Labour ?

Gazza, not wanting to be too OT here, but I think the Padded Cell has its place on this forum.  Politics and religion are bound to uncover polarised and entrenched views.  This forum is just a smaller reflection of some of what we see in the wider world.  But at least you can choose whether to participate or not. There are some excellent threads in the Padded Cell, many really informative and helpful. Hopefully there's something here for everyone, all I ask is that members remain civil, show respect to each other even in the heat of argument, acknowledge the diversity of the members, and respect the forum rules.

Strong opinions are fine.

Strong Opinions completely different to my own, also fine.

I have no affiliation with any political party, but do feel a need to vote in the fast approaching GE, hence I find this particular thread very thought provoking. 

The challenge is to relay ones opinions with a degree of dignity and politeness.

And I do find,  I tend to give thought to posts written in such a way, more worthy of consideration.

HH's example of discussion over the dinner table is quite a good one, obviously some find it easier then others.

Can I suggest then you change the page format so we do not have to see a column of comments from all streams......Just log into the one you are interested in?

Gazza posted:

Can I suggest then you change the page format so we do not have to see a column of comments from all streams......Just log into the one you are interested in?

 

When I log in, I see a list of the half-dozen different forums. No real details of the content on any of these forums, just a list.

If I wish to view the Music Room, I click on "Music Room". I don't see anything in detail on the Padded Cell.

If I don't wish to participate in the Padded Cell, I can avoid it.

If I do wish to participate in the Padded Cell, a single click brings up a list of recent topics. Again, I can choose a topic without seeing the content of other less interesting topics.

As for the column of comments on the RHS of the screen, I usually just ignore those. You only get a glimse of the first few words. Sometimes a few words might draw my attention to something I might otherwise miss. But I don't find them intrusive or offensive.

I find the current layout quite helpful and interesting.

Don Atkinson posted:

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Don

Interesting post. Not sure I fully understand the conclusion.My conclusion was simply that "the man on the clapham omnibus" doesn't differentiate between "waste" and "bigger profit". The two examples that you used in your initial post illustrated that cutting down on waste in your organisation meant that you made a bigger profit. Personally I have no problem with people doing this. This is one of the motivations that helps private enterprise deliver a better product for less money. Your subsequent post now makes it clear that last year's efficiency (bigger profit) results in a reduction to this year's starting price, so that the NHS benefits from a potential year -on-year efficiency drive. Well done. This is precisely the sort of thing that I was alluding to when I said "My experience.... is that such arrangements (private enterprise) require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies". Clearly, I am not "the man on the Clapham Omnibus"

 

I should have said earlier, that I would expect any cost-savings to be shared between the Provider (your Practice) and the Purchaser (the NHS). This would seem to motivate continuing efficiency drives.

This was quite common in the transport industry. Often referred to as "Pain-Gain Share". Savings (and cost over-runs) are shared, usually 50/50. Changes by the Purchaser to the specification or scope of work are generally paid for (or saved by) the Purchaser. The terminology  might have changed, I'm talking about 20 years ago !

Thanks for the views, @JamieWednesday and @Fatcat - illuminating to see the sides, or at least a quick version of them.

Richard Dane posted:

Gazza, not wanting to be too OT here, but I think the Padded Cell has its place on this forum.  Politics and religion are bound to uncover polarised and entrenched views.  This forum is just a smaller reflection of some of what we see in the wider world.  But at least you can choose whether to participate or not. There are some excellent threads in the Padded Cell, many really informative and helpful. Hopefully there's something here for everyone, all I ask is that members remain civil, show respect to each other even in the heat of argument, acknowledge the diversity of the members, and respect the forum rules.

I entirely support the padded cell as a location for diverse topics and views, as this adds lifeblood to a discussion format that is rapidly dying out with other forms of social media. It just needs the exchanges to be kept civil. It is clear that some members struggle with that concept and I'm pleased to see that the appropriate action is taken when reported.

Gazza posted:

Can I suggest then you change the page format so we do not have to see a column of comments from all streams......Just log into the one you are interested in?

Can I suggest you stop suggesting such ludicrous ideas?

If you don't like one section of the forum or certain threads, just don't go there / read them. The Padded Cell has been around pretty much since the Naim Forum was launched, way before it went Hoopla. Nobody ever seemed to have an issue with it and people happily discussed whatever they wanted to discuss. So in the good spirit of the forum, i.e. it being rather liberal, I think you'll just have to learn to live with it. It ain't so bad, once you get over it. 

There was an item on Radio 4 earlier where they were interviewing voters in London. They were asked to say which party had come up with which policy and in the case of a year's unpaid leave for caring duties everyone said it was a Labour policy, which of course it's not. The last person interviewed said they'd vote based on people's charisma (if I recall correctly) rather than policies. I read somewhere that the average person thinks about politics for less than four minutes a day. My stepmother would never vote for Neil Kinnock 'because he's Welsh'. 

The fact that a lot of people seem to like  'that nice Mrs May' and the fact that most of the press is very anti Corbyn will undoubtedly have far more of an impact than policies. As one of the people interviewed said 'it doesn't matter what their policies are as they never put them into practice anyway', or something like that. 

fatcat posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

Corbyn's latest plan is to increase the tax on trades in bonds and derivatives to equate to equities. However, the costs in equities trading are well known and understood, and accepted because relative to the potential high return, they're manageable. However, levying the same costs on something that generally is expected to get a lower return means that pro-rata those costs will represent a much higher piece of the action. E.G. imagine you've got something returning 10% p.a. and something else returning 3% p.a., a 1% p.a. charge for each represents a much bigger cut into the lower return than the higher one, right? Well that's what's going to happen with low return pension funds, the exact sort of things most voters have.

Now, think of the fights that pension scheme members and Unions put up when it's suggested that members raise the amounts they contribute, and those are percentages are just on the contributions. Scale that up to increased percentage point costs/taxes on the trades of the entire fund itself, that's a disaster in waiting. And people may think, 'well that's a just a little extra on the costs, no biggy' but scale that up in a compound calculator over the lifetime of your pension fund (70 years, age 20 to 90) and it's a complete fk up. If I were the Tories I would be runnimg a calculator right now to estimate the costs to everyone's pension scheme, 'cos it's a huge tax rake and I bet folks wouldn't want to pay the same in higher income tax. This is BIG tax by stealth and Corbyn will play it as a Fat Cat Banker's tax and it's not, it would be all of us that are going to get raped by it.

Course, he won't win so actually fairly academic. But he is a knob.

You’re right he is a knob, he should be going a lot further. Nationalising the pension industry would definitely be a vote winner. At present it’s run by a bunch of crooks.

Let’s take your example of a 70 year pension. Lets say the final fund value is £100,000 and the average value over the 70 years £40,000. If that was my pension company they’d be charging on average £400 per annum, (1% of fund value), that’s £28,000.

Regarding the transaction charge. Let’s say a pension company buys a £100 million worth of 25 year bonds, the tax payable on the transaction at 1% would be £1 million, seems a lot doesn’t it. However, as they charge 1% per annum for managing the £100 million of bonds, the total charge for spending £100 million of somebody else’s money is £25 million.

I could go on.

Ah, but if they were charging 1% and enabling you to make say 8% in an equities baised fund, and save you the job of doing it yourself, would that equate to good value? Whereas if they're charging you 1% in a bond based fund to make 3%, it feels different I suspect.  And of course funds don't just buy a single tranche of FI, they buy and sell many. And with many funds now using derivatives to gear up the potential results on their 'low risk' funds, the tax will be even greater with so many such transactions. I maintain a transaction tax on low risk pension funds is going to be felt and be felt more pro rata than within equities funds.

I agree with much of what you say, but most industries rely on the laissez faire or ignorance of their customers to at least some extent. As far as investment/pension fees go, the age old advice of shopping around is a good one to follow. There are major tracker fund providers out there, such as the one who represent themselves as the Blessed Mother, who charge 1% p.a. For a tracker! Go online for 30 seconds and the same thing is available for peanuts elsewhere...Ridiculous. And that's not even being 'managed'.

Hungryhalibut posted:

 As one of the people interviewed said 'it doesn't matter what their policies are as they never put them into practice anyway', or something like that. 

I can think of numerous examples of where politicians have implemented their policies and I wish they hadn't.  But as they say that's democracy for you.

Anyways, seems to be that a Labour Govt. will tax us far more, borrow far more (again) and spend more...So that's nice.

On the plus side, did I hear correctly, 4 more bank holidays? 

JamieWednesday posted:

Anyways, seems to be that a Labour Govt. will tax us far more, borrow far more (again) and spend more...So that's nice.

That's it in a nutshell. 

Decent public services don't come for free. Increase tax and fund the NHS, or don't raise tax and let those queues grow and more people die. The money doesn't come from a magic bag unfortunately. 

JamieWednesday posted:

Anyways, seems to be that a Labour Govt. will tax us far more, borrow far more (again) and spend more...So that's nice.

Yep.  Against a backdrop of getting on double the income inequality of Germany, increase tax only on the top 5% of earners, at a rate that means the lower paid within that group will pay very little extra.  And tax corporations at very slightly lower than the European average (which is quite low by global regional standards).

Borrow, just like the current and previous govts have done, because in the longer term it helps get us out of economic trouble.  But tell us up front.

And spend more on things such as reducing a crisis in the NHS which has seen nearly all NHS areas in England move from surplus to deficit in recent years, stopping people in work having to use food banks, rolling back economically unsound austerity measures in general, and so on.

I'm not a Labour party member or a died in the wool Labour voter, but I think in discussing this stuff we can be a bit more grown up about the policy details than old fashioned cliches.

JamieWednesday posted:

Anyways, seems to be that a Labour Govt. will tax us far more, borrow far more (again) and spend more...So that's nice.

You missed out the bit about not costing up everything that has been promised and the ones that you have costed up not being agreed upon by the experts.  On the plus side its about as generous a manifesto as it could be, just missing free chocolate bars and a Naim system for everyone (earning less than £80k) to hit the jackpot.  Populist politics, surely not?

dayjay posted On the plus side its about as generous a manifesto as it could be, just missing free chocolate bars and a Naim system for everyone (earning less than £80k) to hit the jackpot.  Populist politics, surely not?

I'm now leaning towards voting Labour,  do you think they could stretch to free cappuccino's all round? If so I don't care about how they are going to raise the money..

wenger2015 posted:

dayjay posted On the plus side its about as generous a manifesto as it could be, just missing free chocolate bars and a Naim system for everyone (earning less than £80k) to hit the jackpot.  Populist politics, surely not?

I'm now leaning towards voting Labour,  do you think they could stretch to free cappuccino's all round? If so I don't care about how they are going to raise the money..

I got to know some Top Secret information from Trump that Jeremy Corbyn intends to nationalize Naim, take the design of the Nait 2 in order to mass produce it for everybody. Obviously the front fascia needs to be red, not olive.

And the Scottish people must pay for it (and also the maintenance for Hadrians wall).

Even The Grauniad can't get it to add up...And they usually help keep my feet on the ground. Or at least slightly underneath it.

Dave***t posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

Anyways, seems to be that a Labour Govt. will tax us far more, borrow far more (again) and spend more...So that's nice.

Yep.  Against a backdrop of getting on double the income inequality of Germany, increase tax only on the top 5% of earners, at a rate that means the lower paid within that group will pay very little extra.  And tax corporations at very slightly lower than the European average (which is quite low by global regional standards).

Borrow, just like the current and previous govts have done, because in the longer term it helps get us out of economic trouble.  But tell us up front.

And spend more on things such as reducing a crisis in the NHS which has seen nearly all NHS areas in England move from surplus to deficit in recent years, stopping people in work having to use food banks, rolling back economically unsound austerity measures in general, and so on.

I'm not a Labour party member or a died in the wool Labour voter, but I think in discussing this stuff we can be a bit more grown up about the policy details than old fashioned cliches.

However, in the words of another, there is only one problem with this. It is all bollox.

Ardbeg10y posted:

I got to know some Top Secret information from Trump that Jeremy Corbyn intends to nationalize Naim, take the design of the Nait 2 in order to mass produce it for everybody. Obviously the front fascia needs to be red, not olive.

And the Scottish people must pay for it (and also the maintenance for Hadrians wall).

Not the Scottish people generally ... its just a heavy tax on Scottish HiFi

Eloise posted:

Ardbeg10y posted:

I got to know some Top Secret information from Trump that Jeremy Corbyn intends to nationalize Naim, take the design of the Nait 2 in order to mass produce it for everybody. Obviously the front fascia needs to be red, not olive.

And the Scottish people must pay for it (and also the maintenance for Hadrians wall).

Not the Scottish people generally ... its just a heavy tax on Scottish HiFi

I can live with that. Maybe my 20 meters Linn K20 will have a higher price than I bought it for ultimately.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Decent public services don't come for free. Increase tax and fund the NHS, or don't raise tax and let those queues grow and more people die. The money doesn't come from a magic bag unfortunately. 

Absolutely but the issue is how big should Government be and how much do we extend the tax burden?