There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 105 comments are related to the topic:
Wow. What a resignation statement from Labour MP Rosie Duffield.
Wow. What a resignation statement from Labour MP Rosie Duffield.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 105
|
By:
steady on. only been up an hour. although now you mention it
i do have a nice bottle of pinot gris that goes well with the big bag of s&m cheesy poofs im about to open |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Apparently Orange man bad is an "idiot" I mean, negotiating for the War to end and bringing about peace is just idiotic!
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362549949112 |
|
By:
mitolo just likes to contradict anything I say and be abusive with it.
I suspect he's an old foe from years ago when I was admittedly slightly less mellow. |
|
By:
fishface-i dont like to contradict you but i do because you are wrelentlessly rong, thats all. and i cant resist messing about with forum monikers. ask waste management
you aint an old foe. you barely register. i dont like your putin-apologism, which was evident from day one and talk of which, putins no 1 cheerleader and g1 conspiracy mug whopping piccaninny has turned up with some more loonytube vids. he must spend his life on the interweb looking for putins propaganda |
|
By:
i do have a nice bottle of pinot gris that goes well with the big bag of s&m cheesy poofs im about to open
reminds me of the old joke about the bloke who goes to see his dr because his d1ck has turned orange |
|
By:
Norbury used to be a dump. It's next to Thornton Heath which is still a dump and infested with night crimes. Now, some bits of Norbury eg those close to A205 (S Circular) and close to West Dulwich and Dulwich Village are much better. These have a London postcode; the rest closer to Thornton Heath are no better than average.
The inhabitants of Norbury are mainly foreigners eg mainly South Asians, and Caribbeans. |
|
By:
yes. i do have to cleans me digits post-nosh. shows how wholesome they must be. 100% pure and natural free-range tartrazine msg and sodium nitrate
|
|
By:
Now Cracklin Rosie can sit back and enjoy the next five years splurging the £455k she will receive courtesy of defrauding the Canterbury electorate who have been hoodwinked into thinking they were electing a Labour MP!
|
|
By:
^^If my MP had done the same as Ms Rosie I'd back her stance. What PM Sir Shameless and Lady Shameless did were offensive, disrespectful and greedy.
|
|
By:
The country needs leaders who can achieve reforms to put it back on its feet . That will be boring ,unpopular, and pretty painful.
The people who use the word " boring " as a negative criticism and glory in " ideology " cannot be expected to sort out a whelk stall , let alone the s,,t storm we have been left in by the worst government ever. Johnson wasn't a leader , neither was he a political operator, he was a useless prat . |
|
By:
To the op
They had to have a 2 child cap,cos some people were breeding for money,and the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it. The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices, 80% of people in this country don’t pay in enough for what they’ve had out,to then cry over 300 quid is laughable. |
|
By:
Agree with last two posts
 Should have been means tested from the outset. |
|
By:
They whinged when the Politics forum was shut.
|
|
By:
They miss the point entirely, Hayden. Starmer and Richard are putting spending up! We already spend billions more than is raked in by excessive taxation. If they were planning on cutting actual money going down the gurgler like nut zero and foreign aid, across the board, funding never ending wars I could get on board with it. Withdrawing the winter fuel payment, something he was vehemently against when in oppo saves no money, as they now have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of PC claims to process, and if people qualify it's a lot more than the £300 wfp.
|
|
By:
fascist
|
|
By:
George , the vaccine was safe ffs
 |
|
By:
Rosie would be a gorgeous lass without the facial warts.
Why did she even stand for Labour at the last election? They are a party for sick deviants who believe that a man can magically become a woman by wearing panties and a dress. She doesn't believe in this drivel. I think we all know what she means when she says that Two Tier Free Gear Kier has a 'problem with women'...... |
|
By:
Why wouldn't she have stood for Labour? The crux of her disatisfaction is Starmer taking the freebies. That story has only broken after the election. You are better off questioning Starmer's beliefs given they are miles away from the party she's talking about. The further shame is that as far as I know no other Labour MP has supported her stance, not even the few old lefties who have been banished to the very fringe of the party.
|
|
By:
comingupthehill29 Sep 24 19:56Joined: 10 Jul 05 | Topic/replies: 6,361 | Blogger: comingupthehill's blog
To the op They had to have a 2 child cap,cos some people were breeding for money,and the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it. The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices, 80% of people in this country don’t pay in enough for what they’ve had out,to then cry over 300 quid is laughable. Don't really know why you have directed this at me, as my OP was just reposting what the Labour MP had said, and how refreshing it was for an MP to express honestly what she and many of her constituents feel. But as you called me, Yes some people probably do breed for more handouts, if already on benefits but percentage wise i'd have thought would be quite low as these extra child benefits cease once the child is 18 anyway. What averagely normal people want a load of screaming kids around their necks for years and years, not me for definite. I'd have thought 2 kids was enough for most people, 3 at a push, but remember years ago familys had 6/8 or more children before proper contraception and somehow managed without state support. Your 2nd point i think is wrong, the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it. I don't need it as such but appreciate it, people on pension credit who will still get this money are already far better off than people who have worked hard all their lives and just have the state pension to live on which is about £221 a week for a single person. If you have around £3 a week less than this you can get Pension Credit which amounts to about another £36/40 a week in benefits i understand, plus if you're in council accomodation you'll get a rent reduction. Do the train drivers need a £200 a week rise, not in my opinion, Do Junior Doctors need a 35% rise, rather excessive i'd say as once they are fully qualified they'll be earning about £44k-£63k and when become consultants the skys the limit. The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices, Free schooling, what do you think you pay council tax and income tax for? Operations, yes i've had operations that saved my life and i'm very grateful but i did pay National Insurance contributions for 50 years so hardly free. As for house prices going up, how does that benefit anyone, only benefits your children when your dead who inherit more money than they would have is prices were stagnant since you bought it. |
|
By:
To all the old people ranting on about "I've paid in all me life..."
If your grasp of mathematics and knowledge of how Govt spending works is that poor, you probably shouldn't be on a betting exchange. Do you think the government set aside your "contributions" and saved/invested them for your old age - or do you think they just lumped them in the general taxation pot and spent them almost immediately there and then (on you!)? Your "contributions" are long gone - your children and grandchildren are paying your pension. Fair enough but I wouldn't expect my children or grandchildren to subsidise my energy bill if I was already considerably better off than them. You can argue about the threshold for sure - but sooner or later old people claiming benefits are gonna have to be means tested in the same way as everybody else claiming benefits always has been. Ponzi schemes by their very definition cannot go on forever. |
|
By:
Everyone knows it's a de facto ponzi scheme. But the contract is that you pay in over your working life and then the contract pays out.
However, millions of people get the payout without paying in. Including the floaters. If you're advocating no welfare state, it would be superior to what we have now. |
|
By:
I do appreciate that's not gonna be a very popular post, on a forum largely populated by old people claiming benefits.
|
|
By:
eg I've paid in for over 30 years, if I got kicked out of work tomorrow, I'd get about £80 a week. There are people right now that get so much money from working people, they ask if they can get a mortgage with UC income alone. If you don't believe me, take a look at the mse forum.
|
|
By:
I'm advocating means testing everybody, regardless of their age Cider.
Nobody has a contract Cider - but if they did - part of the agreement (based on the level of contributions paid) would be that you die at about 70! |
|
By:
It's often the mental health card, but if they can type and post on a forum, they can work. The state allows them not to.
|
|
By:
No an actual contract obviously, but the clue is in the name, national INSURANCE. Get rid of it and we can sort ourselves out, go for it.
|
|
By:
Cider30 Sep 24 13:08Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 59,071 | Blogger: Cider's blog
However, millions of people get the payout without paying in That's true - but even the "I've paid in all me life" merchants - the vast majority will take out far more than they ever paid in. |
|
By:
They have played their part in the social contract. Millions of people paid more in than they took out by the time they died, including my Dad. That's how 'insurance' works.
|
|
By:
Everybody that comments claims to be one of the approx 20% that paid in more than they took out!
Given that most of those people will have died pretty young, I find that hard to believe. For obvious reasons there is a gender divide and also for obvious reasons not many women post on here - but historically (for good reasons imo) the vast majority of women will take out way more than they ever paid in. |
|
By:
I suppose what annoys me most about the "I've paid in all my life" merchants is when they also start going on about how young people these days are so entitled.
Yeah, they're entitled to subsidise you living about 15 years longer than was ever anticipated. |
|
By:
You seem to have something against "old people" The Management? Cider is imo quite correct as it's a form of social contract, your National Health contributions, that whatever government spends it on, we have no choice in. What is a "merchant" who has worked all their life, what on earth is wrong with that? It's the people who have paid nothing into the system that you should be aiming your venom at.
I'm sure like myself a lot on here are considered old now, but i've been posting on here regularly since 2004 when i was 50 and in full time employment. If your comment that : If your grasp of mathematics and knowledge of how Govt spending works is that poor, you probably shouldn't be on a betting exchange. is aimed at me, then you are very misguided as i have spent my life backing as a punter and laying as a bookmaker since i was 18 yo. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about people you don't know and have never met. |
|
By:
So you think your children and grandchildren should pay more tax so that people that have hit a certain number in terms of their age should get £300 given to them every year, regardless of their wealth?
All benefits should be means tested for young people - but not for old people? I've got nothing against old people - I am one! I don't think I should be handed £300 just because I am old, I think it should go to people that need it. |
|
By:
Why would you give away money to people based on an irrelevant criteria?
Why don't we give it to people with red hair or people that wear glasses - regardless of whether they need it or not? |
|
By:
It's not clear at all what alternative system you are advocating, TM.
The 'contract' is that you have your wages scalped for 45-50 years, and then you get some back at the end of it. It's no longer correlated to what you put in. It was, with serps. But then the people who paid more in got more out. THEY did not like that and now the people who put nothing in get the same as those who put in tens if not hundreds of thousands. |
|
By:
I thought i made it clear above cider.
I'd be ok with means testing all benefits for all people - including redheads & shortsighted people. Not sure why wealthy old people should be any different from wealthy young people. As the old folk like to say - age is just a number. Why would you give away money to people based on an irrelevant criteria? The discussion should be about thresholds. |
|
By:
You haven't read my earlier post properly, i said i don't need it, but people who already get Pension credit are better off than people who are on just a State pension. Also i have mentioned anything about young people at all, in future these young people may life to be 150 who knows. No one knows what the future holds or how old they will live to, as an old person yourself at what age would you like us to be bumped off?
|
|
By:
I don't want to see anybody bumped off. Maybe you should read my posts.
I'm saying that giving free money to people that are already very wealthy seems daft. Assuming you accept that - the issue is thresholds. |
|
By:
Asking for a friend - what about red hair and glasses, TM?
 |
|
By:
Base on the irrelevant criteria I have pulled out of a hat today - he gets £600.
Could be £900 but you haven't stated his date of birth. |