[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[A1X]

[tweet]1523633835396812801[/tweet]

 

[vegster]

Have I missed something? Last I saw Starmer hasn't been fined for anything?

It is quite cynical but equally highly amusing if you think through it.

Currently we have a sitting Prime Minister who has committed an offence and been fined despite saying there had been no offence committed and now has changed that to not personally admitting he has committed an offence " That's just the police's view " !

Currently Starmer is being re-investigated in the hope that something sticks to him yet government figures are calling for him to resign while he is still currently innocent. ( apart from the strange universe that the Daily Mail inhabits ) So the game of political Twister is genuinely incredible at the moment, Ministers desperately lying and twisting words to maintain supporting their criminal leader while attacking an innocent man.

Now with the recent Stormont elections we see even better attempts at twisting the truth, now we are expected to believe that the EU have to renegotiate the Oven Ready deal that Johnson/Frost suggested would solve the NI Protocol ! It seems that Johnson's deal was " Clearly unworkable " despite the Tory vote to adopt it.

As was quoted elsewhere, we live in a country ravaged by 12 years of austerity, galloping inflation, an economy hamstrung by the stupidity of Brexit and governed by a criminal who refuses to resign and has no policies to correct any of this but, the big question is wheter the leader of the opposition ate in the wrong place...

Oh, and the final act of government hypocrisy is to claim that Starmer is a hypocrite for demanding that Johnson should resign, when the in the bed rock of British democracy it is the opposition leader's main role to demand the Prime Minister quit.....this isn't new.

 

[usernamed]

If that's true, then there's a bigger issue than shortage of money. How can in 1 in 22 adults be unable to afford 55p for a loaf of bread and a pot of jam? I can see it could happen occasionally, but how can 4.6% of the population get into such a state? Is it that they have little or no education, or that they are so far into debt, or just that there really are so many people with no income at all from either jobs or benefits?

Food now, or at least last year when I saw the report, costs 8% of the average household budget. In the 1950's it was 33%, and no food banks. Is it only poverty that's causing the issue, or are there other elements involved?

So, a sample case study of modern life in action is below.

Weekly shop £50pw (monthly £216.67)
Rent £695
Car Tax £14.87
Council Tax £92 (single occ. discount)
Water £37
Gas/Electric £140
Broadband £28
Contents insurance £18
Car insurance £40
Mobile phone £8
Pet Insurance £9
Savings (for annual car MOT/service or consumables) £50
Debt £150
Petrol £200

Note the amounts above do not include “luxuries” such as haircuts, clothes or medicines, or any form of TV and there is no budget for any entertainment. This particular case study was for a single parent household (working) consisting of 1 adult, 1 child present for half the week (shared custody) and 1 family pet.

Car required for work, not just getting to/from. No entitlement to benefits. Childcare costs covered by Government scheme. Individual’s salary was £24,000. Worked out around £1650pcm take home.

I make total outgoings there £1698.54, so a smidge under £1700pcm, requiring an annual salary of around £25,000 to cover.

If you’re swanky and want to eat out, have a takeaway, or buy clothes, medicines or gifts, you need more.

Realistically you need to earn at least the current U.K. average wage of around £29,000 to comfortably cover these costs and live.

Many have Council Tax bills much higher than above, and £50pw doesn’t buy nearly as much at the grocery store as it used to.

There’s not a lot there that can be easily cut, and if it should be a friend or family members birthday, then any gift or celebration could only be paid for via credit.

If energy bills increase by another £900 in autumn, where do people make their savings? There is some debt there, but not colossal amounts of it. It feels uncomfortable to me that we’re pushing people this close to the bone.

 

[nicko31]

[tweet]1523633835396812801[/tweet]

The non-dom billionnaires are terrified of a Labour or Labour coalition government, they'd have to start paying some decent levels of UK tax

 

[JBizzle]

It's starting to look like a concerted effort from some very influential people who are more scared of the possibility of Starmer getting elected than Johnson going and one of his cabal replacing him, but surely nobody would fall for that

The thing is, if Starmer does go then I think there are some capable leaders within the Labour party who can replace him. The Conservatives are all, to an MP, incompetent - at least those in the cabinet.

 

[Audax]

Bit of chatter among the press that Starmer intends to announce he'll resign if fined. IMO, that's the perfect way to approach this. It leaves Boris with no attack lines that are viable and could even open the door for Labour to counter attack.

 

[beorhthelm]

A smear campaign started in Tory HQ, executed by the right-wing press, boosted by the broadcasters, and carried through by the police. And it doesn't make the slightest sense at all.

a smear in politics? shocking.

you/the twitter are right of course. the problem was back in the earlier phase of the issue, Stamer calling for resignation off the accusation of wrong doing. then there are reports etc, more calls to resign. then the actual fine. he's not gone by now he's not going, because Johnson doesnt care about moral authority, never did before. everyone thinks they create distractions from lockdown fines, what if Johnson sees the lockdown fines is the dead cat?

i see its 6 months from the start of the thread and we havent really had the meltdown yet, some tantrums and huffing. the results were poor last week, maybe iwhen they return to parliament and take stock they'll decide times up.

 

[Pavilionaire]

So, a sample case study of modern life in action is below.

Weekly shop £50pw (monthly £216.67)
Rent £695
Car Tax £14.87
Council Tax £92 (single occ. discount)
Water £37
Gas/Electric £140
Broadband £28
Contents insurance £18
Car insurance £40
Mobile phone £8
Pet Insurance £9
Savings (for annual car MOT/service or consumables) £50
Debt £150
Petrol £200

Note the amounts above do not include “luxuries” such as haircuts, clothes or medicines, or any form of TV and there is no budget for any entertainment. This particular case study was for a single parent household (working) consisting of 1 adult, 1 child present for half the week (shared custody) and 1 family pet.

Car required for work, not just getting to/from. No entitlement to benefits. Childcare costs covered by Government scheme. Individual’s salary was £24,000. Worked out around £1650pcm take home.

I make total outgoings there £1698.54, so a smidge under £1700pcm, requiring an annual salary of around £25,000 to cover.

If you’re swanky and want to eat out, have a takeaway, or buy clothes, medicines or gifts, you need more.

Realistically you need to earn at least the current U.K. average wage of around £29,000 to comfortably cover these costs and live.

Many have Council Tax bills much higher than above, and £50pw doesn’t buy nearly as much at the grocery store as it used to.

There’s not a lot there that can be easily cut, and if it should be a friend or family members birthday, then any gift or celebration could only be paid for via credit.

If energy bills increase by another £900 in autumn, where do people make their savings? There is some debt there, but not colossal amounts of it. It feels uncomfortable to me that we’re pushing people this close to the bone.

And this is with interest rates currently at 1%. The Chancellor himself indicated these could rise to 2.5% by next March, while inflation is projected to increase from 7% to 10% by the end of the calendar year.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Bit of chatter among the press that Starmer intends to announce he'll resign if fined. IMO, that's the perfect way to approach this. It leaves Boris with no attack lines that are viable and could even open the door for Labour to counter attack.

The Obi-Wan strategy - becoming more powerful if Vader strikes him down.

I don't think the Crime Minister survives IF Starmer is fined AND resigns.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The Obi-Wan strategy - becoming more powerful if Vader strikes him down.

I don't think the Crime Minister survives IF Starmer is fined AND resigns.

I don't think he'll see it like that

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I don't think he'll see it like that

It matters not. It may not be instant but such a demonstration of statesmanship and honour to contrast with weaselly self interest will fatally damage the CM going forward.

For Johnson the best result now is for Starmer NOT to be fined and resign - the smear has already done its job and been a stunningly good political attack before the local elections.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It matters not. It may not be instant but such a demonstration of statesmanship and honour to contrast with weaselly self interest will fatally damage the CM going forward.

For Johnson the best result now is for Starmer NOT to be fined and resign - the smear has already done its job and been a stunningly good political attack before the local elections.

I'm less sure. Weaselly self interest is largely considered a virtue by the people who could actually get rid of him, they Tory backbenchers. Their self interest is the only consideration on their mind, and at the moment they see him as someone who can campaign more effectively than the likely alternatives.

 

[dsr-burnley]

So, a sample case study of modern life in action is below.

Weekly shop £50pw (monthly £216.67)
Rent £695
Car Tax £14.87
Council Tax £92 (single occ. discount)
Water £37
Gas/Electric £140
Broadband £28
Contents insurance £18
Car insurance £40
Mobile phone £8
Pet Insurance £9
Savings (for annual car MOT/service or consumables) £50
Debt £150
Petrol £200

Note the amounts above do not include “luxuries” such as haircuts, clothes or medicines, or any form of TV and there is no budget for any entertainment. This particular case study was for a single parent household (working) consisting of 1 adult, 1 child present for half the week (shared custody) and 1 family pet.

Car required for work, not just getting to/from. No entitlement to benefits. Childcare costs covered by Government scheme. Individual’s salary was £24,000. Worked out around £1650pcm take home.

I make total outgoings there £1698.54, so a smidge under £1700pcm, requiring an annual salary of around £25,000 to cover.

If you’re swanky and want to eat out, have a takeaway, or buy clothes, medicines or gifts, you need more.

Realistically you need to earn at least the current U.K. average wage of around £29,000 to comfortably cover these costs and live.

Many have Council Tax bills much higher than above, and £50pw doesn’t buy nearly as much at the grocery store as it used to.

There’s not a lot there that can be easily cut, and if it should be a friend or family members birthday, then any gift or celebration could only be paid for via credit.

If energy bills increase by another £900 in autumn, where do people make their savings? There is some debt there, but not colossal amounts of it. It feels uncomfortable to me that we’re pushing people this close to the bone.

Running those figures through a benefits checker suggests £130 per week benefits should be available. Is that inaccurate?

I'm sure gas/elec could be cut, though it will no doubt go up again shortly. But £140 p.m. is a lot to heat one room. Bedrooms don't need to be heated, even in winter, and central heating isn't even necessary if they have a decent fire. That's how it was in my childhood, we're not going back to Victorian times here.

But anyway, the main thing I was talking about was the people who are so disorganised that they literally do not have cash or credit to buy the cheapest loaf of bread and cheapest jar of jam - they do not have the organisation to have 55p (35p Sunblest white loaf at Farmfoods, 20p strawberry jam at Sainsburys) to buy an emergency meal. However much the person in the case study above is struggling, if they run out of money to that extent, they are not managing their affairs properly. If people haven't a clue about how to look after themselves, there are limits to how much can be done to help. Of course, foodbanks are the ultimate safety net for people with nothing at all.

 

[Audax]

Bit of chatter among the press that Starmer intends to announce he'll resign if fined. IMO, that's the perfect way to approach this. It leaves Boris with no attack lines that are viable and could even open the door for Labour to counter attack.

We'll find out at 4pm apparently:

[tweet]1523663709599502336[/tweet]

As in the tweet, wording will be important. If he says he'll resign if found to have "breached the rules" then he goes even if the police decide against issuing an FPN (as they did with Cummings).

IMO this is real danger territory here for the Tories. Labour may be doing the really smart thing here and turning the Tory smear back on to the Tories: Worst case scenario here is actually one where the police clear Starmer / Labour in full. That's a positive outcome for Labour and kills off the Tory smears, but it also kills off the chance to counter attack. If, however, Starmer does end up resigning it makes Boris a sitting duck for Labour attacks.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

a smear in politics? shocking.

you/the twitter are right of course. the problem was back in the earlier phase of the issue, Stamer calling for resignation off the accusation of wrong doing. then there are reports etc, more calls to resign. then the actual fine. he's not gone by now he's not going, because Johnson doesnt care about moral authority, never did before. everyone thinks they create distractions from lockdown fines, what if Johnson sees the lockdown fines is the dead cat?

i see its 6 months from the start of the thread and we havent really had the meltdown yet, some tantrums and huffing. the results were poor last week, maybe iwhen they return to parliament and take stock they'll decide times up.

Starmer called for the resignation for lying to Parliament, not the accusation of wrongdoing. Johnson said quite clearly, there were no parties, when evidence showed there were.

Michael Howard sacked Johnson for lying before.

 

[usernamed]

Running those figures through a benefits checker suggests £130 per week benefits should be available. Is that inaccurate?

I'm sure gas/elec could be cut, though it will no doubt go up again shortly. But £140 p.m. is a lot to heat one room. Bedrooms don't need to be heated, even in winter, and central heating isn't even necessary if they have a decent fire. That's how it was in my childhood, we're not going back to Victorian times here.

But anyway, the main thing I was talking about was the people who are so disorganised that they literally do not have cash or credit to buy the cheapest loaf of bread and cheapest jar of jam - they do not have the organisation to have 55p (35p Sunblest white loaf at Farmfoods, 20p strawberry jam at Sainsburys) to buy an emergency meal. However much the person in the case study above is struggling, if they run out of money to that extent, they are not managing their affairs properly. If people haven't a clue about how to look after themselves, there are limits to how much can be done to help. Of course, foodbanks are the ultimate safety net for people with nothing at all.

The individual in question advised that he’d been to the DWP, and they’d advised him that because the child was registered at the GP against the child’s mothers address, and went to a nursery where the child’s mother was the “main” person on the account, and the child’s mother was in receipt of the Child Benefit, they wouldn’t take the child into consideration when calculating benefits.

I advised him to question this, but subsequently found this is current government policy, there is no provision for shared custody. As such, his entitlement to benefits was zero. (I agree even half of the £130 would help)

It feels to me that the slow creep of living costs has already obliterated any safety net, that this guy is going to need the food bank at least once by autumn. I can’t imagine telling him that it’s because he’s failed to manage his own affairs properly though. The guy’s done everything he’s supposed to have done.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1523683459759505408[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Running those figures through a benefits checker suggests £130 per week benefits should be available. Is that inaccurate?

I'm sure gas/elec could be cut, though it will no doubt go up again shortly. But £140 p.m. is a lot to heat one room. Bedrooms don't need to be heated, even in winter, and central heating isn't even necessary if they have a decent fire. That's how it was in my childhood, we're not going back to Victorian times here.

But anyway, the main thing I was talking about was the people who are so disorganised that they literally do not have cash or credit to buy the cheapest loaf of bread and cheapest jar of jam - they do not have the organisation to have 55p (35p Sunblest white loaf at Farmfoods, 20p strawberry jam at Sainsburys) to buy an emergency meal. However much the person in the case study above is struggling, if they run out of money to that extent, they are not managing their affairs properly. If people haven't a clue about how to look after themselves, there are limits to how much can be done to help. Of course, foodbanks are the ultimate safety net for people with nothing at all.

Energy is needed for electricity, or are you saying this person cannot even have an oven, tv or microwave? Would you really want to eat bread and jam every single day?
The £695 rent is a low estimate. The house next door but one to me over a grand a month rent. I couldn't even afford to rent my own house now. Council tax is £182 a month.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

[tweet]1523683459759505408[/tweet]

Your bluff well and truly called, Big Dog. Don't see any positives from this for the Tories now they are past the elections. Either he is not guilty and stays with the moral high ground or goes showing Big Dog how to do it and maybe meaning Labour get in someone with a bit of charisma.

 

[darkwolf666]

Running those figures through a benefits checker suggests £130 per week benefits should be available. Is that inaccurate?

I'm sure gas/elec could be cut, though it will no doubt go up again shortly. But £140 p.m. is a lot to heat one room. Bedrooms don't need to be heated, even in winter, and central heating isn't even necessary if they have a decent fire. That's how it was in my childhood, we're not going back to Victorian times here.

But anyway, the main thing I was talking about was the people who are so disorganised that they literally do not have cash or credit to buy the cheapest loaf of bread and cheapest jar of jam - they do not have the organisation to have 55p (35p Sunblest white loaf at Farmfoods, 20p strawberry jam at Sainsburys) to buy an emergency meal. However much the person in the case study above is struggling, if they run out of money to that extent, they are not managing their affairs properly. If people haven't a clue about how to look after themselves, there are limits to how much can be done to help. Of course, foodbanks are the ultimate safety net for people with nothing at all.

Can I ask which benefits you believe the case study is eligible for?