|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:39:49 GMT
Harris has openly changed what she identified herself as over the years. She never used to class herself as a woman of colour until recently.You can look at videos which have been posted on here, where she called herself Indian - American during the last election. You what? What on earth has her skin colour got to do with anything? Her father was of Jamaican extraction I believe and her mother of Indian Sub Continent extraction. I doubt she could claim she is white Caucasian 😂😂😂 What a profoundly stupid argument to make. "her" and the colour of her "skin" was why she was made VP. Let's not beat about the bush over this. She backed out of the race to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee before the very first vote as her team became aware that she wouldn't get any votes from her own party. She wasn't even voted in by her own Party to be the Presidential Nominee even now. She is only there by default.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:33:56 GMT
I was only asking so that i would be better informed in future, surely you are the one to ask as you have mentioned doing a lot of good work for charity many (many) times. I have said no such thing Jeez, do you ever have any recollection of anything you post?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:32:10 GMT
But we can afford to spend 11+ billion on public sector pay rises, and we can afford to give 11.2 billion to African countries to help them with Net Zero.........but we cannot afford 1.5 billion to help our own OAP's. Sorry, but it's a disgrace no matter how you try to dress it up. The speed at which Labour cut it indicates that this was planned before the election. The simple solution would be to cut the Overseas Aid Budget by 1.5 billion to pay for it. You cannot expect the public sector workforce to accept real income levels to remain static (excluding energy costs) whilst all pensioners get 10% + 4% plus £300 contribution. All the other costs you mention are another debate. Their income levels have not remained static ! Where do you get these sixth form ideas from? The other costs are not another debate. You sit here defending the policy as "we cannot afford it". OK, then justify giving 11+ billion to African countries to pursue Net Zero as good economic policy!
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:23:36 GMT
Asking for a friend..do the MP's still qualify for heating allowance for their living accommodation out of the 'family' home, No idea Yes they do.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:13:19 GMT
And this 'growth' in the pension just covers inflation/rising costs. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Au contraire. "The increase for 2024/2025 is the second bumper increase in a row for the state pension: it increased by 10.1% in 2023–2024 when the triple lock followed the high inflation rate of 10.1% of September 2022." Labour has been lambasted for settling the rail disputes over pay and conditions. When in fact pay increase was "4.75% for 2023-2024, and 4.5% for 2024-2025." Pensions will rise by 4% next April after this 10.1% this year. No, we cannot afford to hand out untested universal benefits like £300 winter fuel allowance for all over 65. But we can afford to spend 11+ billion on public sector pay rises (and will rise), and we can afford to give 11.2 billion to African countries to help them with Net Zero.........but we cannot afford 1.5 billion to help our own OAP's. Sorry, but it's a disgrace no matter how you try to dress it up. The speed at which Labour cut it indicates that this was planned before the election. It was the very first economic decision they made. Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us that OAP's sit in the Library all day as they cannot afford to heat their homes? Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us how he had met with OAP's who couldn't afford to keep warm in winter? Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us that old people travel on buses all day top keep warm? Shall we ? Shall we re-link Labour's own report that says that cutting the WFA will result in an extra 4,000 deaths in the Winter? Don't try to deny it, this was their very own report on the WFA! The simple solution would be to cut the Overseas Aid Budget by 1.5 billion to pay for it. Same old Labour, same old policies, same old result. No Labour government, ever, has left office with unemployment lower than when they took office. That is not my opinion but fact. Labour have shot themselves in the foot with this policy decision, and it will continue to haunt them up to the next GE.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:48:36 GMT
I remember the gun ban in the UK. I had some friends who belonged to gun clubs and used to shoot for pleasure on the ranges. The gun ban only really affected these people, because their weapons were registered. The criminals still kept their weapons ! In fact, gun crime in the UK is now bigger than it was before the gun ban! The US is a completely different kettle of fish. The sheer amount of weapons in the public domain makes virtually any attempt at gun control pointless. The authorities just don't have the resources to control it. I remember the first firearms amnesty here (just) there was a Giles cartoon of some granny driving a German tank into a police station,the amount of weapons including MPs was amazing, however the Liverpool Skorpion shootings and that one some years back in Birmingham with a MAC 10 jus show how easy it is for criminals to access deadly weapons. As you say the law abiding people with registered weapons have been penalised (bound to happen after Dunblane and Hungerford) but how can they stop criminals from buying smuggled weapons ? its the same as drugs,supply and demand,probably get much worse with all the weapons floating around in Ukraine, need draconian sentences for smuggling,selling or possession of firearms and the rope for using them in murders. The Balkens conflict was the catalist for the explosion of weapons throughout Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:45:02 GMT
It's a spiral. It's much much cheaper than living in Frankfurt, yet on the S-Bahn you can reach the center of Frankfurt in about 14 minutes! Cheaper housing/rental attracts the developers, who convert housing into multi-roomed small apartments housing migrants. If you provide a 10sqm room for a migrant the government will give you 500 euro per month. I know of a house where it had three bedrooms initially. The developers made it into 20 10sqm rooms, with shared toilets and kitchen. Housing 20 migrants brought in 10,000 euros per month. On an initial outlay of 350,000 to buy and convert the house 120,000 euros per year is a damn good ROI. This sort of action has decimated the housing for first time buyers, as the developers will always outbid them. In the inner city of Offenbach 34% of the residents are on the lowest level of benefits. As there is no money to spend (as such) the shopping area is disgraceful. No decent shops, just loads of hairdresser's, nail bars, phone shops, kebab or fried chicken bars etc. The local council are broke as they have very little income, so facilities and services get ignored. The more migrants that arrive, the poorer the place gets. That's the nature of the beast. A local saying in Frankfurt is "what is the best thing about Offenbach?", with the answer being "leaving it!" Kickers Offenbach were always trouble,I remember them playing Frankfurt and it was much worse than the trouble at football here ever was,cars torched etc,saw them in Munich but there wasnt trouble that night. Proper ****hole of a place, I think that Neu Ulm has the largest percentage of immigrants though ? Blaming bombing for making a town a deprived area is bonkers,Hamburg,Dresden, Leipzig,Cologne in fact anywhere in the Ruhr pott all got carpet bombed,why arent they hell holes I wonder ? If the Kickers ever have to play Eintracht, maybe in the cup, all Police leave is cancelled. It's pure hatred! Eintracht fans have a bad reputation, but the Kickers fans are on another level!
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:40:55 GMT
I think there is a lot of faux outrage about the winter fuel allowance. A lot. If a party other than Labour had proposed it as part of their spending plans, and the need to cut back on universal benefits, we wouldn't have heard a peep from the usual suspects. I would say it doesn't play well in the country and with Labour's core support, and I'm surprised they did it so quickly. But it's done, and the principle of scrapping an expensive and unnecessary handout to people who don't need it is correct. Those who need it most will still get it. Talk of people dying because of it is sensationalist and a bit disgraceful. It is Labour's own report that says 4,000 people would die if the WFA was withdrawn. Sensationalist and a bit disgraceful? I do not think there is faux outrage at all.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:36:32 GMT
How do you know they don't need it? You don't. If you are wrong though, people could die. The Winter Fuel Allowance has been in place for something like 22 years. Sprnding 1.5 billion 'distorts the economy', yet you are happy that the government has just committed approx. 11 billion in public sector pay rises and given Ed Milliband 11,2 billion to give to African countries for their Net Zero projects? They don't. The growth in pension pay is greater than the £300 pa fuel allowance And this 'growth' in the pension just covers inflation/rising costs. You are trying to defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:46:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:16:27 GMT
No they won't. There are many many people who are just over the threshold who need it. I can't believe you support this disgusting decision by this government. How do you know they will need it? You don't. I am hoping this signals the end of universal state benefits with zero means testing. We cannot afford it and it distorts the economy. Time to move on. How do you know they don't need it? You don't. If you are wrong though, people could die. The Winter Fuel Allowance has been in place for something like 22 years. Sprnding 1.5 billion 'distorts the economy', yet you are happy that the government has just committed approx. 11 billion in public sector pay rises and given Ed Milliband 11,2 billion to give to African countries for their Net Zero projects?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:09:25 GMT
It is costing Tata 1.2 billion to convert to the electric arc plant. The government are providing 500 million towards that cost. The conversion is necessary to meet UK emission standards, hence the government helping to pay. So, the British Government are contributing to the loss of jobs in the reckless race towards Net Zero. In the meantime, China and India are laughing as they will still use cheap coal-powered stations to supply the energy needed to manufacture their steel, which they will then import into the UK. The overall result means fewer British jobs and no decrease whatsoever in emissions. We'll have to agree to disagree on the benefits or not of net zero. What I do find interesting is that the government is helping here but as I understand it, refusing to help H&W in Belfast. I don't know what the issues are with H&W, but the issues at Port Talbot are all about Net Zero.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:08:13 GMT
I lived in a city called Offenbach, which is joined at the hip with Frankfurt. Offenbach has a population of (I believe) around 150k. It is one of the poorest cities in Germany, compared to Frankfurt next door, which is one of the richest. Offenbach has a migrant population that makes up 63.9% of the inhabitants. Offenbach is twinned with Tower Hamlets. Offenbach is a so-called "Sozialer Brennpunkt" (deprived area) because of unemployment, poverty, gang related crime and migration. The effects of migration is quite plain to see if you walk through the city center. Was Offenbach always defined as a deprived area, or is it a more recent phenomenon? It seems the downfall of the city has roots in WW2 when we bombed it to pieces. It's a spiral. It's much much cheaper than living in Frankfurt, yet on the S-Bahn you can reach the center of Frankfurt in about 14 minutes! Cheaper housing/rental attracts the developers, who convert housing into multi-roomed small apartments housing migrants. If you provide a 10sqm room for a migrant the government will give you 500 euro per month. I know of a house where it had three bedrooms initially. The developers made it into 20 10sqm rooms, with shared toilets and kitchen. Housing 20 migrants brought in 10,000 euros per month. On an initial outlay of 350,000 to buy and convert the house 120,000 euros per year is a damn good ROI. This sort of action has decimated the housing for first time buyers, as the developers will always outbid them. In the inner city of Offenbach 34% of the residents are on the lowest level of benefits. As there is no money to spend (as such) the shopping area is disgraceful. No decent shops, just loads of hairdresser's, nail bars, phone shops, kebab or fried chicken bars etc. The local council are broke as they have very little income, so facilities and services get ignored. The more migrants that arrive, the poorer the place gets. That's the nature of the beast. A local saying in Frankfurt is "what is the best thing about Offenbach?", with the answer being "leaving it!"
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:45:35 GMT
Update on Tata Steel. "An annual payment of £27,000 will be given to thousands of workers being made redundant at Britain's biggest steelworks under the government intervention to reduce the fallout from closure. As many as 2,800 jobs are to be lost despite the previous government issuing £500m of funding. In return, the company would invest £750m." news.sky.com/story/rachel-reeves-defends-500m-subsidy-for-steel-job-losses-13212770It is costing Tata 1.2 billion to convert to the electric arc plant. The government are providing 500 million towards that cost. The conversion is necessary to meet UK emission standards, hence the government helping to pay. So, the British Government are contributing to the loss of jobs in the reckless race towards Net Zero. In the meantime, China and India are laughing as they will still use cheap coal-powered stations to supply the energy needed to manufacture their steel, which they will then import into the UK. The overall result means fewer British jobs and no decrease whatsoever in emissions.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:33:25 GMT
Rather than do something about restricting guns, JD Vance says that “I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Mr. Vance said, adding that he believed gun restrictions were not the way to effectively prevent school shootings. “We have got to bolster security in our schools.” So schools in the US need to become more like maximum security prisons rather than the Government do something about guns.... Poor US kids. Shootings are just a fact of life. Not in the UK they aren't. Wonder why? www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/us/politics/jd-vance-fact-of-life-school-shootings.htmlIt's an incredibly weak argument but the gun lobby seem able to control the agenda. Multiple shootings in schools? What can we do? Control the guns? No. We'll put security guards on the doors to keep the murderers out. That should address the issue. I'd be interested to hear from some of our pro-Trump/Republican posters on here with their views on guns in the US and whether they should be limited, and if they support the 'right to bear arms' argument. I remember the gun ban in the UK. I had some friends who belonged to gun clubs and used to shoot for pleasure on the ranges. The gun ban only really affected these people, because their weapons were registered. The criminals still kept their weapons ! In fact, gun crime in the UK is now bigger than it was before the gun ban! The US is a completely different kettle of fish. The sheer amount of weapons in the public domain makes virtually any attempt at gun control pointless. The authorities just don't have the resources to control it. As to the "right to bear arms", well, to change basics in the Constitution is about as difficult in the US as it is to make changes to the NHS here, as it's seen as almost religious. Just what is "gun control" anyway? I read about it all the time, but to me it's just another of those throw away comments. How will "gun control" work in reality?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:15:12 GMT
A suspended sentence!!!!! WTF. Yet other first offenders have been sent to prison for over a year for something they posted on Facebook?!?!?!!
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:10:03 GMT
Calm down Terry. I'm just pointing out that any organization/charity etc will always produvce reports that suit or fit their narrative, so therefore have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Look at this Labour Party. in 2017 they produced a report from their own analysis that stated that the Winter Fuel Allowance had reduced deaths within the OAP ranges by 4,000 people! So, if their own report shows this, why have they stopped it? Will 4,000 people die unnecessarily, or was the report 'biased'? People who need it will get it. No they won't. There are many many people who are just over the threshold who need it. I can't believe you support this disgusting decision by this government.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:08:04 GMT
Nigel warned that immigrants, after being in eg Germany for 5 years,would be allowed to settle in the UK. He also said that millions of Turks were going to invade us as they were joining the EU. That hasn't happened yet! I lived in a city called Offenbach, which is joined at the hip with Frankfurt. Offenbach has a population of (I believe) around 150k. It is one of the poorest cities in Germany, compared to Frankfurt next door, which is one of the richest. Offenbach has a migrant population that makes up 63.9% of the inhabitants. Offenbach is twinned with Tower Hamlets. Offenbach is a so-called "Sozialer Brennpunkt" (deprived area) because of unemployment, poverty, gang related crime and migration. The effects of migration is quite plain to see if you walk through the city center.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 11:23:56 GMT
Terry, of course they are biased. They may be a non-profit organisation, but they have costs so therefore they need funds! They have a need to promote alleged areas of corruption to attract the funds. It's the fact the post was put up as a sort of, "look at this" ! As if the words presented were true and honest, when they are blatantly not as the report creators have a vested interest in making the claims worse than they probably are. Does this "charity" have access to the government information regarding the funds given out, or are they making assumptions? OK Nobby you win! No charities research and publications should be believed as they are all biased and are simply out to raise cash. I will tell my colleagues at the Samaritans at the next AGM to stop doing research and publications on the causes of suicide and tell them just to advertise instead. I will ignore the research of Cancer Research UK and tell my cousin to ignore the advice of MacMillans because they are only out for themselves and are trying to raise money off him. I shall tell my sailing friend to ignore the RNLI if ever he gets into difficulty at sea as when they issue instructions what to do when you get into difficulty in a storm they only want him to set up a direct debit...... From Transparency website - In the UK - Since 1994, Transparency International UK has worked with the UK and devolved governments, parliamentarians, civil society and the business community to play a critical role in tackling corruption at home, addressing the UK’s global corruption footprint, and helping multinational companies prevent corruption by guiding them towards robust anti-corruption and integrity measures in their operations and sustainability strategies. We are also the movement host to two major Transparency International global programmes (Defence and Security, and Global Health) in tackling corruption in those sectors on behalf of the wider Transparency International coalition.Funding - Transparency International receives funding from a range of donors, including government agencies, multilateral institutions, foundations, the private sector and individuals. Funding may be unrestricted or tied to specific projects or programmes. It is our policy to accept funding – whether monetary or in kind – from any donor, provided that does not impair our independence to pursue our mission or endanger our integrity and reputation.Transparency International consists of more than 100 chapters – locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.They are respected - ... provided 264 corruption-related legal submissions, made to hold wrongdoers accountable. They change perspectives - Our joint advocacy strengthened commitments by states parties to the UN Convention against Corruption on cleaning up business, revealing the secretive owners of companies, protecting the public’s resources, whistleblowing and gender. For the first time at the global level, this resolution recognises sexual corruption – “sextortion” – as a form of corruption, one that mostly affects women and girls.They work for the citizens not Governments - In 2023, we continued to lead the push for disclosure of financial data on COVID-19 emergency funds in 11 countries, so that citizens can know how these public funds were spent. This data is actively being used to hold governments to account and to draw lessons for the management of public funds in future crises, ensuring that corrupt actors are unable to exploit emergencies for financial gain.But of course, that is all probably bulls*** and simply they just want to raise money to keep themselves going and cannot be believed or trusted as they are a charity. Calm down Terry. I'm just pointing out that any organization/charity etc will always produvce reports that suit or fit their narrative, so therefore have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Look at this Labour Party. in 2017 they produced a report from their own analysis that stated that the Winter Fuel Allowance had reduced deaths within the OAP ranges by 4,000 people! So, if their own report shows this, why have they stopped it? Will 4,000 people die unnecessarily, or was the report 'biased'?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 7:41:55 GMT
Wow, this is from the Guardian........and the Guardian is a friend of Lablour! "As the nights begin to draw in, the brief euphoria of 5 July increasingly feels like something that happened in a lost time of sunny innocence. Today, amid deep dismay, the House of Commons approved the government’s ill-conceived and dangerous plan to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners in England and Wales. Rachel Reeves has reportedly given ministers and civil servants until Friday to draw up departmental savings. In some parts of Keir Starmer’s administration, meanwhile, minds are at least partly focused on interesting and exciting policies – but the Treasury is spreading a familiar sense of fear and foreboding. What this highlights is simple enough: that there are two strands of this government. One is recognisably left-of-centre, and is personified by a handful of key cabinet ministers: Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and Louise Haigh, who is in charge of the transport brief. This grouping’s priorities are manifested in such policies as improving people’s rights at work, creating a new, publicly owned energy company and gradually renationalising the railways and reregulating local buses in England: all well-intentioned and avowedly social-democratic proposals that serve as instant reminders that the Tories are no longer in charge. The other key Labour tendency, however, has a rather different mindset – and given that its representatives include the prime minister and the chancellor, it is much more powerful. In their own way, Reeves and Starmer are as stereotypically Labour as their more left-leaning colleagues, but they are statist technocrats rather than merchants of social change: their shared quest, it seems, is to put the government machine back in working order and cling on to its orthodoxies in the hope that they can be restored, while somehow sparking renewed economic growth. This is really a bureaucrat’s prospectus, all about such apolitical concepts as competence and efficiency. It reflects Starmer’s time as the director of public prosecutions, and Reeves’s spell at the Bank of England. And its most vivid illustration is the three-pronged insistence that will define the immediate political future: that supposed fiscal rectitude must prevail, that no really ambitious thinking can be brought to the tax system and, as a consequence, that meaningfully lifting the country out of the hole it has been stuck in for 14 years is going to have to wait. Treasury spreadsheets, it seems, have decided our fate – and the national malaise may be about to deepen even further." Labour in trouble Until relatively recently, The Guardian was a charitable foundation, so can I believe what you've linked? 😇 It's an opinion piece, not something that is claiming to be 'fact' as in a report. The interesting thing is that the Guardian is Labour supporting. If they are printing things like this, this early into this government's tenure, then it doesn't bode well.
|
|