Mark Connolly Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 On 25/05/2017 at 07:31, Ned Nederlander said: Anyone able to decipher this from Ruth: I see one of the early replies is from a former resident of this parish... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 7 hours ago, Mark Connolly said: I see one of the early replies is from a former resident of this parish... I know he was pretty incoherent by the time he got punted from here, but that literally looks like he stopped to bash his face off the keyboard mid-Tweet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Former? Here he is stealing virginton's patter. He's watching us now.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue-Toon Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Future PM? FFS. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546796/JAN-MOIR-speaks-potential-future-PM-Ruth-Davidson.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Strong personal growth from Jan Moir to go from blaming a gay man's lifestyle for his death to endorsing a lesbian as a future prime minister. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Future PM? FFS.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546796/JAN-MOIR-speaks-potential-future-PM-Ruth-Davidson.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Your Own Socks Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Davidson on Sunday Politics. Now she deluded by her own self-importance she continues to ignore the will of the Scottish Parliament by saying the Government has no mandate for a referendum. Never seen Gordon Brewer looking so angry. She's all over the shop. Can't keep the lies straight. Just like her boss.And apparently only 'young girls' died at Manchester. She's an abomination of human being. I hope her Scottish contingent get absolutely battered at the election. The question I want to hear is will she consider her position if there are no Tories from Scotland at Westminster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said: Davidson on Sunday Politics. Now she deluded by her own self-importance she continues to ignore the will of the Scottish Parliament by saying the Government has no mandate for a referendum. Never seen Gordon Brewer looking so angry. She's all over the shop. Can't keep the lies straight. Just like her boss. And apparently only 'young girls' died at Manchester. She's an abomination of human being. I hope her Scottish contingent get absolutely battered at the election. The question I want to hear is will she consider her position if there are no Tories from Scotland at Westminster. Apparently there is "no support" for an independence referendum in Scotland. None. Nada. Zero. They continue to get away with claims of this type by our media, primarily the BBC. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapelhall chap Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Ruth Davidson said today, in discussing a possible review on the ground operation of the 2 children benefit cap( Rape Clause) that this was not about Child Benefit because there were no limits to what families get in Child Benefit, 'even to the 10th Child'. She appears to be unaware of the 2102 changes by George Osborne to the Child benefit scheme which I have set out below. Another one of her lies? Child Benefit The 2012 Budget: Chancellor George Osborne announced an amended plan to steadily withdraw child benefit from families where one parent earns more than £50,000. In detail, the benefit received will be recouped gradually as the income of the highest earning parent rises above £50,000, with the child benefit being eroded completely once their income is £60,000 or more. This change came into effect on 7 January 2013. It is called :Child Benefit High Income charge rather than Means tested. If one of the parents earns more than £60,000, they may choose to stop claiming child benefit, or persuade their partner to do so, and save the tax authority the trouble of getting it back. If they or their partner keeps claiming it, then the higher earner will have to admit this in a self-assessment tax form. Then, HMRC will tax the high earner on the child benefit which they, or their partner, claims. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Chapelhall chap said: Ruth Davidson said today, in discussing a possible review on the ground operation of the 2 children benefit cap( Rape Clause) that this was not about Child Benefit because there were no limits to what families get in Child Benefit, 'even to the 10th Child'. She appears to be unaware of the 2102 changes by George Osborne to the Child benefit scheme which I have set out below. Another one of her lies? Child Benefit The 2012 Budget: Chancellor George Osborne announced an amended plan to steadily withdraw child benefit from families where one parent earns more than £50,000. In detail, the benefit received will be recouped gradually as the income of the highest earning parent rises above £50,000, with the child benefit being eroded completely once their income is £60,000 or more. This change came into effect on 7 January 2013. It is called :Child Benefit High Income charge rather than Means tested. If one of the parents earns more than £60,000, they may choose to stop claiming child benefit, or persuade their partner to do so, and save the tax authority the trouble of getting it back. If they or their partner keeps claiming it, then the higher earner will have to admit this in a self-assessment tax form. Then, HMRC will tax the high earner on the child benefit which they, or their partner, claims. 2102 Changes? No current claimants will be eligible for Child Benefit then. More seriously, she didn't actually lie. My wife received the letter from DWP that makes it clear that you are still entitled to CB regardless of income and that you may wish not to claim it. So technically she is correct but in practise I am sure most people with sufficiently high earnings won't claim and then repay through their Self Assessment. Incidentally, I cannot see that anyone can think that the state should be providing a bounty to parents where one earns over £60,000. There are far better uses for this money. Edited May 29, 2017 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 A wee split in the Tory ranks. Davidson obviously sees herself as better than May though TBH that bar aint set very high. The Tory leaflets I've received don't mention May at all but call for a 'vote for Ruth Davidson's Conservative Party'. As if she has any power in Westminster. https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/05/29/ruth-davidson-continues-to-split-the-tories-over-the-winter-fuel-allowance-and-may-damage-their-vote-hopefully/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Wee Ruth needs reminded of this. What changed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Maybe someone could phone 'Call Kaye' and ask her.Oops,she's made like her boss and disappeared. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Craig Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 It looks like there could be a bit of a comeback up here for the Tories. Shame a lot of thickos were deterred after Nicky Ridley's poll tax and the rest of it. Then there were the idiots that fell into Blair's trap. Sooner The SNP return to being a wasted vote the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 It looks like there could be a bit of a comeback up here for the Tories. Shame a lot of thickos were deterred after Nicky Ridley's poll tax and the rest of it. Then there were the idiots that fell into Blair's trap. Sooner The SNP return to being a wasted vote the better. You've been waiting since 2015 to tell us the SNP are on the way out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Craig Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Just now, mjw said: You've been waiting since 2015 to tell us the SNP are on the way out? If brains were taxable you'd get a rebate son. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 son. Yer Da activates his sleeper account. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapelhall chap Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 59 minutes ago, strichener said: More seriously, she didn't actually lie. I did have a question mark in my comment so I can see where you are coming from. It all depends on what you mean by "actually". If you did have 10 children and did have 50 thousand plus. it effectively takes away that child benefit amount from that family in increased taxation. The debate on whether all children should be supported by a universal benefit from the State is for another day. I used to argue for a means tested Child benefit but like ruth on the Winter Fuel benefit I have changed my mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, Chapelhall chap said: I did have a question mark in my comment so I can see where you are coming from. It all depends on what you mean by "actually". If you did have 10 children and did have 50 thousand plus. it effectively takes away that child benefit amount from that family in increased taxation. The debate on whether all children should be supported by a universal benefit from the State is for another day. I used to argue for a means tested Child benefit but like ruth on the Winter Fuel benefit I have changed my mind. 10 children do not come about by accident! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 17 minutes ago, strichener said: 10 children do not come about by accident! Doesn't it mostly come about by religion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.