EPTThat's pretty brazen.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 399
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
That's pretty brazen. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On November 02 2017 22:57 Jockmcplop wrote: So Williamson was Chief Whip, yeah? So he was probably the one who leaked that list anyway, then May is so weak she lets him appoint himself to replace the guy who lost his job because of the leak. That's pretty brazen. Pretty much | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On November 02 2017 02:40 Velr wrote: Most of that unpaid work is paid, by the money the father brings home. Most of the youth work is done by men and also unpaid. Raising your own children isn't work and in case of divorce/seperate pay the father will have to pay (if he can). Women complain they are not getting enough pension, while atm getting most of it allready. Cleaning/eating is also done by singles, do they get to be paid for it too? I could get into more specific issues, my main point is that 3d wave feminism just isn't adding up. You think you have an argument, but what do you really got? Women give birth and thats about it. I have to concede that my knowledge of the Swiss pension system was rather limited and that I jumped to conclusions based on the German system. My mistake. I see now, that the swiss model already includes the compensation for a child's upbringing as well as added benefits e.g. for children in education and additional transfer payments for those whos' entitlement is below the poverty line - mainly women. To what degree these contribute to your numbers of I have no idea as this appears to not be easily extracted out of the AHVB statistics. For married couples it's rather easy to say because they share their entitlement. From what I've read, the sole reason why married women have a higher share is that widowed women is the largest single group of those pensioners who at the same time have the highest pension. The asexual perspective might sound something like this: Be dependent during young age, be independent during old age. In essence, men die earlier and stop working 1 year later, Switzerland compensates below poverty levels of income as well as subsidises unpaid work and married couples share the income of their years together. That's why women in Switzerland have a bigger share of the pension stock than their number would suggest. According to my interpretation of the country's statistics. Feel free to correct me. I'm trying to understand you here. Partnership in life, partnership in pensions. You offer part of your life, I offer part of what I amass in wealth during this period of time. Sounds fine to me. If you're angered by the 20% (?) widower pension increase that benefits women more, I can understand that, but am not on the same page. You could argue that receiving 5 more years this should somehow be adressed by rising the % women pay. All that jazz about meninism (I'm being a tad satirical here) just became a thing because women spoke up. Nobody gave a fuck about men's suicide rates or fears or pressure before that. If anything men should thank feminism that this is now something people talk about and work together in dismanteling the belief system that impedes our freedom of expression and hinders us in living a life worth living. Third-wave feminism encompasses several diverse strains of feminist activity and study. Though exact boundaries are a subject of debate, it is generally marked as beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to the present. It is an "individual movement" in the sense that its purpose includes redefining what it is to be a feminist. wikipedia on 3rd wave feminism. Dismissing a diverse movement per se is just stupid. I think people can disagree with (many) strains of feminism but saying the whole movement is now baseless comes straight out of the ivory tower. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A shortage of spares for Royal Navy warships and submarines has forced the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to strip parts from the rest of the fleet, the National Audit Office (NAO) has found. An NAO investigation found equipment "cannibalisation" had increased by 49% over the past five years. The spending watchdog warned that the practice was costing the MoD millions of pounds and delayed construction. The MoD said components were only swapped when "absolutely necessary". Currently, the Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers and seven attack submarines - but at times they lack the spare parts they need to go to sea. The NAO said building the third Astute class submarine, HMS Artful, was delayed by 42 days because parts were taken during its construction - adding nearly £5m to the overall cost. The vessel, built in Barrow in Cumbria, completed its maiden dive in 2014. The NAO found that, last year, there were 795 instances when spare parts had to be removed from one vessel and given to another - the equivalent of 66 a month, up from 30 a month in 2005. Between April 2012 and March 2017, there were 3,230 instances involving 6,378 parts, their investigation found. The NAO report noted that in some circumstances, such as during high-intensity operations, cannibalisation could be the most effective way to keep vessels at sea. But it said it also increased costs. The NAO said the MoD itself had identified that cannibalisation had affected submarines currently in production "leading to an estimated £40m cost increase". The watchdog said cuts to the maritime support budget, along with the MoD's failure to monitor the practice, had exacerbated the problem. "In the past two years, the Navy has removed an estimated £92m from its maritime support in-year budgets," the report said. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Less than 0.5% of parts we use come from swapping components, and we only do this when it's absolutely necessary to get ships out of port and back on to operations more quickly. "We continue to make improvements to how we manage this long-established practice." Source | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
Dover MP Charlie Elphicke has had the Conservative party whip suspended after serious allegations that have been referred to the police, Tory chief whip Julian Smith said. Elphicke has represented the south coast seat since 2010 and is a member of the Commons Treasury select committee. Smith, who has only been in the job for a day after a mini-reshuffle, said in a statement: “I have suspended the Conservative party whip from Charlie Elphicke MP following serious allegations that have been referred to the police.” Elphicke denied any wrongdoing Another one goes. I wonder how big this will get, and what's really going on in the tory party right now. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On November 03 2017 22:52 FuzzyJAM wrote: It's depressing that "left wing" Corbyn isn't committed to massive cutbacks in military spending. It's such an unbearable waste. There is no alternative to British imperialism currently. He's at least against trident (without explicitly saying it since the last political debates were from seniors demanding that there be a situation where he would nuke someone)... | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On November 04 2017 07:48 MyTHicaL wrote: He's at least against trident (without explicitly saying it since the last political debates were from seniors demanding that there be a situation where he would nuke someone)... Yet Labour is explicitly pro-NATO, a nuclear alliance. So it's just NIMBYism, which is the most pathetic form of self-serving moralising. We'll have nuclear protection, but we'll take the moral high ground by pretending we're anti-nuclear. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On November 05 2017 06:46 sc-darkness wrote: How come UK's everyday banking is free? Who pays for it? Shops and businesses? I always assumed it was because the banks use your capital make money by lending out via mortgages and playing markets. Completely biased and may not be nearly true. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8272 Posts
On November 05 2017 06:46 sc-darkness wrote: How come UK's everyday banking is free? Who pays for it? Shops and businesses? Banks make money off of a variety of ways. You might notice how when you take up a loan you're paying a rather hefty interest. They also tend to invest a lot of the money they have. The more money they have to invest the more they can make. So in a sense you are not the customer, you are the product. Taking money from every day transactions just work against their interests, which are to have as many people as possible leave their money at your bank and not someone else's. Which is why I'm dumbfounded that banks in America still does this (from what I've heard. I don't live there, please correct me if I'm wrong). | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11933 Posts
My guess is that that has something to do with how low the interest rates are nowadays. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On November 05 2017 08:33 MoonfireSpam wrote: I always assumed it was because the banks use your capital make money by lending out via mortgages and playing markets. Completely biased and may not be nearly true. Well, this is what I thought as well. However, my home country seems to charge debit card holders for every transaction. Also, there is a monthly fee. I pay for none of these things in the UK so I find it odd. It's like such banks force you to withdraw most or all of your salary to reduce costs, but then they're the bigger losers because they have less money to invest with. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On November 05 2017 09:41 sc-darkness wrote: Well, this is what I thought as well. However, my home country seems to charge debit card holders for every transaction. Also, there is a monthly fee. I pay for none of these things in the UK so I find it odd. It's like such banks force you to withdraw most or all of your salary to reduce costs, but then they're the bigger losers because they have less money to invest with. lol.where to begin.... | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-41879690 | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
On November 06 2017 04:59 sc-darkness wrote: After Panama Papers, we have Paradise Papers. Basically, another tax offshore scandal. This time focus is on the queen's investments. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-41879690 Every time these leaks happen the rich just laugh harder and still don't fix the system because it would be against their interests. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On November 06 2017 05:22 Jockmcplop wrote: Every time these leaks happen the rich just laugh harder and still don't fix the system because it would be against their interests. It's a shame because left and right wing can unite here to oppose offshores. We all pay taxes. That's what we have in common. | ||
| ||
