FlyTheNest

Why are Tory government doing this? Why aren't Local Authorities and schools funded properly? Do Tory government want children to be sent home early and not taught? Serious questions. I can see for myself Tory government aren't competent and they've given evidence of intentional cruelty. But what is their goal by driving off teachers, please?

Bemoaning contribution whilst others with far less are expected to which goes towards their support,not a good look and ammunition for the unaffordability guff,or are you really saying you can't afford/deem unfair a rise of any sort or indeed advocating a reduction.

And potentially everybody's of course.

Cost saving investment,a tad more saves countless

Fuck charity,hand-wringing if only's willingness to cough up in lieu.

It's stopped snowing apart from the odd non-Russian flake.

HindleA wrote:Bemoaning contribution whilst others with far less are expected to which goes towards their support,not a good look and ammunition for the unaffordability guff,or are you really saying you can't afford/deem unfair a rise of any sort or indeed advocating a reduction.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I intended my posts to be mostly humorous. I've not effectively transmitted humour and I'm sorry for it.

There's plenty for all, the distribution of the resources is criminally unfair, causing hardship, lower life expectancy and unfulfilled potential. I will be goddamned silently letting Tory leadership (and other right-wing scourges) force everyone who cares make due with little while they take what they like. I'll not go quietly.

This is very interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... s-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

HindleA wrote:Fuck charity,hand-wringing if only's willingness to cough up in lieu.

I dislike charity too. It's haphazard, inefficient and degrading. Nonetheless, I give money to people if they ask, I have it and their need is more pressing than my own at the time.

@PF Do you still have an amber warning?

Well I did warn you

Sorry A for stealing your gag

Oh.
Horrors!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@PF Do you still have an amber warning?

Yellow through and through, me.

[youtube]nrbni0tVBZ8[/youtube]

I saw this the other day - I think it says it all: The guy who gets his box taken away, typically won't like that. Particularly if all he sees is that he is losing his box.

I'm starting to get my Skripals and my Schipols mixed up.

<hysterical laughter emoticon>

Ed Miliband gave a speech during the approaching 2015 GE, I can't remember the venue. I saw it after it was televised. I'm paraphrasing, writing what I remember.

'Friends, I need your help. People with money and wealth are fine, they'll continue to be fine regardless who's returned to government.
Others will stumble, fall and won't get back up again if a Labour government isn't there helping them up.'

I think I understand better what he meant with each passing day.

I'm afraid the walking about in rags imagery doesn't convince or indeed helpful.If you can afford to give charitably you can willingly redistribute as a collective.A fundamental responsibility of councils is to attend to social care,it needs paying for and is in effect cost saving investment and mere enlightened self interest,given that and potential for self use at any time.

Thank you, HindleA, for your posts. You're a dear friend, I trust you.

HindleA wrote:I'm afraid the walking about in rags imagery doesn't convince or indeed helpful.If you can afford to give charitably you can willingly redistribute as a collective.A fundamental responsibility of councils is to attend to social care,it needs paying for and is in effect cost saving investment and mere enlightened self interest,given that and potential for self use at any time.

Currently, I'll have to go without something if I give money to someone else. That's the problem with austerity, resources are removed from the collective and unhealthily stagnate. It's foolish, not properly funding public services. Inadequate funding isn't good for anyone, wealthy people included. Cultivating fear and division is reprehensible leadership.

It doesn't have to be this way. It's a choice made by leadership.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is very interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... s-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

“We exploited...to harvest millions of people’s profiles. And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis that the entire company was built on.”

(cJA edit & emphasis)

citizenJA wrote:Members of my advisory council include William, Jasper, Edmund, Rick, Cnute, Edward and Alfred

Are you reading the names off of the reliquary chests lined up by the alter in Winchester Cathedral?

adam wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Members of my advisory council include William, Jasper, Edmund, Rick, Cnute, Edward and Alfred

Are you reading the names off of the reliquary chests lined up by the alter in Winchester Cathedral?

The others wouldn't come inside for a picture
They're playing in the snow

A blizzard probably not the best time to transplant tomato plants from propagator to pots but it was on my timetable which must be kept to.More often than not the "weediest' one(s) turns out to be the most successful.I give them all a chance.

Has the Amber Rudd picture had something removed/censored?

More a problem of why should I pay/potential vote losing considerations regardless,you've called them bastards yourself.You think investment was adequate previously?

Tarquin gritting the paths.

HindleA wrote:More a problem of why should I pay/potential vote losing considerations regardless,you've called them bastards yourself.You think investment was adequate previously?

Nope
And they're charging us all more for less

With respect you don't lack basic support to attend to the fundamentals.What is the difference between your bemoaning of paying tax and the Tory?

HindleA wrote:Has the Amber Rudd picture had something removed/censored?

Thanks - I've now got the very unedifying picture of Amber Rudd doing the dance of the seven veils. Despite that, I'm wishing you well, saintly as I am, with the tomato plants. I hope you have a blizzard of a crop. (I also have mental schedules which must be adhered to, come what may. Probably some form of OCD (really).)

HindleA wrote:With respect you don't lack basic support to attend to the fundamentals.What is the difference between your bemoaning of paying tax and the Tory?

I don't understand what you mean

Why should I pay for others..,the vast majority of in own home support receivers pay towards,a tad towards cost saving investment and "proofing" potential isn't much to ask,I suggest.

Message from ephie on our side

"Good evening everyone!

Just popping in to impart the latest from Nevill Hall, where I’ve been on their cloud watching rugby and catching up with the news from all here and elsewhere.

Tricky scan finally got done. Diagnosis as expected, I have a “Sub-Massive” PE which is affecting my heart. Prognosis a little less clear, unfortunately; but the treatment and care I’m getting is very good, makes sense to me within the limits of my knowledge, and is accompanied by very good nursing.
Had a conflab with the docs yesterday, and looking at the notes and whatnot, I think I have been very very ill. I’m not out of the woods yet, but we’ll be having a conference with all 3 consultants next week to decide what to do next, and hopefully I’ll be able to come home.

Please feel free to share this info with anyone you like; I don’t have the energy to repeat the exercise!"

HindleA wrote:Why should I pay for others..,the vast majority of in own home support receivers pay towards,a tad towards cost saving investment and "proofing" potential isn't much to ask,I suggest.

I may be wrong (and I'm sure she'll tell me if I am) but I think citizenJA objects to being charged for things which are being done minimally and badly in order to keep council tax low (which enables many authorities to keep the bill low for their more well-heeled residents\voters) at the expense of those who have little or, in some cases, no ability to pay top whack (or anything at all) for assistance.

Butting in and theorising ahead of the data, of course . . .

I've found the tax discussion today interesting and would like to add some thoughts (apologies for length, but it's hard to convey my meaning succinctly!)

A few years ago our community pool was in financial trouble. The parish council called an extraordinary village meeting and presented various options, one of which was to let the pool close. The option chosen involved finding funding through sponsors and national grants to replace critical equipment, including the pool heating system, and an increase in the parish precept on our council tax bills to provide extra ongoing financial support.

The pool, with improved amenities, has managed to attract more income from pool users and combined with the extra council tax money is now on a more secure financial footing and thus continues to provide swimming lessons to all primary school children in the village, the original aim for which it was built, as well as providing a useful public amenity.

Paying more tax for things like schools, hospitals and swimming pools is often very popular with the public. Most people appreciate the benefit to their community from pooling resources in this way.

The difference with the current rises in council tax, a mostly regressive tax, is that this money is being raised because the government has cut grants to councils at the same time as cutting income tax (via raising thresholds) and corporation tax, these being more progressive taxes. Therefore this isn't all people paying more tax so we can have more services or maintain the ones we have (as with my pool story). This is poor people paying more tax so rich people can pay less tax while simultaneously the services poor people depend on are still cut.

Significantly people on lower incomes spend all their money, in contrast to higher earners, so a council tax rise will impact the wider economy, with people spending less eating out or getting a haircut, leading to lower tax receipts and so on, which won't be balanced by councils spending more on wages etc because their total spend is still going down.

So while I support a higher tax economy that invests in services and communities, I oppose regressive tax rises to compensate tax giveaways to the better off.

Willow904 wrote:I've found the tax discussion today interesting and would like to add some thoughts (apologies for length, but it's hard to convey my meaning succinctly!)

A few years ago our community pool was in financial trouble. The parish council called an extraordinary village meeting and presented various options, one of which was to let the pool close. The option chosen involved finding funding through sponsors and national grants to replace critical equipment, including the pool heating system, and an increase in the parish precept on our council tax bills to provide extra ongoing financial support.

The pool, with improved amenities, has managed to attract more income from pool users and combined with the extra council tax money is now on a more secure financial footing and thus continues to provide swimming lessons to all primary school children in the village, the original aim for which it was built, as well as providing a useful public amenity.

Paying more tax for things like schools, hospitals and swimming pools is often very popular with the public. Most people appreciate the benefit to their community from pooling resources in this way.

The difference with the current rises in council tax, a mostly regressive tax, is that this money is being raised because the government has cut grants to councils at the same time as cutting income tax (via raising thresholds) and corporation tax, these being more progressive taxes. Therefore this isn't all people paying more tax so we can have more services or maintain the ones we have (as with my pool story). This is poor people paying more tax so rich people can pay less tax while simultaneously the services poor people depend on are still cut.

Significantly people on lower incomes spend all their money, in contrast to higher earners, so a council tax rise will impact the wider economy, with people spending less eating out or getting a haircut, leading to lower tax receipts and so on, which won't be balanced by councils spending more on wages etc because their total spend is still going down.

So while I support a higher tax economy that invests in services and communities, I oppose regressive tax rises to compensate tax giveaways to the better off.

Snap (sort of).

I'm not well heeled,apart from one pair I wear on occasions,increase largely specific for adult social care,a cynical move and not the best way but I didn't make the rules.

[youtube]TvcZuJ61Df8[/youtube]

Waiting for an alternative,isn't an option.It costs lives and quality of.

You're getting far too good at this.Outdone by a gin-soaked drama queen,the shame.

PorFavor wrote:

HindleA wrote:Why should I pay for others..,the vast majority of in own home support receivers pay towards,a tad towards cost saving investment and "proofing" potential isn't much to ask,I suggest.

I may be wrong (and I'm sure she'll tell me if I am) but I think citizenJA objects to being charged for things which are being done minimally and badly in order to keep council tax low (which enables many authorities to keep the bill low for their more well-heeled residents\voters) at the expense of those who have little or, in some cases, no ability to pay top whack (or anything at all) for assistance.

Butting in and theorising ahead of the data, of course . . .

You're not wrong, thank you, PorFavor. Our county council is Tory, the PCC is Tory and he's got expensive habits nothing to do with public service provision and taxpayers are paying for it. I've got a personal dislike of the guy. Our area hasn't had any money at all from Westminster for bus transportation since 2010. The biggest amount of that 4.2% council tax increase is going to the Tory PCC and his personal assistants, not on cops. That's messed up, you know? Social care funding increase trails feebly behind it.

HindleA wrote:I'm not well heeled,apart from one pair I wear on occasions,increase largely specific for adult social care,a cynical move and not the best way but I didn't make the rules.

I'd be happy if the tax increase were going to social care funding. Most of it isn't. I still can't believe it. That Tory PCC and his personal assistants...

@Willow904
Thank you, great post.

HindleA wrote:You're getting far too good at this.Outdone by a gin-soaked drama queen,the shame.

Not quite a gin-soaked drama queen - but it jogged my memory and I love it. And it's Saturday night.


[youtube]6ouV67zxUEY[/youtube]

HindleA wrote:Waiting for an alternative,isn't an option.It costs lives and quality of.

Waiting for what? What do you mean exactly? Taxes are increased, the least well-off are paying more and it's being spent by worthless Tory leadership. My complaining about Tory mismanagement isn't what's diminishing the quality of life for others and it's not costing anyone their life.

"...I support a higher tax economy that invests in services and communities, I oppose regressive tax rises to compensate tax giveaways to the better off."
- Willow904

Hear, hear!

please turn the page