5 years hard labour ?

[First_Toyota]

10 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Maybe some integrity, openness and honesty from ALL politicians would help.....

Back in the early 1990s when I started my career - then in the private commercial sector - I recall going on a training course about body language and actual language.

It was a ‘fact’ then that anybody who asked you to ‘trust them’ or who noted ‘that they were being honest’ was likely to be exhibiting the exact opposite behaviour.

Why bring this up now? Keir Starmer, in his speech yesterday, asserted that he “…was being honest…” no fewer than FIVE TIMES.

My conclusion? He felt he had to say that as he - deep down - knew he wasn’t being remotely honest…

[Rhymes with Paris]

As they say around these here parts,"you couldn't make a good sheep's head out of the lot of them"

Trust me on this.

[Haliotis]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

British pensioners living in Europe are set to keep the winter fuel allowance this year while millions of the elderly at home are stripped of the payment. As many as 35,000 retirees on the Continent are in line to get the £300 handout even if they exceed the new wealth threshold set by Rachel Reeves.☹️

Ah! That’s probably Starmer buttering up the Germans with his attempt to refresh ties with the EU - a ploy I understand he intends to pursue with other EU countries.  Wants to appear to be all sweetness and light!   And those pensioners probably get their energy at a significantly cheaper rate than in the UK.  Cracks under the new wallpaper are showing already.

[Bper]

Keir Starmer, has emphasised that while his approach involves aligning the UK more closely with Europe on various issues, this does not equate to rejoining the EU. His stance is to improve relations and cooperation with Europe, particularly in areas like trade and security, without seeking to reverse Brexit or re-enter the EU. So should we believe him after his recent blatant backtracking.☹️

[Cyker]

He's a politician, no different from any politician. To expect him to be better or more honest than any prime minister we've had in the recent few decades is just delusional.

I do want to know what this black hole they talk about is; I wouldn't be surprised if it is real given how readily the conservatives threw the election; It definitely felt like they didn't want to be the ones holding the bag. They didn't even try to push out KHAAAAAN in the mayoral election, and if anything seemed to try their hardest, short of not entering anyone, to NOT win. (If Susan Hall was legitimately their strongest candidate for london mayor then they must be in some serious trouble  )

[First_Toyota]

Well, this went well…awkward stuff, especially about cronyism towards the end.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, First_Toyota said:

Well, this went well…awkward stuff, especially about cronyism towards the end.

 

Well, after seeing this, I don't want to go into specifics or comment on individual cases, as that would be inappropriate; that's why we have procedures in place. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that we are taking robust measures to ensure we tell the public anything we like, regardless of the truth. Give me strength."🤬

[Eddie G]

2 hours ago, First_Toyota said:

Well, this went well…awkward stuff, especially about cronyism towards the end.

 

Tory lite Labour better then the full fat Tories? at this rate it's going to be a close call.

[Eddie G]

16 hours ago, First_Toyota said:

Back in the early 1990s when I started my career - then in the private commercial sector - I recall going on a training course about body language and actual language.

It was a ‘fact’ then that anybody who asked you to ‘trust them’ or who noted ‘that they were being honest’ was likely to be exhibiting the exact opposite behaviour.

Why bring this up now? Keir Starmer, in his speech yesterday, asserted that he “…was being honest…” no fewer than FIVE TIMES.

My conclusion? He felt he had to say that as he - deep down - knew he wasn’t being remotely honest…

Good points 👍 the 'That's the truth' lot, it stinks as much as fresh mature, especially when it's repeated a lot.

[Bper]

1 minute ago, Eddie G said:

Good points the 'That's the truth' lot, it stinks as much as fresh mature, especially when it's repeated a lot.

Eddie, I'm beginning to think you might have a dairy problem with both your comments.😂

[Eddie G]

9 minutes ago, Bper said:

Eddie, I'm beginning to think you might have a dairy problem with both your comments.😂

I was thinking i sound like a farmer there! lol, possibly down to Thatcher the milk snatcher 😆 as i used to love my bottles of milk in them glass bottles at school 😁 

Edited August 29 by Eddie G
Added information

[Haliotis]

Just watched the clip by the Treasury Minister.  All I can conclude is, “we’ve heard from the dummy, can we now hear from the ventriloquist?”

[Bper]

56 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Just watched the clip by the Treasury Minister.  All I can conclude is, “we’ve heard from the dummy, can we now hear from the ventriloquist?”

"gottle of Keir,gottle of Keir,gottle of Keir"😂

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Eddie G said:

I was thinking i sound like a farmer there! lol, possibly down to Thatcher the milk snatcher 😆 as i used to love my bottles of milk in them glass bottles at school 😁 

And the bottles of orange👍 

[AndyN01]

5 hours ago, First_Toyota said:

Well, this went well…awkward stuff, especially about cronyism towards the end.

 

Only just caught up with this.

Jobs for mates appears to be alive and well.

Perhaps they'd like to publish all the guidance, policy, procedures etc. etc mentioned during the interview and the specific documentation to "appoint" the individual concerned? Also, where the advertisement for the "job" appeared and how the candidates were assessed according to the Civil Service Code and how "they" demonstrated the specific behaviours that applies to all Civil Service jobs? And who actually signed off the appointment?

As has been mentioned there is a very long standing fundamental principle that the Civil Service is absolutely non-political.

This makes for interesting reading....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code

There are, apparently, exceptions so presumably there shall be a paper trail of precisely what these exceptions are and exactly how the appointment(s) met all the requirements for an exceptional appointment.......

It's not what you say...... It's what you do.....

 

[First_Toyota]

25 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

There are, apparently, exceptions so presumably there shall be a paper trail of precisely what these exceptions are and exactly how the appointment(s) met all the requirements for an exceptional appointment.......

It's not what you say...... It's what you do.....

Quite. The “…does it pass the smell test…” seems especially relevant, and after only a few weeks in office too. Let’s remember, Keir repeatedly said that he would ‘end cronyism’ and restore Government to ‘public service.’ However, in this interview the statement is made that it’s “…quite normal…” for jobs to be given to party supporters and those who have donated to the party. It is, as Victoria Derbyshire notes, “…the literal definition of cronyism.”

I think we can all see already that Keir Starmer and Labour see words and deeds  quite differently…

This is also worth a read. It’s that ‘smell test’ again.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gray-sue-second-permanent-secretary-at-the-department-for-levelling-up-housing-and-communities-and-the-cabinet-office-acoba-advice/advice-letter-sue-gray-chief-of-staff-leader-of-hm-official-opposition

[Big_D]

An old phrase from Tudor times to sum up politicians. They seem to be Gongfarmers

they certainly known how to shovel it (or did I miss out the first two letters of it)

[Haliotis]

Reminds me of an old proverb:

On a frosty morning, a sparrow was pecking in the grass when a cow dropped its lot over him.  After the first shock, and shuffling around a bit, he found he had a nice warm nest, and began chirping,  A farm cat heard him, dug him out and ate him.

The moral of the tale is, Anyone who drops you in the **** is not necessarily your enemy, and anyone who digs you out of the **** is not necessarily your friend!

[Eddie G]

6 hours ago, Bper said:

And the bottles of orange👍 

Oh yes! sound like Churchie the Churchill dog now 😆 orange was really nice as well 😋👍

Edited August 29 by Eddie G
Added information

[Bper]

There’s renewed discussion around means-testing state pensions, an idea previously suggested by ex-Bank of England economist David Blanchflower. This would reduce or eliminate state pensions for high earners. Sir Edward Troup, a former HMRC executive, has stated that a debate is necessary, questioning whether wealthy individuals should receive a full state pension. With public spending under scrutiny, Ben Zaranko from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) argues that means-testing could be a way to save significant sums.While this approach would be controversial and could disrupt retirement planning, other countries like Australia already means-test pensions based on total income and assets. Helen Morrissey of Hargreaves Lansdown suggests that the UK government could consider several options, such as limiting pensions to those with lower incomes or implementing a sliding scale to reduce payments based on earnings, though she warns these could be complex to administer. While this is initially being aimed at higher earners could they eventually look at means testing all pensioners.☹️

[Haliotis]

Means testing the state pension?

Where do these stupid individuals in public high office get their ideas?  And how do they define wealth?  Two different persons could over their working lives earn similar salaries yet, at retirement, one can have relatively little wealth because they spent their money freely, whereas the other could have significant savings because they lived frugally for most of their life.  Also, if some of much of that wealth was earned by investments, they would also have paid tax on the interest.  And the highest earners pay in the most cash through National Insurance, yet only receive the same state pension in the end.  How much punishment for earning yourself a decent retirement do these narrow-minded, pompous twits wish to unload onto the population that keeps the economy afloat - and that includes the hard working employed section of society?

And, of course, these leeches on society have padded salaries well above their real value to this world, and are well insulated from the misery they would wreak on others.

[Bper]

3 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Means testing the state pension?

Where do these stupid individuals in public high office get their ideas?  And how do they define wealth?  Two different persons could over their working lives earn similar salaries yet, at retirement, one can have relatively little wealth because they spent their money freely, whereas the other could have significant savings because they lived frugally for most of their life.  Also, if some of much of that wealth was earned by investments, they would also have paid tax on the interest.  And the highest earners pay in the most cash through National Insurance, yet only receive the same state pension in the end.  How much punishment for earning yourself a decent retirement do these narrow-minded, pompous twits wish to unload onto the population that keeps the economy afloat - and that includes the hard working employed section of society?

And, of course, these leeches on society have padded salaries well above their real value to this world, and are well insulated from the misery they would wreak on others.

It’s more than frustrating to see how disconnected policymakers seem from the realities faced by ordinary people. Wealth isn't just about income; it's about how that income is managed, and penalising those who’ve been prudent with their money feels unfair. High earners already contribute more through taxes and National Insurance, so it’s difficult to justify why they should be further punished in retirement.What’s more, it’s easy for those in cushy, well-paid positions to suggest policies that won't affect them personally. They seem insulated from the consequences of their decisions, leaving hard-working individuals to bear the brunt. The focus should be on fairness and understanding the broader picture, not just squeezing more from those who've already paid their dues. If this happens then heaven help the rest of pensioners.😡

[Haliotis]

Successive governments have demonstrated by their meanness how they rate elderly people as not needing as much ready cash as when they were working.  Presumably we are not supposed to have holidays away from home, visit the local pub, or attend entertainment functions.

Governments don’t realise - or care - that pensioners lose the energy and dexterity to do the everyday DIY jobs that were once a simple matter.  As we age we have to pay someone to do chores and home maintenance that we once treated as a breeze.  All elderly folk do not have family or friends they can rely on to help them out.

We are over 80, so we each get 25p a week “extra” on our pension. Ha, !Removed! ha!  It’s been that amount for many, many years.  What benefit is that supposed to present?  The only reason it has not been forfeited is possibly because it could move many pensioners into benefit entitlement, where at the moment they are just outside the entitlement band.

[Bper]

3 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Successive governments have demonstrated by their meanness how they rate elderly people as not needing as much ready cash as when they were working.  Presumably we are not supposed to have holidays away from home, visit the local pub, or attend entertainment functions.

Governments don’t realise - or care - that pensioners lose the energy and dexterity to do the everyday DIY jobs that were once a simple matter.  As we age we have to pay someone to do chores and home maintenance that we once treated as a breeze.  All elderly folk do not have family or friends they can rely on to help them out.

We are over 80, so we each get 25p a week “extra” on our pension. Ha, !Removed! ha!  It’s been that amount for many, many years.  What benefit is that supposed to present?  The only reason it has not been forfeited is possibly because it could move many pensioners into benefit entitlement, where at the moment they are just outside the entitlement band.

In many ways the cost of being a pensioner creates additional financial burden by being at home all day. Heating, electricity etc tend to be used more often so where is the additional money to cover these extra costs. 

50p a week between the two of you,what do they think this will cover.😡

 

[Haliotis]

In this parliament the Liberals got record seats - I think it is 32.  The Conservatives suffered huge losses of seats and the Country has shown them how bad they think they are.

Now, if Labour make a hash of this parliament - and the rumblings are already noticeable - I wonder which party will get elected next time?  I don’t believe in abstaining from voting, but I found it very difficult to decide in this election - the next one will, I think, be even harder to decide.