Gordon Brown getting slaughtered over NI

[Therapist]

Its a bit like the decision taken by GB to abolish tax credits on dividend income (for pension funds) - 12 years on the 'funded' final salary pension essentially no longer exists.

 

Correct. The UK pensions industry was once the envy of the world. Then Brown abolished tax credits and we all know what happened. The only people who can join a defined benefit scheme now are public service workers and it will be interesting to see what happens when those liabilities mature.

 

Incidentally, Brown was strongly advised not to take away tax credits by the NAPF and numerous financial analysts but, in typical pig-headed fashion, completely ignored a different point of view.

 

The sooner Brown goes, the better.

[Therapist]

How long before September 2008 did their indicators predict this?

 

I can't remember. Why don't you do what you usually do and Google it?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think when people talk about 'business' on this thread that they have to be careful not to generalise. Pre-recession, the industries driving the economy were the banks, who were creating lots of liquidity via asset securitisation, meaning that they became money shops rather than banks (HBust was the worst for this) and credit was easy to obtain. This helped drive construction via money pouring into property and the associated trades. Meanwhile, government was expanding at a rate of knots in two ways - firstly, through employment funded via stealth taxes and property taxes and secondly via PFI for capital expenditure on new buildings. Other business benefitted via 'all boats rising' but they were being strangled at the same time through new red tape.

 

Note that PFI is still not counted in the public sector's overall debt figure as the government leases the buildings (hence the reason for the parking costs row at ERI for example). It is estimated that the total level of debt in the UK economy stands at around 365% of GDP, i.e. 3 times what the country outputs in a year! However, that all feels very uncomfortable and could scare the voters, so let's talk about a variation in tax to keep the media happy.

[shaun.lawson]

I can't remember. Why don't you do what you usually do and Google it?

 

Why don't you do what you never do and engage with the point - which is if these predictions were made only weeks in advance, it was already too late to stop it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why don't you do what you never do and engage with the point - which is if these predictions were made only weeks in advance, it was already too late to stop it.

 

 

I'm not sure where Therapist is coming from Shaun, but the real indicator of the crisis started when BNP Paribas looked at the make-up of a CDO and realised they couldn't value the things. That happened in 2007 and the wholesale market for banking started to freeze as a result. This happened a few months before Northern Wreck started to go bust because that was the primary source of their funding.

[Therapist]

Why don't you do what you never do and engage with the point - which is if these predictions were made only weeks in advance, it was already too late to stop it.

 

Shaun, I'm not your secretary so please stop trying my patience. I can't remember exactly when it was, but there was sufficient warning for me to stop investing in equities in my PP, reduce a significant proportion of the exposure I already had, and hold further contributions in cash.

 

Incidentally, if you want a rather splendid investment I'd recommend Standard Life's GARS.

[Therapist]

July 2007 - this is when it started to grab my attention....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2812714/Morgan-Stanley-predicting-correction.html

[jambos are go!]

July 2007 - this is when it started to grab my attention....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2812714/Morgan-Stanley-predicting-correction.html

 

To suggest this article predicts the global banking crisis is ridiculous. And the stock market did not collapse.

 

Anyway since you seem to be a talkative mood will you now reveal the good ideas you heard David Cameron spout 2 Sundays ago.

 

Finally, my reading of the headlines this evening is about Labour trashing the Tory NI proposals.

[jambos are go!]

I think when people talk about 'business' on this thread that they have to be careful not to generalise. Pre-recession, the industries driving the economy were the banks, who were creating lots of liquidity via asset securitisation, meaning that they became money shops rather than banks (HBust was the worst for this) and credit was easy to obtain. This helped drive construction via money pouring into property and the associated trades. Meanwhile, government was expanding at a rate of knots in two ways - firstly, through employment funded via stealth taxes and property taxes and secondly via PFI for capital expenditure on new buildings. Other business benefitted via 'all boats rising' but they were being strangled at the same time through new red tape.

 

Note that PFI is still not counted in the public sector's overall debt figure as the government leases the buildings (hence the reason for the parking costs row at ERI for example). It is estimated that the total level of debt in the UK economy stands at around 365% of GDP, i.e. 3 times what the country outputs in a year! However, that all feels very uncomfortable and could scare the voters, so let's talk about a variation in tax to keep the media happy.

tackled

 

Can you get round to confirming or denying my recollection that you have previously said that Brown policies for tackling the crisis were 'broadly correct' and that the deficit was set to be reduced as promised.

[JamboAl]

It is peanuts in relative terms. It is crap economics given the situation the UK is currently in but Labour have fallen into a Tory political trap. As for Brown, no argument with him criticising this Tory ruse, which is what it is. My issue is his argument that it is taking money out of the economy. It is no such thing! By the same argument, if Labour hadn't reversed the VAT cut on 1 January 2010, that would have taken ?14bn 'out' of the economy which, er, it wouldn't have and kind of shows Brown doesn't know what he's talking about when he is talking about 'fiscal stimulus' (the real stimulus to the UK economy was the monetary stimulus of ?200bn of funny money from the Bank of England)

 

 

 

Please identify the Tory apologists.

 

 

Maybe. It's difficult to square the growth rates being used without inflation coming into the equation because real growth isn't exactly obvious, but I digress - the NI rise is in 2011. Quite why Labour are making such an issue of it, therefore is beyond me.

 

 

 

(a) It also applies to employers as well, irrespective of their profitability. The biggest employer in the country is in the public sector, the NHS. It will have an extra ?200M liability to meet out of its funds. How do you think they will cover that? A bigger share of the cake which isn't going to grow as all the parties admit?

 

( b )True, but then you know my argument on NI anyway.

 

? I think no matter who wins, the VAT rate will go up. While VAT is relatively regressive, so are excise duties. There is also a philosophical argument supporting more consumption taxes though when 70% of the UK economy is made up of consumption, part of the reason for the mess now. A push towards savings and investment would be beneficial in the longer run. No one wants a tax hike but I think this is where it will hit.

 

(d) Newsflash - many jobs in the public sector will go anyway. Darling himself has said that the next government of whatever hue will have to implement far more severe cuts than Margaret Thatcher ever did. No one is being honest about this, even the blessed Vince Cable.

 

 

 

Er, what are you getting at here? That because I'm from Northern Ireland it colours my political view? And I espouse my theories? Last I looked this was a message board for putting forward people's own views. What a radical idea!

 

I'm not a politician, nor am I a member of any political party. Why should I be a shill for the Tories, Labour or anyone else?

 

 

 

Beware if you have a public sector job - the worst is yet to come no matter who wins

 

 

 

See my point on employers NI. That's the real issue, except it hasn't been dressed up that way.

 

 

 

 

 

Which would be fair enough if the public sector wasn't headed for over 50% of GDP.

 

You can't run an economy without creating wealth and the public sector is crowding out the private sector, as witnessed by the differentials in interest rates between base rates, gilt yields (the rate government borrows rate) and corporate bonds (the rate companies borrow at dependent on their credit worthiness) ; e.g. base rates are at 0.5% but corporate bonds can be 6% for example. If a company wants to borrow and invest, it needs to earn over and above that rate of return to make it worthwhile.

 

 

Geoff, you either continually miss the point or prefer deliberately to miss it.

Your and your bosom Buddy from Canaryland put forward some solid arguments but with respect they are only your views.

 

What we want to hear is how DODGY DAVE and his personality by-pass Shadow Chancellor, Gideon (call me George) Osborne, have said they are going to deal with matters. What we want to know is not what you think but what the Tories intend. It's that simple!

[Therapist]

And the stock market did not collapse.

 

Er, ok then.

 

Incidentally, the NI letter now has 81 signatories.

 

Bye bye Gordon.

[The Mighty Thor]

Er, ok then.

 

Incidentally, the NI letter now has 81 signatories.

 

Bye bye Gordon.

 

So that's potentially 81 votes for the conservative party.

 

That of course assumes all 81 are resident in the UK and not non-domicile.

[The Mighty Thor]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

 

Well here is how the Tories are going to save ?12 billion to fund the scrapping of the NIC increase.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8610560.stm

 

Sir Peter Gershon (tip top Tory advisor Chappie and all round good egg) says that they could save ?1-2 billion by curbing recruitment.

 

There you go.

 

Saving ?1-2 billion = ?12 billion et viola, job done, get the removal men round to number 10.

[rossthejambo]

Er, ok then.

 

Incidentally, the NI letter now has 81 signatories.

 

Bye bye Gordon.

 

That will be 81 people who are more interested in lining their own pockets than the well being of the people that they profess to be looking out for?

 

The Tories are in cloud cuckoo land if they think they'll be able to save the same amount of money by "freezing recruitment" as opposed to raising NI.

 

Can't wait to hear their next ground breaking policy

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Geoff, you either continually miss the point or prefer deliberately to miss it.

Your and your bosom Buddy from Canaryland put forward some solid arguments but with respect they are only your views.

 

Again, radical idea for a messageboard. Care to comment on my other points?

 

 

What we want to hear is how DODGY DAVE and his personality by-pass Shadow Chancellor, Gideon (call me George) Osborne, have said they are going to deal with matters. What we want to know is not what you think but what the Tories intend. It's that simple!

 

From what I've heard, they plan to cut all departments except NHS and Overseas Development, as well as scrapping the NI increase. They will also charge a levy on non-doms to fund an inheritance tax cut.

 

Do you want my opinion on that or is that irrelevant too?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

tackled

 

Can you get round to confirming or denying my recollection that you have previously said that Brown policies for tackling the crisis were 'broadly correct' and that the deficit was set to be reduced as promised.

 

 

I'm not confirming or denying it because I can't remember and I can't be arsed trawling for it. If it means that much to you, happy hunting! I'm quite happy to confirm that Brown did get some things right in response to the crisis. I'm also quite happy to confirm that the mess he made of things beforehand more than outweighs what he did get right.

 

Now, do you want to debate the points I raised?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

 

Well here is how the Tories are going to save ?12 billion to fund the scrapping of the NIC increase.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...010/8610560.stm

 

Sir Peter Gershon (tip top Tory advisor Chappie and all round good egg) says that they could save ?1-2 billion by curbing recruitment.

 

There you go.

 

Saving ?1-2 billion = ?12 billion et viola, job done, get the removal men round to number 10.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8609135.stm

 

Here's a better study of efficiency savings - both parties are talking pish. Oh, and the Lib Dumbs will find an extra ?15M to save from 'somewhere'.

 

Cameron is denying 40,000 jobs will go, but in my view 40,000 is just the tip of the iceberg no matter who wins. Darling talked about halving the deficit in the budget - that means the debt is still going up and the structural deficit is forecast to come down to 2.5% of GDP. That means the Government 'needs' to borrow that amount just to stand still.

 

So, hang off the soundbites and the campaign if you will. The truth is the election air will be filled with utter bollocks, which is why the Tories have been delighted to fill the air with this NI nonsense, to ignore the bigger issues such as the economic rebalancing, power stations going offline, the continual rise in the price of oil etc.

[JamboAl]

Again, radical idea for a messageboard. Care to comment on my other points?

 

Your points are conjecture/personal opinion which I acknowledge are excellent for debate on a message board. If you wish I'll think up some to counter yours but it doesn't help the real debate.

 

From what I've heard, they plan to cut all departments except NHS and Overseas Development, as well as scrapping the NI increase. They will also charge a levy on non-doms to fund an inheritance tax cut.

 

From what you've heard?: source?

So nearly all civil servants can look forward to a spell on the dole, potholes won't be filled, family benefits will be cut/frozen as will pensions, their friends who help create wealth through the black economy will rub their hands in glee as tax jobs are axed while Dave helps to reduce Inheritance Tax for the filthy rich. Great. And I cannot believe what you say about non-doms. Dodgy Dave has shunned all questions about Lord Ashcroft who funds the Tory party and now he's going to tax him! Tell us more.

 

Do you want my opinion on that or is that irrelevant too?

 

We don't really want your opinion at all. It would be better to keep to the facts which are that Labour's plans are as per the Budget and the Tories' plans are... well... erm.... That said your ideas are as good as anyone else's guesses.

[Boris]

I just wish a party would be straight with the electorate.

 

I'd say that most people want good public services - education, NHS etc.

 

What the people aren't facing up to is how to fund these.

 

Tax, in its various guises, is such a taboo subject.

 

What we need is a party to clear the decks, state clearly what the tax levels are and make it as transparent to the voter as possible. I'd happily pay an extra penny on the basic rate of income tax, as long as that money was used well.

 

Efficiency in Govt is welcome too, but if anyone thinks that's all that's needed to balance the books is seriously deluded.

[Sterling Archer]

The public sector is a joke and there needs to be cuts made to it. It's getting increasingly difficult to get REAL information on the election though instead of just stupid catchphrases.

[jambos are go!]

Er, ok then.

 

Incidentally, the NI letter now has 81 signatories.

 

Bye bye Gordon.

 

On Newsnight last night the signtories were criticised by one of the Dragons. The bulk of them are from the retail sector were average earnings are around ?15k so their business will be almost totally unaffected by he new NI rate which kicks in at ?20k per annum. He also said no sane businessman would sack or hire someone on the basis of additional costs of ?15 per month that wont kick in for another year when the economy will have improved.

 

Happy you have to some extent accepted you are talking rubbish . Still waiting for the the good ideas you heard from Cameron 2 Sundays ago.

[jambos are go!]

I'm not confirming or denying it because I can't remember and I can't be arsed trawling for it. If it means that much to you, happy hunting! I'm quite happy to confirm that Brown did get some things right in response to the crisis. I'm also quite happy to confirm that the mess he made of things beforehand more than outweighs what he did get right.

 

Now, do you want to debate the points I raised?

 

Half hearted or not you know you said it and are just another spin merchant. Let the people decide.

[JamboAl]

So that's potentially 81 votes for the conservative party.

That of course assumes all 81 are resident in the UK and not non-domicile.

 

Now that is radical and earth-shattering! 81 people being asked to pay more tax have signed a paper. If Labour had frozen pensions I could have easily got 81,000 (yes, thousand) signatures.

Labour should highlight these 81 in a poster of shame or a testament to greed, as they would rather wish the burden to be placed on the more vulnerable members of society. Maybe we could avoid shopping at some of these hungry-gutted parasites' premises.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

We don't really want your opinion at all. It would be better to keep to the facts which are that Labour's plans are as per the Budget and the Tories' plans are... well... erm.... That said your ideas are as good as anyone else's guesses.

 

 

Alec, couple of questions on Labour's plans.

 

How many public sector jobs will be lost under their plans?

 

How much revenue has the Treasury budgeted for from the 50p tax rate you made such an issue of a while back?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Half hearted or not you know you said it and are just another spin merchant. Let the people decide.

 

 

If I said it, I said it. I'm not denying it at all but I would hope you would look at the context too, which you seem to be completely ignoring. Not that I would expect anything else.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

On Newsnight last night the signtories were criticised by one of the Dragons. The bulk of them are from the retail sector were average earnings are around ?15k so their business will be almost totally unaffected by he new NI rate which kicks in at ?20k per annum. He also said no sane businessman would sack or hire someone on the basis of additional costs of ?15 per month that wont kick in for another year when the economy will have improved.

 

Happy you have to some extent accepted you are talking rubbish . Still waiting for the the good ideas you heard from Cameron 2 Sundays ago.

 

 

And the ?200M extra liability for the NHS? What services would you cut to pay the extra employers NI?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I just wish a party would be straight with the electorate.

 

I'd say that most people want good public services - education, NHS etc.

 

What the people aren't facing up to is how to fund these.

 

Tax, in its various guises, is such a taboo subject.

 

What we need is a party to clear the decks, state clearly what the tax levels are and make it as transparent to the voter as possible. I'd happily pay an extra penny on the basic rate of income tax, as long as that money was used well.

 

Efficiency in Govt is welcome too, but if anyone thinks that's all that's needed to balance the books is seriously deluded.

 

Quite.

 

The problem is that it will take a lot more than 1p on income tax to fund the deficit and help to bring down the debt to GDP ratio to a more realistic level.

[JamboAl]

Alec, couple of questions on Labour's plans.

 

How many public sector jobs will be lost under their plans?

 

How much revenue has the Treasury budgeted for from the 50p tax rate you made such an issue of a while back?

 

Don't know the answer to either question but I can reply as follows

 

Fewer public sector jobs will be lost than under the Tories

and

much more money than we'd get if the Tories abolishred the 50% rate which they voted against!

But Geoff (and the name's ALEX) you are still not telling us what the Tories are going to do!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Don't know the answer to either question but I can reply as follows

 

Fewer public sector jobs will be lost than under the Tories

and

much more money than we'd get if the Tories abolishred the 50% rate which they voted against!

But Geoff (and the name's ALEX) you are still not telling us what the Tories are going to do!

 

 

On point two, the Treasury downgraded the revenue they expect to receive to ?1bn, around a sixth of that NI cut. Another example of good politics, bad economics.

 

I would agree on point one in the short term. Over the medium term it'll be around the same. If the deficit doesn't come down quick enough, then interest rates will go up significantly and the cost of government borrowing will mean that more money will be channelled to debt interest than public services.

 

Finally, you are still confusing me. I told you what I had heard from the Tories' statements, I've also given my opinions on what I think will happen irrespective of who wins. What precisely are you after and shouldn't you wait till the manifestos are published next week if you are looking for more details?

[tcjambo]

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_The_Big_Society.aspx

 

.

 

Happy you have to some extent accepted you are talking rubbish . Still waiting for the the good ideas you heard from Cameron 2 Sundays ago.

[flecktimus]

On Newsnight last night the signtories were criticised by one of the Dragons. The bulk of them are from the retail sector were average earnings are around ?15k so their business will be almost totally unaffected by he new NI rate which kicks in at ?20k per annum. He also said no sane businessman would sack or hire someone on the basis of additional costs of ?15 per month that wont kick in for another year when the economy will have improved.

 

Happy you have to some extent accepted you are talking rubbish . Still waiting for the the good ideas you heard from Cameron 2 Sundays ago.

 

Was it the Dragon that doesn't pay Taxes in this country,but loves the benefit of using our media outlets.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Was it the Dragon that doesn't pay Taxes in this country,but loves the benefit of using our media outlets.

 

 

 

It was James Caan, apparently. I always thought he was an actor but there you go!

[flecktimus]

Now that is radical and earth-shattering! 81 people being asked to pay more tax have signed a paper. If Labour had frozen pensions I could have easily got 81,000 (yes, thousand) signatures.

Labour should highlight these 81 in a poster of shame or a testament to greed, as they would rather wish the burden to be placed on the more vulnerable members of society. Maybe we could avoid shopping at some of these hungry-gutted parasites' premises.

 

They are probably the same 81 who snouts have been in the New labour trough.

[JamboAl]

On point two, the Treasury downgraded the revenue they expect to receive to ?1bn, around a sixth of that NI cut. Another example of good politics, bad economics.

 

So that would mean even deeper cuts. More jobs going which suggests you agree with the Tory selfish philosophy that jobs is a price worth paying. At least in Oz it won't your job that will go.

 

I would agree on point one in the short term. Over the medium term it'll be around the same. If the deficit doesn't come down quick enough, then interest rates will go up significantly and the cost of government borrowing will mean that more money will be channelled to debt interest than public services.

 

What time scale do you have in mind and will the world come to an end if it's not met?

The fact is that the more people you have in work, the greater the contribution (and less drain) to the public purse and the better chance of growth which is the key either way.

 

Finally, you are still confusing me. I told you what I had heard from the Tories' statements, I've also given my opinions on what I think will happen irrespective of who wins. What precisely are you after and shouldn't you wait till the manifestos are published next week if you are looking for more details?

 

I am sorry that I have confused you but some of the things you have heard, I have not - and certainly not from Dodgy Dave's mouth nor from his meaningless sidekick, Gideon. As I have said, you personally put forward some excellent points but they're just your views,not what's coming from the Tory party - in fact very little is. They're hoping to win this election by continuously denegrating Brown and deliberately avoiding putting forward too many of their own remedies as they fear they will not stand up to public scrutiny. They want change but need to prove it's for the better.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I am sorry that I have confused you but some of the things you have heard, I have not - and certainly not from Dodgy Dave's mouth nor from his meaningless sidekick, Gideon. As I have said, you personally put forward some excellent points but they're just your views,not what's coming from the Tory party - in fact very little is. They're hoping to win this election by continuously denegrating Brown and deliberately avoiding putting forward too many of their own remedies as they fear they will not stand up to public scrutiny. They want change but need to prove it's for the better.

 

 

Now that I will agree with you on. That's political reality though when Brown is your biggest asset.

[tcjambo]

And quite right too. There's plenty to denigrate!

 

I am sorry that I have confused you but some of the things you have heard, I have not - and certainly not from Dodgy Dave's mouth nor from his meaningless sidekick, Gideon. As I have said, you personally put forward some excellent points but they're just your views,not what's coming from the Tory party - in fact very little is. They're hoping to win this election by continuously denegrating Brown and deliberately avoiding putting forward too many of their own remedies as they fear they will not stand up to public scrutiny. They want change but need to prove it's for the better.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

And quite right too. There's plenty to denigrate!

 

Exactly, its not as if misleading Parliament, misleading Public Inquiries, forcing an elected PM out of the way so that he could get in (<12 months after the last election, continual changes in the tax system etc etc aren't worthy points of debate.

 

Then again Jambo Al thinks its important that we know what George Osborne's first name is

[Boris]

Exactly, its not as if misleading Parliament, misleading Public Inquiries, forcing an elected PM out of the way so that he could get in (<12 months after the last election, continual changes in the tax system etc etc aren't worthy points of debate.

 

Then again Jambo Al thinks its important that we know what George Osborne's first name is

 

 

Why did he change his name then? To make him more electable?

 

I suppose it's hard to accuse the Tories of misleading anyone at the moment because they haven't laid out their policies yet so there is nothing to scrutinise!

 

Although I did read that one of Cameron's advisers will more than likely benefit as a result of the Tory Party's "efficiency savings". Funny that.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/07/general-election-tories-peter-gershon-nhs

[JamboAl]

Why did he change his name then? To make him more electable?

 

I suppose it's hard to accuse the Tories of misleading anyone at the moment because they haven't laid out their policies yet so there is nothing to scrutinise!

Although I did read that one of Cameron's advisers will more than likely benefit as a result of the Tory Party's "efficiency savings". Funny that.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/07/general-election-tories-peter-gershon-nhs

 

Possibly but we can start with the total deception re Lord Ashcroft's peerage.

A non-dom funds the Tory party so he needs to be rewarded with a peerage and they tell lies to get him it: then refuse to answer questions on the subject. Now if that had been Labour David Shameron would want yet another Inquiry.

[jambos are go!]

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_The_Big_Society.aspx

 

This is irrelelevant Tory propaganda. Therapist came on here 2 Sundays ago and endorsed David Cameron on the basis of an Appearance on Nikki Campbells show 2 Sundays ago. He said he had expressed 'good ideas' but has consistently refused to say what these were. In fact it appears he logs out or goes to bed as soon as he asked for the info.

[Boris]

Possibly but we can start with the total deception re Lord Ashcroft's peerage.

A non-dom funds the Tory party so he needs to be rewarded with a peerage and they tell lies to get him it: then refuse to answer questions on the subject. Now if that had been Labour David Shameron would want yet another Inquiry.

 

 

Spot on.

 

The Tory preponderance to be bankrolled and influenced by oligarchs shows where their true best interests lie. The ordinary punter is essentially cannon-fodder for these oligarchs companies to use, abuse and discard. Human resource indeed.

[jambos are go!]

Exactly, its not as if misleading Parliament, misleading Public Inquiries, forcing an elected PM out of the way so that he could get in (<12 months after the last election, continual changes in the tax system etc etc aren't worthy points of debate.

 

Then again Jambo Al thinks its important that we know what George Osborne's first name is

 

Remind me how the last Tory Prime Minister asssumed power. I'm pretty sure it was after the elected Thatcher was forced from office.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Remind me how the last Tory Prime Minister asssumed power. I'm pretty sure it was after the elected Thatcher was forced from office.

 

 

Quite so.

 

At least the Tory party, if not the country, had a vote on the matter though.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why did he change his name then? To make him more electable?

 

I suppose it's hard to accuse the Tories of misleading anyone at the moment because they haven't laid out their policies yet so there is nothing to scrutinise!

 

Although I did read that one of Cameron's advisers will more than likely benefit as a result of the Tory Party's "efficiency savings". Funny that.

 

http://www.guardian....ter-gershon-nhs

 

 

Tony Benn did the same!

[jambos are go!]

And the ?200M extra liability for the NHS? What services would you cut to pay the extra employers NI?

 

What the Treasury taketh it can return surely. Do you evidence to the quandary. The Newsnight revelation is the best counter to the Business mens protest methinks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What the Treasury taketh it can return surely. Do you evidence to the quandary. The Newsnight revelation is the best counter to the Business mens protest methinks.

 

 

So the NHS is allowed an unfair advantage of every other employer in the country by that logic?

 

Does this apply across the public sector given that it now accounts for 52% of GDP? That's around ?3bn of this ?6bn gone!

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Why did he change his name then? To make him more electable?

 

 

Of course at age 13 when he changed his name it was all about electability

 

Possibly but we can start with the total deception re Lord Ashcroft's peerage.

A non-dom funds the Tory party so he needs to be rewarded with a peerage and they tell lies to get him it: then refuse to answer questions on the subject. Now if that had been Labour David Shameron would want yet another Inquiry.

 

I'll raise you a Lord Levy

 

Spot on.

 

The Tory preponderance to be bankrolled and influenced by oligarchs shows where their true best interests lie. The ordinary punter is essentially cannon-fodder for these oligarchs companies to use, abuse and discard. Human resource indeed.

 

Excellent stalinist type propaganda but not at all true. Do you think all business owners are trying to screw over their staff always? Did you read how Gordon treats his employees?? It was heavily discussed and not denied a few weeks ago.

 

Remind me how the last Tory Prime Minister asssumed power. I'm pretty sure it was after the elected Thatcher was forced from office.

 

Yes correct but John Major was not the instigator and it was 3.5 years after a general election, not 12 months after when Gordon 'Bully' Brown threw his toys out of the pram.

[Boris]

 

Excellent stalinist type propaganda but not at all true. Do you think all business owners are trying to screw over their staff always?

 

Yes. Personal profit and gain is the bottom line for these types.

[Boris]

Tony Benn did the same!

 

Anthony Wedgewood Benn. So he did this by abbreviating Anthony to Tony?

[jambos are go!]

Quite so.

 

At least the Tory party, if not the country, had a vote on the matter though.

 

Brown went through a similar process and only because there was no other candidate was there not a vote. Do you disagree?