Osborne loses his nerve in the face of Union solidarity

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

No it isn't it is the customers problem as well as I am finding after switching my fuel supply to EDF :eek:

Why did you switch?

DiggerUK

Road_Hog wrote: »

Interesting, but the OP had a dig at the Tories and Osborne. NuLab over saw the banking crisis and Gordon Brown was the man responsible for giving them taxpayer's money.Who do you hold responsible for the banking crisis and money being given to the banks?

The government has pursued the same fat cat friendly policies for 30 years or more.

What makes you think I don't wish for a 'British Spring' where their families can have front row seats.
..._

Rochdale_Pioneers

DiggerUK wrote: »

The government has pursued the same fat cat friendly policies for 30 years or more.

This is what makes both the abuse thrown at Gordon Brown and Labour's attacks on the government so laughable.

Factually its correct that Brown didn't regulate the banks strongly enough and spent a lot of money. Its just that the Tories complained he was regulating the banks too strongly, and planned to inflate the debt bubble even faster by not only matching every penny of Labour spending but then also creaming even more bubble growth off the top to "share in the proceeds" via tax cuts.

So Labour's policy failed. And the policy advocated by the Tories was exactly the same only more so.

And what do we have now? Tories defending a deregulated city against EU attempts to do what the Tories claimed Labour failed to do. And Labour complaining that the bubble isn't being inflated fast enough.

Neither side get it - neo-liberal free market capitalism as practiced by both over the last 30 years is over. Neither can break away because its been hard wired into who they are - the Tories post the thatcherite coup swept away the one nation tradition, and Labour post Blair and "we're intensely relaxed about the filthy rich". Neither side can properly blame the other for a policy platform that was alien to both and practiced by both.

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Tories defending a deregulated city against EU attempts to do what the Tories claimed Labour failed to do.

At least get your facts right. UK based banks are heading for far tighter regulation and capital requirements than in the Eurozone at the moment.

If you read the report into the failure of RBS. Besides the board, the three main culprits were Brown, Balls and Darling. The architects of the FSA.

DiggerUK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At least get your facts right. UK based banks are heading for far tighter regulation and capital requirements than in the Eurozone at the moment....

And they have until 2015 to bury the bodies, and we have to wait that long before we find out what the loopholes in the legislation are.
..._

Rochdale_Pioneers

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If you read the report into the failure of RBS. Besides the board, the three main culprits were Brown, Balls and Darling. The architects of the FSA.

And as the people in charge its right that they get the flack. But politically what was the alternative? Cameron and Osborne bemoaned Brown and Darling shackling the city with red tape and over-regulation - are you suggesting that had the Tories won the election that never was they would have put into place firmer regulation?

DiggerUK

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

....are you suggesting that had the Tories won the election that never was they would have put into place firmer regulation?

I suspect the W.I. would have done a far better job if they got elected. Remember how they handbagged Tony Bliar good and proper.
..._

Rochdale_Pioneers

the whole political establishment was in thrall to the city. yes Labour didn't regulate it tightly enough and that was wrong. But the Tories wanted them to regulate it less, not more. So when Tories say it was Labour's fault for not regulating it enough, its only right to point out they would have regulated it even less.

When both parties have policies different shades of the same colour it ceases to be a party political issue, its a wider problem with the narrow viewpoints propogated by our political class and the media. the Tories deregulated the city in the mid 80s and created a creedit fuelled boom and bust. Labour copy the policies and do the same thing only bigger. Now we have Osborne telling the world how we need to protect the city from regulation, the head of the civil service telling his staff to deregulate all they can, and the media crying out for more consumer spending despite most people feeling broke.

Andy_L

tartanterra wrote: »

Before posting half cocked claims, I suggest you do some basic research.

The AFPS was changed in 2005.

AFPS05 offers an immediate pension only for those who leave having reached age 55 or beyond; anybody leaving the Services before they reach age 55 (even if it is only one day prior) are, providing they have completed at least two years' qualifying service, awarded a preserved pension payable at age 65.

Oh the irony
AFPS05 provides an "early departure payment" which, under the duck test, is a pension just not called one for legal reasons.
If some serves till age 40+ and with 18+ years service they receive 50% of that preserved pension plus a lump sum (which increases to 75% at 55 then is replaced by the preserved pension at 65)

Andy_L

wotsthat wrote: »

My son's just joined the army. His uncle (a captain) and me have both told him you can receive a half pension after 12

They are both mistaken and/or communicated it poorly and/or you misunderstood them