consuming much healthcare or drawing benefits, and they are often doing a job that the feckless local patriots need done but won't do themselves. The idea that there are hordes of immigrants just here to get benefits is simply untrue. Check the recent UCL report on the net effect of immigration. 

The country can easily accept a lot more than 250,000 more people. *OK, perhaps not all of them should go to your town.*

Click to expand...

Another cheap dig rather than stick to the subject.


The UCL report.  That would be from the same person that said we would only get 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe each year.   The report was also flawed as it never dialled in the cost of keeping current British people on the dole rather than doing these jobs but you seem to ignore my point that we don't have the infrastructure to support this current increase in population.

Regarding the country being able to absorb these numbers, is that a personal opinion or something you can justify?

See! It's easy to debate a subject without silly comments!


----------



## delc (Nov 19, 2014)

Getting back to the subject. I have no problems with Ed Milliband. With him as leader of the Labour Party, they have no chance of getting elected at the next election, which suits me just fine. I am old enough to have lived through three Labour Governments and they have all been disasters as far as the UK economy is concerned. Even the Monster Raving Loony Party would probably do a better job!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2014)

He's got something else to think about this morning.  Although!  maybe it's just all those stupid people and protestors again!


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 21, 2014)

delc said:



			Getting back to the subject. I have no problems with Ed Milliband. With him as leader of the Labour Party, they have no chance of getting elected at the next election, which suits me just fine. I am old enough to have lived through three Labour Governments and they have all been disasters as far as the UK economy is concerned. Even the Monster Raving Loony Party would probably do a better job!
		
Click to expand...

delc having said that (and I agree with you) are the tories the answer ? Tory/ lib dem coalition? Labour ? Labour/ UKIP coalition?. At this moment in time I don't think that joe Public has much of a standout choice with any of them


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			delc having said that (and I agree with you) are the tories the answer ? Tory/ lib dem coalition? Labour ? Labour/ UKIP coalition?. At this moment in time I don't think that joe Public has much of a standout choice with any of them
		
Click to expand...

It may well be more of a Tory/UKIP coalition as IMO UKIP will have very little in common with Labour.

In saying this the general election may well turn out to be an ugliest baby competition with a result that no one will like.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 21, 2014)

Emily thornburys comments re house in Rochester may well be the equivalent of Gordon Browns Ill timed comments of a few years ago which was the final nail in the coffin re labours attempts to govern then and now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			He's got something else to think about this morning.  Although!  maybe it's just all those stupid people and protestors again! 

Click to expand...

Still another deflected MP though isn't it 

When they have a true elected MP of their own people might stand up and take notice


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 21, 2014)

Emily Thornbury sums up the current Labour party perfectly, and shines a light on why so many folk in England feel the need to vote for the likes of UKIP.The Labour party has abandoned working class folk for the liberal elite who pervade coffee shops and private schooling within the M25.

As for her proclamations she was raised in a council estate...really? Her dad was a professor at Kings College who went onto be deputy sec general at the UN! Not sure she lived in a council estate as anyone on here would know.

SNP/UKIP are going to set off a political bomb next May like we've never seen before.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Still another deflected MP though isn't it 

When they have a true elected MP of their own people might stand up and take notice
		
Click to expand...

Could be too late by then.

I am reasonably certain that whilst the level of support for UKIP at the forthcoming General Election will be less than at the last three By-elections it will remain strong enough for them to secure seats currently held by each of the two major national parties.

Couple that with the potential for significant gains in Scotland by the SNP at the expense of Labour and the outcome is looking, as my old Dad might have said, "like a right bugger's muddle".

It continues to surprise me that many within the Labour Party continue to see UKIP as solely a problem for the Conservatives when the figures in Clacton, Rochester and Middleton clearly suggest otherwise.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 21, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			It continues to surprise me that many within the Labour Party continue to see UKIP as solely a problem for the Conservatives when the figures in Clacton, Rochester and Middleton clearly suggest otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

UKIP are prospering to the detriment of Labour/LibDems.

Libdem voters moving to Tory
Tory/Labour moving to UKIP
No one moving to Labour/Libdem

A combination of being out of touch with their roots as a party and having a seriously unelectable leader will be the end of Labour I think.The SNP will crush them in Scotland and tory/ukip will crush them in England.I have no clue if anyone in Wales votes or just gets told what to do.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Could be too late by then.

I am reasonably certain that whilst the level of support for UKIP at the forthcoming General Election will be less than at the last three By-elections it will remain strong enough for them to secure seats currently held by each of the two major national parties.

Couple that with the potential for significant gains in Scotland by the SNP at the expense of Labour and the outcome is looking, as my old Dad might have said, "like a right bugger's muddle".

It continues to surprise me that many within the Labour Party continue to see UKIP as solely a problem for the Conservatives when the figures in Clacton, Rochester and Middleton clearly suggest otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

I still believe that when it comes to the crunch and come the General election people will vote the same as they normally do 

I do not expect anything from UKIP in England unless they actually show some solid consistent policies which actually have some substance and something more than just "anti EU " 

Certainly a few bloody noses at the moment but can't see anything more than that

Also to dismiss labour in Scotland especially after the Independent vote would be a bit foolish right now - maybe with Salmond there but not with Sturgeon 

One thing I do believe will also happen - a very low turnout again


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 21, 2014)

Hard-Core Labour areas would vote Labour even if a Golf Ball was the Party Leader!

(New) Labour has to differentiate itself from the other Parties sufficiently to make gains. I don't believe that's going to happen (Thornbury's disaster demonstrates how similar the candidates, if perhaps not the Party, really are!) and it looks like they'll lose seats in Scotland - due to the 'classic Scottish problem' of fighting amongst themselves! Much as I detest the guy, Broon as Leader of Labour Scotland would make a lot of sense - at least for the General Election! 

Conservatives need to jump on UKIP being a 'single aim, single spokesman' Party and demonstrate that many of their statements are just appealing to prejudice rather than logic. Too little has been made of the confirmation that Benefits don't need to be paid to EU economic migrants - they need to be self sufficient - for example. They also need to demonstrate that what they said they'd do - reduce the deficit - they actually achieved! For all the pain of their 'austerity measures' the deficit continues to increase! Though it's not as bad as France or Germany's and nowhere near as bad as Italy's or Greece's!

Lib-Dems will lose seats too imo, as they haven't demonstrated that they have really influenced Government sufficiently. Again, that's a PR issue rather than a 'reality' one!

It's going to be another 'Presidential' style election though, something I really don't like!


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 21, 2014)

Btw. Just seen Dennis Skinner's 'Welcome' to Reckless (and Carswell) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

Excellent old-style stuff! :rofl:


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I still believe that when it comes to the crunch and come the General election people will vote the same as they normally do 

I do not expect anything from UKIP in England unless they actually show some solid consistent policies which actually have some substance and something more than just "anti EU " 

Certainly a few bloody noses at the moment but can't see anything more than that

Also to dismiss labour in Scotland especially after the Independent vote would be a bit foolish right now - maybe with Salmond there but not with Sturgeon 

One thing I do believe will also happen - a very low turnout again
		
Click to expand...

From what I have read it seems that Ms Sturgeon may have a broader appeal in Scotland than Salmond. I can certainly seeSNP gaining as many as 20 seats at the expense of Labour.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			From what I have read it seems that Ms Sturgeon may have a broader appeal in Scotland than Salmond. I can certainly seeSNP gaining as many as 20 seats at the expense of Labour.
		
Click to expand...

She has just won the Politician of the year Award in Scotland and picked a pretty impressive cabinet, sorted out a few of Salmond's underachievers. 

The way the wind is blowing I can see Milliband as PM and Salmond as Deputy PM after the 2015 election.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 21, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			She has just won the *Politician of the year Award* in Scotland and picked a pretty impressive cabinet, sorted out a few of Salmond's underachievers. 

...
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's something to be proud of! Sort of equivalent to 'Best Reality TV....<anything>' or 'Best Jeremy Kyle Fight' (he's a very nice guy 'in the flesh' and a pretty good golfer - once he warms up!)!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Still another deflected MP though isn't it 

When they have a true elected MP of their own people might stand up and take notice
		
Click to expand...

I think ignoring the rising swell of people that are unhappy with the demographic/cultural/political changes that have been made without their agreement is political Hari Kari for any party.    What ever anyone says about UKIP they are a focus for this discontentment.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I'm not sure that's something to be proud of!
		
Click to expand...

I would think that with the massive political engagement of the Scottish public this year it makes it something to be very proud of.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 21, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			She has just won the Politician of the year Award in Scotland and picked a pretty impressive cabinet, sorted out a few of Salmond's underachievers. 

The way the wind is blowing I can see Milliband as PM and Salmond as Deputy PM after the 2015 election.
		
Click to expand...

Questionable whether Labour will win enough seats in England and if they fail to hold onto their Scottish majority Messrs Milliband and Salmond could be sat on the left of Mr Speaker looking across the Dispatch Box at ?????????????????


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Questionable whether Labour will win enough seats in England and if they fail to hold onto their Scottish majority Messrs Milliband and Salmond could be sat on the left of Mr Speaker looking across the Dispatch Box at ?????????????????
		
Click to expand...

I think UKIP gains from the Tories in England will cancel out the SNP/ ex labour seats.
With the Lib/Dems gone it will boil down to a straight fight between Labour and Tory in England and Wales.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 21, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Questionable whether Labour will win enough seats in England and if they fail to hold onto their Scottish majority Messrs Milliband and Salmond could be sat on the left of Mr Speaker *looking across the Dispatch Box at ?????????????????*

Click to expand...

The winners of the ugly baby competition!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 21, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think UKIP gains from the Tories in England will cancel out the SNP/ ex labour seats.
With the Lib/Dems gone it will boil down to a straight fight between Labour and Tory in England and Wales.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, hence my original post. 

In any event I would foresee SNP support in Scotland holding up better than UKIP support in England and it is clear that KIP's support will come from both previous Labour and Tory voters.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 21, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Btw. Just seen Dennis Skinner's 'Welcome' to Reckless (and Carswell) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

Excellent old-style stuff! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

And as usual with the foolish idiot ...... a complete falsification of UKIP's argument! But Dennis, like most politicians aren't going to let the truth get in the way!


----------



## c1973 (Nov 21, 2014)

Politician of the year 'award', if they can't see what's wrong with that then they are not fit to hold office. 


Sturgeon picks a cabinet with a 50/50 split male/female....cos weer aw aboot equality in the ess enn pee......but has a minister for women and not one for men??  Is she even aware of the irony? 

What happened to getting there on merit?  How shameful must it feel to know you only got the job because you're a woman? 
As much as I fully support equality, I find this act both shameful and offensive.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 21, 2014)

chrisd said:



			And as usual with the foolish idiot ...... a complete falsification of UKIP's argument! But Dennis, like most politicians aren't going to let the truth get in the way!
		
Click to expand...

True enough! 

A nice vitriolic soapbox rant though! :thup:

The job, his bypass, probably had to be done by 'foreigners' as any locals who knew him were probably more likely to forsake their Hippocratic Oath and sabotage it! :rofl:


----------



## chrisd (Nov 21, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			True enough! 

A nice vitriolic soapbox rant though! :thup:

The job, his bypass, probably had to be done by 'foreigners' as any locals who knew him were probably more likely to forsake their Hippocratic Oath and sabotage it! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they should have bypassed his big gob!


----------



## delc (Nov 21, 2014)

I notice that the Labour Party are now trying to distance themselves from the immigration policies of their last administration, when almost anybody was allowed in, by claiming to be even tougher on immigrants than the other parties. For example no benefits for the first 2 years.  One has to wonder how much of this is political rhetoric, and why they didn't do this before while they had the chance?  What is really worrying is that we seem to have let in a load of Islamic Fundamentalists who are intent on destroying our way of life and culture! :mmm:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

delc said:



			I notice that the Labour Party are now trying to distance themselves from the immigration policies of their last administration, when almost anybody was allowed in, by claiming to be even tougher on immigrants than the other parties. For example no benefits for the first 2 years.  One has to wonder how much of this is political rhetoric, and why they didn't do this before while they had the chance?  *What is really worrying is that we seem to have let in a load of Islamic Fundamentalists who are intent on destroying our way of life and culture!* :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Can you please provide some basis and proof for this statement


----------



## delc (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can you please provide some basis and proof for this statement
		
Click to expand...

Do you ever actually read newspapers or watch the TV news Phil?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

delc said:



			Do you ever actually read newspapers or watch the TV news Phil?
		
Click to expand...

That didnt answer the question - pleas provide basis that we have allowed "loads of Islamic Fundamentalists" into the country


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2014)

It does appear to be the case that many of the UK Islamic Fundamentalists we have 'Let In' are second and third generation English.


----------



## delc (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That didnt answer the question - pleas provide basis that we have allowed "loads of Islamic Fundamentalists" into the country
		
Click to expand...

We have taken in a lot of refugees from Iraq and other Middle Eastern Countries, who have Islamic sympathies. Do I have to mention those who have gone off to fight for ISIS and other terrorist groups, the beheading of British journalists and aid workers, and the murder of British servicemen?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

delc said:



			We have taken in a lot of refugees from Iraq and other Middle Eastern Countries, who have Islamic sympathies.
		
Click to expand...

That doesnt automatically means they are extremists just because they have Islamic sympathies




			Do I have to mention those who have gone off to fight for ISIS,
		
Click to expand...

With a lot of them being born in this country as opposed to "being let in"



			the beheading of British journalists and aid workers, and the murder of British servicemen? 

Click to expand...

Where the two people that attacked and killed Lee Rigby not born in this country also ?


----------



## delc (Nov 21, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That doesnt automatically means they are extremists just because they have Islamic sympathies



With a lot of them being born in this country as opposed to "being let in"


Where the two people that attacked and killed Lee Rigby not born in this country also ?
		
Click to expand...

But not born and bred ethnic Christian Brits!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 21, 2014)

delc said:





But not born and bred ethnic Christian Brits!
		
Click to expand...

Again that doesnt make them all Islamic Fundamentalists - so please provide your proof that we have let "loads of them in"


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 21, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Btw. Just seen Dennis Skinner's 'Welcome' to Reckless (and Carswell) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

Excellent old-style stuff! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

saw it before I went to work and it was fantastic. However Denis my son you missed the point by a million miles. No one should disagree with what you said. It is what you did not say that people have issue with. Eg, 1 in 60 people that are polish now live in this country. They are not all Drs, surgeons, anethatists, physics etc etc etc. most of them are doing non skilled jobs, which non skilled UK citizens should be doin. there in lies the problem in which have driven people to look at UKIP for example.


----------



## delc (Nov 22, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again that doesnt make them all Islamic Fundamentalists - so please provide your proof that we have let "loads of them in"
		
Click to expand...

Of course all Muslims are not Jihadists, but unfortunately a significant number of them are. We seem to have invited vipers to live in our nest! :angry:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 22, 2014)

delc said:



			Of course all Muslims are not Jihadists, but unfortunately a significant number of them are. We seem to have invited vipers to live in our nest! :angry:
		
Click to expand...


Delc - again you will need to provide evidence to back up this statements you keep posting in regards immigrants and Muslims - it is very close to being very offensive


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 22, 2014)

delc said:



			Of course all Muslims are not Jihadists, but unfortunately *a significant number of them are*. We seem to have invited vipers to live in our nest! :angry:
		
Click to expand...

Totally ridiculous! And indeed quite offensive! Right up (down) there with the all time daftest DelC posts! 

What's your definition of 'significant number'! How does that compare with other serious criminals - murderers, rapists, peadophiles and golf cheats?

And how many of them were not born here?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 22, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Another cheap dig rather than stick to the subject.


The UCL report.  That would be from the same person that said we would only get 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe each year.   The report was also flawed as it never dialled in the cost of keeping current British people on the dole rather than doing these jobs but you seem to ignore my point that we don't have the infrastructure to support this current increase in population.

Regarding the country being able to absorb these numbers, is that a personal opinion or something you can justify?

See! It's easy to debate a subject without silly comments!
		
Click to expand...

It isn't a cheap dig. It is a retort against a silly comment. People use this image of the potential number of migrants and whether they would fit in your town, the local football stadium, your front room or whatever as a way of making it all look dreadful and frightening. 

UKIP go one step further saying that 400 million, or whatever, can now come to the UK. Perhaps, but 400 million can also go to Albania, but neither one is likely to happen. 

The fact is that the UK is not full, or nearly full. OK, it is imbalanced in that parts of the south east are pretty full, but other parts of the country that could use an influx of young people of working age are far from full, in some cases desparate for people. Incentives can be put in place to attract people there. Infrastructure is actually pretty flexible and the economy will benefit from a rebalance of young working age vs older retired.


----------



## Rumpokid (Nov 22, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Btw. Just seen Dennis Skinner's 'Welcome' to Reckless (and Carswell) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

Excellent old-style stuff! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

It is time Skinner was put out to grass..Being an ex coalminer from his constituency, i know enough of him to say he is losing/lost the plot...Him and wedgy Ben did nothing for my town....Put a john lewis penguin up with a red tie on, and he would get voted in, in Skinnerland.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 22, 2014)

Ethan said:



			It isn't a cheap dig. It is a retort against a silly comment. People use this image of the potential number of migrants and whether they would fit in your town, the local football stadium, your front room or whatever as a way of making it all look dreadful and frightening. 

UKIP go one step further saying that 400 million, or whatever, can now come to the UK. Perhaps, but 400 million can also go to Albania, but neither one is likely to happen. 

The fact is that the UK is not full, or nearly full. OK, it is imbalanced in that parts of the south east are pretty full, but other parts of the country that could use an influx of young people of working age are far from full, in some cases desparate for people. Incentives can be put in place to attract people there. Infrastructure is actually pretty flexible and the economy will benefit from a rebalance of young working age vs older retired.
		
Click to expand...

If it wasn't cheap it was ignorant.    If you made an attempt to read and understand my post I never suggested what they would look like if they all came to my town.   My point was that when we see numbers like 250,000 people I cant imagine what thats like other than as a multiple of the town I live in.   

Maybe it's time to start settling more of these people  in places like leafy Berkshire villages where the comfortably well off live in harmonious ignorance.   Knock a few low cost housing estates over some of the snooty members Golf clubs in the South East where many middle class, liberal elite, green warriors hypothesise over the way the great unwashed never had it so good.  Or is that being silly!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The fact is that the UK is not full, or nearly full. OK, it is imbalanced in that parts of the south east are pretty full, but other parts of the country that could use an influx of young people of working age are far from full, in some cases desparate for people. Incentives can be put in place to attract people there. Infrastructure is actually pretty flexible and the economy will benefit from a rebalance of young working age vs older retired.
		
Click to expand...

Well said Sir

I am totally fed up of the overpopulated areas of England driving this agenda.
I live on the edge of one of the least populated areas of Europe never mind the UK.
The average is 11 people per square mile and the area covers about 90 square miles.

We need a bit of 'different' thinking and start building new towns/cities in areas of low population.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 22, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Well said Sir

I am totally fed up of the overpopulated areas of England driving this agenda.
I live on the edge of one of the least populated areas of Europe never mind the UK.
The average is 11 people per square mile and the area covers about 90 square miles.

We need a bit of 'different' thinking and start building new towns/cities in areas of low population.
		
Click to expand...

And who exactly will pay for that?   

There are currently  6.6 million foreign-born people living in England â€“ and only 500,000 elsewhere in the UK. Is the answer to move them to Scottish mountains.


----------



## delc (Nov 22, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			If it wasn't cheap it was ignorant.    If you made an attempt to read and understand my post I never suggested what they would look like if they all came to my town.   My point was that when we see numbers like 250,000 people I cant imagine what thats like other than as a multiple of the town I live in.   

Maybe it's time to start settling more of these people  in places like leafy Berkshire villages where the comfortably well off live in harmonious ignorance.   Knock a few low cost housing estates over some of the snooty members Golf clubs in the South East where many middle class, liberal elite, green warriors hypothesise over the way the great unwashed never had it so good.  Or is that being silly!
		
Click to expand...

This is being tried in Bracknell, where Bracknell Forest Council are proposing to build a housing estate on the land currently occupied by the popular Blue Mountain golf course. This is despite a Section 52 agreement signed in 1990 to keep the area as open land for 150 years!  Come on folks, this is a golfing forum and we should not be encouraging the wanton destruction of golf courses! :angry:

P.S. In a local consultation exercise there was only one positive response to this proposal and that was probably from the property developer who stood to make a mint from it. Everybody else who replied was against it. Nevertheless the council ploughed on anyway. Don't you just love democracy in action!  :angry::angry::angry:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			And who exactly will pay for that?   

There are currently  6.6 million foreign-born people living in England â€“ and only 500,000 elsewhere in the UK. Is the answer to move them to Scottish mountains.
		
Click to expand...

And just how many English born people are living abroad ? About the same number I would imagine.

I was not talking about moving immigrants just a little bit of UK forward planning instead of panic planning.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2014)

12,000 folk fill the Hydro to hear Nicola Sturgeon speak.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 22, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			12,000 folk fill the Hydro to hear Nicola Sturgeon speak.
		
Click to expand...

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 22, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			12,000 folk fill the Hydro to hear Nicola Sturgeon speak.
		
Click to expand...

Struggling for things to do during winter north of the border then ?


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364176/7-5-million-migrants-live-in-Britain

7.5 million immigrants is 13% of the UK population and white British born people are now a minority in London. Nearly half a million new migrants are arriving every year and most of them go to the London area. No wonder our roads are now gridlocked and our infrastructure can no longer cope.  Did anybody vote for this? I'm sure that is not what my father fought for in WW2! His generation were trying to stop foreigners from invading us. :mmm:

One good thing about the EU is that we have the right to live and work in any other EU Country, so I am not necessarily a fan of UKIP or of the UK leaving the EU.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364176/7-5-million-migrants-live-in-Britain

7.5 million immigrants is 13% of the UK population and white British born people are now a minority in London. Nearly half a million new migrants are arriving every year and most of them go to the London area. No wonder our roads are now gridlocked and our infrastructure can no longer cope.  Did anybody vote for this? I'm sure that is not what my father fought for in WW2! His generation were trying to stop foreigners from invading us. :mmm:

One good thing about the EU is that we have the right to live and work in any other EU Country, so I am not necessarily a fan of UKIP or of the UK leaving the EU.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey - where to start 

First you cant critsize immigrants coming into this country and then say its a good thing that we can go an work and live anywhere in the EU - double standards

Secondly - No one is "invading us" - to bring in WW2 has zero relevance 

I used to credit you with some intelligence but im not so sure now when i read all your posts about immigrants 

I sort of hope you are one big fishing trip looking for attention - but if not then your view are bordering on racisim and bigotry and the sort of view that gives some golf clubs a bad name with some of their members being stuck in the 50's when other races were opressed.

Im actuallt feeling quite sad for you right now


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364176/7-5-million-migrants-live-in-Britain

Click to expand...

Only 2 years old! Couldn't you find a more recent article?

And that seems a classic Express piece of 'journalism' - decide the tone of the item, then select tit-bits from various sources that support that view! That's not Journalism, that's 'viewpoint' at best and indoctrination/propaganda in reality!

Bigotry and Xenophobia is all it is! And selfishness/greed both now and in the history that 'made Britain great!' too!

How's the hunt for the legit survey of the congested rush hour/school run traffic going?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 23, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats that got to do with the price of fish?
		
Click to expand...

How many would turn up to hear Miliband, Cameron or Farage speak in a country 12 times bigger than Scotland.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364176/7-5-million-migrants-live-in-Britain

7.5 million immigrants is 13% of the UK population and white British born people are now a minority in London. Nearly half a million new migrants are arriving every year and most of them go to the London area. No wonder our roads are now gridlocked and our infrastructure can no longer cope.  Did anybody vote for this? I'm sure that is not what my father fought for in WW2! His generation were trying to stop foreigners from invading us. :mmm:

One good thing about the EU is that we have the right to live and work in any other EU Country, so I am not necessarily a fan of UKIP or of the UK leaving the EU.
		
Click to expand...

Well I obviously cannot speak for your father but both my parents, and parents in law served in WW2 as did my uncles and my wife's relatives and I think I can safely say that there would not be one of them who would share your narrow minded, xenophobic views.

And all because it is taking you a bit longer in the mornings to get to the golf-club!


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Blimey - where to start 

First you cant critsize immigrants coming into this country and then say its a good thing that we can go an work and live anywhere in the EU - double standards

Secondly - No one is "invading us" - to bring in WW2 has zero relevance 

I used to credit you with some intelligence but im not so sure now when i read all your posts about immigrants 

I sort of hope you are one big fishing trip looking for attention - but if not then your view are bordering on racisim and bigotry and the sort of view that gives some golf clubs a bad name with some of their members being stuck in the 50's when other races were opressed.

Im actuallt feeling quite sad for you right now
		
Click to expand...

I believe you live a bit further out from London than I do, so maybe you are not seeing the problems that a rapid increase in population causes. Gridlocked roads, overflowing schools, housing shortages, and it's getting difficult to see a doctor. What says it all is that a fair percentage of our golf club members are immigrants from former times who have done well in life, and even they are saying there are too many immigrants coming in! 

What really annoys me about the Labour Party is their lack of regard for the indigenous British population, e.g. Gordon Brown's treatment of Mrs Duffy, which ironically probably lost him the last election.  I once worked for a Labour run council in the London area. Most of the councillors were from immigrant backgrounds and they made sure that all the senior posts there went to similar people, almost irrespective of qualifications and ability. Requirements like being fluent in Urdu or some other foreign language that few Brits could speak always seemed to be in the job specs.  A sort of reverse apartheid if you like! :mmm:


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			I believe you live a bit further out from London than I do, so maybe you are not seeing the problems that a rapid increase in population causes. Gridlocked roads, overflowing schools, housing shortages, and it's getting difficult to see a doctor. What says it all is that a fair percentage of our golf club members are immigrants from former times who have done well in life, and even they are saying there are too many immigrants coming in! 

What really annoys me about the Labour Party is their lack of regard for the indigenous British population, e.g. Gordon Brown's treatment of Mrs Duffy, which ironically probably lost him the last election.  I once worked for a Labour run council in the London area. Most of the councillors were from immigrant backgrounds and they made sure that all the senior posts there went to similar people, almost irrespective of qualifications and ability. Requirements like being fluent in Urdu or some other foreign language that few Brits could speak always seemed to be in the job specs.  A sort of reverse apartheid if you like! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding that most of the above is complete (and probably bigoted racist) rubbish (though it's pretty much agreed that there *is* too many immigration - just no agreement about what to do about it) do you think that it might also have something to do with the fact that new car registrations are at an all time high! 2 million new cars registered to end of October, nearly 180k in October and 450k in September! That's over 4 times as many new cars registered in those 2 months as there are net immigrants for an entire year! That's the real reason the roads are clogged!


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Notwithstanding that most of the above is complete (and probably bigoted racist) rubbish (though it's pretty much agreed that there *is* too many immigration - just no agreement about what to do about it) do you think that it might also have something to do with the fact that new car registrations are at an all time high! 2 million new cars registered to end of October, nearly 180k in October and 450k in September! That's over 4 times as many new cars registered in those 2 months as there are net immigrants for an entire year! That's the real reason the roads are clogged!
		
Click to expand...

Most of the cars that seem to block up our local roads are not new at all. Plenty of X and Y plates and even older. Accommodation and living costs are so high round here that most people don't have enough disposable income to buy new cars.  Also local bus services have been severely cut,  so many people have no choice other than travelling to work by car, especially if they work odd hours. The coalition Government's transport policies don't seem exactly 'joined up'!


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

P.S. Most cars get scrapped after about 10-15 years, and unlike immigrants (or people in general), don't begat children! :mmm:


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			Most of the cars that seem to block up our local roads are not new at all. Plenty of X and Y plates and even older. Accommodation and living costs are so high round here that most people don't have enough disposable income to buy new cars.  Also local bus services have been severely cut,  so many people have no choice other than travelling to work by car, especially if they work odd hours. The coalition Government's transport policies don't seem exactly 'joined up'! 

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should vote for Ed Miliband then - to get back to topic... 

Found any reliable surveys of rush hour traffic yet? Or still simply spouting xenophobic nonsense!


----------



## c1973 (Nov 23, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			How many would turn up to hear Miliband, Cameron or Farage speak in a country 12 times bigger than Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. 

Two men and a dug could turn up to hear them speak it doesn't matter.........what mattered was how many turned up to vote for their 'key policy'........Not as many as Milliband, Farage and Cameron managed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			P.S. Most cars get scrapped after about 10-15 years, and unlike immigrants (or people in general), don't begat children! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes the free speech that people have fought for is a bad thing - you are a perfect example of when it is a bad thing 

The stuff you have posted over the last week or so in regards immigrants is a disgrace , you are a bigot , display racist behaviour and are stuck in the dark ages. 

I thought at first you were just looking for a reaction but now I can see you actually mean and believe what you say 

If you are an example of an "indigenous British National" I'm glad there are immigrants arriving in this country to ensure you get drowned out


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sometimes the free speech that people have fought for is a bad thing - you are a perfect example of when it is a bad thing 

The stuff you have posted over the last week or so in regards immigrants is a disgrace , you are a bigot , display racist behaviour and are stuck in the dark ages. 

I thought at first you were just looking for a reaction but now I can see you actually mean and believe what you say 

If you are an example of an "indigenous British National" I'm glad there are immigrants arriving in this country to ensure you get drowned out
		
Click to expand...

What is racist or bigoted about pointing out that cars get scrapped after a certain number of years?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			What is racist or bigoted about pointing out that cars get scrapped after a certain number of years? 

Click to expand...

Please re read my post - especially the part when I say -" The stuff you have posted over the last week or so "


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Please re read my post - especially the part when I say -" The stuff you have posted over the last week or so "
		
Click to expand...

I should say that on a personal level I do not have any issues with immigrants. I was brought up in the industrial West Midlands where there was already a sizeable West Indian and Indian presence and many of my school and college friends were from these backgrounds. My dear late wife was an immigrant of sorts from Southern Ireland, and at various other times in my life I have had girlfriends from Nigeria, Gibraltar, West Indies and Brazil, plus a few English and Welsh ones. Many of my current friends are immigrants.

What I am complaining about is the unchecked immigration that took place during the Last Labour Government without any consideration about the effects on the existing population of the UK (whatever their ethnic backgrounds), or it's infrastructure. I think the Labour Party hoped that all the new immigrants would vote for them out of gratitude and keep them in power. Unfortunately for them it didn't work! :mmm:


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			...
What I am complaining about is the unchecked immigration that took place during the Last Labour Government without any consideration about the effects on the existing population of the UK (whatever their ethnic backgrounds), or it's infrastructure. I think the Labour Party hoped that all the new immigrants would vote for them out of gratitude and keep them in power. Unfortunately for them it didn't work! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Er.... What you are (were) complaining about is (was) them causing the congestion on the roads at rush hour! A totally ridiculous unsubstantiated (and plainly daft) assertion!


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Er.... What you are (were) complaining about is (was) them causing the congestion on the roads at rush hour! A totally ridiculous unsubstantiated (and plainly daft) assertion! 

Click to expand...

Nevertheless the rush hour traffic in Outer London and the surrounding towns has definitely got much worse and goes on for longer than it did four or five years ago. An influx of new immigrants into the area whose children are now attending school and adding to to the school run traffic seems as likely an explanation as any. New cars on the road is a red herring because a similar number of old cars have probably been scrapped in the same period. Reductions in the grants for buses may have had some effect.  :mmm:


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Perhaps you should vote for Ed Miliband then - to get back to topic... 

Found any reliable surveys of rush hour traffic yet? Or still simply spouting xenophobic nonsense!
		
Click to expand...

http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/hertscounttravsurv/


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/hertscounttravsurv/

Click to expand...

Sorry I can't seem to find in that report where it says the traffic problems are down to immigrants 

Also still waiting for substance behind yiur statement that we have allowed "loads of Islamic fundamentalists" into the country


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry I can't seem to find in that report where it says the traffic problems are down to immigrants 

Also still waiting for substance behind yiur statement that we have allowed "loads of Islamic fundamentalists" into the country
		
Click to expand...

If you increase the UK population from 57 to 64.1 million, over two decades without building extra urban roads, what would you expect the result to be? Please find stats from the Office of National Statistics below, which should not have any journalistic bias.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...tatistics/population-and-migration/index.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			If you increase the UK population from 57 to 64.1 million, over two decades without building extra urban roads, what would you expect the result to be? Please find stats from the Office of National Statistics below, which should not have any journalistic bias.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...tatistics/population-and-migration/index.html

Click to expand...

Again nothing you have shown backs up your statements about immigrants being the blame for traffic problems 

And also that we allow loads of islamic fundamentalists into the country


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			If you increase the UK population from 57 to 64.1 million, over two decades without building extra urban roads, what would you expect the result to be? Please find stats from the Office of National Statistics below, which should not have any journalistic bias.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...tatistics/population-and-migration/index.html

Click to expand...

But the quoted stats do not appear to distinguish between the increase attributable to births amongst existing population and those arising from immigration.


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			But the quoted stats do not appear to distinguish between the increase attributable to births amongst existing population and those arising from immigration.
		
Click to expand...

Try this then:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-in-Europe-for-a-decade-official-figures.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			Try this then:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-in-Europe-for-a-decade-official-figures.html

Click to expand...

Nope still not proving your statements yet In regards traffic problems caused by immigrants and Islamic fundamentalists 

Instead of clutching at straws it's prob easier to say that you have nothing to back up what you are saying


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

None of those links prove anything that you were asked to demonstrate!

I'll repeat my request from way back...
Where's the (legit) survey that demonstrates the increase in the traffic during rush hour on your route to the Golf club is due to the increase from immigration since 2004 (when Poland joined the EU and net migration leaped)?

Until you can produce numbers to that effect, I'll continue to call B/S on the ridiculously unfounded, xenophobic twaddle you are spouting.

As for the 'significant numbers' of Jihadists in immigrants; that statement is beneath contempt!


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 23, 2014)

Don't you just love how topics just well kinda go off topic


----------



## delc (Nov 23, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			None of those links prove anything that you were asked to demonstrate!

I'll repeat my request from way back...
Where's the (legit) survey that demonstrates the increase in the traffic during rush hour on your route to the Golf club is due to the increase from immigration since 2004 (when Poland joined the EU and net migration leaped)?

Until you can produce numbers to that effect, I'll continue to call B/S on the ridiculously unfounded, xenophobic twaddle you are spouting.

As for the 'significant numbers' of Jihadists in immigrants; that statement is beneath contempt!
		
Click to expand...

When I joined my current golf club a bit over 4 years ago, I could normally make the 3.5 mile journey there in no more than 25 minutes, even in the peak of the rush hour. Now it is rarely less than 45 minutes and can take an hour during the rush hour, which incidentally now seems to start a lot earlier. 4 years ago if I left home at 07:30 I could expect to get a clear run, but not now. You can choose to disbelieve me if you want, but these are facts.

I understand that there are currently about 500 British Muslims fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 23, 2014)

delc said:



			When I joined my current golf club a bit over 4 years ago, I could normally make the 3.5 mile journey there in no more than 25 minutes, even in the peak of the rush hour. Now it is rarely less than 45 minutes and can take an hour during the rush hour, which incidentally now seems to start a lot earlier. 4 years ago if I left home at 07:30 I could expect to get a clear run, but not now. You can choose to disbelieve me if you want, but these are facts.

I understand that there are about 500 British Muslims fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
		
Click to expand...

So please back up your statement that its immigrants causing your traffic jam ?

And you understand it's 500 or you have a factual statement to back it up


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 23, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			Don't you just love how topics just well kinda go off topic
		
Click to expand...

Well, there is a 'kind of' connection - it was Labour that signed up to allow anyone and everyone from EU in with no restrictions, unlike Germany and France which had transitional restrictions on labour market. 

Btw. That's actually where the big discrepancy between the 13000 estimate and the 50000 actual (estimated at 46000 apparently) came from, but who remembers caveats when there's a headline to be grabbed!


----------



## delc (Nov 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So please back up your statement that its immigrants causing your traffic jam ?

And you understand it's 500 or you have a factual statement to back it up
		
Click to expand...

The traffic jams could either be caused by the economic upturn and more people travelling to work or the school run. The traffic is still fairly light during the school holidays, so it's more likely to be the latter. A lot of the immigrants that New Labour allowed to pour into the country (not only East Europeans by the way) have been here long enough to have school age children, and it is well known that all the schools in the Greater London and surrounding areas are full to bursting point with children. Immigrants are most likely to flock to the Metropolitan areas such as London because that is where the jobs are, and I guess that with all the additional benefits they get, they can afford to buy at least secondhand cars to run their children to school!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 24, 2014)

That reminds me......anyone else watch the 'What we said in the 1970's' TV programme. 
Really scarey looking back.

The classic was a clip from the Black and White Minstrel Show with a blacked up minstrel playing a Chinaman singing Oh Mr Woo.


----------



## delc (Nov 24, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That reminds me......anyone else watch the 'What we said in the 1970's' TV programme. 
Really scarey looking back.

The classic was a clip from the Black and White Minstrel Show with a blacked up minstrel playing a Chinaman singing Oh Mr Woo.
		
Click to expand...

So as long as it was respectful, what was wrong with that?   Another thing I hate the Labour Party for is all the pseudo 'Political Correctness' that we are now expected to adhere to! You can't call a spade a spade any more, and even the PC version can become a term of abuse over time, e.g. 'coloured' to describe a non-white person. It's corrupting the English language. :angry:


----------



## DCB (Nov 24, 2014)

Let's be careful gents, some views being expressed here will cause offence.  Be careful in what you post and how you post.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you understand it's 500 or you have a factual statement to back it up
		
Click to expand...

I knew I'd seen that number too. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30048278


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 24, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Well, there is a 'kind of' connection - it was Labour that signed up to allow anyone and everyone from EU in with no restrictions, unlike Germany and France which had transitional restrictions on labour market. 

Btw. That's actually where the big discrepancy between the 13000 estimate and the 50000 actual (estimated at 46000 apparently) came from, but who remembers caveats when there's a headline to be grabbed!
		
Click to expand...

It was a kinda tongue in cheek comment, I started a topic a month or two ago titled UKIP a change on the political horizon or not. Having read most of this topic and mine, most comments could of been on either topic.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 24, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			It was a kinda tongue in cheek comment, I started a topic a month or two ago titled UKIP a change on the political horizon or not. Having read most of this topic and mine, most comments could of been on either topic.
		
Click to expand...

Given that Immigration - and UKIP/EU - is the current hot political topic, it's likely that all 'political' threads will end up in (descend to?) discussion about immigration. A bit surprised with the leap to traffic congestion though!  That was from way out in left field!


----------



## delc (Nov 24, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Given that Immigration - and UKIP/EU - is the current hot political topic, it's likely that all 'political' threads will end up in (descend to?) discussion about immigration. A bit surprised with the leap to traffic congestion though!  That was from way out in left field! 

Click to expand...

Recent immigration has increased the population density in South-East England to one of the highest in Europe. Our infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, social services, etc) is struggling to cope with all these extra people!


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			Recent immigration has increased the population density in South-East England to one of the highest in Europe. Our infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, social services, etc) is struggling to cope with all these extra people!
		
Click to expand...

I detect a touch of deja-vu about that statement! 

Have you actually got any real evidence that it's immigration that's causing it as opposed to internal migration - from UK folk outside London area to London area? Or is it just the usual unsubstantiated blather?!  

Infrastructure is something that has ALWAYS struggled! London's population, which is increasing at the fastest rate, increased by a little over 1% in 2012/13 (the latest data available). That certainly isn't going to cause the problems you've been blaming immigration for!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			Recent immigration has increased the population density in South-East England to one of the highest in Europe. Our infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, social services, etc) is struggling to cope with all these extra people!
		
Click to expand...

Can I make a suggestion - a polite one 

When you make these statements of yours can you please provide the evidence to back the statements 

Your attitude towards immigrants is shocking - Farage will be proud to have such a dedicated follower


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can I make a suggestion - a polite one 

When you make these statements of yours can you please provide the evidence to back the statements 

Your attitude towards immigrants is shocking - Farage will be proud to have such a dedicated follower
		
Click to expand...


Give up Phil.

He will just keep coming out with all the prejudiced apocryphal claims that are sadly all too common.

"Immigrants get everything given to them the moment they arrive in the country."
"All Muslims are jihadists."
"Crime is all down to the foreigners."

etc; etc;

He clearly does not bother about facts so you can't win.


----------



## delc (Nov 24, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Give up Phil.

He will just keep coming out with all the prejudiced apocryphal claims that are sadly all too common.

"Immigrants get everything given to them the moment they arrive in the country."
"All Muslims are jihadists."
"Crime is all down to the foreigners."

etc; etc;

He clearly does not bother about facts so you can't win.
		
Click to expand...

I have provided plenty of facts and statistics, which is more than any of my critics have done!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			I have provided plenty of facts and statistics, which is more than any of my critics have done!
		
Click to expand...


If you really think the links you provided were any sort of support for your arguments then you are seriously kidding yourself.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			I have provided plenty of facts and statistics, which is more than any of my critics have done!
		
Click to expand...

You have posted lots of articles and numbers 

But none of them backs up anything you have said in regards 

Immigrants being the blame for your traffic issues 

The UK allowing "loads" of Islamic Fundamentalists into the country 

I'm amazed you have been allowed to spout your offensive rubbish.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			I have provided plenty of facts and statistics, which is more than any of my critics have done!
		
Click to expand...

None of them have been relevant to your claims though! 

Where's that (legit) survey demonstrating immigrants are to blame for the increase in traffic between your home and the Golf Club at rush hour/school run time. Just about 5% increase (1.2% per year for 4 years) doesn't explain that increase! :temper:


----------



## GreiginFife (Nov 24, 2014)

delc said:



			The traffic jams could either be caused by the economic upturn and more people travelling to work or the school run. The traffic is still fairly light during the school holidays, so it's more likely to be the latter. A lot of the immigrants that New Labour allowed to pour into the country (not only East Europeans by the way) have been here long enough to have school age children, and it is well known that all the schools in the Greater London and surrounding areas are full to bursting point with children. Immigrants are most likely to flock to the Metropolitan areas such as London because that is where the jobs are, and I guess that with all the additional benefits they get, they can afford to *buy at least secondhand cars* to run their children to school!
		
Click to expand...

I just caught up on this thread and reached peak confusion with the above. Do you mean the second hand cars that were scrapped to make way for all the new shiny ones?
I have read (and heard) some cracking attempts at making correlations out of nothing and I, a) work in a bank, b) work in IT in a bank and c) work in IT in a bank in Glasgow.


----------



## delc (Nov 24, 2014)

GreiginFife said:



			I just caught up on this thread and reached peak confusion with the above. Do you mean the second hand cars that were scrapped to make way for all the new shiny ones?
I have read (and heard) some cracking attempts at making correlations out of nothing and I, a) work in a bank, b) work in IT in a bank and c) work in IT in a bank in Glasgow.
		
Click to expand...

A secondhand car is one that is not new and has been previously owned by somebody else! What is confusing about that?


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

```

```
I don't think that Ed Miliband is the best leader that the Labour Party could have chosen, but even with a decent leader you have to consider their past record:

Final Salary pensions destroyed by Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair involved us in two unnecessary, expensive and unwinnable wars.
Ran up a huge fiscal deficit.
Presided over the biggest banking crash ever.
Uncontrolled immigration.

Going further back in time:
The winter of discontent.
High levels of inflation.
The death of the British car and aeronautical industries.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 25, 2014)

delc said:



			Final Salary pensions destroyed by Gordon Brown.
Presided over the biggest banking crash ever.
		
Click to expand...

I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

J



CheltenhamHacker said:



			I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.
		
Click to expand...

The final straw for final salary pensions was Gordon Brown abolishing Advanced Corporation Taxes, which meant that pension funds could no longer claim back tax paid on dividend income. Pensions to a large extent depend on compound interest, so even a small loss of income makes a huge difference over 40 years! Agree that pension fund management fees are also too high. :angry:


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

delc said:




```

```
I don't think that Ed Miliband is the best leader that the Labour Party could have chosen, but even with a decent leader you have to consider their past record:

Final Salary pensions destroyed by Gordon Brown.
Involved us in two unnecessary, expensive and unwinnable wars.
Ran up a huge fiscal deficit.
Presided over the biggest banking crash ever.
Uncontrolled immigration.
...


Click to expand...

Not in a position to comment on the 'previously', so won't - though Thatcher's role, by confrontation, in the destruction of British Industry shouldn't be neglected either. 

As for the ones listed..

I believe the 1st 4 would have been foisted on whoever was in charge of the country. It was not so much the Final Salary destruction - which was inevitable and many Pension Funds are still 'in deficit' from unaffordable payouts - but the underhand removal of tax savings from both contributors and companies!

Keep taking the pills btw - not the Red ones of course! :rofl:


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

O



Foxholer said:



			Not in a position to comment on the 'previously', so won't - though Thatcher's role, by confrontation, in the destruction of British Industry shouldn't be neglected either. 

As for the ones listed..

I believe the 1st 4 would have been foisted on whoever was in charge of the country. It was not so much the Final Salary destruction - which was inevitable and many Pension Funds are still 'in deficit' from unaffordable payouts - but the underhand removal of tax savings from both contributors and companies!

Keep taking the pills btw - not the Red ones of course! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I was pensioned off from the privatised Water Industry at the age of 50 1/2, because as a senior employee I counted against their bottom line, whereas at the time the pension fund was allegedly bulging with money. (Nearly every over 50 was thrown out at about the same time, because the company thought it could employ keen young graduates much more cheaply).  At the time that was a big drop in income for me, but I managed to get another job, so actually did quite nicely out of it. Having said that I would have much preferred to keep my original job as a Water Scientist because it was interesting, whereas most of the work I did afterwards wasn't. I have already drawn out in pension several times what my pension fund was worth at the time, so I did OK out of it, but I would have much happier if Mrs T hadn't privatised the industry and I could have continued my career up to the normal retirement age!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 25, 2014)

delc said:



			O

I have already drawn out in pension several times what my pension fund was worth at the time, so I did OK out of it,
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like a really good scheme, that couldn't possible have a negative impact on future generations. Damn them for stopping final salary pensions


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Sounds like a really good scheme, that couldn't possible have a negative impact on future generations. Damn them for stopping final salary pensions
		
Click to expand...

As I said, the pension fund had a large surplus at the time and indeed the company had taken a several year 'pension holiday' to reduce this and to make more profit. Unfortunately this didn't apply to us employees, who still had to pay in at 6% of salary.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

Whooosh!! :rofl:


----------



## Ethan (Nov 25, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.
		
Click to expand...

Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (most of which evaded tax), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (most of which evaded tax), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?
		
Click to expand...

To be picky, I would argue a lot of it _avoided_ tax, rather than _evaded_ but I wasn't around so that is subjective.

If I'm being really picky, your second sentence in no way proves or disproves your first sentence, in that you can't say why they opened offices here.

I'm not defending either Labour or Tories, all I'm saying is you can't blame them for the entire global crash!


----------



## Ethan (Nov 25, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			To be picky, I would argue a lot of it _avoided_ tax, rather than _evaded_ but I wasn't around so that is subjective.

If I'm being really picky, your second sentence in no way proves or disproves your first sentence, in that you can't say why they opened offices here.

I'm not defending either Labour or Tories, all I'm saying is you can't blame them for the entire global crash!
		
Click to expand...

I don't blame them for the entire crash. The crash was basically due to dodgy banking practices. I blame the politicians for failing to provide adequate safeguards that individual bank failures or bad bets wouldn't have a contagious effect.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (*most of which evaded tax*), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?
		
Click to expand...

Evaded...No! Avoided? Maybe, but that's legitimate or encouraged even! Bonuses were certainly not 'tax free'! 45% is the current rate, which matches top rate of tax on Salary.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

As a retired Employee Benefits Director I really do not want to get into a debate surrounding the demise of Defined Benefits Pension Schemes.

However, I will say that no one involved so far has come close to the truth. There are and were myriad reasons for their decline and to lay the blame at the door of only one political party is bunkum but then so is the claim that they could not ever be sustained.

Nearly as wide of the mark as suggesting that Lehmans were subject to much less regulation in the UK compared with USA. Again, utter tosh.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 25, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			As a retired Employee Benefits Director I really do not want to get into a debate surrounding the demise of Defined Benefits Pension Schemes.

However, I will say that no one involved so far has come close to the truth. There are and were myriad reasons for their decline and to lay the blame at the door of only one political party is bunkum but then so is the claim that they could not ever be sustained.

Nearly as wide of the mark as suggesting that Lehmans were subject to much less regulation in the UK compared with USA. Again, utter tosh.
		
Click to expand...

OK, so you know all the answers but can't say? Heard that one before.

Saying things like tosh is not the same was actually providing coherent arguments. Could I suggest balderdash as your next step?

Since you know it all, could you explain why the Big Bang, the creation of the (as Private Eye calls them) Fundamentally Supine Authority and other deregulation did not lead to problems, and what instead did? Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown both seems to believe this set of changes to empower the UK finance sector were important parts of the economic crisis. Do they not know as much about it as you?

As for Lehmans and UK versus US, it was precisely because of differences between UK and US that they set up here, namely removal of regulations similar to the US Glass-Stagall Act separating investment and deposit/retail banking. 

It is utter tosh and delusional to think otherwise, whether or not you are a retired employee benefits director.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			OK, so you know all the answers but can't say? Heard that one before.

Saying things like tosh is not the same was actually providing coherent arguments. Could I suggest balderdash as your next step?

Since you know it all, could you explain why the Big Bang, the creation of the (as Private Eye calls them) Fundamentally Supine Authority and other deregulation did not lead to problems, and what instead did? Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown both seems to believe this set of changes to empower the UK finance sector were important parts of the economic crisis. Do they not know as much about it as you?

As for Lehmans and UK versus US, it was precisely because of differences between UK and US that they set up here, namely removal of regulations similar to the US Glass-Stagall Act separating investment and deposit/retail banking. 

It is utter tosh and delusional to think otherwise, whether or not you are a retired employee benefits director.
		
Click to expand...

So in medical matters or on the subject of the NHS  we are to defer to your expertise but you do not feel it necessary to extend that courtesy elsewhere,

You are truly the most pompous, self- important man with whom I have ever had contact. You cannot even be bothered to read other's posts before responding by referencing, of all sources, Private Eye.

If Messrs. Lawson & Brown truly believe that then why did they neither act when they had the opportunity. I happen to believe that de-regulation of the financial sector went way too far but that action had very little to do with the demise of Defined Benefits schemes.

As for Lehmans did they not continue to be a US owned and controlled corporation with their HQ in New York until their collapse.


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

For many years final salary pension schemes were perfect affordable and even in surplus, until everyone from Robert Maxwell to Gordon Brown started raiding their funds! :angry:


----------



## Ethan (Nov 25, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			So in medical matters or on the subject of the NHS  we are to defer to your expertise but you do not feel it necessary to extend that courtesy elsewhere,

You are truly the most pompous, self- important man with whom I have ever had contact. You cannot even be bothered to read other's posts before responding by referencing, of all sources, Private Eye.

If Messrs. Lawson & Brown truly believe that then why did they neither act when they had the opportunity. I happen to believe that de-regulation of the financial sector went way too far but that action had very little to do with the demise of Defined Benefits schemes.

As for Lehmans did they not continue to be a US owned and controlled corporation with their HQ in New York until their collapse.
		
Click to expand...

Arrogant? Mr Pot, I presume. You swanned on here pontificating that that you were above commenting on deferred benefits but you knew the truth behind the economic collapse. If that isn't arrogance and self-importance, I don't think I have ever seen it. You have yet to show you know anything more than can be gleaned from Wikipedia. Deferring to expertise only occurs when someone offers some. Happy to hear your take on it all. 

Lawson and Brown recognised (reluctantly, in Brown's case) these effects after the fact. At the time they were caught up in the same boom. 

As you know, the UK Lehmans operation was a different trading entity, so the US operation was not necessarily going to fall over at the same time, but it was so over-leveraged that it was only a matter of time. About a month, as it happened.


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

The latest spiffing idea from Red Ed and Co is to remove the tax breaks for private schools. These are allowed on the perfectly reasonable premise that children in such schools are not a drain on the State education budget. This may appeal to their core voters who live in council houses up North somewhere, but it doesn't to me. No current interests in private schools btw, but I was partly privately educated as a boy.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Arrogant? Mr Pot, I presume. You swanned on here pontificating that that you were above commenting on deferred benefits but you knew the truth behind the economic collapse.
		
Click to expand...

Massive difference between "defined" and "deferred".

My point was that the reasons for the demise of these schemes are many and varied, and far too boring to go into in depth. However, a previous post had suggested that it was all attributable to Gordon Brown; not true and another stated that they were completely unsustainable; again not true.

Other reasons include greater life expectancy, falling Gilt Yields, unrealistic actuarial assumptions, financial demands upon schemes arising from preservation of benefits, employers being allowed and, in some cases, obliged to take "contribution holidays" etc; etc;

Having re-read my original post I fail to see where I suggested I knew the secret behind the global financial crash, perhaps you could enlighten me.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			As you know, the UK Lehmans operation was a different trading entity, so the US operation was not necessarily going to fall over at the same time, but it was so over-leveraged that it was only a matter of time. About a month, as it happened.
		
Click to expand...

Er. You have it Arse about Face!

Lehmans US filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy at 1:55 September 15th in New York

Lehmans UK and Europe main 4 operations went into Administration shortly afterward - 7:56 in London.

Here's the timeline http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html
I can even remember some of those pics!

Here's some info from the UK Administrators http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/lehman-faq.jhtml


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

delc said:



			The latest spiffing idea from Red Ed and Co is to remove the tax breaks for private schools. These are allowed on the perfectly reasonable premise that children in such schools are not a drain on the State education budget. This may appeal to their core voters who live in council houses up North somewhere, but it doesn't to me. No current interests in private schools btw, but I was partly privately educated as a boy.
		
Click to expand...

Another distortion, from what i've read! 

The deal also involved by Private Schools assisting State ones, something that has not happened sufficiently, at least not according to Labour's statements. If that's the case, Labour's approach is quite reasonable. 

Labour is, of course, obsessed with killing off the Private (or is it 'Public'?!) School system and educating everyone equally (badly?).

Given your previous comments about Labour, I don't believe you are likely to b a convert anyway!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Another distortion, from what i've read! 

The deal also involved by Private Schools assisting State ones, something that has not happened sufficiently, at least not according to Labour's statements. If that's the case, Labour's approach is quite reasonable. 

Labour is, of course, obsessed with killing off the Private (or is it 'Public'?!) School system and educating everyone equally (badly?).

Given your previous comments about Labour, I don't believe you are likely to b a convert anyway!
		
Click to expand...

Are you letting facts get in the way of the story again?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Are you letting facts get in the way of the story again?
		
Click to expand...

Oops! Sorry!  I forgot that's not this thread works! 

Saw it in both The Guardian and The Daily Mail, so it must be true! :rofl: 

Actually it was a Beeb report last night that gave both sides! :thup:


----------



## delc (Nov 25, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Massive difference between "defined" and "deferred".

My point was that the reasons for the demise of these schemes are many and varied, and far too boring to go into in depth. However, a previous post had suggested that it was all attributable to Gordon Brown; not true and another stated that they were completely unsustainable; again not true.

Other reasons include greater life expectancy, falling Gilt Yields, unrealistic actuarial assumptions, financial demands upon schemes arising from preservation of benefits, employers being allowed and, in some cases, obliged to take "contribution holidays" etc; etc;

Having re-read my original post I fail to see where I suggested I knew the secret behind the global financial crash, perhaps you could enlighten me.
		
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for the folk on defined contribution or workplace pensions, because they will probably never be able to afford a comfortable retirement. As the tax regime now stands, they probably won't even get back in real terms what they paid in!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

delc said:



			I feel sorry for the folk on defined contribution or workplace pensions, because they will probably never be able to afford a comfortable retirement. As the tax regime now stands, they probably won't even get back in real terms what they paid in!
		
Click to expand...


What they get back will be dependant upon what is paid in and the performance of the underlying investment link(s). Don't quite see what bearing the tax regime will have upon it.

Members' contributions continue to qualify for Income Tax relief and employers' contributions can be offset against Corporation Tax, or have I missed something?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 25, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			What they get back will be dependant upon what is paid in and the performance of the underlying investment link(s). Don't quite see what bearing the tax regime will have upon it.

Members' contributions continue to qualify for Income Tax relief and employers' contributions can be offset against Corporation Tax, or *have I missed something*?
		
Click to expand...

Yes... This! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nal-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sion-tax-raid-and-others-since-Seventies.html


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Yes... This! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nal-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sion-tax-raid-and-others-since-Seventies.html

Click to expand...


I was well aware of that, it is old news.

Its ongoing effect upon Defined Contribution schemes in particular has been absorbed and dealt with by Fund Managers and certainly does not have a dramatic effect upon returns.

Money Purchase funds will have less dependence upon high yielding equities as they are not required to provide an investment link with effective guarantees as is the case with Defined Benefits schemes. 

With Defined Contributions the individual's fund is converted in some form to provide the retirement income (pension) whilst a Defined Benefits scheme has a "global" investment for all members and that is needed to effectively provide both investment growth for those yet to retire and income for those that have.

Thus, the requirements of the two are slightly different.

My God I had forgotten how boring it all is!


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I don't blame them for the entire crash. The crash was basically due to dodgy banking practices. I blame the politicians for failing to provide adequate safeguards that individual bank failures or bad bets wouldn't have a contagious effect.
		
Click to expand...

The market traders were gambling on the stock market with OUR money and making huge salaries and bonuses for themselves in the process. Eventually the stock market and property bubbles burst and the financial crash happened. Banking practices had been allowed to run out of control due to inadequate regulation and individual greed. A bank should be a safe place to keep money, not a casino!  :angry:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			The latest spiffing idea from Red Ed and Co is to remove the tax breaks for private schools. These are allowed on the perfectly reasonable premise that children in such schools are not a drain on the State education budget. This may appeal to their core voters who live in council houses up North somewhere, but it doesn't to me. No current interests in private schools btw, *but I was partly privately educated as a boy.*

Click to expand...


Now why does that not surprise me - the Tories must be gutted to lose you as a voter


And too right tax breaks should be removed for people to take little Timmy to private school ( same little Timmy whose mummy drives him to school in her X5 )

The people that go to private school are the people that can afford to live without tax breaks !


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Now why does that not surprise me - the Tories must be gutted to lose you as a voter


And too right tax breaks should be removed for people to take little Timmy to private school ( same little Timmy whose mummy drives him to school in her X5 )

The people that go to private school are the people that can afford to live without tax breaks !
		
Click to expand...

The alternative for me was to attend a local state school with 65 pupils per class. Also people who temparily work abroad may wish to put their children into privatd boarding schools. Don't think there are many state ones!


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Yes... This! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nal-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sion-tax-raid-and-others-since-Seventies.html

Click to expand...

Abolishing Advanced Corporation Taxes was Gordon Brown's ultimate 'Stealth Tax", because he made it sound like he was removing a tax rather than adding a new one on pension funds! Of course the consequences of this change only became apparent several years later! :angry:


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Now why does that not surprise me - the Tories must be gutted to lose you as a voter


And too right tax breaks should be removed for people to take little Timmy to private school ( same little Timmy whose mummy drives him to school in her X5 )

The people that go to private school are the people that can afford to live without tax breaks !
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I may appreciate some of those sentiments despite myself having had the "benefit" of a Public School education I would draw your attention to the lines of X5's, Q5's, Range Rovers etc; outside the two State schools in our village.

The school-run is certainly not the prerogative of the independent sector and has not been helped by successive Gov'ts promoting selection of schools by parents with no thought given to its side effects upon communities. 

This policy has, however, enabled many politicians on the Left to salve their conscience by being able to claim that their children are being educated within the State sector whilst carefully avoiding the local "bog standard" comprehensive.

Yet another example of the hypocrisy we regularly witness from politicians on all sides.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			I was well aware of that, it is old news.

Its ongoing effect upon Defined Contribution schemes in particular has been absorbed and dealt with by Fund Managers and certainly does not have a dramatic effect upon returns.

Money Purchase funds will have less dependence upon high yielding equities as they are not required to provide an investment link with effective guarantees as is the case with Defined Benefits schemes. 

With Defined Contributions the individual's fund is converted in some form to provide the retirement income (pension) whilst a Defined Benefits scheme has a "global" investment for all members and that is needed to effectively provide both investment growth for those yet to retire and income for those that have.

Thus, the requirements of the two are slightly different.

My God I had forgotten how boring it all is!
		
Click to expand...

H'mm! While I appreciate you were answering my question, there's a touch of the 'trust me, I'm a Doctor'  approach that you objected to so strongly earlier. :mmm: 

Can you explain how removing Â£10B per year, as reported, from the Pensions industry has not had an effect on the viability of pensions - 'gold-plated' or otherwise? Have the Pensions companies and or Fund Managers absorbed this 'loss'? Have the investment strategies changed from High Dividend to High Capital Growth? Or geared towards 'Quick Profits' rather than 'Investment for Growth'? Or have companies reduced their Dividend vs 'other use' strategies? Or was it simply the/another last straw! Please inform a willing student! 

Or were those articles (from decidedly Right Wing oriented Newspapers) simply being misleadingly selective about the numbers and effects! The change was definitely one that was 'not announced' but was slipped in with other Budget changes, but did create uproar when actually 'discovered'! 

The Money Purchase vs Defined Benefits issue had nothing to do with Broon's 'raid'. That's been a minefield that few were brave enough to address for years before! It was the combination of several events that finally triggered that change.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...
And too right tax breaks should be removed for people to take little Timmy to private school ( same little Timmy whose mummy drives him to school in her X5 )

The people that go to private school are the people that can afford to live without tax breaks !
		
Click to expand...

I believe it's fair enough to provide some sort of payment for Private schools for the equivalent cost of a student's cost in a State school. If a Private School sets itself up (eg. Charitable Trust) in such a way that it benefits from tax exemptions, then that's also fine imo. That's actually just creating a level playing field as, I believe, State schools don't pay business rates either! :mmm:

And, if as negotiated, Private schools also provide assistance/benefits for State schools, there should also be some reward - that way, it's mutually beneficial!

How they fund it (tax breaks, direct payments etc) is irrelevant. Whether it's a 'good deal' is up to the negotiators, something governments are traditionally quite poor at! If, however, either side renegs/doesn't perform the deal, there's every reason for the other side to seek remedy! 

As I posted before, Labour is obsessed with eliminating Private Schools, purely for doctrinal reasons, something that I strongly object to - whatever the target! The hypocrisy of many of its leaders is there for all to see! :rant:

Btw. It's Timothy...Timmy is so State School!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			H'mm! While I appreciate you were answering my question, there's a touch of the 'trust me, I'm a Doctor'  approach that you objected to so strongly earlier. :mmm: 

Can you explain how removing Â£10B per year, as reported, from the Pensions industry has not had an effect on the viability of pensions - 'gold-plated' or otherwise? Have the Pensions companies and or Fund Managers absorbed this 'loss'? Have the investment strategies changed from High Dividend to High Capital Growth? Or geared towards 'Quick Profits' rather than 'Investment for Growth'? Or have companies reduced their Dividend vs 'other use' strategies? Or was it simply the/another last straw! Please inform a willing student! 

Or were those articles (from decidedly Right Wing oriented Newspapers) simply being misleadingly selective about the numbers and effects! The change was definitely one that was 'not announced' but was slipped in with other Budget changes, but did create uproar when actually 'discovered'! 

The Money Purchase vs Defined Benefits issue had nothing to do with Broon's 'raid'. That's been a minefield that few were brave enough to address for years before! It was the combination of several events that finally triggered that change. 

Click to expand...

Sorry, hadn't meant to be obtuse, I just did not think many people would be interested.

However, to answer your point; yes the reason for the ACT changes having much more effect upon Defined Benefit Schemes is largely due to different investment strategies.

The objective of such schemes is to be able to provide their members with a promised (not guaranteed) benefit at vesting. As this benefit will primarily be in the form of an income (pension) the Scheme's investment strategy will always have a high dependence upon those sectors that a have a relatively high yield such as gilts and "income" rather than "growth" equities.

Therefore, Mr Brown's changes had a dramatic effect since they reduced the yield on those equities and at a time when gilt yields were also falling.

The Defined Contribution Scheme objective is to provide the member with the largest possible fund which can then be used to generate income. There are not the same promises involved nor are the requirements for leavers' benefits so arduous and the investment strategy can thus be targeted far more to growth and have much less reliance upon dividends.

As you rightly say Mr Brown's raid did not in itself create the Money Purchase v. Final Salary debate. That goes back much further to the '80s. However, it certainly brought the differences more into the public's eye.


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

The other really unfair stealth tax by Gordon Brown was a massive increase in Stamp Duty. OK it's a Duty not a tax, but if you buy property above a certain value you have to pay it. Stamp Duty was originally a fairly nominal fee to cover the costs of the Land Registry, but has increasingly been used as source of income for the Treasury.  It impacts particularly on people in London and the South-East, where even a fairly modest flat can be expensive enough to attract Stamp Duty, while it has less effect in Labour heartlands up north where property is much cheaper. The poor inhabitants of London are subject to a double whammy of expensive property and then several thousand pounds on top of this in Stamp Duty!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 26, 2014)

But the poor old inhabitants of London and South East also get paid a great deal more than people further up north 

It all balances itself out throughout the country


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			The other really unfair stealth tax by Gordon Brown was a massive increase in Stamp Duty. OK it's a Duty not a tax, but if you buy property above a certain value you have to pay it. Stamp Duty was originally a fairly nominal fee to cover the costs of the Land Registry, but has increasingly been used as source of income for the Treasury.  It impacts particularly on people in London and the South-East, where even a fairly modest flat can be expensive enough to attract Stamp Duty, while it has less effect in Labour heartlands up north where property is much cheaper. The poor inhabitants of London are subject to a double whammy of expensive property and then several thousand pounds on top of this in Stamp Duty!
		
Click to expand...


And taxes on fuel have a disproportionate effect upon people in rural areas as they often have to travel greater distances and are unlikely to have access to much in the way of public transport.

If you are, as you seem, unhappy about all taxes can you please explain how the State is to be funded?


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But the poor old inhabitants of London and South East also get paid a great deal more than people further up north 

It all balances itself out throughout the country
		
Click to expand...

In my experience most ordinary people living in the South-East have less disposable income than those living up North, due to the high cost of living down here. I will exclude City bankers from this! :mmm:


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			And taxes on fuel have a disproportionate effect upon people in rural areas as they often have to travel greater distances and are unlikely to have access to much in the way of public transport.

If you are, as you seem, unhappy about all taxes can you please explain how the State is to be funded?
		
Click to expand...

The State could waste far less money!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			In my experience most ordinary people living in the South-East have less disposable income than those living up North, due to the high cost of living down here. I will exclude City bankers from this! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Really ?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Sorry, hadn't meant to be obtuse, I just did not think many people would be interested.

However, to answer your point; yes the reason for the ACT changes having much more effect upon Defined Benefit Schemes is largely due to different investment strategies.

The objective of such schemes is to be able to provide their members with a promised (not guaranteed) benefit at vesting. As this benefit will primarily be in the form of an income (pension) the Scheme's investment strategy will always have a high dependence upon those sectors that a have a relatively high yield such as gilts and "income" rather than "growth" equities.

Therefore, Mr Brown's changes had a dramatic effect since they reduced the yield on those equities and at a time when gilt yields were also falling.
		
Click to expand...

Ah. That's more along the lines that I thought it was! Even so, the tax take is reportedly twice as initially forecast, so obviously hasn't deter investors, a sizable number of whom will actually be Pension related Funds! 

From what I remember (it was 15-20 years ago) 'performance' of Fund Managers was measured against (long term?) Gilt rates, though one of the Fund Managers where I worked (in IT) apparently measured 'performance' differently - with Cocaine, Oranges and Autoerotic Asphyxiation according to the Red-Tops!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			The State could waste far less money!
		
Click to expand...

Doubtless you will enlighten us on this issue.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Ah. That's more along the lines that I thought it was! Even so, the tax take is reportedly twice as initially forecast, so obviously hasn't deter investors, a sizable number of whom will actually be Pension related Funda!
		
Click to expand...


Final Salary schemes continue to be amongst the largest of investors as they continue to have liabilities to existing members, who may still be accruing benefits; those with preserved benefits and pensioners. This is often forgotten when schemes cease to accept new members.

This being so and for the reasons previously stated they will continue to invest in equities with decent dividend performance as they still have little alternative.


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Doubtless you will enlighten us on this issue.
		
Click to expand...

MP's expenses and Foreign Aid might be a good start! :mmm:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			MP's expenses and Foreign Aid might be a good start! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Followed by London weighting of salaries for public service workers.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			MP's expenses and Foreign Aid might be a good start! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

So what do you think of my map which showed the difference between the North and South disposable income ? 

Seems a bit different to your "experience" ?

So who is your local UKIP candidate that you will be voting ?


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So what do you think of my map which showed the difference between the North and South disposable income ? 

Seems a bit different to your "experience" ?

So who is your local UKIP candidate that you will be voting ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm originally from the West Midlands. Nobody up there seemed to drive around in old cars, but there are a right collection of old bangers down here!

I've no idea who any of our candidates for next year's election are, and at the moment I don't care!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			MP's expenses and Foreign Aid might be a good start! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...


Two populist targets and yet neither accounts for very much of the overall bill.

To make any significant difference to tax-bills would require further constraints being placed upon health, welfare, education and defence. 

If we, as a country, are still wasting money in the above areas the question must be asked why this waste has not already been addressed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 26, 2014)

Your basing the whole disposable income on what cars people drive ?!?! 

So again you have nothing to base your statements on

So who are you voting ?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 26, 2014)

delc said:



			]QUOTE=Liverpoolphil;1186697]So what do you think of my map which showed the difference between the North and South disposable income ? 

Seems a bit different to your "experience" ?

So who is your local UKIP candidate that you will be voting ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm originally from the West Midlands. Nobody up there seemed to drive around in old cars, but there are a right collection of old bangers down here![/QUOTE]

Only just seen this and cannot believe it.

 I live on the outskirts of the West Midlands and see plenty of older cars everyday in Solihull, Birmingham, Coventry and so on.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 26, 2014)

I've just read the last couple of days postings in order to post a significant question - so, "what waterproofs do you think i should buy?"


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Final Salary schemes continue to be amongst the largest of investors as they continue to have liabilities to existing members, who may still be accruing benefits; those with preserved benefits and pensioners. This is often forgotten when schemes cease to accept new members.

This being so and for the reasons previously stated they will continue to invest in equities with decent dividend performance as they still have little alternative.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes! Good point - that, I have to admit, I had indeed 'forgotten'! 

@Chrisd seems 'depth of pocket' is a major consideration for both you an the Waterproofs!


----------



## delc (Nov 26, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Final Salary schemes continue to be amongst the largest of investors as they continue to have liabilities to existing members, who may still be accruing benefits; those with preserved benefits and pensioners. This is often forgotten when schemes cease to accept new members.

This being so and for the reasons previously stated they will continue to invest in equities with decent dividend performance as they still have little alternative.
		
Click to expand...

Hope my pension scheme doesn't go bust! A Church mouse would struggle to exist on the basic State Pension (I was contracted out for most of my working life!). :mmm:


----------

