DONT STAY LURKING AS A GUEST,

JOIN TEF AND BENEFIT FROM MEMBERSHIP:

CLICK HERE TO JOIN.
M107

So 8th June.........

92 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, steptoe said:

Fair enough, but my ancestors lived on the land where your house is now, can I just kill you and that's the end of it,?

NO, doesn't work like that, does it,? 

You defend what is yours, or do you just give your possessions away,? 

Until you are in the situation you can't judge,!

 

I suppose that is fair comment!! All depends which end you are looking from i suppose!!

 

john..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 77   Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, apprentice87 said:

And a lot of people would still be alive if they had.. All those people died over a bit of land 8000 miles away, 400 miles off the coast of argentina. It is a bit like the argentinians claiming that the isle of wight belongs to them.. That was just thatcher trying to look important. Makes me laugh when the government talk like they are some kind of superpower.. Not saying it would have been right to give it away, but it would have saved a lot of lives...

 

Makes me laugh when the government act like they are some sort of "superpower" the americans have a bigger airforce floating around on one carrier than we have in total..

 

Now, they were not so quick to refuse to give hong kong back....

 

john..

 

The second gulf war was all about massaging Blairs ego a lot of people were killed there for no good reason

The Argentinians only wanted to rape the Falklands mineral rights and had little interest in anything else

With Hong Kong the land lease expired 1997

 

6 hours ago, apprentice87 said:

I am going to give it all a miss too... People vote for who they vote for!! there is no point all arguing about it, nothing to be gained!! Can we have a new thread on transformers or something instead????

 

john...

 

Having responded to your thousand words I find it strange that you choose not to respond to my and others responses or is the truth beginning to hit that labour really screwed over this country for many years to come with it's build today pay in the future policies.

I live in an area full of people who would vote for a poodle with a red rosette they don't care what the policies are just that it's a labour poodle, over the years I have voted for many of the alternative parties over the years not just the same old one. While you may consider it arguing I consider it to be debating. You have offered some good points for discussion unfortunately they will not change my view point of the labour party so from your stand point there is nothing to be gained you will still vote labour because that's what your family have always done for last however many generations without question as to why

 

5 hours ago, apprentice87 said:

18010144_1017235128411407_500363598866211061_n.jpg

This statement is so laughable in assuming the government of the day actually needs a majority although it's difficult to do anything without one as Wilson found out in 1974

If MP's were removed from the house it would need by elections which may or may not result in a change of government , when Blair left government and Brown took over he stuck it out despite calls for a general election when Teresa May took office there were calls for a general election now she has decided to call an election she is getting slated that's politics for you . As for electoral expenses fraud it won't save anyone's skin

Edited by UNG
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kurt said:

endowments never guaranteed to pay off the loan, its not how they work. Even as a snotty 21 year old, I understood that and told the bank to shove it

 

Endowment policies took off in an era when interest rates were decent or even in double figures, 11% or 12%, and modest savings in a basic building society account brought a nice little return for a few hundred pounds saved over 12months. So potential returns from endowment polices were sold on the basis of ('this will pay off your mortgage at the end of 25 years and give you a nice little lump sum toward a car or a holiday'. Even when they started to go pear shaped when interest rates were dropping to single figures 5% and lower, the letters of advice were still saying, do not cash in your policy, keep paying into it, but also start something else to pay off your mortgage. (We had two polices, both gave similar worded letters, from reputable companies Standard Life and Legal & General. The average man on the street believed these "experts". We ignored the advice in the letters and made suitable alternate arrangements, after we realised the value of one policy was worth less than what had been paid in.)

 

The biggest fundamental mistake that has messed up the modern economy for the average worker was not insisting upon bog standard repayment mortgages, with limits on the lending around three and half times annual salary of the highest wage earner, not counting any bonuses or overtime. (Thats pretty much what the rules were about 35-40ish years ago). If the limits on lending had been more realistic basic supply and demand would have controlled the value of 90%+ of the housing market. (There will always be that 10%+ of high earners who can push the value up of a handful of properties).  And we would not be in the stupid place we are now where the average worker earning an average wage cannot afford to buy his or her own home, unless they have a loan based on five or six times two incomes including bonuses on an endowment mortgage.

 

As you say Kurt, basic common sense suggests these type of practices are daft. yet somehow "experts" in the financial industry calculated that these were actually viable realistic products that should work. Probably the same people who decided; Banks should be building societies, Building Societies should be banks, Supermarkets should be both bank building society and energy supplier and petrol stations, and John Lewis, or Tesco should be everything, bank, insurance, food, department store, broadband. Probably trips to the moon and sex workers before 2020. If the housing market had been more realistically controlled more workers would have more disposable income to spend buying goods from more industries to keep more manufacturing going. As it is 95%+ of the population have sod all left each month for personal pampering to a level that can keep other businesses, shops, and services buoyant.  Personal savings and disposable income are the key signs of a healthy economy, not the level of spending from cheap debt. It doesn't matter what industries you have in your country if the bulk of the population cannot afford to buy its products. 

 

Doc H.

 

  

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falklands, as Labour wasn't in power and therefore it never happened, you can't really quote that as fact Steps. It's also pretty irrelvent to today bar the fact it offers a claim to oil, mineral rights, fishing and gives the UK a claim to parts of Antartica.

 

The Gulf war, more sucking up to USA, and a **** decision by Blair

 

Hospitals, schools and PFI - continuation of previous Tory policies and typical example of short sighted financial plans, but also an indication of not having enough money cos the economy wasn't doing that well. It's also a good example of why New Labour was basically Tory light. In reality we have had Tory policies in place through out my lifetime and things aren't getting better.

 

The banking sector, remember the time when you bank mananger was the most trustworthy source of financial advice? Deregulation changed them to sales reps, sell anything to anyone that could just about afford it.

 

As for the deficit under New Labour, according to all the expert economists of the time that debt level was sustainable as the economy was suppossedly booming ( all based on property and debt of course and not real wealth generation like manufacturing), until the banks finally collapsed, which no-one seemed to see coming apart from a few lone voices that were ignored.

 

Now lets get something else clear, I am not a Labour supporter, but I am mostly definetly anti right wing, which usually means Tory right wing. There was a time when the Tory party was far more centre based. May seems to be of that ilk and I quite like what she says, but behind May is the sort of right wing hangover form the Thatcher era I detest. We have effectively had Tory hard and soft policies in place for decades, which in my opinion, if allowed to continue will make the UK worse for the majority of people. I will be voting tactically as usual, and I feel it is time for change, that's why I voted for Brexit and will probably mean I vote for the Labour party this time as there is little alternative.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 80   Posted (edited)

Has anyone noticed something with new prime minister Teresa May - Maggie Thatcher :Salute TM : MT

Edited by Badger
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooooo :^O

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Three extra paid holidays each year. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ? Where ? - Being SE all that helps is giving me more "shut down" time to get jobs done when no one is around . lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Doc Hudson said:

 

Endowment policies took off in an era when interest rates were decent or even in double figures, 11% or 12%, and modest savings in a basic building society account brought a nice little return for a few hundred pounds saved over 12months. So potential returns from endowment polices were sold on the basis of ('this will pay off your mortgage at the end of 25 years and give you a nice little lump sum toward a car or a holiday'. Even when they started to go pear shaped when interest rates were dropping to single figures 5% and lower, the letters of advice were still saying, do not cash in your policy, keep paying into it, but also start something else to pay off your mortgage. (We had two polices, both gave similar worded letters, from reputable companies Standard Life and Legal & General. The average man on the street believed these "experts". We ignored the advice in the letters and made suitable alternate arrangements, after we realised the value of one policy was worth less than what had been paid in.)

 

The biggest fundamental mistake that has messed up the modern economy for the average worker was not insisting upon bog standard repayment mortgages, with limits on the lending around three and half times annual salary of the highest wage earner, not counting any bonuses or overtime. (Thats pretty much what the rules were about 35-40ish years ago). If the limits on lending had been more realistic basic supply and demand would have controlled the value of 90%+ of the housing market. (There will always be that 10%+ of high earners who can push the value up of a handful of properties).  And we would not be in the stupid place we are now where the average worker earning an average wage cannot afford to buy his or her own home, unless they have a loan based on five or six times two incomes including bonuses on an endowment mortgage.

 

As you say Kurt, basic common sense suggests these type of practices are daft. yet somehow "experts" in the financial industry calculated that these were actually viable realistic products that should work. Probably the same people who decided; Banks should be building societies, Building Societies should be banks, Supermarkets should be both bank building society and energy supplier and petrol stations, and John Lewis, or Tesco should be everything, bank, insurance, food, department store, broadband. Probably trips to the moon and sex workers before 2020. If the housing market had been more realistically controlled more workers would have more disposable income to spend buying goods from more industries to keep more manufacturing going. As it is 95%+ of the population have sod all left each month for personal pampering to a level that can keep other businesses, shops, and services buoyant.  Personal savings and disposable income are the key signs of a healthy economy, not the level of spending from cheap debt. It doesn't matter what industries you have in your country if the bulk of the population cannot afford to buy its products. 

 

Doc H.

 

  

That's exactly how it was in 1984 when I applied for my first mortgage, my wife was in a low paid job, I was a student, I was on my third bank before I could have a sensible conversation about a mortgage. Anyway I arrange a mtg with bank and who pops up ? Not a bank employee but a sales rep for "Friends Provident" - it turned a bit ugly as I had no idea who Friends Provident were and I felt duped into meeting them. When I said I was not interested in a mortgage where my payments were not guaranteed to pay off the mortgage, her replies were to attack my decision by stating "i was selfish for not adding life insurance" -  I have since been attacked for being "in-consistent" in my investment strategy by not taking out an endowment. I would always counter "Why would I risk the roof over my head with investments I do not personally control and would require 25 years to find out if they were any good."

 

It was a truly shocking time for banks and coloured my view of them, hence I have never trusted any bank since, what happened with PPI, Libor and the like after is well, no surprise to me.

 

Today, the majority of investments I have are all self managed funds, this is where I choose a professional fund manager to manage the day to day stuff, I in effect manage the manager.

My mortgage is an interest only / offset with current account and I pay off capital as and when I feel, its right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rapparee said:

I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Three extra paid holidays each year. 

Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!

And it is 4 bank holidays that comrade Corbyn is offering

Looks like the great uncosted labour giveaway is on offer again

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 86   Posted (edited)

50 minutes ago, UNG said:

Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!

And it is 4 bank holidays that comrade Corbyn is offering

Looks like the great uncosted labour giveaway is on offer again

 

Or for the self employed a pay cut of about 2%........ and therefore a drop in tax revenues for UK Gov plc.....

Edited by Murdoch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 87   Posted (edited)

52 minutes ago, UNG said:

Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!

And it is 4 bank holidays that comrade Corbyn is offering

Looks like the great uncosted labour giveaway is on offer again

This is where media reporting and "spin" come in.

 

It was reported on the news there would be "4 extra bank holidays" But if I am reading it correctly if you drill down into the details, it is ONE extra bank holiday. But England, Wales, Scotland and NI will each have their extra BH on a different day.

 

I am not sure if this is just poor journalism, or just a sick attempt to get some of the lesser intelligent working class folk to vote for 4 more days holiday, then be somewhat disappointed?

Edited by ProDave
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 88   Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, ProDave said:

This is where media reporting and "spin" come in.

 

It was reported on the news there would be "4 extra bank holidays" But if I am reading it correctly if you drill down into the details, it is ONE extra bank holiday. But England, Wales, Scotland and NI will each have their extra BH on a different day.

 

I am not sure if this is just poor journalism, or just a sick attempt to get some of the lesser intelligent working class folk to vote for 4 more days holiday, then be somewhat disappointed?

Well St Patricks Day is already a holiday in Ireland north and south, so there is no benefit there then. Hence why I said three extra holidays and not four.

 

Looks like I was one of the lesser intelligent folk then  :(

Edited by rapparee
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why St Georges' day wasn't a bank holiday.

 

Also interesting is that our continental colleagues have more leave then we do, and are supposedly more productive and happier.

 

Bank holidays mean very little to me as I run my own business, but some forced time off would probably do me good :^O

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, binky said:

I've always wondered why St Georges' day wasn't a bank holiday.

 

Also interesting is that our continental colleagues have more leave then we do, and are supposedly more productive and happier.

 

Bank holidays mean very little to me as I run my own business, but some forced time off would probably do me good :^O

 

I seem to remember that when it was considered, the powers that be were worried it would make too many BH's in a few weeks..... (Easter and May day)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a bit like that, need more bank holidays in Autumn, but it still seems strange not to have a bank holiday for our national saint.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, they are all liars and only in it for lining their own pockets! I'm sick of them all playing the blame game, "we've inherited this mess from the last opposition government" is the much used phrase. Now hold on a minute, there was some Tory guy spouting this the other day and I thought to myself, "now hold on, maybe you did inherit something you didn't like from the previous government, but after all these years in power I'd have thought you'd have made some headway in sorting it out"

I'd like to see some form of legally binding contract, they all say things and don't deliver, now lets say we have a party who says, "vote for us and we'll clamp down on immigration" , if after a year of being in power they haven't got a real grip on it then out they go! 

All these parties promise what they think people want to get the vote, then when they get in power they do a U turn quicker than a stunt driver. Someone once said "there are 3 types of lies, lies ,damned lies, and political lies" and believe me I've never heard a politician make a statement and actually deliver the goods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now