Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Theresa "MAY" not build a better Britain.


Guest Pistonbroke
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Don't see an issue with the principle of it. I know people who have seen bits of old, good furniture about to be chucked out and restored it. Obviously they have the know how, but why not apply that globally?

 

Of course, If he's saying it in typical Tory fashion he can get to fuck.

I'm thinking more of starving favela kids scavenging a rubbish tip for bare basic human requirements than a bit of shabby chic to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Auckland, New Zealand, they used to have an inorganic collection organised by the Council.

 

Basically, everybody would put out things they no longer wanted - chairs, tables, desks, tellys, beds, cupboards etc - and the council would come around and collect them.  However, what actually happened is that people would come around and pick up things they needed first.

 

If you timed it right, and arrived in Auckland in October, you could drive around the posher areas of Auckland and fully furnish your whole house for the price of a rental truck.

 

It was a great idea - reuse and recycle: redistribution.

 

Maybe this is what the poppers-huffing balloonhead meant, though I do suspect the favela replication would more suit his agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some talk of the DUP threatening to vote against the budget scheduled for the 29th of October. After trying to break the EU and failing looking like they are seeing if the DUP will crack. 

 

The DUP were alarmed by meeting in Brussels with

who reportedly said Great Britain entitled to sign traditional free trade deal with the EU. But NI would have to be separate and subject to rules of single market to avoid no hard border between NI + Irish Republic

 

 

 
Consequence of breach of DUP ‘nuclear’ red line on #Brexit has been: abandon confidence and supply arrangement with even if that ends up installing in Downing Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is worth a read. The Tories are reportedly negotiating a solution that would see Northern Ireland get a deal that would give them a competitive advantage compared to England, Scotland and Wales. The offer being in the single market for goods via devolution. So it seems if it was a financial assessment it is probably a very good offer but they are a unionist party and it seems the polar opposite of what they stand for. The SNP must be rubbing their hands of different parts of the UK having different deals. 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1049985123914051584

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say the DUP are team Johnson and want a no deal for differing reasons though.

 

 
And..... on the matter of voting down the Budget & withdrawing from confidence & supply deal, DUP source suggests that PM ‘could go because she can’t hold together her govt, and someone else could take over’ >> that’s pretty, er, punchy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I note according to the BBC's budget calculator that the raise in the Income tax threshold will leave me roughly £40 better off per month, which is just great for someone near the top of the household income scale especially when I walk past approximately 10 homeless people sleeping in freezing conditions every morning, then being told we have to make cost improvement plans at work to help the trust out of its financial black hole and reading the patient feedback on the first anonymous survey I pick up -quote- 'it would be great if other professionals understood my condition I have been refused Incapacity Benefit, I don't know how I will be able to afford to live'.

 

It's almost as if it's a give away to get people to vote for them while still mauling the structure of our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 8:14 AM, razor said:

In Auckland, New Zealand, they used to have an inorganic collection organised by the Council.

 

Basically, everybody would put out things they no longer wanted - chairs, tables, desks, tellys, beds, cupboards etc - and the council would come around and collect them.  However, what actually happened is that people would come around and pick up things they needed first.

 

If you timed it right, and arrived in Auckland in October, you could drive around the posher areas of Auckland and fully furnish your whole house for the price of a rental truck.

 

It was a great idea - reuse and recycle: redistribution.

 

Maybe this is what the poppers-huffing balloonhead meant, though I do suspect the favela replication would more suit his agenda.

Same gig in Sydney, Brisbane & Melbourne. My Brother in law is a tight fucker, lived here for 6 years and still got stuff he picked up. Works for a bank so he’s not skint, though he has just bought a flat near water Vaucluse, so he’s a canny cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have read about the 9 year old little girl who phoned a charity yesterday, telling them her mum had died, her dad had lost his job a few weeks ago (and had no money waiting for Universal Credit) and asking if they had work sweeping floors or making beds because, even though she doesn’t believe in Father Christmas, her younger siblings did and she wanted to buy them Christmas presents.

 

Hard to argue with this.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-probably-killing-children-what-13548989.amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Theresa May’s government faces becoming the first to suffer a defeat on its own budget bill in 40 years after Tory MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson and David Davis joined a rebellion over fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs).

More than 70 MPs from both sides of the House of Commons have signed two amendments designed to force the government to bring forward the timing of the planned cut in FOBT maximum stakes to April 2019.

Tracey Crouch resigned as sports ministerthis month after the chancellor, Philip Hammond, revealed in the budget that the policy would not take effect until October 2019.

 

Tracey Crouch resigned as sports ministerthis month after the chancellor, Philip Hammond, revealed in the budget that the policy would not take effect until October 2019.

Government's FOBT decision influenced by 'discredited' report

Crouch has joined dozens of party colleagues in putting her name to amendments that will pile pressure on the Treasury to revert to the earlier date, understood to have been included in an early draft of the budget

 

The rebels include the Treasury committee chair, Nicky Morgan, Johnny Mercer, Priti Patel, Justine Greening and Zac Goldsmith, while MPs from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, DUP, SNP and Plaid Cymru have also signed.

The former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, the Labour MP Carolyn Harris and the SNP’s Ronnie Cowan laid the amendments, which are expected to be put to a vote on Wednesday 21 November.

“Enough is enough, MPs on all sides of the House are calling on the government to see sense and bring forward the stake cut for FOBTs to April 2019,” Harris said.

“The government’s position is indefensible. They can either accept our amendments or expect to be defeated in the finance bill next week. It is a great shame for all concerned that it has come to this.”

Duncan Smith said: “Everyone who has signed this is deadly serious about voting for these amendments unless the government have an alternative which is acceptable to everybody.

 

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said Labour would support the amendment, after the Guardian revealed that a “discredited” report commissioned by bookmakers had influenced the Treasury’s decision on the timing of FOBT stake reduction.

“The chancellor’s position on this issue is now completely untenable and he must now back the cross-party amendment to the finance bill, which Labour will be supporting,” he said.

Backing from Labour, coupled with dozens of signatures from all sides of the House of Commons, mean the proposals are all but certain to pass if the government does not back down.

The proposals have been designed to box the government into a corner.

Because the FOBT stake cut is not included in the budget, the date on which it is due to be implemented, 1 October 2019, cannot be changed via an amendment to the finance bill.

However, the budget does include a rise in online casino tax from 15% to 21%, scheduled to take effect at the same time, to make up for lost FOBT tax revenue.

 

It is this element that the budget rebels are targeting. Their amendment effectively prevents the government from moving forward with the increase in online casino taxes unless it agrees to reduce FOBT stakes in April 2019.

The Treasury could abandon the rise altogether but this would see it lose its counterweight to the revenue loss from FOBT stake reduction, blowing a hole in spending plans.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

It is politically impossible for the government to reverse planned curbs to FOBTs, which it has called a “social blight”.

That leaves it with little alternative but to bring forward the date rather than be outvoted on an amendment that would kill off the policy designed to pay for FOBT stake reduction.

Duncan Smith, Harris and Cowan also laid a separate amendment that calls on the Treasury to launch a review, based on “independent advice”, into the effect of both policies going ahead in April 2019.

 

No government has been defeated on its own finance bill since Jim Callaghan’s minority administration was voted down on income tax rates in 1978. Labour defeated a planned rise in VAT on fuel under John Major in 1994 but the measure was actually included in the previous year’s “ticking timebomb” budget, when Norman Lamont was chancellor

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/12/jacob-rees-mogg-and-boris-johnson-join-fobt-rebellion?__twitter_impression=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...