Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Strontium]

Embarrassing. The idea that you would try to push the argument someone gives money to a political party (at random) and not to "the government", as in back in the pot, is pathetic.

 

 

Hold on, I'm not pushing any argument. That is what the solicitor told them. What reason does anyone have to doubt it?

 

Take the fucking rosette off and you'll get less shit. Disingenuous is an understatement.

 

 

What does it have to do with rosettes? I personally couldn't give a shit who she left the money to. It's her money.

 

"I want my money to go to a random party to make ads full of misrepresentations of the facts": Everyone's dream.

 

 

It's immaterial whether you think it's likely or not, that is what the solicitor said her instructions were.

 

They know they were in the wrong, that's why they gave the money to the treasury, the slippery fucks. Not even Cameron agrees with your piss-weak stance.

 

 

What stance? As I said, I couldn't give two shits about the money. I merely fail to see how the political parties are in the wrong by being told by the executors of the will that they've inherited money!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Avoiding VAT is relatively easy: buy a cheaper television and maybe pass on the home cinema system and chocolate biscuits.

Straight out of the mouth of Iain Duncan Smith. Poverty is to be blamed on the poor.

 

Congratulations. You are now a true Liberal Democrat.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just as well that low-earners are paying much less tax, then.

Especially since "Bedroom Tax" is a misnomer.

[L19red]

Hold on, I'm not pushing any argument. That is what the solicitor told them. What reason does anyone have to doubt it?

 

 

 

 

What does it have to do with rosettes? I personally couldn't give a shit who she left the money to. It's her money.

 

 

 

 

It's immaterial whether you think it's likely or not, that is what the solicitor said her instructions were.

 

 

 

 

What stance? As I said, I couldn't give two shits about the money. I merely fail to see how the political parties are in the wrong by being told by the executors of the will that they've inherited money!

 

Try looking at it from a ethical position instead of a legal one. If you want to go around lecturing the population about being in it together then you need to do the right thing when you get a windfall like this instead of trousering it and hoping no-one notices. If you want to be seen as the nations leaders then show a bit of leadership.

[Strontium]

To be fair you are not getting abuse for posting. Nobody gets abuse for just posting.

 

You get stick/abuse for some real sweeping statements about the Tory spin you never want to fight against, for always toeing the party line when it is clear for everyone to see that 9/10 it's wrong, for never wanting to do any research that may actually make you think "Hang on the fuck a minute".

 

 

Er, hold on. I am the one who does the research. I always do my best to support any arguments with empirical data. I don't think I should be castigated for not swallowing smears from the Mirror/Mail/Times/Telegraph/Guardian/etc uncritically. Things are rarely as black and white as the media like to portray them.

 

Like this latest nonsense about the will, which is something the Mail have spun as part of their anti-politics, pro-UKIP agenda, and sure enough, the useful idiots are lapping it up a storm.

 

 

What I can't get my head around is this comment from you

 

That is exactly what the majority on this thread does (explains reality), however we point out that we are not happy with it, won't accept it and will try and do something about it in many various ways we can.

 

You just give the impression, 'Well that is how it is, I am not happy but I am just going to continue take it up the arse' I just don't get that mate.

 

 

It's fair to say my reading of certain situations differs from many.

 

Take the railways, for instance. My thinking goes like this:

 

1) Railways are expensive to maintain

2) Someone has to pay for them

3) It's not unreasonable for those who use rail to bear most of the cost, especially as they tend towards the better off in society

 

That doesn't mean I'm happy about the cost of a rail ticket. I'm not happy about having to spend the best part of 20 quid to visit her parents in Preston, and I'm not happy about having to spend 12 quid if I want to go to Manchester for the day. But what's the alternative?

 

You are clearly an intelligent fella but I just get the impression that your inactions so to speak are what Thatcher's Britain wanted, 'It doesn't really effect me so why should I give a fuck'

 

This country is being divided more than when Moses parted the Red Sea and you and your party are just standing by and allowing it to happen under their watch.

 

Surely you can't accept that is right and moral?

 

 

I don't recognise that description of Britain, or my party's role in government. Not that I'm happy with everything, but I think much is exaggerated beyond reason.

[Strontium]

Straight out of the mouth of Iain Duncan Smith. Poverty is to be blamed on the poor.

 

Congratulations. You are now a true Liberal Democrat.

 

 

Say what? Who is blaming the poor for being poor? What I wrote was that most VAT can be avoided.

 

Especially since "Bedroom Tax" is a misnomer.

 

 

It is a misnomer, because it's not a tax, although that doesn't mean I am happy about it. Although I think you'll find most low-earners aren't in public social housing and receiving housing benefit.

 

Try looking at it from a ethical position instead of a legal one. If you want to go around lecturing the population about being in it together then you need to do the right thing when you get a windfall like this instead of trousering it and hoping no-one notices. If you want to be seen as the nations leaders then show a bit of leadership.

 

 

Are you saying political parties should give up every penny they're left in wills? Or should they scan the exact wording of each will, looking for ways to diddle themselves out of each windfall?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's fair to say my reading of certain situations differs from many.

 

Take the railways, for instance. My thinking goes like this:

 

1) Railways are expensive to maintain

2) Someone has to pay for them

3) It's not unreasonable for those who use rail to bear most of the cost, especially as they tend towards the better off in society

 

That doesn't mean I'm happy about the cost of a rail ticket. I'm not happy about having to spend the best part of 20 quid to visit her parents in Preston, and I'm not happy about having to spend 12 quid if I want to go to Manchester for the day. But what's the alternative?

As a fair-minded, deep thinker, committed to empirical data, you will doubtless be aware that the total public subsidy per passenger mile, in real terms, comparing similarly high-demand periods is three times higher on the privatised railway than it was on British Rail.

 

When you say "What's the alternative?" it should be a genuine question, not a rhetorical shrug.

[L19red]

Say what? Who is blaming the poor for being poor? What I wrote was that most VAT can be avoided.

 

 

 

 

It is a misnomer, because it's not a tax, although that doesn't mean I am happy about it. Although I think you'll find most low-earners aren't in public social housing and receiving housing benefit.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying political parties should give up every penny they're left in wills? Or should they scan the exact wording of each will, looking for ways to diddle themselves out of each windfall?

 

Nope I'm saying this is an unusual and ambiguous case. Clearly the strict letter of the law says they could have kept the money but due to the nature of the bequest having an undefined recipient another reasonable view to take is that the money should be used for the public good rather than the benefit of whichever party happened to be in the hot seat.

[Strontium]

As a fair-minded, deep thinker, committed to empirical data, you will doubtless be aware that the total public subsidy per passenger mile, in real terms, comparing similarly high-demand periods is three times higher on the privatised railway than it was on British Rail.

 

When you say "What's the alternative?" it should be a genuine question, not a rhetorical shrug.

 

 

It is a genuine question.

 

I didn't support the privatisation of the railways in the first instance, because privatisation only works when you can shoehorn competition into the market, and that's hard with a natural monopoly like the rail network.

 

Fully renationalising the railways is obviously an option, although it would be extremely expensive. I would like to see a serious and fully costed proposal which we could then critically evaluate, rather than assuming that getting rid of privatisation will automatically bring costs down to 1980s levels.

 

Nope I'm saying this is an unusual and ambiguous case. Clearly the strict letter of the law says they could have kept the money but due to the nature of the bequest having an undefined recipient another reasonable view to take is that the money should be used for the public good rather than the benefit of whichever party happened to be in the hot seat.

 

 

Well, that's what they did in the end. The proceeds have gone into paying off the deficit, and everyone can get back to criticising political parties for receiving money from living people rather than dead people.

 

Ideally the lady would have written her will in an unambiguous way in the first place, but I suspect she didn't expect it to be pulled apart by the Daily Mail.

[L19red]

It is a genuine question.

 

I didn't support the privatisation of the railways in the first instance, because privatisation only ws when you can shoehorn competition into the market, and that's hard with a natural monopoly like the rail network.

 

Fully renationalising the railways is obviously an option, although it would be extremely expensive. I would like to see a serious and fully costed proposal which we could then critically evaluate, rather than assuming that getting rid of privatisation will automatically bring costs down to 1980s levels.

 

 

 

 

Well, that's what they did in the end. The proceeds have gone into paying off the deficit, and everyone can get back to criticising political parties for receiving money from living people rather than dead people.

 

Ideally the lady would have written her will in an unambiguous way in the first place, but I suspect she didn't expect it to be pulled apart by the Daily Mail.

 

In the end when they were shamed into it they did the right thing. It is a shame their moral compass didn't see them do it the first place. Not exactly edifying behaviour from the nation's leaders

[JER]

 

Ideally the lady would have written her will in an unambiguous way in the first place, but I suspect she didn't expect it to be pulled apart by the Daily Mail.

 

It wasn't ambiguous in the slightest. She left it to the government of the day, not the party of the day. There is a clear difference in paying down the deficit and paying for billboards of David Cameron promising not to kill the NHS

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It is a genuine question.

 

I didn't support the privatisation of the railways in the first instance, because privatisation only works when you can shoehorn competition into the market, and that's hard with a natural monopoly like the rail network.

 

Fully renationalising the railways is obviously an option, although it would be extremely expensive. I would like to see a serious and fully costed proposal which we could then critically evaluate, rather than assuming that getting rid of privatisation will automatically bring costs down to 1980s levels.

It's not really about returning to the 1980s, though. It's about what works best for the present and for the next few decades. And the current set-up doesn't work for passengers or for taxpayers (although it works a treat for the train operators, the rolling stock companies and the myriad specialist rail industry lawyers, accountants and consultants).

 

I think the best time to re-nationalise has probably past. That was when New Labour was in power and the first tranche of franchises were expiring, one by one. This coincided with the failure of Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail (with a far greater degree of public ownership and control). A Labour Government would have taken each of the expiring franchises into public control, to provide a better deal for the passengers and the taxpayers. The New Labour Government saw another chance for their rich buddies to make a quick buck.

 

That missed opportunity just means that replacing the current carve-up would be unnecessarily expensive. Still worth doing, mind.

 

Here's a fairly hefty report on rail privatisation.

http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/GTR%20Report%20final%205%20June%202013.pdf

(I won't pretend to have read the whole thing - I've got a life, y'know! - but the Executive Summary contains some food for thought.)

[Section_31]

Pretty much everything the Tories are doing is ideological.

 

Was chatting to the boss of a major housing association the other day and he reckons the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves, he said he's taking people out of £75 a week properties and putting them with private landlords on £95 a week.

 

Was also saying that when his organisation bid for new housing funding from the government two years ago, they were only interested in bids that featured two and three bedroom properties, they got the money and are currently half way through a building programme of two and three beds, even though the shortage of one beds is what's causing all the problems.

 

They've also started to do some sly shit with council funding lately. They've clawed back 10% of the business rates councils were supposed to keep to encourage business, they've also top sliced money from new homes initiatives designed to promote homebuilding and given it to local enterprise partnerships instead.

 

It's clear that what Pickles is trying to do is wear councils down to a nub, to the point where all they are is administrators of private sector services, they won't actually provide any services themselves - and the private contractors of course won't offer their staff anything in the way of a decent wage or job security.

 

The NHS and education sectors being opened up to more private meddling, councils being worn down and people effectively being fined for being poor - who'd have thunk it?

[Stu Monty]

Hold on, I'm not pushing any argument. That is what the solicitor told them. What reason does anyone have to doubt it?

 

What does it have to do with rosettes? I personally couldn't give a shit who she left the money to. It's her money.

 

It's immaterial whether you think it's likely or not, that is what the solicitor said her instructions were.

 

What stance? As I said, I couldn't give two shits about the money. I merely fail to see how the political parties are in the wrong by being told by the executors of the will that they've inherited money!

 

You know what, I'm actually going to roll back and accept that you have a point. There has definitely been a moral wrong here (I don't believe for one second that a woman gives her money to a random political party) but would doubt that the parties check the donations from wills (even the very large ones like this). I would be very interested to delve a little deeper into the solicitor and what their motivations were in giving away this money meant for the government to political parties. Surely you can accept that the idea that it was clarified with her and she agreed to this is highly unlikely?

 

 

Pretty much everything the Tories are doing is ideological.

 

Was chatting to the boss of a major housing association the other day and he reckons the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves, he said he's taking people out of £75 a week properties and putting them with private landlords on £95 a week.

 

Was also saying that when his organisation bid for new housing funding from the government two years ago, they were only interested in bids that featured two and three bedroom properties, they got the money and are currently half way through a building programme of two and three beds, even though the shortage of one beds is what's causing all the problems.

 

They've also started to do some sly shit with council funding lately. They've clawed back 10% of the business rates councils were supposed to keep to encourage business, they've also top sliced money from new homes initiatives designed to promote homebuilding and given it to local enterprise partnerships instead.

 

It's clear that what Pickles is trying to do is wear councils down to a nub, to the point where all they are is administrators of private sector services, they won't actually provide any services themselves - and the private contractors of course won't offer their staff anything in the way of a decent wage or job security.

 

The NHS and education sectors being opened up to more private meddling, councils being worn down and people effectively being fined for being poor - who'd have thunk it?

 

 

Section is clearly bang on the money. It's pretty much all ideological and I struggle to see how any intelligent person could think otherwise. I don't even think it's because many of them believe the ideology is better for everyone, they just know that it'll reshape the country to the benefit of their small select class. I'd have more respect for them if they actually believed all that neoliberal trickle-down bullshit, but they don't. They simply don't care.

 

Soon the assets of the NHS will fall into the hands of those good at tendering and bad at healing, because those good at healing can't tender. This is by design. The people designing it will have shares and interests in those organisations that will be part of the asset grab.

 

I hope they die in horrible housefires.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

[Strontium]

You know what, I'm actually going to roll back and accept that you have a point. There has definitely been a moral wrong here (I don't believe for one second that a woman gives her money to a random political party) but would doubt that the parties check the donations from wills (even the very large ones like this). I would be very interested to delve a little deeper into the solicitor and what their motivations were in giving away this money meant for the government to political parties. Surely you can accept that the idea that it was clarified with her and she agreed to this is highly unlikely?

 

 

It does seem unlikely, and I see why it raised eyebrows. But people make all kinds of odd bequests. One woman left her ex-husband money with the express instruction that it be spent on a rope to hang himself.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

It does seem unlikely, and I see why it raised eyebrows. But people make all kinds of odd bequests. One woman left her ex-husband money with the express instruction that it be spent on a rope to hang himself.

 

hats off to your ex

[Strontium]

hats off to your ex

 

 

I've never been married, you hateful, odious fuckwit.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I've never been married, you hateful, odious fuckwit.

 

You surprise me.....Ex doesn't necessarily mean you have been married! It could mean ex girlfriend. I love the way you bite.... I'm guessing the female population of the UK can breathe a sigh of relief that you haven't managed to snag one, being as you shit in the shower. I've missed our tit for tat stuff...being as we get along so well.

[Strontium]

You surprise me.....Ex doesn't necessarily mean you have been married! It could mean ex girlfriend.

 

 

But it does when we're referring to a will from an ex-wife to her ex-husband.

 

Learn to parse simple sentences, you'll be much the better off for it.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

But it does when we're referring to a will from an ex-wife to her ex-husband.

 

Learn to parse simple sentences, you'll be much the better off for it.

 

I didn't mention that though, did I? I was extracting the piss out of a cretin. Apologies to any ex of yours, although being an ex means they escaped your tedious rantings.

[JER]

Anyone who claims the government are making these cuts reluctantly and for the good of the country are delusional to the point of the extreme . Any 'deficit' could be solved in 5 minutes by making the rich pay their taxes. Philip Green instead of being put in jail, is given a job in the cabinet. In the words of Iain Banks

 

 

"I mean, your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich powerful people who caused it? No, let's blame the people with no power and no money and these immigrants who don't even have the vote, yeah, it must be their fucking fault."

[Strontium]

What has Philip Green done that is illegal? Or are you proposing a change in the law?

[dennis tooth]

hats off to your ex

 

Amazing scenes!

[dennis tooth]

What has Philip Green done that is illegal? Or are you proposing a change in the law?

 

hats off to your ex