# TM can find money



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

when was she wants to. There will be £1bn extra for Northern Ireland over the next two years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40403434


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I think Mays days are numbered when the Sun is reporting it like this -

*
Pluck of the Irish - PM's deal with the DUP to stay in power could end up costing British taxpayers £24.3bn;*

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3889508/theresa-may-dup-deal-confidence-and-supply-24-3billion/


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

At least we know what NI stands for on our payslips now.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Theresa May lied to us saying there is no magic money tree, there obviously is one in the gardens of 10 Downing Street.

What about the NHS, Police, Army, Fire Brigade etc, don't they deserve there share of money from the magic money tree growing in the gardens of 10 Downing Street?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stockwellcat said:


> Theresa May lied to us saying there is no magic money tree, there obviously is one in the gardens of 10 Downing Street.
> 
> What about the NHS, Police, Army, Fire Brigade etc, don't they deserve there share of money from the magic money tree growing in the gardens of 10 Downing Street?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I might as well pop this on all relevant threads -


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

I've just read how the queen is to receive a £6m pay rise.  What a joke! She's 92 what does she want with a pay rise?

The rich are blessed with tax cut after tax cut and may steals a billion pounds from the purses annd pockets of the people just to keep herself in power.

Meanwhile the people are are going hungry and homeless, the NHS is broken public and social services are collapsing and the poor, the sick, and the disabled are constantly being targetted with cuts in the name of austerity.

Britain is being run by a pack of bleedin' criminals.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There's little doubt as this period in our history is looked at in the future, as a supposedly civilised and humane first world country we are not going to look good.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Zaros said:


> I've just read how the queen is to receive a £6m pay rise.  What a joke! She's 92 what does she want with a pay rise?
> 
> The rich are blessed with tax cut after tax cut and may steals a billion pounds from the purses annd pockets of the people just to keep herself in power.
> 
> ...


The Queen isn't paid by the tax payer. You sure that £6 isn't to pay for the renovations to the palace?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I might as well pop this on all relevant threads -
> 
> View attachment 316129


I'm a bit confused on this one? The cost was estimated at about 50bn wasn't it, or a lot more if you listened to the Conservatives. Or is the graph just saying what TM could have done instead? If Nationalising worked as intended, it wouldn't cost anything, it would eventually turn a profit. I'm not 100% sure what it's saying.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> The Queen isn't paid by the tax payer. You sure that £6 isn't to pay for the renovations to the palace?


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40412343


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> The Queen isn't paid by the tax payer. You sure that £6 isn't to pay for the renovations to the palace?


That's questionable. The Crown estates aren't owned by the monarch and haven't been since some time in the 1700s. Any income (profit) from them goes to the treasury and the royal family get a percentage back. As it goes to the treasury it is strictly public money.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Zaros said:


> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40412343


Yes, it's coming from the Sovereign Grant


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

havoc said:


> That's questionable. The Crown estates aren't owned by the monarch and haven't been since some time in the 1700s. Any income (profit) from them goes to the treasury and the royal family get a percentage back. As it goes to the treasury it is strictly public money.


Which means it's not tax money.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Which means it's not tax money.


It is public money though so the headlines are accurate. It isn't money which belongs to the monarch. There are estates which do belong to members of the royal family and are administered differently. The Duchy of Cornwall does OK.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

havoc said:


> It is public money though so the headlines are accurate. It isn't money which belongs to the monarch. There are estates which do belong to members of the royal family and are administered differently. The Duchy of Cornwall does OK.


The Crown Estate is owned by the Monarch, but they have given the income to the treasury since 1700s. The Treasury then pay her from that, which she will also pay tax on. The renovations to the palace are being paid for by this

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

If we didn't have a Queen , maybe a president would live at Buckingham palace. It still would cost megabucks to run and repair.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I've just read how the queen is to receive a £6m pay rise.  What a joke! She's 92 what does she want with a pay rise?
> 
> The rich are blessed with tax cut after tax cut and may steals a billion pounds from the purses annd pockets of the people just to keep herself in power.
> 
> ...


One doesn't *DO* austerity. lol

Its austerity for the many not the few. .

These carpetbaggers are quite literally plundering this country - & when we leave the EU austerity is going to look like a walk in the park

I've been laughing at people pointing out how all those vacuous soundbites have come back to bite them on the ass. For example -
_
Magic money tree. Coalition of chaos. Strong & stable... Has there ever been a govt whose propaganda has so repeatedly exploded in its face?

_


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

It's been reported Jeremy Corbyn is going to press TM on the continued 1% pay freeze for public sector workers including the NHS.

I wonder how she'll explain that now!


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> It's been reported Jeremy Corbyn is going to press TM on the continued 1% pay freeze for public sector workers including the NHS.
> 
> I wonder how she'll explain that now!


PMQ's at midday on BBC Parliament Channel or Sky News should be interesting today.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> One doesn't *DO* austerity. lol
> 
> Its austerity for the many not the few. .
> 
> ...


These vile thieving Tory sh1ts and their accomplices should be dragged out onto the street, flogged exhaustively and then have their grubby little fingers cut off before they plunge the entire country and its people into third world status.:Rage

Incidentally Noush' my hairdresser asked a rather amusing question yesterday. We were loosely discussing the present chaotic state of Britain and its apparent lack of a bright and prosperous future when all of a sudden she asked; 'Will the Conservatives be allowed to wear blue balaclavas when they appear in front of TV cameras in future?'

It's a thought, isn't it.

However, I did tell her no because as they have absolutely no shame, they've really no need to hide their faces.

And to add to the amusement, just as she was tidying up my neckline the following track came over the radio......How we both laughed...:Hilarious


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

KittenKong said:


> It's been reported Jeremy Corbyn is going to press TM on the continued 1% pay freeze for public sector workers including the NHS.
> 
> I wonder how she'll explain that now!


She does not have any money, for anyone, except for the crutches for her government. All spent on DUP.
More austerity for the rest. How EU must be laughing.
You people complained of gravy boat!!!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> She does not have any money, for anyone, except for the crutches for her government. All spent on DUP.
> More austerity for the rest. How EU must be laughing.
> You people complained of gravy boat!!!


We should remember our place in society, Scrippy, and be grateful that we are allowed to continue to draw breath. (for the time being) 

We are the Untermensch and nothing more...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> These vile thieving Tory sh1ts and their accomplices should be dragged out onto the street, flogged exhaustively and then have their grubby little fingers cut off before they plunge the entire country and its people into third world status.:Rage
> 
> Incidentally Noush' my hairdresser asked a rather amusing question yesterday. We were loosely discussing the present chaotic state of Britain and its apparent lack of a bright and prosperous future when all of a sudden she asked; 'Will the Conservatives be allowed to wear blue balaclavas when they appear in front of TV cameras in future?'
> 
> ...


They wont rest till they steal the lot, their greed is insatiable. They are just the same as American counterparts in government over there. We'll be without health care soon too. Look at the latest on the NHS, Zaros. And their supporters still excuse & defend them. Some people just don't want them to be held to account even when they themselves depend on our NHS.
*
As Northern Ireland is handed £1bn by Theresa May, 
Jeremy Hunt is sneaking in a fresh round of brutal NHS cuts*

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-secret-whistleblower-austerity-a7810066.html

I like the sound of your hairdresser  You're right though, they dont hide their faces because they're completely shameless - it must go with being totally & utterly morally bankrupt with the feeling of entitlement lol

That song was perfectly timed:Hilarious ( Its a good song that is, I hadn't heard it before. One of my fave songs is Laid by James)

Tory actually means robber How apt is that?.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Tory actually means robber How apt is that?.
> 
> View attachment 316197


Not an apt name at all, if this is right. Unless they're stealing from the rich English to give back to the poor Irish, which I suppose in this instance... 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tory


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

It's a shame really. They have this money for the DUP, but they voted against scrapping the pay cap on the public sector workers, those saving our lives every day cannot be spared anything. Shocking really.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I read the pay cap was temporary as the public sector had got ahead of the private sector. Not sure how that could be true for police and fire officers, but council workers maybe?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-fund-better-public-services-politics-live

Well it looks like the 1% pay cap for public sector workers is set to continue.

Must be nice being able to afford to bribe the DUP to back you every way.

No doubt May is feeling strong and stable again. Her supporters must be delighted.

As the saying goes, "Money is power"....


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Zaros said:


> We should remember our place in society, Scrippy, and be grateful that we are allowed to continue to draw breath. (for the time being)
> 
> We are the Untermensch and nothing more...


Oi! Speak for yourself Menshevik!

I aspire to much more, at least a meal a day and a bunk bed with blanket in my barrack!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> They wont rest till they steal the lot, their greed is insatiable. They are just the same as American counterparts in government over there. We'll be without health care soon too. Look at the latest on the NHS, Zaros. And their supporters still excuse & defend them. Some people just don't want them to be held to account even when they themselves depend on our NHS.
> *
> As Northern Ireland is handed £1bn by Theresa May,
> Jeremy Hunt is sneaking in a fresh round of brutal NHS cuts*
> ...


Look on the bright side Noush'. No more austerity for our Irish brothers and sisters. And (May) the wind always be at their backs.

And our throats.

Corporate bleedin' whore she is.:Rage



cheekyscrip said:


> Oi! Speak for yourself Menshevik!
> 
> I aspire to much more, at least a meal a day and a bunk bed with blanket in my barrack!


Borscht, if you're lucky,

Gruel if you're not.

And definitely no mattress.

They won't want to make you feel at home.

But will want you to look increasingly forward, with a substantial relief, to the wearied walk down to the incinerator....:Nailbiting


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)




----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

From Twitter /

Tories still counting their votes ... #*newsnight*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Not an apt name at all, if this is right. Unless they're stealing from the rich English to give back to the poor Irish, which I suppose in this instance...
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tory


lol That's one way of spinning it - I'm surprised a tory MP hasn't come up with that excuse



Zaros said:


> Look on the bright side Noush'. No more austerity for our Irish brothers and sisters. And (May) the wind always be at their backs.
> 
> And our throats.
> 
> ...


Your hairdresser might like to these

Our new government & leader.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> View attachment 316209


Vile. They have absolutely no shame.








*Sue Perkins*‏Verified [email protected]*sueperkins* 12h12 hours ago

HOW, in the light of everything that has happened,
can you vote to freeze the pay of firefighters and nurses and...HELP MY BLOOD IS BOILING

11,973 retweets 22,285 likes


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Zaros said:


> These vile thieving Tory sh1ts and their accomplices should be dragged out onto the street, flogged exhaustively and then have their grubby little fingers cut off before they plunge the entire country and its people into third world status.:Rage


That might be a fair comment if we didn't life in a democracy. But there are a few on this forum who have a problem with anything democratic when it doesn't go their way.

Nice to see Labour losing the vote yesterday when they tried to scupper the Queen's speech. Bet that was a bit of a reality check for Mr Corbyn.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> That might be a fair comment if we didn't life in a democracy. But there are a few on this forum who have a problem with anything democratic when it doesn't go their way.
> 
> *Nice to see Labour losing the vote yesterday when they tried to scupper the Queen's speech. Bet that was a bit of a reality check for Mr Corbyn*.


Imagine praising our emergency services for risking their lives then celebrating when the tories win the vote to deny them a pay rise? Unbelievable.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> Imagine praising our emergency services for risking their lives then celebrating when the tories win the vote to deny them a pay rise? Unbelievable.


Public services cover a far greater demographic than just the emergency services. To be fair the emergency service personnel are not exactly badly paid as it is. And at least they get a annual pay rise unlike many, if not the majority, of the private sector.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr Pepper said:


> That might be a fair comment if we didn't life in a democracy. But there are a few on this forum who have a problem with anything democratic when it doesn't go their way.
> .




Democracy for the rich.

Dictatorship for the poor.

It might also be worth noting that true democracy is never handed on or down. It is always fought for.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> Public services cover a far greater demographic than just the emergency services. To be fair the emergency service personnel are not exactly badly paid as it is. And at least they get a annual pay rise unlike many, if not the majority, of the private sector.


No surprise you would seek to justify this outrage.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> View attachment 316209


Perhaps it might teach them a valuable lesson if, one day one of their detached mansion type houses catches fire and the brigade is off somewhere across the city extinguishing a fire on a run down council house estate.

Still, at least they'll have insurance.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> No surprise you would seek to justify this outrage.
> 
> View attachment 316232


Who ever said they wouldn't get a pay increase? Certainly haven't heard Mrs May say they won't get a pay rise.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> Who ever said they wouldn't get a pay increase? Certainly haven't heard Mrs May say they won't get a pay rise.


What do you think a pay cap is?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> What do you think a pay cap is?


Is it something like what a beggar might put on the floor for the general public to throw loose change into...

..and then puts on his head to keep his hair dry when it's raining?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Dr Pepper said:


> Who ever said they wouldn't get a pay increase? Certainly haven't heard Mrs May say they won't get a pay rise.


They not getting a pay increase they are getting for yet another year 1% with the cost of living that will be a pay cut a complete insult.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> Is it something like what a beggar might put on the floor for the general public to throw loose change into...
> 
> ..and then puts on his head to keep his hair dry when it's raining?


:Hilarious Something like that.

Tories get a 10% pay rise then vote to keep a 1% cap on public sector workers. One word - parasites.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> What do you think a pay cap is?


It's not a pay cap but a cap on pay rises. Did you not know that?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880149802876534787
I don't know if anyone saw this from a Tory MP.

Pretty shocking, the cheering was shocking anyway, but the fact this man believes anyone with a dissenting voice does not deserve to voice it is extremely worrying, this is what he is employed to do, listen to all voices coming from all directions. What the man said is not wrong, nurses are using food banks, is he not seeing or hearing this? How tone deaf do you have to be?

I despair.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

suewhite said:


> They not getting a pay increase they are getting for yet another year 1% with the cost of living that will be a pay cut a complete insult.


It's still a rise in their pay. So many in the private sector haven't had a pay rise for years, many will have had pay cuts.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> It's not a pay cap but a cap on pay rises. Did you not know that?


A cap on pay is not a rise however you try to spin it.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Tory MPs cheer after blocking Labour amendment to give fair pay to heroic emergency services | EvolvePolitics.com

This is an absolute disgrace. How they can do this our emergancy services who are there to help us and in some cases risk their lives in the process. They should hang their heads in shame.

And then I read this,sorry but words fail me.
Queen To Get 8% 'Pay Rise' After Royal Estate Profits Soar - But Public Sector Workers Have No Such Luck

Your video was brilliant noush, says it all.x


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

KittenKong said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-fund-better-public-services-politics-live
> 
> Well it looks like the 1% pay cap for public sector workers is set to continue.
> 
> ...


Well, I am delighted for one. Not a May supporter however; just pleased to see democracy in action.

As you ought to know, because education is freely available, the Labour ammendement on public sector pay was just a stupid publicity stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (evidently with some success).


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880149802876534787
> I don't know if anyone saw this from a Tory MP.
> 
> Pretty shocking, the cheering was shocking anyway, but the fact this man believes anyone with a dissenting voice does not deserve to voice it is extremely worrying, this is what he is employed to do, listen to all voices coming from all directions. What the man said is not wrong, nurses are using food banks, is he not seeing or hearing this? How tone deaf do you have to be?
> ...


That is disgusting. Shows exactly what they think of us plebs though.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Well, I am delighted for one. Not a May supporter however; just pleased to see democracy in action.
> 
> As you ought to know, because education is freely available, the Labour ammendement on public sector pay was just a stupid publicity stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (evidently with some success).


Democracy in action? I'm sure this must be another of your wind ups lol when the tories just bought a majority govt with a £1bn bung of tax payers money.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Satori said:


> Well, I am delighted for one. Not a May supporter however; just pleased to see democracy in action.
> 
> As you ought to know, because education is freely available, the Labour ammendement on public sector pay was just a stupid publicity stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (evidently with some success).


So now those who work in the public sector and keep us safe are the LCD?

It appealed to those who work hard to defend our security and nurse us back to health, all you have to do is look at their reactions to this to know it appealed to them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Honeys mum said:


> Tory MPs cheer after blocking Labour amendment to give fair pay to heroic emergency services | EvolvePolitics.com
> 
> This is an absolute disgrace. How they can do this our emergancy services who are there to help us and in some cases risk their lives in the process. They should hang their heads in shame.
> 
> ...


Chunky doesn't mince his words does he? (& I totally agree with you xx)


----------



## Odin_cat (Mar 14, 2017)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880002328052543488
We are talking about the fountains of society; the midwives who safely deliver babies, the teachers who educate future private sector workers, the emergency service workers who risk their lives.

Don't pay them properly and you risk them leaving to go to somewhere that does!


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> A cap on pay is not a rise however you try to spin it.


I'm spinning nothing. A 1% increase in your wages is a rise in your pay whichever way you look at. In an ideal world everyone would get at least a inflation matching pay rise every year, unfortunately we are not in an ideal world. And by christ don't those in the private sector know it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm spinning nothing. A 1% increase in your wages is a rise in your pay whichever way you look at. In an ideal world everyone would get at least a inflation matching pay rise every year, unfortunately we are not in an ideal world. And by Christ don't those in the private sector know it.


Don't you think its an insult when we can afford 10% pay rise for MPs & £1bn bribe for the DUP?

eta A 1% cap for 7 years equates to a 17% cut in real terms.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> Don't you think its an insult when we can afford 10% pay rise for MPs & £1bn bribe for the DUP?


The £1bn bung means we have a functioning government and Brexit negotiations. Not ideal by any stretch of the imagination though.

I agree on the MPs, they should be subject to the same cap.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Dr Pepper said:


> It's still a rise in their pay. So many in the private sector haven't had a pay rise for years, many will have had pay cuts.


Indeed, many private sector firms have used austerity as an excuse to cut pay or not give pay increases. I guess the government are preparing everyone for privatisation.

When George Osborne first announced this policy he said, "We're all in it together", yet he was able to cut tax for the richest and with the policy continuing without Osborne they're able to find money to prop up their minority government and the monarchy.

No wonder the Tories are labelled, "For the few".



Satori said:


> Well, I am delighted for one. Not a May supporter however; just pleased to see democracy in action.
> 
> As you ought to know, because education is freely available, the Labour ammendement on public sector pay was just a stupid publicity stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (evidently with some success).


I don't call it democracy when a government has to bribe another party in to supporting a more minority government. I'm sure many Tory voters wouldn't have voted for that.

Having said that the government would have won the vote without the help of the DUP anyway, only their majority would have been 4 and not 14. Rather expensive giving the DUP that kind of money they previously never had when they won the vote anyway.

Some of the £1.5bn could have gone towards a reasonable pay rise for NHS staff and other emergency services.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> The £1bn bung means we have a functioning government and Brexit negotiations. Not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> I agree on the MPs, they should be subject to the same cap.


No its an affront to our so called democracy.

That 1% cap for 7 years equates to a 17% cut in real terms. How you can seek to justify is beyond me.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Dr Pepper said:


> The £1bn bung means we have a functioning government and Brexit negotiations. Not ideal by any stretch of the imagination though.
> 
> I agree on the MPs, they should be subject to the same cap.


The government could have operated as a minority one, as John Major suggested. That might not be ideal for them either, but what if the DUP and May fall out within the next five years? The "agreement" doesn't necessarily give May guaranteed security, unless she conjures up more from the magic money tree she earlier denied she had to keep them sweet.

As mentioned above the Tories would have guaranteed to have won the vote with a majority of 4 without the help of the DUP, who probably would have voted with the government regardless anyway!


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> No its an affront to our so called democracy.
> 
> That 1% cap for 7 years equates to a 17% cut in real terms. How you can seek to justify is beyond me.


Because those in the private sector haven't had a pay rise at all for years. Many have had actual pay cuts, real pay cuts at that mean less money going into their bank every month. No one in the private sector is every guaranteed a annual pay rise of any type.

The public sector, and remember the public sector isn't just front line emergency services, have it easy in comparison with regards to job security, decent pay, guaranteed pay rises and pensions. It's difficult to have sympathy for them when the majority of the private sector workers don't get any of that.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> Because those in the private sector haven't had a pay rise at all for years. Many have had actual pay cuts, real pay cuts at that mean less money going into their bank every month. No one in the private sector is every guaranteed a annual pay rise of any type.
> 
> The public sector, and remember the public sector isn't just front line emergency services, have it easy in comparison with regards to job security, decent pay, guaranteed pay rises and pensions. It's difficult to have sympathy for them when the majority of the private sector workers don't get any of that.


And who's fault is that?  This is what tory austerity looks like. And to gain support for it they create division amongst different sectors - & you have fallen for it.

From a fire Officer - https://www.facebook.com/leigh.pickett.5

PLEASE SHARE:
For those of you that don't follow politics you all need to know what has just happened in the House of Commons. The Conservative DUP coalition government rewarded the professionalism and bravery shown by #Firefighters at #GrenfellTower with a vote to keep in place their pay cap, currently in its 7th year! Firefighters have been forced to accept a 1% pay rise every year since 2010. This has been significantly less than the rate of inflation and in real terms amounts to a 17% pay cut over the 7 years. Those firefighters made a strong case for themselves at Grenfell and their efforts were rewarded tonight with this vote. To make things even worse the Tory cabinet and back benchers cheered when the vote result was announced. Please remember this: your MP for Dartford Mr Gareth Johnson and your MP for Thurrock Miss Jackie Doyle-Price were 2 MP's the voted against the REMOVAL of this pay cap. This wasn't just an attack by them on your firefighters, this was an attack by them on all of your local public services!

Spread this far and wide to friends, family, neighbours, complete strangers and work colleagues. This farcical Tory government is in chaos, propped up by a dirty £1bn coalition deal. Another General Election is just around the corner please please please do the right thing, when the time comes, vote for anyone other than Conservative MP candidate







❤




























❤ THEIR POLITICS WILL END UP KILLING SOMEONE YOU KNOW AND LOVE


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> And who's fault is that?  This is what tory austerity looks like. And to gain support for it they create division amongst different sectors - & you have fallen for it.


That's utter tosh. Since I started work in 1983 I've been very aware of how privileged those in public sector have been regarding pay, pension, job security, holiday and sick pay. That's obviously been through both Labour, Tory and coalition governments so has nothing to do with austerity. In fact it makes a change for public service workers to actually have a dose of reality and take a hit along with the rest of us for once.

And no, that doesn't mean I don't value or appreciate the work of front line emergency services.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No its an affront to our so called democracy.
> 
> That 1% cap for 7 years equates to a 17% cut in real terms. How you can seek to justify is beyond me.


And most do not get the 1% as they have reached their maximum of their wages. So it's a pay freeze.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Dr Pepper said:


> That's utter tosh. Since I started work in 1983 I've been very aware of how privileged those in public sector have been regarding pay, pension, job security, holiday and sick pay. That's obviously been through both Labour, Tory and coalition governments so has nothing to do with austerity. In fact it makes a change for public service workers to actually have a dose of reality and take a hit along with the rest of us for once.
> 
> And no, that doesn't mean I don't value or appreciate the work of front line emergency services.


Since I started work in the private sector pay either kept up with at least inflation to maintain standard of living or you looked for another job and went elsewhere. Suppose it depends on what your expertise is but the idea that the private sector doesn't have perks is balony.

Out of interest anyone know what pay rises the Quango bosses for things like the NHS recieved in the last few years to put this into perspective.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The councils in charge of Grenfell and the other towers dilly dallying about looking after people are also public sector workers, so are people who passed them as safe.

My best friend is in her 50s lives in a rented shared house, works self employed 7 days a week, no holidays, no sick pay, no health insurance and no pension, she'll work until she can't. She can earn £10k, or more a year less than a nurse and hasn't been able to increase her prices for over 10 years. Blame the Tories, austerity, her own stupidity, whatever you like.

She has never used a food bank.

If a private sector worker earning £23k+ a year used a food bank, they'd be accused of taking food from the mouths of the poor. 

It's not that I don't think it would be nice to give nurses and firefighters and police officers a higher rise in pay than 1% a year it's the implication that they're all so poor they have to use food from charity food banks that gets my hackles up. It makes me think they should take a pay cut and see how the poor really live. Someone poorer than they are probably donated the food. 

I do know a fire fighter. He has been promoted a couple of times admittedly, but he earns £60k a year and his wife £30k that's not that poor. They are decent jobs, they aren't working for a big corporation they have to compensate if they're off sick. Only circumstance would lead to a nurse using a food bank, not lack of a pay rise. However, it's not true anyway, it was one student. 

So stop it with the food banks already?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Elles said:


> The councils in charge of Grenfell and the other towers dilly dallying about looking after people are also public sector workers, so are people who passed them as safe.
> 
> My best friend is in her 50s lives in a rented shared house, works self employed 7 days a week, no holidays, no sick pay, no health insurance and no pension, she'll work until she can't. She can earn £10k, or more a year less than a nurse and hasn't been able to increase her prices for over 10 years. Blame the Tories, austerity, her own stupidity, whatever you like.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, are you saying that nurses are not using food banks and it was just one student who did?

Because there are multiple sources that disagree with that.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

emmaviolet said:


> I'm sorry, are you saying that nurses are not using food banks and it was just one student who did?
> 
> Because there are multiple sources that disagree with that.


Nurses don't need to use food banks. There are millions paid less that manage.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

This just about sums the tories up. In this article one MP tweets saying they have done a u-turn on this, and then done a u-turn on the u-turn.

Cheering Tory MPs Branded 'Despicable' And 'Out Of Touch' Over Public Sector Pay Cap Vote | HuffPost UK


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I'm sorry, are you saying that nurses are not using food banks and it was just one student who did?
> 
> Because there are multiple sources that disagree with that.


I haven't seen any. They've all led back to the student nurse who had recently started. If people are using food banks to top up their £23k+ a year salary, they need to take a pay cut to see how the poor and needy really live.

I am more than happy to pay a little more tax, such as the lib dems suggested and give hard working nurses a higher pay increase, but not if they're whining and using food banks and blaming their low pay rates for it. Porters earn around £15k a year, why aren't they in the news queuing at food banks? I presume those poor sods will only get 1% too.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Elles said:


> I haven't seen any. They've all led back to the student nurse who had recently started. If people are using food banks to top up their £23k+ a year salary, they need to take a pay cut to see how the poor and needy really live.
> 
> I am more than happy to pay a little more tax, such as the lib dems suggested and give hard working nurses a higher pay increase, but not if they're whining and using food banks and blaming their low pay rates for it. Porters earn around £15k a year, why aren't they in the news queuing at food banks? I presume those poor sods will only get 1% too.


I don't believe they are.

On the news they had an older woman, crying, that after all the years she has worked, she couldn't afford food.

There's also various articles too of other nurses, so it seemed a little presumptuous to assume it's not true as you do not perceive it to be true.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

But I think it's a bad thing to say about them. 

There will be millions of people wishing that they earned nearly as much as a nurse and who live very frugally, who have never used a food bank. Saying that nurses do is more likely to upset them, than gain their support.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> I don't believe they are.
> 
> On the news they had an older woman, crying, that after all the years she has worked, she couldn't afford food.
> 
> There's also various articles too of other nurses, so it seemed a little presumptuous to assume it's not true as you do not perceive it to be true.


It was also widely reported in the papers (and on here) that nurses were leaving the NHS to stack shelves in supermarkets. I asked for just one case to substantiate that claim. I'm still waiting.


----------



## Odin_cat (Mar 14, 2017)

Is not having to rely on charity to eat really the level we want to set for public sector workers? 

I'd say we should be aiming to do a little better than that.

I know a huge number of people who work in the public sector. None of them have to use foodbanks but most have to live in shared houses and those with children can't afford many treats. I think the people propping up our society should be able to do more than get by.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Elles said:


> But I think it's a bad thing to say about them.
> 
> There will be millions of people wishing that they earned nearly as much as a nurse and who live very frugally, who have never used a food bank. Saying that nurses do is more likely to upset them, than gain their support.


I don't understand how food banks work . do you have to prove you're on a low income or benefits ?


----------



## Odin_cat (Mar 14, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> I don't understand how food banks work . do you have to prove you're on a low income or benefits ?


You have to be given a voucher I think, by a GP, social worker, health visitor etc.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> I don't understand how food banks work . do you have to prove you're on a low income or benefits ?


I believe you have to be earning less than £30,000 per annum.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

samuelsmiles said:


> I believe you have to be earning less than £30,000 per annum.


I'm not sure if thats a joke or not .  That's riches to me ! Though perhaps not for others with the high rent and mortgages etc .


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

samuelsmiles said:


> I believe you have to be earning less than £30,000 per annum.


Blooming heck I am off down the Food Bank then.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

samuelsmiles said:


> I believe you have to be earning less than £30,000 per annum.


If that's right it's a bloody farce. The average wage is £27,000.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Jeez there's some right old crap being bandied about on here.

A foodbank is used in an emergency situation.

Here's the website of the charity that run them: https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-help/emergency-food/food-vouchers/

You have to get a voucher from a GP, or the Citizens Advice Bureau or a Health Visitor. They don't had them out to just anyone. You have to be in a crisis situation. For instance, when the DWP have sanctioned you and you're getting no benefits for 13 weeks.

And you get 3 days worth of food and then you have to go back and get another voucher. You also get referred onto an advice service about how to manage your income. If you have any.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> Jeez there's some right old crap being bandied about on here.


No change there , then 

So you would have to prove you need it by showing your bank statement or benefits letter.
From the link , I'm still not sure how nurses would qualify on the wages they earn.

*Referral process*
Each foodbank works with different frontline professionals, such as doctors, health visitors, social workers and the Citizens Advice, who make referrals to the foodbank using a voucher.

The foodbank and referral agency use the voucher to gather some basic information. This will help them to identify the cause of the crisis, offer practical guidance and prepare suitable emergency food.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> The councils in charge of Grenfell and the other towers dilly dallying about looking after people are also public sector workers, so are people who passed them as safe.
> 
> My best friend is in her 50s lives in a rented shared house, works self employed 7 days a week, no holidays, no sick pay, no health insurance and no pension, she'll work until she can't. She can earn £10k, or more a year less than a nurse and hasn't been able to increase her prices for over 10 years. Blame the Tories, austerity, her own stupidity, whatever you like.
> 
> ...





Dr Pepper said:


> Nurses don't need to use food banks. There are millions paid less that manage.





samuelsmiles said:


> It was also widely reported in the papers (and on here) that nurses were leaving the NHS to stack shelves in supermarkets. I asked for just one case to substantiate that claim. I'm still waiting.





samuelsmiles said:


> I believe you have to be earning less than £30,000 per annum.





kimthecat said:


> No change there , then
> 
> So you would have to prove you need it by showing your bank statement or benefits letter.
> From the link , I'm still not sure how nurses would qualify on the wages they earn.
> ...












It might help if you watch these to understand why some nurses, particularly student nurses, are in poverty. (They cover food banks & nurses working in supermarkets)






*Where have all the nurses gone?* - http://www.downvids.net/where-have-all-the-nurses-gone-1170445.html

.

..


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> It might help if you watch these to understand why some nurses, particularly student nurses, are in poverty. (They cover food banks & nurses working in supermarkets)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. Still not one case of a nurse leaving the NHS to work in a supermarket because of better wages or working conditions.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> It might help if you watch these to understand why some nurses, particularly student nurses, are in poverty. (They cover food banks & nurses working in supermarkets)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So why don't supermarket shelf stackers need food banks, they are paid a lot less than a nurse? Perhaps they do a spot of moonlighting as nurses!

And why are student nurses struggling so much more than say a law student? Oh, they aren't.

All I saw in that video was a bunch of nurses wanting a pay rise and bigger houses. Well, don't we all


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

samuelsmiles said:


> Nope. Still not one case of a nurse leaving the NHS to work in a supermarket because of better wages or working conditions.


NHS Providers must be telling porkies then. https://www.theguardian.com/society...g-to-work-in-supermarkets-because-of-poor-pay

Years of pay restraint and stressful working conditions are taking their toll," said Chris Hopson, NHS Providers' chief executive. "Pay is becoming uncompetitive. Significant numbers of trusts say lower paid staff are leaving to stack shelves in supermarkets rather than carry on with the NHS."


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> NHS Providers must be telling porkies then. https://www.theguardian.com/society...g-to-work-in-supermarkets-because-of-poor-pay
> 
> Years of pay restraint and stressful working conditions are taking their toll," said Chris Hopson, NHS Providers' chief executive. "Pay is becoming uncompetitive. Significant numbers of trusts say lower paid staff are leaving to stack shelves in supermarkets rather than carry on with the NHS."


o

Oh, good grief, what's the point of asking anymore.

As an aside, the young nurse with four kids should maybe taking a bit more responsibility for her own situation rather than blaming others.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> So why don't supermarket shelf stackers need food banks, they are paid a lot less than a nurse? Perhaps they do a spot of moonlighting as nurses!
> 
> And why are student nurses struggling so much more than say a law student? Oh, they aren't.
> 
> *All I saw in that video was a bunch of nurses wanting a pay rise and bigger houses. Well, don't we all*


That's because you only see what you want to see, so extreme is your confirmation bias.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

samuelsmiles said:


> o
> 
> Oh, good grief, what's the point of asking anymore.
> 
> As an aside, the young nurse with four kids should maybe taking a bit more responsibility for her own situation rather than blaming others.


...............................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> That's because you only see what you want to see, so extreme is your confirmation bias.


I can only see and hear what they are saying. And what's your response to my other two questions in that post?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> I can only see and hear what they are saying. And what's your response to my other two questions in that post?


No point answering your questions, I'm sure you're right: There are no shelf stackers who need to use food banks & nurses are just greedy sods.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> No point answering your questions, I'm sure you're right: There are no shelf stackers who need to use food banks & nurses are just greedy sods.


And why are student nurses worse off than other students and apprentices? I'm really curious because there is no logical reason they should be. Or is it simply a political lie to further Labour supporters agenda?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)




----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Surprise surprise, TM was one of many who voted against the introduction of a minimum wage in 1998....


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

samuelsmiles said:


> o
> 
> Oh, good grief, what's the point of asking anymore.
> 
> As an aside, the young nurse with four kids should maybe taking a bit more responsibility for her own situation rather than blaming others.


Well you can't say she's scrounging off the state can you.

I fail to understand the objection to giving professionally trained staff, including nurses, the pay rise they've been denied for 7 years, especially when a government can afford an unnecessary general election and a £1bn bribe to prop up a damaged government.

They no longer have the excuse they can't afford to do that.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I dont object to nurses getting a pay rise. I object to their using desperate people in genuine need to advance their agenda. Some of those people may well have trained, or be training as nurses, but it's not nurses' salary that caused their plight.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> And why are student nurses worse off than other students and apprentices? I'm really curious because there is no logical reason they should be. Or is it simply a political lie to further Labour supporters agenda?


There are logical reasons, I cant help it if you're incapable of looking objectively at the evidence I provided - looking at why nurses are seriously considering taking strike action. And who's to say students & apprentices in other sectors aren't suffering? Plenty of people across the board are suffering under austerity. Anyway you keep believing its just people with ulterior motives lying - just don't forget about our bet we have - the NHS is being eviscerated you wont be able to deny the fact soon.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

:Greedy


Happy Paws said:


> when was she wants to. There will be £1bn extra for Northern Ireland over the next two years.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40403434


Maybe she managed to get hold of mr corbyns Money tree


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> There are logical reasons, I cant help it if you're incapable of looking objectively at the evidence I provided - looking at why nurses are seriously considering taking strike action. And who's to say students & apprentices in other sectors aren't suffering? Plenty of people across the board are suffering under austerity. Anyway you keep believing its just people with ulterior motives lying - just don't forget about our bet we have - the NHS is being eviscerated you wont be able to deny the fact soon.


I guess what I'm asking is why are nurses being highlighted as a special case? Why aren't hospital admin', porters, cleaners being reported as needing food banks and immediate pay rises? They get paid less after all and will be subject to the same 1% pay rise cap in most cases.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> I guess what I'm asking is why are nurses being highlighted as a special case? Why aren't hospital admin', porters, cleaners being reported as needing food banks and immediate pay rises? They get paid less after all and will be subject to the same 1% pay rise cap in most cases.


Why are you pitting one sector against the other? Don't they all deserve a fair days pay for a fair days work? Its disgusting that any are struggling to make ends meet under this pay cap. The government can no longer lie that there's 'no magic money tree' when its just coughed up a £1bn bribe.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> Why are you pitting one sector against the other? Don't they all deserve a fair days pay for a fair days work? Its disgusting that any are struggling to make ends meet under this pay cap. The government can no longer lie that there's 'no magic money tree' when its just coughed up a £1bn bribe.


 It's me pitting one sector against another is it. Bloody hell it's you that's been banging on about nurses and no one else. I've been asking why they are a special case. Unbelievable :Banghead


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> It's me pitting one sector against another is it. Bloody hell it's you that's been banging on about nurses and no one else. I've been asking why they are a special case. Unbelievable :Banghead


Oh so, we're agreed then the pay cap for ALL public sector workers is an utter disgrace?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Why are you pitting one sector against the other?


He isn't. He is just trying in vain to get one single straight answer to a question from you. It's hilarious; better than the Andrew Marr show.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> It's me pitting one sector against another is it. Bloody hell it's you that's been banging on about nurses and no one else. I've been asking why they are a special case. Unbelievable :Banghead


I´ll join this conversation, as nurses´s wages have been always very interesting topic for policians and people in Finland too. You asked why? Naturally I can´t speak for the British, but here people just value their profession so much, as we are aware that anyone can be ill and need them when times are really bad. So we do want our nurses to be treated fairly and get paid a decent wage. Still, in comparison to e.g.engineering, management, sales work they are underpaid, if you asked people. And usually around elections nurses, police, firemen etc. are among the key groups no politician can afford to ignore, as we all are just do gratefull they do what they do.

Maybe it´s different in Britain, but at least based on the Grenfell fire, the fireman and police are really appreciated there too. But you know better, and maybe there is nothing special about those jobs.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It isn't just nurses - it's a public sector cap and so much is outsourced these days that not all hospital workers are paid directly from the public purse. It's just easy to give one or two examples eg nurses and police - and just as easy for someone to then use that to turn it round as an argument against lifting the cap simply for the sake of being argumentative.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MrsZee said:


> I´ll join this conversation, as nurses´s wages have been always very interesting topic for policians and people in Finland too. You asked why? Naturally I can´t speak for the British, but here people just value their profession so much, as we are aware that anyone can be ill and need them when times are really bad. So we do want our nurses to be treated fairly and get paid a decent wage. Still, in comparison to e.g.engineering, management, sales work they are underpaid, if you asked people. And usually around elections nurses, police, firemen etc. are among the key groups no politician can afford to ignore, as we all are just do gratefull they do what they do.
> 
> Maybe it´s different in Britain, but at least based on the Grenfell fire, the fireman and police are really appreciated there too. But you know better, and maybe there is nothing special about those jobs.


I think the way the government blocked the vote to lift their cap on pay shows how much they really value them. They praise them with weasel words then treat them with utter contempt. The government have made working conditions intolerable with all the cuts & the pay freeze - little wonder so many feel completely demoralised. And it makes me so sad to see people defend this government. We should be on the side of those who risk their lives for us & who save our lives imo. Unfortunately some people won't care until its they need our emergency services & its no longer there for them.

I was just reading this as it happens Mrs Zee x


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lol

In cinemas today.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So public sector workers need a 14% pay rise to put them at 2010 levels, then something on top to give them an actual pay rise. That wouldn't even include what they've lost in the past 7 years. It would cost quite a lot, especially if they then have to employ more public sector workers, because there aren't enough police officers, fire officers, nurses etc. 

Taxes are going to have to increase by quite a bit. I think Corbyn might have underestimated it, if he wants to get it even equal to Blair's day, let alone do better.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Seems she can find money for this as well. Whatever will it be next.

DUP leader flew back to Belfast on a £20,000 RAF flight | Daily Mail Online


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Honeys mum said:


> Seems she can find money for this as well. Whatever will it be next.
> 
> DUP leader flew back to Belfast on a £20,000 RAF flight | Daily Mail Online


Stupid thing to do, but the money came out of party funds. I suspects her donors may want to have a word


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Is that what nurse gets in a year?
Or caretaker?
Or costs of fire resistant cladding?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Stupid thing to do, but the money came out of party funds. I suspects her donors may want to have a word


I don't think paying for it from party funds was the original plan. I think she found out after the event that it would break the sleaze rules unless the costs were covered privately.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

havoc said:


> I don't think paying for it from party funds was the original plan. I think she found out after the event that it would break the sleaze rules unless the costs were covered privately.


No, I'm sure you're right


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Just found this article, all ten DUPs voted along with the tory MPs to keep the pay caps and cuts.
Even though they spoke out against austerity before the election.
What a carve up, its an absolute disgrace

Full list of MPs who voted to keep emergency & public service pay caps & cuts | The London Economic


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Didn't they have to this time? There's talk of some rises being over the 1% shortly though. Let's hope the rumours are true. The Conservative leaders are under pressure from their own to review it, now the Queen's speech is out of the way.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Honeys mum said:


> Just found this article, all ten DUPs voted along with the tory MPs to keep the pay caps and cuts.
> Even though they spoke out against austerity before the election.
> What a carve up, its an absolute disgrace
> 
> Full list of MPs who voted to keep emergency & public service pay caps & cuts | The London Economic


Hidden deep in the Peruvian Amazon there are as yet undiscovered tribes who know by now that the DUP have a confidence and supply agreement with the Conservative Party. And yet to the London Economic this is news apparently. Yay for trail blazing journalism.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Nurses taking out pay day loans and using food banks. They'll find nurses sleeping in cardboard boxes any minute. Police officers don't earn any better. Why no mention of police officers? 

How much do they need? £40k? £50k? With promotions and overtime they can probably get to that. How about £90k?

I know a couple who earn over £90k between them. They had to borrow £3000 from pensioner parents. So maybe £150k, put on them on the same rate as Corbyn, or better yet, how much does May earn? They do a more useful job.  I don't doubt that it would be nice to give nurses a pay rise, but if they're taking out payday loans, or can't afford the rent, that's not because of their rate of pay. People earn less than nurses and don't take out payday loans. The interest rates are scandalous.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Elles said:


> Nurses taking out pay day loans and using food banks. They'll find nurses sleeping in cardboard boxes any minute. Police officers don't earn any better. Why no mention of police officers?
> 
> How much do they need? £40k? £50k? With promotions and overtime they can probably get to that. How about £90k?
> 
> I know a couple who earn over £90k between them. They had to borrow £3000 from pensioner parents. So maybe £150k, put on them on the same rate as Corbyn, or better yet, how much does May earn? They do a more useful job.  I don't doubt that it would be nice to give nurses a pay rise, but if they're taking out payday loans, or can't afford the rent, that's not because of their rate of pay. People earn less than nurses and don't take out payday loans. The interest rates are scandalous.


They mention nurses because politicians of all parties love a chance to try and use the NHS as a threat/bargaining chip, etc. The police don't have the same effect at the moment. It's why all the memes and other propaganda are using the firefighters as examples, despite the uk having on the whole lower fire incidents year on year. But the NHS is always a good fallback...

All of the UKs problems can be solved by just throwing money at it don't you know! The hell to maybe trying to manage the existing money properly first...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_worker
It would be a touch cumbersome to quote the whole list every time.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Honeys mum said:


> Just found this article, all ten DUPs voted along with the tory MPs to keep the pay caps and cuts.
> Even though they spoke out against austerity before the election.
> What a carve up, its an absolute disgrace
> 
> Full list of MPs who voted to keep emergency & public service pay caps & cuts | The London Economic


This could well be the DUP's "Clegg tuition fees" moment which could come back to haunt them!


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

According to the song on this video, the magic money tree does exist after all.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Honeys mum said:


> According to the song on this video, the magic money tree does exist after all.


I wonder what happened to the Proclaimers in the end?

Last I heard of them, their landlord evicted the pair from the house they were living in because the grass hadn't been cut for more than a year and was starting to bring the neighbourhood down.
Neighbours claimed Charlie and Craig blamed B&Q because they said they'd been to Bathgate, no mower, Linwood, no mower, Methil, no mower, Irvine no mower.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2017)

I like comparing statistics about money and no matter how I look at these figures, UK is not a poor country as such, but the money just seems to disappear somewhere. Maybe the money tree munches it away and gives the fruit only to the few chosen ones.. But what do you make out of these?

Distribution of money: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk



















About earnings: Looks like you earn less now than what you did a few years ago. That should improve UK´s competiveness, as that was the reason, why wages were almost "frozen" last year for 3 years in Finland. Naturally you should compare the salaries for the livings costs too.
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses_pub2s&lang=en










Compare with more countries:










So where does the money go in UK? Apart to DUP? Maybe Jeremy is right, and somewhere there are billions just waiting for the right cause (like DUB and Brexit) or maybe the richest could afford to be taxed a bit more, and still remain rich?


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2017)

Honeys mum said:


> According to the song on this video, the magic money tree does exist after all.


That was so good, as Trump would say, you are so talented, so talented.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Well if the nutter in korea and DT fall our proper it wont matter how much you earn, how big your house is, nor how much you owe, nothing will matter anymore. but one thing will be certain you'll all be equal in the end! you'll all have the same size box! that should please some


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

DT said:


> Well if the nutter in korea and DT fall our proper it wont matter how much you earn, how big your house is, nor how much you owe, nothing will matter anymore. but one thing will be certain you'll all be equal in the end! you'll all have the same size box! that should please some


There's a very naughty joke whispered only amongst select and trusted friends in N Korea, DT.

_Why did the chicken cross the road?

To escape Kim Jong's long range nuclear missiles.
_
Whatever it is you're reading, I suggest you read something else.

At the moment I have a book that teaches you all about reading. Not the cognitive process of decoding symbols in order to obtain meaning and information.

It's a book about a large historical town in Berkshire, England.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

MrsZee said:


> That was so good, as Trump would say, you are so talented, so talented.


Have to agree MrsZee, I thought it was brilliant, and it made me smile as well.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Zaros said:


> I wonder what happened to the Proclaimers in the end?


Don't know Zaros, But I remember going to the pics to see this film with their music in. really enjoyed it.
Sunshine on Leith: the Proclaimers' songs brought to life on film - Telegraph


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

MrsZee said:


> I like comparing statistics about money and no matter how I look at these figures, UK is not a poor country as such, but the money just seems to disappear somewhere. Maybe the money tree munches it away and gives the fruit only to the few chosen ones.. But what do you make out of these?
> 
> Distribution of money: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if that £9644.00 includes any benefits, but I went onto the benefits calculator and pretended that I was married with 2 children and it turns out that if one parent is earning £9644 and the other doesn't earn anything, they are entitled to £417.88 a week in benefits, which works out at £21,730 a year. Pretty decent amount


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MrsZee said:


> I like comparing statistics about money and no matter how I look at these figures, UK is not a poor country as such, but the money just seems to disappear somewhere. Maybe the money tree munches it away and gives the fruit only to the few chosen ones.. But what do you make out of these?
> 
> Distribution of money: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
> 
> ...


UK public debt continues to rise even though for the last 7 year the tories have punished us with massive cuts to public services.

a lot of people are asking the same question Mrs Zee:

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH THE MONEY?

..


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> UK public debt continues to rise even though for the last 7 year the tories have punished us with massive cuts to public services.
> 
> a lot of people are asking the same question Mrs Zee:
> 
> ...


Under the mattress down the sofa:Bawling where should we start looking noush xxx


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DT said:


> Under the mattress down the sofa:Bawling where should we start looking noush xxx


Here would be a good place to start, Sue. This benefit scrounger has just had his sixth child ( named Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Mogg:Hilarious)

How totally irresponsible having 6 children when you can't afford to look after your own home.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> This benefit scrounger has just had his sixth child ( named Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Mogg:Hilarious)
> 
> How totally irresponsible having 6 children when you can't afford to look after your own home.


But you can have as many children as you want, Noush'

If you're covered by benefits, there's no end to the possibilities of increasing your lifestyle sixfold.

With all this money he's had directed his way, he really should have revised his dress sense.

Double breasted jackets?

They don't hang right and they don't look smart.:Facepalm

But are just fine if you're into that nostalgia thing and are hanging on to the 30s, 40s, 50s.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ref Wentworth House, a quick google shows that the meme is one of those untrue ones.  The house was owned by his mother-in-law's father until 1948. Its never belonged to his wife, or her mother. It's now owned by a charitable trust and will be open to the public once restoration work is finished. It has quite an interesting history.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

Elles said:


> Ref Wentworth House, a quick google shows that the meme is one of those untrue ones.  The house was owned by his mother-in-law's father until 1948. Its never belonged to his wife, or her mother. It's now owned by a charitable trust and will be open to the public once restoration work is finished. It has quite an interesting history.


Yes, a beautiful old house, worth preserving. I saw that meme a week or so back and wondered when it would appear here. 

*Wentworth Woodhouse sold to conservation group for £7m*


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

OT but talking of May. did anyone see The Windsors on CH 4 last night . 
A fist fight between May and Camilla :Hilarious


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> But you can have as many children as you want, Noush'
> 
> If you're covered by benefits, there's no end to the possibilities of increasing your lifestyle sixfold.
> 
> ...


Very very true.

Rees Mogg is more like a relic of the 1800s. Lord Charles springs to mind! lol



Elles said:


> Ref Wentworth House, a quick google shows that the meme is one of those untrue ones.  The house was owned by his mother-in-law's father until 1948. Its never belonged to his wife, or her mother. It's now owned by a charitable trust and will be open to the public once restoration work is finished. It has quite an interesting history.





samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, a beautiful old house, worth preserving. I saw that meme a week or so back and wondered when it would appear here.
> 
> *Wentworth Woodhouse sold to conservation group for £7m*


My bad, I didn't bother to fact check  That said it does shows the mentality of the tories, they can_ find _millions to do up a stately home but there is no magic money tree for our public services, to lift the pay cap etc. Theres no austerity when it comes to the things that matter to the tories - like clinging on to power for example.

Anyway here are a couple more Rees Mogg snippets for you to fact check


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Here would be a good place to start, Sue. This benefit scrounger has just had his sixth child ( named Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Mogg:Hilarious)
> 
> How totally irresponsible having 6 children when you can't afford to look after your own home.
> 
> View attachment 316945


Except it's not his home. His wife's family sold it in 1989. It is now owned by a trust and it was a Labour MP who lobbied parliament for the funding.

I thought you said you researched things before posting memes


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, a beautiful old house, worth preserving. I saw that meme a week or so back and wondered when it would appear here.
> 
> *Wentworth Woodhouse sold to conservation group for £7m*


It has been doing the rounds for ages, and was posted on another thread on here, and we refuted it then as well


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Sadly government control shouldn't be needed. Wealthy corps/businesses should behave. :Rage

Surely properties should be fit for human habitation anyway? Aren't there laws against renting out dumps? (Unless tenants vandalise and turn them into dumps ofc). I hope none of the list are slum landlords, if they are they should be outed.

'Fit for human habitation'. is too vague. I'd want a list of what actually makes a property fit for habitation and these days a strict restriction on what can and can't be used given recent events. I wouldn't expect politicians to come up with the rules. Wouldn't trust them. I'd want it to be a number of different bodies, including those that have tenants' interests at heart, not just bob the builder and fireman Sam.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Except it's not his home. His wife's family sold it in 1989. It is now owned by a trust and it was a Labour MP who lobbied parliament for the funding.
> 
> I thought you said you researched things before posting memes


You're missing the point I was making. If there is money to do up a stately home - then there's certainly money there for our public services.

I think I said I 'usually' fact check things first. I didn't this time & I have no problem holding my hands up when I'm wrong.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> You're missing the point I was making. If there is money to do up a stately home - then there's certainly money there for our public services.
> 
> I think I said I 'usually' fact check things first. I didn't this time & I have no problem holding my hands up when I'm wrong.


Maybe ask John Healy why he felt the funds were better suited to Wentworth Woodhouse than to local public services


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Maybe ask John Healy why he felt the funds were better suited to Wentworth Woodhouse than to local public services


Did the government give him a choice to spend those millions money on public services?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Except it's not his home. His wife's family sold it in 1989. It is now owned by a trust and it was a Labour MP who lobbied parliament for the funding.
> 
> I thought you said you researched things before posting memes


I don't see all the posts . Who is the man who is supposed to own Wentworth ?

Not Corbs , I assume , he was born in a 7 bed manor house according to The Telegraph !


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> But you can have as many children as you want, Noush'
> 
> If you're covered by benefits, there's no end to the possibilities of increasing your lifestyle sixfold.
> 
> ...


Hey @Zaros , I've just done a bit of delving (I really should have fact checked this! ), and it appears ole Rees Mogg is actually from the 1920s:Jawdrop, 1923 to be precise. You were very close

*
Jacob Rees-Mogg sent from 1923 to save Conservative Party

*









*JACOB Rees-Mogg was sent from the year 1923 to stop the Conservatives from being destroyed, it has emerged. *

*The member for North East Somerset arrived in the 21st century seven years ago, riding an elaborate contraption of valves and levers propelled by a giant striped parasol.*

Carrying only a steamer trunk of starched clothes from his own era, Rees-Mogg stumbled out of the machine determined to restore honest, decent rule by gentlemen.

A Commons source said: "The prime minister of his day, Bonar Law, could see the danger posed by modern times and was determined that the barbarians should not win.

"Mr Rees-Mogg's mission is to ensure that no man dare appear hatless in public, that the Irish should not achieve Home Rule and that voting be rolled back to land-owners only.

"He will also, via his good offices and persuasive pamphlets, see to it that Great Britain disentangles itself from any unfortunate continental conglomeration with the baser European nations. After all, we have an Empire.

"Furthermore, should the suffragette movement lead to women believing they are fit to hold public office, Mr Rees-Mogg will gently correct their hysteria and lead them back to their homemaking roles.

"In all, we should like for men to look at Mr Rees-Mogg, his attire, his bearing and bestow on him the supreme accolade, 'Oh yes. You, Sir, are a Tory.'"

":Hilarious

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...923-to-save-conservative-party-20170629130748


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Rees-Mogg, or at least his wife. Apparently in reality his mother-in-law's father owned it until 1948. Neither his wife, nor his wife's mother have ever owned it and it's now owned by a charitable trust. I quite liked Rees-Mogg on Have I got news and QT iirc, but I don't know much about him, or about his politics, it was more that he didn't seem to take himself too seriously. If he became PM, he'd be exactly what Europe or America would expect of the British I think.  The meme posted, said he'd got a grant to do up his wife's ancestral home, which was telling porkies.

One of the criticisms of Jeremy was that he's a white British, upper middle class male who lives in London. Some of the Labour ladies thought it was time for a Northern lass to lead the party. I'd be more inclined to vote for a down to earth northern lass myself tbh., but some of the policies would have to change. 



kimthecat said:


> I don't see all the posts . Who is the man who is supposed to own Wentworth ?
> 
> Not Corbs , I assume , he was born in a 7 bed manor house according to The Telegraph !


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Lol @noushka05 That's exactly how he comes across. An eccentric boy from the 1920s. I expect if he were though, he'd assist the suffragettes by holding his brolly over their heads when it rained. He's terribly polite.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I don't see all the posts . Who is the man who is supposed to own Wentworth ?
> 
> Not Corbs , I assume , he was born in a 7 bed manor house according to The Telegraph !


Nope, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Apparently he's not allowed to have 6 children. Or something like that


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Elles said:


> Rees-Mogg, or at least his wife. Apparently in reality his mother-in-law's father owned it until 1948. Neither his wife, nor his wife's mother have ever owned it and it's now owned by a charitable trust. I quite liked Rees-Mogg on Have I got news and QT iirc, but I don't know much about him, or about his politics, it was more that he didn't seem to take himself too seriously. If he became PM, he'd be exactly what Europe or America would expect of the British I think.  The meme posted, said he'd got a grant to do up his wife's ancestral home, which was telling porkies.
> 
> One of the criticisms of Jeremy was that he's a white British, upper middle class male who lives in London. Some of the Labour ladies thought it was time for a Northern lass to lead the party. I'd be more inclined to vote for a down to earth northern lass myself tbh., but some of the policies would have to change.


I once went to a talk by Chi Onwura. Very impressive lady - used to be an engineer in her previous life. I could have faith in someone like her


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Hey @Zaros , I've just done a bit of delving (I really should have fact checked this! ), and it appears ole Rees Mogg is actually from the 1920s:Jawdrop, 1923 to be precise. You were very close
> 
> *
> Jacob Rees-Mogg sent from 1923 to save Conservative Party
> ...


LMAO! Noush'.

He certainly appears to be a bit of a Mr Benn character, old fashioned, and probably thinks Theresa May is just an old tart because she shows far too much ankle.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> I once went to a talk by Chi Onwura. Very impressive lady - used to be an engineer in her previous life.


Her 'previous life'? Has she been reincarnated then, @MiffyMoo? I didn't realise you were a Buddhist!:Hilarious


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> Nope, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Apparently he's not allowed to have 6 children. Or something like that


I doubt he's knocking them out to get a bigger council house...is he?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Zaros said:


> she shows far too much ankle.


I've also noticed a couple of times she has revealed a 'hint', let us say, of cleavage too. (Actually, I think she dresses reasonably well.)


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Nope, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Apparently he's not allowed to have 6 children. Or something like that


Blimey ! At last he can support them . Sixtus  and the others are oneus, twous ....

I do like him though , he so cute and I like his old fashionness.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> Blimey ! At last he can support them . Sixtus  and the others are oneus, twous ....
> 
> I do like him though , he so cute and I like his old fashionness.


My only worry about him running for leader is his voting record on gay rights . And apparently his love of insane names for kids that will absolutely ensure the poor little thing will get bullied mercilessly


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Calvine said:


> I've also noticed a couple of times she has revealed a 'hint', let us say, of cleavage too.


That's just a mere distraction to stop everyone from looking at her even bigger boobs.:Singing

​


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

A quick scan of his politics, ethics and religious views discounts him as someone I would vote for. Shame. An eccentric leader would be quite nice.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Zaros said:


> That's just a mere distraction to stop everyone from looking at her even bigger boobs.


Really, she is now such a sex symbol, it's no wonder President Trump was sharing that secretive masonic handshake with her.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> his love of insane names for kids


Lord, are they really bad...the most recent and widely publicised one is pretty dire (as you say) ...must check on the previous five ...let us say ''The Famous Five'' to quote Enid Blyton. There were a few really ODD characters in her books if my memory serves me right! (I don't know who they voted for but my guess is that they were Tory?)


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Calvine said:


> she is now such a sex symbol.


I'll have a perv over some of her photos later when MrsZee is in bed, maybe try and indulge myself in a little fantasy.....

But to be quite honest, I doubt she'll raise anything more than my blood pressure. :Rage


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Zaros said:


> maybe try and indulge myself in a little fantasy.....


There was much talk, when she first appeared, of the ''kitten heels'' which seemed to be a 'turn on' for some guys. And a rather costly pair of leather trousers ... ?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Calvine said:


> There was much talk, when she first appeared, of the ''kitten heels'' And a rather costly pair of leather trousers ... ?


rool DON'T STOP NOW!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Zaros said:


> DON'T STOP NOW!


OK: and a black leather thong with sparkly bits...happy now?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Calvine said:


> OK: and a black leather thong with sparkly bits...*happy now*?


Almost....
.
.
.
Nearly....
.
.
.
Aaaand...
.
.
.
Now to delete my browsing history before MrsZee arrives home...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Lol @noushka05 That's exactly how he comes across. An eccentric boy from the 1920s. I expect if he were though, he'd assist the suffragettes by holding his brolly over their heads when it rained. He's terribly polite.


He'd hold his brolly for them then vote against their best interests ompus lol Don't be fooled by his manners, look at his voting history - he is rotten to the core.

I mean what's not to like?












kimthecat said:


> Blimey ! At last he can support them . Sixtus  and the others are oneus, twous ....
> 
> I do like him though , he so cute and I like his old fashionness.


I'm pretty sure Sixtus can already support himself - he'll certainly be more financially secure then most people in this country.

I don't understand how people could like someone so cruel & dangerous just because they seem 'cute & old fashioned'. But hey ho.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> He'd hold his brolly for them then vote against their best interests ompus lol Don't be fooled by his manners, look at his voting history - he is rotten to the core.


So, he's a bit of a Wolf in sheep's old fashioned clothing then.

Best thing we can do for the flock then, is to set the dogs on hm.

What's steel grey and looks good on Mogg?

No...it's not his suit....

It's a Sarplaninac.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> So, he's a bit of a Wolf in sheep's old fashioned clothing then.
> 
> Best thing we can do for the flock then, is to set the dogs on hm.
> 
> ...


Now that would look good on him!:Smuggrin:Hilarious


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Now that would look good on him!:Smuggrin:Hilarious


As you already know, Noush' I don't hold much in the way of admiration for any politician or party, but how people can vote for a party that's willfully destructive in its views, particularly towards certain classes in society, is completely beyond me.
They're practicing financial eugenics.
If they can't breed them out, then they'll starve them out.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> As you already know, Noush' I don't hold much in the way of admiration for any politician or party, but how people can vote for a party that's willfully destructive in its views, particularly towards certain classes in society, is completely beyond me.
> They're practicing financial eugenics.
> If they can't breed them out, then they'll starve them out.


I often ask myself the same question. It always puzzles me to see ordinary working class people defend the tories. I do wonder what the tories really think of such people who's interests they do not represent:Shifty. Have to say though, I have a hell of a lot of respect for the people who usually voted for them but voted with their conscience & abandoned them in the last election.

Their policies are responsible for the deaths of lord knows how many people - and animals. They appear to be lacking in humanity. Just look at the voting history of any tory MP.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/07/07/mogg-mentum-the-tories-are-losing-their-grip-on-reality/

They can not be serious. This is a joke surely?

He's sure to win over the youth vote isn't he?!









Still, back on topic, it's been reported May has found another £300,000 for her Margaret Thatcher statue. I wouldn't be surprised if she's commissioned her's at the same time with, "Strong and stable leadership in the National interest" engraved in to it.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

A Margaret Thatcher statue? And how much will be spent on repairs for the constant vandalism?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> A Margaret Thatcher statue? And how much will be spent on repairs for the constant vandalism?


Last I saw, they're not going ahead with it because of vandalism fears. Because now we have to run our country according to the wants of vandals


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I usually disagree with vandalism. It makes a mess and costs a lot. But seeing as no-one has actually asked people whose lives were wrecked by Thatcher or those who are still suffering the consequences if they want a statue, I would quite happily buy the spray paint in this case.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> Last I saw, they're not going ahead with it because of vandalism fears


That's what I read too. And recalling the shameful way some people behaved when she died, I can see why they would think that.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

:Hilarious

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...d-and-then-immediately-toppled-20170707131335

*Thatcher statue to be officially unveiled then officially toppled*










*A STATUE of Margaret Thatcher is to be erected then immediately pulled down and destroyed by a cheering crowd*

The 15ft statue of the former prime minister will be officially unveiled in a lavish ceremony in Parliament Square, followed immediately by its official toppling.

A Royal Parks spokesman said: "This magnificent statue, honouring the greatest prime minister of the 20th century, will be officially presented to the public with a speech detailing her many achievements.

"The unveiling ceremony will then make way on the podium for the jeering mob who will list her many evils before knocking the statue over using a crane. They will then dance and cheer as it shatters on the ground."

The spokesman added: "If it proves popular it could become an annual event."


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> The spokesman added: "If it proves popular it could become an annual event."


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Mirandashell said:


>


I'm sure it would be VERY popular


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> I'm sure it would be VERY popular


I'd certainly save up the train fare!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Mirandashell said:


> I'd certainly save up the train fare!


I'd crawl over hot coals to be there


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

There are some nasty comments and posts here from people who _pretend_ to have a social conscience...showing their true colours rather like the people who cause trouble at 'peaceful' demonstrations.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> I often ask myself the same question. It always puzzles me to see ordinary working class people defend the tories. I do wonder what the tories really think of such people who's interests they do not represent:Shifty. Have to say though, I have a hell of a lot of respect for the people who usually voted for them but voted with their conscience & abandoned them in the last election.
> 
> *Their policies are responsible for the deaths of lord knows how many people* - and animals. They appear to be lacking in humanity. Just look at the voting history of any tory MP.


Again, just for balance, the UK has, throughout its history, been at the forefront in saving millions of lives. As recently as 2014 the Conservatives donated the huge majority of money (in contrast to most other EU countries) in the near eradication of the deadly ebola virus. 

*UK pledges £80m more aid to tackle Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

samuelsmiles said:


> Again, just for balance, the UK has, throughout its history, been at the forefront in saving millions of lives. As recently as 2014 the Conservatives donated the huge majority of money (in contrast to most other EU countries) in the near eradication of the deadly ebola virus.
> 
> *UK pledges £80m more aid to tackle Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone*


This in no way cancels out all the terrible suffering they have caused. Governments must be held to account for their terrible policies or how do we change things for the better?


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

samuelsmiles said:


> Again, just for balance, the UK has, throughout its history, been at the forefront in saving millions of lives. As recently as 2014 the Conservatives donated the huge majority of money (in contrast to most other EU countries) in the near eradication of the deadly ebola virus.
> 
> *UK pledges £80m more aid to tackle Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone*


That's also a big news story. Ebola was, quite rightly, all over the news. And the Tories putting the most money in makes them look really good without costing more than that original amount of money. But the day-to-day struggles of people affected by their austerity policies aren't as newsworthy and costs a lot more to fix so they aren't interested. The Tories don't actually care about Africans dying. Anymore than they care about children from low-income families struggling here. They do what makes them look good.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Calvine said:


> There are some nasty comments and posts here from people who _pretend_ to have a social conscience...showing their true colours rather like the people who cause trouble at 'peaceful' demonstrations.


A statue isn't a real person you know? Maggie hurt _real _people, having a social conscience means you care about them. Countless people are being made to suffer because we've been told we have to live within our means. In this time of austerity we cant afford things that matter but we can afford a statue of Thatcher. Its disgusting.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> This in no way cancels out all the terrible suffering they have caused. *Governments must be held to account for their terrible policies or how do we change things for the better?*


They _are _held to account, though - we have a general election every 5 years. Am I allowed to use the word 'democracy'?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

What makes me laugh is how much the Labourites who hated Thatcher back in the 80s snapped up their council houses and then later when the time limit was up sold it and then moved off the estate to the private estates down the road.

Also , the impression I got on Social media from socialists was that this encouraged greed and a free for all because of the discounts and that they shouldn't have been for sale , It was a bonanza for some people , but in many cases , it gave people their pride back , not to be "council scum "or to be looked down on you and judged for where you lived and more choice of where you could live . 
It made me feel at the time when Thatcher died almost ashamed when reading the comments because it made me feel we were greedy people and its our fault we caused a social housing crisis. One obvious fault was in not replacing the houses that were sold .

If Corbyn becomes PM will he stop the sale of council housing or allow the sale of association housing ?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

samuelsmiles said:


> They _are _held to account, though - we have a general election every 5 years. Am I allowed to use the word 'democracy'? e


No they're not - we have very few reporters & journalists who do a consistent job holding the government to account. Yeah, we know the price of democracy - £1.5bn


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

samuelsmiles said:


> They _are _held to account, though - we have a general election every 5 years. Am I allowed to use the word 'democracy'?


No. It is an epithet in these parts. Wash your keyboard out.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Calvine said:


> There are some nasty comments and posts here from people who _pretend_ to have a social conscience...showing their true colours rather like the people who cause trouble at 'peaceful' demonstrations.


Par for the course.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> It always puzzles me to see ordinary working class people defend the tories.


Seriously? It isn't that puzzling. People vote for politicians who best represent their interests and, whilst the current government is struggling through poor leadership and a tawdry lunge to the left, the Tories (since the days of the wonderful Mrs T) have consistently been the only party that stands up for the working class. People know on which side their bread is buttered and just because they are 'ordinary' it doesn't prevent them from seeing through the torrent of lies that the left wing parties spew at them.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> No they're not - we have very few reporters & journalists who do a consistent job holding the government to account. Yeah, we know the price of democracy - £1.5bn


Best value for money spend by central government in recent history.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> What makes me laugh is how much the Labourites who hated Thatcher back in the 80s snapped up their council houses and then later when the time limit was up sold it and then moved off the estate to the private estates down the road.
> 
> Also , the impression I got on Social media from socialists was that this encouraged greed and a free for all because of the discounts and that they shouldn't have been for sale , It was a bonanza for some people , but in many cases , it gave people their pride back , not to be "council scum "or to be looked down on you and judged for where you lived and more choice of where you could live .
> It made me feel at the time when Thatcher died almost ashamed when reading the comments because it made me feel we were greedy people and its our fault we caused a social housing crisis. One obvious fault was in not replacing the houses that were sold .
> ...


The usual suspects on here are going to have to think long and hard to answer that, @kimthecat ...it might take them a day or two!


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

Mirandashell said:


> That's also a big news story. Ebola was, quite rightly, all over the news[/B]. And the Tories putting the most money in makes them look really good without costing more than that original amount of money. But the day-to-day struggles of people affected by their austerity policies aren't as newsworthy and costs a lot more to fix so they aren't interested. The Tories don't actually care about Africans dying. Anymore than they care about children from low-income families struggling here. *They do what makes them look good*.


Well, it looked a whole heap better than the rest of our EU members.

[it was]* more than Germany or France* [and] *more than another 19 of the 28 EU countries combined*."


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> What makes me laugh is how much the Labourites who hated Thatcher back in the 80s snapped up their council houses and then later when the time limit was up sold it and then moved off the estate to the private estates down the road.


I'm not sure that's the whole story. A lot of working class people who would normally have voted Labour voted Tory because they could buy their council house. It was basically a bribe for votes. What no-one was told at the time was that councils wouldn't be allowed to build any more social housing. It was left to Housing Associations and the number of residences available dropped like a stone.

What she did inflated the housing market and we all know how that ended. Negative equity anyone?


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, it looked a whole heap better than the rest of our EU members.
> 
> [it was]* more than Germany or France* [and] *more than another 19 of the 28 EU countries combined*."


That's because they spend more on social care in their own countries. ETA: I'm referring to Germany and France, obviously. Before anyone jumps on my head about Greece.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

This is the type of man I want running my country. I'd be more than happy to have the job of cleaning the Bentley on the minimum wage.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Ah. Now I *know* why your board name is shared by the man who wrote Self-Help in the Victorian era.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

Mirandashell said:


> Ah. Now I *know* why your board name is shared by the man who wrote Self-Help in the Victorian era.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

samuelsmiles said:


>


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> I'm not sure that's the whole story. A lot of working class people who would normally have voted Labour voted Tory because they could buy their council house. It was basically a bribe for votes.


Not like Corbyn , then  How many bribes did he offer and still  didn't get in .

My point was really about stalwart Labourites who voted Labour , they hated Mrs T but didn't mind taking up her offer and went against their principles for financial gain . The word for that is hypocrite.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I come from a family of stalwart Labourites and don't know anyone who bought their council house. Do you have any evidence of how many Labour party members did? 

I do remember that she promised everyone that they would be part of the Brave New World where everyone would be rich. Which is how she sold our own utility companies back to us and made a fortune for those in the stock market. Which was very few working-class people. The word for that is liar.

It's also why our utilites, those things necessary to our lives, are owned by foreign companies and cost way more than they should.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Not like Corbyn , then  How many bribes did he offer and still  didn't get in .
> .


Yea but he thinks he did, don't ruin it for the poor chap.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> I come from a family of stalwart Labourites and don't know anyone who bought their council house. Do you have any evidence of how many Labour party members did?


and I know a lot who did buy them from several estates in West London , including John McDonnel's constituency , my best friend was a rabid Labourite and she knew John McDonnell from before he was famous , so I do know that group of people and those that lived on the estates ,

So , we both don't really know how many Labourites did or didn't buy their council houses or have any numbers do we,
I *know *some did, I *know* some of them personally and so my statement still stands , those that did are hypocrites,


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> Not like Corbyn , then T How many bribes did he offer and still  didn't get in .
> 
> My point was really about stalwart Labourites who voted Labour , they hated Mrs T but didn't mind taking up her offer and went against their principles for financial gain . The word for that is hypocrite.


Wouldn't you rather Theresa's bribe to the DUP had been spent on all these Corbyn 'bribes'? I certainly would.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> So , we both don't really know how many Labourites did or didn't buy their council houses or have any numbers do we,
> I know some did and so my statement still stands , those that did are hypocrites,


Then I agree. They are.

But I still think that a lot of the people who bought their houses weren't 'stalwart' Labour supporters. They just bought into the dream she peddled. The 70s had been a rough time and she gave us a new vision of how society could be. But she also didn't tell us the cost.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> Then I agree. They are.
> 
> But I still think that a lot of the people who bought their houses weren't 'stalwart' Labour supporters. They just bought into the dream she peddled. The 70s had been a rough time and she gave us a new vision of how society could be. But she also didn't tell us the cost.


yes , absolutely , I wasn't trying to say they all were . We weren't Labour or Tory supporters but we bought ours and I still live here !
I didn't mean my post to come over as if they all were . 
My friends then and still are now , we were all born on the estates , but the bonds that we formed and difficulties we went through , it kept us together despite the political differences .


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

That's fine! I thought you didn't but you know me, I like evidence! 

Actually it's been an interesting conversation. Thank you for engaging with what I was saying. And I don't mean that to be patronising. I'm just more used to hitting my head against a brick wall whilst the other person calls me names!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> Not like Corbyn , then  How many bribes did he offer and still  didn't get in .
> 
> My point was really about stalwart Labourites who voted Labour , they hated Mrs T but didn't mind taking up her offer and went against their principles for financial gain . The word for that is hypocrite.


To turn this on its head - would it also be hypocritical for anti socialists to benefit from socialism? For example the NHS, welfare state, social housing?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> That's fine! I thought you didn't but you know me, I like evidence!
> 
> Actually it's been an interesting conversation. Thank you for engaging with what I was saying. And I don't mean that to be patronising. I'm just more used to hitting my head against a brick wall whilst the other person calls me names!


The good thing about hitting your head against a brick wall is that its nice when it stops


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> The good thing about hitting your head against a brick wall is that its nice when it stops


True dat!


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

samuelsmiles said:


> Again, just for balance, the UK has, throughout its history, been at the forefront in saving millions of lives. As recently as 2014 the Conservatives donated the huge majority of money (in contrast to most other EU countries) in the near eradication of the deadly ebola virus.
> 
> *UK pledges £80m more aid to tackle Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone*


As Jacob Rees-Mogg said, the foreign aid budget ought to be for emergencies only [such as this], rather than sponsoring things like the Ethiopian Spice Girls. I thoroughly agree.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> What makes me laugh is how much the Labourites who hated Thatcher back in the 80s snapped up their council houses and then later when the time limit was up sold it and then moved off the estate to the private estates down the road.
> 
> Also , the impression I got on Social media from socialists was that this encouraged greed and a free for all because of the discounts and that they shouldn't have been for sale , It was a bonanza for some people , but in many cases , it gave people their pride back , not to be "council scum "or to be looked down on you and judged for where you lived and more choice of where you could live .
> It made me feel at the time when Thatcher died almost ashamed when reading the comments because it made me feel we were greedy people and its our fault we caused a social housing crisis. One obvious fault was in not replacing the houses that were sold .
> ...


For that matter, I don't understand why people are allowed to stay renting their council houses once they earn over x amount. Surely these properties are for those who desperately need help and can't afford private rent, so why are there families with incomes of over £50k still living in a council house? They can absolutely afford to rent privately, thereby freeing up that house to a family who really do need it.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> I'm not sure that's the whole story. A lot of working class people who would normally have voted Labour voted Tory because they could buy their council house. It was basically a bribe for votes. What no-one was told at the time was that councils wouldn't be allowed to build any more social housing. It was left to Housing Associations and the number of residences available dropped like a stone.
> 
> What she did inflated the housing market and we all know how that ended. Negative equity anyone?


I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that no more social housing was "allowed" to be built

https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> I come from a family of stalwart Labourites and don't know anyone who bought their council house. Do you have any evidence of how many Labour party members did?
> 
> I do remember that she promised everyone that they would be part of the Brave New World where everyone would be rich. Which is how she sold our own utility companies back to us and made a fortune for those in the stock market. Which was very few working-class people. The word for that is liar.
> 
> It's also why our utilites, those things necessary to our lives, are owned by foreign companies and cost way more than they should.


All the utility companies started life as private companies. I found this interesting piece of research. Page 13 has the round up, but the takeaway is that wholly private owned companies are better run, more competitive and, in the long run, better for jobs that publicly owned companies

http://www.ucy.ac.cy/erc/documents/Karagiannakis_Ketteni_Mamuneas_Pashardes_53-70.pdf

have a look at this. The graph on page 9. It shows the % of consumer expenditure on gas, electricity and other heating bills went down

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04153/SN04153.pdf


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> For that matter, I don't understand why people are allowed to stay renting their council houses once they earn over x amount. Surely these properties are for those who desperately need help and can't afford private rent, so why are there families with incomes of over £50k still living in a council house? They can absolutely afford to rent privately, thereby freeing up that house to a family who really do need it.


Not that long ago, RMT boss Bob Crow (earning 145k p.a. I think, so yes, as you say, can well afford to buy or rent privately) was living in a council house...maybe still does.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Calvine said:


> Not that long ago, RMT boss Bob Crow (earning 145k p.a. I think, so yes, as you say, can well afford to buy or rent privately) was living in a council house...maybe still does.


He died a few years ago, but it was exactly him I was thinking of. When someone asked him why he was living in a council house when he earned so much, he replied that it was his right to, or something very similar.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> it was his right to


That's right...''not under any obligation to move out'' (or something similar)...and there are thousands more, also earning six-figure sums.
It was suggested that people earning over a certain amount might well be asked to pay higher rents; but whether that was implemented I don't know.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> For that matter, I don't understand why people are allowed to stay renting their council houses once they earn over x amount. Surely these properties are for those who desperately need help and can't afford private rent, so why are there families with incomes of over £50k still living in a council house? They can absolutely afford to rent privately, thereby freeing up that house to a family who really do need it.


AFAIK the new tenancies now are for 5 years and then reviewed, tenancy rules vary from council to council , I don't know if income is taken into account.

I personally don't know anyone with an income of over 50 k , that lives in a council house here . there could be if you take into account mum and dad and their children all working . I think more are now owned privately now than council rented .
do you know families that do ? 
Its a good point though life can change , divorce , long term illness , grown up children leaving home , so they might not always have that income for long .


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Some evidence for all these thousands of people would be nice. Seeing as someone else claimed earlier than people earning a lot don't want to be regarded as council scum.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> AFAIK the new tenancies now are for 5 years and then reviewed, tenancy rules vary from council to council , I don't know if income is taken into account.
> 
> I personally don't know anyone with an income of over 50 k , that lives in a council house here . there could be if you take into account mum and dad and their children all working . I think more are now owned privately now than council rented .
> do you know families that do ?
> Its a good point though life can change , divorce , long term illness , grown up children leaving home , so they might not always have that income for long .


No, I don't. But is it right that someone gets to keep a much needed council house because they may not be earning so much in future?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Some evidence for all these thousands of people would be nice. Seeing as someone else claimed earlier than people earning a lot don't want to be regarded as council scum.


Well our conversation about Bob Crowe for starters.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Calvine said:


> That's right...''not under any obligation to move out'' (or something similar)...and there are thousands more, also earning six-figure sums.
> It was suggested that people earning over a certain amount might well be asked to pay higher rents; but whether that was implemented I don't know.


 Who are these people ? You'd think if they earned that much they would exercise there right to buy .


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Don't think you can extrapolate from one man and get thousands. Any evidence of the thousands?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Some evidence for all these thousands of people would be nice. Seeing as someone else claimed earlier than people earning a lot don't want to be regarded as council scum.


About 21,000. That good enough for you?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-council-house-tenants-earn-60000


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Don't think you can extrapolate from one man and get thousands. Any evidence of the thousands?


You just repeated yourself. A simple Google search immediately gave us the answer


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> Who are these people ? You'd think if they earned that much they would exercise there right to buy .


Well, as cheap as they are, it's still really tough to get a mortgage these days.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

There is really no need to snarl. But thank you for providing the evidence. 

It would be nice to know how many are single income residents and how many of those are in London. My bet, based on what I know of London rather than hard evidence would be that most of them are within the London postcode.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> No, I don't. But is it right that someone gets to keep a much needed council house because they may not be earning so much in future?


No, since 'future' could be six months or six years. And if suddenly they genuinely hit hard times (breadwinner leaves/dies etc) then the remaining tenant will no doubt be able claim housing and council tax benefit. And the system is open to abuse (as are so many). I know someone whose son (aged 40+) has never worked since leaving uni. He has a flat (housing benefit) in Leeds and his g/f has a flat in Bradford also paid for with housing benefit. So guess what, to make a few quid, they move in together and sublet the Bradford flat for which she still receives housing benefit. So the happy couple now have a nice little income renting out the Bradford flat. Father is a retired professor and is very impressed with what they are doing and describes it as 'enterprising' and thinks they were very clever to think this up. I understand that this sort of thing happens quite a lot.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> There is really no need to snarl. But thank you for providing the evidence.
> 
> It would be nice to know how many are single income residents and how many of those are in London. My bet, based on what I know of London rather than hard evidence would be that most of them are within the London postcode.


Ok, I won't snarl if you won't be snarky. Let's keep it civil for all.

I suspect you're right, the majority will be in London, so I think that a tiered system would be better


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Calvine said:


> No, since 'future' could be six months or six years. And if suddenly they genuinely hit hard times (breadwinner leaves/dies etc) then the remaining tenant will no doubt be able claim housing and council tax benefit. And the system is open to abuse (as are so many). I know someone whose son (aged 40+) has never worked since leaving uni. He has a flat (housing benefit) in Leeds and his g/f has a flat in Bradford also paid for with housing benefit. So guess what, to make a few quid, they move in together and sublet the Bradford flat for which she still receives housing benefit. So the happy couple now have a nice little income renting out the Bradford flat. Father is a retired professor and is very impressed with what they are doing and describes it as 'enterprising' and thinks they were very clever to think this up. I understand that this sort of thing happens quite a lot.


Stories like that make me sad


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Calvine said:


> No, since 'future' could be six months or six years. And if suddenly they genuinely hit hard times (breadwinner leaves/dies etc) then the remaining tenant will no doubt be able claim housing and council tax benefit. And the system is open to abuse (as are so many). I know someone whose son (aged 40+) has never worked since leaving uni. He has a flat (housing benefit) in Leeds and his g/f has a flat in Bradford also paid for with housing benefit. So guess what, to make a few quid, they move in together and sublet the Bradford flat for which she still receives housing benefit. So the happy couple now have a nice little income renting out the Bradford flat. Father is a retired professor and is very impressed with what they are doing and describes it as 'enterprising' and thinks they were very clever to think this up. I understand that this sort of thing happens quite a lot.


Enterprising or not...surely subletting is against the rules...

The earnings are they 'acknowledged' too.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm out of here . its time for bed.

@MiffyMoo I don't want to sound like your mother but have you finished the work you were meant to be doing weekend? 
No PF for you until its finished!


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I'm out of here . its time for bed.
> 
> @MiffyMoo I don't want to sound like your mother but have you finished the work you were meant to be doing weekend?
> No PF for you until its finished!


Hahaha, errrm....


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Subletting a council property is illegal. If they get caught, they could lose both. But they will lose the Bradford flat and get done for benefit fraud.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Hahaha, errrm....


 :Hilarious


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

lullabydream said:


> The earnings are they 'acknowledged' too.


At a guess, I'd say not. They are both signing on as far as I can gather as two single (living apart) people, and claiming housing benefit similarly...some people really know how to work the system don't they!


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Have you ever thought of reporting them?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

kimthecat said:


> Who are these people ? You'd think if they earned that much they would exercise there right to buy .


Where?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Wouldn't you rather Theresa's bribe to the DUP had been spent on all these Corbyn 'bribes'? I certainly would.
> 
> View attachment 317102


I'll take the top one every time if it keeps steptoe away from number 10.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

How about one man, two women, all on benefits, none working, 3 council houses.

The guy lived with one woman, they had kids and got a council house. He had an affair, she had kids and got a council house. Woman number 1 left him and got a new council house, he kept the old one for when the kids stayed with him. So now he has a council house, his ex has a council house and his current has a council house. 5 kids, 3 council houses, 3 adults all paid for by the tax payer and a more foul mouthed group you couldn't hope to meet.

It doesn't sound as though there are very many long term high earners living in social housing, so it's probably not worth worrying about imo.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Elles said:


> How about one man, two women, all on benefits, none working, 3 council houses.
> 
> The guy lived with one woman, they had kids and got a council house. He had an affair, she had kids and got a council house. Woman number 1 left him and got a new council house, he kept the old one for when the kids stayed with him. So now he has a council house, his ex has a council house and his current has a council house. 5 kids, 3 council houses, 3 adults all paid for by the tax payer and a more foul mouthed group you couldn't hope to meet.
> 
> It doesn't sound as though there are very many long term high earners living in social housing, so it's probably not worth worrying about imo.


This is quite an old article, but it says that about 6,000, including a Labour MP, live in council houses. I don't think these are the same sort of people you're describing

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tenants-live-council-houses-earn-100-000.html


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> This is quite an old article, but it says that about 6,000, including a Labour MP, live in council houses. I don't think these are the same sort of people you're describing
> 
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tenants-live-council-houses-earn-100-000.html


The other article said anyone earning 60k should lose their social housing, because there are people in desperate need. Yet people like the ones I describe get 3 houses between them. The taxpayer is paying for life choices that manipulate and take advantage of our welfare state. They're all nice 3 bedroom houses with large gardens. One of them is a semi and you're rude and look through the windows, there are large screen TVs in at least 4 rooms. All 3 adults have cars.

It just seems wrong to me, when I'm told about disabled people struggling to get help, nurses apparently using food banks and soldiers sleeping on the street. I don't think people on benefits always do too badly out of it, yet people earning a decent living are constantly asked to give more and more.

How about distributing what we already give more fairly instead. A fair wage for a fair day's work and benefits providing the necessities. I don't think 4 TVs (or the power to run them) are necessary, nor are cigarettes. Maybe I'm unreasonable, but it's hardly surprising that workers feel like they're being taken for a ride, especially if they're paid peanuts by a wealthy corporation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> All the utility companies started life as private companies. I found this interesting piece of research. Page 13 has the round up, but the takeaway is that wholly private owned companies are better run, more competitive and, in the long run, better for jobs that publicly owned companies
> 
> http://www.ucy.ac.cy/erc/documents/Karagiannakis_Ketteni_Mamuneas_Pashardes_53-70.pdf
> 
> ...


Private ownership of energy is not only bad for us it is terrible for the environment - https://weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/energy

.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Calvine said:


> There are some nasty comments and posts here from people who _pretend_ to have a social conscience...showing their true colours rather like the people who cause trouble at 'peaceful' demonstrations.


The thing is, Thatcher was a divisive PM, people either adored or detested her, there's no in-between. While the few benefited from her premiership others had to endure much hardship.

A statue in her honour is the will of the Tory party, not the people and shows political bias. It's damn right inappropriate.

Plus, what would she have thought having a statue close to the one she called a terrorist, ie Nelson Mandela?

Would you like a statue of Tony Blair to be erected in the same area? Exactly!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> I'll take the top one every time if it keeps steptoe away from number 10.


You helped get him where he is. That £3 was money well spent indeed


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> The thing is, Thatcher was a divisive PM, people either adored or detested her, there's no in-between. While the few benefited from her premiership others had to endure much hardship.
> 
> A statue in her honour is the will of the Tory party, not the people and shows political bias. It's damn right inappropriate.
> 
> ...


If any PM deserves a statue it is Clem Attlee.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Via Matt Chorley of The Times:

Angela Merkel is more popular in Britain than Theresa May
. That's the German chancellor, and big fan of the EU


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2017)

Elles said:


> How about one man, two women, all on benefits, none working, 3 council houses.
> 
> The guy lived with one woman, they had kids and got a council house. He had an affair, she had kids and got a council house. Woman number 1 left him and got a new council house, he kept the old one for when the kids stayed with him. So now he has a council house, his ex has a council house and his current has a council house. 5 kids, 3 council houses, 3 adults all paid for by the tax payer and a more foul mouthed group you couldn't hope to meet. It doesn't sound as though there are very many long term high earners living in social housing, so it's probably not worth worrying about imo.


There will always those, whom we think will not deserve a council house or social welfare or those, who abuse the system by e.g. lying. Still at least in Finland there is still way more of those, who don´t get what they deserve, as the system is way too complicated. Ok, we don´t have homeless people on the streets, as they will all die in the winter, and managed to solve that in the 80´s. But it doesn´t mean that the system is nowhere near good enough IMO. Also the money spent checking every single thing swill be so costly that with that money you could actually pay all the "wrongly" claimed benefits and still have some to spend it on something else. Makes no sense to me.

I guess it depends what do people think is more important - that all, who really need support will get it, or make the system so tight that despite the fact that lots will not get what they should, there would not be any possibility to misuse the system. As long as there are more people not getting what they deserve than those abusing it, IMO the system is too complicated. Maybe that is also the reason why it is easy to abuse - a complicated system can be abused by those, who know the system?

About the above example - what do you think the council should do? Tell people that they must stick with the relationships they have, if they have children or that if you want to get support you need to be nice. So even when the person is no nice (like this example - he sounds like a moron), we can´t have that affecting their rights to get support. We can´t deny people to split either even with children (think about the cases of domestic violence e.g.). Council houses seem to have really bad reputation in Britain though. Are all of them that bad? If that is so, I´d sure do just about anything not to live there, if I were in Britain and couldn´t afford to buy a place of my own. Or is it that some are fairly ok and some are bad, so you´d just need to know, which addresses to avoid?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Elles said:


> The other article said anyone earning 60k should lose their social housing, because there are people in desperate need. Yet people like the ones I describe get 3 houses between them. The taxpayer is paying for life choices that manipulate and take advantage of our welfare state. They're all nice 3 bedroom houses with large gardens. One of them is a semi and you're rude and look through the windows, there are large screen TVs in at least 4 rooms. All 3 adults have cars.
> 
> It just seems wrong to me, when I'm told about disabled people struggling to get help, nurses apparently using food banks and soldiers sleeping on the street. I don't think people on benefits always do too badly out of it, yet people earning a decent living are constantly asked to give more and more.
> 
> How about distributing what we already give more fairly instead. A fair wage for a fair day's work and benefits providing the necessities. I don't think 4 TVs (or the power to run them) are necessary, nor are cigarettes. Maybe I'm unreasonable, but it's hardly surprising that workers feel like they're being taken for a ride, especially if they're paid peanuts by a wealthy corporation.


I agree that the welfare state should be there to get you back on your feet, but most certainly should not be sufficient for luxuries. My television is 10 years old and has a lovely pale pink band straight across the middle of the screen. I certainly can't afford to replace it, so yes, I very much understand what you mean


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

MrsZee said:


> There will always those, whom we think will not deserve a council house or social welfare or those, who abuse the system by e.g. lying. Still at least in Finland there is still way more of those, who don´t get what they deserve, as the system is way too complicated. Ok, we don´t have homeless people on the streets, as they will all die in the winter, and managed to solve that in the 80´s. But it doesn´t mean that the system is nowhere near good enough IMO. Also the money spent checking every single thing swill be so costly that with that money you could actually pay all the "wrongly" claimed benefits and still have some to spend it on something else. Makes no sense to me.
> 
> I guess it depends what do people think is more important - that all, who really need support will get it, or make the system so tight that despite the fact that lots will not get what they should, there would not be any possibility to misuse the system. As long as there are more people not getting what they deserve than those abusing it, IMO the system is too complicated. Maybe that is also the reason why it is easy to abuse - a complicated system can be abused by those, who know the system?
> 
> About the above example - what do you think the council should do? Tell people that they must stick with the relationships they have, if they have children or that if you want to get support you need to be nice. So even when the person is no nice (like this example - he sounds like a moron), we can´t have that affecting their rights to get support. We can´t deny people to split either even with children (think about the cases of domestic violence e.g.). Council houses seem to have really bad reputation in Britain though. Are all of them that bad? If that is so, I´d sure do just about anything not to live there, if I were in Britain and couldn´t afford to buy a place of my own. Or is it that some are fairly ok and some are bad, so you´d just need to know, which addresses to avoid?


I'm actually intrigued by Finland's new trial of the unemployed wage. I have to admit, I'm a little hazy on how it actually works, but maybe a new way of tackling the problem is the way forward


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Elles said:


> How about one man, two women, all on benefits, none working, 3 council houses.
> 
> The guy lived with one woman, they had kids and got a council house. He had an affair, she had kids and got a council house. Woman number 1 left him and got a new council house, he kept the old one for when the kids stayed with him. So now he has a council house, his ex has a council house and his current has a council house. 5 kids, 3 council houses, 3 adults all paid for by the tax payer and a more foul mouthed group you couldn't hope to meet.
> 
> It doesn't sound as though there are very many long term high earners living in social housing, so it's probably not worth worrying about imo.


They sound like model citizens. I do wonder how to fix this kind of thing in a politically acceptable way. I hate handing out houses and benefits willy nilly to anyone with the ability to breed, but their poor kids need accommodation and they never asked to be born. I grew up in a huge council estate where this was rife and 14-15 yo girls would openly brag about their plans to get pregnant so as to get a council house and skip school.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MrsZee said:


> Council houses seem to have really bad reputation in Britain though. Are all of them that bad? If that is so, I´d sure do just about anything not to live there, if I were in Britain and couldn´t afford to buy a place of my own. Or is it that some are fairly ok and some are bad, so you´d just need to know, which addresses to avoid?


The latter. There are some rough areas that no-one wants to live in, including those who live there. But most are quite nice. My flat is nice. It's a good size for me. The council are pretty good at maintaining it. The council houses around here are post-war, built in what was then country-side. Must have been heaven for those that were bombed out. It had a bad reputation for a while but with CCTV and Neighbourhood Watch and stuff it's a lot better now. It's mostly teenagers that cause the problems and as they get older, the amount of trouble gets ever worse or better depending on how bad the next generation are.

But it does have a sense of community that is rare these days. People know their neighbours. The local shops know their customers. You don't often find that any more.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

KittenKong said:


> Would you like a statue of Tony Blair to be erected in the same area? Exactly


I would _certainly_ not embarrass myself by going online to say I would happily buy spray paint to vandalise it; nor would I whoop with glee and post smiley faces if it was pulled down. I prefer to think I am too mature for that sort of behaviour. How old does one have to be to join this forum? Year six?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> I certainly can't afford to replace it,


I don't have a TV; I prefer to spend the licence fee on cat food. I know someone with eight kids, never worked in the 20 years I've known them...each child has received a car as a seventeenth birthday gift!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> This is quite an old article, but it says that about 6,000, including a Labour MP, live in council houses. I don't think these are the same sort of people you're describing
> 
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tenants-live-council-houses-earn-100-000.html


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-how-many-council-homes-7853057

This link to the Daily mirror says 
Across the whole of England 1,643,000 dwellings were local authority owned as of April 2015.

So out of that number , the figures in your link for those earning 60k is low in comparison to the total number of other tenants,
How ever , it doesn't seem fair, i agree that at the very least they should pay more rent,
I think it was mooted but the cost of having to check every tenant's wages etc would cost a lot of money too and a higher rent wouldn't cover those costs.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Wow. And Calvine reckons other people are rude.....


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Calvine said:


> I don't have a TV; I prefer to spend the licence fee on cat food. I know someone with eight kids, never worked in the 20 years I've known them...each child has received a car as a seventeenth birthday gift!


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-how-many-council-homes-7853057
> 
> This link to the Daily mirror says
> Across the whole of England 1,643,000 dwellings were local authority owned as of April 2015.
> ...


Yeah, that's a huge problem. They struggle to keep up with benefits cheats, so adding checking people's income to that will be enormous.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> Yeah, that's a huge problem. They struggle to keep up with benefits cheats, so adding checking people's income to that will be enormous.


Actually to be fair these days it'd be ten seconds at the click of a button. It's all there tied to your NI number. Employee's pay is usually reported monthly so it's very up-to-date. I believe small businesses can still do this quarterly, that may have changed though. It wouldn't be a huge or difficult job to have income checked automatically when rent is paid.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Dr Pepper said:


> Actually to be fair these days it'd be ten seconds at the click of a button. It's all there tied to your NI number. Employee's pay is usually reported monthly so it's very up-to-date. I believe small businesses can still do this quarterly, that may have changed though. It wouldn't be a huge or difficult job to have income checked automatically when rent is paid.


sorry , I don't understand , who is employees pay reported to? 
That would certainly make it easier .


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Dr Pepper said:


> Actually to be fair these days it'd be ten seconds at the click of a button. It's all there tied to your NI number. Employee's pay is usually reported monthly so it's very up-to-date. I believe small businesses can still do this quarterly, that may have changed though. It wouldn't be a huge or difficult job to have income checked automatically when rent is paid.


isn't that reported to HMRC? I'm not sure they would be allowed to take that info for the purpose of checking on your income, as that's a bit police statey


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@MiffyMoo I think was thinking that . Data protection law is pretty strict .


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> sorry , I don't understand , who is employees pay reported to?
> That would certainly make it easier .


HMRC for tax and NI



kimthecat said:


> @MiffyMoo I think was thinking that . Data protection law is pretty strict .


Would it though? It's just a different department of government. So surely data protection wouldn't have breached anymore so than say Travis Perkins accounts dept telling their sales desk how much credit that customer was intitled to? i.e the information has not left the organisation holding it so no breach has occurred.

Maybe one for a legal bod.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

DP is right. If you are on Universal Credit and gain part time work, they don't ask you how much you earn they ask HMRC.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I can't remember which thread talked about university fees, but after it coming up on the recent QT and chatting to my daughter last night, I thought I'd look up where it's going now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184

Looks like it's going from one extreme to the other. It seems that people like nurses will also have to take out expensive loans to train.

I agree with charging a reasonable amount towards training, but this is getting silly imo.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> DP is right. If you are on Universal Credit and gain part time work, they don't ask you how much you earn they ask HMRC.


That would be the DWP . I still not sure if that's the same thing as the Council being allowed to check all tenants earnings.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> That would be the DWP . I still not sure if that's the same thing as the Council being allowed to check all tenants earnings.


I'm sure there's a definitive answer out there, but where's the fun in that!!

Just a thought, being self employed (and having had both tax and vat inspections in the past) HMRC can randomly visit you and demand access to your bank accounts, computer, paper work private spending details etc etc. So I wouldn't have thought checking someone's tax receipts to make sure they are paying the correct rent is that much of a biggie. The collecting council wouldn't even have, or need, to know the actual amount either just wether it was above a threshold.

It's one of these things that would be really simple and cheap to implement, and make the system fairer for all whilst raising revenue for treasury. So obviously it'll never happen.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> I'm actually intrigued by Finland's new trial of the unemployed wage. I have to admit, I'm a little hazy on how it actually works, but maybe a new way of tackling the problem is the way forward


We will see in two years, now it´s just an experiment. Our government picked 2000 unemployed at random and gave them 560€ per month for two years without any conditions, meaning if they get employed they still get it. The idea is that this freedom of red tape + ability to take any work without losing benefits will help people to be more active and get employed more easily.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

MrsZee said:


> We will see in two years, now it´s just an experiment. Our government picked 2000 unemployed at random and gave them 560€ per month for two years without any conditions, meaning if they get employed they still get it. The idea is that this freedom of red tape + ability to take any work without losing benefits will help people to be more active and get employed more easily.


Is €560 a month enough, or is that on top of their usual unemployment benefit? Does that amount end after 2 years, or is this something you'll find out once the trial is over?


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> Is €560 a month enough, or is that on top of their usual unemployment benefit? Does that amount end after 2 years, or is this something you'll find out once the trial is over?


That is not much, just bare minimum. But they still get their normal unemployment benefits, this is an addition to the 700€ minimum unemployment compensation without any benefits. Usually people lose benefits if they earn anything and it is way too much red tape to report that, and often the result is that if you earn just a bit, you lose almost the same amount of benefits. Or if you start a small business etc.

The first reports I saw recommend we should expand it, but no decisions have been made yet. At the moment they will go back to the old system after two years, unless they got a job or started a business.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

MrsZee said:


> That is not much, just bare minimum. But they still get their normal unemployment benefits, this is an addition to the 700€ minimum unemployment compensation without any benefits. Usually people lose benefits if they earn anything and it is way too much red tape to report that, and often the result is that if you earn just a bit, you lose almost the same amount of benefits. Or if you start a small business etc.
> 
> The first reports I saw recommend we should expand it, but no decisions have been made yet. At the moment they will go back to the old system after two years, unless they got a job or started a business.


Will be very interesting to see the final conclusion. Less red tape is always a good thing!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MrsZee said:


> almost the same amount of benefits.


Plus, of course, it (normally) costs you a lot of money to travel to work and you have to possibly buy a smart outfit, maybe a suit. It will be interesting to see the results?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Calvine said:


> Plus, of course, it (normally) costs you a lot of money to travel to work and you have to possibly buy a smart outfit, maybe a suit. It will be interesting to see the results?


That's a good point. I can imagine that having to go up to a month with no income must be terrifying (assuming, worst case scenario, you start your new job on the first of the month)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It seems small business and the self employed are again to be targeted by Theresa May in her new fairness shake up. They lost on the NI increases for people who don't get sick pay, holidays and regular guaranteed income, so there's going to be a tax shake up to make the employed and self employed more equal. All these increases that people want have to be paid for by someone, looks like it's going to be us.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Elles said:


> It seems small business and the self employed are again to be targeted by Theresa May in her new fairness shake up. They lost on the NI increases for people who don't get sick pay, holidays and regular guaranteed income, so there's going to be a tax shake up to make the employed and self employed more equal. All these increases that people want have to be paid for by someone, looks like it's going to be us.


Oh that's interesting. What are they proposing?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

You couldn't make this up! What a shambles.

(via Jo Maugham)

_From the PM who fought to deny Parliament a vote on A50, who guillotined the debate, who called a GE to crush the saboteurs? 
Beyond parody _
_







_


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Oh that's interesting. What are they proposing?


This is an interesting article in the Times this morning on businesses. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b348dd00-64dd-11e7-9b7b-d051f7c13c06

*Bosses lose faith in economy*
Confidence shaken by fears of lower household spending

Confidence among both large and small businesses has collapsed amid mounting concerns over the domestic political backdrop and fresh evidence that households, the engine of recent economic growth, are tightening their belts.

A series of business and household surveys have raised concerns that the UK may be performing as poorly as it was at the start of the year, when the economy grew by only 0.2 per cent in three months. From chief financial officers at some of the largest companies to small local firms, sentiment has turned sour since the general election.

Ian Stewart, chief economist at Deloitte, said that the latest dip in business sentiment was likely to have been prompted by the surprise outcome of the election. "A drop in confidence is…


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

...........


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Arrrghhh! I haven't seen yesterday's cricket yet! :Arghh


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Mirandashell said:


> Arrrghhh! I haven't seen yesterday's cricket yet! :Arghh


OMG I'm so sorry. I'll try to thumbsize if with a spoiler alert for anyone else, just sorry I spoilt it for you.

(i didnt think anyone liked cricket lol)


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Headline of todays Torygraph










And the ever astute Chunky with his assesement.






@Mirandashell I had to crop it off lol


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Thank you!


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> You couldn't make this up! What a shambles.
> 
> (via Jo Maugham)
> 
> ...


May called the election as she had united the public with her vision of Brexit but not Westminster.

Now she believes she'll unite Westminster!!!

I sincerely hope no one falls for it....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> May called the election as she had united the public with her vision of Brexit but not Westminster.
> 
> Now she believes she'll unite Westminster!!!
> 
> I sincerely hope no one falls for it....


Me too.

As someone just pointed out, a few short weeks ago she was saying Marxist Corbyn can't be let anywhere near power - now its help me Jeremy

The country is in such a state (& set to get worse) the tories need a scapegoat to pin the blame on. Or am I just being cynical?


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Me too.
> 
> As someone just pointed out, a few short weeks ago she was saying Marxist Corbyn can't be let anywhere near power - now its help me Jeremy
> 
> The country is in such a state (& set to get worse) the tories need a scapegoat to pin the blame on. *Or am I just being cynical?*


You're looking for a conspiracy, so no, you're just being left wing.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

samuelsmiles said:


> You're looking for a conspiracy, so no, you're just being left wing.


Its a well known fact the tories seek to find a convenient scapegoat so it seemed a reasonable assumption to me .

(though I am very proud to be left wing  )

Coincidentally, I saw this this morning. The debunking of one of the tories greatest lies by Michael Rosen. 'Cleaning up labours mess' Just a big fat lie to justify their massive cuts.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

*Owen Jones*‏Verified [email protected] 2h2 hours ago

The Tories coming crawling to Labour for policy ideas is so unbelievably pitiful I almost feel sorry for them.

The Tories demonise Labour as a party of extremists and terrorist sympathisers, try to crush them, then beg them for policies. Astonishing


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

TM knows JC is anti Eu, she probably wants Labour to back up her hard Brexit.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> TM knows JC is anti Eu, she probably wants Labour to back up her hard Brexit.


The tories are asking for policy ideas lol Its a trap.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The tories are asking for policy ideas lol Its a trap.


Yup, has to be imo.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> The tories are asking for policy ideas lol Its a trap.


Seems eminently sensible to me. Involve all those who support Brexit in deciding what resolutions are being sought and then Mrs May has a huge majority.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> Seems eminently sensible to me. Involve all those who support Brexit in deciding what resolutions are being sought and then Mrs May has a huge majority.


Mrs May called an election to crush labour now they want these dangerous Marxist extremists to bail them out. If the tories really wanted to work with other parties they wouldn't have voted down the pay cap for public sector workers.

Tis a trap! May will never get her 'huge majority'. She is finished. The tories are in chaos.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

She didn't fail on Brexit and if Labour back her on it, that's a majority of politicians voting on a proper Brexit and probably leaving the single market. If both main parties agree on Brexit, it doesn't matter in that respect which is leading. The smaller parties will have little to no say. May might not have a huge majority, but Brexit will have.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> Mrs May called an election to crush labour now they want these dangerous Marxist extremists to bail them out. If the tories really wanted to work with other parties they wouldn't have voted down the pay cap for public sector workers.
> 
> Tis a trap! May will never get her 'huge majority'. She is finished. The tories are in chaos.


Thing is Brexit isn't normal party politics. It's a one off unique event and not a case, as some seem to believe, of Conservatives for Brexit and Labour for remain. It's got nothing to do with pay caps or bailing anyone out, just getting out of the EU as swiftly as possible. I would've thought you'd be pleased she's wanting to involve Labour and seek their opinions rather than ignore everyone.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Arrrghhh! I haven't seen yesterday's cricket yet! :Arghh


Is that a joke? If not, please tell me the final score! I didn't listen as SA played really quite poorly on Friday


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> She didn't fail on Brexit and if Labour back her on it, that's a majority of politicians voting on a proper Brexit and probably leaving the single market. If both main parties agree on Brexit, it doesn't matter in that respect which is leading. The smaller parties will have little to no say. May might not have a huge majority, but Brexit will have.


She did fail, she failed to get that mandate she said she needed to give her a 'strong hand' in negotiations. This just smacks of desperation, I wonder how all those who supported a 'strong & stable' government must be feeling now? Brexit is already a disaster- labour will do a Napoleon if they have any sense.












Dr Pepper said:


> Thing is Brexit isn't normal party politics. It's a one off unique event and not a case, as some seem to believe, of Conservatives for Brexit and Labour for remain. It's got nothing to do with pay caps or bailing anyone out, just getting out of the EU as swiftly as possible. I would've thought you'd be pleased she's wanting to involve Labour and seek their opinions rather than ignore everyone.


Nah, I think its far better to let the tories implode. Brexit is a dead duck, once people realise it the labour party need room to be able to make a U-turn.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Yep.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

I think the whole damn lot of them need their heads banging together we are in a very precocious situation at the moment they need to all put their backs into it try for the love of God to work though this together and make the best possible deal then can . and let's face it it's the country we are trying to save! not someone's personal pride'


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

So obviously _this_ -

_
On Brexit now, theTory policy is a simple one: share the blame, pass it around, 
make sure Labour's fingerprints are all over it.

._


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

The whole lot of them in Parliament need to stop bickering, stop finger pointing and act like adults by working together to make Brexit work. One year and three months from now (October 2018) the EU aim to have all the negotiations wound up and finished so they can vote on Brexit in there own Parliaments before returning to the EU Parliament for ratification.

For the sake of the UK our politicians need to sort themselves out including the Northern Ireland assembly (what a disaster that is at the moment).

Jeremy Corbyn needs to wind his neck in and stop asking for another General Election, we just had one and he lost. The Conservatives won and formed a majority Government (eventually) by being propped up with the DUP.

I hope the MP's come back in the Autumn after their summer break more focused than they are at the moment with proper progress being made on Brexit etc?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

April: PM calls an election because she says Labour & LibDems are meddling in Brexit.

July: May asks Labour & LibDems to meddle in Brexit 

Beyond parody lol


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

DT said:


> precocious


@DT: I'm sort of thinking you mean 'precarious'?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

stockwellcat said:


> I hope the MP's come back in the Autumn after their summer break more focused than they are at the moment with proper progress being made on Brexit etc?


And I hope for world peace and pretty rainbows.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Corbyn lost, agreed but May didn't actually win either. Remember, this is about Theresa May and not the Conservative party. Her strong and stable leadership will get her through everything, so why is she asking for Corbyn's help?

He would be very stupid to fall for that, I'm confident he won't.

Still, Brexit resistance is growing for both May and Corbyn from rebels within both parties and the smaller ones.

Now, that's not a coalition of chaos but a coalition of common sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-form-cross-party-group-to-oppose-hard-brexit


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Calvine said:


> @DT: I'm sort of thinking you mean 'precarious'?


Dunno it begins with a P and ends in a S. What goes between I just guessed


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-form-cross-party-group-to-oppose-hard-brexit
> View attachment 317340


Well yes that news clipping is true. One MP is from Labours Backbenches and the other is from the Tory Backbenches so it would be cross party 

Problem they have is they are trying to subvert what the majority voted for last year. There is still more MPs backing the will of the people that being Brexit. Brexit is going to happen, like it or not.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Did people vote for a hard Brexit? I don't remember the difference in quality being discussed. People voted to get out of Europe, didn't they?


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Did people vote for a hard Brexit? I don't remember the difference in quality being discussed. People voted to get out of Europe, didn't they?


I thought people had moved on from labelling Brexit hard and soft. Brexit is Brexit. It means we are leaving that club called the EU. I voted for Brexit (to leave the EU) and that is what is being negotiated at the moment  I didn't vote to stay in the EU via the back door, I voted to leave the EU completely.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

stockwellcat said:


> Problem they have is they are trying to subvert what the majority voted for last year. There is still more MPs backing the will of the people that being Brexit. Brexit is going to happen, like it or not.


You forget the majority who voted based on a pack of lies was 52% against 48%. Hardly a huge majority was it, well certainly not for the Brexit planned by TM who lost her overall majority on.

The far right had their year in 2016 with the referendum and the Trump Presidency. The predicted domino effect didn't happen with Holland and France rejecting far right extremism.

What do you think of this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...paign-director-dominic-cummings-a7833351.html








Seems even Brexiteers are divided on what exactly Brexit should mean.

And this is worth thinking about. OK it's from a pro EU Facebook page.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Well... you may have told by the Leavers that it would be that simple but unfortunately it won't. And it will take a long time. 

Maybe if the lies on both sides had not been told people would have made a more educated decision. But we were all lied to and we were all suckered. So now we're stuck with whatever mess the Tories make of the negotiations. 

Thanks, Call Me Dave.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Well... you may have told by the Leavers that it would be that simple but unfortunately it won't. And it will take a long time.
> 
> Maybe if the lies on both sides had not been told people would have made a more educated decision. But we were all lied to and we were all suckered. So now we're stuck with whatever mess the Tories make of the negotiations.
> 
> Thanks, Call Me Dave.


I done what I said I would always would have done and that was to vote to leave the EU given the opportunity. I did not need anyone to tell me how to vote or to sway me to vote a particular way. My x was always going to be in that box.

If you really think people voted because they where ill informed I beg to differ. But I am not going through this debate that has been raging for over a year now.

We are leaving the EU and need to see what is negotiated between now and October 2018 (which is when the EU want the negotiations wrapped up so they can ratify the deal and so the UK can leave by March 2019).


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Why does everyone on these political threads extrapolate from themselves to everyone else? I'm not having a go, I just find it odd how often it happens on here. 

Anyway I don't want to rehash that argument either. We're all buggered whichever way we voted.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Now she wants people to feel sorry for her.
Well tough. She brought it on herself at considerable expense for the taxpayer....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40592808


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-deal-prime-minister-austerity-a7842476.html

Well done Tory MP Dr. Sarah Wollaston.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

This is very good news.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-supreme-court-has-outlawed-anti.html?m=1


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> Why does everyone on these political threads extrapolate from themselves to everyone else? I'm not having a go, I just find it odd how often it happens on here.
> 
> Anyway I don't want to rehash that argument either. We're all buggered whichever way we voted.


Not strictly true - those who had nothing will still have nothing, the rich will still be rich and we will all keep plodding on


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

And you base that on?


----------

