Who will be the next permanent manager of the Conservatives?

[O'Kelly Isley III]

9 hours ago, oaksoft said:

TBF, that's refreshing to hear.

I understand your point about the golf clubs but that excuse of blaming everyone but themselves is wearing very thin indeed.

The SNP have the powers to do much more to prioritise ending poverty in Scotland but like every party which has ever been in power anywhere, they simply don't seem to either want to do it or be capable of doing it. I'm afraid there simply is no defending them here, regardless of any shackles being imposed from Westminster.

Apologies for not getting back sooner but I'm still digesting this morning's news that the English NHS is short of 12000 hospital doctors and 50000 nurses.  The Scottish Government's shortcomings, and they exist, don't come close to problems of that magnitude.

But I suspect you already know that.

#happytopaythatextrapenny

Edited July 25, 2022 by O'Kelly Isley III

[renton]

16 hours ago, Clown Job said:

Cracking down on brown people entering the UK and removing human rights 

The real priorities 
 

The language around the ECHR  is weirdly emotive.

[scottsdad]

21 hours ago, oaksoft said:

What does in-work poverty have to do with drivers on £50k demanding pay-rises which will have to be paid for via public service cuts and increased fares?

I must have missed all the outrage and posts saying "Hang on, there are people on minimum wage who need those pay rises". I seem to have been the only one saying that.

The truth is that when it comes to kicking the Tories, the poor are simply forgotten about by swathes of you. They are just an means to a political end for you. 

I earn a decent salary. I'm not in in-work poverty; for some posters this means I shouldn't say anything. 

My wages over the last 5 years or so have risen at the rate of ~1% a year. This year we have been offered 3.4% - about a third of inflation.

I have noticed that the money left after the bills are paid is going less far. My shopping and fuel costs have rocketed. Clearly the luxuries go first - cutting back here and there. Looking at next year, maybe we won't book a holiday (haven't had one since 2019). My son's school blazer will last another year. I won't renew my car and just hope that it doesn't start acting like an old car and start costing fortunes in repairs.

The thing is, I am not working any less hard. I am not producing less than I was (in fact I am doing more). 

Should I - like the train drivers - simply shut up and doff my cap because I'm not on minimum wage? What's the cut-off salary when someone can legitimately say that the drop in living standards is unacceptable? 

This is what I don't get in some of the arguments here. Some posters are happy to think that people should work themselves ragged to earn enough to pay the bills and no more. Forget any niceties that make life worth living - just work yourself to the bone to pay the energy companies whatever they want. And people who were more comfortably off are now finding that they are making decisions they don't want. 

As much as I don't like what's going on with my own finances, I do despair about people who were struggling before this crisis began. How will they cope this winter? Neither candidate has an answer.

[stumobir]

Companies posting record profits, year after year. Record number of £10m+ houses being sold. So why is there still a limited pot of money to be spent? 
The pertinent question is, who’s hoarding it?

[Salt n Vinegar]

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Your last sentence is where I'm coming from.

When there is limited money to spend, the question is about who needs it.

Not who wants it.

Not who deserves it.

Not who works hard for it.

Who needs it.

And all of that is being forgotten about on here and in the halls of Westminster by both parties.

Everyone claims to be all about the poor but the cold, hard reality is that nobody wants to pay for the help they need. Everyone believes it should be someone else.

Who do you think should pay for the help that the poorer need? The wealthiest or the poorest? 

 

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

I earn a decent salary. I'm not in in-work poverty; for some posters this means I shouldn't say anything. 

My wages over the last 5 years or so have risen at the rate of ~1% a year. This year we have been offered 3.4% - about a third of inflation.

I have noticed that the money left after the bills are paid is going less far. My shopping and fuel costs have rocketed. Clearly the luxuries go first - cutting back here and there. Looking at next year, maybe we won't book a holiday (haven't had one since 2019). My son's school blazer will last another year. I won't renew my car and just hope that it doesn't start acting like an old car and start costing fortunes in repairs.

The thing is, I am not working any less hard. I am not producing less than I was (in fact I am doing more). 

Should I - like the train drivers - simply shut up and doff my cap because I'm not on minimum wage? What's the cut-off salary when someone can legitimately say that the drop in living standards is unacceptable? 

This is what I don't get in some of the arguments here. Some posters are happy to think that people should work themselves ragged to earn enough to pay the bills and no more. Forget any niceties that make life worth living - just work yourself to the bone to pay the energy companies whatever they want. And people who were more comfortably off are now finding that they are making decisions they don't want. 

As much as I don't like what's going on with my own finances, I do despair about people who were struggling before this crisis began. How will they cope this winter? Neither candidate has an answer.

Excellent post, and they never will as the people who will suffer the most in the coming crisis are obviously in the most deprived areas, areas which are definitely not in tory held constituencies. and politically they will be ignored, obviously false economic promises will be churned out which will never be upheld.

Tories are not for the likes of us.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

The answer to that depends on whether you want the ideal solution or the practical one.

And given that you know both potential answers I'll pass that question back to you.

If you feel you can prise the money out of rich people then good luck to you as you'll be the first person to ever achieve that at any time in history. No political party has ever managed it.

I know you think your question is clever but it's just more studenty, over simplistic, idealistic pie in the sky stuff.

No, I didn't feel that the question was "clever". There are all kinds of income and tax options, but I think a situation where in a wealthy country there is such a gulf between the wealthy and the poor, the population deserve a bit better than a 'Huh, poverty, eh? Terrible, isn't it?"

The Tory response appears to be akin to giving a rottweiler in a room shared with 10 poodle puppies a dozen sausages and think - "I'm sure he'll share". 

[Billy Jean King]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Your last sentence is where I'm coming from.

When there is limited money to spend, the question is about who needs it.

Not who wants it.

Not who deserves it.

Not who works hard for it.

Who needs it.

And all of that is being forgotten about on here and in the halls of Westminster by both parties.

Everyone claims to be all about the poor but the cold, hard reality is that nobody wants to pay for the help they need. Everyone believes it should be someone else.

How about a tax on early retirees given by their very nature they have sufficient wealth accumulated to allow them to stop working. Say a higher rate or lower personal allowance for anyone who draws a pension before state retirement age ?

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, scottsdad said:

I earn a decent salary. I'm not in in-work poverty; for some posters this means I shouldn't say anything. 

My wages over the last 5 years or so have risen at the rate of ~1% a year. This year we have been offered 3.4% - about a third of inflation.

I have noticed that the money left after the bills are paid is going less far. My shopping and fuel costs have rocketed. Clearly the luxuries go first - cutting back here and there. Looking at next year, maybe we won't book a holiday (haven't had one since 2019). My son's school blazer will last another year. I won't renew my car and just hope that it doesn't start acting like an old car and start costing fortunes in repairs.

The thing is, I am not working any less hard. I am not producing less than I was (in fact I am doing more). 

Should I - like the train drivers - simply shut up and doff my cap because I'm not on minimum wage? What's the cut-off salary when someone can legitimately say that the drop in living standards is unacceptable? 

This is what I don't get in some of the arguments here. Some posters are happy to think that people should work themselves ragged to earn enough to pay the bills and no more. Forget any niceties that make life worth living - just work yourself to the bone to pay the energy companies whatever they want. And people who were more comfortably off are now finding that they are making decisions they don't want. 

As much as I don't like what's going on with my own finances, I do despair about people who were struggling before this crisis began. How will they cope this winter? Neither candidate has an answer.

Personally I wouldn’t waste my time responding to the idiot/troll, but that is a very good post.

[coprolite]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

The answer to that depends on whether you want the ideal solution or the practical one.

And given that you know both potential answers I'll pass that question back to you.

If you feel you can prise the money out of rich people then good luck to you as you'll be the first person to ever achieve that at any time in history. No political party has ever managed it.

I know you think your question is clever but it's just more studenty, over simplistic, idealistic pie in the sky stuff.

Your swabian housewife bollocks is the simplistic analysis here. 

Less pay for workers means more profit for shareholders, not more pay for the very poorest. 

Less wealthy people (who make up the bulk of employees) spend more of their income than more wealthy people who make up the bulk of shareholders. 

More wages= more economic activity = more taxes = more funds for those that can't work. 

Giving people below inflation payrises is neither inflationary nor imprudent. It does keep them in their place though. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by coprolite

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Jesus f**k! WTF was that?!

[Staggie_93]

The stuff of nightmares at the beginning there

[Salt n Vinegar]

I suppose pistols at dawn are out of the question? 

[Salt n Vinegar]

If Sunak interrupts Truss once more, Truss will stroll over and kick his c#nt in... Oh please... Fight! Fight! 

[DrewDon]

Truss is so laughably lightweight. 

[Staggie_93]

f**k me Truss is hopeless. She can’t even shake her head properly.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Staggie_93

[ICTJohnboy]

Sunak certainly getting the upper hand.

[ICTJohnboy]

"Covid only happens once every hundred years"

[resk]

Just now, ICTJohnboy said:

Sunak certainly getting the upper hand.

Definitely.  I'll grudgingly admit he's half-decent at the old arguing.  However, Truss is wearing a blue dress, and is white, so she'll probably win.  

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

She’s getting rinsed. Unsurprisingly.