Yes. Well done Bill for highlighting my point.

However I am sure you cannot really see it, it looked good in bold, but just re-read what they wrote. And then let those deep thoughts wash over you as to why if UKIP stood aside the Conservative Party would not automatically gain seats....

And then, for a second question and in 100 word essay explain how the difference in voting systems and differential turnout between european and Westminster elections also means that extrapolating the UKIP vote and plonking it on the Tory side doesn't always work.

Take your time if you need to.

no need - we have all seen the anguish amongst libdem voters at the parties decision to ally with the tories - the defections to labour - the utter rage that their party should be involved with one they could never contemplate voting for

the idea that the libdems would rush headloing (should the libdems dissappear) into the arms of a party like UKIP that is even more right wing than the conservatives is so laughable Im amazed you attempt to even suggest it

Because you twat the LD's switch their votes and do indeed rush head long into the arms of UKIP.

FFS!

dissafected libdems will switch their votes to labour - did so in fact at the recent council elections

dissafected tories vote UKIP

its uk politics lesson one

I think what's happening here is you are smashing your face into a brick wall. It's painful, it looks painful from the outside, and the wall doesn't notice. Ask me how I know.

Not all of them. Many didn't vote, some voted PC, many in Scotland voted SNP - in UK politics lesson one there is a simple way to check this. You look at the turnout.

dissafected tories do not all vote UKIP either. They may also stay at home. lesson number 2.

Lesson number 3:

In European elections - UKIP's vote is made up of a number of switchers. These include LD's. So, ergo, when it comes to a GE it is rather stupid to blindly assert as you are doing that if UKIP stood aside the Tories would automatically win seats. No they wouldn't. How this very simple UK political fact (which is backed up by the article you posted as well) passes you by is beyond my comprehension. But there we go.

might have helped if you looked at what i said originally - i said 'the majority' would vote conservative - not all of them - there are of course going to be a number of strange liberal lib dem typos who decide to switch to an illiberal anti immigration anti EU hang em and flog party like ukip - now come on they arnt natural allies are they

its going to be a very few percent tho compared to how many ukip types are natural tories - dissafected tories in fact

in the same fashion one could easily predict where most libdems votes will go at the next election if they dont vote lidbdem

abstension or labour

The morons? really how much of the UK pension fund industry was invested in Nasdaq through 2000/2001? very very small %'s. However removal if the 15% tax credit relief on dividend was catastophic for many (particularly low risk) well managed funds as the actuary balance between income requirements for growth/capital gains for growth was destroyed. The damage done was reflected in the fact that managers then had to panic rebalance; selling long term core holdings and buying shorter term growth stocks. At least if you are going to call people morons learn something about the subject matter 1st .

Torq, I think he is referring to the Dividend Tax credit that pension fund dividend receipts used to be able to gross up dividend net of tax. Brown removed this on his 1st budget, raising something like 2bln a year for the tax man and destroying decades of investing.

all those that evade and at times use spurious methods to avoid tax be it rich detritus or poor wastrels are eqully as culpable in my book.

Fixed for accuracy.

If government raise taxes too high its perfectly acceptable and understandable to try and avoid paying said taxes imvho

like in the 2 examples i gave
TORY - bailing out the banks, cost per person about £750
LABOUR - flogging off the gold and announcing it beforehand - £2000

spot on torq as usual

jerpy, there were other very damaging effects that hurt (mostly private) pensions around that time too, Actuarial firms like woodsow wyatt advisign firms to take a few years contribution holiday as the funds were performing so well, people being given more choice over their investments and putting them into aforementioned .com stocks, people living longer & retiring earlier, dramatically falling annuity rates..

but removing the tax credit was extremely damaging, read up on compound reinvestment over time. Brown damaged pension growth for those further away from retirement. he gypped the low paid workers as much as the well paid ones, and got away with it. disgraceful imho.

there are several on here who wank over pics of gordon Brown to this day

True - but if we had say a flat rate 25% tax across the board - the vast majority of people would pay up

If they raise rates to 60/70/80% for some people then they will of course be hacked off and do their damndest to get out of paying

Its why as they put up tax rates very often tax revenue falls

Well there's the explanation for why the finance system went tits up if you're an example of the standard of employees.

You can't take the highest point of a commodity price and extrapolate that for a calculation of how much is lost by selling at another point, it's logical nonsense.

Jerpy's gone a bit quiet.

pinko commie, you mis the point in my earlier posts, and understand fuck all apart from slagging us righties off.
i have said already it was hindsight that gold would reach todays' heights, that isn't the point of my wrath. Announcing it beforehand, like a bellend he was, depressed gold by 50usd an ounce or so, so there is a attributable loss from this action. Also, what he bought into, was for political reasons, and there is a loss attributable to what he would have 'gained' for uk plc if he'd have reduced our own debt. this is where the £2000 per household comes from.

actual losses based on todays gold price, are on top of that, and as you say, invalid really for inclusion as its a mark to market (look the term meaning up) based on present values. Same as how you can't really include 'losses' that Uk plc currently have in Lloyds shares, because if the price rises to £1 a share or whatever, they will have made a profit.

Clearly though, Browns flogging the gold off cost is way more than £2000 per person.... but thats a what if scenario, which is why i didn't mention it. Believe me, i don't have to invent stuff to prove how bad Labour are with Public cash, that i need to include a figure based upon todays values !

Well fuck you, where are the figures for your extrapolation

Shuffles off quietly to check Feldman's sums

i honestly can't recall where they came from, but there were numerous articles over the years on this. Even the least scathing showed that it was a questionable decision, badly executed.

off the top of my head, it was 300 tons of gold (50-60% of reserves) flogged off over a period of 6 months or so.

gold was around $300 and ounce, went to $250 thanks to Gordon. went to over $400 fairly soon after the autions ended (this is a further bit of where the 2k per person came from, the attributable cost based on gordons actions, ie the assumption that gold would have got to $400 anyway).

I have no recollection of what the relative debt % rates were paying at the time (Eur debt v uk debt) nor what the Uk debt levels were then (Labour were in power so assume they were increasing !)

overall though, its probably as accurate as any warcry of "they cost us £x per person with this silly policy i disagree with".
and its only the announcing it beforehand that i utterly dispise him for.

So a lot of assumptions and extrapolations, more accurate than anything Jerpy has posted though, to be fair.

mate, ANYTHING about economics has assumptions and extrapolations !
i was quite pleased with those posts from memory, hoping you will take back the jibe about quality of financial sevice staff with me as an example.

Fuck no, you've just reinforced as I now know you lot just guess everything.

I thought we'd reached the nadir when Bimbo took his socks off to work out a bill.

thought it was more euro denom debt he bought ?

anyways, would have been better clearing our own debts, which is almost never a bad thing to do in any shape of form.

thought it was teachers who guess everything if its not written in their teacher guide books ?
and if they are found to be wrong, take a day off for stress ?

No extrapolation and accurate to state 15% was removed over night from dividend Yields for planned pension funds. Gross up 1/2 % compounded on growth over 15 years it is a fucking enourmous figure. Especially when that growth was relied upon to pay new retirees from.

Gordon Brown is an idiot

thought it was 10 % ?

its a while ago now, and done stealthily.... so i forget.

10% on UK owned stock, 15% on Foreign (where there was a tax treaty).