Let's Get Political!

[tans]

Mps getting another payrise, so thats alright

[skiptotheLouMacari]

Politics brings out the very worst in people, hence why many never get drawn into conversation of which way the vote.
As for the in/out vote we the electorate should be told what it costs us annually and how much we recover. What laws we must abide by what we can enforce. If they fucking gave us the whole cunting story then people would be better advised to make the choice that best represents them. However it's very cloak and dagger nobody wants to tell us the whole story either way because there is good and bad in both camps.

As for them getting another pay rise while still threatening more cuts is preposterous, they clearly have no conscience. Why i read this thread is beyond me it infuriates me.

[Batch]

As for the in/out vote we the electorate should be told what it costs us annually and how much we recover.

As someone who knows absolutely the bare minimum of how Europe works, I suspect that doesn't mean I'm in a minority, I think its really a hard thing to quantify. OK the raw how much we put in v how much we take out is reasonably calculable - but how much UK business loses/gains by coming out seems to be be arguable to whatever you want it to be!

On one side if we stay in we know what we get. Which seems less risky, but that's not necessarily the case if the Eurozone collapses and we find ourselves aboard the financial titanic.

On the other coming out puts us in charge of our own destiny. But I'm not convinced the markets will continue to be as easy to trade in should we do so.

Here is how I see it: We continue to massively export into Europe (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/), and so its better to be in and have a small say in how that's governed rather than come out and have none.

Simplistic,wrong, ill informed. Probably. But that's the problem of the referendum for the common man isn't it?

[skiptotheLouMacari]

As someone who knows absolutely the bare minimum of how Europe works, I suspect that doesn't mean I'm in a minority, I think its really a hard thing to quantify. OK the raw how much we put in v how much we take out is reasonably calculable - but how much UK business loses/gains by coming out seems to be be arguable to whatever you want it to be!

On one side if we stay in we know what we get. Which seems less risky, but that's not necessarily the case if the Eurozone collapses and we find ourselves aboard the financial titanic.

On the other coming out puts us in charge of our own destiny. But I'm not convinced the markets will continue to be as easy to trade in should we do so.

Here is how I see it: We continue to massively export into Europe (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/), and so its better to be in and have a small say in how that's governed rather than come out and have none.

Simplistic,wrong, ill informed. Probably. But that's the problem of the referendum for the common man isn't it?

I couldn't agree anymore with what you said.
To that end why cant the yes or no campaign come out and say the pros and cons for supporting our campaign is etc? It would give them the edge over the other campaign because they would have to react to it and would then be seen airing on the side of caution by not disclosing the good and bad.
I'm all for having our own laws and borders keeping the pound hasn't affected trade but to cut all ties? 

It needs honesty and open debate from both sides, don't counter an accusation with another accusation, answer it even if it isn't popular but then come back with a pro for your campaign.

But there lies the problem, honesty!

[Summerof69]

Net loss is c.£4-5 billion in the eu, I won't deny that.

Our net contribution to the EU is due to be £11.5bn this year, the highest of all the countries in the EU. It has significantly increased since Blair gave up our rebate about 10 years ago.

And it looks like the EU are holding back legislation, which includes trying include to increase their budget, which will mean the UK paying even more.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/25/brussels-time-bomb-eu-is-holding-back-key-legislation-for-fear-of-fuelling-brexit/

[Nemo]

The problem is that you can't just say that if we leave we'll pay nothing in - the Swiss and Norwegians still have to pay in to the overall pot in return for trade deals as I understand it. This is why both sides seem to be able to claim their option is better financially, as it's just not as simple as pay X in get Y back

[Ardiles]

You could realistically argue that we would not pay as much as the Swiss and Norwegians.  Our economy is many times bigger and this would give us a greater degree of bargaining power in negotiating trade deals.  But it can't be quantified precisely, as you say.

[jonny72]

Politics brings out the very worst in people, hence why many never get drawn into conversation of which way the vote.
As for the in/out vote we the electorate should be told what it costs us annually and how much we recover. What laws we must abide by what we can enforce. If they fucking gave us the whole cunting story then people would be better advised to make the choice that best represents them. However it's very cloak and dagger nobody wants to tell us the whole story either way because there is good and bad in both camps.

As for them getting another pay rise while still threatening more cuts is preposterous, they clearly have no conscience. Why i read this thread is beyond me it infuriates me.

The whole story? You mean like the fact that MP's don't set their own pay levels, that it's an independent body (IPSA) that sets it, that a lot of MP's are opposed to the pay rise but other than giving the money away there is nothing they can do about it? Ironically, the IPSA was created as a result of the expenses scandal to avoid MP's being accused of and being able to line their own pockets.

And it looks like the EU are holding back legislation, which includes trying include to increase their budget, which will mean the UK paying even more.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/25/brussels-time-bomb-eu-is-holding-back-key-legislation-for-fear-of-fuelling-brexit/

That article is misleading at best. The budget isn't set by the European Commission, they just suggest an amount. It has to be approved and agreed by the European Parliament and most importantly by all member states. Pretty certain they tried getting a big raise last time and failed miserably.

Also pretty certain we're already bound by the ECHR, which the article makes out will be something new. Incidentally, the Tories had been planning to get us out of the ECHR but gave up on the idea due to the amount of opposition to the idea. Which means the ECHR is now being used as a reason to stay in and leave the EU at the same time.

[Ardiles]

Arguably (ie my view, but not everyone's), it's precisely because MPs aren't paid enough that the whole expenses scandal blew up in the first place during the early years of this decade.  MPs' salaries are not attractive compared with what most, with similar skills, could be earning elsewhere.

There's train of thought in some quarters that MPs should do the job practically for the love of it...which I don't buy at all.  If you value democracy, you have to value the people you elect to make it work.  And that means paying them a salary that, yes, is probably several times the average wage.  If you think you could do a better job, put yourself up for election in 2020.

If you want your MPs to work for well below market rates, the only people putting themselves forward for election would be those who are independently wealthy who could afford to do the job as a hobby.  You'd have a parliament of Camerons and Johnsons...and eventually, Trumps.  Think on.

[flammableBen]

Arguably (ie my view, but not everyone's), it's precisely because MPs aren't paid enough that the whole expenses scandal blew up in the first place during the early years of this decade.  MPs' salaries are not attractive compared with what most, with similar skills, could be earning elsewhere.

There's train of thought in some quarters that MPs should do the job practically for the love of it...which I don't buy at all.  If you value democracy, you have to value the people you elect to make it work.  And that means paying them a salary that, yes, is probably several times the average wage.  If you think you could do a better job, put yourself up for election in 2020.

If you want your MPs to work for well below market rates, the only people putting themselves forward for election would be those who are independently wealthy who could afford to do the job as a hobby.  You'd have a parliament of Camerons and Johnsons...and eventually, Trumps.  Think on.

As an MP you should definitely get properly compensated for your time at work. But you should also be banned from using private health care or sending your kid to posh school.

Also no pension. When you retire you get the state one.

[Ardiles]

Strong speculation in the press at the moment that Osborne is going to deliver a 'Pensions Bombshell' in his Budget later this month.  The most radical option being considered is the Pension ISA - which would involve scrapping all tax relief on pension contributions, and replacing with a commitment that money saved this way would not be taxed 'on the way out' (ie in retirement).

Of course, very few of is would pay much tax in retirement anyway.  This would destroy the concept of pension saving as we currently know it.  A recipe for an impoverished pensioner population in the 2030s and beyond.  If you're 50 or under, be afraid.  This would be a massive attack on your future standard of living.

[tans]

All in it together!

[horlock07]

Strong speculation in the press at the moment that Osborne is going to deliver a 'Pensions Bombshell' in his Budget later this month.  The most radical option being considered is the Pension ISA - which would involve scrapping all tax relief on pension contributions, and replacing with a commitment that money saved this way would not be taxed 'on the way out' (ie in retirement).

Of course, very few of is would pay much tax in retirement anyway.  This would destroy the concept of pension saving as we currently know it.  A recipe for an impoverished pensioner population in the 2030s and beyond.  If you're 50 or under, be afraid.  This would be a massive attack on your future standard of living.

I assume this is building upon the pensions changes that Brown bought in years back, it does look like in more and more cases a traditional pension approach is not going to be viable when we get old!

Similarly I had a meeting with our accountant last week and small businesses are getting bloody zero assistance from the government, the tax regime (which can be circumvented by the big boys) just makes it very depressing to even try and make money - the myth that this is a government that encourages small business has been driven home to me!

[Reg Smeeton]

Strong speculation in the press at the moment that Osborne is going to deliver a 'Pensions Bombshell' in his Budget later this month.  The most radical option being considered is the Pension ISA - which would involve scrapping all tax relief on pension contributions, and replacing with a commitment that money saved this way would not be taxed 'on the way out' (ie in retirement).

Of course, very few of is would pay much tax in retirement anyway.  This would destroy the concept of pension saving as we currently know it.  A recipe for an impoverished pensioner population in the 2030s and beyond.  If you're 50 or under, be afraid.  This would be a massive attack on your future standard of living.

It appears the plan is to link pension age to how long you can be expected to live, so as life expectancy increases, pension qualification age goes up. Therefore they'll get their pensions earlier in Scotland, as they die younger.

One thing is for sure, this government is not to be trusted.

[Nemo]

Move to Glasgow, you'll get a pension at 30