That really is bullshit. Do you even remember the speech where Scargill called upon the TUC to bring down the elected government as he was failing to do so?
When the first dispute took place there were major power problems and the miners won (they may even have deserved it, it was hard work). As a result the government did what anyone would have done and made a stockpile of *coal* so that they couldn't cause the same disruption again.
Scargill responded with bullyboy tactics in the second strike (for yet more pay) as he was getting nowhere due to the government plans (that should have been there in the first dispute). This is when miners went around picketing power stations and anywhere else they could cause disruption. It was also here that he changed the dispute from a pay dispute into a political dispute to bring an end to the elected government. He thought he would get more support from this but as history shows he was mistaken.
It was after this second battle that the policy on power generation was changed and more gas and oil plant was built. The government couldn't trust the miners anymore while Scargill was there and he wasn't going anywhere. Its a shame he wasn't man enough to go for the good of the miners but thats power hungry men for you.
I would have done the same as the government except I think I would have built more AGRs rather than oil. I suppose the timescales in building AGRs was a bit long while Scargill was a threat so the quicker option of oil/gas looked attractive. There you are, Scargill ruined our energy policy as well as destroying mining.
But what you outline is the Thatcher government's line. And that was a total lie. By all means correct the Scargill line - but do correct it with something like the truth. Start with the government secretly deciding to cut x-pits and Scargill nearly getting laughed out of his job for later claiming the government planned to cut x/2 pits.
Thatcher couldn't bear to suffer the same humiliation as Heath after the three day week - and ensured that it didn't happen by an undeclared pre-emptive war against the miners and the mining communities calling on undisclosed finance, secret service support, &c.
With better leadership, and an earlier realisation of just how illegal & immoral the government were prepared to go, the miners might not have lost. Whether the country would have been in a better position or not (Thatcher was prepared to escalate further but some of the press were beginning to find the slush money) I don't know. I do know that the country's massive loss was almost entirely down to deliberate decisions made by one woman for the sake of her ego.
This may be a north/south thing but the violence (reported by a not unbiased press of course) left a lot of people not caring whether the miners were hung out to dry or not. And this being so Mrs T had every reason to keep it going and Arthur Scargill played straight into her hands. But why should he have worried - doesn't he still get a hefty salary from the almost memberless NUM?
Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses, illegally hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid striking miners with commnets about those bonuses?
I like the story re-told on Friday about the miners on a picket line who built a big, fat snowman only to have it deliberately flattened by police driving a Rangerover.
Mean, nasty, spiteful, petty.
Not to be downhearted the pickets re-built their snowman even bigger than before.
Only to have those nasty police flatten it again...
All saving schemes are taxed in one way or another.
It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and excessive administration charges, etc.
AIUI, there have also been Labour government specified changes to the assets held by pension funds. The result is that less of the fund is equity invested. This has produced a real problem in the last two years, in that the stock market has shown returns of, say 20%, against bond returns of less than 5%. This has further reduced the viability of company pension schemes. The idea of zero risk from bonds sounds fine, but in the real actuarial world, the stock market has always long term returned >10% I believe. As sound companies have to meet these new shortfalls in their pension scheme from profits, they are obviously going to close these schemes as fast as possible. I was informed that the pension scheme contribution holidays in the 90's arose partly because the IR rules do not allow a pension fund to have an actuarial surplus. Hence the company benefited from a contributions holiday and the IR gained an increase in tax revenue. Perhaps someone can clarify this?
But when I signed up for my irrevocable 35 year helter skelter ride, pensions weren't, and they weren't when I put in several lots of 10k lump sums, which were sequestered out of my access or control for the next 18 years.
I dare say if you can arrange to have your salary paid in the Cayman Islands or some similar wheeze, you can minimise it. Harodl Wislon had a bit to say about this. Nothing much has been done about it though.
However a small company pension scheme like mine is a 35-40 year contract. Mine was set up on a tax free basis, tax was to be paid when you realised the investment, which IMO is the correct way to do it. If the funds go down in subsequent years do you imagine GB will re-imburse the pension funds? Eventual pensioners will pay income tax on their pensions at the going rate, but under GB the pension funds themselves will already have been taxed on the fruits of their investments, before the pensioners get their pensions and pay PAYE on them. This means that pensions will attract tax treatment which is less favourable than earnings paid under PAYE.
Wherein lies the incentive for workers to make legitimate provision for their retirement?? Or are we all supposed to be content with going on the parish?
Effectively that is the case already, if a married couple don't retire with a pension fund exceeding £180k they might just as well have paid the tax on it and pissed it away on 1 decent cruise per year and 3 short breaks in Benidorm, for 40 years. They would be no worse off.
This is , of course how Labour get their votes, from Mr/Mrs Braindead-Scum
The fact is in my particular circs. GB moved the goalposts at the year
28 mark. There are substantial penalties for transferring out or even switching funds within the same provider. I have no alternatives to exercise.
GB could at least have the good grace to admit he imposed the tax when equities (and equity based pension funds) were at the peak of a bubble, annd now he can't manage without the revenue, so stories about dishonoured pledges, 35-40 year contracts don't cut it, he *has* to have the money.
Within a year or so the bubble had burst and it has gone downhill from then on with 7-11, and then Enron USW, USW, USW. And the simple fact is he cannot now do without the revenue because he has a socking great big hole in his tax revenues which arisies from the fact that the statistics about employment and the economy have been completelyl bezzled .
Oh, we know about those, 2.5% / Year over forty years costs a pensioner what??
If growth is 28%/annum (& it was at one time) it's not so significant. But if growth is -8% , and the provider still takes his charges nevertheless, and then GB raids the fund, we end up in the same position my fund is in now. Essentially no growth in cash terms since
1988, but something like 1,000% inflation :-(
It's just at the outset we were told "The scheme is strictly controlled by the inland revenue". Can't do this, can't do that, can't do t'other" "After all we are responsible people".
The "Financial advisor" who told me that has gone bankrupt.
We have the state pension, amounting to more than £150p/w - it doesn't sound much but we don't spend it all.
When you don't have a mortgage and children and grow some of your own vegetables, have a couple of hens for eggs, make your own food mostly (we've done that for ever) and otherwise buy excellent food direct from the supplier and make and install everything else (this IS a d-i-y group) you don't actually need all that much to live on. I mean live - not exist.
We do have a large car and a scooter, we have a bottle of decent wine every evening to accompany our superb meal, we want for nothing. We certainly don't want to visit Benidorm.
We've never voted New Labour - but we think for ourselves and are not influenced by television, newspapers or even newsgroups!
I agree. Pension schemes, endowments and other types of investment have all suffered from poor management.
Historically, people made most of their retirement provision through company pension schemes on a "contribute and assume it will all be OK at the end" basis. The rest was perhaps through investment in the home and trading down.
However, retirement provision is mainly a long term investment, so it is not reasonable for the government to explicitly target that particular vehicle. Short term investments might be more reasonable in that at least alternatives can be found.
We find that our home (a 4 bed detached house with parking for 9 cars) is worth little more than a "2 bed 2 bath Turkey Twizzler" apartment with a view over, or even near the canal.
So trading down is not immediately attractive. :-((
Please expand.
I hope you are not saying that the people who made contributions for
20 ++ years on the basis that their fund was being operated in a tax free environment, (On the understanding that when they realised their pensions they would then pay tax at the same rate as everybody else) should simply aquiesce wehen their pension funds are raided by the chancelleor, even in the most adverse circumstances. Think biggest losses imaginable.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
What a convenient memory you have.
The thuggery of the flying pickets was a disgrace to trade unionism as was Scargills decision to call his members out without a ballot. And what about the Welsh miner who got off with manslaughter because the man he murdered was a taxi driver rather than the scab he was aiming at.
I certainly don't remember ever supporting Scargill or the tactics used by some miners - but then I wasn't employing them. What my government was doing, with my money, against my wishes, was both illegal and highly damaging to my country. I don't need to support Scargill in order to damn Thatcher to hell.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
It was implicit in your comment above that the bulk if not the totality of the violence was from the police. Whatever the wrongs on the police side they were very small beer compared with those of the striking miners.
I think you will need to accept eventually that it was not *your* government acting illegally with *your* money but our (for better or for worse) lawfully elected government using our taxes to pursue its mistaken (but lawful) policies.
And as for damning Thatcher to hell. You'll be lucky. She, like the rest of us, is heading only for death.
I'll accept "our". I normally try to avoid "my" with reference to the Thatcher government - but accept joint guilt. And whilst the policies may have been legal the actions certainly were not - even though some of the illegal actions were 'made legal' after the event. The illegal actions of the Thatcher government are fabulous sources for anyone interested in a PhD and are scattered across numerous government departments - including the one in which I worked at the time.
If she isn't heading for perpetual hell-fire then maybe someone would find a rack for her before it's too late.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
You can huff and puff all you like but it won't alter the facts. Scagills army of flying pickets were nothing more than a gang of thugs trying to impose by brute force what they could not by reasoned argument. His actions led directly to the splitting of the NUM and undoubtedly brought forward the pit closure program.
What is required for justice is for Scagill and Thatcher to be locked in the same small room for the rest of their natural lives. They both deserve each other a good deal more than the rest of us deserve either of them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.