Blair secures historic third term

[Commander CMG]

So why do we pay more than most countries for oil and certainly more than the rest of Europe... They have the same production costs yet pay a fraction of what we do?

[Scar]

So why do we pay more than most countries for oil and certainly more than the rest of Europe... They have the same production costs yet pay a fraction of what we do?

615886[/snapback]

Britian as a whole is a Net importer of Natural gas, you may have read recently that there was investigations as to why prices were rising. Some findings suggested that Britian bought back Gas it had exported at a higher price, other findings suggested the up keep of the Gas Lines that run through the country like veins.

Although your question has been asked several time there is no clearcut answer, Britians Utilities industry is the only de-regulated market in the world Australia is next, then USA. This in itself increases maintence costs coupled with Britians drive for renewable energy which is (very expesive) and increased competition means companies have some real problems.

I would love to discuss the problems in more detail but Im at work and some things arn't worth discussing due to the sensitive nature.

I'll leave you with info I recently obtained from a competitor company

Analysts have called on Centrica to raise retail energy prices to protect margins and to drop its target of maintaining customer numbers

That snippet speaks volumes of where the increase's come from

[warden]

If the houseing market crashes you will not be able to buy a better house but not be able to pay much more as the prices of every thing else will be hitting the roof

[Commander CMG]

So why do we pay more than most countries for oil and certainly more than the rest of Europe... They have the same production costs yet pay a fraction of what we do?

615886[/snapback]

Britian as a whole is a Net importer of Natural gas, you may have read recently that there was investigations as to why prices were rising. Some findings suggested that Britian bought back Gas it had exported at a higher price, other findings suggested the up keep of the Gas Lines that run through the country like veins.

Although your question has been asked several time there is no clearcut answer, Britians Utilities industry is the only de-regulated market in the world Australia is next, then USA. This in itself increases maintence costs coupled with Britians drive for renewable energy which is (very expesive) and increased competition means companies have some real problems.

I would love to discuss the problems in more detail but Im at work and some things arn't worth discussing due to the sensitive nature.

I'll leave you with info I recently obtained from a competitor company

Analysts have called on Centrica to raise retail energy prices to protect margins and to drop its target of maintaining customer numbers

That snippet speaks volumes of where the increase's come from

615898[/snapback]

Thanks for the explanation.. so it is nothing to do with Labours tax on petrol?

[warden]

So why do we pay more than most countries for oil and certainly more than the rest of Europe... They have the same production costs yet pay a fraction of what we do?

615886[/snapback]

Britian as a whole is a Net importer of Natural gas, you may have read recently that there was investigations as to why prices were rising. Some findings suggested that Britian bought back Gas it had exported at a higher price, other findings suggested the up keep of the Gas Lines that run through the country like veins.

Although your question has been asked several time there is no clearcut answer, Britians Utilities industry is the only de-regulated market in the world Australia is next, then USA. This in itself increases maintence costs coupled with Britians drive for renewable energy which is (very expesive) and increased competition means companies have some real problems.

I would love to discuss the problems in more detail but Im at work and some things arn't worth discussing due to the sensitive nature.

I'll leave you with info I recently obtained from a competitor company

Analysts have called on Centrica to raise retail energy prices to protect margins and to drop its target of maintaining customer numbers

That snippet speaks volumes of where the increase's come from

615898[/snapback]

Thanks for the explanation.. so it is nothing to do with Labours tax on petrol?

616017[/snapback]

No that is the tories fault

[Scar]

At first I thought warden was blaming Labour for the Centrica comment

Petrol tax has no affect on this.

My own opinion is corporate greed and a complete lack of understanding from the watchdogs as to what happens within the industry therefore placing unreasonble demands coupled with rising cosumer awareness and pressures (who also dont really understand) push the price of utility bills up.

You can attribute this to the Labour Government as the makret deregulated in 1998 and was pushed into de-regulation ASAP.

[warden]

Me blaming some one for some thing(Scar how could you )you must have me mixed up with some other warden

Since you have knowledge of oil ,fuel etc is it true in saying that oil that comes out of the north sea is to heavy and that is why we have to import oil`s from other countries at a certain price,and if so cant we make a refinery to do it our selfs

[Scar]

Me blaming some one for some thing(Scar how could you )you must have me mixed up with some other warden

Since you have knowledge of oil ,fuel etc is it true in saying that oil that comes out of the north sea is to heavy and that is why we have to import oil`s from other countries at a certain price,and if so cant we make a refinery to do it our selfs

616200[/snapback]

To the best of my knowledge the Oil found in the north sea is of decent quality Scotland or britian (some people might call us) consistently increases its export of crude oil. Whether this oil is heavy or not im not entirely sure im afriad. My knowelede extends from the Generation from Power plant to supply through transformers (not the robot in disguise variety). The reason I know about the Gas price thing is because its somewhat of a hot topic in the industry as is the ever climbing oil price. But where the oil is obtained from I have no idea whether its from Iran or Aberdeen.

I can explain abit about why its not profitable and why we people dont/cant use it !

The Oil your talking about is when it has been mixed with water or attacked by Bacteria, in this instance its actually more expensive to refine and quality oils like pariffin etc don't exist making it unprofitable. Its called heavy crude or bitumen (there is a diffrence between the two it escapes me just now)

[Blackleaf]

Out of curiosity XSAS and Warden,

Who would you want in power instead of Labour and why ?

It seems you are quite probably not unlike the infamous Torie Boy from the rather funny Harry Enfield and Chums series.

F.Y.I, I voted SNP as I am Sick and tired of Westminster telling my country what todo with Our money. There's only 5million of us we'd be quite happy on or own.

I agree labour have made some promises they haven't kept, but its still better than the Conservatives gaining power again. IMO its the lesser of two evils.

Try not to come across Pro tory, unless thats what you are 

Ps. Its Spelt Richer not Ritcher

612278[/snapback]

It's worse for us English. England is ruled by Scotland. Tony Blair is Scottish. In fact, NONE of the leaders of the three main political parties are English.

It's about time England had its own Parliament similar to Scotland's.

[Commander CMG]

Out of curiosity XSAS and Warden,

Who would you want in power instead of Labour and why ?

It seems you are quite probably not unlike the infamous Torie Boy from the rather funny Harry Enfield and Chums series.

F.Y.I, I voted SNP as I am Sick and tired of Westminster telling my country what todo with Our money. There's only 5million of us we'd be quite happy on or own.

I agree labour have made some promises they haven't kept, but its still better than the Conservatives gaining power again. IMO its the lesser of two evils.

Try not to come across Pro tory, unless thats what you are 

Ps. Its Spelt Richer not Ritcher

612278[/snapback]

It's worse for us English. England is ruled by Scotland. Tony Blair is Scottish. In fact, NONE of the leaders of the three main political parties are English.

It's about time England had its own Parliament similar to Scotland's.

616637[/snapback]

What sort of ridiculous comment is that.

[Blackleaf]

What's ridiculous about it?

Why should Scotland have its own parliament, Wales have its own Assembly but England have nothing?

It's time for the English to wake up! Is it fair that, because we don't have our own Parliament in England, Scottish politicians can have a say in EVERY policy that concerns ENGLAND but NOT Scotland, whereas there are certain policies in Scotland that English politicians have no say in?

Look at health. Health is discussed is the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MP's only. NO English MP is allowed to discuss about the Health Service in Scotland. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament only and is of no concern to England. However, the Scots have a say in the affairs of the Health Service in England. So there was a situation, before Blair's reshuffling of the Cabinet, in which the Scots had their OWN Health Minister (who was obviously a Scot) whereas the English DO NOT have their own Health Minister. Instead, we had the BRITISH Health Minister, John Reid, who was the Health Minister for England, Wales AND Scotland (in health affairs not managed by its Parliament) and who is SCOTTISH!

So England needs a Parliament. England is the largest country in the world to not have its own Parliament.

The English are dozy and need to wake up. Is it fair that Scottish politcians have a say in every area of politics in England, but English MP's cannot have a say in certain areas of politics in Scotland?

[Blackleaf]

The Times

May 09, 2005

The Battle for England

William Rees-Mogg

The people of the UK's biggest, richest country won't accept second-class status much longer

THE CONSERVATIVES won England in the general election, in votes but not in seats. Both the Conservatives and Labour gained more than eight million English votes, but the Conservatives finished more than 50,000 ahead. This trend is worrying for Labour. In 1997 they had a majority in England over the Conservatives of more than 3.5 million votes. In only two elections the whole of that lead has melted away.

If the trend is not reversed, the Conservatives will have their own large lead in English votes at the next election. This time, the first-past-the-post system has worked in Labour’s favour, against the Conservatives and against the Lib Dems. In 2005, although they were behind in votes, Labour led in seats by 286 to 193. But there will be comprehensive boundary changes in the course of this Parliament; Labour will not again enjoy such an excessive advantage. The next election can already be seen as a battle for England.

The English question has been created by Labour itself. After 1997 Tony Blair introduced devolution to Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland had had devolution at Stormont since the 1920s, though the system has changed over time. There has been no devolution for England and that has thrown the constitution out of balance.

Tam Dalyell, who has just retired as an admirable Father of the House of Commons, saw the point; he called it the West Lothian question. Since 1997 it has attracted little attention, because the Labour Party had an English majority at Westminster, both in seats and votes. As the English had voted for Labour, they did not complain that the Prime Minister also had the support of Scottish and Welsh majorities.

John Prescott tried to address the problem of English devolution by proposing that England should be split into regional governments with their own, very modest devolved role. When a referendum was held in Labour’s stronghold region of the North East, the proposal was decisively rejected. The English do not want to be broken up into artificial regions with no real historic identity. If there is to be devolution, it will have to go to some kind of national body.

The Labour Party has since left the issue alone, perhaps hoping that it would continue to win majorities of English votes. The Conservatives have not pressed the issue partly because they were still in the minority and partly because they feared the constitutional implications. The Lib Dems favour regional government in England, as does the European Commission.

The English question is not going to leave politicians alone. Sooner or later Labour will be left with a majority of seats in Wales and Scotland but not in England. That may or may not give it an overall Commons majority. From that point on, the English will be claiming their share of self-government.

After all, even Welsh devolution, which does not include the power of primary legislation, covers most of the policies with which the voter is personally concerned. Health and education are issues that can decide national elections.

The political culture of Scotland and Wales is far more socialistic than that of England, apart from the industrial North. Scotland and Wales have largely become one-party states; England has not. Many English people see the Labour Party as a bureaucratic obstacle to independent national development.

Most Conservatives believe that there is room for more independence, more efficiency, better services and lower taxes — roughly what Howard Flight said before he was sacked. It is not unreasonable for English Conservatives to want social structures less socialistic than those of Scotland and Wales. England is different. These issues are bound to be discussed in the Conservative leadership debate.

The English question also interacts with the question of Europe. The commonest English view is that the European constitutional treaty is an undemocratic transfer of power to Europe. That goes to the heart of the issue of national independence. In Scotland many people see Europe as an alternative to English power.

There is a danger that England would vote “no” in the referendum, but Scotland might vote “yes”. Europe has created an English independence movement, which certainly believes that the English should manage their own affairs in all those matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The arguments for national independence and English devolution run side by side.

There are even personal issues. Gordon Brown will almost certainly be the next Labour Prime Minister. He is a Scot of the Scots; he sits in the House of Commons for a Scottish constituency. That is fine, but it means he will be imposing Labour policies on English voters, relying on Scottish votes, in policy areas where he has absolutely no authority to make law for Scotland itself.

For the first time since Lord Bute in the early 1760s the Scottishness of a prime minister might become a real political issue. Why should Mr Brown be free to take decisions for the English health service when he cannot take decisions for the Scottish?

Devolved rights in a federal system must be equal in all the individual states of the federation. That is required by natural justice. Under the US Constitution, the legislative and administrative powers of the individual states are indeed identical, as they are between the German Länder. The only constitutional differences between US states arise in the number of federal legislators which vary according to population. Under the US constitution all states nevertheless elect two US senators, an equal number regardless of their size.

Labour has rejected the rule of equality and, even more unwisely, has discriminated against the largest, most powerful and richest nation of the United Kingdom. The English in America did not accept such discrimination in 1776. They will want equality now, so that they, like the Scots and the Welsh, can run their own affairs.

timesonline.co.uk

[Blackleaf]

Read this!!

From the BBC News website -

Bill allows top-up fees exception

Top-up tuition fees will be introduced in England

A bill which allows the introduction of top-up tuition fees in Scottish universities and colleges has been approved by MSPs at Holyrood.

However, the fees will only be used to prevent medical courses being swamped by students from England when variable fees are brought in there next year.

The Scottish Executive said it was opposed to top-up fees in principle.

And it accepted a Lib Dem amendment which will make any extension of top-up fees subject to consultation.

Cheaper courses

From autumn 2006 annual tuition fees at universities in England - currently a flat rate of £1,150 - will vary from nothing up to a maximum of £3,000 depending on the institution.

Scottish ministers have always insisted that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill would not open the door to these English-style top-up fees.

But opponents were concerned that raising tuition fees for one subject could provide cover for introducing them across the board.

Powers in the bill allow ministers, with the approval of parliament, to set higher fee levels in order to protect the interests of Scottish students.

In subjects where there is particularly high demand, the bill also gives ministers powers, again with the approval of parliament, to set a different fee level for certain subjects.

Research has shown that about 35% of graduates from Scotland's five medical schools immediately leave Scotland to work, mostly in England, while around half of recruits to Scottish medical faculties are English.

The executive is concerned that the top-up fees, which could amount to £15,000 for a five-year medical course, could see an influx of English students to Scotland in search of cheaper courses.

The Scottish Conservatives' position is quite clear - we oppose all top-up fees, north and south of the border

The executive said it wants to protect places for Scottish students.

The Scottish National Party failed to push through an amendment to the bill which would have ruled out variable fees by course, so they could not be extended to dentistry and engineering courses.

Alex Neil MSP said that unless the SNP amendment was accepted, future ministers would have carte blanche to introduce variable fees at any institution and for any subject.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser remarked on the "predicament" of Jim Wallace, a Liberal Democrat MSP who is minister for lifelong learning in the coalition executive.

Mr Fraser said: "The irony is that we have Liberal Democrats campaigning on a UK basis as the students' friend - and here we have the Liberal Democrat minister proposing to take powers to charge top-up fees.

Education funding

"The Scottish Conservatives' position is quite clear - we oppose all top-up fees, north and south of the border."

The Greens also slammed the Liberal Democrats who they said had made much of their opposition to tuition fees, yet were refusing to rule out their future introduction.

Chris Ballance MSP said: "The executive, in particular Lib Dem minister Jim Wallace, claims to be against top up fees at the moment, but is proposing legislation that will enable ministers to introduce them in the future.

"We are calling on parliament, including the Liberal Democrats - to make a clear, principled stand and defeat this clause."

MSPs unanimously backed Liberal Democrat MSP Mike Pringle's plan to ensure ministers must conduct a 60-day consultation on any fee-raising plans, allow specific input from the National Union of Students and a full parliamentary vote.

The bill will also merge Scotland's higher and further education funding bodies, allowing investment to top £1.6bn by 2007-8, the executive said.

It will also allow ministers to fix a fee of up to £2,000 for students from England attending Scottish universities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4463953.stm

----------------------------------------

So, let me get this right. English MPs vote AGAINST top-up fees in England but their collective wish is OVERTURNED by Scottish MPs, and then Scottish MSP's (Members of the Scottish Parliament) vote to IMPOSE top-up fees in Scotland, but only for ENGLISH students! The MSP's have decided they don't want top-up fees in Scotland at all (except for English students) - and got their wish cos it is all decided by the Scottish Parliament. Then, in the British (not English) Parliament, English MP's tried also to get rid of top-up fees in England. What happened? SCOTTISH MP's overturned it and now us English have to pay top-up fees!

Thank-you Scotland.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Blackleaf

[Tommy]

Going back to the theme of the thread, I think that this election was in fact a success for the UK generally. I think Britain did well to vote Blair back in to power with a reduced majority. (even though I did not vote for him)

I thought that although the Tories tried to provide ‘clear blue water’ between them and Labour and took a firmer stance on certain issues, they knew they wouldn’t win it. The country in my opinion will still do better under this Labour government than of the other parties provided they do ‘listen’ to what the country is telling them.

So what you are telling me is, Labour have given over 60 Billlion investments into the NHS and once they have comitted the money they have no control on how it is spane by the agencies within the NHS, sounds like gross negligence of taxpayers money and how can they promise NHS improvements when they have no control on spending??

Just going back a bit, everyone knows that the NHS is a black hole for government spending. You can always throw more money at it and it will never be enough. Due to the ongoing demographic changes, it is very hard to pin point exactly where the emphasis of this money should be spent, however by the sounds of it we should be looking at back to basics stuff, like better hygiene and cleaning for one! Also parties always rearrange the figures concerning waiting lines etc to best suit their argument. For example the opposition might talk about waiting times for crucial operations going up; then the government might talk about how waiting times over all has decreased. It is very hard to see the true picture of what exactly is going on.

Warden I think some of that information might be a bit exaggerated.

Jobless know at 1.43 million and riseing

You have to put this into context. According to the Labour Force Survey in 2004 our number of unemployed stood at nearly 1.44 million, which works out to be 5.2% of the labour force. Using the Claiment account as a measure, unemployment stands at about 2.8%. This is one of the lowest rates in Europe. There has also been a year on year fall in unemployment since 1994. It’s not really something to worry about.

Inflation at its highest level since May 1998

Five interest rate rises since Nov 2003

As for the rising interest rates, they are needed in order to cool off the growth in consumer spending. It is a way of fine-tuning the economy as we reach a level of output closer to that of our potential capacity, a rise in the rate of interest is to simply slow down the rate of inflation and keep it around it’s optimal rate of about 2%.

Unemployment will rise by another half a million by 2008

How on earth have they estimated that? In any case we should be looking at the relative increase rather than the nominal figure for a more accurate picture I think. As it is we have seen a significant decrease in long-term unemployment since 1995.

Consumer Spending is also at its lowest in 10 years

Also I’m not so sure about this. Household consumption has risen on average 3.3% from 1994-2004 according to the office of national statistics.

I do actually have faith in Gordon Brown (or his civil servants) to keep our economy in as healthier state as it can be for the time being.

[Scar]

The 10 year comment I made was pretty much a direct quote from BBC Breakfast news this very morning.

Whether its true im not sure but the BBC arn't usually that for off their figures.

I'll try to dig a link for you mate

[warden]

Going back to the theme of the thread, I think that this election was in fact a success for the UK generally.  I think Britain did well to vote Blair back in to power with a reduced majority. (even though I did not vote for him) 

I thought that although the Tories tried to provide ‘clear blue water’ between them and Labour and took a firmer stance on certain issues, they knew they wouldn’t win it.  The country in my opinion will still do better under this Labour government than of the other parties provided they do ‘listen’ to what the country is telling them. 

So what you are telling me is, Labour have given over 60 Billlion investments into the NHS and once they have comitted the money they have no control on how it is spane by the agencies within the NHS, sounds like gross negligence of taxpayers money and how can they promise NHS improvements when they have no control on spending??

Just going back a bit, everyone knows that the NHS is a black hole for government spending. You can always throw more money at it and it will never be enough. Due to the ongoing demographic changes, it is very hard to pin point exactly where the emphasis of this money should be spent, however by the sounds of it we should be looking at back to basics stuff, like better hygiene and cleaning for one! Also parties always rearrange the figures concerning waiting lines etc to best suit their argument. For example the opposition might talk about waiting times for crucial operations going up; then the government might talk about how waiting times over all has decreased. It is very hard to see the true picture of what exactly is going on.

Warden I think some of that information might be a bit exaggerated.

Jobless know at 1.43 million and riseing

You have to put this into context. According to the Labour Force Survey in 2004 our number of unemployed stood at nearly 1.44 million, which works out to be 5.2% of the labour force. Using the Claiment account as a measure, unemployment stands at about 2.8%. This is one of the lowest rates in Europe. There has also been a year on year fall in unemployment since 1994. It’s not really something to worry about.

Inflation at its highest level since May 1998

Five interest rate rises since Nov 2003

As for the rising interest rates, they are needed in order to cool off the growth in consumer spending. It is a way of fine-tuning the economy as we reach a level of output closer to that of our potential capacity, a rise in the rate of interest is to simply slow down the rate of inflation and keep it around it’s optimal rate of about 2%.

Unemployment will rise by another half a million by 2008

How on earth have they estimated that? In any case we should be looking at the relative increase rather than the nominal figure for a more accurate picture I think. As it is we have seen a significant decrease in long-term unemployment since 1995.

Consumer Spending is also at its lowest in 10 years

Also I’m not so sure about this. Household consumption has risen on average 3.3% from 1994-2004 according to the office of national statistics.

I do actually have faith in Gordon Brown (or his civil servants) to keep our economy in as healthier state as it can be for the time being.

616748[/snapback]

Your jobless figures are way of the mark if you include all the 16 to 18 year olds who arenot entitled to benefit that is another 250.000 to 300.000 and on top of that you have over 2 million on incapacety benefit who blair is trying to get of and back to work,that makes 3.8 million in real terms and if the figures dont add up check labours stats,thats where i got mine

[wunarmdscissor]

It's worse for us English. England is ruled by Scotland. Tony Blair is Scottish. In fact, NONE of the leaders of the three main political parties are English.

It's about time England had its own Parliament similar to Scotland's.

Its true the scottish MPs have a say in english politics , however its ridiculous to say that scotland "rules" england.

YOu only have to look at the way scotland has been treated to know thats not true.

Poll tax.

Nuclear Dumping.

North Sea Oil.

They are but 3 things.

One more thing Why the hell should a scot , welshman of a nothern Irishman not be Prime Minister.

In the end the Prime minister has authority over the economy , defence and all the major aspects of everyday life.

[wunarmdscissor]

So, let me get this right. English MPs vote AGAINST top-up fees in England but their collective wish is OVERTURNED by Scottish MPs, and then Scottish MSP's (Members of the Scottish Parliament) vote to IMPOSE top-up fees in Scotland, but only for ENGLISH students! The MSP's have decided they don't want top-up fees in Scotland at all (except for English students) - and got their wish cos it is all decided by the Scottish Parliament. Then, in the British (not English) Parliament, English MP's tried also to get rid of top-up fees in England. What happened? SCOTTISH MP's overturned it and now us English have to pay top-up fees

Well Blackleaf if you bothered to read into the matter you would know that there is no top up fees in scotland ata all and that we do not pay for our education.

1. Taxes in Scotland on the SCOTTISH were raised to compnsate for this. So why should the English be able to come up get the free ducation without paying the extra taxes for this.

2. There are a limited amount of places in the universities , explain to me why an english student, with penty of placesin englsih universities, should get a place at rhe expense of scottish students.

Too bloody right we're looking after ourselves . Just like Engliand has done for the last 6 bloody Centuries.!!!!!!!

[warden]

Nothing wrong with a British person being the prime minister of Britain,infact it makes sense,

Would be weird and wrong if the prime minister was russian or peruvian

[Tommy]

Firstly these are not ‘my’ figures, they are from the National Office of Statistics.

Still though Warden, do you happen to have a link with that information on it? The only official Labour one I could find was this on employment HERE, and somehow I feel it might be slightly biased.

Also, those on incapacity benefits etc are not as you say included in the figure of unemployment, as it is defined as…

‘the count of jobless people who want to work, are available to work, and are actively seeking employment.’

Those on incapacity benefits, long term sick and the disabled are classified as economically inactive, as they are not willing or able to work. This also includes those looking after the home and students. Therefore they will not be taken into account on any measure of unemployment. Neither will other groups of people, like those employed in the black economy etc, so depending how you read into the figures you will drawn quite different conclusions.

Actually if you look at the working age (16-64 for men, 16-59 for women) inactivity rate, it stands about 22%. If you look at the inactivity rate it has actually risen over recent years, mainly due to students who have chosen to stay in education longer, and so contribute to a rising section of society.

“Students represent a large number of potential workers, highly likely to participate in the labour market at some time in the future. In July to September 2004, 28 per cent of inactive men (870,000) and 18 per cent of inactive women (840,000) cited studying as their reason for inactivity”

“The number of inactive, long-term sick people of working age has fluctuated between 2.1 and 2.2 million since the late 1990s”

“There were 2.3 million people looking after the family and home in July to September 2004 and this was the largest group among the inactive”

From the Office of National Statistics

So therefore you are right to assume that the recognised measures of unemployment don’t resemble everyone who doesn’t have a job, as this would be very misleading and near impossible to accurately calculate.

[warden]

Tommy i have not got the expertease on the PC as your self to find the links but i will try ,but i do not try to mislead the public on UM about the figures

Your figures you talk about ,when were they taken and i wonder what party was in power at the time of them comming out .....get the point....Labour stats

When i seen the rigures it was on Question time and they came from labour,con.lib-dem and one aconamist who all agreed the figures were massaged to misslead the public,just like the figures you have quoted

The labour mp at the time said `we have to cut the number of people on incapacity benefit and invalidity benefit to bring down the cost of social security which would save 3 billion a year he then went on to say the number of people on these bebefits are about 2 million not including the 16 to 18 year olds who dont recieve any benefits and are becomming a burden on their parents

not my words but words of MPs,and they should know

[Tommy]

Your figures you talk about ,when were they taken and i wonder what party was in power at the time of them comming out .....get the point....Labour stats

I believe the office for national statistics is an apolitical organisation, so they should really favour no party.

When i seen the rigures it was on Question time and they came from labour,con.lib-dem and one aconamist who all agreed the figures were massaged to misslead the public,just like the figures you have quoted

The labour mp at the time said `we have to cut the number of people on incapacity benefit and invalidity benefit to bring down the cost of social security which would save 3 billion a year he then went on to say the number of people on these bebefits are about 2 million not including the 16 to 18 year olds who dont recieve any benefits and are becomming a burden on their parents

I have actually found quite an interesting article about this area of the UK’s incapacity benefits.

Article Here

According to this article, while we have seen a decrease in unemployment, or the standard measure of unemployment, the UK has seen a sharp rise with those on incapacity benefits (as we’ve said).

It says that in 2003 nearly 2.7 million people were receiving sick-related benefits, which is close to 10% of all those employed in the UK. It goes on to say that in 2002, 27% of the working population didn’t work due to illness, compared to 6.6% in Italy, 8.7% in Spain, and 11.2% Germany. It also appears that these areas with the greatest ‘illness’ happen to be those associated with areas of industrial decline; which would seem very convenient if you ask me.

It makes the interesting point that ‘Unemployment has been redefined rather than reduced’, which would appear to be the case. Ironically if this isn’t true, then it is the NHS to blame that we are a nation of such sick workers, so more money to be thrown at that please!

Also Scar, yeh you were spot on about the reduction in consumer spending mate. Consumer spending is at a low at the moment, driven largely by the sharpest fall in retail sales for 6 years. GDP growth is expected to rise only 2.5%, down from 2.7% forecasted in February.

BBC story

Was on the front page of the Times too.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Tommy

[Talon]

What's ridiculous about it?

Why should Scotland have its own parliament, Wales have its own Assembly but England have nothing?

Eh hello, wake you and look aat Westminster. You know, this big building in London. Which has more English MPs than Scottish or Welsh. Even if all the Celtic MPs voted the same rather than follow their Party lines, they couldn't make any impact on what the English voted.

It's time for the English to wake up! Is it fair that, because we don't have our own Parliament in England, Scottish politicians can have a say in EVERY policy that concerns ENGLAND but NOT Scotland, whereas there are certain policies in Scotland that English politicians have no say in?

Excuse me, you obviously are completely ignorant in politics if your ignoring the fact that the English MPs have controlled Scotland and Wales for the last 300 and secondly that Westminster still controlled Hollyrood. So much so that Hollyrood half the time just exists to give the rubber stamp to English policies up north.

So England needs a Parliament. England is the largest country in the world to not have its own Parliament.

Rubbish, you completely control Westminster. You have your parliment, and with you monopoly on the UK can control Scotland and Wales too.

The people of the UK's biggest, richest country won't accept second-class status much longer

Second class? Ignoring that its Scotland which has 9 out of 10 of the UK's poorest areas

THE CONSERVATIVES won England in the general election

So? Scotland never voted Thatcher but we got her.

The English question has been created by Labour itself. After 1997 Tony Blair introduced devolution to Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland had had devolution at Stormont since the 1920s, though the system has changed over time. There has been no devolution for England and that has thrown the constitution out of balance.

Hate to break it to you all, there WAS a referendum to give parts on England there own parliments. Maybe you slept through them, but nonetheless they were rejected. And before you start blaming Scots for all your problems again, we did not have a say in those outcomes.

Gordon Brown will almost certainly be the next Labour Prime Minister. He is a Scot of the Scots

So your argument it that in a country with English, Scots and Welsh. The Scots and Welsh shouldn't be allowed to become PMs..... whoa how racist are you. Thats like going to America and going on about 'THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE BLACK, WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS"

English MPs vote AGAINST top-up fees in England but their collective wish is OVERTURNED by Scottish MPs, and then Scottish MSP's (Members of the Scottish Parliament) vote to IMPOSE top-up fees in Scotland, but only for ENGLISH students!

Eh no. Westminster voted for top-up fees in England, and Westminster is dominated by English MPs. Even if all the Scots together voted for it, if the English didn't it wouldn't have happened.

Also, so what if it only affects English students? Every UK university places different costs on Foriegn students than national ones. I don't see moaning when England does it to French or German students, but you moan like hell when others do it to you?

Is this part of your 'We English are special! One rule for us, one rule for everyone else!"

Blackleaf YOU are such a racist. The KKK blamed their problems on Blacks, the Nazis blamed it on Jews, you blame it on the Scots.

[Tommy]

If we cannot discuss these issues in a civil way then this thread will be closed.

Talon you seem bent on making this debate more heated than it already is, by trying to bring in the issue of ethnocentrism. Of course the West Lothian Question is controversial. Should England be devolved is an important issue. If it is, then how much power should be given to Westminster to govern over the residing nations?

I would have liked to think we could talk about these issues in an open and pragmatic way, without having to resort to name-calling.

While I do not agree with what Blackleaf said about the nationality of the Prime Minister being any cause for concern, I don’t feel the need to brand anyone racist just because they might be more preferential over who should run the UK.

We live in a Union of independent Nations, and because of this each nation should be treated with equal respect. It should not make a difference what nationality the Prime Minister is, as ultimately it is the people who will pass judgment on his actions come the next election.

Blackleaf YOU are such a racist.  The KKK blamed their problems on Blacks, the Nazis blamed it on Jews, you blame it on the Scots.

I don’t see the reason why you felt the need to post this. It is demeaning to Blackleaf who never singled you out. He was merely pointing out the shifted Constitutional balance in that all nations in this Union bar England have been devolved. In any case if you showed preference to a Scottish Prime Minister does that make you racist towards the other nations? Of course not, so please don’t be so quick to throw around racial accusations.

Thanks.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Tommy

[warden]

Wee done Tommy Talk about some people going way of the thread