Author Topic: The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour  (Read 1592 times)

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2005, 12:24:16 PM »
Quote
On the downside the stupid thing this govt did was to get us involved in Iraq!


You should post this stuff in the beginning so that people would recognize you for the idiot you are.  Oh wait, you're skydancer, everyone knows.... never mind.
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2005, 12:31:44 PM »
Oh dear :rolleyes:

So what about the real issue then? Who should we Vote for?

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2005, 01:00:30 PM »
Well, good question.  I don't know enough about Brt politics to give you a good opinion.  I should give an opinion though, I mean everyone in the world has an opinion about what America should do.

I like Kate Beckinsale though, does that help?
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2005, 01:04:23 PM »
Sure does she's an absolute babe. Especialy in that "Underworld" Film.

Well I'd be interested to hear an American opinion on our election. I think views from outside our land are actualy worth hearing ( as long as its not abuse) Broadens the mind to listen to others.

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2005, 01:07:28 PM »
I'd love to pipe in, I have to plead ignorance, however.

Yes, I know ignorance hasn't stopped many from voicing their opinions.   lol
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2005, 01:16:02 PM »
Fair enough.

Go watch BBC news and enlighten youyrself. Probably has some relevance as our nation uis in the same boat as yours re the ME.

Offline Phaser11

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2005, 01:50:54 PM »
What in the heck is a Torie? Did I have some of that in Mexico?

Really,
 All you can do is vote. Whatever country you're in get involved somehow. No I don't know how, but there has to be a way!
Phaser11,

"Long time we no get drunk together nathen"
"Silence! I kill you"

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2005, 02:33:38 PM »
Tory!
Actualy A member of the conservative party.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2005, 03:00:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skydancer
How Beetle can say that Maggie was a great Prime minister escapes me. Squandered Oil revenue,on payiong benefit to over 3 million unemployed, totaly decimated manufacturing industry. destroyed Coal industry, and a growth in the F**k you mate I'm ok culture.
Oh yeah she was a dream. (dream *****)
Maggie's govt.  reduced the top level of tax (set by Labour) from a swingeing 83% (with a 15% surcharge on "unearned" income) to a mere 40% with no investment income surcharge. "Ah", I hear you say. "Taxes only affect the rich". Wrong. Our high earners were leaving Britain in droves during the Labour years. That meant that instead of getting a substantial tax take from them, the govt. got nothing. That's why, after the Tories reformed our tax situation, tax receipts actually went up - because fewer people felt the need to domicile themselves overseas, out of reach of the taxman's claw.

The "F**k you mate, I'm OK" culture - Labour had failed in its pledge to modernise our industries, a pledge that Harold Wilson made in his devaluation speech in 1967. When Britain was eventually dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the 19th century and into the digital age, too many people still relied on loss making dinasaur industries. So when the plug was pulled on nationalised industries which were little more than charity organisations, there were problems. The heady days of trade union excess in the 1970s were like a big piss up. The penalty for that excess was a massive hangover in the 1980s. However, some of us were prepared to work to become proficient in the skill of our choice, and then made good at it. If that's a corollary of a FU society, then so be it.

Saying that things are OK, ie the economy is sound etc. is like the Brinks Mat bank robbers crowing that their personal finances are in good order - and so they should be after one of the biggest heists in British history. Gordon Brown's achievements have been funded by raiding the piggy banks of middle Englanders. But what does he care? They all vote tory anyway. Talk about a FU culture. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, and let's not forget the National Health Service. Remember how Labour promised us a fantastic NHS deal with reduced waiting lists and hospitals which would be the envy of the world? Under Labour, hospital waiting lists got longer. Eventually, T Blair conceded that "if you want a decent health service, you must be prepared to pay for it" (psst Tony - we're already paying for it) So up went national insurance - from 10% to 11% for an employee, and from 12% to 13% for the employer. But guess what? NHS hospitals didn't get better. We hear of operations being cancelled seven times in order to "meet govt. targets". We see that hospitals are NOT the envy of the world; they are filthy, and more people die from hospital infections than die in traffic fatalities on our roads.  Labour simply threw money at the NHS, and much of it ended up in the toilet. In the NHS, there are now 3 managers for every 2 NHS beds. And while nurses' pay has risen 50%, NHS managers' pay has risen 70% - and that's where the money has gone. Squandered on meaningless bureaucratic and administrative functions.

Oh sure - things are just peachy - never been better.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:  <--sometimes one is not enough

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2005, 03:58:05 PM »
Beet,

Sure you are not describing California politics?:) I thought Socialism was supposed to save the world?????
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2005, 03:48:04 AM »
Beetle, put your Daily Mail down for a second and answer the question. How would things have been any different if the Tories had won in '97 or in '2001?

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2005, 04:17:20 AM »
:lol :lol

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2005, 04:18:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Momus--
Beetle, put your Daily Mail down for a second and answer the question. How would things have been any different if the Tories had won in '97 or in '2001?
I don't read the Mail; I'm a lifelong Torygraph reader.

How would things have been different?
  • We would not have had 66 new tax increases.
  • We would not have a govt. the seeks to interfere in all aspects of our daily lives.
  • We would not have had a govt. that increased fuel prices by such an extent that we had a fuel tax revolt, in 2000.
  • We would not have had a government which, despite the massive increase in motoring costs and general taxation did not build a single inch of new roads in 2001 - the lowest amount of new roads built in Britain since the invention of tarmacadam in 1880.
  • We would not be hurling bundles of cash at the NHS and yet seeing bugger all in return.
  • We would not be seeing new houses and flats being built on land which used to be people's back gardens.
  • We would not have seen our private pensions go from being the best in Europe to amongst the worst.
I'm not saying that the tories were worth voting for in 97 or 01. That's why I didn't vote for them in those elections. But I had some hopes that Labour had turned over a new leaf. But no, a leopard never changes its spots, or so it would seem. There's nothing new about "New" Labour. It's not even Old Labour dressed up. It's just plain Old Labour, with the old tax and spend formula - or in Gordon's case, spend and tax.

Out of interesst, Momus, in what constituency are you registered to vote?

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #58 on: April 06, 2005, 05:50:12 AM »
My current constituency is Altrincham and Sale West in Manchester (Conservative). Before that, I lived in Feltham and Heston (Labour), before that in Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Labour), and before that Hampshire North East (Conservative). Quite what this info has to do with the discussion I'm not sure.

Now to look at your points in order:

Quote
We would not have had 66 new tax increases.


The UK is amongst the lightest taxed countries in the EU. The tax burden as a proportion of GDP has actually fallen since 2001. It was at it's peak in 1993 under the Conservatives.

Quote
We would not have a govt. the seeks to interfere in all aspects of our daily lives.


Can you give examples?

Quote
We would not have had a govt. that increased fuel prices by such an extent that we had a fuel tax revolt, in 2000.


The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993 by the Conservatives. Labour froze it in 2000.

Quote
We would not have had a government which, despite the massive increase in motoring costs and general taxation did not build a single inch of new roads in 2001 - the lowest amount of new roads built in Britain since the invention of tarmacadam in 1880.


Actually, the cost of motoring has been going down since 2000. Link . I guess the biggest road building expansion for a decade announced in 2003 passed you by too? Link

Quote
We would not be hurling bundles of cash at the NHS and yet seeing bugger all in return.


There's plenty to reflect the increased funding since 2001. Just because the Mail, er I mean the Telegraph, isn't reporting it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Staff levels are up, staff moral is up, an increased number of conditions are now treated. Huge hospital building program. Waiting lists are down. This is in an organization rooted in the 1940s and largely starved of funding for 2 decades. I'm quite willing to wait until 2010 before making a judgement, unlike the ideologically driven Telegraph and its dogmatic view of the issue.

Quote
We would not be seeing new houses and flats being built on land which used to be people's back gardens.


There's a shortage of affordable housing. I have no sympathy for nimbyism. Move if you don't like it.

Quote
We would not have seen our private pensions go from being the best in Europe to amongst the worst.


Because world stock markets haven't been performing. This is the fault of the UK government? Hmm, ok. Are you advocating government intervention in the pensions market? You did say you were a Tory didn't you? :confused:

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The UK's punishment: 12 years hard Labour
« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2005, 06:23:08 AM »
Quote
Because world stock markets haven't been performing. This is the fault of the UK government?


World stock markets have performed much better since 1997 than the British stock market.

In Oct 1997, just after Labour had come to power:

Dow (America) 6970
Cac (France) 2650
Dax (Germany) 3570
Ftse (UK) 4760

Today:

Dow 10,460
Cac 4100
Dax 4370
Ftse 4940

The FTSE has shown by far the smallest increase. The Cac and Dow have both risen by more than 50%, the Dax by 23%, the FTSE by less than 4%.

Quote
Are you advocating government intervention in the pensions market?


You are aware that Labour brought in a special £5 billion a year tax on pensions funds in 1997, aren't you?

From the Guardian:
Quote
'The present system of tax credits encourages companies to pay out dividends rather than reinvest their profits. This cannot be the best way of encouraging investment for the long term.' So said Gordon Brown in his first budget as he removed the tax credit that pension funds could reclaim on dividends paid by British companies.

Seven years later, his mantra is unchanged. Brushing aside criticism of the measure in an interview last Monday, he said it had been made 'to reward investment and give [companies] greater incentives to invest in the economy'.

Pension funds and their advisers were up in arms when Brown first withdrew the tax credit, warning that it would drive many funds into deficit and force others to increase their contributions. Seven years and £40 billion of lost tax credits later, these prophecies have largely come true: the financial position of our occupational pension schemes has deteriorated sharply and Brown's tax grab is seen as a contributing factor.

But has the change achieved what the Chancellor claims was its aim? Have British companies increased the amount that they invest in their businesses now that there is no longer any point in pen sion funds pushing for higher dividends?

If research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding 'no'. In a paper due to be published shortly, it will show that there is no evidence of an increase in investment by companies following the removal of the dividend tax credit. The study compared the behaviour of companies affected by the change with those that were not.

'Their investment behaviour is exactly the same as before,'


Quote
'You can't blame the tax raid by Gordon Brown for the whole of the pension crisis but it certainly is a contributing factor,' said Farnish. Pension experts estimate that UK plc had a collective pension deficit of around £60bn at the end of 2003. 'If you add up the losses they have suffered since 1997, it is £40 bn in total - a significant part of the deficit in larger FTSE 100 companies,' said Farnish, although she admits that a number of other factors have contributed to growing pension fund deficits, including the stock market crash, falling interest rates, improved benefits for pensioners and an aging population.