Base Resources Share Discussion Threads

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 21:15

I mentioned earlier, but Blair's daddy was a conservative Peer; Blair himself went to fettes (very up market) and of course oxbridge. A Labour man of the people? Hardly.
There are few things more dangerous in this life than a rich "socialist" do-gooder who thinks he knows what's best for the prols.

IMHO.

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 17:29

prs,
Heh! well now you know what it felt like for labourites when the tories were in power.
However I still think blair is more of a conservative than major ever was. Can't think of one thing they've actually done that i expected.
I believe that major actually signalled the end of the lords, and he almost did for the royal family, i was expecting blair to carry on the trend, unfortunately he turned into a royalist at the last minute.... and put his own lords in place.

[taimur] 29/5/2001 17:25

lt,

A very salient and rational point. History is not on Britain's side, no matter who is in power.

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 16:23

They are spongy, and it *is* subtle.
In truth we no longer have a functioning democracy. In Scotland we had the Lords protection taken away without anyone even really being aware of it - until clause 24 was imposed against the will of 80% of the people (it was stopped in England by the Lords). The Lords also stopped IR35 twice and opposed it for a third time, but ultimately had to give in. They provided a sanity check on government which is now sadly defunct, or - in Scotland - gone entirely.

We have incompetent idealists who think they know best and that there really isn't any need to trouble the people with the details of their true agenda. It doesn't get any scarier than that - certainly not with the sort of majority they have (and the irrelevance of the individuals that make up that majority).

This may be one of the most dangerous phases of British history - and I am not exaggerating.

IMHO.

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 16:16

post 93.
prs, i agree, but they ar'nt unusual,.imo.

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 16:05

Very true: if you gonna attack someone credibility at least make it funny.

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 16:04

Tkon,
as soon as you need to resort to name calling you've lost the argument. OK, just admit it, or get someone else to do your readin.

[zjc] 29/5/2001 15:55

Is this a real political debate where people say what they really want to, or?

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 15:54

Well, i think everyone knows that the stakeholder is a sop that will eventually replace whats left of the state pension.
But to anyone currently over 50 its not a bad way of picking up an extra 800 quid pa from the chancellor and then buying an annuity, only drawback is low annuitys.
Buy one every year if you like, the 800 is more than any personal pension scheme will make for you from its own investments thats for sure.

[tkon] 29/5/2001 15:49

spongy,

By the sounds of it, it isn't me who had the problem reading. You ignorant @rse.

The Knight of No (who always reads his small print but still has a smaller-than-he-would-like pension!)

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 15:40

Hmmm...ok:

Dividend Tax Credit:
The beauty of it - as we've seen -is that noone understands it; certainly not the voters. The horror of it is that noone understands it; certainly not the voters.

In essence it's a whapping great pension tax that robs folk of tens of thousands of pounds - "Labour's Tax Bombshell" didn't even come close to anticipating this one. What makes it worse is that the final salary schemes are all closing down and being replaced by money purchases, so this will hit everyone, though - of course and as always - it's the low to middle earners (yes you guessed it; the Labour voters) that get hurt.

Just to add injury to injury, they then come up with the stakeholder scheme (or should that be scam?) to give the impression they care about pensions provision. What this actually does is con your average punter into saving about £20/month for about 40 years which - as I said earlier - will just about replace his/her entitlement to state pension.

Sad, isn't it.

IMHO.

[little tyke] 29/5/2001 15:35

TKoN

Go on Sir! Give em hell!

I'm right behind you

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 15:33

tkon,
try learning to read before you open your big gob.

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 15:05

Divdend Tax Credit...

From the fact that folk keep ignoring it, can I take it you are amongst the great New Labour ignorant?

[tkon] 29/5/2001 14:53

spongy2

My goodness, how will you divine the price of your car in 5 years' time, especially considering last year's collapse in residual values? Not even the traders know which is why Glass's Guide gets published regularly.

Asking simple questions might have helped and doing a few of your own calculations as well. If you're in category 1 you should have had your case assessed already and been paid out, if not your case may be reviewed shortly and you mayy have time to recover some ground. I got persauded to opt out of SERPS when I was young into an appallingly run scheme that charged me more than it made me, I'm afraid I took it as a lesson, unlike you it would seem, who wishes to blame everyone else.

So I'm not in the fog or still at school, you arrogant ignoramus. I know actuarial figures can be confusing, I've seen the tables with strange figures projecting the "Effect of Deductions to Date".

And what on earth do you mean by "It has only been with the advent of Thatcherism that we have learned differently." It was during Thatcher's reign that these things occurred, it's been since her demise that we've starting putting them right.

In your case, old son, greed isn't good, it's risky. Now accept your share of the responsibility with a little good grace. Anyway that nice Mr. Blair wants you to carry on working instead of retiring, so what are you worrying about?

TKoN.

[spongy2] 29/5/2001 14:40

Tkon,
I do know what my car will be worth in 5 yrs time, as do most people. Though I could probably give you a closer figure if you'd said 25 yrs.
Get real.
To have tested Tory government figures you would need to have been an experienced actuary, you would then have had another actuary with the opposite view. It would have cost in the region of 1k just to find out that you had been given a view that may or may not be false.
So I'm afraid you're still lost in the fog pal, are you still at school?.
Unfortunately I and many others in this country grew up in the most part believing that governements were honest when it came to certain basics.
It has only been with the advent of Thatcherism that we have learned
differently.
Added to which Pearl Assurance have been around for a century or more, so you really would have expected bad news about them to have filtered thru.
But they had been taken over by a bunch of Aussie cowboys who proceeded to steal all our geldt....

[peterreidsmith] 29/5/2001 14:25

You attack; I parry: you don't; I don't.

[m.t.glass] 29/5/2001 14:20

PRS - there you go again..

[quidnunc] 29/5/2001 14:05

Anyone know what the molecular size of a prion is, relative to that of water.
Generally, the larger molecules get trapped out close to the surface.
I'm not sure how long it takes for rainwater to percolate through to the undeground reserviors which are tapped to produce drinking water but it can be hundreds of years.
I don't know how long a prion can survive intact but I doubt that long.
Why blame the Scientists for the BSE and F&M problem?
Isn't that shooting the messenger?
Generally it's been the Government Departments who have turned these unfortunate diseases into comprehensive disasters.
Mad? We should be, its us that voted them in!