Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.

A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.

The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.

Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.

But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Mr Neather said he helped to write the 2000 report which outlined a strategy to ‘open up the UK to mass migration’.

It had already emerged that the Cabinet Office report was censored to remove details of possible links between immigration and organised crime, street fights and begging.

One of the sections missing from the final report said: ‘There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.’

A second section warned: ‘Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.’

Hays Maggie opened the gates for immigrants, she wanted Bankers to create the Worlds biggest Banking Sector in the World and she got it.

What she forgot to do was to close the gates behind them when they were all here.......THE BIG BANG or had you conveniently forgotten.

What have the borrowings been used for?

From: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/514045/Ukip-scrap-inheritance-tax

EXCLUSIVE: No more inheritance tax pledge Ukip

NIGEL Farage’s UK Independence Party is to call for the complete abolition of inheritance tax, the Daily Express has learned.

By: Macer HallPublished: Tue, September 23, 2014

Nigel Farage Nigel Farage throws down gauntlet to rival parties with election promise [GETTY]

The anti-Brussels party is to include a pledge to scrap the 40% death duty on estates in its manifesto for next year’s general election.

Ukip insiders say the annual tax grab from bereaved families, worth around £3.5billion to the Treasury this year, is fundamentally unjust and needs to be got rid of as a matter of principle.

A commitment to sweeping away the hated levy will be a flagship measure in a radical tax-cutting programme that Mr Farage’s “People’s Army” will put to voters in their battle to make a major breakthrough at Westminster.

The bold new policy is to be unveiled at Ukip’s annual conference in Doncaster on Friday.

It follows the Daily Express’s popular crusade against inheritance tax that has won the backing of hundreds of thousands of readers.

Patrick O’Flynn, a Ukip MEP and party spokesman on economics, will tell the conference: “Doctrinaire socialists look at the death tax from the wrong end of the telescope.

“Instead of being envious of those who have inherited, our primary response should be to be respectful of those who earned the money, paid tax on it, invested it wisely and wish to pass it on to their chosen heirs.

“Of course, those heirs are fortunate but envy at their good fortune should never be used as a justification for depriving property owners of the right to pass on the wealth they have created.

Under current Treasury thresholds, inheritance tax is levied on estates valued at £325,000 for an individual and £650,000 for a married couple.

Alarm has been growing about the number of middle-income families being dragged into the death tax net as a result of rising property prices.

The number of estates paying the levy is set to quadruple from just 2.6 per cent of those dying in 2009-10 to 10 per cent by the end of the decade, according to the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Figures released last month by the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast annual Treasury receipts from inheritance tax (IHT) are set to rise from £3.5billion in 2013-14 to £5.8billion in 2018-19.

Another recent study showed that Britain and Ireland have the highest levels of inheritance tax in the world.

Ukip officials insist that major cuts could be made to public spending that would leave the Treasury new funds to significantly reduce the tax burden including scrapping death duty.

They party believes £10billion could be saved by ending Britain’s annual net contribution to the EU. It also wants to drastically cut Britain’s spending on foreign aid from the current £11billion a year to around £2billion.

Ukip is also calling for the abolition of the so-called “Barnett Formula” for allocating resources to the four nations of the UK following last week’s referendum vote in Scotland against independence.

The present system of grants from Whitehall means that around £1,600 extra per head of population is spent each year in Scotland compared to England.

Max see Freds post 46517 and the debate that followed.

Here we are from WIKI Thatcher opening the gate for immigrants. , Thatcher said one thing and then allowed another thing to happen...............sounds a bit like camoron.

Thatcher’s legacy on immigration can also be read into her reform of the UK economy. There was arguably a paradox between her Government’s anti-immigration rhetoric and their wider policy programme of full-blown capitalism and labour deregulation, which took the British economy to a new phase of globalisation. The full development of Mrs Thatcher’s vision of the UK as a service economy, offering high rent incomes to the elite and large numbers of low paid jobs to the masses, had the effect of mobilising new types of economic migration. It also brought to the forefront all the issues of labour exploitation among many low-paid workers including many migrants - this can be at least partly explained as the consequence of Thatcherite neo-liberal policies.

EL. Do you have a link for that story?


gf. Will do.

Gf, you really are struggling when you keep blaming the Thatcher era for everything. How long is it since she was PM? I know time flies when you start getting older.

Thats strange doodles you were agreeing in post 46265 with mine and Freds stance. Your all over the place.

Not much consistency shown.

MaxK

Here's the 'UKIP IHT pledge' link:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/514045/Ukip-scrap-inheritance-tax

Gf , post 46265 is your post not mine. Since you conveniently seem to have missed the point, I was pointing out that Ed seems to think that chucking another £2billion at the NHS is magically going to solve all the problems. Why didn't he mention immigration? Doesn't he appreciate what a major problem it has become since his party opened the flood gates? It is truly amazing the numbers of people pouring into this country who can enjoy the benefits of our NHS without contributing a penny.

Tories have let more in this year than labour ever did, how do you account for that then????????????????????.

The truth is we are powerless under EU rules. Doesnt matter what party is in power and by the way it was Edward Heath who took us into the EEC.

DB,
Probably for the same reasons as those economic gurus or gnomes Cameron and Osborne haven’t mentioned the economic figure mention to-day regarding the success of their policies.
Why have the pair welcome criminal oligarchs who fled from their countries after stealing their wealth?

Leading to the increase and distortion of the London housing market, which is trickling into the rest of the country?
Is it because they get backhanders of “dirty money” into the Con party coffers?

Why hasn't Captain Marvel (Wavey Dave) and Osborne kept to the rhetoric over reducing immigration.
What was Enoch Powell chuntering on about in 1968, before he was chucked out by Heath.
When post war were the influxes of immigrants at its height.
However, have a look at the beneficial effect of immigrants to the overall economy and their functions in social and medical services etc..
Also, check the costs of the “privatisation” of the NHS, which has already occurred due to the actions of this government.

Check the profits, which are going into the hand of the Companies which have the contracts for “out sourcing” of “activities” which used to in house.
I agree with GF and have some insight to the problems associated with immigration and also the problems that those working in the area have bureaucracy surrounding.

But, to me, the present government is led by liars, or those who would be too incompetent to earn a living as PR agents.

It was hardly a problem if Maggie let in bankers.

She couldnt though refuse other groups.

Says it all hope exec sees this after praising IDS earlier today........

All speeches should be BANNED , there's no facts in them just BULLSHIT.

Cheers EL re: # 46281

By Telegraph View

6:20AM BST 24 Sep 2014

CommentsComments





In his speech to the Labour Party conference yesterday, Ed Miliband painted a disturbing portrait of a devastated Britain. It is not just the Union that isn’t working, he said, but our economy and our society too. Everywhere he goes, he meets voters who are worried about their children’s future, who see wealth and success being captured by the few at the expense of the many. So severe is the damage that it will take nothing less than a decade of Milibandism – a full two terms in power – before it can be made whole.


Britain is not, of course, the wilderness of Mr Miliband’s imagination. But if it were, whose fault would it be? The collapse of trust in politics, the shortage of housing provision for the young, the constriction of social mobility – all of these evils and more flourished on Labour’s watch during the 13 long years between 1997 and 2010. The greatest evil of all was, of course, the degradation of the economy and the public finances. Yet this was a subject that was virtually absent from Mr Miliband’s speech. It was claimed afterwards that he had planned to include a passage on the issue, and on immigration too – but, while reciting his speech from memory, simply forgot to include them. That such vital topics could slip his mind offers the clearest possible indication of how little his party has to say on either issue.


As for the sections that actually made it into the speech, there was not much that would have appealed to the floating voter. True, there were crowd-pleasing attacks on the bankers, and the tobacco firms, and those with the temerity to receive large incomes or own large houses (or relatively modest ones which happen to be in central London). This newspaper has rehearsed the cases against reintroducing the 50p rate, or bringing in a mansion tax, many times before; but in spite of their impracticality, the promise to soak the rich and give the proceeds to nurses and midwives was bound to be a crowd-pleaser. Indeed, it was one of the few moments in the hour-long speech when Mr Miliband and his audience both came alive.


Yet even as he laid out his vision of a socialist Utopia, the Labour leader seemed unwilling to spell out the details of how his revolution will proceed – let alone be paid for. Labour will build as many homes as the country needs – wonderful, but how? Labour will impose “equal rights for the self-employed” – what does that actually mean? Perhaps the biggest hostage to fortune was the pledge, repeated from last year, to decarbonise the electricity supply completely by 2030. Does that mean rapidly building new nuclear power stations and wind turbines? If so, it will cost billions – so where will they come from? And if the answer is private investment, rather than tax rises, how on earth can that be squared with Mr Miliband’s promise to freeze energy bills by government fiat?


In the end, the audience in the Manchester conference hall stood and applauded – partly because they had no choice, and partly because Mr Miliband had, as ever, told them only what they wanted to hear. As an appeal to the core vote, this speech may have served its purpose. But as a prospectus for government, it fell desperately short.

There's been some poor Leaders in the past but my God he's unelectable surely.