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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
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
My late dad's favourite song.
If we're doing that, one of my mother's favourites was The Wild Geese/Norland Wind. The Wild Geese element suggests the soldiering Scot but the life of the author of the original poem even more so.
'She (Violet Jacob) suffered a heavy blow in the loss of her only child, Harry, who was killed at the Somme in 1916. When her husband died in 1936, she moved back to Scotland, to Kirriemuir, and wrote to a friend “ I always knew that, should I be left alone, the only thing that would keep me from breaking my heart would be to live in Angus.”'
Oh tell me what was on yer road ye roarin Norland wind? As ye cam blawin frae the land that's never frae ma mind Ma feet they traivel England but I'm deein for the North." "Ma man, I saw the siller tides rin up the Firth o Forth."
"Aye wind, I ken them weel eneuch an fine they fa and rise, And fain I'd feel the creepin mist on yonder shore that lies. But tell me ere ye passed them by what saw ye on the way?" "Ma man, I rocked the rovin gulls that sail abin the Tay."
"Bit saw ye naethin, leein wind afore ye cam tae Fife? For there's muckle lyin 'yont the Tay that's mair tae me nor life." "Ma man, I swept the Angus braes that ye hivna trod for years." "Oh wind, forgie a hameless loon that canna see for tears."
"And far abin the Angus straths I saw the wild geese flee, A lang, lang skein o beatin wings wi their heids toward the sea, And aye their cryin voices trailed ahint them on the air." "Oh wind, hae mercy, haud your wheesht for I daurna listen mair."
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
'It is in their own small way' that is patronising for someone who has worked 40 years stacking shelves and neither they nor their families would perceive their lifes work as 'a small way of contributing to the country'
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
ISTM that he was really saying they were contributing to the economy.
Which is fair enough. But you could say the same of someone spending their benefits.
One of the examples in the thread was being paid to pick up litter.
Economically, there is no difference between being paid benefits and spending them, or being paid to pick up litter and spending your pay.
Of course, in the latter case there is less litter about the place, but that’s a social not economic benefit.
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
One of the lighthouses on the Firth of Forth sounded its foghorn at 11am this morning.
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.
I always get annoyed by that right at the moment they act like the new year has actually happened.
Stop faking it and be honest.
Yeh, it is phony as fuck. Drinking enough to suspend disbelief is my answer.
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
There is some truly heroic spin being done on this. The Times are reporting that the north is to get THREE new high speed lines! Then you dig a bit further into what specifically those are. One is the spur from HS2's mainline to Manchester - already announced as going ahead. Two is Leeds to Sheffield - supposedly definitely not the cancelled HS2E Three is East Midlands Parkway to Birmingham - also definitely not the cancelled HS2E
The one thing that is glaringly missing - what "the north "expects when "new high speed rail" is mentioned is Transpennine. Not on the list almost certainly means not happening again, and with some capacity work already happening on the existing trundle route we can expect more make do and mend alternatives.
So what do we get instead? Apparently sped-up journeys between regional cities. "Leeds to Sheffield" is from Leeds HS station (bye bye Asda House) as far as the spur at Thurnscoe, after which trains will trundle along the existing line through Swinton, Rotherham and Meadowhall to Sheffield. Not sure what use that is.
And Birmingham - East Midlands Parkway? A glorious opportunity to arrive at a parkway station to change onto another train to get to Nottingham and Derby. Are the seriously suggesting that cancelling HS2E and then building two truncated chunks with new names is a sensible plan? And that people will say "thats amazing" and vote Tory in thanks?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
'It is in their own small way' that is patronising for someone who has worked 40 years stacking shelves and neither they nor their families would perceive their lifes work as 'a small way of contributing to the country'
They deserve more respect
He was showing respect saying they have dignity. He was right.
You're going down a hole concentrating on the word small, while ignoring the fact that it was in response to someone claiming the job isn't even dignified at all. All work is dignified.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
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.
I get the politics are terrible.
But many commentators have gone beyond that into personal criticism of JRM. He did something legal before he was a politician (set up the structure) and didn’t think to simplify matters when he moved into office
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.
The BBC Scotland Hogmany show was always done live
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
They may not feel like a king, but they're doing a much-needed job and they can be doing it well and are worthy of respect.
Do you have a single scrap of evidence, any at all, that being permanently unemployed is better for their physical or mental health?
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
My late dad's favourite song.
If we're doing that, one of my mother's favourites was The Wild Geese/Norland Wind. The Wild Geese element suggests the soldiering Scot but the life of the author of the original poem even more so.
'She (Violet Jacob) suffered a heavy blow in the loss of her only child, Harry, who was killed at the Somme in 1916. When her husband died in 1936, she moved back to Scotland, to Kirriemuir, and wrote to a friend “ I always knew that, should I be left alone, the only thing that would keep me from breaking my heart would be to live in Angus.”'
Oh tell me what was on yer road ye roarin Norland wind? As ye cam blawin frae the land that's never frae ma mind Ma feet they traivel England but I'm deein for the North." "Ma man, I saw the siller tides rin up the Firth o Forth."
"Aye wind, I ken them weel eneuch an fine they fa and rise, And fain I'd feel the creepin mist on yonder shore that lies. But tell me ere ye passed them by what saw ye on the way?" "Ma man, I rocked the rovin gulls that sail abin the Tay."
"Bit saw ye naethin, leein wind afore ye cam tae Fife? For there's muckle lyin 'yont the Tay that's mair tae me nor life." "Ma man, I swept the Angus braes that ye hivna trod for years." "Oh wind, forgie a hameless loon that canna see for tears."
"And far abin the Angus straths I saw the wild geese flee, A lang, lang skein o beatin wings wi their heids toward the sea, And aye their cryin voices trailed ahint them on the air." "Oh wind, hae mercy, haud your wheesht for I daurna listen mair."
As a kid I was often taken to the Den in Kirriemuir, most often at Easter and then a trip to the Star Rock shop for some Starry rock (which was lethal to your teeth). If my dad was feeling plush we would finish off with a fish supper. I have fond memories of the town.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
They may not feel like a king, but they're doing a much-needed job and they can be doing it well and are worthy of respect.
Do you have a single scrap of evidence, any at all, that being permanently unemployed is better for their physical or mental health?
This wasn't the point I came in with, at which point I have to improve own my mental health by doing a better job of the Sunday lunch. Adieu for now !
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.
The BBC Scotland Hogmany show was always done live
I tend to jump between the two; I'm fond of Aly and Phil but there's only so much a lad can take. The lone piper on the castle last year was pretty hairs on the back of the neck stuff, particularly in the context of the year we'd had.
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.
Given his position calling other people to fall on their swords for less, he is at best a hypocrite. I still say if he can remember 84p for electricity or a bottle of water then he has no excuse whatsoever for multiple thousands. It makes him look dodgier than he even sounds and is not unexpected given current crop of grasping Tories unfortunately. They are not alone either it seems to be endemic in the political classes nowadays with few there for the public interest rather than lining their own pockets with every penny they can get. It is a cesspit.
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.
Camilla looked pretty grim too. The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge were poised.
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.
All the hogmanay programmes and especially the hootennany are crap nowadays. Shortly we will not even be able to get a lump of coal either.
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.
Or maybe just those not facing trial?
Harry (as an ex soldier with genuine battlefield experience) could presumably have turned up if he’d wanted to
AIUI Harry expected to turn up an lay a wreath last year. He was told that he wouldn’t get different treatment to any other retired Captain and so did his own “private” remembrance in California
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.
All the hogmanay programmes and especially the hootennany are crap nowadays. Shortly we will not even be able to get a lump of coal either.
You had a lump of coal? Luuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxury
{X Yorkshiremen + Chateau de Chassilier have entered the chat)
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.
I fully agree. Public service should be viewed as that, not as a money making opportunity. But I wish people on this board were more precise about language
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
Not to go against your sentiment - which is benign - but it's not true that all work contributes to the economy. If your work is adding £100 of value and you extract remuneration of £150 for doing it you're making everyone else £50 worse off. There's plenty of jobs/activities like this, mainly at the upper end of the income scale. It is true that almost all low paid jobs contribute net positive value though.
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.
Camilla looked pretty grim too. The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge were poised.
Having just watched that she's either already gone or it won't be long
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
My late dad's favourite song.
If we're doing that, one of my mother's favourites was The Wild Geese/Norland Wind. The Wild Geese element suggests the soldiering Scot but the life of the author of the original poem even more so.
'She (Violet Jacob) suffered a heavy blow in the loss of her only child, Harry, who was killed at the Somme in 1916. When her husband died in 1936, she moved back to Scotland, to Kirriemuir, and wrote to a friend “ I always knew that, should I be left alone, the only thing that would keep me from breaking my heart would be to live in Angus.”'
Oh tell me what was on yer road ye roarin Norland wind? As ye cam blawin frae the land that's never frae ma mind Ma feet they traivel England but I'm deein for the North." "Ma man, I saw the siller tides rin up the Firth o Forth."
"Aye wind, I ken them weel eneuch an fine they fa and rise, And fain I'd feel the creepin mist on yonder shore that lies. But tell me ere ye passed them by what saw ye on the way?" "Ma man, I rocked the rovin gulls that sail abin the Tay."
"Bit saw ye naethin, leein wind afore ye cam tae Fife? For there's muckle lyin 'yont the Tay that's mair tae me nor life." "Ma man, I swept the Angus braes that ye hivna trod for years." "Oh wind, forgie a hameless loon that canna see for tears."
"And far abin the Angus straths I saw the wild geese flee, A lang, lang skein o beatin wings wi their heids toward the sea, And aye their cryin voices trailed ahint them on the air." "Oh wind, hae mercy, haud your wheesht for I daurna listen mair."
As a kid I was often taken to the Den in Kirriemuir, most often at Easter and then a trip to the Star Rock shop for some Starry rock (which was lethal to your teeth). If my dad was feeling plush we would finish off with a fish supper. I have fond memories of the town.
I remember the Kirrie Den! Taken to it en-route to my aunt & uncle who had a farm outside Kirrie - there was a famous ice cream shop too - Visocchi's - still going strong half a century on, google tells me.
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.
I always get annoyed by that right at the moment they act like the new year has actually happened.
Stop faking it and be honest.
Yeh, it is phony as fuck. Drinking enough to suspend disbelief is my answer.
"Alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all life's problems"
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...
Traditionally a Lord Protector needs to be called Oliver or Richard though.
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.
All the hogmanay programmes and especially the hootennany are crap nowadays. Shortly we will not even be able to get a lump of coal either.
That's something I remember as a kid going on a particular estate near me in south yorks. I think it was called 'first footing', something like that. Lots of alcohol involved and I remember getting a snog off an inebriated married woman of about 35 when I'd have been maybe 12. Hugely exciting moment and one which has stuck.
Disagree. A bad back can happen on its own without there being anything else wrong and can, as I can attest, render you utterly incapable.
There may be something else going on or it may be an excuse. She is 95 after all. But it doesn't automatically follow as he is assuming.
Any other event and I would agree with you but this the armed forces she is missing, something she holds dear, I think the only ones she has missed during her reign was when she was heavily pregnant with Andrew or Edward.
If your back goes into spasm, you literally cannot move no matter how much you may want to. I know - believe me.
I hope she is not suffering like that because it is awful. But when backs go, your wishes are immaterial, Queen or no.
I am surprised at the conspiracy theorising on this. Sure, she is very old and it may well be she has some underlying more serious issues, of course people will speculate about that. But its impossible to move about without using your back muscles, so even if you can move about with some back injurys it might be pretty darn limiting, eg hard to even get dressed.
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.
All the hogmanay programmes and especially the hootennany are crap nowadays. Shortly we will not even be able to get a lump of coal either.
That's something I remember as a kid going on a particular estate near me in south yorks. I think it was called 'first footing', something like that. Lots of alcohol involved and I remember getting a snog off an inebriated married woman of about 35 when I'd have been maybe 12. Hugely exciting moment and one which has stuck.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
I am of the view that the SNP (and other secessionist parties) have several mandates going back to 2016 which ALLOWs them to demand indyref2 because of Scotland being dragged out of the EU against her will. But what I think as AN Englishman is irrelevant, what matters ARE the views of the SNP and independence voters and supporters. [..] The current polling indicates that No win would win again. [..] I’d expect for her to be replaced by someone
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
They may not feel like a king, but they're doing a much-needed job and they can be doing it well and are worthy of respect.
Do you have a single scrap of evidence, any at all, that being permanently unemployed is better for their physical or mental health?
This wasn't the point I came in with, at which point I have to improve own my mental health by doing a better job of the Sunday lunch. Adieu for now !
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.
All the hogmanay programmes and especially the hootennany are crap nowadays. Shortly we will not even be able to get a lump of coal either.
That's something I remember as a kid going on a particular estate near me in south yorks. I think it was called 'first footing', something like that. Lots of alcohol involved and I remember getting a snog off an inebriated married woman of about 35 when I'd have been maybe 12. Hugely exciting moment and one which has stuck.
Now called "child abuse" of course.
I don't think this would count. Not as I recall it anyway.
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
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...
Traditionally a Lord Protector needs to be called Oliver or Richard though.
You chose: Letwin or Burgon?
It was the traditional title for a regent in earlier times. Richard III was Lord Protector for Edward V before ascending the throne, and Somerset for Edward VI. Noll didn't invent it. I always thought the title would suit Tony Blair, though.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
Wasn't he a helicopter pilot in the Navy? He joined the Navy in 1979 and trained at Dartmouth.
Notes from the front line: queueing for walk in booster at Plymouth Argyle kickball place. People with bookings being indiscriminately put in the same queue as walk ins. Not happy about it
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
I caught a bus through the countryside near York yesterday. It passed through a number of villages, towns and one other city.
From flags to hollowed metal frames representing soldiers to a weave of knitted poppies on the benches surrounding a central memorial to wooden crosses stuck in the ground, every single place the bus trundled through had something. All a bit low key, maybe, but something.
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
I read that after years of conscientious service he is now a Vice Admiral. I shall be making no further comments.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
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.
I fully agree. Public service should be viewed as that, not as a money making opportunity. But I wish people on this board were more precise about language
I think that is fair, even if we do not always agree on how outraged to be some actions by the powerful and rich.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
Gordon Brown. The man gets a load of stick, but he managed that well.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
It's how it should be...
...but it isn't really like that, is it? At some point, we collectively and probably unconsciously, made a different set of 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.
“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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
Gordon Brown. The man gets a load of stick, but he managed that well.
His Chancellor, Alistair Darling, deserves far more of the credit IMO.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
Gordon Brown. The man gets a load of stick, but he managed that well.
His Chancellor, Alistair Darling, deserves far more of the credit IMO.
And who appointed him. Goodness knows what would have happened if Boris had been in charge.
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
Wasn't he a helicopter pilot in the Navy? He joined the Navy in 1979 and trained at Dartmouth.
Of course, yes. Also read he became Captain of a warship. HMS Cottesmore.
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
Gordon Brown. The man gets a load of stick, but he managed that well.
His Chancellor, Alistair Darling, deserves far more of the credit IMO.
And who appointed him. Goodness knows what would have happened if Boris had been in charge.
Perhaps Lloyds TSB shareholders wouldn't have got royally fucked?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
It's how it should be...
...but it isn't really like that, is it? At some point, we collectively and probably unconsciously, made a different set of choices.
Not really.
Some people may be snooty, but most people seem to be happy to live a life of simple dignity.
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
I think BJ would be hugely stupid and tin eared to try and captalise on it by e.g. as someone suggested up thread holding a snap election.
Ergo...
Getting a black suit that fitted and dialling back the orotundity would be the smart move.
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.
Out of curiosity, why would (did?) you lose the first £2,000 on the accounts? Were they not covered by the compensation scheme for some reason?
Indeed. My ISA with Rock simply moved across to Virgin.
At the time the compensation scheme did not cover the full amount up to the then limit. Savers had to bear the first £2k loss themselves. When the government rescued NR it gave a 100% guarantee and the rules were then changed.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
Gordon Brown. The man gets a load of stick, but he managed that well.
His Chancellor, Alistair Darling, deserves far more of the credit IMO.
And who appointed him. Goodness knows what would have happened if Boris had been in charge.
Perhaps Lloyds TSB shareholders wouldn't have got royally fucked?
Perhaps the taxpayers would not have made a loss on the bank bailouts.
WHO criterion for "pandemic under control" is below 5% of tests returning positive.
The UK positivity figure on our world in data is half what the UK gov dashboard is reporting.
Surely the positivity rates are highly misleading though? (even if in general higher levels of testing will pick up more (asymptomatic) cases). Clearly if you mass test routinely (as the UK does) then you are (in principle) going to have lower rates than if you test only based on suspicion. However an enormous number of UK tests presumably aren't reported (negative LFTs) although probably many are. But then the question is whether any sort of self reported LFT testing is of any use for these stats. If only positive LFTs are reported then they will have 100% positivity, so will massively exaggerate the positivity rate. Even if all positive LFTs are followed up (and replaced in stats) by PCRs then you would expect them to have very high positivity rates.
Basically there is reason to think that the high level of UK testing will result in lower positivity rates. But countering that the inclusion of self reported LFTs may mean higher positivity for those. So basically the actual rate is pretty meaningless.
We take and a report our LFT results twice weekly. I have no idea if they are included in official statistics. Can anyone tell me, please?
Where are you reporting to? Almost certainly the answer is yes. I mean which tests did you think they were referring to?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
There's a man I meet, walks up our street He's a worker for the council Has been twenty years And he takes no lip off nobody And litter off the gutter Puts it in a bag And never thinks to mutter And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag The children call him Bogie He never lets on But I know 'cause he once told me He let me know a secret about the money in his kitty He's gonna buy a dinghy Gonna call her Dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing their rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" And I'm telling this story In a faraway sea Sipping down raki And reading Maynard Keynes And I'm thinking about home and all that that means And a place in the winter for dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing the rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again And I'm thinking about home And I'm thinking about faith And I'm thinking about work And I'm thinking how good it would be To be here some day On a ship called Dignity A ship called Dignity That ship
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
Surely politics would simply stop.
Huge blow for Keir. Massive op for pm to grandstand and make cod Churchillian orations with loto complete also ran. As Hague found in 1997
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
I read that after years of conscientious service he is now a Vice Admiral. I shall be making no further comments.
He threw a strop and thought he should be promoted to Admiral. The boss didn’t agree…
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
The main impact would be her chief minister and cabinet would be King Charles' chief minister and cabinet.
Beyond that no effect on party politics at all I suspect (albeit Blair reached even higher ratings in his tribute when Princess Diana died).
Just acres of coverage and tributes until the funeral, then preparations for King Charles' coronation, then finally the news cycle moves on
WHO criterion for "pandemic under control" is below 5% of tests returning positive.
The UK positivity figure on our world in data is half what the UK gov dashboard is reporting.
Surely the positivity rates are highly misleading though? (even if in general higher levels of testing will pick up more (asymptomatic) cases). Clearly if you mass test routinely (as the UK does) then you are (in principle) going to have lower rates than if you test only based on suspicion. However an enormous number of UK tests presumably aren't reported (negative LFTs) although probably many are. But then the question is whether any sort of self reported LFT testing is of any use for these stats. If only positive LFTs are reported then they will have 100% positivity, so will massively exaggerate the positivity rate. Even if all positive LFTs are followed up (and replaced in stats) by PCRs then you would expect them to have very high positivity rates.
Basically there is reason to think that the high level of UK testing will result in lower positivity rates. But countering that the inclusion of self reported LFTs may mean higher positivity for those. So basically the actual rate is pretty meaningless.
We take and a report our LFT results twice weekly. I have no idea if they are included in official statistics. Can anyone tell me, please?
Where are you reporting to? Almost certainly the answer is yes. I mean which tests did you think they were referring to?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
There's a man I meet, walks up our street He's a worker for the council Has been twenty years And he takes no lip off nobody And litter off the gutter Puts it in a bag And never thinks to mutter And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag The children call him Bogie He never lets on But I know 'cause he once told me He let me know a secret about the money in his kitty He's gonna buy a dinghy Gonna call her Dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing their rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" And I'm telling this story In a faraway sea Sipping down raki And reading Maynard Keynes And I'm thinking about home and all that that means And a place in the winter for dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing the rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again And I'm thinking about home And I'm thinking about faith And I'm thinking about work And I'm thinking how good it would be To be here some day On a ship called Dignity A ship called Dignity That ship
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
Surely politics would simply stop.
Given Tory Sleaze is the big political story at the moment then that would surely benefit the Tories. Besides which, the Government would have more opportunities to look solemn and important, speak for the nation, etc
WHO criterion for "pandemic under control" is below 5% of tests returning positive.
The UK positivity figure on our world in data is half what the UK gov dashboard is reporting.
Surely the positivity rates are highly misleading though? (even if in general higher levels of testing will pick up more (asymptomatic) cases). Clearly if you mass test routinely (as the UK does) then you are (in principle) going to have lower rates than if you test only based on suspicion. However an enormous number of UK tests presumably aren't reported (negative LFTs) although probably many are. But then the question is whether any sort of self reported LFT testing is of any use for these stats. If only positive LFTs are reported then they will have 100% positivity, so will massively exaggerate the positivity rate. Even if all positive LFTs are followed up (and replaced in stats) by PCRs then you would expect them to have very high positivity rates.
Basically there is reason to think that the high level of UK testing will result in lower positivity rates. But countering that the inclusion of self reported LFTs may mean higher positivity for those. So basically the actual rate is pretty meaningless.
We take and a report our LFT results twice weekly. I have no idea if they are included in official statistics. Can anyone tell me, please?
Where are you reporting to? Almost certainly the answer is yes. I mean which tests did you think they were referring to?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
There's a man I meet, walks up our street He's a worker for the council Has been twenty years And he takes no lip off nobody And litter off the gutter Puts it in a bag And never thinks to mutter And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag The children call him Bogie He never lets on But I know 'cause he once told me He let me know a secret about the money in his kitty He's gonna buy a dinghy Gonna call her Dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing their rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" And I'm telling this story In a faraway sea Sipping down raki And reading Maynard Keynes And I'm thinking about home and all that that means And a place in the winter for dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing the rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again And I'm thinking about home And I'm thinking about faith And I'm thinking about work And I'm thinking how good it would be To be here some day On a ship called Dignity A ship called Dignity That ship
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
ISTM that he was really saying they were contributing to the economy.
Which is fair enough. But you could say the same of someone spending their benefits.
One of the examples in the thread was being paid to pick up litter.
Economically, there is no difference between being paid benefits and spending them, or being paid to pick up litter and spending your pay.
Of course, in the latter case there is less litter about the place, but that’s a social not economic benefit.
If you claim UC and don't work then the taxpayer funds that, you do not create that income yourself unlike someone earning a wage who gets paid for that task and output by their employer. Even if only on minimum wage.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
'...in their own small way they would still have been earning a wage and contributing to the economy.'
WHO criterion for "pandemic under control" is below 5% of tests returning positive.
The UK positivity figure on our world in data is half what the UK gov dashboard is reporting.
Surely the positivity rates are highly misleading though? (even if in general higher levels of testing will pick up more (asymptomatic) cases). Clearly if you mass test routinely (as the UK does) then you are (in principle) going to have lower rates than if you test only based on suspicion. However an enormous number of UK tests presumably aren't reported (negative LFTs) although probably many are. But then the question is whether any sort of self reported LFT testing is of any use for these stats. If only positive LFTs are reported then they will have 100% positivity, so will massively exaggerate the positivity rate. Even if all positive LFTs are followed up (and replaced in stats) by PCRs then you would expect them to have very high positivity rates.
Basically there is reason to think that the high level of UK testing will result in lower positivity rates. But countering that the inclusion of self reported LFTs may mean higher positivity for those. So basically the actual rate is pretty meaningless.
We take and a report our LFT results twice weekly. I have no idea if they are included in official statistics. Can anyone tell me, please?
Where are you reporting to? Almost certainly the answer is yes. I mean which tests did you think they were referring to?
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
There's a man I meet, walks up our street He's a worker for the council Has been twenty years And he takes no lip off nobody And litter off the gutter Puts it in a bag And never thinks to mutter And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag The children call him Bogie He never lets on But I know 'cause he once told me He let me know a secret about the money in his kitty He's gonna buy a dinghy Gonna call her Dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing their rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" And I'm telling this story In a faraway sea Sipping down raki And reading Maynard Keynes And I'm thinking about home and all that that means And a place in the winter for dignity And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing the rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money" They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity" Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again And I'm thinking about home And I'm thinking about faith And I'm thinking about work And I'm thinking how good it would be To be here some day On a ship called Dignity A ship called Dignity That ship
Copywright Ricky Ross
Deacon Blue was (is?) great
Is, starting a tour shortly I think.
Ricky Ross does a good show, Another Country, on BBC Radio Scotland.
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
I read that after years of conscientious service he is now a Vice Admiral. I shall be making no further comments.
He threw a strop and thought he should be promoted to Admiral. The boss didn’t agree…
We have been short of a Lord High Admiral since the Duke of Edinburgh died.
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
I read that after years of conscientious service he is now a Vice Admiral. I shall be making no further comments.
He threw a strop and thought he should be promoted to Admiral. The boss didn’t agree…
We have been short of a Lord High Admiral since the Duke of Edinburgh died.
Do you need to be all three of
i) A Lord
ii) High
iii) An Admiral
to be Lord High Admiral?
If not, I would like to put myself forward for the role.
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
There is some truly heroic spin being done on this. The Times are reporting that the north is to get THREE new high speed lines! Then you dig a bit further into what specifically those are. One is the spur from HS2's mainline to Manchester - already announced as going ahead. Two is Leeds to Sheffield - supposedly definitely not the cancelled HS2E Three is East Midlands Parkway to Birmingham - also definitely not the cancelled HS2E
The one thing that is glaringly missing - what "the north "expects when "new high speed rail" is mentioned is Transpennine. Not on the list almost certainly means not happening again, and with some capacity work already happening on the existing trundle route we can expect more make do and mend alternatives.
So what do we get instead? Apparently sped-up journeys between regional cities. "Leeds to Sheffield" is from Leeds HS station (bye bye Asda House) as far as the spur at Thurnscoe, after which trains will trundle along the existing line through Swinton, Rotherham and Meadowhall to Sheffield. Not sure what use that is.
And Birmingham - East Midlands Parkway? A glorious opportunity to arrive at a parkway station to change onto another train to get to Nottingham and Derby. Are the seriously suggesting that cancelling HS2E and then building two truncated chunks with new names is a sensible plan? And that people will say "thats amazing" and vote Tory in thanks?
Is this East Midlands Parkway the current station for East Midlands Airport, or the Toton Nottm / Derby one?
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
I read that after years of conscientious service he is now a Vice Admiral. I shall be making no further comments.
He threw a strop and thought he should be promoted to Admiral. The boss didn’t agree…
We have been short of a Lord High Admiral since the Duke of Edinburgh died.
Do you need to be all three of
i) A Lord
ii) High
iii) An Admiral
to be Lord High Admiral?
If not, I would like to put myself forward for the role.
No, it was previously occupied by the Queen who is none of those (assuming High refers to physical stature)
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.
I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
Unofficial motto of the Fleet Air Arm: First, be a sailor.
Off topic, but a tense afternoon for me. I need Warner to score fewer than 67, Mitchell to score fewer than 106, and Williamson to score fewer than 172 to win my bet on Babar Azam to be top tournament run scorer. I'm safe on Williamson of course, and almost certainly Mitchell. But Warner?
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
Surely politics would simply stop.
Given Tory Sleaze is the big political story at the moment then that would surely benefit the Tories. Besides which, the Government would have more opportunities to look solemn and important, speak for the nation, etc
Is one example of what I'm thinking, yes. And the effect on the nation's psyche. More likely to want change? Less likely? More insular? Less? This sort of thing.
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
Surely politics would simply stop.
Huge blow for Keir. Massive op for pm to grandstand and make cod Churchillian orations with loto complete also ran. As Hague found in 1997
Totally O/t but watching the anthems at the t20 World Cup. How impressive to see the New Zealander’s sing part of their anthem in Maori. Was wondering; are there many/any of the current side who have some Maori heritage? There were or two in the past.
Not news, but Twitter really is a cesspit today. No shortage of weird and crazy people pushing their conspiracy theories about HM.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
What is fair game, though, although maybe not right now, is the question of how the death of HM the Q would impact our politics. Would there be winners and losers there? Or would it be something wholly outside politics and irrelevant to it?
I think BJ would be hugely stupid and tin eared to try and captalise on it by e.g. as someone suggested up thread holding a snap election.
Ergo...
Getting a black suit that fitted and dialling back the orotundity would be the smart move.
Yes he'd do it fine, I sense. And one hopes it wouldn't cause people to cement him in their minds eye as Our PM again pulling us through the pain, like with the pandemic at times, but who knows. I'm probably being a bit paranoid because of how badly I want him correctly assessed and booted out.
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
What a pathetic post.
I have done plenty of ordinary jobs in my time, in student holidays and after graduation I washed dishes, was a hotel night porter etc.
I said nothing whatsoever belittling, in fact precisely the opposite, I said ALL work is worthy of respect and all work contributes to the economy no matter how small
You said
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
I rarely say this, but HYUFD is right. He was showing respect, it was @not_on_fire who was claiming the job and the people who are doing it are not dignified.
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
The task that people have to do should never them automatically make them less dignified in the eyes of others, but that doesn't mean the task itself might not be less dignified, or might not make them *feel* less dignified. Someone cleaning toilets for thirty years to feed their children might deserve every dignity from others, but that doesn't mean the task will make them feel like a king, or be any good for their physical or mental health.
Any job that is necessary has, in my mind, an innate dignity. Given that the whole question of dignity is one of personal opinion and is of course used to justify treating someone poorly or well, treating them with respect or scorn, then one has to set the parameters based on some logical and internally coherent criteria. To my mind any job that is done for the purpose of continuing the wellbeing of myself or of our society/community is inherently dignified.
It's how it should be...
...but it isn't really like that, is it? At some point, we collectively and probably unconsciously, made a different set of choices.
True. But I hope there is still a place for idealism even if in practice it fades a little.
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...
Traditionally a Lord Protector needs to be called Oliver or Richard though.
You chose: Letwin or Burgon?
John of Gaunt, John of Bedford, Humphrey of Gloucester, William de Longchamp and Margaret Beaufort weren't called Oliver or Richard.
Comments
'Yes, in their own small way'
I leave my case there
HYUFD was saying the people who do the job have dignity. This time, he is right.
No job should be viewed as not worthy of respect or undignified.
There are 4 million limited companies in the UK.
Plenty of them are people like electricians, greengrocers, teachers, social workers, performers in the arts and so on.
The 'very few people except dodgy millionaires have to decide about dividends' line is rather risible.
'She (Violet Jacob) suffered a heavy blow in the loss of her only child, Harry, who was killed at the Somme in 1916. When her husband died in 1936, she moved back to Scotland, to Kirriemuir, and wrote to a friend “ I always knew that, should I be left alone, the only thing that would keep me from breaking my heart would be to live in Angus.”'
Oh tell me what was on yer road ye roarin Norland wind?
As ye cam blawin frae the land that's never frae ma mind
Ma feet they traivel England but I'm deein for the North."
"Ma man, I saw the siller tides rin up the Firth o Forth."
"Aye wind, I ken them weel eneuch an fine they fa and rise,
And fain I'd feel the creepin mist on yonder shore that lies.
But tell me ere ye passed them by what saw ye on the way?"
"Ma man, I rocked the rovin gulls that sail abin the Tay."
"Bit saw ye naethin, leein wind afore ye cam tae Fife?
For there's muckle lyin 'yont the Tay that's mair tae me nor life."
"Ma man, I swept the Angus braes that ye hivna trod for years."
"Oh wind, forgie a hameless loon that canna see for tears."
"And far abin the Angus straths I saw the wild geese flee,
A lang, lang skein o beatin wings wi their heids toward the sea,
And aye their cryin voices trailed ahint them on the air."
"Oh wind, hae mercy, haud your wheesht for I daurna listen mair."
https://youtu.be/WT3GwWTkVFo
They deserve more respect
Which is fair enough. But you could say the same of someone spending their benefits.
One of the examples in the thread was being paid to pick up litter.
Economically, there is no difference between being paid benefits and spending them, or being paid to pick up litter and spending your pay.
Of course, in the latter case there is less litter about the place, but that’s a social not economic benefit.
One is the spur from HS2's mainline to Manchester - already announced as going ahead.
Two is Leeds to Sheffield - supposedly definitely not the cancelled HS2E
Three is East Midlands Parkway to Birmingham - also definitely not the cancelled HS2E
The one thing that is glaringly missing - what "the north "expects when "new high speed rail" is mentioned is Transpennine. Not on the list almost certainly means not happening again, and with some capacity work already happening on the existing trundle route we can expect more make do and mend alternatives.
So what do we get instead? Apparently sped-up journeys between regional cities. "Leeds to Sheffield" is from Leeds HS station (bye bye Asda House) as far as the spur at Thurnscoe, after which trains will trundle along the existing line through Swinton, Rotherham and Meadowhall to Sheffield. Not sure what use that is.
And Birmingham - East Midlands Parkway? A glorious opportunity to arrive at a parkway station to change onto another train to get to Nottingham and Derby. Are the seriously suggesting that cancelling HS2E and then building two truncated chunks with new names is a sensible plan? And that people will say "thats amazing" and vote Tory in thanks?
You're going down a hole concentrating on the word small, while ignoring the fact that it was in response to someone claiming the job isn't even dignified at all. All work is dignified.
But many commentators have gone beyond that into personal criticism of JRM. He did something legal before he was a politician (set up the structure) and didn’t think to simplify matters when he moved into office
Do you have a single scrap of evidence, any at all, that being permanently unemployed is better for their physical or mental health?
The news circus moves onwards
{X Yorkshiremen + Chateau de Chassilier have entered the chat)
One of the great quotes of the last century.
You chose: Letwin or Burgon?
I am of the view that the SNP (and other secessionist parties) have several mandates going back to 2016 which ALLOWs them to demand indyref2 because of Scotland being dragged out of the EU against her will. But what I think as AN Englishman is irrelevant, what matters ARE the views of the SNP and independence voters and supporters.
[..]
The current polling indicates that No win would win again.
[..]
I’d expect for her to be replaced by someone
You're welcome
Boris and Alok Sharma to hold joint news conference at no 10 at 5.00pm tonight
Moving the news agenda maybe !!!!!!!
From flags to hollowed metal frames representing soldiers to a weave of knitted poppies on the benches surrounding a central memorial to wooden crosses stuck in the ground, every single place the bus trundled through had something. All a bit low key, maybe, but something.
They must lead spectacularly dull lives. Life is far to complicated to have the energy to make up and publish nonsense.
I shall be making no further comments.
I did not lose any money. The accounts moved across to Virgin.
...but it isn't really like that, is it?
At some point, we collectively and probably unconsciously, made a different set of choices.
Some people may be snooty, but most people seem to be happy to live a life of simple dignity.
Ergo...
Getting a black suit that fitted and dialling back the orotundity would be the smart move.
But purely in the latin sense.
He's a worker for the council
Has been twenty years
And he takes no lip off nobody
And litter off the gutter
Puts it in a bag
And never thinks to mutter
And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag
The children call him Bogie
He never lets on
But I know 'cause he once told me
He let me know a secret about the money in his kitty
He's gonna buy a dinghy
Gonna call her Dignity
And I'll sail her up the west coast
Through villages and towns
I'll be on my holidays
They'll be doing their rounds
They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money"
They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity"
And I'm telling this story
In a faraway sea
Sipping down raki
And reading Maynard Keynes
And I'm thinking about home and all that that means
And a place in the winter for dignity
And I'll sail her up the west coast
Through villages and towns
I'll be on my holidays
They'll be doing the rounds
They'll ask me how I got her I'll say, "I saved my money"
They'll say, "Isn't she pretty? That ship called Dignity"
Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up
Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again
Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up
Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again
And I'm thinking about home
And I'm thinking about faith
And I'm thinking about work
And I'm thinking how good it would be
To be here some day
On a ship called Dignity
A ship called Dignity
That ship
Copywright Ricky Ross
Beyond that no effect on party politics at all I suspect (albeit Blair reached even higher ratings in his tribute when Princess Diana died).
Just acres of coverage and tributes until the funeral, then preparations for King Charles' coronation, then finally the news cycle moves on
Give the whole context first
Ricky Ross does a good show, Another Country, on BBC Radio Scotland.
i) A Lord
ii) High
iii) An Admiral
to be Lord High Admiral?
If not, I would like to put myself forward for the role.
It's a chapter title in Winkle Brown's biography.
NEW THREAD
Was wondering; are there many/any of the current side who have some Maori heritage? There were or two in the past.
If Einstein was right in his theory of General relativity then the centre of the Earth is two and a half years younger than the surface.