General Election - 8 June 2017

[Chillidoggy]

Not exactly. It's more akin to a kid's Christmas list to Santa.

[Barrykearley]

He obviously never had a train set when he was a kid

[Chillidoggy]

He did, but it never worked properly as it kept on stopping for 24 hour periods for no good reason.

[Barrykearley]

[Barrykearley]

^ exactly my thoughts.. 

i wonder just how many others have the same view. Looking at the local elections I can't see Corbyn still being labour leader in 2 years time - there's a whole lot of squabbling on its way for the Labour Party 

[C8RKH]

8 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

 there's a whole lot of squabbling on its way for the Labour Party 

So business as usual then for the Labour Party!

[Chillidoggy]

I went up the town yesterday. The parties were campaigning in the square. I bumped into the local South Thanet Tory MP, Craig MacKinlay, (yes, the one remaining MP under investigation for alleged election fraud). I only know him professionally but whenever I have had the occasion to meet the guy he's very polite, supportive and professional. He and his team looked smart, and efficient, and I chatted with him for a couple of minutes before moving on.

A few feet further down were the Labour electioneers, all of whom looked like they'd just slept in a bus shelter, had hair done by Stevie Wonder, and wearing clothes retrieved from a wheelie bin. One of them blocked my path shoving a leaflet in my face, and shouted 'Save the NHS!'.

Come on guys, get with the programme, 'cos if you want my vote, you're going to have to work a bit harder and modify your approach instead of looking like tramps, and shouting at people. The thing is, I see no credible opposition.

[Kimbers]

I don't think you are their target market mate! I think they are appealing to people who look like that and think shouting at people and getting in their faces is normal behaviour!

[Kimbers]

It seems like they have more fans. This is the front page of the BBC a network who apparantly is non biased. Count the headlines.

Labour Manifesto Positive and Radical: (Positive headline)
BBC Live, Labour launching MAnifesto: (positive headline, note the picture "for the Many, not the few")
UK Inflation rate highest since 2013: (Negative for govt)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/0

 

I did find this gem though:

 

[Chillidoggy]

30 minutes ago, Kimbers said:

I don't think you are their target market mate! I think they are appealing to people who look like that and think shouting at people and getting in their faces is normal behaviour!

 

Good point, well made!

[oilmagnet477]

I appreciate that I might be in the minority here, but my Mrs works bloody hard in the NHS as a consultant and as such earns a decent salary, which many, many people would consider a small fortune.

On the back of this, we have aspired to buy a decent home (money pit) and educate our kids through secondary school. My wife does no private practice so ALL of her salary is taxed as it should be (she gets 0 amount untaxed - in spite of a supposedly progressive tax system!).

Whilst I'll readily admit we are hardly struggling like some, we choose not to take holidays and I now only work part time so I can manage the kids and the MIL who lives on site. We manage to maintain a decent lifestyle but then we have worked bloody hard to ensure we can. We do not claim any benefits - although I suspect I would now be eligible for a carers allowance.

If Labour do get in and deliver their promise to increase private school fees by 20% VAT - in an instant, our kids (and those of many other families who just about manage) will be back in the state funded system (which we also pay for by the way).

How does this kind of attack on personal aspiration, by means of only taxing those who don't avoid it, help anyone?

[PaulCP]

So a couple with no kids earning £75k each (total income £150k) are not classed by Labour as wealthy, whereas a family where the breadwinner earns £95k and the other stays at home to look after the kids are classed as wealthy and will be taxed more heavily.

Labour sticking to true family values then 

[Kimbers]

Typical Labour Manifesto really. Crucify those who have worked hard to get an education, working hard and earning a good living in a good job (or 2 in my case) to earn enough to have a decent lifestyle. To give to their mainstream voters. Absolute crock of shit and now totally lost my vote (not that they had it with Corbyn in charge).

Also come out as "Namby Pamby" in EU negotiations. What do they think the Eu will do if you tell them "We won't leave without a deal in place" They just won't give us a deal you twats!

[C8RKH]

You've hit the nail on the head @PaulCP for me.  23 years ago we took what was for us a very brave decision to have my wife not return to work after having our first child.  Overnight we lost 45% of our combined income and life was a real struggle.  We didn't have overseas holidays, but managed the odd week in "self catering" cottages away that kept us going. We've had basic cars, nothing flash at all. And we had a mortgage we could (just about) afford.  My wife worked hard to bring the kids up how WE wanted them to be brought up as opposed to handing them to some one else to bring up for the majority of their waken time. That allowed me to focus on my career and work hard to get a better and better position.

23 years later we are quite well off now. The mortgage is finally paid off. The kids have all grown up and are smashing, well balanced kids (must take after their mother there). I've got a couple of toys in the garage, but still work in excess of 60 hours a week and haven't had a full weekend off away from work in 12 years or so.

According to Labour though, I'm rich and I'm selfish. I earn too much and so I  must be made to hand over more and more of my earnings to give to others. Funny. We all have opportunities. We all have the chance to better ourselves.  But it seems that rather than finding ways to support, help and encourage those at the bottom, the politics of envy come in and irrespective of the fact that you may have worked your bollocks off for years to get somewhere, you are then targeted for your success.  Hmmm, how does that help our society to be one that rewards hard work? That encourages people to work hard to be successful?  I dragged myself from humble (but good and solid) council estate beginnings, through an OKish state comprehensive and into the world of work where my hard work has been rewarded.  My reward. To be shafted by the Labour Party.  Well, thanks guys for that.

As for NHS Consultants. They work hard. I agree. They are paid well but the crux for me is when you also look at the frankly ludicrous level of pension they get rewarded with and the early retirement options that are open to them.   Most of our friends are teachers, GP's, NHS consultants and Local Authority big wigs and the early options for them in quite frankly sickening, especially as my taxes will need to fund them until I am 69 (so 53 years of paying in) when I can retire. I have Mr. Brown and is quite outrageous handling on the private sector pensions raids to thank for that. Labour again targeting me for working hard and being responsible.  Never mind, at least Mr. Brown and his Labour cronies can all enjoy their gilt edge pension schemes. Enjoy the retirement guys but remember the people you shafted as they are the one's paying for it.  Labour. Meh. Never again will I vote for the party that has done more to reduce the standard of living overall in the UK.  The saviour of the NHS. My arse. They were as bad as anyone in power when it comes to what they did to the NHS.

Is it time for a G&T yet? I need one and it is only Tuesday. Never mind, look on the bright side and still another 19 years to go before I can retire.

[oilmagnet477]

C8 - you make a fair-ish point but my Wife is 51 and still does on-call, which an increasing amount of junior Doctors or other Specialist Consultants now avoid.

It took the Mrs 15+ years to qualify to become a consultant - which she achieved at the age of 35, having worked all hours. Modern Drs do not work anywhere near as hard and do not take anything like the level of responsibility that my wife did, both during her 'training' but also now.

The fact that there are fewer and fewer people picking up the responsibility for delivering the service which most people accept as their 'right' means that once my wife and her generation have worked their way out of the system, there won't be a system left worth speaking about.

I guess we will never necessarily agree about the pension business - I will never accept that by 60 she won't have earned every penny - as a Surgeon, her shelf life beyond 60 would be somewhat limited. She has every intention of working beyond 60 but in a less intense role. You are absolutely correct however about what GB did to pension funds - that was a disgrace and he should be roundly vilified for it.

[C8RKH]

Those of us who strive all make sacrifices @oilmagnet477 including your wife and I have never said they don't work hard.

It was Labour who pushed tgrough the new Doctors contracts - 30%+ more money for 30%+ less work and the right to not do on call/ callouts. Totally screwed the NHS and in a large part a major part of the issues we have now. As I said before anyone who thinks Labour is the party to sort out the NHS is deluded.

I'd like to have the chance to retire early like your wife but don't have tgat opportunity open to me. I'd like to slow down too. I'm 50. I'm in my 34th year of paying tax and NI. I have 19 years to wait for my pension.  Last year for work I did 132 flights. I stayed in hotels for over 210 nights ( all work). In December I made it home for a total of 6 nights ( that includes the weekend and xmas).  I work for some part of every weekend. Maybe now people can see how I coukd resent paying more tax so others can benefit from my commitment and effort. Yes, I'd like to slow down but it won't happen as in the private sector the days of retiring early on a good pension are well and truly over. 

I think Doctors and Consultants are well rewarded for the effort and commitment they pit in. Teachers too when you take the whole life perspective rather than just focussing on the immediate salary.

I'm lucky though. I love my job. I've seen the world through it. There are many out there paid who work as hard as me for a pittance. I'm happy to support them. Just not the lazy feckers who think the world owes them a living.

[Chillidoggy]

Question: when all the utilities and railways are renationalised, presumbably the workers will become civil servants and thus enjoy gold-plated pensions?

[C8RKH]

Many of them still do as the older ones are on the old public sector industry schemes still and one of the big problems facing utilities is tge aging workforce.

Labours fully costed manifesto does not include the cost for re-privatisation. Also Energy and water are facing a near 250 billion pound investment need over the next 20 years. No mention how the government would fund that.

Fully costed manifesto. My arse!

[Chillidoggy]

12 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Many of them still do as the older ones are on the old public sector industry schemes still and one of the big problems facing utilities is tge aging workforce.

Labours fully costed manifesto does not include the cost for re-privatisation. Also Energy and water are facing a near 250 billion pound investment need over the next 20 years. No mention how the government would fund that.

Fully costed manifesto. My arse!

 

The (very large) elephant in the room?

[C8RKH]

It just goes to show that you cannot truly trust politicians of any colour.  Labour were only this morning forcing the point that their manifesto was fully costed on the BBC's Breakfast programme. When the Tory MP pointed out that the costs of renationalisation (rail, energy and water) and their future investment needs where not included the Labour response was "well is your manifesto fully costed!".  That's crass politics and a truly sh!t attempt at deflection.  You just look at the Labour woman, shake your head, and say "here we go again...."

So much for enlightened politics. So much for an honest and open debate.  They really are all as bad as each other.  The cost for the renationalisation programme is huge - £300bn+ to renationalise them and then the huge investment needs on top.  

Jeez, we'll be paying this off for the next 120 years and there is no guarantee of a better service or a lower cost to consumers.  

Many of us on here are old enough to fully remember British Rail fondly. Was it a lean, mean and effective machine?

I remember the blackouts of the 1970's when the unions ruled the roost and tried to hold the country to ransom. Where the old regional electricity companies masters of efficiency?

As for Water companies, they have been dragged kicking and screaming into the commercial world. Regulation has done a good job of driving up standards (drinking water, rivers, beaches - all of which are down to the water companies responsibility) whilst scrutinising spend to ensure value for money.  Most people do not know how water companies are run - the regulator sets the prices they can charge (not the water companies) and these prices are based on their regulatory performance (the better they perform the more "leeway" they get) and a rolling 5 year "approved" capital spend budget. They can only undertake projects that are in the approved category by the regulator and every project is evaluated for cost, value for money and impact on customers.  UK Water Companies are effectively owned by Pension Companies and the return on investment is based on capital invested and capped by the regulators price allowance.  How will privatising that setup benefit customers and yes, the shareholders get a dividend but once renationalised we, the tax payer, will need to start footing the several billion pound a year bill for the network investments needed.  I sometimes worry that our Politicians have little idea or clue how the industries that they regulate actually function, operate and work.

[march]

3 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Many of us on here are old enough to fully remember British Rail fondly. Was it a lean, mean and effective machine?

Actually by the 1990's it was very efficient! 

http://turniprail.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/no-steven-norris-in-1990s-british-rail.html

 

[Chillidoggy]

And what flavour of government was around for the years prior to its privatisation?

I'm old enough to remember British Rail in the 70's and it was a national joke back then. I remember the 'British Rail Sandwich', too, although not with any particular fondness.

[march]

42 minutes ago, ian29gte said:

 

And what flavour of government was around for the years prior to its privatisation?

 

Thatcher up to 1990 was completely disinterested in the train system (famously never using it) - probably was why it did OK, no real government intervention to screw it up . It was Major post 1990 who screwed up the privatisation process.

Now the profits from British rail franchises are supporting French railways (SNCF through Keolis) - just saying!

[Chillidoggy]

Hmmm. The linked operations like Sealink, the catering and others were sold off in the 80's (I reckon Mrs T had a hand in that and a mate of mine worked for Sealink at the time), and then our best mates at the EU punted out a directive which said we all had to separate the track and train companies, and I think that's still the case. Railtrack was it? I can't remember, but I think it's Network Rail now as the lines operator/owner. I can't remember much about the John Major years, which pretty much says it all about 'the grey man', apart from he was boring as hell.

 

[march]

7 minutes ago, ian29gte said:

and then our best mates at the EU punted out a directive which said we all had to separate the track and train companies

Good point - didn't know this, Another bonkers directive from the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

From Wikipedia:

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.^[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.^[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.^[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.^[23]

Ireland derogated its obligation to implement the legislation; until 2012 Iarnród Éireann train operations and infrastructure businesses remained unsplit, and a similar situation existed in Northern Ireland.^[24]

Is it just me or have the rest of the EU stuck their fingers up to this directive.