-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Will UKIP Do Well in the General Election?
- Thread starter Hetairoi
- Start date
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
Yup.
Say in the last General Election, a constituency was 55% Cons, 45% Lab .... with the expectation before yesterday it would go to 45% Lab, 40% Cons, 15% UKIP in May (so a Labour GAIN). After yesterday, it could go 40% Cons, 35% Lab, 25% UKIP (so NO CHANGE). (With apologies to any LibDem supporters.)
Interesting times.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
There can surely be none left!
Last edited:
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
That's not a statement that you'll hear very often for a good while yet, I fear.
Laurie61
Well-Known Forumite
iamlegend
Well-Known Forumite
Hahaha couldn't agree with you more
That is absolute rubbish, the only similarity is that they are both anti-EU!
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Regarding the figures in that last post, has anyone calculated what % would go on pensions if the Government hadn't robbed the pension pots therefore removing all investment profits?
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Laurie61
Well-Known Forumite
It was only private pensions so he obviously thought it would not upset his voters? -
GORDON Brown was warned he would rob pension funds of nearly £12bn when he decided to bring in a tax on private pensions in 1997.
The Chancellor's raid on funds is widely blamed for creating the crisis which has left huge shortfalls in pension pots and forced hundreds of firms to wind up their final salary schemes.
Tony Blair is now considering raising retirement age to 67 or 68 to plug the gap left by Mr Brown's decision - which abolished tax relief on income from share dividends, a key source of cash for pension funds.
But Treasury documents, released following a Freedom of Information request by the Daily Mail, show Mr Brown was well aware of the devastating financial consequences this would have on those saving for their retirement.
Documents in the Treasury archive show the tax, introduced in the Chancellor's first Budget, could cut the income of private pension schemes by up to 10%.
It calculated that Mr Brown would be able to increase his own coffers, at the expense of savers, by at least £6.2bn in the first 20 months and £11.6bn over the first two and a half years.
Treasury officials were banking on a rise in the stock market to plug the gap left. Instead, share prices plummeted in 2001 and 2002 - leaving millions of workers facing the prospect of working longer to earn a decent retirement fund.
Experts believe the Treasury decision to target private pensions helped create the £75bn black hole in the private pensions schemes of Britain's top 100 companies.
Experts say that if the missing cash had been invested and earned income in the normal way, private pensions would be up to £100bn better off than they are today.
The Treasury refused to release the full background documents, memos and assessments behind the decision to tax pension funds on the grounds that 'there are obvious sensitivities about the release of this particular information'.
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-cost-of-pension-fund-raid.html#ixzz3G1kG6TFo
Not quite sure how this thread got onto pensions (must be Mr Marwood's fault) but I gave up on pensions years ago when I realised that the lump sum I had invested was worth less fifteen years later than it was when I invested it!
If I get to retirement age (if there is a retirement age when I retire) then I will have to rely on the state to provide what they promised to provide when I started to pay my taxes and NI 40 years ago!
If I get to retirement age (if there is a retirement age when I retire) then I will have to rely on the state to provide what they promised to provide when I started to pay my taxes and NI 40 years ago!
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Somehow i have not quite got round to it...
Funnily enough that's exactly what NG said after saying what he said up there ^
after saying what he said up there ^ Nick Griffin said:
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
You do realise there is a difference between what a political party 'stands for' and the support that that party receives?
No political party has any control over the people that lend it their support, do they not?
So is it really "absolute rubbish" to equate the surge in support for Ukip as part fuelled by a decline in support for the BNP?
Is it really "absolute rubbish" to suggest that Ukip present an "acceptable face" to voters unsure of voting for an overtly, as the soi dissant liberal elite would have it, 'racist' party?
Is it really "absolute rubbish" to suspect that the the support bleeding out of the BNP is in a direct line - a shot in the arm, if you will - infusing Ukip?
If you truly believe that any of this is "absolute rubbish"... then i would have to question your understanding of the word 'absolute'.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Might be worth watching this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04lxvrd/panorama-the-farage-factor .
I find it interesting that few people can name anybody in UKIP other than Nigel himself - possibly Godfrey Bloom, if he's still there....
I find it interesting that few people can name anybody in UKIP other than Nigel himself - possibly Godfrey Bloom, if he's still there....