Trumpet
Well-Known Forumite
What? Whole ones, all to yourself?John Marwood said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
We used to get an apple and an orange for Christmas...
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
What? Whole ones, all to yourself?John Marwood said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
We used to get an apple and an orange for Christmas...
You mean privatise?basil said:keep plod off the M'ways and use a dedicated M'way patrol service that deals with everything.....
Seems like the are plenty of sensible types on the forum when it come to mortagages at least which is good to know...tek-monkey said:True. Don't think of it as a rise, think of it as the end of the holiday. Mines fixed at 5.09%, best I could get was base rate +3.5% if I'd gone on a variable and I wanted more security than that.
A fragile under-carriage and a divided bomb-bay that wouldn't take the big stuff were real draw-backs - and the decisision to keep the wing-span under a hundred feet was probably a mistake..John Marwood said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaN91_NGJoI
erm...John Marwood said:The rich
they err..
get richer
the middling people
work longer..
the poor
,yep you got it, get poorer
tis the Tory ( new,old,coalited or otherwise ) way... always and forwever
In the simplest terms increase my (earnings of the 'middling' ) income tax by two per cent - that will have a small effect on retail spending but will - if directed directly - prevent the weakest poorest the mentally ill from sinking into the pit of poverty. Why would I want to do this? Because a happy place to live is a place where the ill and the weak are cared for - even if it is a direct cost to me. And who knows when any of us may fall ill and not be able to earn any moneyshoes said:The issue is reducing government spending as far as I can see. The rich do not rely on government handouts, the middling people have minimal benefits and the poor generally rely on the government. When reducing government spending on welfare it is obviously those who are most reliant on welfare who will get hit the hardest.
I'm not sure I see a way around this, which is fair. Have you any suggestions?
Aaahshoes said:Agreed. Disband the Lib Dems too, that'd save a shitload!
Drastic changes in criteria for claimants, I know it's an old chestnut but how is it right that people can still come into the country and take immediate advantage of a fund made up of our contributions and, in some cases, lead very comfortable lives yet when people who have paid in to the national INSURANCE scheme for years have to jump through hoops when they fall on hard times to get even the minimum benefits.shoes said:The issue is reducing government spending as far as I can see. The rich do not rely on government handouts, the middling people have minimal benefits and the poor generally rely on the government. When reducing government spending on welfare it is obviously those who are most reliant on welfare who will get hit the hardest.
I'm not sure I see a way around this, which is fair. Have you any suggestions?