|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 13, 2008 21:12:17 GMT
I remain unimpressed. Had the decision makers been people of moral courage they would have done this before they got gubbed in the local elections (he said, cynically). I'll never vote for New Labour.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 18:17:54 GMT
I read about that in the papers about a fortnight ago and I find it amusing how they take money away from us with immediate effect but when it comes to giving it back to us they hold it off for about six months. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on May 15, 2008 12:57:08 GMT
Well to be fair they did give us a year and a bit's warning they were going to take the money off us in the first place. It was announced in the budget before last.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on May 15, 2008 15:11:41 GMT
Very true and funnily enough none of the opposition parties said very much at the time. Almost all politicians are as bad as each other.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 15, 2008 20:23:50 GMT
Almost all politicians are as bad as each other. Rather a sweeping and almost certainly inaccurate statement. (And in this particular case I do seem to remember the Lib Dems objecting.) Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on May 15, 2008 20:50:34 GMT
The thing is it's one thing to object at the time. Why wasn't there any kind of sustained pressure on the government about it. Considering the bloody nose they got in the last few weeks, surely any political party should have constantly used it to either force an embarrasing reversal or to inflict massive damage to Labour. Admittedly they have suffered that recently but potentially it could have been worse.
I'm honestly not sure going forward who I will be voting for. Certainly not Labour or the SNP or the Conservatives but the Lib Dems just do not seem to be moving forward. Since Charles Kennedy stepped down they've lost a lot of momentum and don't look to be able to get it back.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 15, 2008 20:54:56 GMT
Ah, so was what you meant to say that almost all political parties are as bad as each other?
There's much greater variability in individual politicians.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on May 15, 2008 22:06:27 GMT
Well, most people I know really didnt know anything about it till it happened. I pay just enough attention to the politics to know about it, plus I have a weird obsessive thing with numbers so like working out my tax payments, but most people I worked with at Asda and Escape (so a fairly diverse group) needed the whole thing explaining. Its a lot easier to make a big fuss about something when the public are aware and unhappy about it. The fact that its really good timing for anyone wanting to attack Labour and or Brown was likely seen a quite a bonus.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 16, 2008 6:45:51 GMT
I've got no problem with assuming all politicians are wankers, myself.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2008 20:13:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 20, 2008 19:43:55 GMT
I've got no problem with assuming all politicians are wankers, myself. -Ralph I had no doubt you were wrong when you posted this, but tonight am more convinced than ever. I've been watching the live debate on BBC Parliament about lowering the limit on abortions from 24 to 20 weeks (which is a free vote), and have not spotted any wankers on either side of the debate, just very intelligent people expressing their honest, heartfelt views on both sides of the argument. I agree with one side and disagree with the other, but admire the standard of debate on both sides. Fascinating stuff. That said, the party leaders aren't in the chamber. Debates tend to be less admirable when they are present. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by karla on May 20, 2008 19:53:32 GMT
I've got no problem with assuming all politicians are wankers, myself. -Ralph I had no doubt you were wrong when you posted this, but tonight am more convinced than ever. I've been watching the live debate on BBC Parliament about lowering the limit on abortions from 24 to 20 weeks (which is a free vote), and have not spotted any wankers on either side of the debate, just very intelligent people expressing their honest, heartfelt views on both sides of the argument. I agree with one side and disagree with the other, but admire the standard of debate on both sides. Fascinating stuff. That said, the party leaders aren't in the chamber. Debates tend to be less admirable when they are present. Martin I agree with lowering the abortion limit. And now are they scrapping the whole idea of having a male present at the time a woman wants to have an abortion? |
|
|
|
Post by legios on May 20, 2008 20:06:36 GMT
I agree with lowering the abortion limit. And now are they scrapping the whole idea of having a male present at the time a woman wants to have an abortion? I'm confused. What is the significance of having a male present? Indeed, why should someone be required to have someone of a specific gender present when they make a decision. After all, the gender of other humans present when a human exercises their right to make a decision is surely of complete irrelevance? Or perhaps I am missing something fundamental here. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by karla on May 20, 2008 20:09:41 GMT
I agree with lowering the abortion limit. And now are they scrapping the whole idea of having a male present at the time a woman wants to have an abortion? I'm confused. What is the significance of having a male present? Indeed, why should someone be required to have someone of a specific gender present when they make a decision. After all, the gender of other humans present when a human exercises their right to make a decision is surely of complete irrelevance? Or perhaps I am missing something fundamental here. Karl lol yeah......... that was a bit random on my part! but I think they mean, not just any random guy she could pull off the street to stand there but the boyfriend well...ex-boyfriend and such... now i'm confused  i'll have to find it don't worry  *edit* ahahaha i'm such an idiot sometimes, I got the abortion and IVF mixed up, yesh they've changed the...the..well whatever they've changed. Terribly sorry on that |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 18, 2008 10:38:46 GMT
Bounced to remind people as it's due this month |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 25, 2008 15:19:17 GMT
And in my pocket. I thank you Mr Darling.
Liz didn't get hers. So she ran her employer. Who then discovered she had been paying the wrong ammount of tax all year. So she's due £600 odd quid now !
|
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Sept 25, 2008 21:14:33 GMT
Huzzah!
-Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 25, 2008 21:37:01 GMT
Fantastic news for Liz there! Good stuff.
I will get my tax rebate thingy along with my pay in a few hours now. It has come at just the right time to cover an electrician bill I am expecting fairly soon.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Stranger on Sept 26, 2008 12:03:25 GMT
Got £60 myself, which is going to be roundly squandered on Animated Prime and Ultra Magnus Leader toys. Woo!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2008 11:56:18 GMT
Here's a worrying suggestion: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7794224.stmFor those that don't know, the Social Fund is accessable by people on benefits (usually in the incapacity side) who receive some amount of Income Support (or Pension Credit - just a different name for it for thr over 60's). Through this can be accessed Community Care Grants, payments which do not have to be paid back with the purpose to acquire basic essential household items (ability to prepare food, clothing, etc). It's often requested to help with house moves. Now this is not that easy to get. It's not commonly known that around three quarters of claims are automatically turned down (there is a set budget each month - so don't bother applying in the last week of the month). Fairly easy to get on appeal if you have someone helping, but it's complicated (and often a very hostile dehumanising experience) and claimants are not actively encouraged to appeal: most are encouraged to apply for a loan instead. Incidentally, monies paid out are the cheapest rates for items (often going by the cheapest prices in Agos catalogues, fact fans) so we're not talking luxury goods here. So if you don't get a Community Care Grant, you have to apply for a loan (often people are not even told Community Care Grants exist and that all that is available is a loan - you would be surprised by how many people I worked with who had been in the system sometimes for decades who were astonished to find out they existed). These loans are given out relatively easily. The policy of the DWP is to ask claimants to make a small number of large repayments to get the money back as soon as possible which are taken off from the benefit payments directly at source - but these can be ludicrously large sums in relation to income and impede the ablity to have money for food, etc. What is never explained (I defy anyone to find this written down in any DWP paperwork) is that if you just write them a brief signed note stating you will comply with repayments but could they make them smaller over a longer period, the DWP will correct the repayment schedule with no issues. The above is by way of background information. The loans it is suggested have interest added are very small by way of comparison with banks (usually less than £100) but very large in relation to income and are claimed usually by people genuinely too ill to work in desperate need of a short-term monetary boost so they can live with dignity. To suggest the repayments be higher is shocking and a major source of concern. I would hope taxpayers would rather the money going to benefits helps folk out, rather than have unwarranted additional charges. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 21, 2008 12:13:33 GMT
I would hope taxpayers would rather the money going to benefits helps folk out, rather than have unwarranted additional charges. Yup. Martin |
|
i'll have to find it don't worry 
