EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
Indeed. But healthcare professionals don't seem to understand that we live in a world where you support yourself by going out to work.
I once wanted to ask a psychiatrist consultant how he would cope with having to live the rest of his life on benefits... of course he will never have to.
But they live in a world where they write you a ticket and you no longer support yourself by going out to work.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
It's definitely about satisfaction and fulfilment but not always about progression too, I wouldn't say. Some people might find working as a farmhand or somewhere else with animals, more fulfilling than working in a supermarket or a factory, for instance.
If you are in a job which suits you, is satisfying, where you like the people you work with and that pays you enough to live comfortably - as is the case with me, I'm glad to say - then you're very lucky. And even I would jack it all in tomorrow if presented with a couple of million quid.
I do agree with the point about progression though. We were discussing this on here the other week - the fact that being utterly disinterested in having a career is a common taboo that isn't confronted enough. One of the things that does aggravate me about my current role is the annual performance reviews in which everyone, even those who are very near to retirement, is invariably lumbered with several new "objectives" that they have to complete each year. Why those of us who don't aspire to moving departments or becoming managers can't just have one objective, i.e. to do our current job well, Christ alone knows.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Actually, that's not true. Community mental health services in primary care have hugely increased. (What has happened in secondary care I'm not sure)
And on another point, the UC personal allowance is uprated with respect to inflation every April.
Community mental health is in an extremely bad way in London, having just seen a relative's experience. Catastrophically under-resourced and under-staffed, I would describe it as. The police are often doing the job instead, badly.
It is same in Scotland , only way you can get any treatment is to call police and have them arrested as dangerous, they then get taken out in cuffs and committed till authorities decide to let them out. Lots of fine words about care teams etc etc but in practice you have no chance.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
Plenty of people, indeed I would guess most of the workforce, have had anxiety at some stage or another.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
Well I do know people on UC and they work.
I don't think its appropriate they face a 70% tax rate, do you?
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
That wasn't my point at all. It was. Having a job, of any kind, is better for your mental health than not, is a statement often made, but has no evidence. The research behind it was based on fulfilling work. Not on work. There isn't any class about it. Of course plenty folk are happy doing what they do. But the simple fact of being employed is not a magic cure for mental ill health. No matter how many times it is repeated.
Indeed. What this idea is in fact rooted in is the moralising of the New Right in the late 1970's, amid their worry over post-1960s culture. There was no concept of it being anything to do with mental health then, or any job whatsoever, regardles of type, being good for that ; this has essentially been bolted on in the decades since as a more 'politically correct' , in the terminology of the right, context.
When you think about it. If it were true, the answer to stress, burnout or anxiety at work would be to simply take on more hours. But doctors prescribe rest. For the middle classes usually.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
There is a problem with public transport though. Round my way, many bus services haven't recovered from (already poor) pre-pandemic levels. Increasing the practical difficulties in getting to work.
Having said that, get a job, put up with the shit for a bit, move on to something more suitable (or mitigate it by eg learning to drive) doesn't seem to strike many people as a suitable strategy.
It is the golden rule of job seeking that it is always easier to get a (new) job if you already have a job, so being prepared to be flexible in securing an initial job will serve someone well.
Indeed. And if you are unemployed, and have no resources behind you, then you need a job. Any job. Just keep on looking. If you move on in a couple of months, tough shit to your employers.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
“Bad politics” is not the same as “wrong”
“Wrong” is either a legal or a moral judgement
We know - from the information available - that it is not a legal question. We also have the high court judgement that no tax payer has to structure their affairs to maximise the tax paid.
So it must be an ethical issue for you. Please expand.
No, its a political issue. Whats wrong is the politics. That you clearly don't get that is frankly why the Tories are in such trouble over this.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
Plenty of people, indeed I would guess most of the workforce, have had anxiety at some stage or another.
However they still need to pay the bills
There's anxiety as a normal transient mood and there's anxiety as a mental health disorder.
Brave to be singing GSTQ rather than GST{placeholder}.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
It's definitely about satisfaction and fulfilment but not always about progression too, I wouldn't say. Some people might find working as a farmhand or somewhere else with animals, more fulfilling than working in a supermarket or a factory, for instance.
If you are in a job which suits you, is satisfying, where you like the people you work with and that pays you enough to live comfortably - as is the case with me, I'm glad to say - then you're very lucky. And even I would jack it all in tomorrow if presented with a couple of million quid.
I do agree with the point about progression though. We were discussing this on here the other week - the fact that being utterly disinterested in having a career is a common taboo that isn't confronted enough. One of the things that does aggravate me about my current role is the annual performance reviews in which everyone, even those who are very near to retirement, is invariably lumbered with several new "objectives" that they have to complete each year. Why those of us who don't aspire to moving departments or becoming managers can't just have one objective, i.e. to do our current job well, Christ alone knows.
Agreed. When I worked in pharma, we had a former GP working as a backroom data manager - essentially a filing assistant with an understanding of medical terminology. In his 50s with a heart condition, he wanted a low-stress job that he could do well, and he felt he hadn't been an especially good GP but he was an impeccable filing clerk. People would tell him sometimes that he could do better, and he was mildly irritated - why should he want to?
The converse is that there are people who want to run things and are really not happy if they can't; some though not all are also really good at it. They are pleased to be paid mega-salaries, but actually would do the job at any salary that kept body and soul together. There are quite a few Ministers like that, past and I dare say present.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
Well I do know people on UC and they work.
I don't think its appropriate they face a 70% tax rate, do you?
To be fair, many don't. You don't pay tax on the first £12,000 and the Work Allowances mean that people with children or Limited Capability to Work get a few hundred pounds free of taper (and they are going up too)
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
40 years ago, when I started work, there was quite a lot of "soft" employment. Most offices of a certain size would employ someone with learning difficulties or other issues. They would do deliveries, filing, getting people cups of tea etc. In my experience at least they were treated well and seemed very happy with their tasks.
There seems a lot less of that these days. For all the daft money spent on HR etc work has become a harsher, less supportive place. Instead, we have mickey mouse courses or placements at various charities funded by the tax payer, much of it make work with far less opportunity to build a supportive network. It's not really a step forward.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
Its your usual straw man - when did I say there are no vacancies? My response to you pointed to vacancies did it not? But there are clearly parts of the country with denser pockets of unemployment and others with denser pockets of vacancies.
Where the two overlap its much easier to get a job. But back to the same points being made by others about things like public transport and childcare. Even if the latter is available it isn't affordable on lower income jobs and not there at all out of hours.
"On yer bike" is fine - I have moved for work several times. But it isn't universally applicable, especially again where the work is low income and the cost to move is higher. You know all this - despite your endless political rhetoric you aren't daft. So the point you are making is political not practical.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
All very true. Though FWIW the people making arguments about the dignity of work do tend to be those (e.g. Parliamentarians) for whom work is both lucrative and interesting. If they had to spend 40 hours a week for 40 years scrubbing dirty toilets, or dealing with enraged customers yelling at them down a call centre phone line, then they might have a somewhat different perspective upon the matter.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
Well I do know people on UC and they work.
I don't think its appropriate they face a 70% tax rate, do you?
To be fair, many don't. You don't pay tax on the first £12,000 and the Work Allowances mean that people with children or Limited Capability to Work get a few hundred pounds free of taper (and they are going up too)
£12,000 at £9.50 per hour is 24 hours per week, even people only working 6 hours a day during school hours are working more than that.
But the UC taper threshold is lower than that and the NI threshold is lower than that too.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
I finished serious work at a young age - pre 50 - and at first it did feel odd. This didn't last long however. I was soon used to it, and liking it, and within a year I'd have struggled to go back into employment. I think it just depends on the person - eg how much guilt they feel about not working - and on what their job is. By the time I stopped for good I was doing 'consulting' bullshit that I hated, so I was happy to call it a day. By contrast, many years earlier, I came a cropper from a trading job where I was coining it and enjoying it at the same time - the optimum combo - and that was a different kettle of fish. I managed to get back in after a few months but those months were not a fun time. Felt lost and a bit bleak.
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
Santa Claus is a controversial subject, have you see the palaver Tesco have got themselves over because of Santa? Piers Morgan is right to leave Santa Claus alone.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
What doubts? We were watching another documentary about Father Christmas only last night, Miracle on 34th Street, I think it was called, somewhat esoterically.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
Santa Claus is a controversial subject, have you see the palaver Tesco have got themselves over because of Santa? Piers Morgan is right to leave Santa Claus alone.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. Perhaps it was busier in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
The shops and TV tends to have a minute's silence at 11am on Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day so in that sense there is little escape to some degree.
Most towns and cities and villages will also have remembrance parades and services today
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
All very true. Though FWIW the people making arguments about the dignity of work do tend to be those (e.g. Parliamentarians) for whom work is both lucrative and interesting. If they had to spend 40 hours a week for 40 years scrubbing dirty toilets, or dealing with enraged customers yelling at them down a call centre phone line, then they might have a somewhat different perspective upon the matter.
Very true. My first proper job was working in a bank in the summer holidays. My friend and I used to make some satisfaction that we were able to complete boring tasks more than 2x as fast as those that did it all the time. It was only when I grew up a bit (probably around 40) that I recognised how different and unfair that comparison was. We were there for a few weeks on a temporary basis before going on to more interesting and better paid things. They weren't. Looking back, I was an asshole to fail to appreciate that at the time to be honest.
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
Santa Claus is a controversial subject, have you see the palaver Tesco have got themselves over because of Santa? Piers Morgan is right to leave Santa Claus alone.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
Santa Claus is a controversial subject, have you see the palaver Tesco have got themselves over because of Santa? Piers Morgan is right to leave Santa Claus alone.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
HAPPY WAR CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
Thanks for that. And congratulations, you've perked up my dwindling interest in "already-remembered-the-fuck out of day".
Well, duh. Is he going to move on to doubts over the ontological status of Father Christmas?
Santa Claus is a controversial subject, have you see the palaver Tesco have got themselves over because of Santa? Piers Morgan is right to leave Santa Claus alone.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
All very true. Though FWIW the people making arguments about the dignity of work do tend to be those (e.g. Parliamentarians) for whom work is both lucrative and interesting. If they had to spend 40 hours a week for 40 years scrubbing dirty toilets, or dealing with enraged customers yelling at them down a call centre phone line, then they might have a somewhat different perspective upon the matter.
Very true. My first proper job was working in a bank in the summer holidays. My friend and I used to make some satisfaction that we were able to complete boring tasks more than 2x as fast as those that did it all the time. It was only when I grew up a bit (probably around 40) that I recognised how different and unfair that comparison was. We were there for a few weeks on a temporary basis before going on to more interesting and better paid things. They weren't. Looking back, I was an asshole to fail to appreciate that at the time to be honest.
It's another version of the efficiency/resilience dilemma which the last 18 months have really exposed.
It's undoubtedly more efficient locally to squeeze people into doing boring but necessary tasks at as high a pace as possible. A single call centre is more efficient than having someone answering the phone in every office.
But it does create a long tail of people who aren't very employable and have rotten lives as a result. It's not so obvious that the overall effect of doing this is an efficient, let alone resilient, way of creating a good society- whatever that is.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I don't think anyone should be pressurised into observing occasions like Remembrance Day. Just leave it to the individual.
Is the Monster of Balmoral attending the Cenotaph to commemorate the sacrifice of thousands of teenagers?
Prince Charles, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Wessex just laid wreaths, no Prince Andrew
Presumably limited to working Royals.
Work would be good for HMQ and Andrew's mental health.
I do think HMQ has been one of the hardest-working royals, in a positive way that she herself has wanted to be, and now I think work would be principally good for her as normalising. She must be frightened or depressed at not being able to do the things that have punctuated her life for 70 years, like the cenotaph.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
HAPPY WAR CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
Thanks for that. And congratulations, you've perked up my dwindling interest in "already-remembered-the-fuck out of day".
That'll trigger the slightly voluble PC lobby in Cycling UK.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I don't think anyone should be pressurised into observing occasions like Remembrance Day. Just leave it to the individual.
In recent years there has been more of an effort to actually recognise the 11th. We had two minutes silence at work, and a corporate dial-in for those who wanted to participate. So Remembrance Sunday is starting to feel a bit superfluous.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
It also looks as if there are rumblings about the internal investigation which Barclays did when all this first surfaced and its thoroughness.
What I find odd is this statement -
"Barclays has made it clear that the investigation by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority did not find that Staley “saw or was aware of any of Mr Epstein’s alleged crimes”.
How can they say this with a straight face. Staley, it is reported, visited Epstein in prison after he had been convicted in 2009 for procuring a child for prostitution.
"alleged crimes"? "Not aware"?
That claim might be plausible before conviction. But afterwards?
There is also some history between the FCA and Barclays re Staley. The FCA really failed to deal adequately with Staley's misbehaviour over a bank whistleblower, in part because Barclays had already done an internal investigation. It looked as if the FCA were bounced into accepting that investigation and not taking tougher action. A mistake.
I know nothing about the case, but it's an interesting question how far you remain friends with someone who does something terrible. On the whole, I think yes, because we all recognise that we're complex creatures, and the reason you're friends probably has nothing to do with the act that horrifies you. Obviously there are limits and it deepends on the level of friendship, as well as on the degree of remorse, but on the whole it's the moment they need your friendship most.
So actually I don't think a bank appointment should hinge on whether the applicant has a friend who's done something nasty.
It appears he didn’t disclose the extent of his relationship to the regulators. They take a very dim view of that
, you mean one of his club chums will tell him he is a naughty boy
No. I mean that he didn’t disclose material relevant information to his regulator. That leads to a break down in trust and questions about whether he is a fit and proper person to be the CEO of a major UK bank
Nothing will happen , that is a certainty. He will stay be braying like a donkey in Westminster. Sure it will be within the rules or technically correct.
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
What over commercialisation? It is not Christmas and the funds from poppies sale goes to the RBL
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
HAPPY WAR CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
Thanks for that. And congratulations, you've perked up my dwindling interest in "already-remembered-the-fuck out of day".
That'll trigger the slightly voluble PC lobby in Cycling UK.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
“Bad politics” is not the same as “wrong”
“Wrong” is either a legal or a moral judgement
We know - from the information available - that it is not a legal question. We also have the high court judgement that no tax payer has to structure their affairs to maximise the tax paid.
So it must be an ethical issue for you. Please expand.
Let me tell you a story to illustrate the difference between ethical and legal.
Back in 2007 I had some of my childrens' cash savings in Northern Rock accounts, like many others. As NR got into trouble - but before any of this became public - my employers were advising Lloyds about a possible rescue/takeover. I was aware of this and also well aware that there was a risk NR would go bust. If it did I would lose the first £2000 in each account.
I could have closed the accounts. It was perfectly legal. They were not shares. It would not have been insider dealing. But I didn't. It would have been using confidential information for my own benefit. How would it have looked if it became public? How could people trust my judgment or take my criticisms seriously if I had done that?
I am no saint. Far from it. But if I can come to this sort of judgment then it really is not too much to ask MPs to think a bit harder than many of them seem to do about whether what they do is right rather than just whether it is legal or within the rules. They are in an immensely privileged position. That imposes obligations on them. Too many give the impression that the main obligation they have is to see how much money they can make from being an MP, as if becoming an MP is like being given access to an ATM from which they can take without limit. There is a distasteful combination of greed and a chiselling approach to expenses, combined with whining self-pity which others - in a much less privileged position - manage to avoid.
MPs do a necessary and important job. We should be able to respect them and trust them. We can't if they won't act in a way which earns our respect and trust. Less self-justification and a bit more self-reflection on how their behaviour appears to others would be a good thing.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Nothing, I won't do anything with them.
If they want to earn more money then they can do better at their opportunities. If they don't want to, they can live with the consequences of their choices.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
All very true. Though FWIW the people making arguments about the dignity of work do tend to be those (e.g. Parliamentarians) for whom work is both lucrative and interesting. If they had to spend 40 hours a week for 40 years scrubbing dirty toilets, or dealing with enraged customers yelling at them down a call centre phone line, then they might have a somewhat different perspective upon the matter.
Very true. My first proper job was working in a bank in the summer holidays. My friend and I used to make some satisfaction that we were able to complete boring tasks more than 2x as fast as those that did it all the time. It was only when I grew up a bit (probably around 40) that I recognised how different and unfair that comparison was. We were there for a few weeks on a temporary basis before going on to more interesting and better paid things. They weren't. Looking back, I was an asshole to fail to appreciate that at the time to be honest.
It's another version of the efficiency/resilience dilemma which the last 18 months have really exposed.
It's undoubtedly more efficient locally to squeeze people into doing boring but necessary tasks at as high a pace as possible. A single call centre is more efficient than having someone answering the phone in every office.
But it does create a long tail of people who aren't very employable and have rotten lives as a result. It's not so obvious that the overall effect of doing this is an efficient, let alone resilient, way of creating a good society- whatever that is.
Call centres are the jute mills (for Dundee) or sweat shops of the 21st century. Horrible and utterly depressing places to work. Both of my daughters did it for a time before they got themselves established. Some of the stories about the way people were treated caused an old cynic like me disbelief.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I don't think anyone should be pressurised into observing occasions like Remembrance Day. Just leave it to the individual.
In recent years there has been more of an effort to actually recognise the 11th. We had two minutes silence at work, and a corporate dial-in for those who wanted to participate. So Remembrance Sunday is starting to feel a bit superfluous.
Agreed - having two silences a few days apart seems over the top and likely leads to apathy around the Sunday service. If we must have two, move one of them to a different time of year.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
What over commercialisation? It is not Christmas and the funds from poppies sale goes to the RBL
My employer has decided to cover the front of its head office reception with huge poppies for a month. It's all feels a tad unBritish to me.
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
Charles looked very upset at the ceremony today. Doesn’t bode well.
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
To be honest Charles is effectively near Regent in all but name anyway on everything but the final sign off of legislation into law, he and Camilla already do most of the royal duties and overseas travel the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used to do. It was Charles who went to and spoke at COP26 not the Queen and it is Charles who laid the wreath at the Cenotaph this morning, it is Charles who presents knighthoods and OBEs and MBEs etc.
If these things were ever leaked to journalists based outside London you may get a slightly different headline. eg both articles appear to indicate, but skim over, no new line Mcr-Leeds - a promise Boris Johnson made in his first speech as PM outside of London. https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1459805186441027587/photo/1
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
What over commercialisation? It is not Christmas and the funds from poppies sale goes to the RBL
Porn Pedallers are obviously trying to capitalise on the event.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I noticed around the City this week far fewer people wearing poppies than say a decade ago. I suspect people are growing tired of the over commercialisation of the event by brands.
Yes far fewer. The competitive outpoppying seems to be getting worse. There are far more garish and outlandish displays from local authorities and business than ever. Think the 2018 centenary was overdone. Several of the displays at the entrance to towns seem to have become permanent ever since.
The shops and TV tends to have a minute's silence at 11am on Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day so in that sense there is little escape to some degree.
Most towns and cities and villages will also have remembrance parades and services today
I am sure in my youth there was no "silence" on Armistice Day but only on Remembrance Sunday.
I don't quite know where and when the fashion for "silences" started but it seems to have become more pervasive. I can appreciate some wanting a reflective moment or two given the pace of modern life.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
It will partly depend on whether "picking up rubbish" includes reading HYUFD's posts.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I think that this is inevitable, though. The original point of ceremonies of remembrance was that people were actually remembering other people. The World Wars were huge national traumas in which millions fought, most lost friends and family members, and everyone in uniform and out was deeply affected by the consequences. Thus, the comrades, widows, relatives and friends of the war dead gathered every year to remember them together. But all the veterans from the first war and nearly all of those from the second are now dead, and all the more recent conflicts are events that the vast majority of the population have experienced only through news reports.
In that sense, most of us - especially those who won't even have heard stories of the second war from grandparents - don't have anyone to remember, just one more generation to read about in history books. There's no particular reason for the average twenty year old to feel any more attachment to the casualties of the Somme than those of Waterloo, Newark, Flodden Field or Towton. Time is what it is.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I think that this is inevitable, though. The original point of ceremonies of remembrance was that people were actually remembering other people. The World Wars were huge national traumas in which millions fought, most lost friends and family members, and everyone in uniform and out was deeply affected by the consequences. Thus, the comrades, widows, relatives and friends of the war dead gathered every year to remember them together. But all the veterans from the first war and nearly all of those from the second are now dead, and all the more recent conflicts are events that the vast majority of the population have experienced only through news reports.
In that sense, most of us - especially those who won't even have heard stories of the second war from grandparents - don't have anyone to remember, just one more generation to read about in history books. There's no particular reason for the average twenty year old to feel any more attachment to the casualties of the Somme than those of Waterloo, Newark, Flodden Field or Towton. Time is what it is.
We had our 2 minutes silence at 11 on Thursday at my work and in the courts. The Sunday is for that tiny minority that still goes to church.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
I think that this is inevitable, though. The original point of ceremonies of remembrance was that people were actually remembering other people. The World Wars were huge national traumas in which millions fought, most lost friends and family members, and everyone in uniform and out was deeply affected by the consequences. Thus, the comrades, widows, relatives and friends of the war dead gathered every year to remember them together. But all the veterans from the first war and nearly all of those from the second are now dead, and all the more recent conflicts are events that the vast majority of the population have experienced only through news reports.
In that sense, most of us - especially those who won't even have heard stories of the second war from grandparents - don't have anyone to remember, just one more generation to read about in history books. There's no particular reason for the average twenty year old to feel any more attachment to the casualties of the Somme than those of Waterloo, Newark, Flodden Field or Towton. Time is what it is.
No but some will have had friends or relatives in the Falklands, Iraq or Afghanistan. A few will even have fought in those wars themselves.
There also still a few WW2 vets about even if all the WW1 vets are now dead.
We will continue to use it to commemorate casualties of all wars, from the 21st century and 20th century and further back if desired
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
He’s right to be sceptical of whatever the palace says. They seem to think the queens health is a private matter.
Personally, I think that’s rather contemptuous. And foolish.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv · 2h It’s understood the Queen would not be able to make the car journey from Windsor because of her back sprain. Nor could she stand for the period of time required at the Foreign Office for the Remembrance Sunday service.
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
Charles looked very upset at the ceremony today. Doesn’t bode well.
Not to delve too deeply into Royal psychoanalysis (I’ll leave that to the Mail and the BBC) but Charles was showing a similar level of upset after visiting his father for I think the last time. I think he’s a bit of a twat but he will occasionally wear his heart on his sleeve, which I believe on the whole is a good thing.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Now imagine stacking those shelves, day in day out, for 40 years and doing nothing else. Would you be celebrating the “dignity of work”?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
People on Universal Credit and other benefits would be heavily sanctioned/facing criminal charges for failing declare money they are receiving.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Why are you so obsessed with IQ?
Right wingers obsessed with intelligence levels has never ended badly…
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
To be honest Charles is effectively near Regent in all but name anyway on everything but the final sign off of legislation into law, he and Camilla already do most of the royal duties and overseas travel the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used to do. It was Charles who went to and spoke at COP26 not the Queen and it is Charles who laid the wreath at the Cenotaph this morning, it is Charles who presents knighthoods and OBEs and MBEs etc.
As long as the Queen has her marbles, we don't need a regency. Physical disability shouldn't be a problem. Although to be honest they might prefer a Council of State, which is what is used for temporary absences. Or maybe appoint a Lord Protector...
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
40 years ago, when I started work, there was quite a lot of "soft" employment. Most offices of a certain size would employ someone with learning difficulties or other issues. They would do deliveries, filing, getting people cups of tea etc. In my experience at least they were treated well and seemed very happy with their tasks.
There seems a lot less of that these days. For all the daft money spent on HR etc work has become a harsher, less supportive place. Instead, we have mickey mouse courses or placements at various charities funded by the tax payer, much of it make work with far less opportunity to build a supportive network. It's not really a step forward.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Now imagine stacking those shelves, day in day out, for 40 years and doing nothing else. Would you be celebrating the “dignity of work”?
Yes, in their own small way they would still have been earning a wage and contributing to the economy
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
To be honest Charles is effectively near Regent in all but name anyway on everything but the final sign off of legislation into law, he and Camilla already do most of the royal duties and overseas travel the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used to do. It was Charles who went to and spoke at COP26 not the Queen and it is Charles who laid the wreath at the Cenotaph this morning, it is Charles who presents knighthoods and OBEs and MBEs etc.
As long as the Queen has her marbles, we don't need a regency. Physical disability shouldn't be a problem. Although to be honest they might prefer a Council of State, which is what is used for temporary absences. Or maybe appoint a Lord Protector...
He isn't stirring. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking.
I think the fact they have released a medical reason, and it is such a short period since it was announced that she would attend, leads me to believe they are telling the truth on this occasion. When the Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to hospital shortly before his death they were very coy about the reason, as they were about Her Majesty's overnight in hospital and the need to take 10 days off work.
You are probably right. But we shouldn't need to be guessing. When the PM went into ICU we were told. We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse. We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse. She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
To be honest Charles is effectively near Regent in all but name anyway on everything but the final sign off of legislation into law, he and Camilla already do most of the royal duties and overseas travel the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used to do. It was Charles who went to and spoke at COP26 not the Queen and it is Charles who laid the wreath at the Cenotaph this morning, it is Charles who presents knighthoods and OBEs and MBEs etc.
As long as the Queen has her marbles, we don't need a regency. Physical disability shouldn't be a problem. Although to be honest they might prefer a Council of State, which is what is used for temporary absences. Or maybe appoint a Lord Protector...
Paul Dacre's been unsuccessfully looking for work. It would be good for his mental health.
I return from my Sunday constitutional to marvel at the complex discourse on PB, as ever, and note that three themes, not necessarily interrelated, dominate this morning:
- a member of the ruling class defending another member of the ruling class - no surprise there - well-heeled citizens of PB recommending shelf-stacking as a worthwhile endeavour for the proles/those with low IQ - no surprise there - speculation about when Nicholas Witchell will get his month of fame - no surprise there.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Now imagine stacking those shelves, day in day out, for 40 years and doing nothing else. Would you be celebrating the “dignity of work”?
Absolutely, that's a job that needs doing. If that's what someone is capable of doing and they do it well then how is that undignified?
Are you sneering down your nose at the people who do that? Are you so conceited you can't respect people who do that?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Now imagine stacking those shelves, day in day out, for 40 years and doing nothing else. Would you be celebrating the “dignity of work”?
Yes, in their own small way they would still have been earning a wage and contributing to the economy
Contributing to the economy is famously important to those on the lowest incomes. Good shout.
If I die in a combat zone Box me up and ship me home If I die and still come home Lay me where the rose is sown
There was a soldier, a Scottish soldier Who wandered far away, and soldiered far away There was none bolder, with good broad shoulder He fought in many a fray and fought and won. He'd seen the glory, and told the story Of battles glorious and deeds victorious Now he's sighing, he heart is crying To leave these green hills of Tyrol.
Because these green hills are not Highland hills Or the island hills there not my lands hills And as fair as these foriegn hills may be They are not the hills of home.
And now this soldier, this Scottish soldier Who wandered far away, and soldiered far away Sees leaves are falling, and death is calling And he will fade away in that far land He called his piper, his trusty piper And bad' him sound a lay, a pibroch sad to play Upon a hillside, a Scottish hillside Not on these green hills of Tyrol
And so this soldier, this Scottish soldier Will wander far no more, and soldier far no more And on a hillside, a Scottish hillside You'll hear a piper play his soldier home He'd seen the glory and told the story Of battles glorious and deeds victorious The bugles cease now. he is at peace now Far from these green hills of Tyrol
How Tory . If you believed Douglas4Moray's utter lying drivel about his forgetting to declare £30K of earnings because he just forgot, then if anyon can eplain why he remembered to claim 84p for utilities but “forgot” 30 grand then I will be amazed.
Probably his office manager claims and this is just a reporting breakout from a bigger claim.
Yet his office manager missed £30K, pull the other one it plays bells. If you are meticulous and greedy enough to reclaim 84P then there is no chance you could forget £30K. How can you try to justify such crookedness.
I’d imagine his office manager handled the office bills not his salary.
This is clearly a screw up by Ross. He’s not trying to steal money or do anything dodgy (the referee earnings don’t impact on his job & I understand he gives away the MSP salary).
It is all out in the open and publicly known as well. He’s not trying to hide anything.
He made a mistake. He should be criticised and made to correct it. But I don’t think he’s being “crooked” if there is no personal benefit.
Once again you are talking like an Eton boy, ordinary people do not forget £30K , they don't earn that in a year. You are talking about how over privileged Tories see things. Impossible I know but imagine your wallet did not have £30K in it but only a £5. If someone had given you £30K would you forget it. One assumes he had remembered to put it in his tax return.
Don’t forget that like Salmond he is giving it away. In his head he probably doesn’t think of it as “income”.
The refereeing income is more of an issue as that should absolutely have been declared and I assume he kept it. It’s not a concern, but he should rightly be criticised for not declaring it. I wouldn’t think it warrants more than a reprimand as there’s no attempt to buy favours (it’s a standard fee) and it’s not been hidden.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
What are you going to do with the utterly inept who would fail at every job opportunity you gave them?
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Very few, other than people with, for example, certain learning disabilities. There are still low-skill jobs out there.
I suggest there are more than you might think. I work in a sector where low skill requirements prevail, and I see plenty of people who can't collect refuse or pick waste recyclables from a picking line at the prescribed rate. This is why we imported well educated and motivated Eastern European people.
The number of people who genuinely can't even pick up rubbish, stack shelves or clean or wash dishes is less than 1%.
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
Citation needed for your percentage detail.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
Anecdata is not fact is it.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
Now imagine stacking those shelves, day in day out, for 40 years and doing nothing else. Would you be celebrating the “dignity of work”?
Yes, in their own small way they would still have been earning a wage and contributing to the economy
You really are patronising and arrogant
The person who shelf stacks for 40 years deserves respect, not being belittled by someone who thinks they know everything and in reality knows nothing of ordinary people lives
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
People on Universal Credit and other benefits would be heavily sanctioned/facing criminal charges for failing declare money they are receiving.
I've got to admire Ian Blackford's balls (and I very nearly did) for wearing a kilt in November in London.
What do you think Scots* wear in Scotland at hogmanay?
*True Scotsmen.
Jogging pants while watching Jools’ Hootennany and picking desultorily at M&S party food if last year is anything to go by. 🙁
Respect - I never make it to 12 these days. The mistake is to crack the fizz at 5 and I always make that mistake.
Waiting for the first person to mention that the Hootennany is actually filmed months before has become something of a Hogmanay tradition. I'm ashamed to say that it's occasionally me.
Comments
I do agree with the point about progression though. We were discussing this on here the other week - the fact that being utterly disinterested in having a career is a common taboo that isn't confronted enough. One of the things that does aggravate me about my current role is the annual performance reviews in which everyone, even those who are very near to retirement, is invariably lumbered with several new "objectives" that they have to complete each year. Why those of us who don't aspire to moving departments or becoming managers can't just have one objective, i.e. to do our current job well, Christ alone knows.
However they still need to pay the bills
I don't think its appropriate they face a 70% tax rate, do you?
But doctors prescribe rest. For the middle classes usually.
Does this make me a bad man?
Brave to be singing GSTQ rather than GST{placeholder}.
The converse is that there are people who want to run things and are really not happy if they can't; some though not all are also really good at it. They are pleased to be paid mega-salaries, but actually would do the job at any salary that kept body and soul together. There are quite a few Ministers like that, past and I dare say present.
There seems a lot less of that these days. For all the daft money spent on HR etc work has become a harsher, less supportive place. Instead, we have mickey mouse courses or placements at various charities funded by the tax payer, much of it make work with far less opportunity to build a supportive network. It's not really a step forward.
Where the two overlap its much easier to get a job. But back to the same points being made by others about things like public transport and childcare. Even if the latter is available it isn't affordable on lower income jobs and not there at all out of hours.
"On yer bike" is fine - I have moved for work several times. But it isn't universally applicable, especially again where the work is low income and the cost to move is higher. You know all this - despite your endless political rhetoric you aren't daft. So the point you are making is political not practical.
@piersmorgan
There’s something we’re not being told about the Queen’s health, it’s clearly a more serious situation than the Palace is saying
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1459814918920749058?s=20
But the UC taper threshold is lower than that and the NI threshold is lower than that too.
Some people are unemployable, and for a variety of reasons.
Santa Claus is double jabbed, and the internet is not having it
Supermarket chain Tesco is being boycotted after they released their Christmas advert that features a double-vaccinated Santa Claus.
Having released on November 13, it took a matter of hours before people took to social media to complain about the advert, causing 'Boycott Tesco' to trend on Twitter.
https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/anti-vaxxers-are-boycotting-tesco-for-their-new-christmas-advert-299902
“Nation falls silent to remember the war dead”
Hmm. Not convinced.
As usual, I was the only one at my local war memorial at 11am. The local tories had made a big thing of refurbing the memorial just a couple of months ago. I expected a small crowd. Perhaps it was busier at the one in town, but still, it’s hardly “the nation” falling silent.
Most people seem to have have moved on, happy to outsource remembrance to politicians, military top boss and assorted other weirdos like me.
Lest we forget, said with a sigh.
Most towns and cities and villages will also have remembrance parades and services today
https://twitter.com/ianbrown/status/1459567258209079302?s=21
It's undoubtedly more efficient locally to squeeze people into doing boring but necessary tasks at as high a pace as possible. A single call centre is more efficient than having someone answering the phone in every office.
But it does create a long tail of people who aren't very employable and have rotten lives as a result. It's not so obvious that the overall effect of doing this is an efficient, let alone resilient, way of creating a good society- whatever that is.
Personally, I think that’s rather contemptuous. And foolish.
Harry (as an ex soldier with genuine battlefield experience) could presumably have turned up if he’d wanted to
Importing more people than we need to do low skilled jobs just drives down the wages of those who do them or could do them, hence the points system we now sensibly have for all migrants
It is beholden on the government to ensure that the NHS can cope with whatever effects of Covid there may be in the weeks and months ahead.
We need transparency about the preparations for a Regency or worse.
We were told she was resting up to be ready for today. So she has got worse.
She's 96. I don't think it would shock anyone.
Back in 2007 I had some of my childrens' cash savings in Northern Rock accounts, like many others. As NR got into trouble - but before any of this became public - my employers were advising Lloyds about a possible rescue/takeover. I was aware of this and also well aware that there was a risk NR would go bust. If it did I would lose the first £2000 in each account.
I could have closed the accounts. It was perfectly legal. They were not shares. It would not have been insider dealing. But I didn't. It would have been using confidential information for my own benefit. How would it have looked if it became public? How could people trust my judgment or take my criticisms seriously if I had done that?
I am no saint. Far from it. But if I can come to this sort of judgment then it really is not too much to ask MPs to think a bit harder than many of them seem to do about whether what they do is right rather than just whether it is legal or within the rules. They are in an immensely privileged position. That imposes obligations on them. Too many give the impression that the main obligation they have is to see how much money they can make from being an MP, as if becoming an MP is like being given access to an ATM from which they can take without limit. There is a distasteful combination of greed and a chiselling approach to expenses, combined with whining self-pity which others - in a much less privileged position - manage to avoid.
MPs do a necessary and important job. We should be able to respect them and trust them. We can't if they won't act in a way which earns our respect and trust. Less self-justification and a bit more self-reflection on how their behaviour appears to others would be a good thing.
If they want to earn more money then they can do better at their opportunities. If they don't want to, they can live with the consequences of their choices.
I have plenty of anecdota to suggest you are wholly wrong.
The competitive outpoppying seems to be getting worse. There are far more garish and outlandish displays from local authorities and business than ever.
Think the 2018 centenary was overdone. Several of the displays at the entrance to towns seem to have become permanent ever since.
I don't quite know where and when the fashion for "silences" started but it seems to have become more pervasive. I can appreciate some wanting a reflective moment or two given the pace of modern life.
In that sense, most of us - especially those who won't even have heard stories of the second war from grandparents - don't have anyone to remember, just one more generation to read about in history books. There's no particular reason for the average twenty year old to feel any more attachment to the casualties of the Somme than those of Waterloo, Newark, Flodden Field or Towton. Time is what it is.
You can stack shelves or wash dishes or clean floors with an IQ of under 80.
Unless you are seriously physically disabled almost everyone could do it and stacking shelves at the supermarket in the evening when most customers have gone home is not exactly high pressure either
There also still a few WW2 vets about even if all the WW1 vets are now dead.
We will continue to use it to commemorate casualties of all wars, from the 21st century and 20th century and further back if desired
@chrisshipitv
·
2h
It’s understood the Queen would not be able to make the car journey from Windsor because of her back sprain. Nor could she stand for the period of time required at the Foreign Office for the Remembrance Sunday service.
I'll leave the sentiment that a 95 year old with back problems should be sent to work for others to judge
Box me up and ship me home
If I die and still come home
Lay me where the rose is sown
It would be good for his mental health.
It would be good for his mental health."
Haha !
- a member of the ruling class defending another member of the ruling class - no surprise there
- well-heeled citizens of PB recommending shelf-stacking as a worthwhile endeavour for the proles/those with low IQ - no surprise there
- speculation about when Nicholas Witchell will get his month of fame - no surprise there.
PB at its best, as ever.
Are you sneering down your nose at the people who do that? Are you so conceited you can't respect people who do that?
Who wandered far away, and soldiered far away
There was none bolder, with good broad shoulder
He fought in many a fray and fought and won.
He'd seen the glory, and told the story
Of battles glorious and deeds victorious
Now he's sighing, he heart is crying
To leave these green hills of Tyrol.
Because these green hills are not Highland hills
Or the island hills there not my lands hills
And as fair as these foriegn hills may be
They are not the hills of home.
And now this soldier, this Scottish soldier
Who wandered far away, and soldiered far away
Sees leaves are falling, and death is calling
And he will fade away in that far land
He called his piper, his trusty piper
And bad' him sound a lay, a pibroch sad to play
Upon a hillside, a Scottish hillside
Not on these green hills of Tyrol
And so this soldier, this Scottish soldier
Will wander far no more, and soldier far no more
And on a hillside, a Scottish hillside
You'll hear a piper play his soldier home
He'd seen the glory and told the story
Of battles glorious and deeds victorious
The bugles cease now. he is at peace now
Far from these green hills of Tyrol
My late dad's favourite song.
The refereeing income is more of an issue as that should absolutely have been declared and I assume he kept it. It’s not a concern, but he should rightly be criticised for not declaring it. I wouldn’t think it warrants more than a reprimand as there’s no attempt to buy favours (it’s a standard fee) and it’s not been hidden.
The person who shelf stacks for 40 years deserves respect, not being belittled by someone who thinks they know everything and in reality knows nothing of ordinary people lives
Laters!