Farmer Saint Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 (edited) If the old people need to keep warm they can come over mine and shovel hay if they wish? Edited September 16 by Farmer Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 46 minutes ago, revolution saint said: So you may as well have said paid for by the state which we all contribute towards. In any case, it hasn't been established whether the state is contributing towards the train drivers pay increase. Obviously it's not ideal to be taking away something from pensioners (and some are in desperate positions) but lets not get carried away with the idea that all of them are in poor financial straits. I suspect there's a large proportion of them that can afford season tickets here, in fact maybe more so than the average working person. And what’s wrong with that? Those who put away money and saved for their old age are now seeing their hard work confiscated whilst those to pissed it up against the wall and spent every penny get looked after. There’s a lesson there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said: And what’s wrong with that? Those who put away money and saved for their old age are now seeing their hard work confiscated whilst those to pissed it up against the wall and spent every penny get looked after. There’s a lesson there. My point is that many pensioners don't need or rely on the winter fuel allowance. You're not seeing anything confiscated - the winter fuel allowance is an additional benefit and not part of your old age pension (which is still preserved). I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to people pissing against a wall - presumably pensioners are justified recipients of benefits but everyone else isn't? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, revolution saint said: My point is that many pensioners don't need or rely on the winter fuel allowance. Nobody is against those people not receiving it. Leave aside labour’s hypocrisy over this (you know as well as I do they would have opposed it had the Tories removed it), to do what they’ve done a month or two before winter is pretty poor. It’s also pretty cynical because they know full well a large % of people entitled to pension credit don’t claim it (Martin Lewis estimates 880 thousand pensioners). It’s the reason Gordon Brown made it universal. Surely it’s not beyond the wit & wisdom of man to give it to everyone, but claw it back via the tax system for those who don’t need it. Maybe they should have waited until spring whilst working out a system that will ensure the poorest get it. I’ve always been against middle class receiving state money, whether it’s winter fuel payments or child benefit. If they wanted a couple of billion that bad they could have lowered the cut off for receiving child benefit, or limited it to 2 children in line with Universal credit. Or even, god forbid, cut the foreign aid budget. Im surprised they did this, even more surprised anyone is supporting it…… Edited September 16 by Lord Duckhunter 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Nobody is against those people not receiving it. Leave aside labour’s hypocrisy over this (you know as well as I do they would have opposed it had the Tories removed it), to do what they’ve done a month or two before winter is pretty poor. It’s also pretty cynical because they know full well a large % of people entitled to pension credit don’t claim it (Martin Lewis estimates 880 thousand pensioners). It’s the reason Gordon Brown made it universal. Surely it’s not beyond the wit & wisdom of man to give it to everyone, but claw it back via the tax system for those who don’t need it. Maybe they should have waited until spring whilst working out a system that will ensure the poorest get it. I’ve always been against middle class receiving state money, whether it’s winter fuel payments or child benefit. If they wanted a couple of billion that bad they could have lowered the cut off for receiving child benefit, or limited it to 2 children in line with Universal credit. Or even, god forbid, cut the foreign aid budget. Im surprised they did this, even more surprised anyone is supporting it…… Personally wouldn't have been my preferred method of raising money either and I don't think it's been handled well. However, I don't have much sympathy for the pensioners who neither need nor rely on it moaning about the loss of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 35 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Nobody is against those people not receiving it. Leave aside labour’s hypocrisy over this (you know as well as I do they would have opposed it had the Tories removed it), to do what they’ve done a month or two before winter is pretty poor. It’s also pretty cynical because they know full well a large % of people entitled to pension credit don’t claim it (Martin Lewis estimates 880 thousand pensioners). It’s the reason Gordon Brown made it universal. Surely it’s not beyond the wit & wisdom of man to give it to everyone, but claw it back via the tax system for those who don’t need it. Maybe they should have waited until spring whilst working out a system that will ensure the poorest get it. I’ve always been against middle class receiving state money, whether it’s winter fuel payments or child benefit. If they wanted a couple of billion that bad they could have lowered the cut off for receiving child benefit, or limited it to 2 children in line with Universal credit. Or even, god forbid, cut the foreign aid budget. Im surprised they did this, even more surprised anyone is supporting it…… Lots of wealthy people living off capital will fall outside the income tax system. The right way imo is to have no payment by default, and leave those in need of it apply on a means tested basis. At the end of the day, there should be no entitlement to an annual handout just on the grounds of age. I'm with you on child benefit, but it's a separate issue to the heating money. CB shouldn't be a given either, and it should be on a household income basis, not this nonsense of 2 people being just below the threshold and getting the money. And we absolutely need to save many billions to avoid austerity. I have no issue with starting with handouts to those who don't need it being pulled. There'll get the rest in pension tax relief and tax on pension lump sums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said: And what’s wrong with that? Those who put away money and saved for their old age are now seeing their hard work confiscated whilst those to pissed it up against the wall and spent every penny get looked after. There’s a lesson there. Your feeling of entitlement is running through society. People need to appreciate that we're skint, and that the welfare state should be preserved for the needy only. If anyone can afford a season ticket, they don't need a bit of cash for their fuel - leave the money to be used where it's needed rather than wanted or felt to be deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 More bad news to upset the Tories https://news.sky.com/story/junior-doctors-vote-to-accept-pay-deal-13216267 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 9 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Dear god, if it wasn’t for your defence of Huw Edward’s You can disagree on politics or football or whatever, but today you made up a story that I defended a convicted paedophile and you posted it on a public forum. You need to withdraw that allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 13 hours ago, rallyboy said: You can disagree on politics or football or whatever, but today you made up a story that I defended a convicted paedophile and you posted it on a public forum. You need to withdraw that's allegation. Don't hold your breath waiting for him. Duckie follows the Farage / Trump / Johnson playbook. Never apologise. Never acknowledge any wrongdoing . It takes a higher calibre of person to admit an error. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdmickey3 Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 On 13/09/2024 at 17:27, Turkish said: So you've tracked back Hypos post over that 14 years and know for a fact he never once made a negative comment on the last government have you? Now that's strange. He may well have but it would pale into insignificance compared to your following of sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 Lord Duckhunter, where is my defence of Huw Edwards that you allege? My observation was that the pro-Tory Sun delayed release of this important story for at least four weeks and then in standard tabloid style, chose to publish when the pressure on Boris hit its peak. In that news cycle Johnson was being forced by a court to release text messages, under pressure about his daughter's appointment and was being exposed for having protected his friend the MP sex offender, the appalling act that got him sacked. The main media supporter of the government couldn't lead with that, but they had the Edwards story up their sleeve so chose a specific date to release it, a day that very much suited the Tory press office. The Boris storm blew over, and as I suggested, the Sun got back to making up stories about the opposition or immigrants, and spoon-feeding those to the simple. You clearly have no grasp of how the media works in the UK, but you must understand the serious ramifications of labelling someone a paedo supporter on a public forum. You know that you have made a massive error. Now we just need your apology for suggesting that I defended a convicted paedophile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 7 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said: He may well have but it would pale into insignificance compared to your following of sadoldgit When someone calls someone something horrendous like a rape apologist or suggests that soliciting child pornography is no big deal those things tend to be memorable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 10 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said: He may well have but it would pale into insignificance compared to your following of sadoldgit or indeed you following of me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SotonianWill Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 On 16/09/2024 at 15:41, buctootim said: Not a huge surprise that the ONLY group of Britons who would prefer Fascism over Communism are Reform voters Is that really what you take from this? Other than right leaning parties would essentially choose neither “don’t know” but left wing parties really want communism. 26% of Reform would rather Fascism - Over 50% in all Lib Dem, Green, Labour voted communism instead of just don’t know 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least 'cronyism' has been stamped out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx247wkq137o Quote Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff received a pay rise after the election which means she is now paid more than the prime minister. The BBC has been told that Sue Gray asked for and was given a salary of £170,000 - £3,000 more than the PM and more than any cabinet minister – or her Conservative predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least 'cronyism' has been stamped out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx247wkq137o Dominic Cummins was on between £140K and £145K when he worked in Downing Street. For comparison, these are the senior Civil Service pay grades; Revised SCS pay ranges with effect from 1 April 2024 8. Departments must implement the new pay range minima: Pay Band Minimum (£) Maximum (£) 1 £76,000 £117,800 1A* £76,000 £128,900 2 £98,000 £162,500 3 £128,000 £208,100 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-senior-civil-service-pay-award-202425/practitioner-guidance-on-the-2024-25-senior-civil-service-pay-framework-html Edited September 18 by badgerx16 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least 'cronyism' has been stamped out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx247wkq137o Chris Mason, who wrote that story, is on more than Sue Gray. Edited September 18 by CB Fry 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Considerably more, and the cost of special advisers in the last chaotic year of Johnson was £12.9 million. The real story here is why the fuck are the BBC paying people so much? And secondly, when is Lord Duckhunter going to apologise for getting things so badly wrong? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least 'cronyism' has been stamped out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx247wkq137o The pay is a non story, the interesting bit is the “Whitehall sources”. Somebody is clearly trying to stitch her up, early days for a power struggle at number 10. If this continues she’ll be gone within a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: The pay is a non story, the interesting bit is the “Whitehall sources”. Somebody is clearly trying to stitch her up, early days for a power struggle at number 10. If this continues she’ll be gone within a year. Clearly made some enemies already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 “A Whitehall insider said…..” Its akin to sourcing “Twitter” for inbound Saints transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 (edited) 38 minutes ago, The Kraken said: “A Whitehall insider said…..” Its akin to sourcing “Twitter” for inbound Saints transfers. There’s been briefing against her for weeks. She’ll be gone within a year. Edited September 18 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted September 19 Author Share Posted September 19 (edited) On 17/09/2024 at 13:30, rallyboy said: You clearly have no grasp of how the media works in the UK, but you must understand the serious ramifications of labelling someone a paedo supporter on a public forum. When I used to work in what was known then as Fleet Street it was commonly believed that there was a safe at News International that was full of stories to be used in either quite news periods and circulation needed a boost or when they could be politically beneficial to Rupert’s needs at the time. As for his baseless claims, he is usually on the wrong side of an argument so resorts to calling people names be that lefty, pinko, paedo, anti-Semite, Lego head etc. Edited September 19 by sadoldgit Typo 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 1 hour ago, sadoldgit said: When I used to work in what was known then as Fleet Street Fucking hell, you’ve had more jobs than Mr Benn. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Just now, Lord Duckhunter said: Ohh no, the smoking gun to give you a hard on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Private Eye has been reporting on this for a while so it’s not new. I think Starmer needs to be a bit more careful around the football freebies but generally a leader of the opposition will be a major focus for donations and interest - Blair was and Cameron was - but it’s whether those donations translate in concrete shifts in policy advantaging donors. Also, the figures aren’t so meaningful without some kind of breakdown of where they are from. Also, unless it carries on and escalates over time on government, I don’t think it will present too many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 New Broom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Whilst still an MP Boris was paid over £1 million for 4 speaking engagements. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said: Private Eye has been reporting on this for a while so it’s not new. I think Starmer needs to be a bit more careful around the football freebies but generally a leader of the opposition will be a major focus for donations and interest - Blair was and Cameron was - but it’s whether those donations translate in concrete shifts in policy advantaging donors. Also, the figures aren’t so meaningful without some kind of breakdown of where they are from. Also, unless it carries on and escalates over time on government, I don’t think it will present too many problems. Even if we are charitable and accept entirely what you say, it's not a good look is it for someone who partially gained power by being different to the sleaze that had gone before. You'd think that a leader looking to be whiter than white and removing the corruption would have understood how this would look and wouldn't be doing it. Edited September 19 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: Whilst still an MP Boris was paid over £1 million for 4 speaking engagements. MPs are allowed 'second' jobs aren't they - as long as they declare them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 50 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: The only shock there is someone was so fucking stupid they gave lettuce Liz half a million! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: MPs are allowed 'second' jobs aren't they - as long as they declare them? They are, but I strongly suspect that the figure Boris got paid was grossly inflated, and there was an expectation of something in return for those paying him over £250 thousand a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted September 19 Author Share Posted September 19 What surprises me about the current wage disclosures is how little the PM is paid relative to others senior roles. Apparently the average London CEO salary is £169,500 p.a. Surely the PM role is worth more than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: What surprises me about the current wage disclosures is how little the PM is paid relative to others senior roles. Apparently the average London CEO salary is £169,500 p.a. Surely the PM role is worth more than that? Do other London CEOs have : Free house Free travel free security detail chauffeur driven cars - free helicopter when needed free plane when needed Free food Free drink Etc, etc, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: The only shock there is someone was so fucking stupid they gave lettuce Liz half a million! Most of her extravagance was pad for by Civil Service eg unnecessary chartering of planes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Nothing more laughable when planks talk about others being paid more than the PM as if there is a uniformed tiered salary scale based on assessment of the role’s tasks. Hey, I have news, there isn’t! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Do other London CEOs have : Free house Free travel free security detail chauffeur driven cars - free helicopter when needed free plane when needed Free food Free drink Etc, etc, etc? You left out free snacks although not really got any idea of what point you are making 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted September 19 Author Share Posted September 19 6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Do other London CEOs have : Free house Free travel free security detail chauffeur driven cars - free helicopter when needed free plane when needed Free food Free drink Etc, etc, etc? Do London CEO’s have the responsibility of running the country,live their lives in a goldfish bowl and have the media pouring over everything they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: What surprises me about the current wage disclosures is how little the PM is paid relative to others senior roles. Apparently the average London CEO salary is £169,500 p.a. Surely the PM role is worth more than that? I have mates who earn millions per year and guess what they don’t even have an army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 If the job of prime minister was so terrible and didn't come with significant perks over and above the base salary, you wouldn't have loads of MPs fighting for the job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Just now, whelk said: You left out free snacks although not really got any idea of what point you are making The 'benefits' of PM add up to way more than the average London CEO. It's not just about the figures on a payslip. Plus, the guaranteed income for life that ex PMs receive. Plus the contacts they make whilst doing the job - where even Boris can make more money than should ever be possible for a twat like that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: Do London CEO’s have the responsibility of running the country,live their lives in a goldfish bowl and have the media pouring over everything they do? So they should be paid the same as Richard Branson, because he earns a lot from his companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: The 'benefits' of PM add up to way more than the average London CEO. It's not just about the figures on a payslip. Plus, the guaranteed income for life that ex PMs receive. Plus the contacts they make whilst doing the job - where even Boris can make more money than should ever be possible for a twat like that. And the kudos from being a former prime minister means you're effectively set for the rest of your life. Absurd to point to the salary as if that's likely to ever put anyone off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 Why is this a surprise about the PMs pay? It’s been this way for decades, the PM and senior cabinet don’t earn anywhere near as much as CEOs and top officers at major companies. Big news scoop right there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 (edited) I suspect that all PMs this century were millionaires in their own right before they ever got to number 10, so it is unlikely the salary was a deciding factor for them. Edited September 19 by badgerx16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now