Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Ethics' started by Maharg, Apr 18, 2017.
Churchill was 65 when he became PM and 70 when Hitler was defeated.
I see the Tory manifesto is coming through this evening, a little bit below on immigration, May promises to cut non EU immigration;
Interesting to see what happens in a couple of years time.
Are you confident that the spouses of forum members here will be free of NHS charges in 5 years time? I'm not even confident that it will be free for the English!
I think it will be free once the ILR is secured as it is now, I expect the NHS surcharge will rise at some point, its very difficult to knock the NHS surcharge for spouses because it makes sense. The wife has just had a operation on the NHS and it would have cost £6 - 7k if done privately so I cant grumble.
We're not ones to moan are we?
I think future people will be less fortunate. Time will tell.
Strong and Stable...
If I was starting out on the visa journey then I may be concerned a little in all truth.
You just know that the cost of a spouse settling in the UK is going to rise and rise one way or another.
Until now, my wife has happily sat on her ILR visa. We both agreed that citizenship, whilst offering obvious benefits, was something that we didn't need to throw money at. Now, I'm thinking that my wife needs to apply as soon as possible. Certainly within 1-2 years.
I also suspect we may find that spouse visas are harder to come by. I'm not convinced that the Tories will protect some of those human rights that we currently enjoy. The "migrants" are definitely in their sights.
Migrants are in her sights for sure, that we can be sure of, the reason I say that is because the Tories are keeping their never ending pledge of getting immigration down, she must have some radical ideas on how they are going to achieve it.
To be honest you'd be silly not to sort the British passport out for the missus, sooner the better.
I agree. Money is tight at present though.
I think Mrs May's new money for mental health could be of benefit to that chap
I can understand that, I was thinking the other day, at todays costs I wouldn't get change out of £5k if we applied for the ILR and British Citizenship straight after.
I'll be glad when its all behind me like yourself and many others here.
He's a comedian. Don't worry, he's equally scathing of other Political Parties. His comments are usually spot on, I find.
The Economist has published this handy chart comparing the three main parties' manifesto promises:
There's something wrong with this leaflet currently being distributed in Richmond ....
All elected members of the House of Commons ceased being MPs as soon as Parliament was dissolved by the Queen on 3rd May and may no longer use the title MP or Member of Parliament.
Looks like Markham his getting his kicks from trivial matters.
What was Maggie May doing today that was so important?
I counted 4. It neglects to mention that, in the midst of rising child poverty, May has decided to scrap school meals - a policy that probably brings out a smile in the heartless.
When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, there may that country boast its Constitution and its Government
Trivial matters? All sitting MPs are issued with detailed information immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament and this includes informing them that, upon dissolution, they cease to be members of parliament and must not use use that term (or "MP"); there are also strict rules regarding their email addresses and social media accounts. These are matters set forth by the Parliamentary Standards Authority to whom complaints could be made. Furthermore that leaflet does not bear an imprint as is required by the Electoral Commission.
I understand that these leaflets were being shoved through letter boxes - sans doorbell ring - by a party worker and not Ms Olney who, apparently, has been conspicuous by her absence in her constituency.
I wonder if you'd be just as dismissive if it were a Conservative MP's leaflet ... Judging from your stream of anti-Tory rants, I rather think not.
Trust you to quote from an acknowledged left-wing site that is "Known for our tabloid, muckraking style".
You really do seem to have a problem with comprehension, don't you . I deliberately said "the three main parties'" because Ukip ceased to be a serious party after last year's referendum, its raison d'etre accomplished. You complain that Mrs May "decided to scrap school meals". No she hasn't. The next Conservative government intends to curtail free school lunches - there will still be paid-for ones available - but there will be free breakfasts at all primary schools.
I suspect that what you really object to is that the majority of the British public have had quite enough of the liberal centrism pursued by the self-serving chumocracies of Blair and Cameron. Love him or hate him, Corbyn is true to his Marxist/Stalinist core beliefs whilst Mrs May has buried the Cameron/Osborne Notting Hill set style of wishy-washy liberal cronyism and has broadened her party's appeal to both the centre left and right wing supporters. I don't share her vision of Big(ger) Government but neither do I want a return to the bad old days of nationalisation and trades unions running - and ruining - the country.
Regardless of which party comes to power - it can only be Labour or Conservative - Britain will be leaving the European Union, the Single Market and the Customs Union; the choice is do we want a government that will renationalise rail, water, mail and buses whilst driving entrepreneurs abroad, adding an additional £4000+ a year tax burden on every family and overseeing the breakup of the UK or do we want an outward-looking administration that places Britain and Britons first.
I agree that it does appear that May's manifesto is anti-pensioner but, on balance, I approve of her plans. The pensions triple-lock was introduced by Cameron's coalition government to buy pensioner votes and was only ever intended to be a short-term measure. It costs tax-payers an extra £6 billion a year according to the Financial Times, hardly a Tory-supporting newspaper, which recently urged Mrs May to drop the policy. Opposition parties have also claimed that the Tories will scrap the winter fuel allowance. This allowance costs far more than it should as all pensioners automatically receive it, regardless of means. It is only in the last two years that pensioners living in warmer climes such as Spain, Italy, and Malta stopped getting this bonus payment and now the Tories propose means testing it which fits in with their targetted benefits proposals. It is frankly absurd - and insulting to breadline pensioners - that people like John McDonnell who earn around £100,000 a year should be able to - and do - claim this allowance. The final proposal, whereby the elderly must cover the costs of their care until they're down to their last £100,000 is the sledgehammer approach and the only policy with which I have a problem (not that it is likely to affect me). What is needed are more incentives for families to care for their own elderley which is, of course, the norm in the Philippines and used to be so in the UK until the outbreak of WW2.