Wednesday, 21 January 2015

...WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, AREN'T WE?

Quite right too. The poor souls hardly get by.
And they do such sterling work. I was listening to their farmyard
 impressions at PMQs today.
They should all have parts in a circus.
Good idea, and then the people who are unemployed
 and don't live in towns won't be able to go for jobs.
And those with sick /elderly relatives won't
 be able to provide transport for them
or go to shops, and those who are only out of work
 for a few weeks will have to sell their cars
and start again when they get jobs.
Just how moronic do you have to be to get into UKIP?
Is Stephen Hammond thick enough?
I'm sure you will get your reward in hell, Smith.
There's a cheering thought.
Yep, you're all jolly good Eton sorts.
How much did you get for your mother, Dave?
Maybe that idiot Donohoe was right. Maybe there's a Russian sub trundling up
past the BBC right now, but the blinds are down and no-one is answering
the phone in Manchester, so they can't get permission to open them
 and we'll never know... unless Spud is out for another run?
If it worked it might be worth the hell we are going through.
But it doesn't work, except of course for the likes of the grasping
 chubby idiot in the top picture.
And Margaret Thatcher/John Major were all the fault of the SNP.
Vinegar Mags says they were voting to balance the books.
30 billion pounds to wipe out the £1.5 trillion black hole?
Give me strength, Mags.
I expect you'll give your pay rise (if you're re-elected)
to the local food bank?
So what, they will say, they are only Scots...
We'd never be stupid enough to have the bombs
anywhere near our cities!
My granny has always said that up to 40 you have
 the face you were born with.
After 40 you get the face you've earned.
This must have been Thatcher at 41!
Your country needs you, Gordon.
So, if you see this report to your boss right away.
he wishes to make use of you again.
The Captain of the Titanic wasn't named Cameron, was he?

19 comments:

  1. To be fair Tris if Hammond wants the M.P.'s pay to be £105,000 then fine, but remove ALL expenses. Either have £67,000 AND expenses (for diddling at your pleasure) OR have £105,000 AND no expenses.

    Oh whilst I'm on the topic of salaries ... pay nurses etc a DECENT wage NOW! You want a hike in your salary that MUST be met by similar hikes in pay for others!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll go with that one Arbroath.

      No expenses at all, if they want that money, for a part time job.

      I have to say that I can't see any reason why if they can have a 65% rise,other people shouldn't get that too. I mean, we ARE all in this mess together, aren't we?

      Delete
    2. I agree Tris. Give M.P.'s a 65% pay then 65% pay rise for every one else working in the public sector. Oh wait a minute we can't do that can we cause that would mean MORE people being dragged screaming out of poverty and we can NEVER have that now can we?

      Delete
    3. Wouldn't do if too many people weren't living in poverty, Arbroath.

      They'd start getting ideas above their station.

      Delete
  2. I'm beginning to think that, UKIP are the, right wing arm of the, monster raving Looney party.
    I wouldn't give MPs a pay rise, they should all be housed in a hostel and travelling expenses only paid, and not first class either. No subsidies for food and champers too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ukip does seem to attract some complete nut jobs.

      People on benefits are either there short term between jobs or due to a short period of illness, or long term becasue of some more deep seated problem.

      How on earth does this halfwit think it would it feel if you had just contracted cancer and were unable to work for a while and on top of the pain, the worry and the side effects of the treatment, you were ordered by government to sell your car? How would it be if you lived out in the country and there were no buses to the hospital where you got your radiotherapy?

      Why don't they think these policies through before spouting them as serious options?

      As for the MPs' pay rises, Arbroath and I were joking there. Of course they can;t have that pay rise... but in my opinion they shouldn't have any pay rise. If the job isn't well enough paid or they feel that they are being undervalued then they should stand down get another job and let someone else take their seat.

      Some of them work hard, I don;t doubt. Others seem to do very little for their money.

      I don't understand the food subsidy. I know they are living away from home for 2 or 3 nights a week. Fair enough, but we already provide them with another home, so it's not like we are asking them to eat in restaurants every night.

      We also provide dining rooms in the workplace with subsidies meals.

      That we provide them with cheap drink is beyond comprehension, given that many of them haver crap even when sober.

      As for the "other place" (idiotic custom)... I think Pete Wishart was rather generous in his assessment of them adn while we are getting rid of the frills, Buckingham palace would make a good place for the homeless of London.

      The family can go and live in Airmiles new ski lodge in Switzerland..

      Delete
    2. Jim, I am in complete agreement and strangely for me nothing to add.

      Delete
    3. There cannot be many jobs where your employers pay for your accomodation and food and drink as well. Personally if they cannot live on their basic salary they should resign. In times of austerity there are many others who would be more than happy to take their place.

      Delete
    4. LOL Helena.

      John, most places don't even have a canteen these days, never mind £400 for food and subsidised booze.

      You either bring your own lunch or go out and buy a sandwich.

      It's true that there are probably millions of people all over the country who wouldn't mind a cushie number on £80,000.

      Delete
  3. Just by way of example Tris I put this post up on Wings the other day thought you might like to see it here.

    Hmm.

    Sorry for O/T here but just received a wee *ahem* ditty from my M.P. I won’t mention him by name, you all know him though cause he is Scotland’s pet Tory M.P. ;)

    Well what do you know, since 2010:

    He has helped over 10,000 individuals, out of 68,000 electors, apparently. By my cave man arithmetic that equates to 2,000 per year … WOW!

    He has held over 1,000 surgeries. By my cave man arithmetic that equates to 200 per year … WOW!

    He has had an annual surgery tour to 100 local communities. I’m just blown away … no really I am!

    Oh look he has even put up his contact details. Hmm. Funny though he has NEVER replied to any of my *ahem* queries. :D

    WE get all of this and HE gets:

    2010 – 2011 £52,465.04 expenses
    2011 – 2012 £69,761.10 expenses
    2012 – 2013 £63,737.79 expenses
    2013 – 2014 £200,768.13 expenses
    2014 – 2015 £33,628.44 expenses

    All of which gives us a grand total of £420,360.50 expenses claimed and paid to him, or to put it another way he has averaged £84,072.10 on expenses per year in ADDITION to his Ministerial salary.

    So all together my ever so dutiful M.P. receives:

    Ministerial entitlement £79,754
    Parliamentary salary £65,738 (£67,060 since April 1st 2014)
    Average annual expenses £84,072.10

    This gives our dear wee pet Tory an annual combined salary of £230,886.10.

    Not bad for someone who doesn’t appear to do that much., if anything at all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear goodness me. The trick down effect of that money must make a massive difference to the economy of your area.

      Now, you say he's a Tory, so I suppose that narrows it down a bit...

      Still, if you;re ever hard up, I'm sure you could tap him for a few quid...

      Delete
    2. I am sure if you tapped him he would sound hollow.

      Delete
  4. Well I did try and *ahem* tap him for an answer during a referendum debate and nothing was forth coming then so to be honest I'm not that hopeful that I'd have any better luck *cough* tapping him for a wee *ahem* loan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, way off topic but, I thought you might be interested in this:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530053.800-shocking-state-of-worlds-riskiest-nuclear-waste-site.html#.VME7z6dFAsI

    There was no mention, of this during the referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... I've just seen this Jim...

      Bloody hell is all I can say...

      Delete
  6. With the greatest of respect. the Tory's were keen to off-load you lot, they would have given you what you want. It was Labour supported BBC's Nick Robinson and Mathew Amrowliwhatshisface who camped out up there under operation 'wake-up call' that swung the weak minded and spoilt it for you..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, although Cameron got the Queen, Obama and Abbot to speak up for him.

      Actually to be honest, even if they had been on our said, I'd still not have a good word to say about them. Their policies largely repulse me and many of their MPs the same. That said I know some nice Tories.

      Delete