Arlene stuffs one up Wee Jimmie Krankie

[cajal]

Because it is secured outside of the Barnett Formula the DUP have trousered an extra £1Bn which the SNP and whoever runs Wales will not be eligible for.

That will teach the SNP to hold behind closed door talks with the DUP after the 2015 general election. Oh, and for the record this is the self same DUP that Labour held behind closed doors talks with following the 2010 and 2015 general election and guess which side told whom to f*ck off?

All the lefties need to catch yourself on (NI speak) 

[woolybanana]

Yeahhhhh

[lindal1000]

So there is a magic moneytree after all. Another lie from TM.

[woolybanana]

Both Wales and Wee Willie Crankie have been screwing the UK for years, now it is the turn of Northern Ireland. Imagine what the Scotch would have demanded for a coalition with Jeremy Love All Terrorists Corbyn.

[cajal]

[quote user="lindal1000"]So there is a magic moneytree after all. Another lie from TM.[/quote]

£1Bn. And over 2 years. So that's just 0.5% of the last

Labour government's annual DEFICIT. And just 1% of what Corbyn was promising

to spend. Barely a magic moneytwiglet.

[richard51]

Is this the alternative fact thread for the right wing yobs wanting to "stuff one up".

"Both Wales and Wee Willie Crankie have been screwing the UK for years, now it is the turn of Northern Ireland."

Just what is your definition of the UK? I thought that it included those areas.

Slightly amused by the bit in the agreement that payments to farmers in NI will remain the same for the 2 years. IMhumbleO one of the reforms needed in the EU is the removal of the common agricultural policy and the obscene payments to farmers. I suspect that if you are not a farmer then you would agree - less taxes to pay.

Oh the lovely god of money!!

[Blodwyn]

I don't know where that stat comes from, but I have a feeling it's utter rubbish!

[woolybanana]

Oh dear, Richard51, you misunderstand me again; my point is that it is not unusual for the parts (or one or more) of the whole to screw the whole. In this case the Scots have been getting more than their share of the pie for quite a long time, money largely generated from London and the SE, money that they have spent more than freely, besides borrowing themselves into oblivion, probably hoping that the whole will bail them out in the end.

If London loses a significant part of banking to wherever in Brexit, there will be a much smaller pie to share, something the Scots Nats seem to have forgotten.

[cajal]

[quote user="richard51"]Is this the alternative fact thread for the right wing yobs wanting to "stuff one up". [/quote]

Oih!  If I find you or anyone refering to me as right wing again I will press the 'Report' button, something I have never ever done before, on the grounds of derogatory, inflammatory and insulting language against a fellow poster.

[NormanH]

I wonder what those Scots who voted Conservative think now?

And whether Ms. Davidson  and  the others will meekly accept voting to support Mrs. May without flexing the power of their group?

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/people/general-election-candidates/

[richard51]

And if there are any right-wing money lovers who seem to think that 1 billion is a good deal - alienating the Republic of Ireland is not a good idea - UK trade surplus with them is, I understand, about 1 billion per week!

[NormanH]

And as I quoted on another thread:

"The Tories’ Ulster spending spree should embolden all of us who always believed austerity was an ideologically driven con. On Saturday, thousands will march with the People’s Assembly to demand the end of the failed Tory experiment. The Tories have legitimised their arguments. Austerity is over for Northern Ireland, it’s over for the Queen, and now it must end for everybody else too."

[woolybanana]

My understanding is that the money given to the Queen stems from good investing and management and not from the taxpayer and is largely for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace which building is NOT hers but belongs to the State. As such she is a council tenant. One hopes it has been tested for asbestos and Dodgers cladding.

The People's Assembly is just an excuse for loud mouthed, left wing, rabble rousers to try and get their way through shouting, screaming and intimidation instead of the democratic process which they do not believe in.

Austerity with all its faults, is a way of trying to stop the nation going bankrupt and to bring the percentage of the State's take under control and to spend money carefully and responsibly. Unlike Gordon Brown who chucked it around like confetti. Corbyn would be worse, much much worse.

[richard51]

"My understanding is that the money given to the Queen stems from good investing and management and not from the taxpayer and is largely for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace which building is NOT hers but belongs to the State."

So the state owns it and should take the profits. So why does that make the queen and hangers on entitled to any of this money. And before we get the raving looney royalists (seems appropriate to be extreme) rabble rousers saying how she is economically wonderful for the country, the money comes from tourists looking at the heritage of the country not her or her family. Shows like the recent opening of parliament are absolutely ridiculous in this age.

You are rather wrong about the Peoples Assembly:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-the-peoples-assembly-can-challenge-our-suffocating-political-consensus-and-why-its-vital-that-we-8547507.html

[NormanH]

[URL=http://s253.photobucket.com/user/bfb_album/media/19510576_472127173132675_5217371238694745918_n_zpscfgmbqjh.jpg.html][IMG]http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh80/bfb_album/19510576_472127173132675_5217371238694745918_n_zpscfgmbqjh.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[mint]

[quote user="richard51"]"My understanding is that the money given to the Queen stems from good investing and management and not from the taxpayer and is largely for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace which building is NOT hers but belongs to the State."

So the state owns it and should take the profits. So why does that make the queen and hangers on entitled to any of this money. And before we get the raving looney royalists (seems appropriate to be extreme) rabble rousers saying how she is economically wonderful for the country, the money comes from tourists looking at the heritage of the country not her or her family. Shows like the recent opening of parliament are absolutely ridiculous in this age.

You are rather wrong about the Peoples Assembly:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-the-peoples-assembly-can-challenge-our-suffocating-political-consensus-and-why-its-vital-that-we-8547507.html[/quote]

Well, if she doesn't own it, how come she can live in it whenever she wants and all the parts she lives in are not open to the public and paying tourists?

So, let me use my slow brain to try and work this out:  the queen doesn't pay for repairs because the building is owned by the state but although it is not hers, the public do not get use of it and I believe that they even have to pay to enter those parts of it that she has no use for?

Er.............have I missed anything?[8-)]

[woolybanana]

To the best of my knowledge, she only lives in a small part; some of it is open to the public regularly or occasionally, some of it is used for State occasions.

Turning it into council flats would not do it any good as those buildings are quite fragile.

Strangely, Richard, I do find the ceremonial a bit dated but then it serves as a framework for politicians to function without cutting each other's throats and without turning to the mob rule that Corbyn and MaDonnell are advocating.

Seen too much of that, where discussion is shouted and it is the rule of the thug; no thank you very much.

[richard51]

Mint - your assessment is correct.

"Royal Palaces including Buckingham are owned by the Crown Estate and made available to the monarch in the same way that 10 Downing Street is the residence of the current Prime Minister.

The Crown Estate also owns Windsor Castle and Clarence House, as well as London’s Regent Street and all of the UK’s seabed.

The Queen receives an annual grant worth 15% of the Estate’s profits. This year, she received £43 million, while the Treasury was paid £301.4 million.

Mer Majesty privately owns Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House."

The above text is from a newspaper I am too ashamed to name!! The Crown estate can be classed as a bit of a tax fiddle for the royals.

This shows how silly and irrelevant the concept of royalty is in this day and age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown

[woolybanana]

Not sure how it is a fiddle; I think she now pays income tax too, doesn't she?

She spends how much on buildings and wages and her duties? It is not as if she chucks it around at the tables in Monte or at the annual TUC conference!

That being said, some younger Royals should get a bloody job or carry out duties. Which, to be fair, is what Charles has said he wants if and when he takes over. And, if they wanna drop out and lead normal lives, why not.

She is still a much better bet than having a President - eg President Blair, or Corbyn - not worthy of the office. Just imagine President Mitterand, a Na zi collaborator, or Hollande, riding round London on a scooter to see his mistress.

[richard51]

Wow wb - as if royalty in the UK both past and present haven't have mistresses and also they do enjoy excessive lifestyles.

[richard51]

Wow wb - as if royalty in the UK both past and present haven't have mistresses and also they do enjoy excessive lifestyles.

[richard51]

Rather a timely article here::

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-pay-rise-royal-public-funds-buckingham-palace-sovereign-grant-royal-family-crown-a7809716.html

[mint]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Not sure how it is a fiddle; I think she now pays income tax too, doesn't she?

She spends how much on buildings and wages and her duties? It is not as if she chucks it around at the tables in Monte or at the annual TUC conference!

That being said, some younger Royals should get a bloody job or carry out duties. Which, to be fair, is what Charles has said he wants if and when he takes over. And, if they wanna drop out and lead normal lives, why not.

She is still a much better bet than having a President - eg President Blair, or Corbyn - not worthy of the office. Just imagine President Mitterand, a Na zi collaborator, or Hollande, riding round London on a scooter to see his mistress.[/quote]

Now, Wools, you are being a very silly banana and are comparing oranges and pears..........in fact, all that sounds like a fruit salad.

Presidents have a job of work to do, a REAL job, they run the country.  The queen, OTOH, is merely a figurehead and a very expensive model for a stamp.  She has no political power and, apart from riding in carriages, cutting ribbons, unveiling plagues, etc, she does not do anything that could be remotely deemed to be essential.  Everything she does is ceremonial , more Ruritania than Real Life.

That's fine for those who believe in the Tooth Fairy.  That is also a naive belief and more or less harmless and children generally grow up and forget such foolishness.

Even more crucially, presidents are ELECTED and can, as Hollande knows only too well, be UNELECTED at the drop of a vote.  They do not, generally speaking, stay in office for life and they cannot simply pass that office to their children and grandchildren through generations regardless of whether those descendants are temperamentally suited or not to wearing crowns, cutting ribbons, reading speeches prepared by others, etc.

No comparison, dear Wooly..............even Trump was officially elected by the people and the same people can get rid of him if they no longer like what he does.

[richard51]

Mint - I gather that you are a republican.

[Grecian]

The queen, OTOH, is merely a figurehead and a very expensive model for a stamp.

[:D] [:)] [:D]