Another pint please....

Of course nybor is correct on the matter of fact. However, there is all the difference in the world between choosing to appear a certain way in front of cameras and trying very hard to stay completely out of sight. After all, the road seems to have been over half a mile away and people wouldn't have been visible with the naked eye (in either direction!).

the photographer is probably all to aware of what happens to other embarrassments to the Royal family... Diana anyone?? ;-))

I'm sure he or she is! However, that makes it even MORE in the public interest for the UK press to unmask them and strip them of their privacy. And one would think that (since they cohabit the world of skulking around in the undergrowth and trawling through bins) proper investigative reporters should find it really really easy to track them down and put a name and photo in the public domain? Or are they just not interested in doing some proper investigative work???

ee

Slightly different being a young student to now being married to the heir to the throne though. I'll bet she (and most of us) wasn't really the most sensible in thosedays.

Then again, this is the Kate who first attracted William's attention by wearing a see-though dress at a fashion show and happily being photographed in it. Yes, she has a right to privacy (more so under French law than British, ironically); yes, the paparazzi are trash; but a balanced view would surely acknowledge too that modesty and shyness are not this young woman's most notable characteristics, despite her demure smiles.

Ummm, errrr..... No comment m'lud..they just appeared in my in box...

ee,

the photographer is probably all to aware of what happens to other embarrassments to the Royal family... Diana anyone?? ;-))

If youd seen the pictures Isaac, you would note that the quality is somewhat grainy at best. Given that whilst the paparazzi are scum, they are at least, highly skilled and equipped, this implies that the shots were with a somewhat massive long lens. Hardly taking a chance snap of someone parading themselves in public if that is the lengths they have to go to.

Id say you need to get a life if this is the biggest concern in your life at the moment.

Why is there so much attention given to topless pics of Kate being published?

She should know better & face the consequences for her reckless behaviour. The media is right the expose what has to date appeared as little 'miss perfect'.

You are suppose to be role model for the kids. With power comes great responsibility.

I think her behaviour is disgraceful. She should take more responsibility.

Scandal of Barclays rigging key interest rates could lead to criminal charges against some individuals

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2166937/Scandal-Barclays-rigging-key-rates-lead-criminal-charges.html

What is the liklihood of someone like Diamond going to Jail for the Libor scandal?

This chap has been earning 10's of millions for the last several years, was it enough for him?

Oh no........................He had to continue milking the system, GREED.

Bobby D you may have made millions from the banking industry but will you be around to consume that wealth if you end up in Jail?

GREED is NEVER good for anyone.

I was under the impression that the LU tube drivers were recently awarded a pay rise of 10k over the next four years (ie 50k per year from their current ridiculous 40k per year for a 38 hour week!!!)

Agree with you Davjo - they're taking the p**s royally and deserve to be crushed by whatever means.

I think that tube driving is more akin to working for the NHS and a surgeon would earn no money for conducting an out of hours emergency operation on the NHS! He would be paid his normal "on call" supplement (up to 8% if my understanding is correct) but he'd get up at 3am and go and then work from 7.30am - 7.30pm the "next" day too. Further, it doesn't matter if it's Boxing Day, 1st May or Christmas Day...it's work that their contract says they will do - so they will do it!

These tube driving cowboys have the people of London by the balls and its about time someone stood up to them in a big way. Is there anything that CAN be done?

What are Londoners' opinions of these people?

London Underground drivers to strike on Boxing Day
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16174789
Aslef balloted its 2,200 members over demands for triple pay and a day off in lieu for working on the bank holiday.

Staff will walk out on Boxing Day, 16 January, 3 and 13 February. Aslef said 92% voted for industrial action, but Tube bosses said 42% voted to strike.

A spokesman said an agreement in 1992 specified drivers would earn about £44,500, work a 35-hour week and have 43 days' leave.

So, basically, on above figures, they're seeking an £850 ransom to turn out on Boxing Day for standing in a cab pulling a handle one way and then the other. That's the sort of money a consultant surgeon might earn for conducting an out of hours emergency operation. IMO, these so called workers are seriously taking the **ss and need to be crushed by whatever means!

Only 5 Chanel shops in Honkers. Is that all. Amazing concentration of wealth there, the streets of Wanchai, Admiralty and Central always packed to bursting - LKF always heaving. Surprised there are only 5 myself.

Apparently there has also been a significant amount of development in the last four years - with man y a new high rise and top notch restaurant / bar opening. Spoiled for choice(though not spoiled on the pricing front I hasten to add!)

Certainly a tough place to live without an expense account and company paid housing. Even more so now as I gather rents both there,and in Singapore have rocketed over the last 5 years....

what does it tell us that things are much cheaper in one part of the world than another ?

well in part it tells us that the exchange rate should move to compensate, it tells us that
in those parts where things are cheaper all else being the same, there will be more
scrambling for resources and inflation.

We are seeing this, I have a friend works for a major US company, has lots of off shore workers,
they are only allowed to employ more people offshore, and he's telling me they are having to give 10% +
paycuts to average workers just to keep them. Cannot imagine too many people here are getting that kind
of pay rise.
At the same time we have the issue of exchange rates between the US and china for example,
it's difficult to see how this will change, the fed can always print dollars, to either buy chinese assets or
US assets meaning less currency flows in from china potentially. Of course this would fuel inflation.

A big issue is the work ethic, and what people are prepared to do, I have a friend in IBM, he went to silicon valley, to see their research lab, where the multi phd people work to generate the ideas, and technology of tomorrow, that will create the wealth for the company. As he said to me , not a white person among them. Who can blame them when they see great wealth of celebs and the fame of people on american idol, And people with good jobs in media and marketing those double phd, sound high work and low pay to me.

I assume over time these things will have to be corrected, whether they can just correct because it's obvious that some are over paid relative to others, or other mechanisms will be needed, only time will tell,

K

Too many believe the L'Oreal advert, 'Because You're Worth It' which makes me cringe whenever I see it and I am re watching all the old Frasier episodes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84SUfl8Yv4k

When they start selling the idea it to the Chinese masses and they adopt our ways will be the time to watch out.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Workers-mass-at-Shanghai-factory-in-latest-unrest-2339617.php

Oh no, what have I done? I've mentioned the M word.

"What's that coming over the hill, is it a monster?"

No, its TGG, the most anti Thatcherite I've met....the mere mention of her name 500 miles is usually enough.....

We need a modern day Churcill!

As Rod Stewart might say:

"Wake up Maggie..."

We do need someone radical and prepared to put a long term, not necessarily comfortable, view forward. I'm minded of Maggie's turning convention on its head with the raising of taxes prompting the famous letter from, what, 360 odd(?) Economists (one of whom was Peston snr if I recall) saying she was essentially nuts. That it was exactly the right policy is the point in hand.

Pardon me for a quick rant........

Having watched Peston's "How the West went bust" tonight, my underlying pessimistic outlook for the next 20 years or so in the US and Europe has been reinforced. The level of imbalance between essentially Chinese output produced by low cost thrifty workers dedicated to personal saving vs Western consumerism fueled by debt is staggering. Quite how we got to where we are I don't know, but what I do know is that politicians are the architects of the environment in which we all live and operate.....thus, in my eyes, they carry the lion's share of the blame. Not that that get's us anywhere but I think it's about time politicians got to grips with the reality of the grave situation we are in and come up with some constructive plans to get us out of the mess. I worry like hell about my children and grandchildren's future.

As to plans for things like the £33bn high speed London-Birmingham rail link, that's fine but only provided the private sector is prepared to take on 100% risk for the bulk of the finance. A PFI style 100% tax-payer guarantee should be absolutely verboten in my book!

What our political masters need to address is Chinese workers earning less than those on UK jobseekers allowance yet they save large percentages of their income because state benefits are virtually non-existent. This is where the rub is. Western governments' have created an environment of over-protection for their peoples providing over generous benefits and legitimising moral hazard through bankruptcy etc. for no good reason other than political expediency.

IMO, our politicians need to stop scoring points against each other and focus on the catastrophic mess they've made of this country's lot.

Has this rant made me feel any better? No! Tipping a bucket of crap over the nearest politician's head would help because that's about the only sort of thing they'd pay attention to! We need a modern day Churcill!

I'd be happy to oblige on the provision of manure - plenty up here and at a fiver a bucket I'd be able to buy another decent chunk of Soco shares :)

Isaac

I'll post a response on the Delia Smith Christmas baking blog

T

RG

What does tournesol suppose to mean?

Quite right

I'd like to echo the comments made by Euripides on spuriousblog.

"what comes around  is a shepherd's warning"

never a truer word.....

Isaac,

Why do you reply to a conversation on another website, here? Why not reply as part of that discussion on the other website? Or, better, not reply at all?

Given the year the markets have had it will be interesting to see the number of portfolio reviews on the boards this year, I suspect most will shy away from this activity this year as most portfolio's are down.........During bull markets these reviews tend to blossom....

Last year for me LuckyJonah's portfolio review stuck out mainly driven by XEL and NPE

Given both of his top performers have come back to earth in 2011 it will be interesting to read his review this year.....

http://boards.fool.co.uk/luckyjonah-portfolio-review-2011-12235012.aspx

The high risk small cap strategies tend to outperform the FTSE in bull markets, but significantly underperform the FTSE in bad markets...

Earlier in the week I watched a few of these anecdotes of people who can't find a job and then I just got annoyed after watching a few of these....

I don't mean to be rude but I think they need a reality check.....Why do these people think just because they study a certain field that they need to pursue that career path?

There are jobs out there, it may be a case of re-training but surely you need to compromise?

I mean this graduate who studied an English degree is looking for work in publishing....but can't find a job in publishing so is prepared to do some secretarial work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15722022

Apparently this chap has been unemployed for 2 years and he talks about how he has'nt had any mechanical engineering job, so why does'nt he re-train and develop new skills and find a job in a different field?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15722023

I don't have much time to comment here these days, but, saw this thread and can add something from a personal perspective this week.

My 17 year old nephew, like many, finished school in the summer with few qualifications. Since finishing he has worked during the summer for a gardner, no longer needed as work dries up during the winter, in a metalbashing factory - laid off as orders dry up as he was told would likely happen as the firm keep older workers with families, and has just this week got a job at Tescos.

All around him are his peer group, and half of them have been doing similar things to him and half claiming benefits, or whatever they are entitled to. I asked him why he was trying, and he said, 'I might be thick, but if people can come to this country and get a job, i don't see why I can't' (the thick reference is to his sisters, one has just graduated with a first and is training to be a pharmacist, the other doing teacher training). He knows he can sit around if he wants to, but he would rather try, even if he has a hard time doing it. It has made me proud and I've just told his parents so.

The lost generation in his midlands town are lost because they can't be bothered or they are too lazy, not because there isn't work out there to be done.

No No, Moniter, half the country would tell you the foreigners keep coming and taking all the jobs....LOL!

http://boards.fool.co.uk/michael-portillo-12411812.aspx?sort=whole

Hear hear WShak....

Of all the people who I know who have come to this country, with or without education, they have all found work. It might not be terrifically paid work, but it's work and they think this place is dripping in cash. The attitude is that they'll share accommodation costs, cook together, do their own gardening, decorating, cleaning etc. - basically spend only what they have to.

Maybe those doing unpaid internships at Tesco are doing it because they hope to get a better quality job at the same firm rather than take a paid job in a restaurant where there are no prospects for promotion? I don't know.

I'm merely passing on anecdotal evidence that Asian migrants I come across, who have no access to benefits, all seem to find work, no matter how lousy it is. The people that I know who don't look for work are generally the ones who find that there is little economic gain in doing so - they're entitled to benefits. To be honest, I don't blame them - I wouldn't work with no uplift in lifestyle either.

As for the "well heeled" comment, you have absolutely no idea what my background is but it may surprise you. That said, I consider myself to be extremely lucky to be born in this country and the head start that has given me in life over most of the world's population. Anyone else who has had the same incredible luck might count their blessings.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/michael-portillo-12411812.aspx?sort=whole

I fully endorse Was's comments, those p***s that keep signing the no to 70m petition should be careful what they wish for.

As I think the 'foreigners' help this country go round and round. As Jim Roger's said everytime there is a Crisis they blame the foreigners.

May the UK open the flood gates to Immigration and let the World come and visit this beautiful country.

I was born and bred in the UK & therefore feel I too had a head start like Was and many others here compared to the 3rd world so yes I too am very grateful and consider myself to be very lucky.

 I hope many many other people get  the same opportunity

The unions (and Public sector workers) don't realise that they don't have public support. Let them strike and we'll see where we actually miss their services. If we don't then its P45 time. Perhaps the union bosses should also lose a day's salary?

Quite so. I'll be really interested to see what sort of reception the union marches on that day actually attract. Personally I'd be happy to roll up and heckle them, were it not for the fact that I'll be too far away. Sooner or later there will be a taxpayer backlash against all the hangers-on......yes, the bankers have been the popular target up to now - but the public sector unions could easily be next in line for those who think about the issues of entrenched privilege and advantage.

There is no better case for public sector pensions being superior to those elsewhere than there is for the payment of bonuses to bankers. Neither group is morally deserving. Both are grabbing at more cash, oblivious to the fact that it is the rest of us who pick up the tab by one means or another!

ee

I liked Francis Maude's comments at the weekend that they should take a notional 15 min strike and avoid a day's salary cut since negotiations were still on going. If they did strike, he said, then the govt would look again at minimum turnouts and other labour law amendments...


The unions (and Public sector workers) don't realise that they don't have public support. Let them strike and we'll see where we actually miss their services. If we don't then its P45 time. Perhaps the union bosses should also lose a day's salary?

Decimation still seems a better policy to me.

The upcoming public sector strikes appear to be becoming more likely. The latest ballot of the First Division Association appears to have attracted an 81% vote in favour (on a turnout of 52%).

IMO the Government should significantly harden their line and stop looking for a compromise. Public sector workers plainly don't realise the realities of life in the public sector, where retirement ages are also rising and pensions are under severe pressure. It is time to call their bluff. IF they refuse to accept what (by private sector standards) is a very decent offer, then the Government should impose the new terms they are seeking - just as any private sector employer would.

Since accrued entitlements are unaffected in all these cases, it only affects the future....and if employees don't like the terms on which they would continue their employment then I'd suggest they hop off the gravy train that leads to their retirement date and leave a job free at the lower levels for some keen graduates!

These ballots are all about union leaders trying to flex their muscles and justify their own fat salaries.

It is time for the smack of some firm government!

We should give these leeches absolutely no sympathy - because we taxpayers will be paying for it!

ee

I think this is a very good idea :

Every taxpayer may be given online access to their tax records, the government has suggested.

Transparency is always a good thing...

Finally, talks of merging NI and TAX over the weekend......which could translate into lower taxes...

Disappointing to note that we have been throwing £1bn/year down the drain though in the past years & it takes a recession for change to occur...!

In addition, the government is in the process of consulting on a wider plan to merge the separate income tax and NI systems, which would help save some of the £1bn a year that HMRC spends on administering NI.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15722698

The majority of fund managers would do as well, if not better than us PI's, given the freedom we have.

Disagree. Because....

To a fund manager with the access to research and management that they enjoy,

A FM without the resources of their firm i.e. capital, research, Reuters/Bloomberg terminal, access to brokers/management as well as all the support personnel whether that be the Analytics team or the Risk team telling the FM to cut their position when they take too much risk - I don't think they would do that much better then a PI.

Tell an ex-fund manager to arrange a meeting with the CEO of a FTSE 100 company, doubt they would have much success unless it was someone like Anthony Bolton etc etc

Let's not forget they are only humans and I think they have a big edge working in say Fidelity/Black Rock etc because of the resources available at their firms rather then simply talent.

For sure their expertise and experience as an ex-FM will help but I don't think they would have the same edge of a FM working in a firm.

But the point I originally made was trackers tend to beat actively managed portfolios, it does'nt matter that the FM may do better then the market pre-expenses as that is irrelevant to an Investor as it is the end return that counts.

It is a bit like looking at the financial accounts of a company and saying what a great company it is from looking at Gross profits rather then the Net profits which is what counts.

Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks for all your contributions.

tournesol,

We basically agree, except that I don't think the sort of fund managers to which retail investors have access represent anything like the close-to-100% of the market that you assume. In the zero-sum game, it therefore follows that their portfolios in general can outperform the market, if there is a corresponding loser somewhere else.

I believe that in general fund managers at the pre-expenses portfolio level outperform the market, with the corresponding losers being retail investors. Whilst many people here spend plenty of time reading the discussions of retail investors, the leading writers on bulletin boards IMO represent the very best amongst a retail investor category that stretches down to others who seriously underperform. Unfortunately, whilst IMO in general fund managers outperform at the portfolio level, they are paid so well that the hefty fees and expenses charged against their funds mean those funds in general underperform at the post-expenses fund level. Whether the fees are charged against return or capital is not IMO a worthwhile issue.

To a fund manager with the access to research and management that they enjoy, beating the market at the portfolio level isn't a great achievement, it's a minimum requirement to keep your job.  Of course an individual fund manager would lose his job if at the portfolio level he wasn't beating the market for any length of time - that's stating the bleedin' obvious as these are well-paid sought-after jobs.  What the media and bulletin boarders don't seem to take into account in these sort of debates, even though they are well aware of it, is the high level of fees and expenses which of course reduce performance to the obviously unimpressive statistics visible on a post-fee basis across the industry. 

"...No point creating jobs for incompetent people who can't beat the market ..."

Irony has reached its apogee. Let mute bells ring.

Government policy on education is effectively that a large majority of children should do better than average. This is of course impossible. If every child obtained 20 A stars at GCSE, 5 A stars at A level and a first class honours degree from Cambridge, then it would still be true that most children perform at or around the average. It is impossible for the average to be set at a level where most people exceed it.

The same applies in markets. Market performance is in effect the weighted average performance of all those who participate in its activities. By simple arithmetic, it follows that most fund managers will achieve results that are below the average for the market. (The winners will grow their funds, whilst the losers will see them shrink, so losers tend to have smaller funds than winners so more than half of them will perform below a weighted average).

It follows that regardless of whether markets rise like a rocket or sink like a stone, the majority of fund managers will underperform the market average. It is the unavoidable consequence of simple arithmetic. This is not something that can be changed by fiat, regulation, legislation, will, determination, good fortune or even a the intervention of a supreme deity. It is just the way that numbers work.

When you add into the equation, the fact that funds charge fees which are in effect deductions against the return they achieve, whereas market performance is calculated without any management fees being taken into account, then it follows ineluctably that average fund management performance must end up even more below market average than would be the case if fees were not charged.

So a majority of fund managers must always underperform the markets in which they operate. It is impossible for that to change. It is not the fault of the fund managers. They cannot all do better than average. If you think they can, then frankly you are not sufficiently numerate to manage your own investments.

We've had this discussion before Isaac.

The majority of fund managers would do as well, if not better than us PI's, given the freedom we have.

You are confusing the issue of whether we should give our money to their companies, given the fees and investment constraints, with the competence of the people managing the money.

Buffy

My someone's a bit ascerbic today, aren't they Isaac?

We've had the discussion about FMs before and as I pointed out at the time, you have no understanding whatsoever of the industry and it would be like me giving opinions on brain surgery or design of a new microprocessor.

Anyway, who are you to say what a person can or can't do with their life? A FM may just fancy retiring and going off to see the world, or buy that place in wherever because of their desire to run a vineyard or paint or simply laze on the beech. They may even have a wife from a different country and want to go where her (or his) family is....

"when the going gets tough in the UK they leave for France so they can pay cheaper tax?"

France certainly doesn't have cheaper tax than the UK - I'd be amazed if anyone left the UK for France principally for cheaper tax.  The UK's 28% CGT rate, ISA/PEP shelters, lack of social contributions and lack of wealth tax would look attractive to a typical well-off French resident. Many individuals' personal circumstances are more complicated than they might appear to those who don't know in detail what they're up to.

doesn't everyone have the right to arrange their affairs in such a way as to minimise tax they pay, within the rules?

Is it morally correct that certain individuals make a lot of money from Fund Management whilst living in the UK and when the going gets tough in the UK they leave for France so they can pay cheaper tax?

I think not.

If you benefited from society then I think you should give back to that society. Warren Buffett can go and live in Switzerland/Dubai and arrange his tax affairs as well, but he chooses to live in the US and pay back to the society which he benefited from.

And 100% of passive fund managers too? Isaac, you're very keen on sacking people. Exactly how good are you at whatever it is that you do?

"Every problem looks like a nail to a man who only has a hammer"

95% of Fund Managers should be sacked IMO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8884140/Who-should-pick-your-stocks-man-or-machine.html

To be fair, the protests started with a very reasonable gripe.

Money influencing the political process, crony capitalism, venture socialism, bailouts with taxpayer cash for the well connected.

It is a crying shame that it has become yet another bash the rich.

In my view, people who work hard, or make the most of their talent, deserve to keep every penny they earn, because they do so from *voluntary* action/inaction. It is those who earn their "wealth" through graft, pull and influence, effectively using the state as a means of force to take from others, thereby *destroying* wealth, that ought to be the sole target of the protestors.

I have no problem with talented people making very good money, to want the state to take from the is simple spite and envy.

I'm waiting for the protestors against the unfairness of life and the inequalities in our society to turn their attention away from businessmen, bankers and financiers to the many other people who enjoy higher public profiles and correspondingly high financial rewards.

Surely anyone who criticises bankers' bonuses should be equally vocal about the absurdly disproportionate pay received by footballers, actors, pop-musicians, TV & radio presenters, journalists, "artists" - a million a year is pedestrian to many of these folk. Do you know how much Vanessa Felz gets paid? or Paxman? or Tracey Emin? or Wayne Rooney? Or Damien Hirst? Or, the really big one - JK Rowling?

Aren't the criticisms levelled at Sir Philip Green for escaping UK tax equally appplicable to Lewis Hamilton?

A good mission statement for Cameron, Berlosconi, Papandreou et al? (bit late for no more boom & bust tony/gordon)

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero, 55 BC

Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15635476

Forget that pint, I think I need a large Black Bush!

http://www.isaaccapitalmanagement.com/index.html

Sourced from:-

http://boards.fool.co.uk/issac-capital-management-12403448.aspx

fuiseog

Vis a vis Greece, and of course our own tony/gordon experience, this guy seems to have had it all worked out well in advance:-

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy…”

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770

But how do the Germans do it?

Reading the story about Sarkozy's indiscretion led me to this report in Haaretz - the Israeli newspaper

It says that ultra-orthodox jews in Jerusalem have developed the habit of spitting on non-Jewish clergymen in the street.

The article says that Armenian Christian clergy are spat on every day as they go about their business. Even funeral processions have been subjected to spitting attacks. "...A few weeks ago four ultra-Orthodox men spat at clergymen in the funeral procession...." of an Armenian Christian priest.

The reason for the article was the case of a young Christian man who had been spat on for years whilst turning the other cheek and who finally snapped and thumped an attacker - leading to his (the Christian's) being arrested and charged with assault. The judge, to his great credit, threw out the case.

Eureka! The Drachma finally drops. Isaac is starting a movement to occupy Stockopedia as part of a protest against Capitalism. Each of his posts is like a little tent pitched outside St Paul's. Now I understand why his manifesto is incoherent.

As a more serious point, I do find it awfully tedious to read lists of demands that taxes be cut and benefits/spending be curtailed without even a superficial attempt to calibrate the two sides of the equation. If you really think that VAT should be reduced to 10% for example, or that the duty on petrol should be cut then you ought to find out how much that would reduce government income by and then explain where that amount could be saved. If you don't do this you are just doing the teenage adolescent thing of asking for stuff that the grown ups can't afford.

In fact isn't this economic/financial/political illiteracy exactly what has been going on in Greece? A complete disconnect between revenue and spending? A population with entirely unrealistic ideas about what standard of living is affordable? Politicians giving people all kinds of stuff the country simply can't afford?

Oh, excuse me, I'm so sorry to barge in, I was looking for Stockopedia but I must have come in the wrong door. Never been in the Royal and Ancient Society for Taxi drivers And Readers of the daily mail (RASTAR for short) before. Fascinating to see how it works in here. Those padded walls look really smart don't they, covered in that Pugin print? And the restraints are so dinky. Cuffs and anklets on every chair - how clever. It's a bit of a shame the floor is covered in all this froth but I suppose you just can't get the staff to keep mopping it up. I don't suppose RASTAR members could reduce their foam production? Perhaps a gag? No, suppose not. Just as well Health and Safety is a taboo subject here, someone could slip on it. Might put their eye out on one of those flagellation thingies. Well, sorry again for disturbing you all, I'd better go, perhaps I could come back as a guest sometime? Not sure I'd want to come back when you have the next Rave, but the Rant looks a lot of fun........

;~)

@ DJP.

Indeed. Agree with everything you say.

Had forgotten about the legalise drug and prostitution angle. Wonder how much tax revenue that would bring in..

The current problems require a complete overhaul, a radical solution or to. And defaulting just isn't British! Morally we have a duty to pay debts, even if run up by reckless politicians.(Thanks Gordon) Long term debt horizon compared to our counterparts in Europe, currently cheap to service with low interest rates. No excuse for not paying. Some belt tightening required yes, but it's not the end of the world as it effectively is PIIGS side.

Plenty of EU petitions to promote it seems.

Morning all (again)

I like Fangorn's approach to Public sector cuts - anyone with diversity in their title - but I don't think that's going to work. I therefore propose, a local council level (town/city/district) that we employ a more radical and historic process, decimatio as the Roman's would say. Also saves on the pensions.

Can you guess I'm going to be in one of "those" moods today? I strongly suggest no one cuts me up on the road or even phones me today!

Slippery slope Isaac, sure smokers should know better but we still do it (4 or 5 a day for me).

Where do you stop though? Obese/fat people cost the nhs more. So do we tax fast food, chocolate, crisps? At least smokers pay a huge amount of tax. Unfit people generally have health problems so how do we recover that cost? What about extreme sports enthusiasts - they know they're risking injuries. Should the rest of us pay for their stupid sport? Horse riders - you wouldn't believe the amount of injuries (and deaths sadly) ranging from breaks to skull fractures (and mental problems as a result) or even paralysis. The list goes on.

What about drug addicts/users? There's an illegal substance being used with high costs for society and the taxpayer and its untaxed. Legalise it like booze and fags and tax it. Prohibition didn't and doesn't work so control it through govt "shops" where quality/purity isn't a problem and take the criminal element out of it. Heck, even make it free to registered users and use some of the massive crime reduction savings on treatment and rehab/prevention.

Prostitution - same thing. Legalise it and tax the prostitutes as if it were a "normal" job. Have it controlled and safe for the women. Taken with drug reforms above should stop the underage/vulnerable girls being hooked on drugs and put to work. Ditto reduction in sex slavery/trafficing of women into the country.

Why not adopt the German policy of sitting on our arses everytime there's a global or regional military retirement? Let someone else pick up the tab/get the grief. Let's just do what they do and save the money. Nukes? Certainly don't need trident upgrade. By all means keep the existing ones but do we really need another project?

Stop frating around with the renewal energy game. Glad they've cut the ridiculous Feed in Tarrif - not before time. If you're serious then bulldoze windfarms through plannin as national importance rather than screwing around with planning BS for 10 years. Also clear the path for quadrilla and others to develop our shale gas reserves. Hell, the US is now exporting LNG.

Completely agree on immigration. Too much of a soft touch - why is it that Iraqis etc (not anyone partic race) go all through Europe and chose the UK as opposed to getting out in Germany, France, Italy, etc etc?? Think we know the answer there.

Isaac, as for defaulting on the debts. You're being more extreme than what I've just posted. One "good" thing is that new debt has such a low cost and replacement of "old stock" with new will bring some cash saving. Issue the debts long enough and we're doing not too badly. In this respect, the DMO has done a great job.

Right, that's it. Time to stop ranting here, finish off my work and get off for a couple hours kip.

Hopefully I'll dream of wonderful scenes with the FSA burning down/blowing up. You have no idea how hard it is getting them to do anything at the moment. They're being wound down and so staff are leaving in their droves. I know Gordon's Fundamentally S... Agency was Not Fit For Purpose (until, surprise surprise they were threatened with closure by a new govt) and that they needed to be replaced but boy oh boy is it ever frustrating. Worse still, I'd imagine the staff getting redundancies and then stepping into the same roles at the new body. Only in Civil Service/Public Sector eh???

Night, errr, Morning all.

Tax is even worse for a packet of cigarettes than petrol Isaac. Smokers already pay enough vis their costs to the NHS so no m ore taxes here..but of course this is exactly where the taxes will come. 10 pound per pack anyone by 2013?

I think it should be £20 a packet NOW. Why should society pick up the bill in the form of medical costs for those that have been irresponsible and have'nt looked after their health? Is it my fault they were mischievious as a kid and ignored all the health warnings about smoking and black lungs etc etc and as a result developed a bad addiction ?

There should be extortionate taxes on smokers so they smoke less and look after their health better.

Against raising tax on alcohol as well as it is one of the few pleasures most of us have left what with all life's ever increasing restrictions from the nanny state.

I am not against this at all, the tax should be high enough to limit the drink. As we all know what happens when people get drunk, how much of the Crime in this country whether that be rape or murder is on the back of drinking excess alcohol?

Why should society pick up the tab for policing the thugs who get drunk and choose to be disorderly on the Friday/Saturday nights? This costs money and those responsible should pay for it.

So they should tax this as high as possible so people drink less. Too much of something is no good for anyone.

Raising the retirement age to 70 across the board within 2 years. Not fair but then Public sector pensions compared to their private sector counterparts have been unfair for the last ten years when taken into account the rapid rise in public sector salaries - the generous pension was to offset salary imbalances

I can't agree, why should I work till 70? I don't plan to in all honesty regardless of what the governent does but for the sake of debate I think people should be able to retire in their 50s and give the younger kids a chance to make something of themselves.

Can't remember his name but I read today that Tony Blair's mentor died at 61, so this chap worked all his life paid NI and Taxes and never got anything back. Is that morally right? I think not.

Which is why I am against NI, this should be scrapped. Force me to save in my own pension so that if I don't make it to the government reiterment age atleast I can pass this money onto my heirs!

Darron

The British government should default on the UK debt. Then we start on 0 again with lower taxes and lower spending.

The reckless lenders gave money to us reckless borrowers, their loss.

I don't get it, the 60 odd million in the UK why do people just roll over and accept the "System". I think the system is too old and needs changing - There is just FAR too much taxation in the UK.

I understand we need to collect taxes to pay for Education, Police Officers, Nurses etc etc so take 20%, I did'nt say you can take the P*** did I.....

Tax is even worse for a packet of cigarettes than petrol Isaac. Smokers already pay enough vis their costs to the NHS so no m ore taxes here..but of course this is exactly where the taxes will come. 10 pound per pack anyone by 2013?

Against raising tax on alcohol as well as it is one of the few pleasures most of us have left what with all life's ever increasing restrictions from the nanny state.

And don't forget, there also needs to be a return of dividend tax credit so all of us private sector workers can set about repairing the hole Gordon Brown torpedoed out pensions with when he abolished it.


As to paying for your wishes, I'd suggest:

1)slashing non front line public sector jobs (or those front line ones, such as those with "diversity" in their title, which are a waste of both the 50k salary they command, as well as the associated pension benefits),

2)slashing our EU payments by leaving,

3) reducing foreign aid down (not doubling it to 12bn per annum by 2015) until we can once again afford it,

4)halving the number of MP's in addition to cut their salaries to 40k per year,

5) a 15% salary reduction across the board for all public sector salaries earning more than 25k per annum (London Underground tube drivers should not be getting a pay rise to 50k, from their current 40k for a 38 hour week)as they should be happy they have a job because if it continues as is the UK is going bust and then they're all out of a job.

6) Raising the retirement age to 70 across the board within 2 years. Not fair but then Public sector pensions compared to their private sector counterparts have been unfair for the last ten years when taken into account the rapid rise in public sector salaries - the generous pension was to offset salary imbalances

7) Welfare State to be completely reorganised.
Child Benefit ,for example to be for the FIRST child only. Any form of benefit that encourages the less well off to knock out 4-5+ children to boost their incomes, get a bigger council house to be abolished. Happy for state to help with the first,but you want more, you pay for them yourself.

Unemployment benefit/JSA - maximum period 6 months.After that onus is on your to get a job, ie whatever is available rather than having people turn their noses up because it's better for them to b e out of work rather than getting an extra tenner, for example, for working a 10 hour day. Tough. Deal with it. Everyone else has to work, why shouldn't you.

No more paying for asylum seekers and their families of 8+, whether that be income support or 5 bedroom housing in Westminster or other centrally located properties.Patrolling our borders properly, very topical I see, and deporting non residents to be a priority rather than housing them, whether at her majesty's pleasure, or in council accommodation - we do, after all, have enough of our own poor to look after without having to look after everyone elses.

Was it early opening today?

Some good ideas there Isaac and many I'd agree with if we didn't have to payback some of this sodding great mountain of debt that the current mab have been lumbered with.

Ideally I'd reduce corporation tax to get more companies relocating here. Reduce red tape for companies. Make Britain THE place for companies to base themselves.

Of course, nowt we can do to address the debt requirements and our deficits without Huge cuts to public spending and pensions. Can't see that happening without civil war on the streets as Comrades Crowe and Prentice et al lead the faithful out on strike to the tune of The Red Flag... Therein lies the problem. Its easy to give than to take back.

7) Scrap stamp duty on Property / Shares

8) Scrap Inheritance Tax

9) Scrap tax on savings

I think there should be several petitions...

1) Scrap NI

2) Reduce Income tax

3) Scrap Congestion Charge

4) Cut VAT

5) Cut Fuel Duty

6) Increase tax on Alcohol, Smoking, Fireworks, Night Clubs,


How will you pay for all this? Get the lazy sods off their backsides and back into work, you know the ones who sit at home all day and claim benefits but can genuinely work.....And don't have any more wars. Cut fat cat pay in the public sector.

Motorists warned cost of tank of petrol 'to hit £100' by 2015

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Motorists-warned-cost-tank-tele-3247454390.html?x=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353712/George-Osborne-refuses-responsibility-petrol-price-rises-despite-drop-oil-price.html

I honestly think it is absolutely ridiculous the amount of taxes consumers pay in petrol, then this money is used to go to 3rd world countries and carry out phony wars!

Back in 2003 they introduced congestion charge in London, it was at £5, within a few years it went to £8 and now less then 8 years later it is £10!!!

They extend the national retirement age to 66-68, then they recently spread the idea that they intend to bring this forward!

I think the Conservative is Labour in disguise.......I honestly have'nt seen much difference between the tax laws from either party, I think Cameron should resign as he insult the public and thinks were all stupid.

He is suppose to be Conservative but does'nt reduce  the taxes for the British Public, whatever tax cuts there are seem to go to his pig headed friends of the Big Corps i.e. NI Cut for employers - I STRONGLY doubt that will create jobs. Why would an employer create jobs they don't need?

Instead of printing lots of money why not cut Income Tax or Fuel Tax or Scrap NI.....I am VERY sure people would go out there and SPEND more.....It makes me really angry as in effect what the government is saying is they know how to spend MY money better then I do. Dream on Cameron.

I went to a public firework display, it would have been much larger than that at the rugby club I expect and the smoke was not really noticable. I have noticed that the large professional displays are not nearly as big a problem as they used to be and I am someone who has hated fireworks for most of his life. As to the question, "Was some sort of council permission sought and granted?" The local radio and TV said it was, but they gave out several reports that were not correct.
I spoke to someone who was en route to the incident to assist and I was told that there were lots of banks of very heavy fog about at the time of the accident.
For those who may be concerned my Cocker Spaniel was not at all concerned about the noises that night.

edit

As for the fireworks display next to the motorway,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8873311/Rugby-club-fireworks-show-under-investigation-over-M5-crash.html
"Last night Oli Massingham, the club secretary, said that the club had complied with regulations.....
He said: “We are comfortable that any permissions required to hold that event were in place. As far as I am concerned it was done through the council and the police.” "

Was some sort of council permission sought and granted?

I'm pretty sure that a rugby club-sized firework display would create far more smoke than a rugby club-sized bonfire.  In Malta, where they do like frequent firework displays, a big pall of smoke hangs over the harbour for a while afterwards each time.

Hi fangorm,

Don't see how the Chinese can be the successor power in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, not least because (a) Iran has geographic proximity, good cultural/religious/linguistic/tribal links - and the strongest motivation; and (b) China has none of these - and has no current or foreseeable ability to 'project ' power in the area : it has one aircraft carrier undergoing sea trial; no carrier support group; and no experience of integrating same.

Compare/contrast with the US, which has 9 such battle groups....and even we + the French, who may only have one (but at least , tried and tested).

ATB
PS, There's a school of thought that says that the Libyans were only fronting the PanAM Lockerbie bombing - and that it was really Iranian retaliation for the USS Vincennes shooting down a civilian IranAir flt (flying AWAY from it) a few months earlier.....I wonder whether any smoking guns will emerge now from Libya on that count ?

Leaving aside the long list of geopoltics issues that we aren't going to solve, is anyone surprised at the serious accident on the M5 that killed 7 people?

It would seem that bonfire smoke made a major contribution. I've long felt that such activities (crop burning being similar, though usually in better weather) have had the potential to cause major problems on motorways and I'm surprised that there seem to be no laws regulating such activity on the grounds of danger to traffic.

I'll be interested to see if the bonfire organisers are prosecuted and, if they are, under what law.

ee

Perhaps the committed pacifists amongst us could explain how British intervention in Sierra Leone or Kosovo fits into their view of the world? In both cases ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence were disrupted and stopped in their tracks. In neither case was there any self-interest whatsoever as far as this country was concerned. How can anyone argue against such patently chivalrous, well motivated and generous actions? Especially since they were overwhelmingly successful.

The good samaritan does not walk past, he gets involved. Sometimes he helps people who are starving or suffering from natural disasters. But what should he do when he sees someone being mugged or murdered? I'd say that he should intervene if he feels he can. And what should he do when he sees a gang preparing to attack the innocent? Should he wait for the attack to be carried out? Or should he pre-empt it?

The problem with the invasion of Iraq was not evil war mongering western leaders. They weren't and aren't. It was incompetence by those responsible for ensuring a transition from a totalitarian regime that had just lost a war to a civil society. The single biggest mistake was the dogmatic refusal to utilise the power structures and personnel put in place by Saddam - to exclude Baathists. This led to the exclusion of the vast majority of competent and experienced people. Chaos ensued and left a vacuum in which rival factions ignited a civil war with the occupiers in the middle. (Incidentally this situation was largely the result of Iranian funded, inspired, provoked and organised violent insurrection. - So much for Iran as a non-aggressive state)

And as for Afghanistan - please let's not rewrite history. This was not a war of western aggression against peaceful and innocent people. This was a pursuit of armed terrorists who were nurtured, supported and funded by extremists who had staged a coup to seize power in their own country and were engaged in the systematic wholesale oppression of its population. They were asked to surrender Al Qaeda but chose to refuse. What was the west to do? Apply for a court order? Spare me sympathy for the Taliban please.

I am struck, not for the first time, by the unbalanced nature of the criticism which is levelled by protestors at their own country and its actions and institutions. Why is it that those who protest about armed intervention do not mention Sierra Leone? or Northern Ireland come to that? Or Libya? Was the latter wrong?

In my view the real problem is not that armed intervention by the UK is motivated by insane, war crazy politicians. It is that the UN is a toothless organisation disabled by the presence of corrupt regimes. The UN should be acting as the world's policeman. But in reality it shirks that responsibility. It beggars belief that the UN took no action against Ghaddaffi for 40 years and sits complacently watching the bloodbath in Syria (not to mention Zimbabwe etc etc etc etc) and then breaks its inactivity only to complain about Ghaddaffi's summary execution. Given that much of the world is screwed up and that global and regional institutions are almost completely dysfunctional, countries like the UK are left having to do their best in difficult circumstances. Sometimes, when they think intervention can be made to work, they go for it. And sometimes they pull it off. And sometimes they don't. Sometimes when intervention is clearly warranted - such as in Syria or Zimbabwe, they reluctantly conclude that they can't pull it off. (In the former case the absence of support from the Arab League is clearly a major obstacle - in the latter it's the African Union and the ANC that is the roadblock)

Grown ups have to accept that the world is a complicated and difficult place. You can't do everything. Some of the things you try to do, go wrong. That's the real world.

I'd respect the peacenicks more if they campaigned against the failure of the UN and other international agencies and in favour of an international police force which was charged with intervening to stop violence and hold agressive/repressive regimes to account. In the absence of such a body it seems wrong to criticise attempts by this country and others to do their best to fill the gap.

The real nutters are in Israel aren't they - particularly those amongst the current leadership.
Seems to me Iran wants nuclear just so the West will leave it alone.

I'm not convinced they'd ever want to use a weapon anymore than most other nuclear states .I rather agree with article below ,that if theyre not careful with their rhetoric Israel will provoke just the attack it fears.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/insanity-not-logic-guides-israel-s-leadership-1.393940

Even if all the well-orchestrated statements, maneuvers and billowing smoke are only intended as threats, they lack all wisdom. A threatened Iran is also dangerous. It might launch a desperate preemptive strike on Israel.

Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect its regime. It saw former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gadhafi bombed and it understands - very logically, it should be said - that if it possessed a nuclear option, the world would not touch it, as it touches neither North Korea nor Pakistan.

Iran also wants to be a regional power in the new Middle East, and it knows that one way of doing so is by means of centrifuges. It would be preferable, of course, if it did not get its wish, preferable that the world exert pressure so that it does not attain nuclear arms,

Interesting to see what the oil price does  post 8th November when the UN issues its report.

Hi fangorm,

Syria had a nucear facility (probably just a reactor, but undeclared and therefore non-compliant) destroyed by the Israelis in 2007. They don't appear to have kicked up too much of a fuss, perhaps because the real issue is a large chemical warfare capability (they're one of 7 non-signatories to the chemical non proliferation treaty- along with, inter alia, Egypt and Israel).

Their nuclear technology transfer suppliers are believed to be North Korea/Pakistan, whilst their chemical warfare programme has allegedly been helped by transfer of 'dual purpose' equipment/technology from India.

The world is a dirty place.

Iran has been cooperating with Argentina since the 80's on their respective atomic research programmes, which may give pause for thought if/when Falklands/Malvinas oil becomes a reality and Argentina becomes correspondingly more 'motivated'. At least one UK high street bank has been involved in the past in facilitating this 'cooperation'.

Did I say the world was a dirty place ?

The problem the West has is that Nature abhors a vacuum and the US is under economic and domestic political pressure to reduce its presence in the M East. Not only by retreating from Iran and Afghanistan but by distancing itself from its more 'objectionable' client states in the Gulf .

Iran is the 'natural' successor (which the Americans themselves ironically implicitly recognise, whenever they talk of the Persian as opposed to the Arabian Gulf, to the understandable discomfiture of their Arabian Peninsula 'allies').

In a further ironic twist, I believe (no link to hand) that 3 of the most senior Israelis who would be involved in any attack on Iran (Chief of Air Force, head of planning and one other, can't recall who) are themselves either Iranian-born or Farsi speakers by parentage.......

Murkier and murkier.....!

ATB

Iran is a serious problem, far more so than Iraq ever was. War with them,given they're run by a religious nutter is pretty inevitable in my view. Can't have a nuclear capable Iran upsetting the balance of power in the ME, and that's before one even consider the existential threat they pose to Israel. Western leaders are merely responding to the ever growing problem,and it's pretty much guaranteed that the Iranians are working on getting a nuclear bomb. You only have to read about the problems the UN nuclear inspectors are having...

A peaceful harmonious world is just a utopian ideal I'm afraid. Never going to happen(unless perhaps the ideal of New World Order comes into being where most of us live in poverty and have to do as we're told!)

Wishful thinking Isaac.

And as for having no personal quarrel with these nations we have gone to war with - what of Libya. have you forgotten that Gaddafi's regime was complicit in the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher? When it comes to iran and Syria, it's not a case of Oil, although that is in the background for sure. If Syria were constructing numerous nuclear power plants(allegedly for civilian purposes) but the nature of their Uranium enrichment programmes led one to conclude overwhelmingly that they were up to something else as well) then I'm pretty sure the West would move against them as they seem to be limbering up to do so against Iran. Both are major sponsors of terrorism worldwide so I personally won't be sad to see either of them fall.

I just read a couple of posts on TMF and felt really sad as I read the following.......It was only a few weeks ago that I said an attack on Iran was inevitable, yet our leaders conveniently ignore what is going on in Syria...After all they don't produce much Oil.

What right does Israel,the US or the UK have to stop Iran having nuclear weapons? (and there is no more evidence that they have them than Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - and after up to 1 million deaths we found out there were none). It is the height of hypocrisy. From the Iranian point of view if Israel can have nuclear weapons why shouldn't Iran have them. Personally I am against ALL nuclear weapons but it must be remembered that the US has bombed over 30 countries in the last 60 years alone and has been responsible for the deaths of literally millions and millions of people (3 million in S.E. Asia alone) yet Iran have never attacked anyone. I am no great fan of the Iranian regime but I consider them far less dangerous than the US who, as a military industrial complex, are committed to constantly be at war (they have been at continuous war since their independence from Britain - read 'On the justice of Roosting Chickens' by Ward Churchill for a list of the wars).

Even though nobody has any hard evidence of Iran having nuclear weapons it would be quite understandable that they want them, look at North Korea, hated by the US but left alone and for one reason only - they have a nuclear deterrent.

The world may have a few problems with sovereign debt etc. but generally speaking it isn't a bad place to live. Why do we have to have such blood thirsty leaders in the west who just want to go out and kill while achieving absolutely nothing of any value for society but will almost certainly leave the planet in a much worse state than it is now. It is with great sadness that I saw so may people on Twitter this morning calling for war against Iran. I can only assume they've had a life of brainwashing and know no better. It really is very very sad.

and...

Stop the War has produced a statement calling on the British
government to scrap any plans for intervention and to pledge to
take no part in any military action against Iran.

No attack on Iran
Statement by Stop the War Coalition
November 2011

"We are extremely concerned at reports that plans are being drawn up for an attack on Iran
The case being made for war on Iran is based on a series of speculations about 'undisclosed nuclear-related activities' reminiscent of the disproven 'intelligence' about weapons of mass destruction used to justify the disastrous attack on Iraq.
The West's attitude to Iran's nuclear weapons is hypocritical and contradictory.
The US and its allies remain silent about Israel's covert nuclear arsenal, the only one in the Middle East, while they are tightening the campaign of sanctions against Iran without real evidence.
Such an attitude, combined with threats of military action, can only serve to isolate and antagonise Iran.
The US is already flooding the Gulf region with arms and increasing its forces deployed in support of the autocracies in the Gulf.
Simply ending its militaristic posture towards Iran would ease tensions dramatically.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had disastrous consequences including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the displacement of millions.
Any attack on Iran would risk a wave of destruction across the region. Plans for an attack, along with sanctions against Iran, should be scrapped immediately.
The British government must pledge to have no involvement in any military action against Iran, including not allowing Diego Garcia to be used as a launch pad for air strikes".

http://boards.fool.co.uk/from-one-war-to-another-12400273.aspx?sort=whole

I mean honestly what is wrong with these leaders in the UK the last 15 years? Blair, Brown & Cameron....they all seem to want to go to War - What is wrong with having a peaceful harmonious world where we can all just get along..

I just think it's really sad that an educated developed nation like the UK does'nt make more of an effort to encourage peace - why do humans have to kill humans?, I have no quarrels with any of these nations that have been impacted by these Wars....So why do we keep using our machinery against them? Each time we go to war it just results in millions of lives being lost.

Iran has alot of Oil.....I wish the efforts & resources were spent in finding more viable alternative sources of energy then how to secure constant flows of Oil by trying to stabalise the countries that have loads of Oil.

I sense a UK petition in the making Tourn :)

In the interests of fairness and balance perhaps we could introduce the concept of the right to strike for taxpayers? I guess it would have to be selective, but perhaps it could go like this....

If a group of public employees exercise their inalienable right to strike, then those who pay the taxes from which their salaries are paid should have the right to a payment holiday for the period during which they do not receive services. I'm not suggesting the holiday cover all taxes, just the part that goes to pay for the services being withheld. That should of course include non-salary benefits such as pension contributions, NI contributions, etc. Tax allowances should also be withdrawn for the period of the strike so that the effect of the strike on the strikers is not diluted post facto by using annual tax allowances to offset the loss of income resulting from the strike.

I'd go further and make it a requirement that the leaders of trade unions should lose 25% of their salaries and benefits if their members go on strike in any quarter. Naturally I'd like to see exactly the same rule apply to the employer's side too, but that would be a little more difficult to delimit.

I suspect that if Boris and Bob Crow both stood to lose 3 months pay and benefits and tax allowances every time the tube drivers called a strike, they'd concentrate a bit harder.

Indeed, the sooner the London underground is automated the better. 40,000 pa for a 38 hour week is far too much for a London underground tube driver.But it seems their pay is now set to rise to 50,000pa over next four years. Daylight robbery. is it any wonder the fares are so high despite the service being pretty poor.

It seems that the raison d'etre for Union leaders is to feather their own pockets(and, if they do get better wage demands for their workers that's an added bonus). Getting so called "scabs" sacked, just because they cross the picket line to do their work is out of order. Unions are there to assist the betterment of their members not prevent their members from working if they wish too, nor preventing the rest of us, who pay their public sector salaries, from doing so either. No one should be prevented from doing a days work because of some perverse political ideology that these men at the top of Unions pursue.

On the subject of unions, I had an interesting insight in my distant youth. Working in a factory manufacturing refinery towers, I found myself as a GWU(?) shop steward representing the fitters. All shop floor workers were obliged to be a member of one of four different unions, these being tin-bashers, welders, electricians and fitters. The tin-bashers held the greatest power and received the highest pay. Next came the welders, then the electricians and finally the weakest yet greatest in number and lowest paid, the fitters. The difference between pay rates of the highest and lowest was quite considerable.

At general meetings with management, I was taken aback by the "un-brotherly" greed of the tin-bashers wanting the lion's share in any pay negotiations. It was amazing to witness management listen more intently to their demands than any other. Presumably, the reason for this was that the tin-bashers were top of the manufacturing chain, with everyone else dependent on them.

Anyhow, to the crux of the story. When Ted Heath's Industrial Relations Act was introduced, the TUC called for two one day strikes. A general meeting of all four union members was called for at the end of the day in the canteen. Out of a couple of hundred workers, about 30 turned up and voted something like 20 for, 10 against.....much to the dismay of the lazy majority who found out in the morning. So, the strikes were on. However, there was one member in the factory who refused to comply and as misfortune would have it, he was in my section. On informing my senior steward, he consulted with HQ and it was decided we'd live with it. The tin-bashers objected but after a bit of negotiation they accepted his position on the understanding that the worker donates his day's pay to a charity of their choice. So, the first strike day came and matey crossed the picket line to howls of tin-basher/welder protest. When day two came along however, matey decided he wasn't going to donate his day's pay. I spent hours trying to dissuade him but he wasn't having any of it. The tin-bashers called a multi union meeting with management and demanded he be sacked. My union's appeals fell on deaf ears and management complied, matey being instantly dismissed. Couldn't happen now of course but imo, such union streaks of ruthlessness can still be found in odd pockets today. Witness London Underground drivers' effectively holding management to ransom. If any particular union has management by the balls, they don't loosen their grip nor do they give a monkeys for anyone else but themselves. Something for the "Big Society" to ponder.

Agree. The voter turnout is shockingly low. And yet they call the result "decisive"

It's certainly going to be a winter of discontent in my view.Nov 30th it seems everyone is going on strike. Perhaps we taxpayers, who pay their wages, can reduce our payments according to the number of days we get no service.

For example Council tax has surged over the last decade, yet services have demonstrably declined? Where's all the money going to?

Hmmm I'm not sure EE. I live in Hertfordshire, a decent 3.5bed detached house costs 600-700,000. Which in itself is large compared to what most people live in. Difference is I've paid for it, rather than demanding my cushty lifestyle is subsidised from the contributions of those earning or who have earned far far less than me.

I personally think these Union barons need to be brought down a peg or two. But that's just me :)

"He also has the right to stay in his £800,000 house in Hertfordshire until he dies, after which his partner will be able to remain there at a heavily subsidised rate. Simpson, according the Times, demanded that the union subsidise his accommodation to "make it affordable" - "

Ah the old champagne socialists, they never change do they. They always want to live the life of luxury they see the Tories they detest living, but are unwilling to pay the cost of such lifestyles themselves, instead foisting it on everyone else.

Quite why a leader of a Union(most of whose members are relatively low paid) is being housed at such exorbitant cost in such an extravagant house is mind boggling. And it's not as if he was offered it, he demanded it. Frankly he should be expected to buy and pay for the running of his own house if he's in receipt of such a generous pay packet.

SirL's characterisation of the UK approach to health as Stalinist (in terms of centralised planning rather than secret police) resonates strongly with me.

But the area of public life that seems to me to be the worst victim of this approach is education. Every government we have - even those right of centre - seems to see its role as to micro-manage the delivery of education. It tries to do this by applying bureaucratic/autocratic methods in which competent professionals are compelled to follw a painting by numbers approach and by obsessing with the equivalent of a five year plan. (SATS and league tables). Everyone involved from classroom teachers, through heads, governors and local education officials up to the Department of Education and Ministers ends up devoting their time and energies on gaming the system so as to make the statistics look better. Result is that actual educational standards suffer, costs are inflated and wastage increased. The professionals involved are converted into low productivity apparatchiks.

Education has been distorted into a kind of vanity project for theorists, bureaucrats and politicians. It needs to be liberated and made independent from all these over-developed ego-centric people who are squandering the heritage of the best education system in the world.

Unison members vote for pension strike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15570669
There was a 78% majority, with 245,358 in favour and 70,253 against on a 29% turnout

So, out of 1.1m members balloted, just 22% voted in favour of strike action on 30th November. I propose the government introduces new laws whereby those not bothering to vote in a postal ballot should be counted as votes against the motion, or at least split 50:50. Whatever, Unison do not have a moral mandate to strike and they'd better realise it pretty damned quick or the wider public will 'spit in their face'.

Well if anything else, I'm glad to have provoked debate on this. The issue of the role of the state in our lives will I think be key, in understanding, and indeed solving our sovereign debt problems. If these discussions were to be held more openly in the public domain, with frankness honesty and truthfulness, we would all be better off, and for one thing, more folk would understand the nature of the state as not a resource in itself, but just a distribution mechanism to be compared with other mechanisms (such as the free market).

Anyway - good evening all!

"Defence ... should be solely for the defence of our borders... a foreign threat on these shores"

I'm afraid this viewpoint, that the only important threat "defence" should concern itself with is foreigners with tanks landing at Dover, is hopelessly outdated and twentieth century. The Americans discovered at Pearl Harbor that war evolves and changes nature, and there's no point only preparing to fight the last war. Of course enemies sailing up the Channel in landing craft is unlikely, but there are plenty of nasty things enemies might do.

The most significant practical threat to the UK nowadays is Islamic terrorists detonating any of a variety of bombs (dirty nuclear bombs, suicide bombers etc) in the streets of London. In order to carry out these kind of missions, terrorists need to train, prepare and obtain hardware. To some extent they can do those sort of things within the UK, and that's where the police come in. But they have a greater opportunity to organise in the lawless regions of Afghanistan, and it is the effective policing of those areas, and preventing terrorists organising, that is what defence has become in the twentyfirst century.

I agree it is very debatable whether the actual campaigns recently waged by British armed forces in faraway countries such as Afghanistan actually are an effective way of preventing terrorists preparing to conduct bombing campaigns in western cities, but my point is that in principle there are valid/valuable/relevant objectives for UK/western defence forces which are geographically far remote from "defence of our borders"




"Indeed we see this in laser eye surgery (where the state has decided not to meddle!), only a decade ago it would have cost ~£10k to have one of your eyes lasered, Now it costs not much more than a posh pair of glasses. All provided to society through the free market!"

This sounds like the way health provision works in France, ie relatively well. France's reimbursement system involves (simplified description here) people paying for most of their health services themselves initially, and then submitting the official receipt to the health office to be reimbursed at various percentages up to 100%. The key difference, and what I think of as the key shortcoming of the UK NHS, is that there are plenty of competing health providers trying to be the preference of French patients with a free choice, rather than the UK system that state health all emerges from the state monopoly provider (often the local hospital). The UK health system now looks to me almost stalinist, in that it assumes all is best provided via the economies of scale of a single provider, without giving the patient any capitalist choice. Labour's recent statistics-based efforts to improve NHS service look to me rather like Soviet five-year plans of monopoly industries.  I understand that some element of competition has been introduced into the NHS in recent years, but that is upstream of the patient himself - it is not in practice offering the patient himself a choice of competing treatment providers (who in order to be chosen would have to provide a happy attractive service). Health providers in France don't really compete much on price (the patients don't care much about price since it's largely reimbursed by the state or insurers), but they do compete to provide a pleasant attractive quick service which I understand to be the area in which the UK NHS falls so short.

because ALL of those things can be done more efficiently by the state - even if it doesn't always work out like that.

Things are done more efficiently by the state, except when they are not :) I like it.


The main problem with the state providing anything, is the lack of competition and choice, which would normally:
- Drive up efficiency, and encourage innovation (yes - even in healthcare and education!)
- Drive down cost

Because the state can be less efficient, more bureaucratic and is constrained by taxation, rather than market forces, services that are "uneconomic" are often rationed - and we are seeing this in health (with services cut), and education (with increased class sizes, grade inflation) whereas if people were to choose freely, market forces would allow buyers to meet providers on price, and the prices will naturally come down with increased efficiency and innovation over time and the profit motive.

Indeed we see this in laser eye surgery (where the state has decided not to meddle!), only a decade ago it would have cost ~£10k to have one of your eyes lasered, Now it costs not much more than a posh pair of glasses. All provided to society through the free market!

Or don't we believe in the free market any more? Are we really all Keynesians now?

Hi peterg,

You say :

" a lot of things are more efficiently and fairly run by governments than by individuals or multinationals, or anything in between"

I think government should - rightly - have a monopoly on defence of the realm and maintenance of law and order/administration of 'justice'.

It doesn't seem to do either of those particularly efficiently or fairly.

If it can't deal competently with its prime remit and raison d' etre, why should it be entrusted/allowed to engage with other, secondary areas ?

ATB

"Just what SHOULD society do with those who are deciding to take all of the benefits but show none of the responsibilities?"

I'd suggest sending them out to earn their money - plenty of graffiti that needs painting over, plenty of rubbish on the streets. Then one could also consider introducing a local community programme whereby those in receipt of welfare visit,say, the elderly in care homes for an hour or two a week!

Looks like have similar views in this matter. Agree completely that those who are not 100% incapable of working(I was shocked that at least 60% on incapacity benefit are indeed perfectly capable of working) should put something back in exchange for their benefits. Charity work, or any other community work,gets them out and about meeting people, away from the telly. And is of course good experience to put on the CV to illustrate one isn't being idle!

Will any of this happen, I think not. The sense of entitlement is just so great, entrepreneurialism trampled upon by excessive bureaucratic red tape(where ever it hails from)

Many are far too quick to blame their circumstances on anyone but themselves, and apologists for the current welfare status quo are happy to assist them. A sorry state of affairs indeed. Where is Tebbit's "Bicycle" when you need it?

Welfare in general needs a complete overhaul - am amazed that all these people living in council houses can afford sky satellite subs, new cars, etc etc.

It is of course one of life's mysteries.

However, it is a moot point whether the idle and feckless are better-employed in soaking up daytime TV or doing something more energetic like burgling or mugging pensioners....  ;-)

In all seriousness, it is quite a difficult balance to get right. Just what SHOULD society do with those who are deciding to take all of the benefits but show none of the responsibilities?

Personally I'd favour some form of requirement that anyone who isn't 100% incapable of work should actually put something back into society in exchange for their benefits. "The workhouse" carries all sorts of negative connotations in respect of Victorian poverty - but the principle of making some sort of contribution to society in exchange for taking financial support from that society seems to me to be a good one. If you don't want to put anything back then don't take the support.

ee

It's a shocking state of affairs. Sometimes I really despair of the path this country has,and is,taking EE.

The big society idea, whilst not articulated successfully, is indeed a positive step if one can get it going.

One of the first solutions to current problems would, in my view, be ending child benefit. All it does is encourage breeding by the feckless as a means to increasing their benefit entitlements. If one can't afford to have children don't expect society to pick up the tab for you is my view. Welfare in general needs a complete overhaul - am amazed that all these people living in council houses can afford sky satellite subs, new cars, etc etc. Wasn't welfare emant as a "Safety net" and not the way of life it has come to be for so many.

Much as I agree with your sentiments Macro I suspect non payment of tax would see you swiftly frog marched to the nearest prison cell - quite an accomplishment in itself given we are so short of prison capacity and are continually releasing criminals long before their sentences are completed!

But then room can always be found for a tax evader or a pensioner refusing to pay their council tax . Quite why this doesn't extend to those that engage in far worse, due to apparent lack of prison places, escapes me.

the only legal and democratic alternative is to work hard to get a government elected which offers a reasonable prospect of lower taxes.

As it *should* be so (but I rather think it is too late for that in the UK).

How can we encourage people to take responsibility for:
- themselves
- their families
- their communities
When we tax exactly those sorts of people out of existence. And give to the sorts of people who are not even prepared to take on that kind of responsibility.

if you can't beat them, join them ... can be seen as rational

This is precisely what has got us into this mess. The rationality of sponging off of others and relying on  "somebody else" to pay for your existence. It is irresponsible, and the growth of this culture has lead to a client state that will keep "legally and democratically" electing a government that perpetuates; the hand outs, the stimulus, the bailouts, the wars.

Other ways out could involve a popular "Tax Revolt", or a general strike amongst tax payers to force government to live within its means. Only then can we make people realise that there is no cornucopia, no free lunch, and it is the height of immorality to expect others to pay for you when you are physically able and capable enough to provide for yourself.

Hi macro,

Interesting point re tax.

It's only half of the proposition 'tax and spend'.

The complaint about Greece is that they've chosen to spend and not tax.

Your personal complaint is that you're overtaxed and 'they've' misspent.

Two suggestions (neither totally facetious) :

- if you can't beat them, join them : drop out and become a taker rather than a payer. It may not be 'moral, but it can be seen as rational........;-
- emigrate to sunnier climes.

ATB - and , meanwhile, my sympathies !

You're all talking about tax as if it is always a good moral thing.

I'm taxed to such an extent that my wife has 3 jobs to pay for our own existence and take responsibility for our future years as well as to pay for the existence of others. We are forced to pay tax and fund wars with peoples whom I have no quarrel, forced to contribute to boondoggles of bureaucratic, fraudulent and unaccountable global institutions. I am forced to fund abortions and the ending of precious life even though I disagree with the practise. Yet if I did not pay I would be thrown in jail, and the payment of tax is still held up to be the height of morality!

The state is not moral, it is force. The world has gone mad and lost its way it would seem.

Hi salty,

Yes , I saw the Cayenne comment too.

I'm sure that the initial reaction is outrage at Greek profligacy/duplicity.

But wonder whether the average German on a Klapheim omnibus realizes that his prosperity over the last several years has been based in part on such sales (Cayenne and other German must-haves) to people who can't (ultimately) afford them.....

People were happy enough to turn a blind eye when it suited them - and this expose I think lends weight to the argument that the principal beneficiaries of the Euro have been the Germans themselves.

ATB

Wow, 35% tax evasion rate - that's criminal.And hardly likely to endear them to the Germans (or anyone else that has to foot the bail out bail.) Can't believe that the likes of Slovakia, second poorest member is expected to pay for a country far richer with a far higher standard of living. Thank god we aren't in the Eurozone.

Beware the Greeks refusing gifts.....

....after Sarkosi and Merkel upped the ante last might by saying that the bailout funds won't be forthcoming unless the Greeks have voted to stay in the Euro (and accept the austerity medicine) we now have:

Greece's finance minister has said a planned referendum on its latest bailout package must not be about the country's future in the eurozone.

Evangelos Venizelos also said the next 8bn-euro (£7bn) tranche of bailout funds should be released immediately.

His comments are in defiance of the Greek prime minister and eurozone leaders, who tied the referendum to whether Greece remains in the eurozone.

The problem (which is rather like that faced by those who run certain bulletin boards ;-)) is that the fate of the organ grinder has been handed over to his monkey to reach a "considered" decision.......

I guess the Greeks don't have an equivalent saying for "He who pays the piper calls the tune" ?

ee

[Edit]...ps...since I copied the above extract, the penny has dropped at the BBC and they have updated the opening para to:

Greece's finance minister has broken ranks with his prime minister over the country's planned referendum on its latest bailout package.

...precisely.

.....a weekend of some resignations looms, I suspect!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281767/population-horror-show-iain-murray

I think there's a distinct disconnect with many comments here which seem to be extrapolating past population growth well into the future, whilst ignoring the rapidly ageing populations of China, Japan, Russia and Europe, all of which before the century is out will likely be in population decline. With medical progress India and then Africa may start heading down this path sooner than people think, along with the Americas & Asia-Pacific assuming that births fall below replacement rate as they have with the rest of the developed world.

The problem/challenges of population growth makes the current situation pale by comparison.

Absolutely! I think in my lifetime alone, global population has trebled. I suspect my grandchildren will unfortunately bear witness to some sort of catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen, before they reach old age. Such is the unsustainable rate of population growth. Politicians might just as well abandon all their climate change policies and let nature be the final arbiter. It's a hypocritical policy anyway in that desperately sought after sustained growth with consumerism at its heart, in tandem with the expansion of people walking this Earth, can't possibly mean anything other than increased global emissions.

Here in the UK, the population is forecast to expand by 10 million over the next 25 years, two thirds of which are expected to be immigrants and their propensity to breed. The forecast figure is about 50% higher than those populating these Isles when I was a nipper. How much 'false' growth in the economy is immigration responsible for over my lifetime I wonder?

Ooh, no sooner than I post on inflation and population explosion then someone else does a piece (albeit a bit flowery):

http://www.marketwatch.com/m/story/ed19c19a-fe6b-11e0-96df-002128040cf6

This, for me, is the biggest threat and it seems inevitable so all I can do is try to position to benefit accordingly. The problem/challenges of population growth makes the current situation pale by comparison.

We're in desperate need of some radical changes to deal with what's coming. Perhaps this current problem will force more radical thinking and lay the foundations for the future? (Got to be optimistic otherwise what's the point?).

On a Euro related matter, I think this sums it all up very well:

From today’s Daily Telegraph:

“Jubilation about the German deal to save the euro could prove short-lived if fresh news of Greek tax evasion gains wider currency.  There are more Porsche Cayennes registered in Greece than taxpayers declaring an income of 50,000 euros (£43,800) or more, according to research by Professor Herakles Polemarchakis, former head of the Greek prime minister’s economic department.”



Then there's the huge unpaid taxes in Italy (and elsewhere)

We all need to get real and face up to the realities. The old way is broken, we need to look to ourselves and think as a country/region/planet. Fat chance given the human species' inherently selfish nature but still.....

Feeling a bit maudlin tonight.

D

ee,

If you did'nt have all your shares/property/assets and did'nt accumulate wealth by working in banking do you think you would still be pro-conservative?

Say you career was a school teacher on a modest income and you managed to own a small terraced house in an average location.

How would your view on politics change?

"....mmmm....quite a bit too simplistic, IMV."

Yes, of course. This is the pub, after all. Without compiling a massive treatise, most points made here won't do much more than scratch the surface - including yours in the post above ;)

I understand only too well the history of the UK economy, having lived through much of it as an engineer, manager and eventually an investor in start-ups. My intention was to bring the point about stable, sound money into the debate (as well as the point regarding learning from others), rather than a "compare and contrast" examination of the German vs UK economies.

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that a lax approach to the exchange rate represents little more than a short term fix for manufacturing (particularly in a globalised world where supply chains cross continents) and that stability is important to industrial success. New products take years to develop, production machinery represents a huge investment. I'd rather plan a new factory or product in Germany than in the UK - I'd have a much better chance of bringing it in on budget.

But there's plenty more scope for us to learn from others. The health service would be a good place to start - but there I might not choose Germany as my example......

Agreed EE.

It seems many in the UK have swallowed Labour's propaganda that the current enourmous national debt was due to bailing out the bankers - not that they, themselves, added at least 270bn pounds minimum to the national debt themselves through excessive borrowing( After 19months of sticking to Tory spending policies post 1997 Brown then went on to splurge 30bn per year minimum for the next 8 years BEFORE the financial crisis even struck)

We would indeed have been in a better position if prudent Brown hadn't, in actual fact, been so imprudent.

you also need to consider that nearly 2% of the inflation we're currently seeing is due to the VAT rise last Jan,

agree with the comments re fall in the pound relative to the dollar, as opposed to the euro,
(for price of oil etc),

and then we're historically more prone to it,

and also once things get into inflation, we seem to get get a flow through the system,
though as yet wages inflation seems to be under control, prices seem to be rising and it's only a matter of time
until people want to get their standard of living/buying power back,

K

The devaluation of the pound has contributed significantly to inflation, as has the UK's barmy energy policy (which will continue to add cost to energy prices here for some time to come.

Part of the problem seems to be that our politicians (and their advisors) seem to rely on their supposed intellectual superiority to decide policy, using sophistry rather than logic to support decisions - instead of learning "what works" from the experiences of other countries (when was the last time a scientist or engineer held a senior cabinet role? - I'll answer that........ Margaret Thatcher)

For example, Germany's single minded pursuit of sound money has helped keep inflation in check whilst at the same time creating a high cost economy. But the discipline it applied has forced companies to be competitive whilst a stable fiscal regime has given them the platform to plan long term. The result is a successful high end manufacturing economy. The Uk by contrast has pursued short term fixes driven by (imho flawed policy analysis)

ftf

A large part of the recent jump in UK inflation was due to the exorbitant Utility price hikes - UK is far more expensive on the utility front, one could argue, because the likes of Npower and E'On are using UK customers to subsidise German ones!!

This isn't rip off Britain for nothing you know :)