by the way i have asked several times and not got an answer, are the government lending or giving them money? or not?

such a fatuous comment, I dont want pollution any more than you do, I just dont believe that there is an easy route to nationalisation, and, as someone who was around in the 70s, I am not fully convinced it would be better without 10s of billions putting into it, and that isnt easy to find!

it would depend on her age of course
she could complain but parents are reluctant to do that because they feel their child might be picked on.
It is certainly worth mentioning any time Ofsted inspect and ask for parents comments

arent there daily and weekly tickets? but they wouldnt be going to work, would they?
If they were going to work their income would be more than the £98 UC
It is not pointless to point out when figures seem to be wrong.
My wife and I manage to feed 2 of us for around £55 pw

Actually if modern politics has shown us anything a party needs a leader who is charismatic and a team behind them to deliver on policy

i think it still does, whether schools, especially academy schools, adhere to it is another matter

Oh, and WiFi at £8 pw, £34 per month seems a little high
That doesnt detract from the fact that £98 is not a lot of money but UC was designed as a top up not a living benefit

I like to keep clean but I dont spend £13 a week on toiletries etc or £7 on clothes
I would also question £21 on transport?

Labour introduced the 30 limit for infants (5-7) in 1998

Who knew?
Specifically, given all the info we have seen from civil servants what evidence is there that mandelson actually failed the vetting?
I felt it was much more nebulous than that

We arent giving money to foreign companies, they buy shares, the same way Walmart did with asda
I agree ofwat seems to be ineffectual, please explain how nationalising water would change that
You didnt answer my question, when has the govt given or lent them money?
I dont have shares in water

I think some MPs were happy to get elected thinking that parts of the manifesto would not be implemented and now find that KS is intent on fulfilling all of it
Others just wanted the comfort of the party name thinking they could do as they liked afterwards

I dont think he has the same charisma as carney
It should also be remembered that Carney has only just got a majority, lets see if he is as popular when he starts passing legislation which is solely his

he clearly has another holiday planned and needs some idiots to pay for it.

wasnt that last year?

fine by me, you clearly have no regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty and are more than willing to be judge and jury
bye

there are no charges which accuse Netanyahu of being a war criminal

no, they wouldnt. The state has its own identity as do the individuals, its an important point in law

he cant be a criminal if he hasnt been convicted

The state of Israel have against a charge against the state
Do you agree that there has been no case heard against herzog and Netanyahu?

Israel has presented no evidence in defence of Netanyahu being a war criminal because no such charge has been made
It would be difficult for you to have read evidence which does not exist
The same would apply to herzog who you have definitely stated is a war criminal, have you not?

No, my argument is simple and hasn't changed
Netanyahu and/or Israel have not been convicted of war crimes and until they do they are innocent
Your view is that you think you have seen enough evidence for you to say they have committed war crimes and you dont need a court to decide for you

He would have needed to have included it in the manifesto
That would have reduced the majority, possibly even prevented them being in power
It isnt practical while Reform lead the polls

There is no UK carney!

It isnt
It crippled Blair when he said he wouldnt do a 4th term
If starmer did that every candidate to replace him would start their campaign immediately
I dont agree that he can't lead us into the next election either
Reform were at 35% last year, a long way above where they are now

Its enough for me

I havent accused you of that, I have stated that you have judged them to be guilty in the evidence you have seen, but that is not all the evidence available

No i havent because I dont believe I have lied about you
You have literally decided that israel is guilty of war crimes without seeing ALL the evidence, for and against
It doesnt matter if I know what evidence you have, it is enough for you to say they are guilty, isnt it?

No, i dont
You claim to have seen enough evidence to convict them but you wont have seen a defence because they havent issued one, based on the fact that they have yet to appear in court
The simple fact is that you have seen some evidence and decided they are guilty

I havent lied about you but, equally, I dont really care if you think i have