Wasn’t it a Tesla that drove itself into a pole on a straight road??
1 Like
Conservatives say Chagos deal should be 'ripped up’published at 12:40
12:40
As we just reported, the Conservative government began negotiations on the Chagos Islands in 2022.
But the party now opposes the deal to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.
This morning, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "The government should tear up its plans to surrender the Chagos Islands.
“This is a disgraceful surrender of British sovereignty.”
It was your party that started the negotatiations for this deal you fucking melt.
9 Likes
How is it sovereign, shouldn’t it come down to imperialism?
2 Likes
6 Likes
Speaking of (former) Tory melts…Liz “Lettuce” Truss is off her meds again.
3 Likes
See immediately above.
2 Likes
Ah, but the Tories would have negotiated a much better deal. They would have got Mauritius to pay us £350 million a week for the islands.
2 Likes
Is she off her meds or on the turps?
2 Likes
A little from column A…
1 Like
Surprised no one here’s talked about it yet.
I suppose it’s because some of those who were making the most noise don’t actually care about pensioners and just wanted to use it as a political attack.
Which is most ironic because the question needs to be asked, why now? If it was unaffordable last year, what’s changed now? That said however, it’s not going to be a blanket restoration unlike the implication of the headline, just an expansion of qualification criteria.
2 Likes
Starmer U turning isn’t news worthy, it’s commonplace.
And the item is very vague regarding when and by how much
I hope it’s extremely limited. People have massively kicked off about it, which only shows how ridiculously uninformed the public is. I saw a comment from a pensioner the other day saying that he was entitled to his winter fuel payment, because he had paid his national insurance for forty years.
I have no desire to see all the pensioners round me get public money to help heat their massive, detached and largely empty houses.
What? So these people who probably brought their homes whilst having a career and a family etc now because they have become old and retired should not have the winter allowance paid to them because their house is detached and in your opinion empty?
So are they expected to sell their homes in your view to downgrade to something like a 1 bed flat or bungalow because they have gotten older ?
They can do what they want, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the tax payer to help them heat it.
You know I believe passionately in tackling poverty, which is why I don’t believe Labour should be funnelling public money to people who do not need it.
How many pensioners really need that money?
If you’ll let me flip that question around, do you think it’s efficient to have larger houses occupied by singles/couples when there’s apparently a housing crisis around the country, while also subsidising these people for the upkeep of these houses?
Wouldn’t it be better to let the free market coax them out of these houses and downsize into something else, and let growing families take those houses?
1 Like
Around 1 in 6 or 2.1 million apparently
1 Like
Not debating the housing market, but at the end of the day, people may want to stay in their family home for the sake of it being theirs and having memories of possibly better times.
Why should they have to sacrifice their personal dwellings to accommodate an issue that is not their creation?
Successive governments have failed in the creation of the housing markets, and it really is tragic that we cant even home our own citizens especially those younger people who cant buy in their locality, who are being priced out by ridiculous pricing , especially the areas where second home ownership is causing issues .
So, on the other hand 5 in 6 don’t live in poverty? We want to give a benefit out that is only needed by 12% of people who get it?
Maybe , but be nice to know how you determine those who live in that house you stated are not part of the 1 in 6.
People could be proud, which they may not like to acknowledge they are in financial difficulties and struggle to pay.
1 Like
I’m not saying they have to “sacrifice their personal dwellings to accommodate an issue that is not their creation”, although that particular phrasing is pretty much applicable to so many things. Why should people have to have lost their homes to mortgage foreclosures from market downturns? They didn’t create that situation.
But it’s also rather different from having to subsidise such people. Why should the government pay them to enable them to do that? If they can’t afford the upkeep/operating costs of their houses anymore, then why shouldn’t they move to a smaller house/flat which may well be better insulated?
1 Like