This is the "golden age" theory - there was some era many years ago when things were much better. Not really true - we have recently seen weak governments (Cameron, Major) and strong ones (Blair, Thatcher) but none as strong as Churchill or Lloyd George. The PMs had greatest control in 1940-45 and 1916-18. A Prime Minister can sack any one cabinet minister, or any two. But if the PM tried to sack too many ministers at once, they would sack him. Likewise the party leader can usually whip most of the MPs of his party, but a majority of the MPs can oust the leader if they decide to. It is very common for a few MPs to vote against their party whip ("rebel"), and sometimes a large number do and Lords even more so. If the whips tell the PM there are so many rebels a vote is going to be lost, the PM is forced to make concessions on the bill or whatever the issue is. And that's parliamentary democracy, alive and kicking. An MP who no longer wants to support the party can always leave, and in every parliament there are several MPs and MEPs who change parties or split their party. This is not theoretical, it actually happens. Famous 20th century party-swappers include David Owen, Oswald Moseley, and Winston Churchill himself.
Who said we bitch about it? I don't I accept it. bradders- the buying scheme that had 50% of salary up to 25k was only open to the lower ranks(pte-cpl) with a max. number of years served, 6 I think. The scheme ended a few years ago. There is currently only one real scheme open to the army for property purchase which is 8.5k over 10 years. And don't even get me started on the pension, all is not as it seems.
Perhaps you have in mind the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 05 (replacing the old AFPS 75). A pension not payable until age 65, and a 3x lump sum on retirement plus a resettlement grant of about £11K. Is that about the size of it?
why is 'the taxpayer' always referred to in the abstract? 'the taxpayer' is also the person benefitting from these schemes, and scamming these schemes. 'the taxpayer' is pretty much anyone and everyone over the age of 18.
People used to talk about "public funds" or "the public purse". Use of the word "taxpayer" is Daily Mail code for wanting to reduce some type of public expenditure.
No. AFPS 15 and how the MoD have reinterpreted the terms 'relevant' and 'reckonable' service so that those that answered the call and rejoined now have a pension that is nothing like what they expected it to be just so they can save some cash. This applies to those that were led to believe if they amalgamated their '75 & '05 pension together this would enable them to get EDP payments on leaving the service. Initially this was the case, but for tranche 2 redundany the above terms were looked at differently so less severance pay could be paid to those that had rejoined. For those who are still in, such as me, the pension that we though was there, isn't. I've lost out on approx. 100k of payments over the life of my pension presuming I live to atleast 75. To put this into perspective, on leaving after 24yrs service I will get the pension equivalent to 14yrs service.
In which case my facts are off (pension and settlement). Being navy in my family, and a navy town so loads of guys I know either are, or more likely these days ex, and certainly their pension etc is far in excess of what you describe here. So opinion partly changed. But not entirely ;-)
The AFPS75 and '05 schemes are good, and if you do your time and reach achieve a high rank do pay well. The reasoning behind this is that you have to end your career after 22 yrs service, unless lucky(or not as some might say) to get a late entry commission and work in your chosen vocation until 55 yrs of age. so in effect your chosen career ends. There is no option really to continue working in that field, where as teachers et al can work in their chosen vocation until 65. for me personally, instead of walking away with a 55k payout and 10-12k per annum index linked I now get a 10k payout and 2k per annum, index linked when I reach 65, when I'll get 10k per annum. from my standpoint all I'm working for now is an increase in wages, through promotion as the pension at the end is fuck all. I know I'll have to get a second career if I leave at 44. If I find a decent job now I'm off, no loyalty to them as i'd rather start a new career at 35 then at 44.
Arghh yes your right ! Most people I ask they say I'm now a " consultant " consultancy. When I ask what in I usually get some vague reply of " this and that " whatever this and that is they charge a bomb for it !!!!
Are cheap loans really the answer? Or does realignment of housing stock prices need to happen? Does it really cost 200% more to build a house in London than in other areas of the country, or are developers taking the piss out of people who have a desperate need to live in the conurbation? So it could be market forces, but where is the capital from to fund the prices paid for houses?
The housing market is totally screwed up. Demand exceeds supply and supply is being controlled to keep prices high. Cheap loans are NOT the answer.
If house prices halved, it would put half the population into negative equity. And the government would lose the next election.
The help to buy scheme is completely irresponsible, us the tax payer are going to underwrite thousands of home loans effectively becoming an insurance company providing a free mortgage indemnity guarantee. This is a huge gamble based on property prices at worst remaining static and at best rising, if the price drops more than 5% and the borrower defaults, we pick up the bill. As others have mentioned, the property market is not short of buyers it's short of stock for sale, this scheme will temporarily cause a shortage of decent first time buyer properties, increasing prices.
