|
Post by stuinedgeley on Dec 18, 2013 0:46:34 GMT
So another so called investigation on a house of Lords member who has already once been jailed for expenses fraud and yet remains a house member? Takes £300 a day for just showing his face in the chamber for half an hour and then sods off for the day his money claimed - all on expenses. I am a full time carer and I get 420 a month to live on.........vs £300 a day just in expenses his wages are on top of that ! If it wasn't for charity this country would be in ruins. Have you ever noticed on a charity advert they have a registered number? Notice how many digits there are in that number? They are not random generated and apportioned registrations ..............we have millions of them ! And who is giving them the vast majority of money? The poor taxed to death people that's who !
Why aren't wages for these unelected cretins means tested? Same with Commons all mp's should be means tested. Approx 90% of the government front bench currently and including those who have been moved around in jobs are multi millionaires. So why do we let them claim expenses and why if they are so committed to the cause of running the country paid so much money £66k average per year plus £20k per year in expenses?
Lord Snape - not exactly skint is he? I have yet to meet a poor downtrodden MP or lordship/ladyship etc anywhere either in person or through the media in some fashion. The rich get richer by sheer greed and the poor get s**t on from a great height and taxed to death.
These so called rulers and oppositions are all saying they don't want the 11% pay rise and yet.............they claim they can do nothing about it as the body which covers such matters are independent.............who set it up in the first place !!!!! theres a clue there somewhere !
Our own local mp seems more interested in herself and frankly in my opinion doesn't care about this town or our club for that matter. It cant be easy living on 66k a year.............don't forget they claim housing benefit because............due to their terrible wages they all bought flats in London that they rent to each other at top rates as their parliamentary "second home" supposedly while they are in London working ( I use that terms loosely) in parliament itself.
I once attended a labour Party meeting in brinnington just after the expenses scandal broke out ( I am not a member) all our local mp could do was go on about how to re-connect with the public and local issues just didn't get a look in.....talk about self interest and saving her own neck. I saw the looks on the faces of the councillors who were there and they didn't look pleased. I feel we need a new MP in stockport one who is interested in this town and not climbing the greasy pole of wages far in excess of most of the uk working people and expenses where a number of MPs recently put their energy bills on expenses! One bill was over 5K.
labour claim they are the party of the people............start acting like it ! CONservatives...........the clue is in the name Lib Dems................tories who are not quite yet millionaires - most are ex tories anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Dec 18, 2013 2:32:45 GMT
Another brilliant post, stu. All three political parties summed up perfectly there, mate!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 18, 2013 3:00:57 GMT
Couldn't have worded it better!
|
|
|
Post by stuinedgeley on Dec 18, 2013 14:44:14 GMT
...and therefore by voting for me.............you will be well and truly stuffed lol
|
|
|
Post by stuinedgeley on Dec 18, 2013 14:45:14 GMT
Todays express shows our local mp grinning all over the shop about food banks..........what about the fact that they exist in a country supposed to be one of the richest? enough said.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Dec 18, 2013 15:05:38 GMT
Todays express shows our local mp grinning all over the shop about food banks..........what about the fact that they exist in a country supposed to be one of the richest? enough said. This ^^
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 20:06:18 GMT
not only that they exist, but that they have been under more and more pressure in recent years. the new policy institute research from 2011/12 reckoned there were 13 million people living in poverty.
it is complex though of course - as a recent example the 'bedroom tax' has meant a reduction in housing benefit in social housing where people are adjudged to be in a property 'too big' for their needs. that has led to arrears and impacted on poverty levels. it's hard with the enormous pressure on social housing to countenance a single person living in a three bedroomed council house when there are hundreds of families in any district that need it...even if it has been the single person's home for 25 years. but then there aren't enough 1 bedroomed properties to meet the demand from single people in housing need, nevermind the single underoccupiers wanting to downsize. just one example of where it is a horrendous web of difficulties and consequences.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Dec 18, 2013 20:14:14 GMT
If three bedroom housing is in such short supply for these families, and there are waiting lists to get one, why has there been a handful standing empty near where I live for the last three months?
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 20:30:59 GMT
err. liverpool?!?
the other thing is expectations. i see it all the time where people keep their families in some terrible situation just waiting and waiting to use the priority we've given them on their dream home. people turn down properties for ridiculous, non real-world reasons. one i saw recently where a family in serious housing need turned down a 3 bed semi with front and back garden, located handily behind an M&S food hall in a well-to-do area on the basis that they thought the third bedroom was too small. isn't everybody's? i'm in mine now and it's 7' by 6'. each time somebody refuses a property, the process takes time.
apart from that, there's properties needing significant repair where there isn't the budget for it, and the unpalatable fact that there's loads of 'hard to let' properties in all our major towns and cities. these are sometimes due to property type (e.g. 2+ bedroomed multi-storey flats - families want gardens), and very much due to crime/anti-social behaviour or perceptions of them in an area. so yeah - there aren't enough properties, and a proportion of those that are there, people - even desperate people - don't want.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 20:31:50 GMT
err...meant to do a smiley after 'liverpool'!
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Dec 18, 2013 20:41:18 GMT
I can't speak for every one of them, but the majority of the properties I have seen have been vacated in the last four months and are in no need of repair or upgrading, they are in absolutely immaculate condition. They are ready for occupation.
They haven't p*ssed about chucking people out, so they should be equally as ruthless and send anyone seen refusing a property on such trivial grounds to the back of the queue, simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 21:04:43 GMT
yeah, but...and this is where part of my job comes in...if they're still in significant housing need, you don't want them at the back of the queue. the annoying ones are where we've tried to educate them - that the priority we've given them indicates an urgency of need and isn't for them to hang around waiting for us to advertise buckingham palace; or the lawn being a bit uneven is not a reason to turn down a property if you're overcrowded by a couple of bedrooms... and then after that they still sit on their hands or turn stuff down. it does properly get on my nerves.
it's a large minority as well - not just a few idiots. people in housing need still trying to make strategic decisions with future right-to-buy in mind. quite galling. the one behind m&s that i mentioned above was in an area i wanted to buy in in '97 when i was looking but couldn't afford. i always say that everybody has to compromise, whatever sector you're looking in, owner-occupier or social renter. i love where i live, i love the greenery despite the relative closeness to the city centre...but my house isn't up to much. you can't have it all, but people - even people in awful situations - want it all.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Dec 18, 2013 21:37:53 GMT
That's a cracking insight into the process, mate. I suppose it's human nature to always want better, but if they're that desperate, ffs take what's on offer. You just can't please some people, and I can understand your frustration.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 21:52:07 GMT
obviously there are also people who are delighted to get anything half-decent. but because what i do is review the decisions the council has made that the person isn't satisfied with, we just tend to see the annoying ones. people who have turned down ten or a dozen properties sometimes...properties they've selected to bid for themselves... some of the subtleties of the stories are mental.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on Dec 18, 2013 21:54:51 GMT
and i completely understand people wanting the best they can get; but if it means keeping your kids in appalling conditions because the back garden of the property you were offered has a mild slope, then you've lost the ability to make proper decisions for your household.
|
|