The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Xann]

Quote

 

UK MPs under investigation to be given anonymity under new code

UK politicians have voted to give anonymity to all MPs under investigation in a move that critics warned is a "cover up".

The House of Commons has endorsed a new behaviour code to deal with sexual hrassment and bullying following a series of allegations made against MPs.

But Sir Kevin Barron, the chairman of the standards committee, has warned the new rules on anonymity risks "rolling back the openness" that followed the expenses scandal.

"It will be presented as MPs trying to cover up their misdoings", he said.

Since 2010, the list of MPs being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been published on her website.

But new rules on complaints will apply to all cases, including expenses fiddling, and the names of MPs under investigation will no longer be made public.

Andrea Leadsome, leader in the House of Commons, insisted the new rules were "not about rolling back tranparency" an that the commissioner's role had "significantly changed".

 

Financial Times

Of course they can be trusted.

Like when they stopped publishing social security reports and research and unleashed IDS on the most vulnerable in our society.

[bickster]

27 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Private probation contracts ended early by government

If you want something **** up, who you gonna call?

Was just about to put a new "privatised" Probabtion Office into our street directory. Saved me the hassle

[Xann]

32 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If you want something **** up, who you gonna call?

Abbot and Truss get some stick for being pig shit thick - But Grayling's career trail of destruction in government displays awe inspiring incompetence.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Abbot and Truss get some stick for being pig shit thick - But Grayling's career trail of destruction in government displays awe inspiring incompetence.

 

He's not alone either, BOTH Parties are chock full of incompetents 

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Private probation contracts ended early by government

If you want something **** up, who you gonna call?

Quite, the cynic in me can't help highlighting this point from the article though

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

The existing contracts will be replaced with new 10 ones under changes that will cost the government £170m.

So surely the point is if you want £170m worth of government contracts, who you gonna call.

Wonder if Mr May's companies might pick up some of those contracts?

(Not from a position of knowing - maybe they are the ones loosing them eh? - Genuinely interested question)
 

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, Xann said:

Abbot and Truss get some stick for being pig shit thick - But Grayling's career trail of destruction in government displays awe inspiring incompetence.

 

I have spoken, in a work capacity, directly to staff in one of his previous departments. They singled him out as being 'special'.

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, bickster said:

Was just about to put a new "privatised" Probabtion Office into our street directory. Saved me the hassle

It says 'ended early in 2020', though. I don't know whether that means that one won't open or that it will open in order to shut again in a couple of years.

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It says 'ended early in 2020', though. I don't know whether that means that one won't open or that it will open in order to shut again in a couple of years.

it is only just opened 

To be fair, at least its in a rented block

[Xann]

Quote

 

British food stores ridicule Brexit stockpiling plans

Britain’s grocers say they have had no contact with the government about stockpiling food in anticipation of the UK crashing out of the EU in March without a withdrawal deal and have ridiculed suggestions it is their responsibility to begin the process.

Dominic Raab, Brexit secretary, said this week he would ensure the UK had “adequate food supplies”, but implied it was the responsibility of the industry: “It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling,” he told MPs.

But one supermarket chief said the government’s position was “ridiculous” and demonstrated “complete naivety” about the way the sector worked. Ian Wright, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, said: “I would very much welcome a conversation with the government.”

 

Financial Times

[snowychap]

Beware: forgoing child benefit could cost you your state pension

Quote

Last year approaching half a million women opted out of receiving child benefit. An unknown number never applied in the first place. Why? Almost certainly because their partner was earning more than £60,000 a year, which is the final cut-off point for the payment. But while they save their partner the hassle of having to fill in a self-assessment tax form, the ones who have not applied may also be unwittingly denying themselves a full state pension.

This week Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury committee, warned that the “link between national insurance credits [NICs] and child benefit is poorly understood by the public,” and that “stay-at-home parents risk losing out on pensions”.

So what’s going on? Back in 2010, the then chancellor George Osborne announced that the government would remove child benefit from households with a higher earner. For couples where one partner earns between £50,000 and £60,000, it is progressively removed, and stops entirely if one earner has an income over £60,000.

As a “tough but fair” austerity measure, saving around £1bn a year, it had fairly widespread support. Why, with the government’s finances in chaos, should the well-off receive benefits worth, at the time, just over £1,750 a year for two children?

But as Morgan points out, it has had an unintended consequence. Under the current system, if either parent or guardian earns more than £50,000, they become liable for the “high income child benefit tax charge”. They can still claim it, but they then have to register for self-assessment and fill in a tax return, and the state claws the child benefit back that way.

Many couples will regard this as putting the money in one pocket then having it removed from the other, so don’t bother to register for child benefit.

But here’s the rub; claiming child benefit, whether it is actually paid or not, ensures the claiming parent receives NICs while the child is under 12. But a mother (and it’s usually the mother) who does not claim, may fail to build up their full state pension entitlement.

To receive a state pension the parent needs to have paid NICs, or received NICs, for a full 35 tax years. The credits are crucial for stay-at-home parents, as they plug the gap in the NICs record while looking after their children.

HMRC figures for 2017 show that 433,665 women opted out of receiving child benefit, but have remained in the NI system and will receive the credits. What we don't know is how many never register.

To be fair, the government warns about the risk. Its website states “you can choose not to get child benefit payments, but you should fill in the child benefit claim form. This will help you get NICs which count towards your state pension.”

At this stage, you might be thinking “poor rich people”. So what if they miss out on a few years’ state pension entitlement, they're loaded. Many probably are. But there are plenty who lose a high-pay job and never recover. So if you are thinking of not applying, think again.

Take the benefit, and regard it as an interest-free loan you'll pay back at the end of the year – and ensure you stay in the NICs system.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Some absolute bullshit commentary from an unsurprising source:

 

[PompeyVillan]

35 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some absolute bullshit commentary from an unsurprising source:

 

He's grandstanding. These days official channels and due legal process is ignored by many spectators. Vote Leave plumbs will see this and assume he's innocent, we'll hear nothing of this again and he's got tens of thousands of pounds to spend on whatever he wants. Probably illegal dark advertising or something. 

[Chindie]

You'd have to be astoundingly gullible to look for even a few seconds into Grimes story and not realise it's dodgy as ****.

He apparently now has a job with a right wing 'think tank' organisation, so allegedly being used to allegedly get around electoral rules by allegedly being given £600,000 after setting up a Leave organisation whose selling point appeared to be it's pun name alone when he was a fashion student probably will work out.

[a m ole]

“all because I allegedly ticked the wrong box 2 years ago”

where do you even start?

[Dr_Pangloss]

Looks like a stupid little piss ant, total berk.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, a m ole said:

“all because I allegedly ticked the wrong box 2 years ago”

where do you even start?

Good points all re: 'ticking the wrong box'

Edited July 29, 2018 by HanoiVillan

[StefanAVFC]

[a m ole]

Remember when Dianne Abbott got some numbers wrong?

[Davkaus]

I can just imagine him pulling his eyes up and down and wondering which one she was. At least he didn't show anyone his dirty knees. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Davkaus

[VILLAMARV]

15 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Remember when Dianne Abbott got some numbers wrong?

Oh yeah I member and...and...and member when the Prime Minster said he loved West Ham? Member?