Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Herbert Anchovy on July 15, 2021, 11:37:43 am
-
Just been listening to a news report about the Government’s plans to ‘level up’ the country by investing in areas, primarily in the north. It seems that Johnson is concerned about how this will be perceived in the South of England amid claims that it’s simply an example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Putting aside the fact that no Tory government during my lifetime has ever provided the investment needed in the north (particularly in the 80’d and early 90’s) I can tell you exactly what people in the South think about the north of England….nothing. In 40 years of living in London I could count on one hand the number of times that I’ve come across anyone with a genuine concern for the economy of the north. There was some support during the miners strike but that’s about it.
When I first moved down here from Donny the country was in the middle of a crippling recession….everywhere except London. I couldn’t believe the amount of work and money available down here! People didn’t give a shit about what was happening in Yorkshire, and they still don’t. As long as it doesn’t affect them, nobody really gives it a second thought.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that many people down here are more concerned with things taking place abroad than they are north of Watford.
England has always been 2 individual countries; the South East and then the rest and I can’t see that changing. So I don’t think Johnson has anything to worry about. As long as it doesn’t cost anyone down here, he can do what he wants with the north.
-
I can believe all of that HA, I flagged up a few weeks ago that tories would not buy the idea of levelling up, not because they might lose some of their privileges but because they wouldn't like the idea of uppity oiks becoming more wealthy and some even on par with them.
The big question of course is how and when will it be done, it needs real targets and measurable outcomes monitored by a truly independent body.
-
The idea and points are fine. But they've been ideas and points for some time now. Nearly 2 years since the election and no proposals in place. Ideas don't create jobs and wealth....
I also think the number of well off people who are against others becoming well off is small. Clearly there will always be people with more wealth than others but if we can increase the wealth of everyone that makes everyone stronger. More wealth equals more spending which equals stronger companies and ultimately stronger investments which tend to benefit the highest more anyway.
-
Will they be putting as much into the deprived areas as the EU did, though?
-
Time for an Independence vote.....?
-
The idea and points are fine. But they've been ideas and points for some time now. Nearly 2 years since the election and no proposals in place. Ideas don't create jobs and wealth....
I also think the number of well off people who are against others becoming well off is small. Clearly there will always be people with more wealth than others but if we can increase the wealth of everyone that makes everyone stronger. More wealth equals more spending which equals stronger companies and ultimately stronger investments which tend to benefit the highest more anyway.
It's been 11 years since the Tories came to power with the Northern Powerhouse agenda.
Which has so far produced...I'll get back to you on that one.
-
Today Stainforth has been awarded £21.6M from the towns fund
-
Didn't the 'Levelling Up Agenda' boil down to - email me with any ideas you have for it?
-
''The cost of Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’: £2tn, says UK thinktank
Centre for Cities says closing the north-south divide would take decades and cost hundreds of billions''
Better get a move on then. how much progress has been made so far?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/15/the-cost-of-boris-johnsons-levelling-up-2tn-says-uk-thinktank
-
We have, through 50 years of policies from both Tory and Labour Govts, allowed a situation to develop where the economic performance of the North vs the South is similar to what East to West Germany was like when the Berlin Wall came down.
Germany had a strong, long term policy then of investing in the old East Germany. It still hasn't caught up. Dresden is still poorer than Munich. Leipzig is still poorer than Cologne. But they have made massive strides. Saxony is now WAY richer than South Yorkshire or Merseyside.
I honestly do think that Johnson understands this. What I have never believed is that he has the political nerve to put in place the policies required. That means MASSIVE Govt borrowing and investment in the North. Or it means MASSIVE taxes on the rich South and investment in the North. Either will mean that the people of Guildford won't continue to be cocooned and pull away from the North like they have for the past half century. I'd honestly like to think that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see any Tory Govt fixing their colours to that mast for 30 years. I think they would pay lip service to it when it suits, but when times get tough, I can't see any outcome put them reverting to type and protecting their heartland.
-
Money to Manchester Leeds and Liverpool?
-
I’m not looking forward to driving one of those Trabants.
-
Many were concerned about mental health if we didn't open up, what about the mental health of the working poor and those queuing at food banks?
''Ending universal credit boost will hit sickest areas the hardest, study shows
New research finds scrapping the £1,000-a-year benefit uplift will ‘trigger mental illness and poorer health’ for thousands''
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/10/ending-universal-credit-boost-will-hit-sickest-areas-the-hardest-study-shows
-
Quite frankly I don’t give a flying shit about London and the SE. I can’t stand the place. The epitome of how to live in the rat race. If I go for a day, I can’t wait to get out of the place.
Many Londoners have had it with the place too.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of people leaving London to live in rural Lincolnshire alone.
-
You didn't read it did you? NR
-
Glyn, the EU put nothing into the North of the UK or any other part, they gave us back a little of what we contributed into the scam and spent the rest on themselves.
-
They put more into the north and deprived areas than you put into your thought processes selby.
-
Here is a sample ................
''The majority of EU funding in the UK comes from the European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds (discussed in section 2) and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (discussed in section 3). For the 2014-20 funding period, the UK was allocated €17.2 billion and €22.5 billion through these funds respectively''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/
Added
And here is a breakdown showing where the money was spent
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36561084
-
Glyn, the EU put nothing into the North of the UK or any other part, they gave us back a little of what we contributed into the scam and spent the rest on themselves.
I remember watching Question Time many years ago and a representative from the Government (Labour at that time I think) expressing frustration that the UK Government had no say at all in where in the country EU funding was used.
-
Glyn, the EU put nothing into the North of the UK or any other part, they gave us back a little of what we contributed into the scam and spent the rest on themselves.
The ignorance behind this post is simply stupifying.
-
We have, through 50 years of policies from both Tory and Labour Govts, allowed a situation to develop where the economic performance of the North vs the South is similar to what East to West Germany was like when the Berlin Wall came down.
Germany had a strong, long term policy then of investing in the old East Germany. It still hasn't caught up. Dresden is still poorer than Munich. Leipzig is still poorer than Cologne. But they have made massive strides. Saxony is now WAY richer than South Yorkshire or Merseyside.
I honestly do think that Johnson understands this. What I have never believed is that he has the political nerve to put in place the policies required. That means MASSIVE Govt borrowing and investment in the North. Or it means MASSIVE taxes on the rich South and investment in the North. Either will mean that the people of Guildford won't continue to be cocooned and pull away from the North like they have for the past half century. I'd honestly like to think that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see any Tory Govt fixing their colours to that mast for 30 years. I think they would pay lip service to it when it suits, but when times get tough, I can't see any outcome put them reverting to type and protecting their heartland.
for what it's worth ... me seems to recall the "toilet paper" east german "mark" was "effectively exchanged " on a 1 to 1 ... west german mark to so called east german mark
this backs it up
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-official-exchange-rate-between-West-German-Deutsche-Mark-and-the-East-German-Mark-used-during-German-reunification-devalue-the-DM-at-all-What-were-some-other-proposed-plans-for-economic-integration-of-the
"So the Kohl government decided to accept the 1:1 rate as part of the price of reunification in the name of social stability and economic parity, though there was an upper limit on how many Ostmark could be exchanged at 1:1 by individuals. It was a political, not an economic decision — and frankly the only solution that made much sense under the circumstances."
-
We have, through 50 years of policies from both Tory and Labour Govts, allowed a situation to develop where the economic performance of the North vs the South is similar to what East to West Germany was like when the Berlin Wall came down.
Germany had a strong, long term policy then of investing in the old East Germany. It still hasn't caught up. Dresden is still poorer than Munich. Leipzig is still poorer than Cologne. But they have made massive strides. Saxony is now WAY richer than South Yorkshire or Merseyside.
I honestly do think that Johnson understands this. What I have never believed is that he has the political nerve to put in place the policies required. That means MASSIVE Govt borrowing and investment in the North. Or it means MASSIVE taxes on the rich South and investment in the North. Either will mean that the people of Guildford won't continue to be cocooned and pull away from the North like they have for the past half century. I'd honestly like to think that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see any Tory Govt fixing their colours to that mast for 30 years. I think they would pay lip service to it when it suits, but when times get tough, I can't see any outcome put them reverting to type and protecting their heartland.
Happened a lot sooner than I expected. The social care NI rise will hit everyone in work, across the whole country. Meanwhile, because the purpose of the tax is to limit the costs that individuals run up, meaning well off pensioners don't lose their houses, guess which parts of the country benefit most. (Clue: it sure ain't the Red Wall.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1436324842584920072
-
We have, through 50 years of policies from both Tory and Labour Govts, allowed a situation to develop where the economic performance of the North vs the South is similar to what East to West Germany was like when the Berlin Wall came down.
Germany had a strong, long term policy then of investing in the old East Germany. It still hasn't caught up. Dresden is still poorer than Munich. Leipzig is still poorer than Cologne. But they have made massive strides. Saxony is now WAY richer than South Yorkshire or Merseyside.
I honestly do think that Johnson understands this. What I have never believed is that he has the political nerve to put in place the policies required. That means MASSIVE Govt borrowing and investment in the North. Or it means MASSIVE taxes on the rich South and investment in the North. Either will mean that the people of Guildford won't continue to be cocooned and pull away from the North like they have for the past half century. I'd honestly like to think that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see any Tory Govt fixing their colours to that mast for 30 years. I think they would pay lip service to it when it suits, but when times get tough, I can't see any outcome put them reverting to type and protecting their heartland.
Happened a lot sooner than I expected. The social care NI rise will hit everyone in work, across the whole country. Meanwhile, because the purpose of the tax is to limit the costs that individuals run up, meaning well off pensioners don't lose their houses, guess which parts of the country benefit most. (Clue: it sure ain't the Red Wall.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1436324842584920072
You really do have a weird obsession with pensioners that have put together a decent standard of living to survive on in their old age.
-
We have, through 50 years of policies from both Tory and Labour Govts, allowed a situation to develop where the economic performance of the North vs the South is similar to what East to West Germany was like when the Berlin Wall came down.
Germany had a strong, long term policy then of investing in the old East Germany. It still hasn't caught up. Dresden is still poorer than Munich. Leipzig is still poorer than Cologne. But they have made massive strides. Saxony is now WAY richer than South Yorkshire or Merseyside.
I honestly do think that Johnson understands this. What I have never believed is that he has the political nerve to put in place the policies required. That means MASSIVE Govt borrowing and investment in the North. Or it means MASSIVE taxes on the rich South and investment in the North. Either will mean that the people of Guildford won't continue to be cocooned and pull away from the North like they have for the past half century. I'd honestly like to think that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see any Tory Govt fixing their colours to that mast for 30 years. I think they would pay lip service to it when it suits, but when times get tough, I can't see any outcome put them reverting to type and protecting their heartland.
Happened a lot sooner than I expected. The social care NI rise will hit everyone in work, across the whole country. Meanwhile, because the purpose of the tax is to limit the costs that individuals run up, meaning well off pensioners don't lose their houses, guess which parts of the country benefit most. (Clue: it sure ain't the Red Wall.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1436324842584920072
You really do have a weird obsession with pensioners that have put together a decent standard of living to survive on in their old age.
I take your point Hound that pensioners for the most part have paid all their working lives .
The problem is they didn't pay enough and now that falls to many younger people possibly renting their homes and on low incomes .
There's pensioners and there's pensioners too let's not forget many of whom have enjoyed the boom in house prices , final salary pensions , strong trade union benefits and economic growth .
It's unlikely the generations of today will have it quite so good .
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
It rekindles the faith to read that there are those that understand how they have benefitted from circumstance as well as their work but are willing to share the load.
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
It rekindles the faith to read that there are those that understand how they have benefitted from circumstance as well as their work but are willing to share the load.
"Share the load"?
What does that mean?
-
The idea and points are fine. But they've been ideas and points for some time now. Nearly 2 years since the election and no proposals in place. Ideas don't create jobs and wealth....
I also think the number of well off people who are against others becoming well off is small. Clearly there will always be people with more wealth than others but if we can increase the wealth of everyone that makes everyone stronger. More wealth equals more spending which equals stronger companies and ultimately stronger investments which tend to benefit the highest more anyway.
It's been 11 years since the Tories came to power with the Northern Powerhouse agenda.
Which has so far produced...I'll get back to you on that one.
The big ideas for the Northern Powerhouse appeared to be: linking Manchester and Leeds with a half decent rail link and fracking the f**k out of what's left of the coal fields to exploit the natural gas that remains locked in it.
Only fracking was reliant on a high gas price price for it to be viable and at the time that wasn't the case. Oh and the unfortunate earthquakes. It might even be becoming viable now but the idea of fracking the desolate North, releasing a whole load of emissions is no longer acceptable... Even for the Tories, who used to claim it would be environmentally friendly. Heh.
And somehow they never got around to the rail link. Probably because the main driver of that idea was George Osbourne... And Brexit got rid of him.
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
It rekindles the faith to read that there are those that understand how they have benefitted from circumstance as well as their work but are willing to share the load.
"Share the load"?
What does that mean?
It means that some are willing to understand the difficulties that following generations are under as the retired generation have had the advantage of cheaper housing and plenty, probably too many are buying up second homes making it doubly difficult for other generations to buy their first. And they are also willing to pay more tax if the tax load was equitable.
Anything else SS?
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
It rekindles the faith to read that there are those that understand how they have benefitted from circumstance as well as their work but are willing to share the load.
"Share the load"?
What does that mean?
It means that some are willing to understand the difficulties that following generations are under as the retired generation have had the advantage of cheaper housing and plenty, probably too many are buying up second homes making it doubly difficult for other generations to buy their first. And they are also willing to pay more tax if the tax load was equitable.
Anything else SS?
Once again your poor understanding of semantics has lead to you utterly and totally failing to answer the question, something you accuse other people of doing.
-
I understand what Sydney has written, he thinks the load could be shared better by the older generation, of which I am one. I have no problem with contributing more if the younger workers load is lessened.
-
I understand what Sydney has written, he thinks the load could be shared better by the older generation, of which I am one. I have no problem with contributing more if the younger workers load is lessened.
Seeing as the State pension is way less than the minimum wage, I've no idea what you mean by "contributing more".
-
SS.
At the risk of getting embroiled in someone else's argument, I think it's pretty obvious what "share the load" means. It means that pensioners who will benefit most in the short term from the increase in social care funding ought to be funding some of it if they have the means to do so. As it is, wealthier pensioners are being massively subsidised by poorer 20 year olds. The working poor are having money taken out of their pay packet to protect the estates of well to do pensioners/ The same demographic who have massively benefited from increases in house prices which have lined their pockets while pricing the younger generation out of home ownership.
Do you think the funding of social care in this way is reasonable?
-
SS.
Literally no-one is talking about pensioners whose only source of income is the state pension being asked to pay taxes to cover the costs of social care. The pensioners who should be paying something are those with comfortable pensions and houses which have gone up 10-20 fold in value over the past 40 years.
-
SS.
Literally no-one is talking about pensioners whose only source of income is the state pension being asked to pay taxes to cover the costs of social care. The pensioners who should be paying something are those with comfortable pensions and houses which have gone up 10-20 fold in value over the past 40 years.
Agh, I've got it now. So what Sydney and Hounslow should have said was "some" pensioners, or "wealthy" pensioners, rather than pensioners per se.
-
I suppose those poor twenty year olds will obviously say no thanks when they have the chance to inherit one of those houses that their parents or grandparents leave for them in a will.
They will of course suggest the money goes into a pot to be shared out.
-
Have to agree Tyke, also pensioners were not expected to live so long after retirement, so our contributions weren’t enough.
It rekindles the faith to read that there are those that understand how they have benefitted from circumstance as well as their work but are willing to share the load.
"Share the load"?
What does that mean?
It means that some are willing to understand the difficulties that following generations are under as the retired generation have had the advantage of cheaper housing and plenty, probably too many are buying up second homes making it doubly difficult for other generations to buy their first. And they are also willing to pay more tax if the tax load was equitable.
Anything else SS?
Once again your poor understanding of semantics has lead to you utterly and totally failing to answer the question, something you accuse other people of doing.
SS.
Literally no-one is talking about pensioners whose only source of income is the state pension being asked to pay taxes to cover the costs of social care. The pensioners who should be paying something are those with comfortable pensions and houses which have gone up 10-20 fold in value over the past 40 years.
Agh, I've got it now. So what Sydney and Hounslow should have said was "some" pensioners, or "wealthy" pensioners, rather than pensioners per se.
It appears you already knew what sort of an answer you wanted ss
And it appears you have worked out that pensioners existing solely on a state pension cannot afford to buy a second home, some may have not purchased their first of course, well done Steve.
-
SS.
Literally no-one is talking about pensioners whose only source of income is the state pension being asked to pay taxes to cover the costs of social care. The pensioners who should be paying something are those with comfortable pensions and houses which have gone up 10-20 fold in value over the past 40 years.
What's the value of a house got to do with it? In 1966 my Mum paid just over £2K for her newly built bungalow on The Drury Estate at Woodlands. When she died 4 years ago it was valued at £100k. She had no other pension other than a widows pit pension of £13pw and her old age pension to live on. So because of the value of her house she should have contributed more NI when Dementia finally got hold of her? As it was when we eventually got her into a care home, which we had to pay for, she only lasted 5 days
-
Raven
No, of course not. It is a sliding scale. I don't think someone just about surviving should be paying more tax. Whether that is a pensioner or a gig economy youngster.
Look at the other end of the scale. Do you think that pensioners with a decent occupational pension and the good fortune to see their house value rise to £500k on the property roulette wheel (and there are many in that situation) should have their care costs subsidised by someone working in a call centre and bringing up a family and unable to ever get their own house because the house price inflation for 40 years has been out of control? Because that is precisely what Johnson has proposed.
-
By the way, I myself am someone who will benefit from what Johnson is proposing. I'm not so far from retirement so I'll not pay much in. I have a decent home and a decent pension to come. My house has doubled in value since I bought it 10 years ago which is ridiculous. I have done nothing to earn or deserve that. But if I need care costs, that will be subsidised by the younger generation. I think that is a disgrace and I'm all for people like me being, the lucky ones, expected to fork out more, not be featherbedded by people who are struggling to get by.
-
Raven
No, of course not. It is a sliding scale. I don't think someone just about surviving should be paying more tax. Whether that is a pensioner or a gig economy youngster.
Look at the other end of the scale. Do you think that pensioners with a decent occupational pension and the good fortune to see their house value rise to £500k on the property roulette wheel (and there are many in that situation) should have their care costs subsidised by someone working in a call centre and bringing up a family and unable to ever get their own house because the house price inflation for 40 years has been out of control? Because that is precisely what Johnson has proposed.
Sorry I still don't see what the value of a property has to do with it, you are linking two seperate political threads of thought together, NI contributions and young people getting on the housing ladder
I would also refer you to my post on NI rate raise thread where I said that pensioners with personal pensions above say £30k as an arbitrary figure, of which I am one, should contribute to NI
-
Because one of the major changes in British society over the past half century is the concentration of wealth in the hands of people who have done well on the housing casino. That has been a key driver of the massive increase in inequality. I'm saying that funding social care in a way that included a tax on overall wealth would be a much fairer way of paying the costs.
-
I did well on the "housing casino" as you put it, not by speculation but by being prepared to uproot my family and move homes to further my career which resulted in my current property and a comfortable final salary pension I still don't see your very Socialist view point re value of property in all this so I'll bow out on this debate
-
Don't you have to pay for your care costs if you have a large amount of assets in England? You certainly do in Scotland including property.
-
Don't you have to pay for your care costs if you have a large amount of assets in England? You certainly do in Scotland including property.
That would depend on how you manage your assets, property can be placed into a trust managed by trustees on your behalf, that takes the property out of your assets, money can be in a joint account, you can’t take money from a joint account holder to pay for the others care. The property situation has to be in trust for I think six years before it is immune from being seized for care costs
-
Don't you have to pay for your care costs if you have a large amount of assets in England? You certainly do in Scotland including property.
Yes but under the new law the amount you pay yourself will be capped at £80k. The rest will be paid for by NI.
-
Don't you have to pay for your care costs if you have a large amount of assets in England? You certainly do in Scotland including property.
Yes but under the new law the amount you pay yourself will be capped at £80k. The rest will be paid for by NI.
Not quite. The new levy still leaves councils with a shortfall and the expectation is that Council Tax will have to rise to pay for it. So under the governments plans NI AND Council Tax are going up.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/12/social-care-plan-will-help-just-a-tenth-of-uks-older-people-in-need
-
I did well on the "housing casino" as you put it, not by speculation but by being prepared to uproot my family and move homes to further my career which resulted in my current property and a comfortable final salary pension I still don't see your very Socialist view point re value of property in all this so I'll bow out on this debate
'You uprooted your family to further your career' and had a bonus win on the housing lottery, hope you are not using socialism selectively RR, and are happy to use any facilities paid for by the masses when it suits?
-
Don't you have to pay for your care costs if you have a large amount of assets in England? You certainly do in Scotland including property.
Yes but under the new law the amount you pay yourself will be capped at £80k. The rest will be paid for by NI.
Isn't that only for in home medical care though, ie not care homes?
-
I did well on the "housing casino" as you put it, not by speculation but by being prepared to uproot my family and move homes to further my career which resulted in my current property and a comfortable final salary pension I still don't see your very Socialist view point re value of property in all this so I'll bow out on this debate
'You uprooted your family to further your career' and had a bonus win on the housing lottery, hope you are not using socialism selectively RR, and are happy to use any facilities paid for by the masses when it suits?
Try reading all my posts on the NI debate
-
I did well on the "housing casino" as you put it, not by speculation but by being prepared to uproot my family and move homes to further my career which resulted in my current property and a comfortable final salary pension I still don't see your very Socialist view point re value of property in all this so I'll bow out on this debate
'You uprooted your family to further your career' and had a bonus win on the housing lottery, hope you are not using socialism selectively RR, and are happy to use any facilities paid for by the masses when it suits?
Try reading all my posts on the NI debate
I'm constantly surprised (not) by those denigrating socialism but happy to use services that are in effect socialistic, if that's a word, no big deal RR.
-
It’s a good enough word for me Syd. The NHS is one of the greatest achievements in the history of the UK
-
I did well on the "housing casino" as you put it, not by speculation but by being prepared to uproot my family and move homes to further my career which resulted in my current property and a comfortable final salary pension I still don't see your very Socialist view point re value of property in all this so I'll bow out on this debate
'You uprooted your family to further your career' and had a bonus win on the housing lottery, hope you are not using socialism selectively RR, and are happy to use any facilities paid for by the masses when it suits?
Try reading all my posts on the NI debate
I'm constantly surprised (not) by those denigrating socialism but happy to use services that are in effect socialistic, if that's a word, no big deal RR.
Try reading all my posts on the NI debate
-
After today's reshuffle the man given responsibility of the levelling up of the UK is Mr Michael Gove. Recently famous for this speech...
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1437447464378830853?s=19