Re: The Tories
 

No surprise there then Steve.

Re: The Tories
 

this is wrong whichever political persuation she claims to be but the plebbs always get the blame for the countries ills;)

Re: The Tories
 

True n its also true yeh will never ever be the one to highlight owt like this, FACT. just a weak comment when someone else does.:rolleyes: Yeh have no idea at all how much yer helping the torys.:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

The real news: Jeremy Hunt is up to no good with the NHS | Deborah Orr | Politics | The Guardian read this, this is what jeremy hunt is doing.goodbye to the nhs.people get your head out of the sand:(

Re: The Tories
 

Theres probably only you wi yer head in the sand,or up yer ass even. Most people are well aware of whats happening wi the N.H.S. Its you not aware of the damage yer doing to yer beloved party, n yeh have been told many times. Thats a head in sand.:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

Let me see....... isn't the Guardian a labour partisan?
So regardless(no pun intended) of how any other party were doing, it would feel honour bound to slate the results.
People keep telling you that you do the party you support no favours by posting the links to this kind of story.......it is all so 'sucks yah boo'.......childish in the extreme.
Have you nothing better to occupy your time with????

Re: The Tories
 

I chuckled when I read this

Benefits reform under threat after IT glitch - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

The cost of designing the computer system for Universal Credit is spiraling out of control.

I recall that the computer programme for the Child Support Agency was a disaster too - and led to the abolition of the agency.

So all who feel threatened by Universal Credit, take heart - it might not take effect. Pity the poor sods in Manchester and Cheshire who will have to be experimented on by 'pilot schemes' until they realise that the costs outweigh the gains.

Re: The Tories
 

nice one lol:D

Re: The Tories
 

Probably a bit like the expensive(but useless) computer system that the labour government commissioned for the NHS...it swallowed money which could have been used better by paying for nurses to care for patients...or better still not buying into the PFI con trick.
You don't mention those.

Re: The Tories
 

The last Labour government was estimated to have wasted £26bn in botched IT projects, which included the national programme for the NHS and the fiasco over the national identity card scheme. Mr Cameron – when in opposition – promised a move away from big IT projects.

£26 billion...that's a lot of money. Funny, C'mon, I don't remember you highlighting this when the party you so slavishly support were in power. :rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

what about the water utility private firms that dont pay any tax:confused: sold off by the tories on the cheap to their mates at least when they were nationalised the money came straight back to the public purse.

Re: The Tories
 

Now let's think, when were they privatised? In the Thatcher era I believe. So why didn't the party that you so slavishly support bring them back into public ownership during their 13 years in power?

And talking of selling things off on the cheap, isn't that what your strange, gurning fellow countryman do with our gold reserves when he was PM? :rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

By the way I'm not expecting an answer to this one because you never do engage in reasoned debate, do you? You just jump onto the next garbled rant and copy and paste from some article you haven't read properly anyway. :rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

one person,tony blair, gordon brown was in support of re-nationalising britains infrastructure but the murdoch and other media empires brainwashed the easily led british public and stitched him up.hopefully they will follow through with this Labour backs calls to return railway network to public control | Politics | The Observer

Re-nationalise Britain's Infrastructure | Campaigns by You only 130 signatures popular politics was the only way to go when murdoch was in control
Renegotiating Previous Governments' Privatisation Deals: The 1997 Uk Windfall Tax On Utilities And International Law", By THOMAS W. WAELDE
1) Ex-Post Change of Privatisation Deals: The UK Windfalls Levy Project
Governments everywhere have the propensity to revoke deals made by their predecessors - if these deals look ex-post good to the other party. They usually do not revoke deals which have turned out to be dismal failures. Privatisation falls under that category: Either the price paid by purchasers/investors looks, ex post, too good - thus providing an easy argument for revoking such deals; or it looks not good and the purchasers/investors overpaid and governments will tend to leave such deals alone. A normal seller will rarely be able to extract a higher price for an asset sold if the assets turns out to be more profitable than expected, but governments have the sovereign power of taxation at their hand to re-make deals made earlier, usually by a previous government. General public opinion will usually be very sympathetic since "fat cats" are seen to need skinning. The ex-ante situation with its attendant uncertainty and risk - which usually explains whatever price was paid - is no longer in people's mind That there was a risk and that the risk may not have materialised is not in the public mind.
In the old days, right-wing governments sometimes privatised and left-wing governments often re-nationalised. They had to pay compensation - under national law for nationals, usually more, under international law obligations protecting foreign investment, to foreigners. There was much debate on nationalisation and compensation - with Third-World radicals in the bygone days of the 1970s formulating innovative concepts of "excessive profits" to reduce compensation, but the prevailing consensus at this time, expressed in about 1200 bilateral investment treaties and the main modern multilateral investment treaties - the North-American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty - is that nationalisation requires full, prompt and effective compensation.
But privatisation of former public-service companies, often before and sometimes after in monopoly form, leads to a more sophisticated ball game: The value of the asset depends very much on the regulation of the industry, since regulators can increase the value or decrease it depending on the ceiling they set for prices and other conditions of service and competition. In addition, taxes will increase or lower the value of such assets, in particular if such taxes are not uniformly imposed throughout a nation, but aimed in particular at the privatised and regulated utility companies. Investment in privatised utilities therefore leads to a very particular form of political risk - the risk that regulatory conditions change and special taxes are imposed, all measures within the sovereign powers of the state. The normal forms of protection against political risk - investment insurance, stabilisation clauses, international investment treaties and international arbitration clauses - have not yet caught up with ts emergence of new forms of political risk.
The now emerging UK windfall tax is a case in point. It is in our view not limited purely to the contemporary UK situation, but illustrates a structural situation which can, and is likely to be repeated wherever utilities are privatised, then regulated and exposed to special industry taxes. Usually, it will be a new government composed of parties hitherto opposed to privatisation which will be able to combine its previous opposition and the values therein articulated with the ever present need of governments for new revenue to finance its political popularity objectives. In this paper, we will survey shortly the possible responses by international law, mainly principles and practice of international investment protection, to situations which have now arisen in the world privatisation laboratory which is the UK and which are likely to arise in the many countries which currently copy the UK privatisation model, once new governments come to power. The UK situation is of particular interest since in the absee of constutional, federal or judicial constraints the prevailing concept of parliamentary supremacy means that any legal recourse can only be had from external sources of law.
2) The Effect of International Law on Government and Business Practice
International law does not work like normal national law: It does not rely on national judges, police and bailiffs. It rather acts like a social code of rules the breach of which affects a state's reputation, makes it more difficult for such state to do normal business with other states and companies. States found in breach of international law - by consensus of the international law community and international conferences, by arbitral tribunals and sometimes, on the basis of voluntary submission, by the International Court of Justice - rarely comply, but rather protest their sovereignty, the bias of the rest-of-the-world against them. However, after agitation and excitement has worn out, there is usually an attempt by the state and its elites responsible for dealing with the world to come back into the fold. International law then becomes effective by much quieter, face-saving diplomacy and on in-depth inspection one will often find that international law is ultimately and in effect complied with.
This is why it is important to examine the rules that may be applicable and their way of being raised, adjudicated and enforced. Unfortunately for the lay observer, these rules are rarely clear. They are usually a combination of quite open-ended standards and criteria which will only acquire a definitive scope and meaning as they are debated and applied in the particular case. Also, international law needs a plaintiff to become effective. Usually, these were the home states of affected investors. Increasingly, private parties, mainly companies, have become entitled to litigate before non-national tribunals against the offending state. This is not without risk: It requires large resources of money and executive attention. Suing a state also means getting exposed to the risk of being blacklisted and sanctioned in manifest and subcutaneous ways at the disposal of the regulating, permitting, awarding and taxing state machinery. International law therefore very much plays a low-profile role in negotiationbetween a state political and bureaucratic machinery keen on avoiding political embarassment and loss of face and affected investors worried over the state's ability to penalise private companies foolhardy enough to challenge the state. Its effect will consist in providing a set of standards in such negotiations. Whatever the UK Chancellor's public views, we can be certain that he and his team pay very much attention in drafting the current windfall tax rules in order to avoid being exposed as delinquent under international law.
3) The European Convention on Human Rights
The first legal instrument to think of in the current UK context is the European Convention on Human Rights. It allows not only foreign investors, but also British companies to raise a complaint before the Strasburg-based European Commission and Court of Human Rights (not to be confused with the Luxemburg-based European Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the European Communities). In the absence of a UK constitution, the Convention operates so far as a quasi-constitutional constraint of last resort in the UK. The First Protocol, Art. 1 of the Convention guarantees the "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", subject to public interest, with reference to international law and subject to regulation of property for the public interestand to "secure the payment of taxes". The Convention witnesses the strong pro-state and social philosophies prevailing after World War II. It provides wide latitude to the state for regulating property, for exercising political judgment and, as the decades of jurisprudence sw, protects only the core of property interests against arbitrary, abusive and discriminatory state measures. Several cases indicate that taxation is in fact covered by this provision; no case has dealt with, so far, with a situation such as the post-privatisation special-industry tax trying to recoup a part of the profit that arose as a result of favourable developments in and outside the privatised industries. An analysis of extensive case law demonstrates that the protection is rather granted against abusive measures of tax enforcement than against the exercise of tax powers as such. The Convention and its origin are deeply anchored in attitudes where state tax powers are considered to be at the core of sovereignty, with minimal acceptance by states of international law constraints in this field. One would need to show an "excessive burden" or a "fundamental interference" with a financial position.
Under such rules, one would have to show a very severe and disproportionate interference with economic assets. Current indications for the windfall levy are that there would be a significant, one-off payment, but not a tax that might drive some utilities to bankruptcy or closure. If the windfall levy could be seen to discriminate against foreign and national investors, the ECHR institutions are more likely to take a critical look at the levy than if they were imposed with as much equality as possible and with the intention and effect to avoid protectionism and maintain a level playing field. Similarly, while tax retroactivity has not yet been a situation before the ECHR institutions, it might well lead to a more severe judgment. Under the law of the European Community and its underlying constitutional principles, retroactive legislation is only authorised to a limited extent if legitimate expectations are protected. While EC law does not pertain directly to the UK tax measures envisaged or to the Europe Convention on Human Rights, legislation with retroactive effect is seen as abhorrent to most (in particular Continental) lawyers. A windfalls tax which is directly - or indirectly - retroactive and thus is imposed on tax-payers without the possibility of adjusting their behaviour to a tax imposed, might not fare well in the balancing test which the ECHR institutions are likely to employ.
To sum up: The very pro-state nature of the First Protocol of the ECHR protecting property makes a challenge of the windfalls tax an uphill battle. Nevertheless, there are standards - discrimination, retroactivity, protection of legitimate expectations - which might result in the balancing test to come out against the tax. One would have to look very carefully if there will be a retroactive effect element in the final tax proposal; also, indications that the previous government induced investors with credible promises of stability might reinforce the "legitimate expectations" of investors to be weighed against the very explicitly recognised powers of the state to regulate and tax property. There is also the off-chance possibility that the currently prevailing philosophy of open markets requiring extensive protection of property against state interference and taxation - as more explicitly recognised in modern investment treaties - might lead to a modernised interpretation of this rather old convention. Ithat case, the breach of promises and the imposition of a tax discriminating between a particular, privatised industry and the general business taxes applicable, in other words the attempt to renegotiate a deal ex-post, after the investors have sunk their monies, could result in the balancing test under the ECHR to come out against the windfall tax. But this is in our view not a very probable outcome. Finally, it should be noted that while the ECHR protects member state nationals (including UK companies and citizens), it does not apply to US companies and nationals. The US purchasers of UK energy companies can not rely on this Convention since the US is not a member.
4) European Community Law
The EC quasi-constitutional rules restraining application of retroactive law are not directly applicable to UK taxation. What is applicable is directly effective EC law prohibiting discrimination between UK and EC nationals (inclusive companies) under Art. 7 and 52, state aids (Art. 92-94) of the EC Treaty. These rules can be raised by private investors and companies before a UK court which would have to submit questions of relevant EC law to the European Court of Justice. Similarly, the European Commission would have powers to investigate breaches of EC law, with ultimate jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. There is a prohibition on tax discrimination in Art. 95 of the EC Treaty, but this prohibition only applies to "products" from other member states, and not to investment by member states nationals. The legal opinions prepared by Labour and Conservative party counsel take, predictably, two routes: The - easy - Labour Party position is that there is no evidence that the windfl tax would discriminate against investors from other member states (both shareholders in the privatised utilities and corporate purchasers, e.g. Lyonnaise des Eaux). Similarly, their argument is that there has not been a case where a tax on a specialised industry has been considered as a "state aids" for those parts of an industry not taxed requiring consent by the European Commission. The Conservative Party's counsel's argument needed to be much more imaginative: They had to argue that while such cases may not have arisen, one could not exclude that the windfall tax levy would result in discrimination against EC investors forbidden under the EC Treaty; their main argument was that it was very difficult to draft a non-discriminatory tax in the first place so anything that would come out would be likely to be discriminatory in some fashion. For applying the state aids' prohibition, they suggested that not taxing a segment of the industry would in fact be the same as providing a subsidy to this industry seent increasing, in effect, its competitive position vis-a-vis its taxed competitors.
Both arguments do not lack imagination and some persuasion, but they are not utterly convincing. First, it would be difficult to see why the Commission services and the European Court of Justice would want to extend the state aids concept to a new situation where tax-raising, and partly re-working a privatisation deal, are the main motivating forces, and not strengthening the competitive position of domestic industry vis-a-vis foreign competitors. In fact, non-UK utilities not subject to the windfall tax will benefit since their UK rivals ability to expand internationally will be curtailed by the UK tax. The UK tax, rather than helping UK utilities in European or international competition, will rather obstruct their competitive strategies abroad, and may even weaken them in domestic UK take-over games. Non-UK investors may benefit from tax credit or tax deductiblity provisions at home in ways not open to purely UK-based companies and investors so that the UK tax may in fact benefit the relative competite position, rather than negatively discriminate, against European companies. If the tax were structured so as to hit in particular hard at European investors in the UK, while benefiting UK investors (e.g. Mercury or some already earlier private and not privatised water utilities), then the argument of discrimination, and perhaps even state aids, would have some strength. But the tax seems to be motivated and likely to be structured not for protectionist, but primarily for revenue-raising reasons.
While the final form of the windfall tax needs to be evaluated carefully, we do not see a high probability that state aids or discrimination charges could be effectively raised against the proposed tax.
GATT/WTO
The Conservative Party's counsel has raised the prospect of GATT/WTO procedures - presumably brought by the home state of a foreign utility company the UK subsidiary of which is subject to the proposed windfall tax. It is hard, though, to develop this line of attack effectively: GATT/WTO deals with trade. No indication has so far surfaced that the windfall levy would obstruct trade of, say, electricity (e.g. Electricite de France) or gas (e.g. Statoil) and impose discriminatory taxes on such trade (forbidden under GATT and Art. 95 of the EC Treaty). It is meant to take money away from the privatised utilities and thereby reduce the value of the shares of shareholders (with the stock market already having factored in the windfall levy in the current stock market price). Trade is thereby not affected; to the contrary, if the UK utilities were placed in a financially weaker position, this would make it more difficult for them to resist import competition and to build up an export position in other Europeacountries. The GATT/WTO reference is too far-fetched.
5) Customary and Treaty-based International Law
The most potent challenge, in our view, could be based on customary and Treaty-based international law. Customary international law on nationalisation and other squeezes on foreign investment was challenged in the 1970s by the Third World. However, the collapse of Communism and the re-orientation of global economic attitudes towards open and competitive markets and liberalisation of foreign investment conditions - spearheaded very much by Great Britain - has led to a substantial enhancement of the concepts of investment protection. Customary international law, though, would not give a right to challenge the windfall tax to UK nationals, but exclusively to foreign investors, mainly the US and some European utilities and private investors who invested heavily in the Thatcher-led privatisation of the UK utility industry, trusting that privatisation, the newly established regulatory framework and economic buoyancy would lead to financial results beyond those envisaged when the price for privatisation assets w set - a high-risk investment gamble that paid off with many, but not all UK privatisations and which has led in other privatisation cases to unfavourable results. Customary international law, though, needs a proper plaintiff: Private investors can in the main not challenge a UK windfall tax directly since they have no access to the International Court of Justice (ICJ - The Hague) which acts exclusively as a court for voluntary submission of disputes between states. We understand that there may be the possibility for the US to bring a claim against the UK for a breach of international investment rules against US investors in privatised UK utilities.
But does customary international law include a prohibition against measures such as the envisaged windfall tax?
In a first round of analysis, there would not be much strength in such claim: Customary international law protects against nationalisation and confiscation without full, prompt and effective compensation. A re-nationalisation of the privatised utilities would therefore be perfectly legal - provided full compensation were paid (with considerable difficulties in determining compensation). But the UK government intends to impose a much less intrusive measure through its windfall tax. It would leave proprietary title intact, and so far no evidence has surfaced that such a tax would be tantamount to expropriation. There is the concept of "confiscatory taxation" and "creeping expropriation": In essence, taxation which is so extensive as to be equal to confiscation, taxation which more or less taxes away the economic value of the asset at issue is seen as "tantamount" to expropriation. The idea is that a state can not circumvent the nationalisation/ compensation rule by depleting the economic value of an asset ile leaving title and the formal trappings of legal ownership intact. The US-Iran claims tribunal decisions have clarified that a state action - even if formally only of a regulatory character and not a formal "taking" away of the proprietary title - can amount to confiscation entailing the obligation to pay full compensation.
Modern views - including by the British Judge at the Int'l Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins or the German Chancellor's former adviser and Professor at Bonn, Rudolf Dolzer - emphasise that taxation can be considered as a measure equal to nationalisation if it is particularly intensive, arbitrary or discriminatory or if agreements made with investors are then in effect ex-post and unilaterally revoked by the succeeding government. One interesting case with the European Court of Human Rights - the Greek Stran Refineries case of 1994 - contains an element of a retroactive cancellation of a government contract which, combined with other elements of arbitrariness and government behaviour against legitimate expectations, led to substantial damages. It is here that one can not exclude that a challenge of the UK windfall tax may have some chance of success: While the windfall tax is unlikely to destroy the economic asset value altogether, there may be elements - retroactive cancellation of the privatisation deals de by the prior government - that could cause an international tribunal to modernise the conventional principles of international investment law and find for the affected investors. The argument would probably be that if a full-fledged nationalisation requires full compensation to be acceptable, then governments can not bypass this principle by taking a part of the value by special ad-hoc taxation without paying a pro-rata, proportionate share of compensation. Also, the principle of proportionality - equally recognised in the European Convention on Human Rights, EC law and international law - may suggest that the energy policies pursued by the UK government may be achieved in a less damaging way by change in the regulatory regime than by the blunt tool of a special ad-hoc industry tax.
To sum up the position of international customary law: There is a classical view according to which taxation forms the core of sovereign powers and can not be constrained by international obligation. A modern view, however, emphasises less the formal action of government than the economic and financial effect achieved. Here, taxation, particularly if depriving an investor of the economic value of his asset or if aimed at revoking a previous agreement resulting in legitimate expectations, can be seen as the equivalent of nationalisation. Foreign - not national - investors could, under the sponsorship of their home governments, claim compensation equal to the value of the special tax.
A key question in this context is if there was some sort of agreement between the government and the foreign investors. While British law tends to take a very restrictive view on the legal force of agreements with governments purporting to bind future governments - based on the notion of Parliamentary supremacy - international lawyers are likely to give much more weight to such agreements. There are arbitration cases before the World Bank's ICSID tribunal, where even Ministerial declarations, governmental investment prospectuses and similar promotional literature were held to have led to an agreement between government and investor. An international tribunal would therefore scrutinise closely the promotional literature used during the British privatisation campaigns to see if there was an identifiable "agreement" which would make a subsequent special industry windfall levy inconsistent.
This interpretation is not as far-fetched as it may seem on first glance: The current windfall levy is not the first case of its kind. In 1974/75, the then Labour government first intended to nationalise the largely US-owned offshore oil industry. When faced in informal consultations with the US government with reference to the International Court of Justice and international law requirements of full compensation, it decided to back-pedal and use the somewhat softer option of somewhat coercive renegotiation (sale of participation to the then established British National Oil Company) and institution of a new tax - the Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT). While there is not much analysis and little historical record available so far, it does seem that US representations based on international law concepts induced the British government to institute a less intrusive measure than was originally planned.
But there is not only customary international law, arguable in intergovernmental diplomatic discussions and before the International Court of Justice, to rely on. All learned commentators so far have ignored that Britain signed in 1994 - with 48 other countries and the European Communities - the Energy Charter Treaty in Lisbon. This Treaty includes the so far most comprehensive, far-reaching and innovative regime for protecting foreign investment in the energy sector. The Treaty was - for US energy investors in the UK very regrettably - not signed by the US, but by the EC countries. EC-originating investment in the UK energy sector (i.e. not water or telecommunications) is therefore protected under this Treaty. The Treaty is at the moment ignored by the learned commentators because it is not yet fully effective since the required number of 30 ratifications has not yet been reached (likely to happen in 1997). But an unusual and innovative provision (Art. 45 (1)) makes it provisionally effective as per siature if not inconsistent with national law. We consider that there is nothing in UK law which would keep a UK government from committing itself - validly under international law - to assume the investment guarantees of the Energy Charter Treaty in favour of foreign investors. If this view is accepted - and the judges would not be H.M. judges, but international arbitrators in an independent setting - then the Treaty would be fully applicable to the windfall tax on energy companies owned by foreign investors.
6) What is the protection afforded by the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty?
Not surprising given the sovereignty-focus of most governments, taxation (on capital and income presumably covering the windfall tax) is largely - but not fully - excluded from the Treaty's scope (Art. 21) - except for an explicit reference to "confiscatory taxation" (Art. 21 - 13). It would be up to the arbitrators to determine at which level of intensity and scope a tax becomes "confiscatory". The windfall levy does not seem to take away the full economic value of the assets at issue; however, its character of being, at least in intention and target, retroactive, its special-industry character intended to effectively ex-post re-determine unilaterally the sales price of UK privatisations and, possibly, its contravention of - possible - promises made by H.M. government during the privatisation campaigns does lend itself to argument that such tax would be tantamount to expropriation, in particlar with the view in mind that full-scale nationalisation requires full-fledged compensation and that such rule shod not be undermined by the circuitous tax route. There are, naturally, arguments to the contrary, namely that investors who bought UK energy shares knew - or should have known - that the UK government could not commit its successors and that the vociferous opposition of the then opposition Labour Party constituted a political risk that might materialise in the future.
A second argument (apparent now that the windfalls tax is known) is that the tax is actually not a "tax on capital/income", but rather on value appreciation. If this is so, then other provisions of the ECT (Art. 10), in particular compliance of commitments entered with investors and non-discrimination are applicable. Why it seems harder to make a case for non-discrimination, it seems easier to make a case that in essence a commitment - the sale at a specific price - is breached and changed retroactively.
Whatever the legal merit of this argument - likely to be advocated by opponents of the tax and to be criticised by its supporters - the fact is that the Energy Charter Treaty provides (Art. 26) for a direct right of aggrieved foreign (member state) investors to litigate against the defendant government before an international arbitral tribunal, where traditional notions of Parliamentary supremacy are likely to have less weight than the values of international trade and commerce, namely sanctity of property and contract.
7) Conclusions: Managing the Post-Privatisation Political Risk
Our discussion has identified the considerable political risk faced by a foreign investor when buying into privatisation when and if the privatised assets turn out to be profitable. It is easy to construct the "excess profit" notion when the risk that was present during the privatisation process is ignored and when only subsequent developments, and not the risk nor failures in other cases of such investment are taken into account. Behind investment into privatisation is often a quite narrow perspective - fuelled by the promotors and advisers of such deals - which downplays the considerable political risk. In modern energy privatisation, the risk is in subsequent changes of regulatory regimes and in the use of taxation to re-define unilaterally the original deal. Traditional international law is not equipped to deal with these risks since its focus was exclusively the issue of nationalisation and compensation. But modern concepts of international law have evolved to cover under the quite open-ended conct of "creeping expropriation" many more economic assets against a much more diverse form of state intervention. These concepts are likely to evolve further, in particular as indicated by the innovative direct investor-state arbitration (without prior arbitral agreement) of the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty.
But whatever the status of the still - and as a rule belatedly - evolving international law, privatisation investors would do well to pay more attention to methods of managing such risk. Some are legal: Obtaining clear legal guarantees, enforceable before international tribunals, against unilateral future changes of deals made with governments; shifting the burden of regulatory and special-tax risk on local partners who may be more suitable for assuming such risk (ideally a state company - but its halcyon days have gone). The UK windfall tax will undoubtedly contribute to new methods of political risk management aimed at dealing with this particular and possibly in the future not unpopular device of partially re-writing the terms of privatisation. A particular device would be the extensive use of "stabilisation" clauses and specific investment agreements, subject to international arbitration, to secure a foreign investor against subsequent abrogation of its rights - simultaneously a method whereby a currengovernment can impose a lasting commitment on its successor, a thought that is quite inconsistent with the traditional UK notion of "Parliamentary Supremacy". One wonders if the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty was not a device for many governments to create a lasting international commitment binding its successors, even if not always agreeable to its international business deals.

Re: The Tories
 

and this is tory britain Army veteran Mark Mullins and wife Helen 'driven to suicide by poverty' | Mail Online

Re: The Tories
 

Was post 2114, really necessary in its entirety ? A simple link would've sufficed.

Re: The Tories
 

Everyone moans when he just posts a link. Poor chap can't win.:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

Maybe just stop posting then ? ;) :D

Re: The Tories
 

Re; post 2114..good informed post Cmon..and thanks for taking the time typing it out.

Re: The Tories
 

Pack it in you :)

Re: The Tories
 

post 2114.......DNR - TBL.

Re: The Tories
 

One of these days C'mon will make a reasonable post. He'll put together a few lucid, clear sentences of his own, along with a link to an article he's actually read to support his argument.

One of these days... ;)

Re: The Tories
 

Well someone did tell him to stop just posting links :D

Re: The Tories
 

:D ha ha made me laugh but does this mean the tories can tax them more:confused: lol

Re: The Tories
 

George Osborne makes 450K on a house partly paid for by the tax payer...;)

George Osborne makes £450k flogging taxpayer-funded second home : MirrorJames

Re: The Tories
 

george osborne claimed for a field on his expenses:eek:

Re: The Tories
 

You wrote something, rather than copy and paste, what a shame you neglected to put a link of your proof.

Re: The Tories
 

Hopefully its Murrayfield :P

Re: The Tories
 

Apparently it was a field for his horse. Mabye he goes to work on it. Is it a paddock for a pillock. :D:D:D:D

Re: The Tories
 

Hmm...can't be Murrayfield or even Hampden...they only got donkeys roaming on there

Re: The Tories
 

There y'go, Jock, I'll do your job for you!

George Osborne bought paddock with taxpayer's money - Telegraph

Re: The Tories
 

every day joe would be arrested for fraud but i bet he dosnt even loose his job

Re: The Tories
 

We'll have to wait and see on that .....

On BBC TV - 3 December 2012 Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee is to take action over claims about the tax affairs of a company started by her father, where her brother is executive chairman and she holds shares.
Margaret Hodge told Jo Coburn that the allegations about the Stemcor firm were "completely wrong", adding that they were "scurrilous and defamatory".
Newspapers have questioned the amount of tax paid by the firm, while the MP criticises large multinationals - such as Amazon, Google and Starbucks - about the amount they pay in the UK.

.

Re: The Tories
 

plain and simple i wouldnt have mentioned it because the thread is about the tories:p i vote labour because they are the lesser of evils and brought in the national minimum wage.i am a brownite because he stopped us from joining the euro and was bring growth to the country before he was stitched up by murdoch. the gold reserves i hear,he saved us more money in the long run beacause he kept the interest down on debt.he had a plan which was bringing down the debt with still having growth without picking on the weak ie disabled.do you know suicide has more than quadrupled since the tory cuts.the country is now awash with food kitchens run by oddball charities and the end is near with universal credit coming no jobcentres just oddball charities.complain about the jobcentres but try looking for a job now its a monster of a job;)

Re: The Tories
 

I think you logic regarding Gordon Brown and the selling of the gold reserves is flawed....he didn't need to sell our reserves...and what was stopping him from not selling the gold AND bringing down the debt by promoting growth.
My recollection of a past government is that it made it almost a career choice for some people to go on benefits and stay on benefits.
It made it so that it didn't pay to stir your stumps and work...but to sit back and let some other poor schmuck do it for you.
I see some of these so called weak and disabled driving around in new cars...provided by the tax payer.
OK.......I know some really disabled people too who are grateful for what they get.

And one of the prime reasons why it is so damn difficult to get a job now is that we lived in an era where you could have it all now and pay later.(the watch word was 'Borrow, borrow, borrow - we can pay it back tomorrow)
Well, LATER has come...and it isn't much fun....for anyone

Re: The Tories
 

1) on Growth: He forgot the old adage "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket". His government presided over a land of shopkeepers, fast food providers and money lenders. When the money lending world collapsed we had nothing else to export.
2) on low pay: What's your idea of a wage for the above shop assistants, fast food servers and cleaners? These used to be part time/unskilled/or basic trained jobs for housewives & students to earn some pin money.
3) on Interest Rates: Countries like us who print their own money can do most things that countries who have to buy their currency can't. The Bank of England had to lend money to the banks at a low rate - if they didn't the high street banks would have disappeared along with their customers money.
4) On Jobs: Throughout the noughties the majority of jobs were for sales and marketing personnel to sell loans to us mere mortals. Job vacancies these days now include Production Managers and other manufacturing jobs... it looks like we are slowly rebuilding our manufacturing base.
5) On Standard of Living This country needs to earn cash which we can distribute to the poor and we can only do this if we export. Currently it's not only Google, Top Shop, etc., who send money out of the country - don't forget there are many Brits living abroad who receive pensions from the UK but spend it abroad, additionally there are foreign nationals here who also send money and child benefits abroad to support their families.

Re: The Tories
 

sorry I duplicated my posting

Re: The Tories
 

1 and 4 youve contradicted your self ,not one goverment can force a population to not want these services. as for manufacturing jobs they have halved since 2008. 5 standard of living has lessened with ultra rise in tax for the working family .£250.00 for the average family thats not counting the energy firm rip off while millionaires get a £107,000 tax break. if you want food kitchens and starving people with rising crime rates and no police on the streets in 2012 thats your prerogative.

Re: The Tories
 

I can't see how Lucysgirl has contradicted herself with sections 1 and 4 of her post...she is just point out the way she sees things(in a much easier to read format than your posts)...as to number 5 in her post, she is absolutely right...the country does need to earn money....not send it out of the country.
People who send the money they receive(whether it be benefits or earned) only benefit the economy of the country the money goes to.

If you think the country would have been better under Labour management, then you are deluded.
If they had been returned to power after the last election they would have been in just the same position(for a kick off - they would have been crapping their pants, knowing the very poor state of the economy)...and I don't care about how they postulate on what they would have done...it cannot be proved that they would have done anything different. Whoever got in ...we were in for a rough ride because of rampant spending of the the previous administration.

Re: The Tories
 

The real deluded one on here is cmon n i have always detested Tories.:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

Yes, Cashy...I think we can agree on that.

Re: The Tories
 

well official figures say we were paying of our debt faster than the tories are now,we were out of recession with growth,borrowing less than the tories are now and our triple aaa credit rating wasnt under threat:confused:

Re: The Tories
 

Ask yerself "WHO" got us in this debt.:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

Since the lad's not well & he can't take part I'll put his tuppence worth in by proxy ................"13 right, 13 piggin' years of labour !!!! ;) :)

Re: The Tories
 

It is no good you two(Cashy and DiG) you can't put sense where there is none.

You don't think you are going to make any impression do you...this thread has gone on for a 143 sodding pages and he(the chap up in Scotland) is still banging on.
Still can't see that this mess was in a large part created by policies that were badly thought out, by an administration, that while called New Labour, was about as close to Tory (without bearing that name) as you could get.

All career politicians who never had a real job in their lives.....wanted to jump onto the great gravy train that is Westminster....not to help the poor and oppressed, but to make themselves a nice wedge for their future...this was New Labour

Re: The Tories
 

I agree when the Labour party kept to the two years planning that the previous Tory government had set we did get out of recession. I used to have a small manufacturing company and as a historic rule when the shops did well over Xmas and the New Year it meant that small,medium and large companies would have money to spend on equipment and/or expansion. For most of the years Labour were in power shops didn't do very well over that period- and in case you point out that halfway through their reign the internet was starting to be used by shoppers instead of the high street, it doesn't make any difference. This is because every retailer who trades in a shop or on the internet (excepting the smallest ones) has to fill in a VAT return and these figures are the ones we hear on the news, e.g. "Sales were down on this time last year".

Every country has various debts taken out over a period of time and the money used to pay GB's debts came from our gold reserves, the sale of government bonds and the prices other people/countries paid to buy our Sterling as an investment (poor things) - if Labour was using our tax money to pay part of the debts they must have had a shock when the work started drying up.

If you heard the news on TV that Belusconi (spelling?) was trying to make a come back, then you'll have heard that investors were taking their money out of his country pdq and lenders were looking to raise the interest rates - that is what would have happened if Gordon Brown had won the last election.

Re: The Tories
 

nope one minute people are saying he didnt tax milloinaires and overseas companies now they are saying companies would not have came if he stayed in power.the truth is he was investing in british companies like the steelworks in sheffield,fact is the tories withdrew this funding so we had to import more from abroad No Sheffield Forgemasters loan, no new nuclear by 2017 | Environment | guardian.co.uk
these are examples how the tories are telling blatant lies and people are gullible enough to believe them Thameslink trains order held up, admits Siemens | Business | The Guardian
Government cost cutting that led to West Coast mainline franchise fiasco could cost tax payer £100 million - Home News - UK - The Independent in fact when gordon brown was in power investors were double they are now Go green or we quit Britain, energy firms tell Osborne | The Times so your argument has been blown out of the water.fact

Re: The Tories
 

Margaret Hodge is "astonished" at the ineffectiveness of the Work Programme and part of the unemployment fiddle statistics;)

Re: The Tories
 

I'm 'astonished' that you are quoting Margaret Hodge as some sort of working mans Labour champion, although since you used the word 'fiddle' I guess I can see where you are coming from :rolleyes:

Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK - Telegraph

Re: The Tories
 

your a cracker lol, wait till 2 years and you will be saying different,the company she owns shares in might be doing wrong but at least she was transparent and didnt try and hide she had shares or tried to change the law to her advantage:rolleyes: bring it on lol

Re: The Tories
 

this tory goverment = scum

Re: The Tories
 

and the lies continue,i cant believe the amount of people who believe the tory press and the tory plebs lies:eek:

Re: The Tories
 

the tories, the party of law and order ha ha 20,000 less police officers

Re: The Tories
 

Well at least its a Government, which is more than can be said for the last shower masquerading as politicians who are now all lining their own pockets, how long is it since good old Gordon set foot in the house of commons, ain't been seen for over 12 months, he should be jail for impersonating an MP, and you still can't spell Government, ******

Re: The Tories
 

Re: The Tories
 

Hodge - Guy Fawkes' blog :rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

Maria Miller did not declare home rented from major Tory donor - Telegraph and this is from the torygraph

Re: The Tories
 

what does everybody think about the new redundancy laws :confused: BBC News - Redundancy talks period to be cut from 90 to 45 days

Re: The Tories
 

weve always been in debt. go to the national study of statistics they will tell you that debt has started rising more under osborne more than labour ever did. i want to know where everybody is getting their figures from.the sun lol

Re: The Tories
 

A sinister new twist in the Mitchell saga - Telegraph did he do it or didnt he CCTV casts doubt on account of Andrew Mitchell exchange - Channel 4 News if he didnt do it .why did he admit to it .its all rather confusing:confused:

Re: The Tories
 

The only person confused is you cmon which you aptly show every time you honour us with your presence. Andrew Mitchell admitted he swore at the police but never used the word pleb, it now seems the witness to that so called pled remark was a police officer who wasn't even there, do pay attention of you'll be made to stand in the corner with your dunces hat on :silly:

Re: The Tories
 

wheres the cctv from ? was it a freedom of information request:confused:;) he admitted everything then changed his mind :eek: is it classed as a u-turn:D

Re: The Tories
 

C'mon, what really angers me is this. You knock ALL political parties except your beloved Labour.
Although you claim not to have supported the last Labour government, you did not post anything negative about Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc, before the the current incumbents.
You have not said anything against Ed Balls (it up) or any of his cronies.
Why don't you run for office, seeing you could do better.

Re: The Tories
 

U Turn if you want the gentleman's not for turning:rolleyes:

Re: The Tories
 

.
It just depends on the circumstances; for instance :-

(1) if I were a worker who had found another job I could walk into, I wouldn't be pleased if I lost the job because I had to wait 90 days to qualify for my redundancy pay.

(2) again depending on the circumstances I can see where both the 45 days and the 90 days negotiations could lose the company more money. What if everything was settled in a month but the company had to keep paying the negotiating consultants extremely expensive salaries for the 2 months when they were dong nothing. It might be best to allow some form of legal leeway of between 45 and 90 days to assist both the workers and the employers.

Re: The Tories
 

.
Do we really still have a National Health Service as set up in the 1940s?

If you remember in 2002 tenders were being invited from foreign clinical teams for work in our NHS hospitals!!!

Once upon a time money from the treasury would build the hospitals and buy the equipment plus pay for the staff. If we're honest about it we'll see that Blair/Brown got into bed with private financiers when they thought up the "Private Finance Initiative", which they promised would be a good deal for the country..

If the Treasury had organised the cash for the new hospitals we'd be paying about 3% interest. We should all cry when we see how much Blair/Brown have "saved us" :-

<<The private finance initiative substantially increases the cost of hospital building. Total costs (construction costs plus financing costs) in a sample of hospitals built under the private finance initiative are 18-60% higher than construction costs alone.



Shareholders in private finance initiative schemes can expect real returns of 15-25% a year.1



The consortiums involved in these schemes charge the NHS fees equivalent to 11.2-18.5% of construction costs.


Medical staff are deeply implicated in hospital private finance initiative schemes. Clinical directors approve and medical directors sign off the full business case, clinical posts are lost, and heroic targets are set for gains in medical productivity. Clinical concerns are generally met by assurances that the largely undisclosed price of the private finance initiative is well worth paying because schemes approved by the initiative offer better value for money than public procurement. This claim is based on the fact that, for approval purposes, all privately financed schemes are compared with a notional publicly funded equivalent, the public sector comparator. However, this comparison is carried out using an appraisal methodology under which the cash payments associated with each option are “discounted,” and costs are adjusted to reflect “risk transfer.” Both these factors have an influence on the results of the comparison.>>
source: PFI in the NHS?is there an economic case? | BMJ

Re: The Tories
 

If this article and TV discussion programmes are correct that we need another million engineers to fill those anticipated new jobs then I don't think this government will be able to keep its promise to curb immigration. There aren't enough technical colleges or grammar/comprehensive schools teaching sciences & maths to cater for firms who want to employ apprentices nor sufficient university places to cater for engineering management. We need to catch up with the likes of China, Germany, etc.

<< The UK needs more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates in order to aid the economic recovery according to a new report released by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Of the 1.25 million science, engineering and technology professionals and technicians the report claims are needed by 2020, a significant number of them should be engineers, as the UK is currently failing to produce the required numbers of engineers.

The report’s findings follow a recent warning by the Institute of Engineering & Technology (IET), that Britain is producing only 25-50% of the engineering graduates required for the UK economy. In effect this puts the number of additional engineers required by 2020 at 200,000. With only 90,000 STEM students graduating per year and a quarter of those choosing careers outside of Engineering there is already a shortfall.

Some believe the way to increasing numbers lies with the relationships universities develop with employers from the engineering and technology sectors. An increase in the number of students taking STEM subjects will be crucial to the future economy, enabling an increase in the output of the UK.

In addition to findings of the report another survey commissioned by IET for 2012 has shown the demand for engineers is growing. 58% of companies are planning to recruit, compared to just 36% in 2011.>>
source: NRP - About Us - News - Over One Million New Engineering & Technology Professionals needed by 2020

Re: The Tories
 

All of which is pretty much down to the way higher education is funded. Courses such as Coronation Street and The Beatles attract funding, as do one day courses on Health and Safety, Food Hygiene and Load Management. The line between university and college has become blurred. So many colleges of further education are applying for university status to get onto this gravy train.

I'm always a tad sceptical of surveys that benefit the instigators.

Degree courses in Science, Technology and Engineering have to fend for themselves under Cameron, as they have done under Blair, Brown and Thatcher. And I'm not even going to mention tuition fees, oops, already did ;)

Those that are lucky enough, wealthy enough and smart enough to get onto these limited courses sod off to countries that value them as soon as they graduate.

Re: The Tories
 

I can definitely say that Thatcher did entice and pay for uni courses. My daughter had already graduated then joined time served electricians, engineers and others at university in Thatcher's newly set up "Design and Technolgy" degree course. This was set up to increase our exports, because France, for example, were refusing to import our products due to them not being "pleasing to look at" This government has put more money into bursaries for maths & science degree courses. I like to be fair and if I could recall Blair & Brown giving out freebie courses I would set them down here too - maybe someone else could shine alight.

What is so depressing is that when there's a turn up in trade the majority of company job vacancies always stipulate "with experience" - the experience usually anything between two and five years. This government is trying to solve this problem of the need for "experience" - in fact my grandson is in the middle of his degree course and currently serving one year full time "job experience".... I doubt that will be long enough to satisfy future vacancy requirements and we'll be experiencing more immigration when the job markets open up.

Re: The Tories
 

Yes, she did. She destroyed the industrial backbone of the country to break the unions and then realised that the balance of payments was screwed. Destroying industry meant that there was a disctinct lack of apprenticeships, unemployment in school leavers went through the roof. Being a self confessed design freak, she created what were basically mickey mouse degrees in box and package design, and the result was that we now need power saws to open packets of bacon, and most pieces of furniture come flat packed with non biodegradable polystyrene and mountains of bubble wrap. Over simplified puerile argument perhaps, but my point is she had an agenda and wasn't being altruistic about education for the masses.


But anyway, I thought we were discussing proper sciences, Maths, Science, Engineering and the associated scientific/engineering Technology. Yes, you get bog standard means tested bursaries for them, but the significant bursaries are privately funded and extremely limited. So I stand by my comment of lucky enough, wealthy enough etc...


As for the experience/qualification argument...the apprenticeship system used to work just fine before it was twisted beyond recognition by the previous and now the current government to massage the figures.

As an employer I'd take experience over qualification any day of the week, 'walking the walk over talking the talk'. I think more effort should be made by government to entice employers to invest in education. They should help them to take on a kid, give them tax/national insurance breaks to educate him and, more importantly, allow them to fire him if he isn't cutting the mustard, and not accuse them of bullying if they send him to get a bobbin of Whitworth thread.

Re: The Tories
 

I still have my father's apprenticeship indenture document from the 1920s and thought it advanced the country when apprenticeships were provided free of charge by employers. Since the 1970s I've worked in manufacturing electronic equipment and it was in that decade when an A* graduate was employed - it didn't take long to realise the lad had never touched a component - all his "design experience" was through studying books. Thatcher set up a scheme as you outlined above which as a small company being squeezed by inflation, etc., we took advantage of circa 1981-82 and onwards. We thought this would set us up for when the upturn came, but when the upturn came we found larger companies were poaching the apprentices we'd trained and sent to day release college.

There was also a scheme introduced for those who would normally have lost their dole money if they took on any casual or part time work.

As for destroying "industrialisation" - When unions bring large companies to their knees you'll find foreign buyers moving in to buy the patents which they then produce abroad. Also, I think if you'd seen Esther Rantzen's programmes about shoddy British cars and noticed how many Brits were driving around in foreign imported cars you might vary your opinion slightly.

Re: The Tories
 

never heard so much twaddle in my life.:eek:everybody knows the tories destroyed the apprenticeships by bringing in the yop,yts and destroying british industry. the apprentiship you are talking about was dumbed down it was a modern apprenticeship with less goverment funding and less training and another way to bring unemployment figures down,just like the benefits culture the tories created in the 80s.thatcher and lamont said high unemployment was a risk worth taking just to keep inflation down. in 1989 the tories freezed grants and reduced courses to save money,so you you have been ill advised on your information the facts and figures speak for themselves.you cant rewrite history;)while the tories were the party of law and order crime doubled under thatcher while she created unemployment. people have short memories.the tories opposed the national minimum wage,just think what the eastern europeans would be doing now, undercutting the average british worker.debt was made easier to get under the tory bankers,i just dont get it there was a credit crunch and they want us to borrow more to get out of it.its time to create jobs with a decent wage not downgrade jobs .

Re: The Tories
 

Its Jobs for jobs sake that's got us into this shambolic mess in the first place, creating none jobs in the public sector, the public sector should run on the same lines as private business, the public sector has had it easy for too long, its reality time, maybe we could start by sacking MPS who haven't set foot in commons for over 12 months but still drawing their full salary, and you still can spell government right, you lazy ignorant prat

Re: The Tories
 

If we are talking about twaddle then your post must take the biscuit.

The destruction of British manufacturaing took hold when we started to export jobs abroad.

A local firm which you may have heard of Howard and Bulloughs were a great engineering firm employing many men and women in our small town........they started selling the machinery abroad...machinery which would make goods that we had previously made in the Uk....and making them cheaper, because the employment costs in the countries these machines sold to, was lower that the costs here in the UK...making their goods cheaper than ours.

We were penalised for importing goods from abroad, but were being told that exporting was good...yes the exporting of ready made products would have been good, but the export of Machinery to make those productswas not so good...but it was backed by The Queens Award to Industry(Export).
This was first awarded in 1966...long before Margaret Thatcher came into power.
Once these jobs were gone they were gone for good. Never to return.

Tea towels(and a multitude of other woven cotton goods) that used to be made in Lancashire came into the country from Portugal...at a cost that we could not dream of making them for....and thus our industry declined.
The motor industry went in much the same way.

It is no damn good training apprentices if there is no industry to train them in...and no jobs for them to do.

And please do not get me started ont eh benefits culture...I just do NOT want to go there!!!!!

Re: The Tories
 

no, but there is not very many jobs that are full time or permanent. so less tax returns and less ambition.so that means anybody with ambition will just leave the uk its a cycle of madness.so as lucysgirl says they will have to import specialists from abroad.oh wait a minute they are already paying companies from abroad, well over the odds to do nothing and reap the benefits of profit to pay their shareholders .theyve created a monster

Re: The Tories
 

You talk twaddle......and cannot put together a logical discussion.
You never Ever talk about the mighty mistakes that your beloved Labour party made...and they made some humdingers.......you have never once posted anything that is even mildly critical of the time the Labour administration was in power...the promises they made and did not fulfill.You have an unbalanced view of politics........all political parties are the same.......none of them are interested in the rights and desires of the electorate...which is why there is such apathy when it comes round to election time.
Get with the programme cmonstanley.......but no, that won't happen will it? You will continue to spew forth the same old same old.

Re: The Tories
 

Margaret, you cannot reason with him.
He will simply ignore you, seeing his very warped view of the world does not include listening to anyone who disagrees with him.
I have been ignored by him so many times, I have now added him to my ignore list.

Re: The Tories
 

Our friend from the north (I use the term very loosely Margaret) also forgets to mention the part the trade unions played in the destruction of our industry, "one out all out brothers" in the sixties we had one the finest car making industries in the world, but when the plants were shut down time after time, and cars weren't being delivered companies moved their plants to countries who appreciated the jobs and work they brought. No bigger example of a Union Shyster is good old Arthur Scargill who only the other week lost an High Court Action against the NUM which involved keeping in the lifestyle he'd become accustomed to, and it certainly wasn't the lifestyle of coal pit face worker, I'll always remember the secretary of the TUC say about Scargill, he went into the miners strike with a big union and a little house and came out the other side with a large house and a little union, now that is two faced hypocrisy in the first order

Re: The Tories
 

yes but history shows they were right. we now import billions of coal which passes by from Hunterston Ayrshire.i watch the trains getting bigger and longer and more ships stacked up with coal unloading.which is more money out of the country. we were still getting the tax receipts from the companies and workers the world wide recession should be learning us a lesson in trying to be self sufficient .it doesnt make sense draining the country of money.

Re: The Tories
 

Ya and that coal cost around £40 a tone less that mining it in this country you berk, the country nor buisness can't keep paying for a chance child

Re: The Tories
 

History shows who were right? The politicians? The Labour party? The unions?
Oh, No! How could I be so foolish?.....of course, I see it now, it has to be all the fault of the Tory party...with absolutely no help from any other quarter.

The large scale immigration that was allowed by some government or other, had nothing to do with any of this....with people coming here, but sending the money back home to where-ever, the claiming of benefits and child tax credits, even when you have gone back to your homeland...spent again, in a country where the cost of living is cheaper and the money buys more......AND benefits their economy...none of this has any impact I suppose.
You are blinkered and in a bad way too.

Re: The Tories
 

the tories started to encouraged the large scale immigration in the 80s, they claimed to be anti European but they took us into Europe and signed the Maastricht treaty under john major.their ideology is to increase the population by any means its in their Adam smith economics;) labour wanted to destroy poverty in this country but people took advantage.the tories want to bring back poverty to britain,they want people to rely on charity and food banks they want people to work for nothing how is that good for society:confused:

Re: The Tories
 

Strange, I remember it happening in the 60's, but then, age makes a difference, I forget things.

Re: The Tories
 

what cutting your nose to spite your face,economies need people to work and contribute to the tax man not sit about on the dole .it cost more on the long run short term quick buck dont contribute to the tax man or society.how can anybody justify sending huge amounts of money abroad while sacking thousands of workers in the uk:confused: it would be interesting to see how much it really cost the country.

Re: The Tories
 

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see. How can you suddenly blame a tory/lib dem leadership for all the problems this country has when labour were in power for thirteen years? Open your eyes, none of the major parties are prepared to tackle the real problems of this country. Why oh why do you think Britian is the place so many people want to settle? We are a laughing stock WHOEVER is in power and still we have a benefits system that is being abused and sending billions in foreign aid to countries who are no doubt more wealthy than us, time to take the blinkers off IMHO:mad:

Re: The Tories
 

i take it back you are right in fact what i should have said is they didnt discourage it .;) the figures were back down to pre 1997 figures at the last election.this goverment havent a clue how many are coming in as they sacked off half the border agency staff.{which was set up by labour to curb illegal immigration**

Re: The Tories
 

you havent a clue about the benefits in this country, its only too easy to blame britains problems on immigration.full home grown families have been on benefits for decades because the full employment clause was dropped from political manifestos in the 80s.

Re: The Tories
 

How dare you say that I haven't a clue about the benefits system in this country you arrogant person? I know full well how hard it was for my late husband who had worked all his life to getv DLA when he was terminally ill. I am well aware of how Britains benefit system has been abused and often by families that have never worked but if you can't/won't see why folks are so eager up to get in for the chance of getting said benefits think it is you who can't/won't see the real problems the country is in. Do not try and talk down to me:mad:

Re: The Tories
 

all i can say is sorry, but the benefits are changing dla is going in fact when universal credt and implementing universal credit is going create poverty.the tories are telling blatant lies saying all is well,suicide is increasing ,kids are going to school hungry,fiddling in unemployment figures,foodbanks increasing tenfold and disabled victimised.the facts are there.

Re: The Tories
 

Kids go to school hungry while their parents lie in bed after a night on the booze.......yes, you see them at the school gates in the afternoon smoking a fag......and talking about their latest aquisition of games console, TV etcetera.

There is less in the benefits pot, because more people who should not be claiming benefits, are claiming them....people who land on our shores from a foreign country, to be given housing clothing and full access to benefits.
They then live frugally and send the money back to their homeland where it benefits, not our economy, but theirs.

It will get worse from 2014 when Croatians will be allowed free let into this country, and access to the benfits system from the day they land......they are making plans in their millions to come here purely for money to live off my pension(my taxes will be used to fund these people).

You never once criticised the Labour government for their porous border control, this was a ploy to get more people they thought would vote for them, into the country...they failed to recognise(or maybe they thought somebody else would have the problem of sorting it out) the problems that such a great influx of low skilled and unskilled people coming into the country, would have on the infrastructure of our towns and cities. On Housing, on Health services, on schools, transport.

The only people who should be allowed into this country are those with skills we need.......and like in Australia, if they do not have the means to survive withou government help for a period of two years, then they too, should be banned from entry.

Labour governments also built a culture of welfare dependent families...again in the hope that these would vote for Labour candidates(well, they would wouldn't they - who wants benefits stopping ?). For some families a life on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
I am not saying that some benefit claimants aren't genuine, but that there are many who are not.

You won't hear a word of this against your beloved Labour party...who I suppose you consider to be 'socialist'....but they haven't been socialist for a damn long time.....unless of course, you consider Champagne socialism, true socialism.

Re: The Tories
 

Never thought I'd say this, but he's actually right about this one. The tories are readying themselves for a total assault on the welfare state with the introduction of the Universal Credit system. They are playing on the idea of the media led populist belief that everyone on the dole is a sponger, every single parent is called Kylie and only got pregnant to jump the housing queue and that young people are typified by those that appear on Jeremy Kyle.

Whilst I agree that there are people who abuse the current system, it's a very small minority and I also believe that the majority who do receive benefits genuinely need them. The system does indeed need pruning but instead of using shears, the tories are using a chainsaw.

They have already made massive cuts to thousands of people with mental health/learning disability needs, because they have no real voice to fight. They have significantly underfunded county councils, particularly those councils north of Watford Gap which has a knock on effect on reduced social care for the elderly and those with dementia.

They are interfering in peoples lifestyle choices, where they have no business to interfere, because they know whats best for us. e.g. 45p per unit.

After freezing NHS budgets, we have headlines of poor care and crap nursing. And this year they will put the final nail in the NHS when the commissioning board take over, despite doctors saying it will not work.

None of this can be ascribed to 13 years of Labour control despite what the tory redtop rags would have you believe. It is, and always has been the dogma of the tory party to destroy both the welfare state and the nhs.

Re: The Tories
 

You haven't a clue what poverty is you clown, if you want the see real poverty pop over to Ethiopia and have a gander there. To be honest I think its time you left the scottish fire water alone, as you obviously can't take it, then when you've sobered up have a peep at the real world and get rid of the world of a left wing narrow minded bigot, oh and just a though sign on at tech in an English usage course, now that would make it easier on the eye for those people who actually bother to read your drivel.

Re: The Tories
 

It always strikes me why if all this Tory legislation which has done so much damage to our country were not repealed between 1997 and 2010, after all if all these draconian laws and legislation are damaging why didn't Tony and Gordon make it right. Just a point on my post you've quoted off, the £40 per ton was at 1980 prices not 2012 prices

Re: The Tories
 

The benefits system has needed a radical rethink for years....and successive governments have given this the swerve, because they know that who-ever does do the pruning , it will be a vote loser.
People see their rights, but these days no-one sees the responsibilities...and where do the folk who draw benefits and could work, think this money is coming from?
Their money comes to them tax free...for no effort.......and they can spend it faster than I could ever earn it.

We give money away to the wrong people. It should never be more lucrative to be on benefits than to work.......and benefits should not be infinite.
I haven't got the answers to this conundrum,but there are people who are running this country who have access to the best brains(even if they aren't their own).
It needs sorting.

Sranding around playing the blame game and points scoring doesn't count as action.......there are too many words spoken and not enough definitive action happening.

Re: The Tories
 

Guinness, I do not belive that everyone who is on benefits is a scrounger, but some undoubtedly are...and while they take out of thepot they are actually removing money from people who should have it.......it isn't exactly stealing, because they know how to play the system...so it is the system at fault.

The only gripe I have with the chap from over the border is that every ill and ailment known to the common man is down to a tory government...when in actual fact we don't have a tory government...we have a coalition government.......and not once while his beloved Labour party was in power did he post a single solitary criticism against them.....despite their mistakes.
I love no political party. None of them are in it to do anything for me or you, the electorate.
They are only in it to feather their own nests, to jump on whatever gravy train will do them the most financial good. They lie to us, cheat money from us(the expenses scandal still hasn't gone away) they think they are better than us...look at the Chris Huhne case.......how long does it take to bring a common man to justice......if it were me or you we would be in chokey right now....and Andrew Mitchell too.
If you put them all in a bag you wouldn't have enough good parts to make two honest politicians.

It will be very interesting to see what happens at the next election.

Re: The Tories
 

I'm going to make a new year resolution....I'm not going to even try to make sense of your posts(like the one above...what in the name of sweet Jesus does any of that mean? I'm blowed if I know) anymore Cmonstanley......because in the main, they are tripe.....and I hate tripe.

Re: The Tories
 

let me explain,you have one hundred pounds for your daily shop.what do you do ? send a middle man who you dont trust to go to the furthest away supermarket so he can pay more for a taxi .simples

Re: The Tories
 

twaddle lol you must watch sky news and believe the right wing media .

Re: The Tories
 

I agreed with one of your posts, gave what I thought was a reasoned argument and your very next post is this?? No wonder the labour party is in the doldrums, it's apparently populated by people with less logical thought than the average amoeba. :confused:

Re: The Tories
 

In your last post 2198, I note that you make no mention of the criticisms levelled at you.
You choose to ignore them.
As for the comment about me watching sky news and reading right wing newspapers(what has that got to do with anything?).......I read a wide variety of newspapers, this enables me to have a balanced view of what is going on in this country....and I watch Sky news, along with other news broadcasts, with the same end in view...to achieve a perspective of the news.
I have eyes that let me see what is going on around me in my own locality, I have ears that allow me to listen to a variety of thoughts an opinions of people around me.......the common people, the people who elect MP's.
I have a brain which allows me independent thought and logical conclusions.
I do not mulishly(and perhaps foolishly) follow the dogma of one political party.

I can put a post together which makes sense and is relatively easy to read.

If all that is a crime then I am guilty.