Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

It is for the Tories to lose rather than Labour to win. For all of the Tories fcuk ups, if the election was this Thursday would you expect a Labour win? Me neither.

rick_chasey

No but gloating about it is just infantile - especially when it's almost a year since the election.

ballysmate

The thread was started in relation to Labour picking Corbyn as leader after their election defeat. It wasn't about gloating over an election victory but to highlight the perceived folly of picking a leader so at odds with the electorates view. As you say Rick, elections come and go, you win and lose.
Although I've posted highlighting Corbyn follies, I don't recall posting in gloat of the election result. I haven't searched the thread though, so if you can find numerous examples, I will stand corrected.

rick_chasey

It's not all about you bally

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Here is where Stevo and I will probably disagree. I wouldn't means test pensions. I may consider raising the pension age but would maintain the universal right to a pension based on your contributions. To do otherwise is to invite people nearing retirement age to dispose of their money to arrive at pensionable age under the prerequisite threshold, unless you intend to set such threshold at such a level it would affect too few people to make a difference.
Would a pensioner living in their home in London who has equity in their property be penalised? Would they have to sell off their assets to make up for no pension income?
Lets look after our elderly.

Pensions are one of the biggest costs in our annual expenditure so probably one of the most important to deal with.

I actually agree with you on not means testing - based on wealth/savings - as you say, that penalises those who save compared to those who 'p1ss it up the wall' and encourages the sort of behaviour you mention above, though probably not as much as you think as the state pension is not huge.

Better to means test based on income - which we already do as pension income is taxable so anyine earnjng more than around £11k pa as a pensioner pays some of it back in tax.

Two other key changes are already being made - raising the pension age (as people are oiving longer) and also compulsory workplace pensions to effectively make mandatory pension saving for anyone in employment and reduce reliance on the state.

Apart from that, I think they should now look at indexing the state pension in a less generous way as the measures above start to kick in.

Restrictions on pension tax deductions have already been made as previously discussed although I think we still need to incentivise pension saving for all to some extent via the tax system.

Any other ideas?

Wrap winter fuel allowance and free bus pass into basic state pension so at least it gets taxed.
Add NI to income tax so we have an honest rate that will also help claw more money back from richer pensioners.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread was started in relation to Labour picking Corbyn as leader after their election defeat. It wasn't about gloating over an election victory but to highlight the perceived folly of picking a leader so at odds with the electorates view. As you say Rick, elections come and go, you win and lose.
Although I've posted highlighting Corbyn follies, I don't recall posting in gloat of the election result. I haven't searched the thread though, so if you can find numerous examples, I will stand corrected.

The main reason for starting the thread was as you say above. Elections do come and go, which is why we need to enjoy what we have while we have it. And maybe the occasional gloat, WTF life is short

Although the other point about this thread is that there are things we can do to keep the current electoral situation as it is. After all, the future of UK is worth making a bit of an effort for.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason for starting the thread was as you say above. Elections do come and go, which is why we need to enjoy what we have while we have it.

Yep make the most of it... Osbourne at -33 :shock: i had a good laugh at that! and only a year in, just think what these tory goons will sink too in another 4 years,
you do have to wonder whether it was the liberals that won it for the Tories and without them as a brake, they are going back to type?

"Ipsos MORI’s monthly poll for the Evening Standard follows the trend we’ve seen in other recent polls of a tightening gap between Conservative and Labour. Topline figures are CON 36%(-3), LAB 34%(+1), LDEM 10%, UKIP 11%, GRN 3%.

They also echo YouGov’s recent polling in showing strongly negative figures for George Osborne. Just after IDS’s resignation YouGov found Osborne’s ratings dropping to 17% good job, 58% bad job. MORI find very similar in their poll: before the budget they had Osborne’s net approval rating at minus 6, now it has slumped to minus 33 (27% satisfied, 60% disatisfied). The budget gets a solid thumbs down in the MORI poll, 53% think it is bad for the country, 30% good for the country"

rick_chasey

UKIP polling above Lib Dems?

Christ.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

UKIP polling above Lib Dems?

Christ.

UKIP have been polling above the Lib Dems since the last election, but a decisive vote either way in the EU referendum should kill them off.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties

That's right Stevo, you've really taught us lefties a lesson on this thread.



Ah well, come on comrades, not much left for us to do except wave the white flag of surrender, then skulk off with our tails between our legs, back to our (council homes/ivory towers)* to (seethe resentfully at other people's success/drink champagne and shake our heads trying to understand how all those common people betrayed our mission to create a utopia)**.

* Delete according to the type of leftie abode in which you dwell
** Delete according to the mental deficiency that causes your leftie views

I think it was more the last general election result that taught lefties a lesson - or at least should have done

Let's see what it's like when the public has had 5 years of pure Tory rule, not when they have to compromise for their coalition partner.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

another 4 years,

you do have to wonder whether it was the liberals that won it for the Tories and without them as a brake, they are going back to type?

I do hope you're a patient person, 4 years is a long time And Corbyn may well still be there, making Labour as unelectable as they are now.

If anything the Lib Dems probably held us back. The biggest Tory majorities in living memory were nothing to do with any other party.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

another 4 years,

you do have to wonder whether it was the liberals that won it for the Tories and without them as a brake, they are going back to type?

I do hope you're a patient person, 4 years is a long time And Corbyn may well still be there, making Labour as unelectable as they are now.

If anything the Lib Dems probably held us back. The biggest Tory majorities in living memory were nothing to do with any other party.

these are the winkers you support Steve0 but hey who gives a shit about Port talbot, they dont vote Tory.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... y-proposal

ballysmate

“At the end of last month, the commission has set out some higher tariffs of around 9% and we along with the French, Germans and Italians, have said we should go further and that is too low,” Cameron’s official spokesman said. “Actually we were looking for higher tariffs. What the questioner was referring to was the lesser duty rule ... essentially it is whether you have a proportionate response or you lurch towards protectionism. Our concern with some of what is being talked about in the commission is that is protectionism.”

Saved Javid “I think when we look at this, a responsible government would look at the impact overall to British industry and British jobs. If duties are applied that are disproportionate, it would have an impact, in Britain and elsewhere, on the consumers of steel as well,”

“There are many British companies ... that would tell you if duties got out of control ... then it would cost them jobs and growth and it would certainly cut their exports.”

He added: “I think to go further, much further, might sort of, in the short term, sound like a way to go to try and protect a certain industry, but we also have to remember that in the UK, as well as manufacturers of steel, there are also companies that consume steel as part of their production process, and the impact that might have on to them.”

So the government wants to increase the tariff but stay within the mechanism agreed with the WTO. It appears that there is the ability to do so without any rule change.
For every action there is a reaction. Support the steel manufacturers at the expense of consumers ?
Is what the government suggest not a balanced response?

mamba80

so, the rest of the EU got it wrong but the country/Gov which sucks up to the Chinese over Hinkley, somehow has got it right?
not too mention the USA which has dramatically increased tarrifs, how much is 35,000 unemployed going to cost the UK tax payer?
even the Tories are talking about state aid, indeed a possible temp re-nationalisation, realising perhaps that defence, rail, construction are strategic industries and we need home grown steel ? certainly John Redwood, that well known leftie is supporting UK steel

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

so, the rest of the EU got it wrong but the country/Gov which sucks up to the Chinese over Hinkley, somehow has got it right?
not too mention the USA which has dramatically increased tarrifs, how much is 35,000 unemployed going to cost the UK tax payer?
even the Tories are talking about state aid, indeed a possible temp re-nationalisation, realising perhaps that defence, rail, construction are strategic industries and we need home grown steel ? certainly John Redwood, that well known leftie is supporting UK steel

Are we in a minority of one? The article says

Sajid Javid said it would not be right to scrap EU lesser duty rule, which some countries want to do in order to allow higher tariffs on cheap Chinese steel

If so, perhaps that is an inherent danger of belonging to an organisation that one country can f*ck something up to the detriment of the other 27

pblakeney

My predictions for the steel industry.
Platitudes will be made, promises will be made (no stone left unturned) token gestures will be made.
Ultimately nothing of significance will be done, people will be paid off, and our leaders will return their noses to the trough.

ballysmate

Here is an article stating that 8 out of 10 cars produced here are for export. How do you think increasing the price the manufacturers pay for steel would affect that and the jobs supported?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ecord-rate

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Here is an article stating that 8 out of 10 cars produced here are for export. How do you think increasing the price the manufacturers pay for steel would affect that and the jobs supported?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ecord-rate

The cars are assembled here.
Where do the parts come from? Are they manufactured here?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

another 4 years,

you do have to wonder whether it was the liberals that won it for the Tories and without them as a brake, they are going back to type?

I do hope you're a patient person, 4 years is a long time And Corbyn may well still be there, making Labour as unelectable as they are now.

If anything the Lib Dems probably held us back. The biggest Tory majorities in living memory were nothing to do with any other party.

these are the winkers you support Steve0 but hey who gives a shoot about Port talbot, they dont vote Tory.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... y-proposal

More assumptions mamba.

Try looking at the facts about Port Talbot
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/tata-steel-last-attempt-revive-port-talbot
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/29/tata-set-to-announce-sale-of-uk-steel-business-port-talbot

And here is the Tata Steel statement on the situation:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/port-talbot-steelworks-up-sale-11111029

Looks like there are still several options but Tata itself would prefer to sell. Tata themselves - who you would expect to know what they are talking about - do not feel that any further investment to restructure has a decent chance of succeeding. They have also said that the problems of oversupply and lack of demand are liable to persist for the foreseeable future.

So who ever buys this steel works is taking on a business that is losing over £350m per year and has no realistic chance of being returned to profitable running. Clearly that needs lookimg at very carefully by any potential buyer.

Most steel production is already outside the UK and indeed the EU. In the end its a commodity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/30/uk-industry-rocked-as-tata-confirms-plan-to-offload-steel-busine/

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

In the end its a commodity.

I bet you don't make this point loud and clear during your next trip to Wales. :twisted:

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

In the end its a commodity.

I bet you don't make this point loud and clear during your next trip to Wales. :twisted:

Just supporting the Welsh economy...but in any event 'tis the truth.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

In the end its a commodity.

I bet you don't make this point loud and clear during your next trip to Wales. :twisted:

Just supporting the Welsh economy...but in any event 'tis the truth.

Neatly summing up the differences of opinions.
Some believe that people are more than mere commodities.

Stevo_666

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

mamba80

the Point i was making Steve0 is nt that the Steel industry should be nationalised etc but that once again this gov is asleep on the job,
after last years closures, this was to be predicted, indeed, TATA was having a well publicised meeting in India - no ministers present, announcements made, ministers jetting around the world with no coherent policy.

i know some think we should replace Trident as we dont know the future but in this uncertain world, is it wise to be continually relying on the Chinese for power, steel, rail investment?
we ve seen what has happened to the world eco when their growth falls to (they say) 7 or 8% what would happen if war over N Korea - ( they are on the brink of a ballistic nuclear weapon and the US will not allow that) or their economy imploding? or large scale social unrest? all very possible.

having a steel industry, albeit smaller and a more specialist one, is in our national interest, as for the cost, we pour billions into agriculture each year, another loss making industry, so savings there to be made, ah no we cant, rural areas vote Tory

mr_goo

If the steel industry crisis isn't reason enough to leave the EU, then I don't know what is.
The UK can subsidise and support the agriculture industry all the time because it is an 'Industry' with multiple 'companies'. However the UK steel industry is essentially one company Tata, and EU rules state that a government cannot support a company financially as it is deemed unfair to the other member states. This seems to have been ignored in the case of Airbus (France) and EDF (France) to name but two. As usual the stupid UK play by the strict rules.
Thus in a couple of months time, if we as a nation decide to leave the EU, then the government can step in and support the steel industry and perhaps nationalise it.
Now wouldn't that be a great thing to do?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

That's a bit premature. The business is up for sale, they have not said they will close it: I expect that is the last resort. Although if no trade buyer or investor can be found, what does that tell you?

Let's put it this way. If it was your money would you sub this steel works to the tune of £350m per year? And that is just the Port Talbot plant. The entire Tata UK operations are up for sale so the annual losses are likely to be considerably higher. Easy for people to say when its not their money....

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

That's a bit premature. The business is up for sale, they have not said they will close it: I expect that is the last resort. Although if no trade buyer or investor can be found, what does that tell you?

Let's put it this way. If it was your money would you sub this steel works to the tune of £350m per year? And that is just the Port Talbot plant. The entire Tata UK operations are up for sale so the annual losses are likely to be considerably higher. Easy for people to say when its not their money....

That is not premature, that is what the people of the area are faced with today.
They need support, either a form of nationalisation/subsidy (not to boost a companies profit) or new industries started in the area. Our government will do nothing leaving them on the scrapheap.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

If the steel industry crisis isn't reason enough to leave the EU, then I don't know what is.
The UK can subsidise and support the agriculture industry all the time because it is an 'Industry' with multiple 'companies'. However the UK steel industry is essentially one company Tata, and EU rules state that a government cannot support a company financially as it is deemed unfair to the other member states. This seems to have been ignored in the case of Airbus (France) and EDF (France) to name but two. As usual the stupid UK play by the strict rules.
Thus in a couple of months time, if we as a nation decide to leave the EU, then the government can step in and support the steel industry and perhaps nationalise it.
Now wouldn't that be a great thing to do?

Maybe but any exit will take at least 2years and given DC and the Tories will no doubt be in charge of these negotiations, we ll be left with trade/migration rules pretty much what we ve got now, all too late for the steel industry - TATA are saying they want rid within weeks.

as i said, this hasnt come out the blue and the tories have done nothing, so labour people were at the TATA meetings yesterday but NO Government ones, the ones that count.

rick_chasey

Tata also own an ex Corus steel plant in the Netherlands.

Curious to know why that's doing so much better.