Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Warra surprise

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/09/north-of-england-lost-out-on-140bn-for-transport-in-decade-of-deceit-study

 

"The East Midlands fared even worse, with an average of £355 per person spent – less than a third of that received by London."

...and Leicester/shire even more so with it mostly directed to Nottingham and then Derby. So not only are we the poor relations of the midlands were bottom of the pile for England. 

 

It's already well publicised that Leicestershire is the worst funded council in England.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Nice to see Reeves doing a U turn on the winter fuel payments, should never of happened in the first place.

I'm tired of it all to be honest.

 

Hundreds of Labour MP's blindly towed the party line and voted this through.

 

Then it dawned of them just how out of touch they were and incredibly unpopular it was, and faced with losing their place on the gravy train they started to act up.

 

Absolutely pathetic.

 

Reform are in no way what this country needs but there needs to be a radical shakeup in British Politics. 

  • Like 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Nice to see Reeves doing a U turn on the winter fuel payments, should never of happened in the first place.

In principle, means testing the winter fuel payment was a good idea. Multimillionaire Sir Paul McCartney doesn't need us to pay him £300 to afford to have the fire on. And, he's probably in the Bahamas in winter, anyway!

 

However, the threshold was ridiculously low. I am actually surprised the new limit is £35K, I expected lower if/when there was a U-turn.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

In principle, means testing the winter fuel payment was a good idea. Multimillionaire Sir Paul McCartney doesn't need us to pay him £300 to afford to have the fire on. And, he's probably in the Bahamas in winter, anyway!

 

However, the threshold was ridiculously low. I am actually surprised the new limit is £35K, I expected lower if/when there was a U-turn.

Traditionally means testing has cost the tax-payer more than any proposed savings hence it was bought in for all parties.

 

They should have just changed it to 'taxable income' then the richest would be paying 45% back in tax and there would have been no extra costs involved.

  • Like 4
Posted
34 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

In principle, means testing the winter fuel payment was a good idea. Multimillionaire Sir Paul McCartney doesn't need us to pay him £300 to afford to have the fire on. And, he's probably in the Bahamas in winter, anyway!

 

However, the threshold was ridiculously low. I am actually surprised the new limit is £35K, I expected lower if/when there was a U-turn.

Outside of London, I think £35k is ridiculously high

  • Like 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

In principle, means testing the winter fuel payment was a good idea. Multimillionaire Sir Paul McCartney doesn't need us to pay him £300 to afford to have the fire on. And, he's probably in the Bahamas in winter, anyway!

 

However, the threshold was ridiculously low. I am actually surprised the new limit is £35K, I expected lower if/when there was a U-turn.

She could of done this a year ago though and saved all the bad PR. 

  • Like 2
Posted
17 hours ago, Lionator said:

There’s 12 of them who are the epitome of ‘woke’, the nasty lot would love nothing less than seeing them sunk. Did you see Lindsey Graham’s threat, the maniac? 

Dirty Den?

  • Haha 1
Posted

In all honesty, if anyone is surprised by the behaviour of the various goon squads across the US given a free hand by their ochre overlord, then they haven't been paying attention. 

Posted

Hopefully every single one of trumps gang get what they deserve . All lying disgusting hateful people and should all be in prison and that would be a waste of resources on them 

Posted
17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This situation in LA could escalate very badly, very quickly. 

Israel - Iran could be faster ……..

 

Iran’s final position after weeks of talks is to  propose that they will not enrich uranium beyond levels only for reactors if USA force Israel to give up their nukes.  That will obvs terminate the negs and trump may allow Israel to do as they feel is necessary 

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Israel - Iran could be faster ……..

 

Iran’s final position after weeks of talks is to  propose that they will not enrich uranium beyond levels only for reactors if USA force Israel to give up their nukes.  That will obvs terminate the negs and trump may allow Israel to do as they feel is necessary 

 

Well, I don't suppose that Israel can become any more of an international pariah than they already are. But it may be that they might try...

Posted
6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, I don't suppose that Israel can become any more of an international pariah than they already are. But it may be that they might try...

Do you think that there are a lot of govts around the world that would protest if Israel disabled iran’s nuclear missile program (irrespective of what they might say in public)? 

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Do you think that there are a lot of govts around the world that would protest if Israel disabled iran’s nuclear missile program (irrespective of what they might say in public)? 

I think that would depend on the method used and the level of restraint shown in so doing.

 

It's not like the current leadership there appears squeamish in terms of doing what they believe to be necessary no matter the body count, is it?

Edited by leicsmac
Posted
32 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Do you think that there are a lot of govts around the world that would protest if Israel disabled iran’s nuclear missile program (irrespective of what they might say in public)? 

They bombed Iraqs nuclear plant in 1981 and no one gave a shit.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

They bombed Iraqs nuclear plant in 1981 and no one gave a shit.

And they used a very, very sophisticated virus to wreck such a plant again more recently.

 

It really comes down to how discreet and discriminate about it they want to be this time. 

Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And they used a very, very sophisticated virus to wreck such a plant again more recently.

 

It really comes down to how discreet and discriminate about it they want to be this time. 

TBH, I think it comes down to whether they believe iran has a capability to retaliate effectively. They may be raising the stakes diplomatically and verbally to try and convince Iran that they’re not fearful of any response because they have the ability to intercept whatever Iran chucks at them ( when they may not) 

Posted
Just now, st albans fox said:

TBH, I think it comes down to whether they believe iran has a capability to retaliate effectively. They may be raising the stakes diplomatically and verbally to try and convince Iran that they’re not fearful of any response because they have the ability to intercept whatever Iran chucks at them ( when they may not) 

They will always have the Samson Option available to them no matter what, so I don't see why they should fear anything that Iran do short of developing that option themselves.

Posted
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

They will always have the Samson Option available to them no matter what, so I don't see why they should fear anything that Iran do short of developing that option themselves.

don’t see that happening - thinking more about Iran’s hypersonic capability which could be used to destroy all Israel’s airfields/ naval ports. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...