There's a few with power and money and there's everyone else.StephenDolan wrote:That's me working another year then. Hurrah!
When those with power and money don't share nice, we all have a problem.
There's a few with power and money and there's everyone else.StephenDolan wrote:That's me working another year then. Hurrah!
yepHindleA wrote:@cja
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... arch-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought you were posting it as a companion piece to the ONS report out today people aged 64-74 are dying in greater numbers now. Statistically speaking, making it to 75 increases the chances of living some more.HindleA wrote:Ah o.k.just it was that I was referring to.
It's terrifying, the lack of empathyHindleA wrote:Just the usual bollox.being ill/disabled/carers as many are are obviously just twiddling their thumbs.
Full disclosure could...address the key issue of assessing how the duchy profits correspond to the actual needs of the Queen’s household. This was one of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee report which scrutinised duchy revenues in 2005. In a damning phrase, it argued that the income was “an accident of history” stemming from arrangements established in the 14th century which might not be appropriate today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nue-estate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NHS England 'urgently needs 2,200 more A&E consultants'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... onsultants" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
bad government policy hurts peopleHindleA wrote:Previous DWP advice to me regarding their proposals and my concerns were not possible in situation.They went off at a tangent generalised irrelevences,rather than stating,which was my aim in part, cuts to the "protected"with no way out.On further attempts to admit they were lying,situation/people affected "insignicant numbers",which if you think about in someways worse as justification for policy.
quite. (Mr "London is no longer English")AnatolyKasparov wrote:He supported Brexit, mind.SpinningHugo wrote:John Cleese in the 70s, still true today
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Gov displaying a Trumpian relationship with the truth it seemsAndy Bell @andybell5news
·
6h
Gov says even with pension age change people can expect on average 22 years on state pension - so life expectancy of 90 #pensions
Here's another little anomaly in the royal finances, with regard to Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh:citizenJA wrote:Full disclosure could...address the key issue of assessing how the duchy profits correspond to the actual needs of the Queen’s household. This was one of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee report which scrutinised duchy revenues in 2005. In a damning phrase, it argued that the income was “an accident of history” stemming from arrangements established in the 14th century which might not be appropriate today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nue-estate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/an ... -1-4508470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There was good news for the Queen when she arrived at the Palace of Holyroodhouse at the beginning of the month. A planning application for ten short term letting apartments and an education centre had been approved by the City of Edinburgh Council.
...In 2014-15, Historic Scotland spent £1.25 million for the upkeep and maintenance of the palace. The majority of this (£967,000) was for Historic Scotland staff and for “staff employed by the Royal Household and recharged to Historic Scotland”. The new agency, Historic Environment Scotland, published no information in its 2015-16 annual report. In other words, the Royal Collection Trust, a private charity that is not accountable to Scottish Ministers or to the Scottish Parliament, employs the visitor staff, gets the Scottish Government to reimburse their salaries and keeps all the entrance money (£3.3m in 2015-16 with a further £1m in shop sales). Meanwhile, Historic Environment Scotland is responsible for meeting the costs of maintaining the fabric of the building. Given this strange relationship, did the Royal Household Property Section consult Scottish Ministers over their development for holiday apartments and who gets to keep the income? Why does the Scottish Government pay for staff now employed by the Royal Collection Trust who were previously direct employees of the Scottish Office? Why, when so many Crown properties were transferred to Scottish ministers in 1999, was the palace excluded when it, like the others, has been managed and paid for by Scottish Government funds?
citizenJA wrote:The pensions minister is facing criticism after suggesting that millions of women in their 60s who are facing cuts to their state pension could take up apprenticeships as a route to re-employment.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... nticeships" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
McDonnell been standing with disability activists for years nowHindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw
Corbyn does good, I like his work hereTheresa May - Tory PM
What I say to Sarah and to those working in the national health service is that we recognise the excellent work they are doing. We recognise the sacrifice that they and others have made over the past seven years. That sacrifice has been made because we had to deal with the biggest deficit in our peacetime history—left by a Labour Government. As we look at public sector pay, we balance being fair to public sector workers, protecting jobs and being fair to those who pay for them. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think it is possible to go around promising people more money and promising that nobody is ever going to have to pay for it. He and I both value public sector workers. We both value our public sector services. The difference is that on this side of the House we know that you have to pay for them.
Jeremy Corbyn - Labour leader
The Prime Minister does not seem to have had any problem finding money to pay for the Democratic Unionist party’s support. The Conservatives have been in office for 84 months, and 52 of those months have seen a real fall in wages and income in our country. In the last Prime Minister’s Question Time before the general election, the Prime Minister said:
“every vote for me is a vote for a strong economy with the benefits felt by everyone across the country.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 1104.]
Does she agree you cannot have a strong economy when 6 million people are earning less than the living wage?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... ngagements" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've had the pleasure of campaigning for Abrahams and she's excellent.HindleA wrote:Not personally convinced,only in office rather than rhetoric,may.Relatively easy to oppose and shout ,far more skills required to ensure.I am happy with Abrahams.Her frustration with the big buck zero mention was clear to see.