Labour stretches lead over Tories
Discussion
sidicks said:
It's no longer 1978...
A slightly different picture than our resident policemen were trying to portray....
It is going back to 1978.A slightly different picture than our resident policemen were trying to portray....
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 30th September 21:21
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 30th September 21:29
The E-D report was used to overcome the biggest problem in the service, police leaving after around 7 years service. It was costing each individual service £millions. Once the recommendations were put into practice, there was an immediate reduction in early slides. In other words, it did its job.
At the time of E-D, and for years after, the pension contributions, which were over 11% in real terms, not only paid for all pension liabilities, it actually paid for more. Further, the pension benefits (which were less than contributions remember) were used to limit the pay increase.
Further, the rather one-sided comments suggest that police no longer left the service before their full term service. This was during a recession. Once the government has done its job and sorted the economy and there is a skills shortage, police leaving will again be a problem. Of course it will. In fact, police are leaving now.
With the increase in service length most officers will leave before the end of their service anyway.
The other bit that was criticised in the report was that there was a national pay deal. This is a farcical criticism. Why do you think this is? Is it because the police forced it on the government? The quote is 60% over local rates. Well, there's a surprise.
The idea of a national pay scale was used to reduce overtime payments.
The Winsor report was a political statement, not an enquiry. Winsor was brought in to do a hatchet job, not to improve the police. The actual situation is different to the politically biased report.
The police are now seen as a target of the tories rather than as an asset.
This morning we had Hague on the TV. The thing is that if he was PM there would be no doubt that the tories would win a majority in the forthcoming election. Cameron goes against his natural core base all the time. He's attacked the police, blaming them for everything that's wrong with the service.
Despite the fall-out, there's something delicious in the thought that Winsor might well cost the tories the election. We might get someone sensible in charge next but my concern is that it will be Johnson.
But don't forget to continue to criticise the police because that is what Cameron wants. Once someone sensible is in charge, don't forget to follow their directions back to their core beliefs.
Almost any police officer will be able to tell you how to save 20% without affecting number. But that isn't politics.
Derek Smith said:
The police are now seen as a target of the tories rather than as an asset.
By whom, exactly? Is this perhaps institutional paranoia?If the police are genuinely a political target, was this situation caused in part by large numbers of police colluding to depose a democratically elected member of government? You played with fire, don't be surprised when you got your fingers burnt.
Derek Smith said:
At the time of E-D, and for years after, the pension contributions, which were over 11% in real terms, not only paid for all pension liabilities, it actually paid for more. Further, the pension benefits (which were less than contributions remember) were used to limit the pay increase.
As explained previously, that is total bullocks.Benefits out < contributions in does not mean the scheme is in profit. This is pensions 101!
Derek Smith said:
But don't forget to continue to criticise the police because that is what Cameron wants. Once someone sensible is in charge, don't forget to follow their directions back to their core beliefs.
Derek Smith said:
Almost any police officer will be able to tell you how to save 20% without affecting number. But that isn't politics.
80% of costs are pay and benefits (according to the report)...I have heard from a reliable source, that a further 20% of cuts in policing is expected, presumably once the electioneering has finished.
Its no surprise that crime has 'fallen'. Less cops means less crimes. Either from people fed up not getting a response reporting less, or from the fact that there aren't boots on the ground finding crime. I'd love to see the figures of pro-active crime detections from 2003 until now.
Anyway, getting back on track, the current Coalition govt has done Cameron no favours whatsoever. He has alienated his core vote, middle Britain is disillusioned with the lack of real progress into the deficit despite everyone significantly tightening their belts.
I would have voted Tory this election had Cameron supported those of us who are supporting the economy. Instead we all find ourselves desperately looking for an alternative. Its not red Ed, so we look at the only alternative options. Spoil votes in protest, or vote UKIP.
They talk sense, but they can offer the world when they know that in reality the most they can hope for is another coalition with Labour or Conservatives.
Its no surprise that crime has 'fallen'. Less cops means less crimes. Either from people fed up not getting a response reporting less, or from the fact that there aren't boots on the ground finding crime. I'd love to see the figures of pro-active crime detections from 2003 until now.
Anyway, getting back on track, the current Coalition govt has done Cameron no favours whatsoever. He has alienated his core vote, middle Britain is disillusioned with the lack of real progress into the deficit despite everyone significantly tightening their belts.
I would have voted Tory this election had Cameron supported those of us who are supporting the economy. Instead we all find ourselves desperately looking for an alternative. Its not red Ed, so we look at the only alternative options. Spoil votes in protest, or vote UKIP.
They talk sense, but they can offer the world when they know that in reality the most they can hope for is another coalition with Labour or Conservatives.
fblm said:
crankedup said:
If you don't know you only have to ask regarding my daughters title. If your not interested then do not bring her into your verbiage. Thank you. As you have shown interest perhaps this may assist.
Mentioned earlier in this thread that my daughter has various teams that report to her, and she has responsibility for fund strategies. I must ask if she may spare a few precious minutes of her time to perhaps enlighten, those that have expressed an interest, exactly what it is that she is responsible for.
You brought her up alluding to her seniority in some vague position in the pensions business. I only mentioned her to point out that having a 'senior something' in the family hardly makes you an expert. Don't get pissy with me for bringing her up, you did. Your daughters job description is of even less interest to me than it appears it is to you but I wish her every success. You shouldn't need a fund manager in the family to know that unfunded public sector pensions schemes do not have a fund, or a fund manager, the clue is in the name. I will not mention her again.Mentioned earlier in this thread that my daughter has various teams that report to her, and she has responsibility for fund strategies. I must ask if she may spare a few precious minutes of her time to perhaps enlighten, those that have expressed an interest, exactly what it is that she is responsible for.
Edited by fblm on Wednesday 1st October 03:34
The only reason this subject was raised was because I had the temerity to mention that the Pensions Industry is under investigation for alleged overcharging practices. Its plastered over the newspapers, a high level funding manager has blown the whistle on his own industry. Its all there for all to see - cue sidkicks to run in defence of an industry he works in. Loyal but misguided. You don't need to be an expert to understand that benchmarks and charges are all part of a grand charade, yet another part of the finance industry apparently caught up with apparent misuse of others money. Like other parts of fund managing, not to be trusted.
DJRC said:
crankedup said:
DJRC said:
crankedup said:
DJRC said:
crankedup said:
DJRC said:
crankedup said:
DJRC said:
crankedup said:
Do not fret Ladies and Gentlemen, you can still enjoy Pistonheads from any corner of the globe that you care to depart to.The only hope is that Lib-Dems continue in coalition Government and moderate the worst excesses of Labour.
You haven't yet justified what worst excesses of Toryism they have moderated...Politics is subjective with no definitive answers that will satisfy all readers, I'm afraid it would be pointless preparing a list.
TB. The kid hasn't had an original thought ever since he first started quoting other bits of the internet in the original climate thread.I asked •you• what worst excesses of toryism the lib dems have moderated. CMD isn't very Tory, in fact he is probably far more orange book lib dem than Tory, which is probably why he gets on so well with Cleggers. I suspect the same is true of Gorgeous George which is why he works well with Danny Alexander. Who incidentally I rate as a very competent guy.
We have a very wet centrist govt currently, its very very dovish and whilst I am more than happy to have a govt support mortgage payers than risk averse savers, the hawks do have fair points. For the wrong reasons but fair points. The Tories should have slashed and cut much much harder than they have done, they should have been much more surgical, prexise , detailed and organised in how they approached the defecit. CMD has very little proactive balls though so hates such a thing as sticking your neck out and leading. But I'll give praise and credit for Gorgeous George and I never thought Id say that in 2010. The weak link has come out of the last 4.5 yes with the most credit.
Edited by Big Al. on Monday 29th September 18:54
As for your prognosis on George, I too am pleasantly surprised how authoritative he has grown. And Danny has been the perfect partner, never swaying from the treasury line.
Lets keep in mind, much of what is said is opinion based upon what has or has not been brought to public knowledge.
Is political theory, ideology or even history actually taught anymore or do ppl just pick it up off wiki?
The lower threshold tax thing is actually a very very traditional Tory policy according to ideology, theory and history. But hey, we aren't here to let facts get in the way of anything are we?
The Tories haven't cut deeper because that would!d require CMD A)leading on something and sticking his neck out on something requiring a spine and B) the Tories having a truely detailed plan at a strategic level. We have very much seen over the last 4-5yrs that hasn't been there. Strategically the first two yes were woeful beyond anything Gordon Brown did. Blair, the Dark Prince and Campbell would have eaten them for breakfast.
You seem proud of the idea that the lib dems might have prevented any austerity. This is absurd, there was almost no public spending austerity. There was almost no targeting, almost no planning, almost no detail, almost no precision. It was astoundingly bad politics and bad executive leadership.
What have we ended up with? Half arsed NHS reform and half arsed education reform, armed forces which are now half professional and half militia, a semi broken Union and a relationship with Europe that nobody has a clue where stand.
Piss poor leadership.
Edited by DJRC on Monday 29th September 22:15
There may have been no austerity in your world, but perhaps ask a wider field of people before making such statements
You mention that I 'seem proud' of the Lib-Dems possibly preventing any austerity. 1, They didn't 2. Lib-Dems have assisted to keep the Country afloat, and for that I am pleased with their performance overall in the round. Lib-Dem policy to reduce tax threshold to 10k, the Tories love to suggest it was them all along, some even believe that to be true. So, as you mention, don't let the facts get in the way. Yes I am well aware that the Tories have a mantra for tax cutting, evidence the higher tax band drop making the well off better off whilst simultaneously cutting the benefits of the disabled, another Tory mantra.
The NHS reform was not in any manifesto, fact is Cameron pronounced 'no top down reforms of the NHS' A pledge which the Tories instantly broke, proclaiming to the electorate that what they are undertaking is not a 'top down reform'. Clearly not, a insult to the electorate is more accurate.
I agree with you regarding the distinct lack of strategic policy planning during the first years of this Parliament. Well certainly it looked and felt that way.
Actually about the country, doing it right, what's best for the country irrespective of party politics...you just don't care.
Cromwell was right back then and he is still right today. A pox upon you all.
Do I care about the U.K. - not half as much as I used to TBH. With the recent crop of political impresario's at the helm and looking at what may be coming through I fear for the residents of the U.K. As I am retired, although starting a little business up to keep myself occupied, maybe I should follow the bankers mantra ' will leave the Country if you make it difficult for us'.
crankedup said:
You don't need to be an expert to understand that benchmarks and charges are all part of a grand charade, yet another part of the finance industry apparently caught up with apparent misuse of others money. Like other parts of fund managing, not to be trusted.
Based on your comments, you clearly do need to be more of an expert than you are if you don't understand the purposes and impact of benchmarks....
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Your wrong actually, I care about....... fairness in Society, as well as bottom line.
How is this fairness either defined or measured?According to a significant proportion of Labour's supporters it's measured by a penal tax rate for high earners even if it doesn't raise more tax.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
You don't need to be an expert to understand that benchmarks and charges are all part of a grand charade, yet another part of the finance industry apparently caught up with apparent misuse of others money. Like other parts of fund managing, not to be trusted.
Based on your comments, you clearly do need to be more of an expert than you are if you don't understand the purposes and impact of benchmarks....Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Your wrong actually, I care about....... fairness in Society, as well as bottom line.
How is this fairness either defined or measured?
If you haven't a clue at your stage of life its unlikely that you would consider accepting any definition from any person or group. Although fair play to Cameron at least he had a stab at measuring happiness.
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Your wrong actually, I care about....... fairness in Society, as well as bottom line.
How is this fairness either defined or measured?The fact that you cannot or will not define what you mean by 'fairness' is telling but it's entirely your freedom of choice not to elaborate.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Your wrong actually, I care about....... fairness in Society, as well as bottom line.
How is this fairness either defined or measured?The fact that you cannot or will not define what you mean by 'fairness' is telling but it's entirely your freedom of choice not to elaborate.
My real interest is with sidkicks, I await his considerations following his reading of woodfords narrative, to which I commended to him, regarding the overcharging and 'benchmarking' routines of his industry.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
You don't need to be an expert to understand that benchmarks and charges are all part of a grand charade, yet another part of the finance industry apparently caught up with apparent misuse of others money. Like other parts of fund managing, not to be trusted.
Based on your comments, you clearly do need to be more of an expert than you are if you don't understand the purposes and impact of benchmarks....crankedup said:
The default - how is this or that defined
If you haven't a clue at your stage of life its unlikely that you would consider accepting any definition from any person or group. Although fair play to Cameron at least he had a stab at measuring happiness.
You say you care about fairness. I ask what fairness actually is.If you haven't a clue at your stage of life its unlikely that you would consider accepting any definition from any person or group. Although fair play to Cameron at least he had a stab at measuring happiness.
Offer a definition & I will give an honest opinion as to what I think of it. Is that 'fair' enough to you?
crankedup said:
My real interest is with sidkicks, I await his considerations following his reading of woodfords narrative, to which I commended to him, regarding the overcharging and 'benchmarking' routines of his industry.
If you actually wanted a specific response you should have posted the claims or a link to the article....crankedup said:
You don't need to be an expert to understand that...
unfunded public sector pension schemes are unfunded? I would certainly agree that you are no expert yet you continually berate sidicks, who is, whilst showing a pathetic level of understanding of the industry, or even the word unfunded. Frankly I dont know why he bothers. Personally I took the view that the entire industry was a complete scam over 10 years ago and stopped paying in anything over the minimum matching %. Even SIPP's are overcharged. The US 401k system is far better, you can opt to have it managed like the UK or transfer to your brokerage account and just manage your own money for free, and you certainly dont have to then get your face ripped off at the end with a stupid annuity.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
My real interest is with sidkicks, I await his considerations following his reading of woodfords narrative, to which I commended to him, regarding the overcharging and 'benchmarking' routines of his industry.
If you actually wanted a specific response you should have posted the claims or a link to the article....www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2771311
fblm said:
unfunded public sector pension schemes are unfunded? I would certainly agree that you are no expert yet you continually berate sidicks, who is, whilst showing a pathetic level of understanding of the industry, or even the word unfunded. Frankly I dont know why he bothers.
Personally I took the view that the entire industry was a complete scam over 10 years ago and stopped paying in anything over the minimum matching %. Even SIPP's are overcharged. The US 401k system is far better, you can opt to have it managed like the UK or transfer to your brokerage account and just manage your own money for free, and you certainly dont have to then get your face ripped off at the end with a stupid annuity.
The Tory led coalition ended the annuity requirement about a year ago Personally I took the view that the entire industry was a complete scam over 10 years ago and stopped paying in anything over the minimum matching %. Even SIPP's are overcharged. The US 401k system is far better, you can opt to have it managed like the UK or transfer to your brokerage account and just manage your own money for free, and you certainly dont have to then get your face ripped off at the end with a stupid annuity.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff