Jump to content

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


blandy

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Future historians will doubtless be puzzled why a government would set out its legislative agenda and then immediately attempt to secure a general election.  

Future HIstorians will have been puzzled by the whole last 4 years, this is merely a little silver ball on a 7 tier iced sponge of madness

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics deep thinker Sajid Javid has ‘paused’ the contract to mint 10 million 50p’s celebrating leaving the EU.

If the contract is scrapped, the cancellation fee is apparently £11.5 Million

Stating the obvious, he’d be paying £1.15 for every Brexit 50p

But we don’t need any economic impact statements, we can do this on feels.

FT

Quote

The Financial Times reported that the contract has a cancellation fee of £11.5m

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Economics deep thinker Sajid Javid has ‘paused’ the contract to mint 10 million 50p’s celebrating leaving the EU.

If the contract is scrapped, the cancellation fee is apparently £11.5 Million

Stating the obvious, he’d be paying £1.15 for every Brexit 50p

But we don’t need any economic impact statements, we can do this on feels.

FT

 

This may sound like a stupid question but don't the government own the Royal Mint...who I assume are producing these 50p's? So is the story that the government have to pay themselves a cancellation fee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

This may sound like a stupid question but don't the government own the Royal Mint...who I assume are producing these 50p's? So is the story that the government have to pay themselves a cancellation fee?

In the good old days, yes. It’s now called Royal Mint Ltd and en route to full privatisation.

No longer part of the executive, its now a privatised company wholly owned by the government and has to make a profit, often by doing outside work and by tendering for work.

The red tories started the process when they were saving the world back in 2009.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Grauniad's live blog:

Quote

Labour’s Stephen Doughty intervenes to say there are rumours that Johnson will not even stand as an MP at the election in his constituency, Uxbridge and South Ruislip (where he had a majority of 5,034 at the last election). Johnson may stand in Sevenoaks (where there was a Tory majority of 21,917 in 2017) or East Yorkshire (where it was 15,006), Doughty says.

Johnson shakes his head but does not intervene.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2019 at 16:29, chrisp65 said:

Economics deep thinker Sajid Javid has ‘paused’ the contract to mint 10 million 50p’s celebrating leaving the EU.

If the contract is scrapped, the cancellation fee is apparently £11.5 Million

Stating the obvious, he’d be paying £1.15 for every Brexit 50p

But we don’t need any economic impact statements, we can do this on feels.

FT

 

Incredible. Could just give them to a charity or good cause who would immediately put them in the bank where they could take them out of circulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Genie said:

Incredible. Could just give them to a charity or good cause who would immediately put them in the bank where they could take them out of circulation.

Glue them together in threes and sell them for 1 euro each.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really understand the point of the FTPA if a one-line bill can be introduced to call an election. I know that in the case such a bill could and likely would be amended, but if the government had a working majority then that wouldn’t be an issue. Anyone care to explain please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

I don’t really understand the point of the FTPA if a one-line bill can be introduced to call an election. I know that in the case such a bill could and likely would be amended, but if the government had a working majority then that wouldn’t be an issue. Anyone care to explain please?

It was to remove the possibility of one of the (probably junior) parties in a coaltion Government using the threat of collapsing it as leverage to get what they wanted. 

If coalitions are going to be the way it is going forward then something like it is probably needed. Just not this short-sighted bit of nonsense. 

Edited by ml1dch
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â