Scargill, still causing trouble
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
I for one would go further and say that I simply cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would argue against NHS reform. Anyone who does will, through their own well intentioned stupidity, destroy the very organisation they want to protect.
From what I've read of the organisations opposed to the current proposed NHS reforms, from the Lords, through doctors, nurses, midwives and the users, they are not against reform. Indeed, from what I understand, particularly from my daughter who is a midwife, their beef is that they believe these reforms do not address the real waste of the NHS. Further that they are much too expensive.Doctors are very pro reform but very against the Cameron proposals.
So perhaps stupidty is not a accusation you can use against those opposed to the reforms. Most feel that if implemented, Cameron's changes will destroy the NHS once and for all and the savings to us, the taxpayer, would be negligeable.
no nurse or midwife that I know wants to protect the 'organisation', just the NHS.
crankedup said:
Koreans may have a decent life now, but go back 30 odd years for that is what this debate is all about leading up to where we are now.
But they still didn't get to where they are now by slave labour and oppression! They got there by hard work and embedding the basic notions of quality and flexibility into the workforce. We could have a ship building industry today if the unions would allow it! Our costs would not be so different to the Korean and Japanese alternatives, or even the Germans, Italians, French and Scandis come to think of it! But who would take the risk eh? 80% of all Tanker new builds are in Japan, Korea and China. Of those, the high end stuff such as LNG and LPG carriers is mostly done in Japan and Korea. Whats to stop us getting this work? The Unions and their legacy, that's what!
Derek Smith said:
Most feel that if implemented, Cameron's changes will destroy the NHS once and for all and the savings to us, the taxpayer, would be negligeable.
2011/2012 spending was £109 billion pounds. If we destroy it once and for all, the saving seems quite worth it 
As others have said, anything other than a doubling of the spending is met with Cassandra like wailing, so f&*k 'em.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I think that it'd be worth you reading my first post. What I said was that the manifesto isn't a water-tight contract; its a statement of intent. I don't know whether or not you read the Conservative 2010 manifesto but I did and it didnt take the wit of an Arch-Bishop to work out that fixing the economy was 1st priority and everything else would be addressed in that context. On that basis, there simply isn't a credible argument to be made that the current NHS reforms are in contradiction to the 2010 manifesto.
I for one would go further and say that I simply cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would argue against NHS reform. Anyone who does will, through their own well intentioned stupidity, destroy the very organisation they want to protect.
I strongly disagree with your cop out, it was I that was questioned about manifesto and I gave my reply, you come back to what I have said and its that you disagree with. The word 'watertight' simply is not appropriate and nobody is suggesting that a manifesto is or should be. A Manifesto is as I have previously stated. It is patently wrong to assume that the NHS reform is based upon the Countries current financial position. The NHS has been budget ring-fenced and that was the only Manifesto promise the Tories made regarding the issue.I for one would go further and say that I simply cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would argue against NHS reform. Anyone who does will, through their own well intentioned stupidity, destroy the very organisation they want to protect.
Presumably you do know the full details regarding the NHS reforms and you know of all the consequences that the reform will bring? Do enlighten two thirds of the Country! Only the fool hardy would allow major restructures to occur in any organisation without knowing the outcome several years down the path. For this reason many people, including many of the health bodies, are asking for detail. The Government refuses to give detail, why? Is it unreasonable to request detail? Why are some of the Governments own front bench and backbenchers becoming increasingly hostile to the Bill? Some want Lansley out because he has made such a mess of presentation of this Bill. 244 and counting major amendments and The Lords are increasingly voicing strong concerns.
With this background its hardly surprising that much anxiety is expressed and calls for this Bill to be ditched.
andymadmak said:
But they still didn't get to where they are now by slave labour and oppression! They got there by hard work and embedding the basic notions of quality and flexibility into the workforce.
We could have a ship building industry today if the unions would allow it! Our costs would not be so different to the Korean and Japanese alternatives, or even the Germans, Italians, French and Scandis come to think of it! But who would take the risk eh? 80% of all Tanker new builds are in Japan, Korea and China. Of those, the high end stuff such as LNG and LPG carriers is mostly done in Japan and Korea. Whats to stop us getting this work? The Unions and their legacy, that's what!
No these Countries became more competitive in the Global market place, hence winning bids for work. They also operate upon the basis of a 'job for life' in many of their industries, switching workers around the floor if required. That assurance for the workers allows them freedom and confidence for their own commitments of expenditure. As I have already mentioned to tedium, we cannot compete against the wage rates of these Countries and I agree that we cannot currently or back then compete in their social and corporate ethos. We now have the tightest Union regulations in Europe, even the Germans have a more liberal relationship with the Unions! They learnt how to work with Unions and recognise the part they play in the workplace, as opposed to the U.K. who simply want to pile regulation upon regulation to cut off Unions from the workers. A retrograde step.We could have a ship building industry today if the unions would allow it! Our costs would not be so different to the Korean and Japanese alternatives, or even the Germans, Italians, French and Scandis come to think of it! But who would take the risk eh? 80% of all Tanker new builds are in Japan, Korea and China. Of those, the high end stuff such as LNG and LPG carriers is mostly done in Japan and Korea. Whats to stop us getting this work? The Unions and their legacy, that's what!
To suggest its our legacy of Union history that precludes us from winning work is just a silly comment.
Looking to the future now :
Talking down of the modern U.K. is a cancer that seems to be growing, its not helpful or true that we have poor industrial relations. Also we have many fine engineering companies, R&D, pharmaceutics, sciences, entertainment and growing Green Energy development and the list could go on. The U.K. can and will bounce back and again be respected for its high quality output. I guess and hope that we can all agree on that.
crankedup said:
No these Countries became more competitive in the Global market place, hence winning bids for work. They also operate upon the basis of a 'job for life' in many of their industries, switching workers around the floor if required. That assurance for the workers allows them freedom and confidence for their own commitments of expenditure. As I have already mentioned to tedium, we cannot compete against the wage rates of these Countries and I agree that we cannot currently or back then compete in their social and corporate ethos. We now have the tightest Union regulations in Europe, even the Germans have a more liberal relationship with the Unions! They learnt how to work with Unions and recognise the part they play in the workplace, as opposed to the U.K. who simply want to pile regulation upon regulation to cut off Unions from the workers. A retrograde step.
To suggest its our legacy of Union history that precludes us from winning work is just a silly comment.
Looking to the future now :
Talking down of the modern U.K. is a cancer that seems to be growing, its not helpful or true that we have poor industrial relations. Also we have many fine engineering companies, R&D, pharmaceutics, sciences, entertainment and growing Green Energy development and the list could go on. The U.K. can and will bounce back and again be respected for its high quality output. I guess and hope that we can all agree on that.
I run a high end Marine Engineering company, matey. I try as much as possible to place work in the UK. It is true to say that in many cases we can, now, do a fab job. World beating even. But I don't think we'll see a return of high end ship building here. Ever. The damage has already been done. With my hand on my heart, based on what I have seen, I am 1000000% certain that the Unions in the shipyards in the 60s, 70s and 80s brought this situation about. To suggest its our legacy of Union history that precludes us from winning work is just a silly comment.
Looking to the future now :
Talking down of the modern U.K. is a cancer that seems to be growing, its not helpful or true that we have poor industrial relations. Also we have many fine engineering companies, R&D, pharmaceutics, sciences, entertainment and growing Green Energy development and the list could go on. The U.K. can and will bounce back and again be respected for its high quality output. I guess and hope that we can all agree on that.
You keep repeating that "we cannot compete against the wage rates of these countries". That is simply wrong. If anything, our wage costs might even be a little lower than some of the competition these days. The raw materials costs are pretty much the same across the world. What differs, and what made us uncompetitive were the working practices, and these drove all the customers away. Now, I doubt we have the expertise to compete with the Japanese. They can plan, build and launch a 300,000 dwt ship in 14 months. They can do it to a budget, and they can deliver it largely fault free. We can't.
And to address your jobs for life point - German workers were prepared to redeploy and acquire new skills in response to new working practices and technologies. Thus it was easier to give job assurances. In the UK the Unions wanted job assurances, but only insofar as their members could be retained forever on the same tasks! I think another poster already highlighted what happened when the new automatic welding processes were introduced!
Face it Crankedup. The loss of ship building had nowt to do with Governments of any colour and everything to do with Unions and the workers
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 21st February 17:35
crankedup said:
They also operate upon the basis of a 'job for life' in many of their industries,
That may have been the case when Bondsan was tazzing around Tokyo in a 2000GT with one of Tanaka's girls, but certainly not now.A 'Job for Life' in the Asian economy's is very much a sixties/seventies thing. It ended in Korea in 1997, when their citizens were queuing up at the banks for hours on end to give their gold, other valuables and savings to the government (can you imagine us Brits doing that, or the Greeks right now?). I myself was assured of a 'Job for Life' (and for my children) by a certain Mr Kim in 1995, but it was all over by 2000
In Japan the concept of a 'Job for Life' ended about ten years earlier at least (just about the time the Koreans took over) and salary men pretended to get up and go to work each day before finally committing Seppuku on a sharp briefcase.
Edited by Balmoral on Tuesday 21st February 18:01
crankedup said:
As I have already mentioned to tedium, we cannot compete against the wage rates of these Countries and I agree that we cannot currently or back then compete in their social and corporate ethos.
You've mentioned it to tedium but it's still not right. We lost our shipbuilding industry largely to European countries with similar wage rates but a less truculent, more flexible workforce. In both the case of shipbuilding and coalmining the wage rates were inflated by union demands, so if that is the reason we lost these industries then it's still the unions' fault.
crankedup said:
Globs said:
There is no presupposition, it's all history.
NuLabour shafted the working man good and proper, make no mistake.
In the usual words of any PH'er 'show me the evidence'.NuLabour shafted the working man good and proper, make no mistake.
Lets see now - we are looking at additional costs affecting the working man on low income - right?
So lets start with rising inflation, removing the tax allowance escalator, trashing pensions, tax on heating kept, higher council taxes, higher NI tax, getting rid of the 10% tax band, insurance tax, airport tax, extra VAT, allowing a claims culture to flourish pushing up insurance rates, rising national debt causing rising fuel and food prices, rising car/road tax, SORN brought in, rights to protest curtailed, RIPA act, massive rise in speeding fines, parking fines, the FSA, CDOs and the resultant credit crunch, taking away more fishing and farming rights to give to the EU, oh and the extra WARs that Blair invented which has raised the national debt and thus impoverished state enterprises like the NHS that the poor working man relies upon, and then there is immigration, causing housing bubbles and overcrowding - preventing the working man from finding affordable housing.
There are many more, almost everything NuLabour did cost the working man money and rights, and benefited their rich banker friends and wealthy union leaders.
NuLabour: Exclusively shafting the working man since 1997. NuLabour - enemy of the people.
Compared to NuLabour Mrs Thatcher was a saint, the working man did well under Thatcher.
Edited by Globs on Tuesday 21st February 19:19
Globs said:
NuLabour: Shafting the working man.
Time for this again I guess...101 ways to shaft the working man - and woman - over ten years, by lairbore.Stealth Taxes
1997/1998 then 2006/2007
Income Tax
£77 billion up to £125 billion
National Insurance
£45 billion up to £80 billion
Stamp Duty
£3.5 billion up to £10 billion
Inheritance Tax
£1.7 billion up to £3.0 billion
Capital Gains Tax
£1.4 billion up to £2.5 billion
Motoring Taxes
£33 billion up to £45 billion
Environmental Taxes
£25 billion up to £39 billion
Helped by this little lot, 101 stealth taxes on top
July 1997
01 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source (MIRAS) reduced from 15% to 10%
02 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished
03 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished
04 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance
05 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increased to 6%
06 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased
07 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5%
08 • Stamp Duty raised to 2%
09 • Carry back of Corporation Tax losses limited to 1 year
10 • Windfall tax on utilities
March 1998
11 • Tax relief for the married couple's allowance (MCA) cut to 10%
12 • Top rate of Insurance Premium Tax extended to travel insurance
13 • Exceptional increase in tobacco and alcohol duties
14 • Duties on casinos and gaming machines raised
15 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increase brought forward
16 • Tax on company cars increased
17 • Tax relief on foreign earnings abolished
18 • Tax concessions for certain professions abolished
19 • Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents
20 • Restriction of Capital Gains Tax relief on reinvestment
21 • Corporation tax payments on account brought forward
22 • Stamp duty increased again
23 • Certain hydrocarbon duties increased
24 • Additional diesel duties introduced
25 • Landfill Tax increased
26 • Double tax credits on certain dividends restricted
March 1999
27 • National Insurance Contributions earning limit raised
28 • NI Contributions for self-employed increased
29 • Tax relief of Married Couple's Allowance abolished
30 • MIRAS abolished
31 • Self-employed contractors to pay NI and income tax as if employees
32 • Company car business mileage discount limited
33 • Double escalator on tobacco duties
34 • Insurance Premium Tax increased to 5%
35 • Vocational training relief abolished
36 • Employer NI Contribution base broadened to include all benefits in kind
37 • VAT on some banking services increased
38 • Tax on reverse premiums paid to tenants by landlords introduced
39 • Duty on domestic fuel oils up
40 • Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries increased
41 • Landfill tax escalator introduced
42 • Stamp Duty rates raised again to 2.5/3.5%
March 2000
43 • Tobacco duties increased above inflation
44 • Stamp duty raised for 4th time, scope of duty extended
45 • Extra taxation of life assurance companies
46 • Rules on tax havens tightened up
47 • Company car taxes raised
2001
The Chancellor gives the exhausted nation a year off – no new stealth taxes!
April 2002
48 • Personal tax allowances frozen
49 • National Insurance threshold frozen
50 • NI Contributions for employers raised
51 • NI Contributions for employees raised [Class 1 up 1%]
52 • NI Contributions for self-employed raised
53 • North Sea taxation increased
54 • Duty on some alcoholic drinks raised
55 • Stamp duty thresholds frozen
56 • Tax relief on investment in film industy restricted
57 • Rules on corporate debt tightened
58 • Nil-rate threshold for inheritance tax raised by less than the rate of inflation
April 2003
59 • VAT imposed on electronically supplied services
60 • Domestic staff on £89/week to pay NI & income tax, employers to pay NI
61 • Betting duty increases
62 • Tax on red diesel and fuel oil increased
63 • Anti-tax haven rules tightened to cover more UK firms with Irish subsidiaries
64 • Vehicle excise duty raised
65 • Personal tax allowances frozen again
July, 2003
66 • £35 added to all fines and £3 added to the cost of a home insurance policy
September, 2003
67 • Price of petrol raised 7p per gallon (with the VAT)
October, 2003
68 • Up to 8 times increase in the stamp duty on leases for retail premises
69 • Airport Tax doubled
December, 2003
70 • 40% extra Council Tax on second homes was sneaked in while the Westminster Wonders were breaking up for their hols a whole week before Xmas.
Additional info : It has been pointed out that a number of councils gave an even bigger discount for second homes and the increase for some people can be 80%. Plus the usual 6-18% annual rise, depending on how bloated the council's operations have become.
Exemptions may be granted if the second home owner (1) has to live somewhere because of his/her employment, (2) the dwelling comes with the job, or (3) there are special threat/security reasons involved. All of which excuses apply to 10, Downing Street, the home of a certain Mr. Anthony B. Liar. (Thanks to M.K.)
January, 2004
71 • £60 per day fine for late submission of self-assessment income tax forms
72 • Traffic wardens to receive powers to impose fines for a whole bunch of offences to keep poor people off the roads. The offences will include parking more than 19 inches from the kerb (£100) and dithering by people who are lost over, and who don't know whether to make a turn or keep straight on
73 • A 'Victims Fund' surcharge fine on everyone who passes through the courts. £5 for speeding up to £30 for murder.
74 • Legal Aid for the middle classes abolished
February, 2004
75 • £40 per week charge to middle-class parents for formerly free nursery places
76 • £200 per year charge to middle-class parents for places on formerly free school buses
77 • £250 per hour charge from the fire brigade for non-fire-related call-outs, e.g. clearing up after road accidents and rescuing pussy cats from trees
March, 2004
78 • £550 tax rise (at standard rate) for people using a company van or people-carrier out of work time
79 • Council Tax will rise at least 7.4% next year (according to the Budget)
80 • The tax incentive for owner-operator small businesses to become companies abolished
81 • Tax on cross-border payments for goods and services between multi-divisional companies extended to transactions within the UK
82 • Tax on trusts up from 34% to 40%
83 • Duty on red diesel up 1p/litre above inflation (57% rise)
84 • Duty on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used as fuel up 1p/litre above inflation (45% rise)
85 • Personal allowances for taxpayers under 65 frozen
April 2004
86 • PEPs and ISAs containing shares lose their tax break on dividends and the annual ISA allowance cut by £2,000 to £5,000
87 • The 100% tax allowance for small businesses & self-employed on new computer/advanced telephone equipment cut to 50% for 2004/5 tax year
88 • Passports – in addition to costing twice as much as the present price of £42, the new 'biometric data' passports will be valid for half as long. They will have to be renewed every 5 years instead of every 10 years, which doubles the cost yet again.
89 • £100 per year 'lighthouse tax' on small boats over 8 metres long. Commerial shipping lines think they should pay £2.6 million per year towards the annual £73 million cost of maintaining lighthouses and navigational equipment.
May 2004
90 • Council Tax bills to rise a further £110 in the affected areas to pay for 'Two Jags' Prescott's regional assemblies
Also since then:
91 • 2004 Building on the success of the Vehicle Insurance Premium Tax which raises £105 million per year, the government is planning to extend the idea to accidents in the workplace. The government hopes to raise a further £150 million per year from insurance companies when people are treated in NHS hospitals after accidents at work.
92 • Business Rates September 2005 As a result of a revaluation of commercial premises, which the government promised would be 'revenue neutral', business rates will rise by 8% this year – 3 times inflation. Businesses, and their customers, will have to find £1,200,000,000 to throw into the Chancellor's Black Hole.
93 • Company Vehicle Taxes - these taxes have been raised by increasing charges on both cars and fuel, and also by reducing high-mileage discounts.
94 • Excise Duty, consistently raised above the rate of inflation on tobacco and alcohol, tax of fuel and fares.
95 • Fine taxes, more widespread use - everything from motoring offences such as hand held mobile phone use, anti-social behaviour, truancy and binge drinking is seen as a means of raising revenue by New Labour.
96 • Fiscal Drag Gordon Brown, seeking to fill the monstrous Black Hole which he has created in the nation's finances, is adjusting tax bands relative to an inflation rate which has been massaged down rather than the rate of increase of earnings. As a result, 3 million of the 28 million taxpayers are paying the 40% rate, an increase of around 10% since Gordon Brown became Chancellor. Fiscal drag includes Stamp Duty on property purchases, twice as many people are paying it as in 1997 (1,200,000 versus 607,000). Inheritance Tax is another growth area thanks to the government's failure to allow for rising house prices.
97 • Free Travel Tax • Gordon Brown announced free off-peak travel for people of 60 and older in the 2006 budget. But he failed to provide the cash to pay for the scheme, so Council Tax and/or fares had to go up to bridge the gap.
98 • Home Information Pack Tax - From 2007/06/01, New Labour require home owners to give prospective buyers details of their dwelling's structural condition, title deeds, energy-use efficiency, planning consent status (if applicable), e.g. for a conservatory, and details of guarantees for central heating, double glazing, etc. Reports for the packs will be compiled by 7,500 home inspectors, who will join New Labour's vast army of public servants with jobs that make them indebted to the Labour party.
99 • Home Information Packs will also attract VAT at the full rate of 17.5% on top of the £1,000 cost in line with New Labour's disgraceful policy of applying taxes on top of taxes.
100 • Childcare @ School Tax - New Labour wants all schools to stay open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. by 2010 to allow mothers to work. The scheme has to be self-financing, so as a consequence, schools will have to charge for all out-of-hours activities, e.g. outings, sports coaching, and dance and music classes.
101 • Air Passenger Duty a.k.a. Skyway Robbery, doubled from February 2007 in the pre-budget statement. This is a tax on travelling and nothing to do with saving the planet. The rates will be £10 for shorthaul flights rising to £80 for longhaul flights.
crankedup said:
I need no lessons at all on this, a HONEST Political Party will be elected upon its manifesto and implement that manifesto (as much as reasonably possible). The manifesto is that Parties Political beliefs and desires for the Country. You seem to be thinking they can present any old s
te and then throw it in the bin. Well that is what is happening and the reason why a huge majority of people no longer vote.
I am utterly gobsmacked!te and then throw it in the bin. Well that is what is happening and the reason why a huge majority of people no longer vote.Really!
Wasn't it just yesterday that you proved that you were as honest as Huhne when you were spreading lies about Norman Tebbit?
When you were challenged, you claimed that you could actually remember what Tebbit had said... which was obviously another LIE.
What is it that makes all LibDems bent as nine bob notes?
Don
--
Derek Smith said:
Globs said:
Compared to NuLabour Mrs Thatcher was a saint, the working man did well under Thatcher.
Mind you, she did have a lot less men in work to worry about than Labour did.turbobloke said:
Labour's idea of work these days is a local authority outreach climate change diversity coordinator.
We need lots of those.
There was little doubt that the plan to increase the jobless total, eventually all but three times the level they inherited, was in place before they hired Saatchi and Saatchi. I'm all for a laugh but that was well out of order. Clever, but dishonest and immoral.
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Labour's idea of work these days is a local authority outreach climate change diversity coordinator.
We need lots of those.
There was little doubt that the plan to increase the jobless total, eventually all but three times the level they inherited, was in place before they hired Saatchi and Saatchi. I'm all for a laugh but that was well out of order. Clever, but dishonest and immoral.
The picture is pretty much spot on though, thanks to NuLabour much of the UK's work effort goes into paying interest on government loans.
What a waste.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff