so..
 

so i see the 1p cut in fuel didnt last long its up 3p since the 1p cut and thats not mentioning the stations that didnt put the 1p cut into effect

what a joke this government is.They have allowed insurance companies to run rampent with unjustifyable increases in prices and allowed fuel prices to soar out of control.

food prices are also soaring because of this yet the government sits back and does nothing to ease the burden on the people of the uk but is quite willing to pour billions into other countries in aid and stick its nose into another war

is it just me that sees a problem with this ?

Re: so..
 

no i see a problem wi it, but they were voted in n joined by the weasels, so thats end of, simple.:(

Re: so..
 

im sure cameron is setting out to destroy this country

massive cuts to police that are overstretched as it is

crippling industry with huge fuel prices

increasing vat

cuts to defence yet getting involved in more war

blowing all the money saved by cuts on other countries

borrowing even more money to give away to other countries

this guy is clearly off his rocker

Re: so..
 

Massive cuts to police - err, the recent report that the 300million was bing met through increased effciency means that they have effectively wasted 300 million a year for god knows how long, being a public body there is little drive to run as efficiently as a private company where costs reduce profits. what I see here is that they have finally had to have a good look and have met a 300million cut there is probably a lot more in there as well.

what the real issue shows itself as is too much paperwork and too many levels of management and not enough bobbies on the beat.

Re: so..
 

How the hell can Cameron destroy this country it was already a basket case when he took over thanks to Messrs Blair Brown and Darling, who quite frankly couldn't run a bath between them

Re: so..
 

Oh no not again............................................. ....................................

Re: so..
 

I have to say jaysay that the present occupants of downing street dont seem to have much idea either, just for example the health ministers answers to the nurses seem a little vague on what is his plan for the national health service after all, the main answers seemed to be" i dont know yet" which doesnt bode well, me thinks. Just to balance things out though i thought the last lot were a set of pillocks as well:)

Re: so..
 

i havnt said labour havnt done any dammage but to gain power and put us through such drastic cuts only to give the money saved away and then borrow more money to give away rather than keep the UK in order and on its way to recovery is just plain stupid

what cameron is doing is the equivalent of me watching my family go without while i take out a bank loan and give it away to a stranger in the street.

perhaps if money saved from cuts was kept within the uk or at least paid the uk's debts off the cuts would be easier to stomach but to get further into debt borrowing more money and giving it to countries that either dont need it or will never pay it back is stupid

Re: so..
 

Labour had already admitted that they would have made cuts if they'd got back into office - perhaps not as deep and fast as the Con/Dems, but cuts nevertheless.

As for overseas aid, there's no way Labour would have cut that, as helping underdeveloped countries is a sacred tenet of the party. Why do you think all the Labour party members go very quiet when the subject is brought up on here (with the exception of Ken who's a loose cannon anyway).

So Labour would've been doing just the same thing if they were in power - borrowing money to give away. They just wouldn't have gone to such extreme lengths.

Re: so..
 

not particularly bothered what labour would or would not have done they are not in power.My concern is with who is in power making the cock up and if labour were in power doing the same i would be complaining at balls not cameron.Unlike some i am not blinded by faith to a party infact i dont care which is in power if they are doing somthing stupid i will call them for it just like i call blair a war criminal and nothing more than bushes bitch but thats a different topic

whoever is in power needs to grow a set of balls and pull the plug on dishing out money we cant afford to give away so government can take care of the people of its own country first.When times are good then help with what we can and when times are bad like they are now then withdraw the help.Seriously it isnt rocket science and no degree in finance is needed to know that throwing good money after bad never works:rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

I agree with Accyman even if that seems quite at odds, we do spend far too much money outside of this country when people here need that support. I read that the amount spent on fighting teh drug trade is 2x what it would cost to actually buy teh whole output of afghanistan ( where 90% of UK heroin comes from) and destroy it (or controversially give it away in controlled centres, if you want it and can get it for nowt why bother stealing/mugging/etc ).

The war in Iraq/Afghanistan costs enough that we could make a massive cut in the tax on Petrol/diesel and still be in pocket.

Yes, when we can afford it lets do what we can, when times are tough you cut your cloth accordingly and right now times ARE tough and need to be to fix the excess that people have enjoyed on borrowed money for the last 10 years.

Re: so..
 

The only reason we're giving money away to other countries is because the last shower signed up to it when they knew they were being tossed out on their backsides, but why let the truth get in the way

Re: so..
 

So before that,we have never given money away, even back when many were in negative equity? but why let the truth get in the way.:rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

I'm talking about the nations who signed up to the Euro, who are now going tits up, we had more sense, the only good think Brown did really, but why sign up to paying money to those in the Euro Zone when its sod all to do with use.

Re: so..
 

and people are mindreaders? yer only NOW mentioned that as a get outa jail card.:D

Re: so..
 

Always handy to have which any player of Monopoly will tell you:D:p

Our Government pay £43m per day to the EU. We pay the most in and get the lease out. Remember the Cumbrian floods last year? I don't remember anybody from any EU member states putting their hands in the pockets to help us.

Yet the floods in Pakistan we fell over ourselves to send aid over and Cameron visited Pakistan to gave their Prime minister £50m for their schools.

In this country people are struggling to make ends meet, losing their houses through repossession because of job loses.

Just the other day I saw a video on the Guardian website via Facebook about the way the Job Centres easily stop people's benefits because they get awards for meeting targets for stopping benefits because somebody might have problems filling in their job diary, or they refused a job because it would leave them worse off.

Is it any wonder that the BNP and the EDL are rising to prominace?

I predict a civil war or an uprising because we are sick of this country being raped for money.

Sent from my ZTE-BLADE using Tapatalk

Re: so..
 

Oh boy another numpty, yeh aint picking my lottery numbers.:rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

Could just be an idea if you would point out just how much we are paying interest on the money borrowed by the last incumbent of Downing Street, think its now risen to £45 billion a year and rising by over £100,000,000 a day and remember we get sweet FA for that its all going down the toilet

Re: so..
 

fair point but this lot are still borrowing money so thats even more interest been paid and instead of using it to help us they are giving it away.

if the government must borrow more money shouldnt it at least be for our benefit and not some other countires.

were giving away money to pakistan school projects yet a report released yesterday shows that child poverty is increasing in this country with children turnig up to school hungry and in tatty clothes because their parents are struggling to feed them and clothe them.Why is pakistans school problems any concern of ours when there are so many schools in the uk that could do with repairs,new eqiptment etc

a local hospice in blackburn is having to beg for money to get a new roof for gods sake.There is so much needs fixing in this country before giving money out to other countries and people are getting sick and fed up of seeing millions going out that will never be paid back.

no matter what the last goverment did or did not do it is this goverments job to fix it and it dosnt seem to be doing a good job of it.All we are seeing is savage cuts to OUR services and increasing prices on everything from fuel to food which only appear to be benefiting others not us

Re: so..
 

Why are we giving £9.3 billion a year to the EU (up from £5.3 billion in 2009)? Why are we preparing to give yet more billions to bail out Portugal in a vain effort to rescue the Euro - a currency which we are not part of?

Madness...sheer madness. :confused:

Re: so..
 

could somone explain what punishment we would recieve from the EU if we told them to sod off and refused to give money away until we were in a position to do so.France have been sticking 2 finger sup at the EU for years and they seem to be getting away with it so why cant we.

to be honest it appears on tghe face of it that the EU needs us more than we need it.

lets not forget we aqre also giving millions away to countries that are not part of the EU so whats obliging us to give money to them?

Re: so..
 

All government HAVE to borrow money because the tax revenue is collected retrospective, in other words they can't spend it before you make it, but there's a difference between borrowing for need and borrowing for stupidity, I mean lets face it on top of the £43 billion interest we also have £60 billion in PFI still to be paid for, and all the other schemes that the last government signed up to without sound financial planning its a nightmare. But its absolutely amazing that after ten months out of office Labour seem to have all the answers, just a pity they didn't have them for the 13 years they were in a position to implement them

Re: so..
 

Sadly, no prospect of that from a gutless poor man's Blair like Cameron. We'll just meekly pay up on the orders of our unelectable, unaccountable leaders in Brussels.

Incidentally, perhaps some of our resident Euro-enthusiasts like Bernard and Claytonender could tell us why it's such a good idea to spend billions of pounds bailing Portugal out in order to save the Euro?

Sssshhhh... ;)

Re: so..
 

If they're to busy to answer I will because days before leaving office Darling signed up to it.;)

Re: so..
 

13 years of a Labour Government eh?

Well we live and learn don't we?

The time seemed to go so quickly.

Thank you for such a refreshing revelation Jaysay.

Now if you don't mind, in future if I want repeats I'll watch Dave or Gold, surely unlike them you can think of something new to say?

:rolleyes:;):D

Re: so..
 

Can't do with the really old ones Less, the relatively new ones are more apt and definitely to the point, which nobody should really forget:D

Re: so..
 

If I had a spare 13 years I could probably work out what on earth you mean, but I haven't so the above will forever remain a mystery to me.
Think I'll go the Railway instead.:)

Re: so..
 

Less, its called baffle um wi science, have one for me, wish I was coming with ya:D

Re: so..
 

It seemed more like clutching at straws to me, pure B.S.
:)

I'll have one for you but you'll have to pay and yes, I do accept PayPal.
:D

Re: so..
 

Ya never know Less I may just surprise ya one day and call in, in person, do they take Visa in the Railway:D

Re: so..
 

lol jaysay you woule make a terrible DJ....

you never change the record :D

sory pal couldnt resist :)

Re: so..
 

Ya know me accyman, I have my favorite music and keep playing it, works for me:D

Re: so..
 

just dont start dancing lol

Re: so..
 

I've only ever danced to the right tune Accyman;)

Re: so..
 

you nowe what they are like,but they have no money for anything else

Re: so..
 

So, we're enduring massive cuts which are really affecting our standards of living, while Cameron and his cronies are squandering our money on...

...a 37% increase in foreign aid, much of which is going to countries who spend large amounts on weapons and even in India's case, the space race.

...increasing involvement in yet another bout of foreign adventurism in Libya which has cost £25 million so far with no end in sight.

...the possibility of donating billions to an aid package for Portugal - a country which has failed to introduce its own programme of austerity cuts of the sort that we are having to endure. And before anyone starts bleating about Darling having signed up to the agreement, the Tories' own leader in the EU parliament has said that the government could contest our commitment to this both politically and legally. The fact is Cameron is more concerned about maintaining good relations with Brussels than he is with the welfare of the British people.

But we're not finished yet, far from it. While preaching austerity, the government is endlessly inventive in the ways it finds to squander our money abroad. How about this piece of lunacy?

EU 'wastes billions in aid' - Telegraph

Are YOU happy that £1.4 billion of your hard-earned taxes are being spent like this?

Re: so..
 

It's costing £40,000.00 per night, or £1.2 million pounds per month, just to accommodate British troops in 4 star Italian hotels.

This figure would have been zero, if Cameron hadn't axed the Ark Royal.

£ 1.2M A Month For RAF To Stay In Italian Hotels - UK's #1 Community: Navy, Marines, Army, RAF

Re: so..
 

...and now we're going to have to pay even more to the EU!

British taxpayers face £600m bill as EU defies Cameron's calls for austerity - Telegraph

Time to show some bottle, Cameron (but I won't hold my breath). :rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

So the Ark cost nowt to run then did it Rindy?

I'm pretty sure that with fuel and upkeep it was probably not far off that figure itself.

Re: so..
 

Whist running the "Ark" would be expensive no doubt, i'm pretty sure it can't be as much as that.

Re: so..
 

Quietly amazing! One for, one against but both having 'pretty sure' guesses, no facts, no figures, if only the rest of us could have such certain speculation.
:)

Re: so..
 

Unlikely yeh have to be stupid to do that.:D

Re: so..
 

Thanks Less for the prompt, I was a little busy at the time of posting so I thought I'd do a little research.

According to Mr Robathan, Minster of defence and this document

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...vFt8dNhoLAIObg

the cost of running the Ark was 105 million for 4 years so Rindys post quoting 1.2 million a month x 48 = 57.6 million or just under half the running cost of the Ark at full operational capacity, now we know that just parking it in a dock and running it would be less but by how much? I dont think anyone will be able to provide such costings so it will always be a mute point but the point remains valid that it would not be "free".

Re: so..
 

Whatever the cost I think the main difference is that you can't transport troops or carry aircraft in Italian hotels :rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

Valid enough point, plus there's also the security aspect. A carrier out at sea is far more difficult to get to & attack than a Hotel on the mainland. The Coalition really have dropped a bollock on this one & as to those so called Military advisers, who "Advised" on getting shut of the Ark & her Harriers, they should hang their heads.

As to pricing obviously a carrier & aircraft stationed off shore has got to be more expedient than what is being done now, plus the time on station is degraded due to the distance of a land base & the need to use fuel to get there & back. The article below from a Navy man, who's been there, seen it done it, just quantifies it all.

£ 1.2M A Month For RAF To Stay In Italian Hotels - UK's #1 Community: Navy, Marines, Army, RAF

Re: so..
 

Good thinking, since the Harriers wouldn't be using the full flight deck , part of it could be used as an 'al fresco' halal restaurant , anchored a couple of miles off Benghazi, and no smoking ban it would do a roaring trade , table service provided by 'sensitive' I-Pod wearing ratings who would be happy to re-arrange the Cinzano umbrellas to give you maximum shade.

Pampered pirates: Royal Navy seizes 17 armed Somalis, gives them halal meat and nicotine patches... then sets them free! | Mail Online

Re: so..
 

Exactly.

Some people sound glad our armed forces are under funded, and over stretched.

Probably similar in thinking to the daft sods who'd be pleased when they received a white feather in the post, as they waved their little white flags.

Oh, and to all the blinkered Tory faithful, the costs of keeping our troops in Italian 4 star hotels, was featured in all the heavy weight Sunday papers...all of which have a right-wing political bias.

Some people should stick to showing off.

At least that's something they're good at.

:rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

Cost wise there's no comparisson.

Paying millions to some greasy Iti hotelier, is dead money.

Investing in infrastructure, which could be used in many way, over many years, isn't.

Re: so..
 

Hell, the story's even featured in that well known socialist rag, the Daily Mail.

David Cameron lays down UN action in Libya as rebels flee Gaddafi cluster bombs | Mail Online

In the paper Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, who led the task force during the Falklands War, is inerviewed and he says he has written to armed forces minister Nick Harvey, calling on him to reconsider cuts to the Navy’s budget.

He says the vast costs of running the conflict from a base in Italy prove that scrapping Ark Royal was a false economy.

He's quoted as saying that the political and operational adaptability provided by operating air power from the sea is now starkly clear against the cost of the current operation where six months of land-based RAF operations would cost the order of £1billion, three times the cost of running a carrier plus the Harriers for four whole years.

Re: so..
 

switching back to entwisi profile.....

Re: so..
 

Hang on, At no point have I said that I too wouldn't prefer the Ark and harriers to still be there, what I did say is that there is a cost to accomodate soldiers and you can't just use a headline figure as be all and end all.

even cheaper than the Ark would be tents in a field just like what my Dad had to use whilst out in Ceylon and India during WW2, should they be in tents? is that what I'm saying here? no, just dont go being so led by press and headline figures, theres always 3 sides to every tale....

Re: so..
 

Yes tents would be cheaper.

Most of the military would agree.

Though that nice Mr. Cameron prefers to waste millions on luxury hotels. Not an investment, but dead money, being given to individual Iti hoteliers.

Almost as idiotic as telling us to hug-a-hoodie.

This is the man, to be green, rides a bike, closely followed my his ministiral limousine.

Fool.

Re: so..
 

yeh said twas probably not far off that figure to run the ark, nowt else, what are people to read into that? at no point did yeh say if yeh prefered the ark n harriers to remain in service, in fact yeh still aint.

Re: so..
 

Cameron cocked up.

It's the Tory press who seem angry.

My post wasn't a political one.

Cameron, making a balls up, doesn't suprise me...as it seems to have done with the Tory press.

Re: so..
 

I'll give you just one example of the false economics the government are forcing on this country.. my home was burgled last week in the afternoon..kicked the front door in... the police did turn up and reported this to the council who sent a bloke round to put extra locks on the door and alarmed the windows...unfortunatley the locksmith told me he is out of work next week because of the cut backs.. he will get 3 months wages and then on yer way.

This is happening everyday... the bloke will have to sign on for benifits for his housing and such....he will be earning no money so will pay no tax.... it is madness to have a active policy of creating unemployment... but that has been the tory way for the last 200yrs! :mad:

Re: so..
 

Hope I'm not out of line in asking, just curious , how much did the council bill you for "burgler proofing" your home, and does the Council also povide this service to 'private' home owners/renters :confused: :confused:

Re: so..
 

I don't live in council property and there was no charge.. as far as I know it is (was) a free service to any resident in the Borough, same as some councils liase with the fire prevention and fit smoke alarms.

Re: so..
 

100% correct!

Re: so..
 

200% wrong;)