PDA

View Full Version : Modem-friendly UK election thread


Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 15:04:40
Seeing as I can barely get into the other one now- and it's a single-issue thread.

The potential wreckers for the next government-

1- Pensions
2- Pensions
3- Pensions
4- Pensions
5- The NHS
6- Pensions
7- Pensions
8- Europe
9- Iraq
10- Pensions

So who should win on that basis?

Scabrous Birdseed
05-05-2005, 15:05:52
You, Laz. You're best equipped to solve all britain's problems.

Chris
05-05-2005, 15:06:49
Looks like Pensions could be a problem.

Immortal Wombat
05-05-2005, 15:08:05
Am I allowed to write in Lazarus AND the Gimp, or do I have to chose?

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 15:12:01
Originally posted by Chris
Looks like Pensions could be a problem.

You bet your arse. It could mean a trade-off between the conflicting interests of the Grey vote/Baby Boomers and the Generation X. That would make the political situation very interesting and could totally throw the balance of power in a rather short time.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 15:25:52
Grey vote- least likely to change political allegiance, but pensions are the sole most important issue for their lifestyles. They expect to continue to receive pensions.

Baby Boomers- richest group, and the most fickle politically. They cause the massive changes in political make-up when they unite (as in 1979 and 1997). They are cruising into retirement, on the back of a lifetime expecting prosperity in their old age.

Generation X- notably poorer than the Boomers. Face the prospect of ongoing taxation to support the older generations, yet with far fewer safeguards on their own futures. Expect to retire into poverty.

Chris
05-05-2005, 15:35:51
So, who is winning, Blair?

Chairman Yang
05-05-2005, 15:37:11
You say pensions, I hear penis.

Cruddy
05-05-2005, 15:37:54
I was a bit depressed by the turnout so far.

Just over a 100 at my local polling station - not even 20 an hour.

Get out there and vote!

Cruddy
05-05-2005, 15:38:38
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Generation X... Expect to retire into poverty.

No change for me there then.

Lefty Scaevola
05-05-2005, 15:39:37
How many tres fuckable babes are running well?

Gary
05-05-2005, 16:19:33
You missed the real number one off your list.

1- Freedom from oppressive Big Brother Identity Card schemes and other threatened loss of individual rights.

Who should win ion that basis, difficult to say. Probably the tree huggers, but they have such a different opinion to me on many other issues. And they've no chance in my constituency anyway.

Gary
05-05-2005, 16:21:31
Pensions would be less of a problem if the chancellor hadn't raided them to help keep the economy buoyant.

Now we have all these "Final Salary" schemes being reneged on.

Gibsie
05-05-2005, 16:57:28
If this is modem-friendly I'll refrain from posting Dalek election campaign pictures.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 17:21:06
Originally posted by Gary
You missed the real number one off your list.

1- Freedom from oppressive Big Brother Identity Card schemes and other threatened loss of individual rights.



ID cards, whatever your opinions on the subject, won't break any party. The general public just isn't that bothered.

Pensions will be the biggest issue of the next decade or two. Where's the money coming from?

Gary
05-05-2005, 18:05:07
IMO they should be, I am.

The Shaker
05-05-2005, 18:19:25
That's wot ur vote's for :)

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 22:12:30
Exit polls predict a Labour majority of about 65 seats. Gain of 40 for Tories and 2 for Lib/Dem.


I don't trust it, though. It sounds like a lot of missing seats.

Koshko
05-05-2005, 23:04:35
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Generation X- notably poorer than the Boomers. Face the prospect of ongoing taxation to support the older generations, yet with far fewer safeguards on their own futures. Expect to retire into poverty.

That sounds exactly like the US. :(

Chris
06-05-2005, 03:59:37
They are projecting Blair's party as winner here, but say thgey lost at least 100 seats.

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 08:01:51
That's true, but a number of those were due to re-alignment of constituency boundaries. 11 disappeared in Scotland alone.

The Tories gained about 40-50. Lib/Dem gained about 12-15. Independents and minor parties probably gained another 6-7.

Labour got about 37% of the vote. Tories 33%. Lib/Dem about 22%.

Gary
06-05-2005, 09:13:42
BBC results site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm)

Cruddy
06-05-2005, 11:25:07
I don't get it. 324 seats needed to win, Labour got 353 - so how come he's got a majority of 60?

King_Ghidra
06-05-2005, 11:31:41
Because that's how many more seats labour has than the others put together. 324 is just the number required to have 1 more than half the number of all seats, i.e. a simple majority.

Some seats have yet to be declared, it may change a little before the final total.

protein
06-05-2005, 11:33:47
Reading has a new tory mp who fought part of his campaign on the homosexuality of the labour candidate and the rest on immigration. I feel horribly guilty for voting lib dem now. It's like trying to get rid of a spot and gaining cancer.

King_Ghidra
06-05-2005, 11:36:45
Don't say Tony didn't warn you!

protein
06-05-2005, 11:41:01
I still feel good that I voted anti-war. Even if it accidentally left the back door open for a right wing homophobic rascist to creep in to power.

Gary
06-05-2005, 12:13:41
What's one "right wing homophobic rascist" around for 4/5 years ?
Not worth your stress.

Now an arrogant Blair and New Tory Labour, with another overall majority for 4/5 years, that might be worth some stress.

Cruddy
06-05-2005, 12:50:01
Originally posted by protein
I still feel good that I voted anti-war. Even if it accidentally left the back door open for a right wing homophobic rascist to creep in to power.

So he's a Tory. So what?

Nills Lagerbaak
06-05-2005, 12:52:35
Originally posted by protein
I still feel good that I voted anti-war. Even if it accidentally left the back door open for a right wing homophobic rascist to creep in to power.



Arrrgh! I remember specifically warning people in Reading that they were a "careful don't let the tories in through the back door" kind of seat and pointed you in the direction of the tactical voter site.

Now, I have no idea how reliable that method is.....:)

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 14:33:09
Originally posted by Gary
Pensions would be less of a problem if the chancellor hadn't raided them to help keep the economy buoyant.

Now we have all these "Final Salary" schemes being reneged on.


Missed this one.

Which Chancellor? The pensions crisis kicked off back in the Tory administration when pension schemes were forbidden to run to surplus. Had that not happened, we would have practically no crisis to speak of.

Then again, as with the 1997 changes to tax relief (not a raid, Gary- the removal of a concession), 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 14:35:41
Originally posted by protein
Reading has a new tory mp who fought part of his campaign on the homosexuality of the labour candidate and the rest on immigration. I feel horribly guilty for voting lib dem now. It's like trying to get rid of a spot and gaining cancer.

I'm a shameless anti-Tory tactical voter. I voted Lib/Dem in attempt to shift Liam Bastard Fox.

Spartak
06-05-2005, 14:44:55
good for you.

Greg W
06-05-2005, 14:59:52
Originally posted by Gary
BBC results site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm) Bizarre. The majority of the map is blue (ignoring Scotland, which is almost all Orange - damn dutch sympathisers), and yet the red guys win. :clueless:

Spartak
06-05-2005, 15:11:38
Yeah well, the majority of Tory seats are in rural areas which given their lower populations means the seats are much bigger geographically than Labour seats mostly found in the metropolitan areas.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-05-2005, 15:31:45
Ok, so what's the problem with pensions?

Gary
06-05-2005, 16:08:22
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
not a raid, Gary- the removal of a concessionHa ! like there's a real difference. If something is set up in a particular way, and it seems to work, then any attempt to take more out of the system is much the same thing no matter how it's dressed up.

You'd make good management material in this company Laz. They remove stuff we view as part of out entitlement, our agreed working conditions, and dress it up as fair and reasonable.

Like today when we're told that in future, our bonus (why do we have a bonus, why isn't it in the salary ? Because they can claim it's a concession and remove it that's why) will not just depend on how well we did as individuals, or even as a team, but whether the project we were working on finished in time. i.e. no ability to be accountable for other areas, but equally responsible to carry the can in terms of less pay. But of course it isn't a raid on our salary, it's the possible removal of a concession !

Gary
06-05-2005, 16:09:06
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Ok, so what's the problem with pensions? I'm not getting one, and have to work for a living instead !

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 16:54:15
Originally posted by Gary
Ha ! like there's a real difference. If something is set up in a particular way, and it seems to work, then any attempt to take more out of the system is much the same thing no matter how it's dressed up.

You'd make good management material in this company Laz. They remove stuff we view as part of out entitlement, our agreed working conditions, and dress it up as fair and reasonable.

Like today when we're told that in future, our bonus (why do we have a bonus, why isn't it in the salary ? Because they can claim it's a concession and remove it that's why) will not just depend on how well we did as individuals, or even as a team, but whether the project we were working on finished in time. i.e. no ability to be accountable for other areas, but equally responsible to carry the can in terms of less pay. But of course it isn't a raid on our salary, it's the possible removal of a concession !

Well that's bonuses for you, and I think you need to take it up with your managers. I can't help you.

Why should income from equities attract tax relief anyway? There are better ways of protecting pensions than by that Thatcherite relic. You also have to bear in mind that the economic climate has changed beyomd recognition since 1997.

Gary
06-05-2005, 17:24:56
It was the similarity of 'hiding' a raid as a removal of a privilege I was getting at. :(

One can discuss what should get tax breaks and what not but the main point is that the pension schemes seem to be relying on them. To remove something is to be responsible for the outcome. If there is a better way to protect pensions then what is it that's been put into place ? Why is there still a problem ?

Conditions continually change. This lot have had 8 years to get into the swing of it. But it's a cheek to hit an area that has problems, particulary if the suggested solution is we all have to stay in work until we drop, regardless of there being still considerable unemployment.

Government should encourage early retirement so that the young can have jobs and feel there's a role for themselves in society. Swop the paying of uneployment benefit for the paying of pensions instead. Gotta find the money for something.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-05-2005, 17:29:32
Originally posted by Gary
I'm not getting one, and have to work for a living instead !

You'll get one, just with a replacement rate of maybe 20-40 %.

Gary
06-05-2005, 17:35:22
Eventually, if I live that long.

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 19:43:46
Originally posted by Gary

Government should encourage early retirement so that the young can have jobs and feel there's a role for themselves in society. Swop the paying of uneployment benefit for the paying of pensions instead. Gotta find the money for something.

If you can support yourself, go ahead and retire early. If you expect the younger generation to support you, be prepared to be challenged on your assumptions.

Gary
06-05-2005, 20:20:36
I would hope that the younger generation would prefer to feel life's worthwhile because they are needed, contributing to society, getting a wage, and being the ones contributing to the pot, in preference to finding no one needs them, and they spend their existence having to have their bills to be paid for them.

From society's point of view, if there are only so many jobs, it is little difference who are the contributors and who the receivers. However since the older generation has already spent years contributing they are entitled to feel that it's time they got something back.

If the older generation wish to retire early and the younger generation wish to feel needed, then it's just sense to organise things that way rather than perversely insist on the other option. Whether anyone has been able to save during their lifetime has surely little affect on that logic. The point being that in either of the two scenarios there is one contributing group and one receiving group.

The Shaker
06-05-2005, 20:29:51
Not many of the young generation have bothered to contribute to a pension.

JM^3
06-05-2005, 22:40:27
I think that I would like to 'work' until I die

JM

*End Is Forever*
07-05-2005, 09:30:24
Originally posted by Cruddy
I don't get it. 324 seats needed to win, Labour got 353 - so how come he's got a majority of 60?

Remember for every seat past 324 that Labour won, that's also one less than an opposition party couldn't win. So, the majority is double the number of seats past 324.

I think.

Gary
07-05-2005, 11:28:52
And away goals count double, if it's a local derby.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
07-05-2005, 12:27:54
This is turning into a League of Gentlemen's 'Go, Johnny, Go Go' tournament rules discussion.

Provost Harrison
07-05-2005, 12:44:33
Originally posted by The Shaker
Not many of the young generation have bothered to contribute to a pension.

This was already a worry of mine, fortunately in recent time I have fallen on my feet in terms of job so I have a noncontributory pension but I also add to it...I have about 6% going in there at the moment, but will probably up that on the next pay rise/promotion I get...

Lazarus and the Gimp
07-05-2005, 14:38:03
Originally posted by Gary
I would hope that the younger generation would prefer to feel life's worthwhile because they are needed, contributing to society, getting a wage, and being the ones contributing to the pot, in preference to finding no one needs them, and they spend their existence having to have their bills to be paid for them.


That's kind of divorced from grim reality and human nature, isn't it? That fuzzy glow of saintly altruism will probably evaporate fast to the face of increasing tax bills to support the elderly, while the young themselves face a dotage of having to eat worms.

Lazarus and the Gimp
07-05-2005, 14:40:16
Originally posted by The Shaker
Not many of the young generation have bothered to contribute to a pension.

That's down to lack of education of personal finance.

Do you like paying taxes on large chunks of your income? If you don't- get a pension.

Gary
07-05-2005, 14:43:19
The young no more face such a dotage as any previous generation. Less than most. Of course, say it is so enough and many will start to believe.

Lazarus and the Gimp
08-05-2005, 19:58:17
That's outright nonsense, and you're flatly refuting your own comments about Final Salary pension schemes.

Gary
09-05-2005, 00:21:27
Bollocks. Final Salary pension scheme affect todays retirees not the young :rolleyes:

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-05-2005, 08:13:34
OK, Gary. Explain your point, because clearly there's some confusion. You'll see I'm pointing out that the younger generations face a far tougher pension situation than the older generations.

If you think that's untrue, explain why. Don't be afraid about fine detail or technicalities, because this is what I do for a living, after all.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
09-05-2005, 08:23:49
What's that pension thing you keep babbling about?

KrazyHorse@home
09-05-2005, 08:35:35
It's what they give to old people in Britain instead of the bullet to the back of the head that Austrians prefer.

Gary
09-05-2005, 09:43:52
The point is that the young are not going to want pensions for a considerable time. So it would take a very incompetent set of governments not to have solved the problem in the next 20 to 30 years. Indeed as the baby boom generation die off, a stable level of population, or even a gradually reducing one, (if we're lucky) should be no less able to cope with funding pensions that the population has in the past.

And any government with any sense will have implemented a gradual change to the system anyway such that the existing system of the young repaying the old for the contribution they made, in the form of a pension, is reduced so a proportion, maybe half say, is funded by money collected previously from the older generation instead. That change has to be gradual though to ensure the burden does not fall unfairly on one generation or so.

No, the problem is not for the young who have time on their side, it is for those hitting retirement now and in the near future.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-05-2005, 09:08:25
So, before I type "QED", are you going to concede the fact that everyone is going to end up forking out more cash for their pensions? And they need to start doing so now? And that they'll not be happy? And find it tougher to make ends meet?

Gary
10-05-2005, 12:49:30
Having to find money from somewhere was never in dispute. What was, was whether the govenrment's raiding/removing consessions was a major contributing factor.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-05-2005, 15:09:26
It was a factor- I'd place it fourth on list list behind the following.

1- Generally ageing demographics
2- Global downturn in equity returns over the past few years
3- Removal of the surplus options to pension schemes.

Compared to those, the removal of tax relief on dividend income wasn't that great.

However, I'm still bewildered as to how you think this is going to be a breeze to fix.

Gary
10-05-2005, 16:53:14
Not sure where 'breeze' came into it ? I'm more bewildered at the implication that it isn't fixable in the next couple of decades so today's youth are going to find themselves in the same 'lack of pension' boat.

It needs government to sort out it's priorities and ensure that, whatever pension schemes are decided upon, it can generate the funds needed over the long term.

Demographics is more of a hump that will even out eventually as the old folk shuffle off this mortal coil.

Investment returns go up and down over time, were bad a few years back, are creeping up gradually.

A good manager (inc. Government) accepts the need to either save in advance for the difficult periods, or to borrow to pay back later when things get less tight. Or most probably a little of both, except that little forward planning seems evident.

Whilst agreeing the government can't ignore the situation, I see no reason to push the most pessimistic scenario.

Funko
11-05-2005, 10:16:16
I helped let the tory in as well. At least we're in a 3 way marginal now...

*End Is Forever*
11-05-2005, 17:51:53
Reading East Constituency Labour Party have only themselves to blame for losing their MP.

I wouldn't say it was a "three-way marginal" anyway. I suspect a large chunk of the Liberal Democrat vote is down to defecting core Labour voters. I doubt they'll all vote LibDem again.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-05-2005, 19:34:32
Originally posted by Gary
Not sure where 'breeze' came into it ? I'm more bewildered at the implication that it isn't fixable in the next couple of decades so today's youth are going to find themselves in the same 'lack of pension' boat.


It's certainly fixable, though it won't be pretty and will probably topple the parties making the necessary moves- which might cover tax rises, compulsory pension saving, and means testing of the state basic pension- coupled with continued measures of not linking state pension increases with wage inflation.

Every one of those is a vote loser. The solutions are certainly there, but whether a government will actually pursue them in time to avert a larger problem is a very different matter.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-05-2005, 19:35:20
Any surprises up your way, Iain? Didn't the Lib/Dems take a seat off the Tories in Manchester?

Gary
11-05-2005, 22:17:41
You mean Ian isn't on the benches by now ?

Provost Harrison
11-05-2005, 22:25:42
Well I am wondering whether he can hold on to his seat at the next local election - a Tory in Salford is like an ice cube in Saudi Arabia...

*End Is Forever*
12-05-2005, 09:01:08
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Any surprises up your way, Iain? Didn't the Lib/Dems take a seat off the Tories in Manchester?

The only seat they gained from us up here was Westmoreland and Lonsdale, which you'd have great difficulty claiming was "in Manchester" by any token... ;)

They did take Manchester Withington on a monolithic swing from Labour, which I must confess was a very impressive result indeed. They also regained Cyril Smith's old seat of Rochdale, unseating traitor-to-students Lorna Fitzsimmons in the process. Much as I dislike Liberal Democrats - good riddance Lorna!

Slim pickings for us in the north in terms of gains, unfortunately. :(

*End Is Forever*
12-05-2005, 09:03:00
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well I am wondering whether he can hold on to his seat at the next local election - a Tory in Salford is like an ice cube in Saudi Arabia...

The canvassing returns for my ward during the General Election campaign were very positive. We put a leaflet out in February, probably the first non-election leaflet in Walkden South for several decades. We'll see. :)