What a load of bollocks.
In an effort to save £8M per year, your wanky new government are doing this.
With a criminal disregard for those whose income depends on it, the changes, without consultation, and without our consent, will go ahead.
Do you see now?
Do you understand yet?
Your government couldn't give a flying fuck what you want.
All that matters is what they want.
Sack them.
Sack them all.
Today.
CR.
8 comments:
It was a Labour idea and now a chance to put it right. I'm not holding my breath.
Do you remember last time they changed the money and made it smaller?
The reason they did this is the melt price of the coins was more than the face value.
In laymans terms, it costs more than 5p to produce a 5p.
From the article in the DT:
The change, proposed by the former Labour government, is designed to save the Royal Mint between £7 million and £8 million a year....
Afghanistan - hello???
How much is that costing us?
Then one can look at Blairmigration to the UK. Most London boroughs will pay a maximum of £175 pw for the renting out of a one bedroom flat. Add to that Job Seekers Allowance of £260 per month and one immigrant is costing the UK - £11.5k per year. Multiply that by 800 people and you come up with 8 million.
So it's far easier to destroy our currency and culture than it is to remove our troops from illegal lands and allowing people into the UK, who've paid nothing into the system, to be supported by the state?
It's not that I'm begrudging people a basic existence, but really, enough's enough. When do you say stop? When do you decide that if everyone from around the world decided to migrate to the UK, what happens to it?
Illegal wars, mass immigration, a crumbling society that won't get any better until basic common sense prevails.
OR,
That would be a slow suicide.
The new lot are exactly the same as the old lot.
CR.
Budvar,
That was news to me but I find myself unsurprised.
HM Treasury recently admitted that our notes had no intrinsic value.
Well, almost none. A note (any denomination) is worth about 3p.
CR.
H,
Good points.
Or we could just sack some of those 7 million public workers. The ones with funny job titles that do sweet fanny adams.
Or we could make Bliar pay for his own security. That would be a start....
From my research, one parliament cannot bind its successor, so how hard would it be just to dump this stupid idea in the bin?
Do you think, in order to land a government job, being a moron is an advantage?
Seems like it to me.
CR.
CR,
Or we could just sack some of those 7 million public workers.....Or we could make Bliar pay for his own security.
You're most correct if we sacked 400 public sector workers on £20k - money paid.
If Blair paid for his own security, money would be found after 4 years and under.
I have to say that paying for Blair's security is despicable. These politicians live in a different reality. The yearly income they are paid for their job they simply expect it to go straight into the bank and be untouched until their retire. They expect the people to pay for their lives (food, transport, clothes, property, household bills, holidays) through expenses. It's disgusting.
I think the easiest way of landing a job in the government is to come in singing Gosudarstvenny Gimn Rossiyskoy Federatsii and when they say "jump" you say "how high?" Governments want yes men and women and are currently creating them throughout Britain's state schools and universities.
H,
I think what we tend to forget is that these politicians, like the rest of us, know almost nothing.
I have a feeling that that the "under-government", those folks that are there no matter who wins, know all the secrets.
If I could dig out more info on these petty-but strangely vital-mandarins, I could do a much broader post on the subject.
I am just about convinced that the PM and his underlings are all briefed on entry to No 10 and they are told, in no uncertain terms, what will change and what won't.
It might explain all those broken manifesto promises.
CR.
Post a Comment