12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I agree. Would that the Tories did.

LOL yes, the Tories should arrange for more doctors to be trained ????

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

LOL yes, the Tories should arrange for more doctors to be trained ????

It is a funny thought given that for most of their time in office they would rather have returned that money to the wealthy.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It is a funny thought given that for most of their time in office they would rather have returned that money to the wealthy.

As the usual old stereotypical rhetoric keeps being stated . 

The Tory U.K Government has given many Billions of Pounds to poorer people during Covid and they've highly taxed the utility  companies and given that money to the consumers

john terry was mentioned as a replacement for big head

gary lives in wealthy richmond on thames where they never see an assy seeker and there are no camps and never will be ,so he never sees a seeker in his life

25 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

gary lives in wealthy richmond on thames where they never see an assy seeker and there are no camps and never will be ,so he never sees a seeker in his life

Apart from the two he took into his home, obviously.

45 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As the usual old stereotypical rhetoric keeps being stated . 

The Tory U.K Government has given many Billions of Pounds to poorer people during Covid and they've highly taxed the utility  companies and given that money to the consumers

What about pre-covid? What about the years of cutting back on the NHS will lowering taxes on the wealthy?

 

And I would point out that the energy program in absolute terms  benefited a Kensington billionaire with a heated pool in his mansion much more than a poor pensioner huddled in whatever it is that poor pensioners huddle in. 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

 

And I would point out that the energy program in absolute terms  benefited a Kensington billionaire with a heated pool in his mansion much more than a poor pensioner huddled in whatever it is that poor pensioners huddle in. 

 

Those are the two extreme ends of the spectrum , very few people are either rich billionaires or freezing pensioners .

  The general population were given money by the Tories to help with the cost of living crisis .

   Money was taken from the rich shareholders and given to the consumers by the Tories

 

 

Off-topic, troll posts, baiting and bickering posts and replies have been removed.  Continue and face a suspension.

 

Well none of this has blunted Gary Lineker’s marketing value.

 

Blunnies are flying off the shelves:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2023/mar/17/blundstones-on-the-march-gary-linekers-boots-catch-the-eye-once-again

 

Well done Gary. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

And I would point out that the energy program in absolute terms  benefited a Kensington billionaire with a heated pool in his mansion much more than a poor pensioner huddled in whatever it is that poor pensioners huddle in. 

I think what you are referring to is regressive taxes or benefits.   Just like the TV licence in fact that helps to fund the multi millionaire Lineker's salary which costs the billionaire the exact same as it does that poor pensioner who cannot afford to heat their home.  

29 minutes ago, James105 said:

I think what you are referring to is regressive taxes or benefits.   Just like the TV licence in fact that helps to fund the multi millionaire Lineker's salary which costs the billionaire the exact same as it does that poor pensioner who cannot afford to heat their home.  

Pensioners in receipt of income support (that’s poor pensioners) get a free TV license.

 

It was the Tories that cut free TV licenses for pensioners, despite numbers of Tory MOs claiming their TV license on expenses.

 

 

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

I think what you are referring to is regressive taxes or benefits.   Just like the TV licence in fact that helps to fund the multi millionaire Lineker's salary which costs the billionaire the exact same as it does that poor pensioner who cannot afford to heat their home.  

Has anyone ever died or had their health impaired because they didn't have TV service? And for what it's worth, which is not much,  there actually are discounts and even free service available to some pensioners.

 

12 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

Those are the two extreme ends of the spectrum , very few people are either rich billionaires or freezing pensioners .

  The general population were given money by the Tories to help with the cost of living crisis .

   Money was taken from the rich shareholders and given to the consumers by the Tories

Very few? Are you claiming that the numbers of poor pensioners and billionaires are equal?

 

"There are two million pensioners living in poverty in the UK - a figure that has risen sharply over the past year.

A report published this month by the Centre for Ageing Better found there were 200,000 more poor pensioners in 2021. That means nearly one in five now fall below the official poverty threshold."
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-03-24/why-is-pensioner-poverty-on-the-rise

 

Are there really 2 million billionaires in the UK?

 

And does the population of the poor in the UK consist only of pensioners?

 

"How many people are in poverty?
Around one in six people in the UK are in relative low income before housing costs (BHC), rising to around one in five once we account for housing costs (AHC)."
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/

 

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Has anyone ever died or had their health impaired because they didn't have TV service? And for what it's worth, which is not much,  there actually are discounts and even free service available to some pensioners.

 

Recognize faux outrage when you see it.

 

This Government removed almost all free TV licenses and transferred funding of those that remain available to the BBC.

 

There was no outrage from the rightwing when pensioners were stripped of free TV licenses.

 

The Government’s aim is to defund and privatize the BBC. 
 

Much better in the hands of Murdoch, Viscounts Rothermere or such right wing controllers of the media.

 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Very few? Are you claiming that the numbers of poor pensioners and billionaires are equal?

 

That wasn't what I was saying .

What I meant was that millionaires and poor pensioners make up a tiny minority of the population as a whole 

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That wasn't what I was saying .

What I meant was that millionaires and poor pensioners make up a tiny minority of the population as a whole 

Not only is putting them in the same basket misleading, but isn't addressing only the issue of poor pensioners as opposed to al the poor also misleading? Poor pensioners constitute only 15% of those living in poverty.

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not only is putting them in the same basket misleading, but isn't addressing only the issue of poor pensioners as opposed to al the poor also misleading. Poor pensioners constitute only 15% of those living in poverty.

Yeah, living in poverty is classified as  receiving less that 27 000 Pounds per year for a single person in London 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pensioners in receipt of income support (that’s poor pensioners) get a free TV license.

 

It was the Tories that cut free TV licenses for pensioners, despite numbers of Tory MOs claiming their TV license on expenses.

 

 

That only applies to those over 75 and on pension credit, so excludes poor pensioners under 75 and any who do not qualify for pension credit, and it's not just pensioners that are poor that struggle to pay for their heating bills.    All these people are charged the exact same amount as the billionaires which helps to fund multi-millionaire Lineker's salary.   

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Recognize faux outrage when you see it.

 

This Government removed almost all free TV licenses and transferred funding of those that remain available to the BBC.

 

There was no outrage from the rightwing when pensioners were stripped of free TV licenses.

 

The Government’s aim is to defund and privatize the BBC. 
 

Much better in the hands of Murdoch, Viscounts Rothermere or such right wing controllers of the media.

 

Of course there was no outrage as the BBC agreed to continue to provide it for "free" as part of an agreement they signed with the government - they reneged on this. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/bbc-pay-cost-free-tv-licences-over-75s-fee-deal

 

The BBC should be cutting back on services, excessive salaries and stop trying to compete with commercial channels if they do not have enough money.    There is no need for it to be so bloated.

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Of course there was no outrage as the BBC agreed to continue to provide it for "free" as part of an agreement they signed with the government - they reneged on this. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/bbc-pay-cost-free-tv-licences-over-75s-fee-deal

 

The BBC should be cutting back on services, excessive salaries and stop trying to compete with commercial channels if they do not have enough money.    There is no need for it to be so bloated.

I’m sure Murdoch agrees with you.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Recognize faux outrage when you see it.

 

This Government removed almost all free TV licenses and transferred funding of those that remain available to the BBC.

 

There was no outrage from the rightwing when pensioners were stripped of free TV licenses.

 

The Government’s aim is to defund and privatize the BBC. 
 

Much better in the hands of Murdoch, Viscounts Rothermere or such right wing controllers of the media.

 

Does anyone really buy a TV license anymore?

 

A TV licence is only required for using iPlayer and watching live TV. 

 

BBC doesn't have much to offer, what it does have is widely available a short time after broadcasting, and most other channels have catch up. 

 

Sports channels can easily be streamed as can movies.

Anyway, back on topic, it will be good to see Gary and the gang back in the MOTD studio this weekend.

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yeah, living in poverty is classified as  receiving less that 27 000 Pounds per year for a single person in London 

Making stuff up much?

 

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/poverty-thresholds/

 

Let me do the math for you: 52 x276= 14352

And that's for the sector of London where living costs are highest.

In fact the poverty level for a couple living in the most expensive area of London falls well below the figure you claim:  19708 is the correct figure.

Even if you factor in inflation, the number come nowhere near the one that you claimed.

 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Making stuff up much?

 

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/poverty-thresholds/

 

Let me do the math for you: 52 x276= 14352

And that's for the sector of London where living costs are highest.

In fact the poverty level for a couple living in the most expensive area of London falls well below the figure you claim:  19708 is the correct figure.

Even if you factor in inflation, the number come nowhere near the one that you claimed.

 

Your figures are after housing costs.

 

Mac didn't state that. Let's see if he comes back to confirm either way. Your figures, in comparison to his, are inane until he does.

28 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Anyway, back on topic, it will be good to see Gary and the gang back in the MOTD studio this weekend.

To be honest, the lack of commentary during the games was weird. However, I didn't miss the post match punditry.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Your figures are after housing costs.

 

Mac didn't state that. Let's see if he comes back to confirm either way. Your figures, in comparison to his, are inane until he does.

The U.K Government states that any household earning less than 60 % of the median average is considered to be living in poverty

   The average wage in London is about 48 000 Pounds , so 60 % of 48 000 Pounds would be about 27 000 Pounds, which would be living in poverty according to the U.K Gov

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The U.K Government states that any household earning less than 60 % of the median average is considered to be living in poverty

   The average wage in London is about 48 000 Pounds , so 60 % of 48 000 Pounds would be about 27 000 Pounds, which would be living in poverty according to the U.K Gov

So, your figures are gross salary prior to factoring housing costs?

 

26 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The U.K Government states that any household earning less than 60 % of the median average is considered to be living in poverty

   The average wage in London is about 48 000 Pounds , so 60 % of 48 000 Pounds would be about 27 000 Pounds, which would be living in poverty according to the U.K Gov

You are correct, the Government use 60% of median wage, but London has some extremely high earners that would bias the number high, so perhaps mean is a better number, though I would personally prefer Geometric Mean.

 

And there’s the rub, personal preference.

 

So perhaps the Government’s own measure is better, it is after all the measure upon which Government policy is, or at least should be, based.

 

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Making stuff up much?

 

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/poverty-thresholds/

 

Let me do the math for you: 52 x276= 14352

And that's for the sector of London where living costs are highest.

In fact the poverty level for a couple living in the most expensive area of London falls well below the figure you claim:  19708 is the correct figure.

Even if you factor in inflation, the number come nowhere near the one that you claimed.

 

Your figures are After housing costs  (AHC) , my figures where before housing costs 

 

 

"Let me do the math for you: 52 x276= 14352"

 

   Now add to that housing costs , rent money, council taxes and utility bills and the figure would be 27 000 at least .

   Now, please retract the accusation that I was making things up, thanks