Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

goldfinger, I applied the zoom tool (not not you - lol) to the pic and can see that the book you are offering to sign is Evil K's book, now why would you want to do that? Are you now presenting yourself as Simon Caukwell? This gets better by the minute.

I'm just shivering in my boots about the 'outcome'

goldfinger, I applied the zoom tool (not not you - lol) to the pic and can see that the book you are offering to sign is Evil K's book, now why would you want to do that? Are you now presenting yourself as Simon Caukwell? This gets better by the minute.

I'm just shivering in my boots about the 'outcome'

Subdued tonight chuckles that cat got your tounge or already had a visit from the top.

Hays - Was that 'biggest part' or biggest Prat. Obvious GF is pissed, What's Fred's excuse?

I got an e-mail from my paid colleague at my charity work yesterday and I was mortified what she had written "Ding Dong the Wich is Dead, we will be celebrating tonight with champagne"

I did not reply but got my point over today how distasful I thought it was. After a slight debacle I had to cut it dead and just said that this country was on its arse when MT took over and she obviously argued back that it is now - my reply was yes and who the sodding hell has put us there again!!!!! Finished the conversation as there is no point in arguing with an obvious left winger. We all make mistakes in life and MT made a few but not enough to wish her dead. People never cease to amaze me.

I truly found it amazing how this person in question used her works e-mail address. May be it is a left wing charity which I am innocently giving my time to, I yet have that to find out.

errrrr chuckles as you know very well I asked you to look at my profile last night.

Now stop trying to brow beat other posters here.

The facts are contained within the book.

Look if this is an attempt to get the book cheaper ...no chance. Ive already knocked a quid off it and promised to put kisses in it for you as youlhave missed them during your childhood ehhh.

Chris not pissed at all wish I was. I said yesterday I would respect the passing of Maggie and I did. Today Im back with vengance against those on the right who did NOT repect her passing yesterday.

I can hand it out as good as the best of them.

Difference is I have respect, not like the right wing loons.

I can hand it out as good as the best of them.

Lol - you've lost the plot, as you always do on financial forums, banned from other sites more times than I've had hot dinners.

I know exactly who you are ergo I know you're not EK, so why would you want to sign his book for him?

Which other posters am I brow beating?

GF - Sorry mate, respect? don't make me laugh. If you possessed an ounce of respect you would at least wait until the woman was buried. Dignity costs nothing, at least afford her that. Leave the left wing rants until after the funeral.

LOL I can smell the fear. Totaly different opposition tonight ehh chuckles. Nobody lost the plot other than you. You were full of it last night tonight your like a little angel.

Bring it on chuckles, like I say Ive dumped the very best on their ass, so a little echo like you isnt going to worry me.

Dont forget youve been found to be re-posting squelched tweets a big no no in the T : C of the board.

And if they dont kick you off Ill still get plenty of amusement and fun out of you.

By the way this trolling of me ie, following me around its not a gay thing is it??.

Dont get me wrong I have nothing against gays but I dont want it forced upon me.

What about your right wing pals then Chris especially last night. Come on be fair youve always been a decent type in the past and I feel your a little upset over maggie. Handshake?

Well GF, if your not pissed then you really are just a 'Moron' have you heard yourself?

Fair enough chris believe me you wont like me as an enemy.

Now run along its bed time for you.

Ahhhhhhh waste of time this the opposition is the weakest Ive faced in years. I do hope the Torys give Labour a better fight than this in the local elections.

Off to watch newsnight.

Wow!

Did he actually post that?

"you wont likie me as an enemy."

That a bit like "my dad is bigger that your dad". He certainly is losing the plot.

just catching up on this thread.
seems to be loads posted today. i am currently on page 1159 so not sure of later posts but post 23179 on this page posted by Haystack. i just cant believe what he said.
"It is perfectly sensible to get benefit recipients to work 35 hours for £56"
what?
would you do it?
H has lost all respect that i may have held for him.
regards to all including H
jkd

No minutes silence at the Cardiff v Barnsley game tonight ... not surprised really.

jkd

I am glad you reacted to my post. The point I was trying to make was that getting £56 for 35 hours is just as unreasonable as getting the benefits for zero hours. I have met plenty of people over the years that never intend to work and freely admit it. Is that better than making someone work a whole week for their benefits?

It is pretty much impossible to make people take jobs instead of benefits. The principle is that someone may be sent for a job and then they will deliberately fail the interview. If that fails they get themselves fired. Realistically there are only two choices. One is to cut the benefits if someone won't take a job. This has problems as the genuine ones and their families will starve. That isn't sensible. Now we come back to my suggestion. That is that they work a full week for their benefits no matter how much they are. Now they have a straight choice. Don't work and no benefits or maybe try and get a job that pays better than benefits. That way no one starves and there is an incentive to get off benefits. If you just get people to do a market rate number of hours for their benefits it would be just a few hours then there little incentive to get off the benefits. Maybe my idea doesn't look so bad now.

It's an unworkable suggestion Haystack , Tories would have done it years ago if it were feasible.

How Osborne abandoned social mobility

By Louie Woodall.

The words and deeds of this government have rarely been in alignment. However, the gulf between aims and actions is at its starkest when it comes to the goal of greater social mobility.

This mission is supposed to be at the heart of the Coalition’s strategy for creating a fairer Britain, one where a child’s life chances are not dictated by the class and income of their parents.



Yet this laudable policy was grossly absent in last week’s budget. Despite the bluster that this was a budget designed to reward hardworking people, the policy announcements that look like routes out of poverty at first, on closer inspection are nothing more than dead ends.

Take childcare. The government trumpeted its additional spend of £150 million on childcare vouchers as proof of its commitment to remove barriers into work for hard-up families. But an analysis of the distributional impact of the policy reveals that fully 80% of the earmarked funds will go to parents already in the top half of the income scale. Worse, part time workers will receive nothing under the scheme.

What about Osborne’s celebrated help to buy mortgage guarantee scheme? This was the one part of his Budget speech he singled out as a means to boost social mobility:

“The deposits demanded for a mortgage these days have put home ownership beyond the great majority who cannot turn to their parents for a contribution. That’s not just a blow to the most human of aspirations – it’s set back social mobility and it’s been hard for the construction industry. This Budget proposes to put that right – and put it right in a dramatic way.”

Going beyond the strange idea that home ownership = social mobility in the first place, again the benefits are skewed in favour of the better off, (those earning above the median wage)- and even they will struggle to make use of it.

Housing charity Shelter explains that the mortgage guarantee fails to tackle the problem unaffordable homes at its roots, Robbie di Santos says:

“The trouble is, while this makes it easier to get a deposit, you’d be borrowing 95% of already very high house prices, which are way out of kilter with what ordinary people earn. Our calculations – again based on local house prices and local double income households – suggests that the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee would bring the average local home within reach of the average double income household in only 16% of the country.”

Are these the actions of a government committed to a fairer distribution of opportunity across the income scale?

It certainly doesn’t look like it to me. Some argue that faith in social mobility as a weapon against rising inequality is misplaced, and that we should measure our progress in becoming a fairer and more civilized society by how far apart the richest and poorest stand on the income scale rather than by how easy it is to get from one end of that scale to the other.

However, if we understand social mobility as a mechanism for empowering the very poorest to escape the poverty trap, than it does have the potential to change lives and transform society.

Sadly, in the Budget this government has proved it is far, far away from working towards such an end.

Louie Woodall is Editor of Anticipations.


http://www.youngfabians.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/04/09/how-osborne-abandoned-social-mobility/