UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Yes and the rise alone is nearly twice the old age pension.
There are 563,000 people in Wales over the age of 65 - 18% of the population. In 1911, there were 113,000 people in Wales over 65. That's the deficit problem in a nutshell. The number of pensioners has more than quadrupled in a century. The good news is that we are living longer. The bad news is that we have to find a way to pay for the extra pension and healthcare costs.
By contrast there are 650 MPs and 60 Welsh Assembly Members. Because there are so few of them in comparison to the 64 million people who live in the UK, the total amount that they get paid is tiny as a proportion of the national budget.
MP and AM pay is largely symbolic. We could pay them less out of a show of sympathy for the less well off. But there are so few of them that these pay cuts wouldn't make a scrap of difference to anyone else. An increase of £10k up or down for the 60 Assembly Members equates to 20p per resident of Wales.
Or we could pay a higher salary in order to attract better people to come into politics.
I know it looks counter-intuitive, but if we want skilled and competent people in politics we need to be prepared to pay a competitive salary. It is such a small proportion of total public spending that we would be daft not to.
I was waiting for that one, the baby boomers and the oldies are blamed for everything at the moment. It's still a whopping rise when the buzz word last week was austerity. We seem to be paying the going rate and still ending up with monkeys!
I suppose it takes them to about the same pay as a Westminster MP. They do the same work and have the same constituency workload, but don't get the same expenses!
message 156:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited May 22, 2015 08:44AM)
(new)
The problem with the UK public pensions system is that it is basically the largest Ponzi scheme ever developed. Something that was given to the people with absolutely no provision for its sustainability, as a result the younger generation perpetually pays for the older.Like all Ponzi schemes, everything is fine whilst more people are putting money in than taking it out. However, as is now happening, the reverse is taking place. Bernie Madoff would understand this perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_...
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "You always play the man not the issue. Because you are an empty vessel, perhaps?"Priceless! You don't need me to point out the irony in what yo..."
Wow, you noticed it!
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I'm deleting my comment Jim, I was perhaps a bit rash posting it as I'm sure you understand"Absolutely, I've forgotten it already
That was the whole point, Will. We still have Westminster MPs as well. How can they have the same workload. We have twice as much government, but they have half as much to do. The pay is about 10k less than a Westminster mp or will be when they've both had their raise in pay next year.
This is an important issue. Once one part of the UK gets two grades of MP, then really it makes sense for everybody to have them.So that your local assembly MPs do the stuff they do, and the Westminster ones meet occasionally to keep a check on the UK executive and to give an overall steer.
In theory neither level ought to be full time in the legislature, but should spend at least alternate weeks in their constituency.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "That was the whole point, Will. We still have Westminster MPs as well. How can they have the same workload. We have twice as much government, but they have half as much to do. The pay is about 10..."I don't wildly disagree. My point was that we do NOT need the westminster ones. Your MP might represent your views: he sure as hell would NOT represent mine, and if I went to him with an issue (assuming I lived there) and he even saw me, I have no confidence he would have any interest in my issue if it was at odds with his views (EG the bedroom tax issue).
Get rid of the westminster MPs. We don't need them. Get Devo Max like Scotland, and Westminster is irrelevant
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I was waiting for that one, the baby boomers and the oldies are blamed for everything at the moment. It's still a whopping rise when the buzz word last week was austerity. We seem to be paying ..."People over 60 are the problem. Oh, wait. I'm 61. Make that "people over 65 are the problem. For now."
So we are agreed then Will, we don't need two layers of government. I'm intrigued by the suggestion that you prefer your AM to your MP because of party, if I'm reading that correctly. What would your views be if neither or both were of your chosen party?
Personally I think we need democratic scrutiny at each level of government. If you don't have it, you're basically handing all power over to the bureaucracy.So if there is any form of government at Westminster, then there has to be some form of elected representatives to hold it to account.
My Westminster MP isn't from the party either of us support ( and the only time I wanted his assistance he was uninterested )... nor is the AM. Stuffed really for representation, aren't I?Edit: I'd rather be ignored b the AM...
Poor Will, disenfranchised by both of the beggars. I don't rate mine either.
Let us ask: what IS the point of Westminster now to the regions?Westminster is now in the grip of a party based mainly around the South West & London, with little experience or interest in the rest of the UK: evidence? The way the whole of the UK resources are being concentrated on investing in those areas to the exclusion of everywhere else.
Why should the rest of England, or the other disparate countries in the UK, be controlled by them?
eh? Don't rope us Londoners in with the Tories. 45 Labour MPs, 20+ Tories. And UKIP gets absolutely no traction here in the Capital.
Here most of my life I've had to deal with MPs and Councillors who're from a party I don't support, but to be fair to them they've been scrupulously fair and helpful.An MP is the MP of ALL their constituents and when dealing with constituents should rise above party. If they don't, then they're just a bad MP.
With regard to the 'who should control what' it really depends how far down you're willing to go. For example Cumbria has no interest in being put in with some sort of nominal north. The county itself has two conservative, one libdem and three labour. On votes it's even more even. But one of our Labour MPs will defy the whip and vote FOR Trident, and the other will defy the Whip and vote against the party on any issues which damage the Nuclear industry.
So no-one in the county wants to be dragged into some sort of Labour pocket borough
As it is, whilst the system isn't brilliant at getting people the MP that they want, it's pretty good at getting the country the government it sort of wants. And it's very good at ensuring that we get changes of government which is very important, because if we don't change them they get corrupt
I think part of the idea behind devolution is that the different layers of Government control different areas of policy or funding.At the absolute top level we have the United Nations. That supposedly deals with big global issues which affect whole countries. Who goes to war with who. The environment. That sort of thing.
Stepping down a level we have the EU, which is supposed to be a trading partnership of neighbouring nations.
The UK Government deals with stuff that affects the whole country. Our foreign policies. Defence. Law and order.
A regional assembly (or, in the UK, Government departments) look after things which affect big chunks of the country. Where to build new roads, airports and hospitals.
County Councils and cities deal with things that affect their areas - health, education, transport.
District or borough councils look after more local issues, such as planning applications, parks, emptying the bins.
Some areas have a layer below that of parish or town councils, dealing with more local stuff.
The difficult bit is getting the levels right and not spending too much on layer after layer of bureaucracy. I don't want Whitehall messing around with what my town looks like. But equally I don't want my town council deciding whether the UK should have Trident or not.
So when we talk about devolution it isn't about all the powers going to a Welsh or Scottish parliament/ assembly. It's about which powers they should get.
The big problem from a financial point of view is that London and the South East subsidises the rest of the UK. These are the only two parts of the UK making a net contribution to the exchequer. So while the Welsh and the Scots want financial autonomy they would rely on the bottom right hand corner of the UK to pay for it.
Before this Irish referendum for gay marriage, I had never heard of the Iona Institute... and by Christ are they bunch of see-yoo-enn-tees.Well done Ireland.
That's weird, Will. I've just opened the link without any problems. You moved to a foreign land without telling us?
An alternative view?http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...
Whatever system is set up to help those in need, there will be some who abuse the system. That's no reason to break the system
An interesting article. There is a problem in this country with perceptions of wealth and poverty from both the left and the right. I suspect that both are incorrect.The left bangs on about food banks, but these seem to be a logical extension of the decline in local shops that used to offer 'tick' to those struggling to buy food. This is something that the supermarkets do not provide and therefore a gap in the market appears that the food banks fill.
The right bangs on about the feckless poor. How they are not working as a lifestyle choice. Something that is far from the truth. Some of the poorest members of our society are those that work for low pay. The Tax Credit system is a mess, managed by a system (The Inland Revenue and Customs) that is set up to receive money not distribute it. The Tax Credit system itself is flawed, as it offers a subsidy to employers who can offer low wages in the full knowledge that the state will supplement those wages with Tax Credits, thus absolving them of the need to provide a living wage.
spot on with your last point Geoff. A point Labour failed to make in their election campaign, that we the taxpayer are subsidising Sports Direct, Tescos etc to employ staff on Zero hours contracts
welcome to my world. The entire CAP degenerated into a system to guarantee supermarket profits but holding down farm gate prices and to ensure higher margins for retailers :-(
Marc wrote: "spot on with your last point Geoff. A point Labour failed to make in their election campaign, that we the taxpayer are subsidising Sports Direct, Tescos etc to employ staff on Zero hours contracts"To be fair to the Labour Party, they couldn't really use it as a rallying cry, as they brought it in in the first place.
The Tories offer bribes by reducing taxes, the Labour Party (Is there an equivalent name for Labour to Tories for the Conservative Party?) provides bribes by making their core voters dependent upon supplements.
This is the problem with lobbying, Jim. The retailers have deep pockets and can lobby across Europe. Farmers cannot compete with that and are therefore disenfranchised.
They could have made it a rallying cry given that Zero Hours was a touchstone policy of theirs. Easy enough for them to have said they never envisioned it being exploited that way by corporations...There is no equivalent to Tory for The Labour Party as it is a much more recent political party. The Tories were historically opposed by the Whigs which like Tory originated from Ireland and was a term of abuse.
Jim suffers of course from the excessive retailer power of the supermarkets. It isn't only foodstuffs and the CAP Jim, they operate the same policy in other areas too.M & S have an awful reputation amongst their suppliers.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "This is the problem with lobbying, Jim. The retailers have deep pockets and can lobby across Europe. Farmers cannot compete with that and are therefore disenfranchised...."At one national meeting (not long after Labour changed a policy because of serious money paid to them from 'The Political Animal Lobby and others) I did suggest that the NFU stop lobbying and instead merely ask the two major political parties to submit tenders as to how much policy changes would cost.
Just for the record in 1997 the Political Animal Lobby donated £1,052,000 to the Labour party, up from £127,000 the previous year. In the same year they also gave £50,000 to the Conservative party, unchanged from the previous year, and £50,000 to the Liberal Democrats, up from £29,500 in the previous year
Will wrote: "Jim suffers of course from the excessive retailer power of the supermarkets. It isn't only foodstuffs and the CAP Jim, they operate the same policy in other areas too.M & S have an awful reputat..."
Most have to be honest. Morrisons aren't as bad as some. Waitrose do seem to understand the concept of behaving honourably, and among Dairy Farmers, Sainsbury's if well regarded
I have a friend who used to work for Tesco's during the 1970s. Their practices then were nothing less than outrageous. So, I am not at all surprised that nothing has changed in the years since.
The honeymoon is over!Headline on Today's Times: Cameron faces revolt...
they'd Be very foolish to do it so soon after the election. And I speak as someone who doesn't support the Tories
Given that it's a manifesto commitment that they all signed up to I'd love to know how they intend to weasel out of it
They are MPs. Doubt that the manifesto means anything to any of them. In any event, they can say that the detail/implementation/etc etc are wrongly devised, I expect
Will wrote: "The honeymoon is over!Headline on Today's Times: Cameron faces revolt..."
The back-benchers are flexing their muscles. This news article (the Indie has the same story) has come from an unnamed source talking to a journalist. One MP (who does not want to be named) has said that he would vote against the Government on the proposed boundary changes.
It's not much different from the unions trying to dictate what kind of Labour leader we get.
Or the unnamed "senior UKIP party figure" who told the newspapers that Nigel Farage should take a break.
Whether there will be a revolt or not will depend on how any of the parties manage their supporters. Right now the Government whips will be weighing up how many MPs support them on each manifesto commitment. Where necessary they will do deals with the back-benchers to get their measures through without having a revolt. Actual revolts are very rare because the whips normally manage the deals and the voting to get at least something through.
These leaked stories to the press are simply a part of that negotiation process. It's all a bit grubby and behind closed doors, but it's how politics works, I'm afraid. In all parties.
I wouldn't mind if the unions told us we had to have a labour leader for the labour party. I was more worried we might get another blasted tory like Blair.
It's a difficult choice. They can either choose a traditional labour leader ... or one that might be electable. Not an easy decision for them to take.
It's awful enough having tories in power. I find it worse having the tories in power when we all thought we had voted labour...
I think labour was lucky that it lost Scotland in the same election that the Libdems took a pounding. Otherwise we might have found the Libdems becoming the natural opposition party (and therefore alternative government) in England and Labour clinging to the northern seats in the same way that the Libdems once clung to the South West.Labour does have a serious problem. To win an election it has to offer policies which appeal to people who aren't its core supporters. This means that if it does this successfully you end up with what we saw in the Blair-Brown years as the core supporters try and win their party back.
My guess is that provided they get somebody sensible who can talk to people (all people) and who isn't tainted with Blair, Brown or Miliband, then they'll still be in with a shout at the next election and I would be surprised if they didn't win the one after that.
There are some interesting wild cards. If the EU play silly beggars then it's possible we might leave.
But if we have the referendum, what will that do to UKIP. It might have managed to re-position itself as a party for the Northern Working class by then (not likely, but if the Labour party still manages to appear to be the party of protest for those inside the M25 it's possible.)
Also will we have the next general election before the next crash? Given that government policy is almost irrelevant in causing these, that's almost blind random chance.
Will the Euro/EU survive anyway? Probably but I wouldn't like to put my shirt on it.
My guess is that if the Labour party manages to avoid destroying itself, we'll see a Labour government in the next ten years and everybody will be predicting the death of the Tory party.
I can't agree with a lot of that analysis. I can't see Labour soldering together the two disparate halves of its metropolitan base, the Northern working classes and the London metrosexuals. The rest of England is by temperament conservative (small C) as Napoleon said,a nation of shopkeepers. And unless the SNP screw up big time, Labour are done in Scotland and the rate they're going will lose seats in Wales. The new boundary changes will also hurt them. Gradually their Northern core will take the same dim view of Labour failing to meet their needs as the Scots did, although I hope they go anywhere other than UKIP.As to economic crisis, with fixed Parliamentary terms, the only way a crisis can prompt an early election is if the Tories lose their nerve or are so opposed to cameron that he loses a vote of no-confidence.
I don't see the crisis provoking an early election, more that I can see the voters punishing the party in power during the crisisBut Labour has to make up it's mind whether it is a party of London metrosexuals or what.
Frankly it can make the Libdems look working class at times :-(
I think we have to separate out personalities from policies. It is a sad fact of life that people often vote for the leader they like most, or the one they dislike the least.Policies aside, Labour's big problem is that they went from a highly charismatic leader (Blair) to two leaders with personality bypasses. Brown had to be taught how to smile by his spin doctors, and never did a very convincing job of it.
Miliband needing to be taught how to be tough and decisive. And he never did a convincing job of that. "Am I tough enough?" - "Hell, yes I'm tough enough." Which we all interpreted as "actually no, I'm not very tough at all".
Cameron didn't so much as win the election as not lose it. He came across as the most credible senior statesman, even if he did have a whiff of Eton privilege about him.
Labour now need to elect a charismatic and strong leader. Not a compromise leader who can stitch together enough votes from the unions and the party. Someone who can impress the public with some new ideas. Someone with the ability to listen but also the cojones to be decisive.
The good news for the Labour party is that Cameron has said he will stand down as PM at the end of this Parliament, which could mean that we get Boris. And if that happens, Labour will pick up votes as Tory supporters vote against Boris because of the buffoon factor. If Labour can come up with a credible and electable leader.
Then there's the big policy question that Labour has to work out - austerity and cuts or socialism and handouts for the needy? In the last election, Labour lost by following a manifesto of "austerity lite", although to be fair that probably was the right thing to say. The SNP won on a ticket of "to hell with austerity, let's max out the credit card."
And right now the Labour party are wondering whether to be Tory-lite or SNP-lite. Austerity or anti austerity.
And that is a very difficult decision for them to make.
Will wrote: "And right now the Labour party are wondering whether to be Tory-lite or SNP-lite. Austerity or anti austerity."And you know, whichever they go for, will be wrong.
The problem is Will, in the majority of cases the electorate has no understanding whatever of the depth and breadth of the parties respective manifestos. Therefore, the cult of personality is the only course.
While that's true and a regrettable importation from US politics, manifestos are 1) deeply flawed 2) ignored by their own parties when the exigencies of government strike - see what happens to the Pledge to withdraw UK from Human Rights' Act today.I say manifestos are flawed because they have to cover every aspect of life & policy and few if any supporters are going to agree on every aspect of policy. Especially considering how broadchurch a party has to be in order to garner enough votes to win an election.
We seemed to have to wait an age this year before the manifestos were released, already well into the campaign. But rather than a phony war during the hiatus, seemed to me this was the key time for parties to strike by painting their opponents with one easy to remember label, Nasty Tories or Profligate Labour. I wonder if this delay in releasing the manifestos signals just how diminished in importance they have become. Everyone knew the date of the election, was there any reason the parties couldn't have had them ready for release within the first few days of the campaign?
How easy life is at the bottom, according to the press...Or maybe not, actually.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/20...
MarcI think the main reason for the delay in the manifestos being published is that none of the main parties wanted to publish too soon. If they did, their opponents would change their own manifesto - either to steal a good idea or to counter it.
This became known as "shooting the [labour/Tory] fox". If your opponent comes up with a good idea too early in the campaign, then you announce the same thing.
Case in point. There was a report early in the election campaign from the Chief Executive of the NHS saying that he needed £8 billion a year. So the Lib Dems promised to pay this £8 billion figure. Then the Tories announced that they too would find the £8 billion. This was in line with the Tory strategy to undermine the Lib Dems.
All of which left Labour feeling a bit left out because their manifesto only pledged an extra £2.5 billion to the NHS.
It's all a game. Announce your policies too soon and your opponents will copy them, beat them or rubbish them.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
£64,000 is much higher than the average salary but much lower than most senior managers earn.
An extra £10,000 for each of 60 members adds up to an additional £600,000 - which is a big number. But divide it by the 3 million people who live in Wales and it equates to 20p each.
The difficulty we have in discussions like this is that the numbers can seem to be either huge or tiny depending on how they are expressed.