Now is the time of year when we are asked for money to get people of the streets over Christmas.Can someone please explain to me ,why we are letting our own citizens sleep in cardboard boxes,and yet anyone arriving by boat over the channel,will get 4 star hotels ,money and generally be looked after.I guarantee Welby and his bleeding heart brigade would be up in arms if he discovered a poor illegal immigrant abandoned on the streets,but not a word about his own people.Ask a street sleeper if he would like a bed 3 meals a day,warm shower on a very large floating barge and I bet they would jump at it. I am well aware that some of our street population may have chosen this way of lifeI am also sure that not all the boat people are from war torn countries or are being persecuted. Charity begins at home.
Probably one for the politics thread, thickandthin63.
Or go elsewhere and research whether immigration centres are really lovely 4 star hotels, research the relative fiscal contributions of the immigrant population v the native one, and research the stats for how much harder it is for immigrants experiencing homelessness to get any sort of support.
Whatever standard immigration centres are,it must be better than a cardboard box in the pissing down of rain.Probably would be better under politics thread,but it annoys me that so much attention is given to the welfare of illegal immigrants ,rather than our own sufferers.
Tory policy is to blame for homelessness, not asylum seekers (which is what I think you mean, rather than illegal immigrants - they get nothing, they are illegal).
Whoever the home secretary is this week does not have two pots, and shoves fivers from the one marked "Homeless" into the one marked "Asylum". He shoves fivers from both into the one marked "Tory Party Friends"...
A quick Google of "Justin Welby on homelessness" shows he has had plenty to say about it, BTW.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Now is the time of year when we are asked for money to get people of the streets over Christmas.Can someone please explain to me ,why we are letting our own citizens sleep in cardboard boxes,and yet anyone arriving by boat over the channel,will get 4 star hotels ,money and generally be looked after.I guarantee Welby and his bleeding heart brigade would be up in arms if he discovered a poor illegal immigrant abandoned on the streets,but not a word about his own people.Ask a street sleeper if he would like a bed 3 meals a day,warm shower on a very large floating barge and I bet they would jump at it. I am well aware that some of our street population may have chosen this way of lifeI am also sure that not all the boat people are from war torn countries or are being persecuted. Charity begins at home.
Probably one for the politics thread, thickandthin63.
Or go elsewhere and research whether immigration centres are really lovely 4 star hotels, research the relative fiscal contributions of the immigrant population v the native one, and research the stats for how much harder it is for immigrants experiencing homelessness to get any sort of support.
Whatever standard immigration centres are,it must be better than a cardboard box in the pissing down of rain.Probably would be better under politics thread,but it annoys me that so much attention is given to the welfare of illegal immigrants ,rather than our own sufferers.
You know they're Illegal?
The ones that come in boats certainly are I would have thought that was obvious.
Now is the time of year when we are asked for money to get people of the streets over Christmas.Can someone please explain to me ,why we are letting our own citizens sleep in cardboard boxes,and yet anyone arriving by boat over the channel,will get 4 star hotels ,money and generally be looked after.I guarantee Welby and his bleeding heart brigade would be up in arms if he discovered a poor illegal immigrant abandoned on the streets,but not a word about his own people.Ask a street sleeper if he would like a bed 3 meals a day,warm shower on a very large floating barge and I bet they would jump at it. I am well aware that some of our street population may have chosen this way of lifeI am also sure that not all the boat people are from war torn countries or are being persecuted. Charity begins at home.
Probably one for the politics thread, thickandthin63.
Or go elsewhere and research whether immigration centres are really lovely 4 star hotels, research the relative fiscal contributions of the immigrant population v the native one, and research the stats for how much harder it is for immigrants experiencing homelessness to get any sort of support.
Whatever standard immigration centres are,it must be better than a cardboard box in the pissing down of rain.Probably would be better under politics thread,but it annoys me that so much attention is given to the welfare of illegal immigrants ,rather than our own sufferers.
Tory policy is to blame for homelessness, not asylum seekers (which is what I think you mean, rather than illegal immigrants - they get nothing, they are illegal).
Whoever the home secretary is this week does not have two pots, and shoves fivers from the one marked "Homeless" into the one marked "Asylum". He shoves fivers from both into the one marked "Tory Party Friends"...
A quick Google of "Justin Welby on homelessness" shows he has had plenty to say about it, BTW.
Hadnt seen these Welby articles,take that one on the chin.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
And is strongly rumoured on twitter and reported in foreign press to allegedly be his illegitimate daughter. Allegedly there is an injunction preventing UK press from reporting this. Allegedly.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
And is strongly rumoured on twitter and reported in foreign press to allegedly be his illegitimate daughter. Allegedly there is an injunction preventing UK press from reporting this. Allegedly.
Now is the time of year when we are asked for money to get people of the streets over Christmas.Can someone please explain to me ,why we are letting our own citizens sleep in cardboard boxes,and yet anyone arriving by boat over the channel,will get 4 star hotels ,money and generally be looked after.I guarantee Welby and his bleeding heart brigade would be up in arms if he discovered a poor illegal immigrant abandoned on the streets,but not a word about his own people.Ask a street sleeper if he would like a bed 3 meals a day,warm shower on a very large floating barge and I bet they would jump at it. I am well aware that some of our street population may have chosen this way of lifeI am also sure that not all the boat people are from war torn countries or are being persecuted. Charity begins at home.
Probably one for the politics thread, thickandthin63.
Or go elsewhere and research whether immigration centres are really lovely 4 star hotels, research the relative fiscal contributions of the immigrant population v the native one, and research the stats for how much harder it is for immigrants experiencing homelessness to get any sort of support.
Whatever standard immigration centres are,it must be better than a cardboard box in the pissing down of rain.Probably would be better under politics thread,but it annoys me that so much attention is given to the welfare of illegal immigrants ,rather than our own sufferers.
Tory policy is to blame for homelessness, not asylum seekers (which is what I think you mean, rather than illegal immigrants - they get nothing, they are illegal).
Whoever the home secretary is this week does not have two pots, and shoves fivers from the one marked "Homeless" into the one marked "Asylum". He shoves fivers from both into the one marked "Tory Party Friends"...
A quick Google of "Justin Welby on homelessness" shows he has had plenty to say about it, BTW.
Hadnt seen these Welby articles,take that one on the chin.
Good man. In all seriousness, these press articles or social media posts that are there to stir up hatred are almost always possible to disprove with a bit of diligent surfing on the net, this works both ways, I have read something I wanted to be true about Johnson or Trump, but when it has turned out to be bullshit I not only don't spread it, I point it out to the source (if it's a social media post).
To fit in with the theme of the thread - people who spread false or very innacurate info on social media annoy me.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
And is strongly rumoured on twitter and reported in foreign press to allegedly be his illegitimate daughter. Allegedly there is an injunction preventing UK press from reporting this. Allegedly.
I dunno, he seems to have spent too much time with her for her to be one of his kids.
Although it would be in character for him to get someone else to pay for a child of his. Minimum £117k a year for life (of our money) after a few internships etc.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
And is strongly rumoured on twitter and reported in foreign press to allegedly be his illegitimate daughter. Allegedly there is an injunction preventing UK press from reporting this. Allegedly.
I dunno, he seems to have spent too much time with her for her to be one of his kids.
Although it would be in character for him to get someone else to pay for a child of his. Minimum £117k a year for life (of our money) after a few internships etc.
If I'd have nursed him through his stay in hospital, I'd have been tempted to get him to spit in a test tube and then send it off to a DNA site. Waiting for 'my' results would have been fun.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
And is strongly rumoured on twitter and reported in foreign press to allegedly be his illegitimate daughter. Allegedly there is an injunction preventing UK press from reporting this. Allegedly.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Not an unreasonable idea.
However we currently have career politicians (on all sides) with nil or limited real world experience and hence the many issues we have.
The move to (rightly) diversify away from white haired middle aged men has brought the other extreme of lack of experience and judgement.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Why should a nurse who wants to become an MP, have a lower salary than a CEO, when both are doing the same job in Parliament, that is representing their constituents? We would end up with a very unbalanced House of Commons. What makes a CEO a better candidate than a nurse who has far more understanding of the lives of ordinary people, than a rich CEO who may never have had the financial worries that others experience. Becoming an MP should be possible for everyone.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Or we could just stop MP's having 4, 5, 6(!) other jobs which are so clearly being paid by businesses, who give not a monkeys about the MP's "knowledge or experience", but are happy to pay for the access to power and the lobbying they do for their disproportionate pay packet?
Anyway, getting back on track, as the one who cleans the bathrooms I'm generally annoyed by the amount of shampoo, conditioner, sponges and gawd knows what else that my missus leaves around the various bathroom surfaces.
Like around the bath or in the shower tray, meaning it all has to be moved then put back after cleaning rather than just giving the surface a quick, unimpeded wipe over.
One day the bin liner threat will be followed through.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Why should a nurse who wants to become an MP, have a lower salary than a CEO, when both are doing the same job in Parliament, that is representing their constituents? We would end up with a very unbalanced House of Commons. What makes a CEO a better candidate than a nurse who has far more understanding of the lives of ordinary people, than a rich CEO who may never have had the financial worries that others experience. Becoming an MP should be possible for everyone.
If a nurse was averaging £30k over 5 years and became an MP they would earn the base MP salary (£87k)
If a CEO was averaging £350k over 5 years and became an MP they would earn £350k.
I don't see haw that would lead to imbalance. In fact, rather the opposite.
Anyway, its a policy idea I made up so don't lose too much sleep over it...
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Many MPs are already there because they went to the "right" school or are good at climbing the greasy pole to the detrement of others. They are indeed good at playing politics, that's why the country is in the state it is in, like it or not, many (not all) are out for themselves.
As Emmy said "What makes a CEO a better candidate than a nurse who has far more understanding of the lives of ordinary people, than a rich CEO who may never have had the financial worries that others experience.".
Earning power does not mean you neccesarily have any skill you can bring to politics.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Have always thought this - pay a lot more but cut a load of the expenses allowances, side hustles on lobbying, speeches etc, you'd get more talented individuals and less grifters. Maybe.
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Have always thought this - pay a lot more but cut a load of the expenses allowances, side hustles on lobbying, speeches etc, you'd get more talented individuals and less grifters. Maybe.
I don't disagree entirely with higher pay. I certainly agree the side gigs should go. But one of the arguments "they" use for not paying nurses more - "It's a calling" - shouldn't it apply to MPs?
If we're doing political bugbears today, MP's that have 6 other jobs in addition to being an MP. If you can't get by on nearly £90k/year you're not fit to make decisions effecting the rest of us earning fractions of that.
The way around this is that MPs should be paid the average of their gross earnings in the 5 years prior to becoming MPs, with that pay index linked for the duration of their time in role.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Have always thought this - pay a lot more but cut a load of the expenses allowances, side hustles on lobbying, speeches etc, you'd get more talented individuals and less grifters. Maybe.
I don't disagree entirely with higher pay. I certainly agree the side gigs should go. But one of the arguments "they" use for not paying nurses more - "It's a calling" - shouldn't it apply to MPs?
Comments
Whoever the home secretary is this week does not have two pots, and shoves fivers from the one marked "Homeless" into the one marked "Asylum". He shoves fivers from both into the one marked "Tory Party Friends"...
A quick Google of "Justin Welby on homelessness" shows he has had plenty to say about it, BTW.
The youngest person ever to be handed a life peerage. She heartily thanked Mr Johnson on her maiden Lords speech for (amongst many other things) ensuring that life chances are distributed evenly. She did this in complete innocence and with no sense of irony or guilt.
Six years ago she was working as a parliamentary intern for Johnson.
Life Peerages for all is what I say!
I seriously doubt some of their driving credentials.
To fit in with the theme of the thread - people who spread false or very innacurate info on social media annoy me.
Although it would be in character for him to get someone else to pay for a child of his. Minimum £117k a year for life (of our money) after a few internships etc.
The reasons why MPs are knowledgeable individuals who seek to use their experience for the betterment of society is because they have had high level (and often highly paid) backgrounds. If you were earning £350k a year as a CEO but wanted to serve, it's financially impossible to do so, and therefore we as the electorate miss out on the best candidates.
That said, any sensible discussion on this is usually drowned out by those that assume all MPs are liars on the make.
Like around the bath or in the shower tray, meaning it all has to be moved then put back after cleaning rather than just giving the surface a quick, unimpeded wipe over.
One day the bin liner threat will be followed through.
If a CEO was averaging £350k over 5 years and became an MP they would earn £350k.
I don't see haw that would lead to imbalance. In fact, rather the opposite.
Anyway, its a policy idea I made up so don't lose too much sleep over it...
Many MPs are already there because they went to the "right" school or are good at climbing the greasy pole to the detrement of others. They are indeed good at playing politics, that's why the country is in the state it is in, like it or not, many (not all) are out for themselves.
As Emmy said "What makes a CEO a better candidate than a nurse who has far more understanding of the lives of ordinary people, than a rich CEO who may never have had the financial worries that others experience.".
Earning power does not mean you neccesarily have any skill you can bring to politics.