[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's OK, they've only been there for a little while, and haven't yet learned that the correct thing to do to show approval in the commons is bleat like a constipated sheep. "Bleeeerrrrrhhhh, myeeeeerrrr, harrrrrrrrrharrrrharrrr".

Also:

https://www.facebook.com/eric.frew.9...3400609986289/

Speaker has **** all to say about it

Would like to know the context, wide bouts of applause are pretty unprecedented although I know its happened when paying respect to long-standing MPs or Commons staff, Bercow probably only got fed up because the SNP MPs have been doing it since Parliament sat again. Nothing wrong with informing them about a bit of protocol, like he said Bercow is the sort of Speaker who could prove a good friend to the SNP MPs

[Kizzy]

That particular applause was for Charles Walker, the chair of Parliament’s Procedure Committee after he expressed his disdain at his own party, namely Hague and Cameron for trying to oust Mr Bercow.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Jamesy

Completely agree with you there, £23k is still far too much. Although I guess the Conservatives will lower it continually over their time in power, instead of doing one massive cut that could cause a backlash, lowering the limit slowly over 5 years will be a wiser way to approach the issue.

Does that 23,000 include free housing? Because if it does then it's far too much. I would have thought it better to limit child benefirts to just two children, then there would be no point in those people who use children as cash cows having more than two.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

Does that 23,000 include free housing? Because if it does then it's far too much. I would have thought it better to limit child benefirts to just two children, then there would be no point in those people who use children as cash cows having more than two.

No, there is no such thing as "free housing", only housing (council or private) where the rent is paid via benefits, and that is included in the £23k cap.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That particular applause was for Charles Walker, the chair of Parliament’s Procedure Committee after he expressed his disdain at his own party, namely Hague and Cameron for trying to oust Mr Bercow.

Ahh. I wonder why it was OK to clap...

Meh. Either way it's a bit rich when what the commons IS known for, as I said above, is people bleating, jeering, smirking and guffawing like an Eton pirate cosplay.

Cut out the clapping. Fine. It even does my head in on here when people incessantly use that inane clapping smilie. But don't do it in the name of preserving commons etiquette, when commons etiquette is juvenile and ****? If you want to stop it, stop all of it. Not sure why any MP should feel Duty bound to protect current political traditions when it's abundantly clear that the whole toxic mess needs ripping up and starting over.

At the very least I am 100% confident in saying that the people who elected those 56 MPs have very little time for Westminster ceremony and that, therefore, as representatives of those voters, those MPs should feel free to disregard that ceremony.

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Best moment of Queen's Speech day was Big John telling off the SNP thugs for their clapping in the House, shocking disrespect of Commons protocol

Yes SNP have a great deal to learn

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Ahh. I wonder why it was OK to clap...

Meh. Either way it's a bit rich when what the commons IS known for, as I said above, is people bleating, jeering, smirking and guffawing like an Eton pirate cosplay.

Cut out the clapping. Fine. It even does my head in on here when people incessantly use that inane clapping smilie. But don't do it in the name of preserving commons etiquette, when commons etiquette is juvenile and ****? If you want to stop it, stop all of it. Not sure why any MP should feel Duty bound to protect current political traditions when it's abundantly clear that the whole toxic mess needs ripping up and starting over.

At the very least I am 100% confident in saying that the people who elected those 56 MPs have very little time for Westminster ceremony and that, therefore, as representatives of those voters, those MPs should feel free to disregard that ceremony.

Sure but its juvenility within agreed boundaries of course a lot of it is nonsense but hey, its theatre and its tradition and actually I think it saves politics from being either too hostile or too stale. It's what enlivens debates and excites passions but its also what enables MPs to be mocking each other one moment and paying tribute to them the next. Of course though everything 'Westminster' is anathema to the SNP so I'm sure they will enjoy being all rebellious and breaching a bit of protocol here and there, they will also need to respect parliament and engage with it though if they do want to be a constructive political force. Otherwise they might as well follow Sinn Fein's lead and not take their seats.

[Kizzy]

I agree TS Mr Bercow should know better than anyone how they disregard etiquette when it suits, chastising new MPs like unruly children is a little disconcerting considering the latest brouhaha concerning his good self

[the truth]

23k for the families who breed for beenefits is still too high....especially in poorer parts....where housing benefits is only £100/110 a week which means they can still cream off £17,500 a year tax free (plus other perks and freebees) the cap should be around £12,000 max. and child benefits should ONLY be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods...way too many scumbags have bred for benefits and their kids have suffered more than anyone

[user104658]

£12000 would barely cover rent, council tax and utilities, you're being a tad ridiculous there Truth.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

£12000 would barely cover rent, council tax and utilities, you're being a tad ridiculous there Truth.

I did say it should vary according to which part of the country....housing rent is only £5500/6000 up north or parts of Scotland or wales and the midlands.....in the south its nearer 200 a week so that's £4000/5000 a year difference

take a family up north with 3 kids....rent say £6000 housing benefits....then another £6000 a year free handouts free prescriptions is plenty imo...then one of them must work the other part time ...then the kids go to school ad it frees up time....theres also more help with childminding

why should they simply get more than £6000 tax free cash for doing nothing?

and Id pay child benefits in childrens vouchers

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

I did say it should vary according to which part of the country....housing rent is only £5500/6000 up north or parts of Scotland or wales and the midlands.....in the south its nearer 200 a week so that's £4000/5000 a year difference

take a family up north with 3 kids....rent say £6000 housing benefits....then another £6000 a year free handouts free prescriptions is plenty imo...then one of them must work the other part time ...then the kids go to school ad it frees up time....theres also more help with childminding

why should they simply get more than £6000 tax free cash for doing nothing?

and Id pay child benefits in childrens vouchers

£6000 rent plus £1000 council tax plus £1000 utility bills and those are conservative estimates for a family of 5. That leaves £4000 for a year.

£77 per week. Or roughly £15.40 per week, per person. For food, clothes and transport?

I can only assume you're joking about that being "plenty"... How would they even seek work? My transport to the nearest town for work (5 days) is £25 per week .

[empire]

the queen looks like my grandmother,

[user104658]

I mean seriously. For further context, that's £2.20 a day. :/

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

£6000 rent plus £1000 council tax plus £1000 utility bills and those are conservative estimates for a family of 5. That leaves £4000 for a year.

£77 per week. Or roughly £15.40 per week, per person. For food, clothes and transport?

I can only assume you're joking about that being "plenty"... How would they even seek work? My transport to the nearest town for work (5 days) is £25 per week .

£6000 tax free money that's £110 a week , that's £17 a day....plus a free house and free prescriptions....free glasses etc etc

let them then earn money to pay their other bills just like everyone else who get no benefits at all....who has to pay for their own council tax their own rent their own gas water electricity transport etc its called going to work

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

£6000 tax free money that's £110 a week , that's £17 a day....plus a free house and free prescriptions....free glasses etc etc

let them then earn money to pay their other bills just like everyone else who get no benefits at all....who has to pay for their own council tax their own rent their own gas water electricity transport etc its called going to work

Ahh so we're back in the truth's fantasy land where everyone who wants a job can just have one instantly. You can't just ignore bills and council tax? Utter nonsense. They exist. You have to pay them. That leaves £4000. Full stop.

My question again; how are people even supposed to SEEK employment on £2.20 a day? How are they supposed to dress themselves to be attractive to an employer? Ffs how are they supposed to eat well enough to have the energy to get out of bed?

On top of that - and I'm going to be brutally honest here - some people are just not very employable and even doing their best it will take them time to find suitable work. In the mean time, what? Their children should just starve?

Or perhaps you're saying they should simply be aborted before it becomes a problem? If that is what you're saying then all of your claims about being a Christian and believing in Christianity are a massive crock of ****... But then, that would go nicely hand in hand with your various other ludicrous suggestions.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Ahh so we're back in the truth's fantasy land where everyone who wants a job can just have one instantly. You can't just ignore bills and council tax? Utter nonsense. They exist. You have to pay them. That leaves £4000. Full stop.

My question again; how are people even supposed to SEEK employment on £2.20 a day? How are they supposed to dress themselves to be attractive to an employer? Ffs how are they supposed to eat well enough to have the energy to get out of bed?

On top of that - and I'm going to be brutally honest here - some people are just not very employable and even doing their best it will take them time to find suitable work. In the mean time, what? Their children should just starve?

Or perhaps you're saying they should simply be aborted before it becomes a problem? If that is what you're saying then all of your claims about being a Christian and believing in Christianity are a massive crock of ****... But then, that would go nicely hand in hand with your various other ludicrous suggestions.

I must admit that's that's the worst post Ive ever read. It means nothing and makes no sense. everyone who is healthy goes to work. people who breed for benefits are a disgrace. £117 a week tax free and a free house is plenty...they should get no work and should work to pay their bills like everyone else. even stacking shelves, cleaning sewers, cleaning toilets etc whatever it takes work to pay your bills. you have children so theyre your responsibilities...Its up to you to pay for their upkeep not anyone else

[user104658]

There aren't always shelf stacking, sewer cleaning or toilet scrubbing jobs available for everyone. I know you find this hard to believe but it is simply a fact, not every unemployed family is "breeding for benefits". 100% employment is unachievable and the amounts you are proposing are nowhere near enough to support a family. There's not much more to say than that, as always you just pick and choose your own reality to fit in with your own blinkered nonsense. I'm done.