Forum Topic

The Government.

What have they done since they have been in apart from continually belittle the older person.  It's non stop, why? Don't even the richer people think it's rather strange, even they might have friends or relations who are worried.  Even Pimlico Plumber is thinking of moving abroad, because even a Tax Raid on him.  They just want to take money left right and centre.  I wonder what would happen if we all boycotted everything and didn't our bills. The Government would be squirming, don't pay Council Tax, why pay for the commons, they must have only  been cut once the whole summer.

Barbara Stevens ● 104d72 Comments

Sir Keir has received many more freebies than any other MP since becoming Labour leader, receiving £107,145-worth since 2019. *Lord Alli was the biggest donor, giving the equivalent of £39,122, including accommodation worth £20,437

Sue Hammond ● 97d

https://novaramedia.com/2024/06/26/nigel-farages-anti-establishment-party-is-being-funded-by-the-establishment/

Philippa Bond ● 97d

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/09/03/the-bored-millionaire-buying-up-britains-right-wing-media-paul-marshall-set-to-buy-the-spectator/

Philippa Bond ● 97d

The 'fuss' is for two reasons: the sheer scale of Starmer's aquisitiveness, gifts to the tune of £100k over the last Parliament, and the fact that he continually criticised the Tories for sleaze.

Steven Rose ● 97d

@PhilippaThese donations are not a fuss over nothing.  Reform are not the Government and when Starmer was in opposition he made great capital over the Conservatives taking money.How do you feel about our Foreign Secretary and Justice Minster taking funds from.a Saudi PR company.  These are Ministers of the Crown and it is totally unacceptable.

Robert Wheeler ● 97d

Proof  please.

Sue Hammond ● 97d

What a fuss about declared donations.  How about all the donations that Reform gets from climate change deniers and fossil fuel linked companies?

Philippa Bond ● 97d

👏🏻👏🏻John Hawkes & Ed Robinson Many thanks for the laugh!😆

Sue Hammond ● 97d

'Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves declared clothing donations as office support.UK deputy prime minister and chancellor drawn into widening gifts scandal'. - FT'Labour officials initially refused to comment on a June “donation in kind for undertaking parliamentary duties” to Rayner worth £3,550 from Labour chief fundraiser Lord Waheed Alli, before admitting 30 hours later that the donation was clothing'.In addition, Reeves received £7,500 from a donor called Juliet Rosenfeld in four instalments from January 2023 to May 2024 that was used to pay for clothing, according to people with knowledge of the gifts. They were registered as donations “to support the shadow chancellor’s office”Scene - The Cabinet OfficeRayner: "Where's that bloody shredder ? Kier wants me to get rid of those Arsenal ticket stubs".Reeves: "Under your latest delivery of clothes from Alli including that rather strange green effort you have been seen wearing".Rayner: "Ooh you bitch ! Last time it was hidden under your pile. Oh, and how is the therapy going ?"Reeves: "Thanks for asking - not.If you had to deal with that great financial black hole we inherited AND fight past 'she who must be obeyed high and mighty bossy boots Gray in order to speak to his nibs you'd be at your wits end". 

John Hawkes ● 97d

"I took cash for clothes too, admits Rachel Reeves"Really? What did she spend it on?Bright blue may be her politics but it certainly is not her colour.Nor is green.  Dark Blue/Navy look good, red a lot better.Politics aside - I would say red is her color.I think we could do something a lot better with that hair.Perhaps it was the same for Lammy?Although I have to say as a large man David Lammy has it nailed. Top marks!So perhaps not!We need to put aside our differences and make sure our representatives look the best possible!Not the best raw materials but a bit of funding may help!Perhaps if it were publicly funded anonymously online rather than the OnlyFans set up they appear to have now?Just a couple of ideas for possible websites where people can help support those most not in need:www.DressMyMP.com -- may be disrespectful to the those that actually physical support. www.PimpMyMP.com -- it could be a new channel 4 series but also implies exploitationwww.HeatMyMpsStables.com -- Ney just wrongwww.FrockMyMp.com -- May appeal to the older donatorPerhaps it should be expanded to include the XR crowd too:www.AirPumpMyDetached.comwww.SolarMySwimmingPoool.comwww.BumpUpMyLongHaul.comwww.InsulateMyCell.comFeel free to add suggestions. It is after all the seasonal spirit where pensioners may die this winter but we need to think about our MP and what they wear!

Ed Robinson ● 98d

Self-righteous clueless hypocrites.

Steven Rose ● 98d

Anybody want to explain why our Foreign Secretary David Lammy and our Justice Minister took £10,000 each from a PR company linked to Saudi Arabia?  Starmer’s Labour is a complete swamp.

Robert Wheeler ● 98d

You're just annoyed that Starmer's Labour have taken over from the Conservatives, as slightly more "left" than the Reform Party.

David Ainsworth ● 99d

'Labour have their own credo. Its tenets include such beliefs as the poor are poor because the rich are rich, profit implies exploitation, the rich should be taxed till the pips squeak, independent schools are a bastion of privilege, private medicine is wrong, public servants  have a right to squeeze as much money as they can from the state, the Tories are basically selfish and dishonest etc. If you believe all these things, that makes you a right thinking person in Labour circles. And a right thinking person  can only do what is right, no? Rachel Reeves no doubt has convinced herself that she is a good socialist because she believes this stuff, or much of it, so by definition all her decisions are taken in the interests of ‘working people’.And I am sure Starmer thinks the sameThe problem cropping up now of course is that his and his wife's financial antics have revealed that Labour politicians act as much in their own self interest as the Conservatives did.As a reminder - taking money from doners for clothes and such like as well as election campaign expenses, in return for access to number 10 and who knows what else.Plus of course his holding the dubious record of receiving what comes close to being the highest number of freebies of any politician - from seats at Arsenal worth £10K a pop to numerous Taylor Swift concert tickets. Both of which one might say also reveal if not poor taste in sport and pop music then definitely gestures towards populism.But worse because this is compounded by the hypocrisy of the whole affair as Labour politicians still claim the moral high ground whilst castigating the Conservatives for having done the same.I find the current political landscape most depressing.We are governed by a Party that is all flim-flam and duplicitous and is driven by cheap gesture and self-interest.

John Hawkes ● 99d

'The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said the measure and others were necessary because of the state of Labour’s economic inheritance.'Small wager anyone that the economy will be fixed and flourishing by 2029 ?!

John Hawkes ● 99d

Sorry, I don't think that is much like Starmer's Labour. Much of that is more like Corbyn's Labour, which, as you may dimly recall, was brutally smashed. (Corbyn is opposed to these WFA cuts, by the way).Anyway, you may well be glad to see this:-"Unite aims to force vote on winter fuel payment at Labour conferenceUnion motion to condemn cut could prove embarrassing for PM at party’s first gathering since taking power"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/unite-aims-to-force-vote-on-winter-fuel-payment-at-labour-conference"Unite will attempt to force a vote at the Labour party conference to reverse the winter fuel payment cuts, in what could be an embarrassing row for Keir Starmer’s first conference in government.Unite, a strong critic of Starmer, is hoping to attract the backing of the largest union, Unison, for the motion to condemn the cut. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said the measure and others were necessary because of the state of Labour’s economic inheritance.The cut for all but the poorest pensioners receiving pension credit caused widespread disquiet among Labour MPs when it was voted on in parliament last week. A total of 52 Labour MPs did not vote on the motion, but government sources said that all but 12 of these had been given prior permission to miss the vote.""widespread disquiet among Labour MPs" which really led to nothing much at all. "prior permission to miss the vote."!

David Ainsworth ● 100d

Your question, Robert, ‘How could this government make this choice on pensioners?’ is an interesting one. I think the explanation might lie in an ideological mindset reminiscent of the Protestants of the sixteenth century who believed that faith alone could make a man righteous in the sight of God. And righteousness inspires good works. Labour have their own credo. Its tenets include such beliefs as the poor are poor because the rich are rich, profit implies exploitation, the rich should be taxed till the pips squeak, independent schools are a bastion of privilege, private medicine is wrong, public servants  have a right to squeeze as much money as they can from the state, the Tories are basically selfish and dishonest etc. If you believe all these things, that makes you a right thinking person in Labour circles. And a right thinking person  can only do what is right, no? Rachel Reeves no doubt has convinced herself that she is a good socialist because she believes this stuff, or much of it, so by definition all her decisions are taken in the interests of ‘working people’. This includes the decision to cut WFA because it is aimed at reducing the deficit, you see, which will help Labour bring about the change for which the country is crying out after a decade or more of Tory misrule.

Steven Rose ● 100d

One must also show some sympathy for Chancellor Reeves.How is she going to find the money to pay to heat her new home ?'Dorneywood, a 21-room grace-and-favour mansion, has been given not to Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, but to Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer'.Perhaps Lord Alli will fund a wardrobe of thermal underwear ?!

John Hawkes ● 100d

No, no adults they are only bothered about themselves. We just have to curl up and die. Well perhaps we should look forward to climate change, might not get so cold.

Barbara Stevens ● 100d

Additionally no impact assessment on how losing the WFA will affect 1.6m disabled pensioners who struggle to keep warm anyway. 80% of over 80s will lose their fuel allowance.  (Source Guardian).  How could this Government choose to make this choice on pensioners.  Anyone accepting £100,000 of freebie’s is out of touch with the electorate.  Makes you laugh with the statement of those with the biggest shoulders.Don’t get me started on David Lammy wittering on about climate change whilst we are on the verge of all out war in the Middle East and Europe.  Are there no adults in this Government.

Robert Wheeler ● 100d

"She was once a Labour Party outcast, dismissed by Jeremy Corbyn as too right-wing and famously derided by a TV executive as “boring, snoring.”"From a February Politico article:-https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-learned-love-keir-starmer-boring-snoring-right-hand-woman-rachel-reeves-labour-shadow-chancellor/

David Ainsworth ● 100d

Is she such a brain? A bunch of senior treasury officials on large salaries who have no trouble in heating their homes told Rachel Reeves that universal benefits are a bad idea because many people end up receiving money which they don't need. An intelligent chancellor would reply, 'that is probably true, but first we need to carry out an impact assessment to see the effect of withdrawing WFA on poorer pensioners who do need the money'. For a start she could have considered ways of ensuring that the 880 000 households who are entitled to pension credits actually claim the money along with WFA. So in my view she is brainless as well as heartless.

Steven Rose ● 100d

Take a good look at the Chancellor. Is Reeves all brain and no heart? Worth pondering.

Alexander MacLeod ● 101d

You are welcome then

Michael Brigo ● 101d

'I just don't like Ed because I think he's a bit of a patronising twat to be honest. Sorry Ed!'Yet another crass comment from this person who seems to have the social graces and vocabulary of a football hooligan.To be disliked by him should be taken as a compliment and a blessing !

John Hawkes ● 102d

I don't mind the occasional insult. Free speech does mean the right to offend.I was a bit concerned for a moment that Michael B. may have mistaken this for a dating site with his enquiry into my personal status.Although my political views do not fit into the normal tribal boxes that some prefer. I'm probably a bit traditional and static on relationship views without realizing it.Perhaps it's now the norm for someone to buy someone's partner clothes?I personally do not mind going with a partner or daughter clothes shopping. However I do have one rule - no shopping for assessories or going out shoes!Perhaps that's answers Michael B.'s question.

Ed Robinson ● 102d

We already have a head of state that dresses like a King!We do not need PM's or MP's to be dressed like royalty. I do not recall John Smith needing to look like a rock star to win votes and minds.If they can't manage their own finances how do we expect them to manage the country's.If they can't attract a reasonable number of memberships then perhaps they are doing something wrong?Should the Labour party be seen as acting as if they were on the cat walk when they appeared to be a bad employer?"Labour recruiting staff on insecure contracts while making mass redundancies"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fire-and-rehire-keir-starmer-david-evans-b1889879.html

Ed Robinson ● 102d

The funding you are referring to covers some admin expenses, not the overall funding of the party apparatus nor, of course, campaigning costs. Hence the Tory supporting oligarchs and now those wealthy folk who have discovered Labour in the last year or two. They are all buying access and thus influence over policy. In an ideal world state funding would render that unnecessary if not formally excluding it but, for once, I agree with Robert that it wouldn’t work, much though it should be welcomed. So we are stuck with the unedifying spectacle of wealthy men (and a few women but not many) carefully spreading their money around the political arena to obtain the aforesaid access and influence.

Jonathan Callaway ● 102d

Personal insults - way to go Michael.  Personally l like Ed’s posts always measured and factual.However keeping to the thread let’s not forget whilst Starmer is claiming his ongoing freebie’s he has a Gold Plated Pension waiting for him.  Should keep him and Mrs S warm at night and in tailored nice clothes.  Very socialist.

Robert Wheeler ● 102d

That's disgusting Michael, Ed is really intelligent, and knows a lot about everything. I'm glad he explains things on the forum that I might have put on here better than me.

Barbara Stevens ● 102d

I believe I have mentioned before that I have Jewish friends, nothing against them or divorced people.I just don't like Ed because I think he's a bit of a patronising twat to be honest. Sorry Ed!

Michael Brigo ● 102d

Freebies given to Kier Starmer - clothes, glasses and football tickets !https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/240902/starmer_keir.htm

John Hawkes ● 102d

Wonderful analysis of the 'beliefs' and antics of Labour PM Kier Starmer.https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-do-the-starmers-need-a-personal-shopper/Like me, the author of the piece has his flabber most gasted by the idea his wife needs a personal shopper.Who does she think she is ?Kim Kardashian ?Victoria Beckham ?Meghan Markle ?Can't walk around Selfridges (or Primark !) alone to choose and buy her own clothes ?Pathetic. And read about all the freebies Starmer himself has accepted over the years.'Sir Keir Starmer said freebies he has accepted have been “properly” declared, after it was reported he received £76,000 worth of entertainment, clothes and other gifts during the last parliament.He collected more freebies than almost any other MP since 2019, according to the Financial Times.This included tickets to more than 20 football matches. As an MP, the Labour leader has to declare gifts to the House of Commons register of interests.Come back Boris - all is forgiven !

John Hawkes ● 102d

One has to wonder what Mr Brigos customers think. He clearly disliked jews ( based on his Palestinuan posts) and now he has it in for the divorced and singles.So its non Jews in a stable marriage, good luck with that.

Andy Pike ● 102d

Labour are truly shambolic.  More than three quarters of disabled people (1.6 million) and 83% of over 80s will lose their WFA according to the Treasury (source Guardian).  So let’s be clear, many disabled people who cannot move properly will therefore feel colder and will suffer this winter.  These figures were rushed out after the Government admitted it had not carried out an impact assessment.This will haunt Labour and our MP for years.  All choices made by Labour - “don’t forget they tread lightly on our lives”.

Robert Wheeler ● 102d

Quite right John the post is insulting for the sake of a slur.  As always it is the result of someone who does have a coherent argument.I suppose it makes a change from the usual lazy right wing or racists slurs but still not acceptable.

Robert Wheeler ● 102d

'I don't know you but my guess: Divorced, living alone.'Whoever this comment was aimed at it is very insulting, uncalled for and rather childishly pointless.I am sure divorce is a very painful experience, and someone who has been through it I am sure, does not need one who I assume has not, to gloat in such a vicious manner. I wonder especially how many divorced women who this poster might come into contact with would react and feel on reading his rude and unsympathetic comment ?

John Hawkes ● 102d

To be sung to the tune of 'The Red Flag'.🎼🎶"The working class can kiss my arse, I've got a personal shopper, clothes and alterations (and hubby has free glasses) at last".

John Hawkes ● 102d

Well considering your meant to be intelligent, why did you reply, we still don't know who Michael Brigo was referring to. Apart from he thinks their divorced etc.

Barbara Stevens ● 102d

Well, it wasn't necessary for him to say somebody was on their own.

Barbara Stevens ● 102d

"“No need to be rude”.  Hmm"But surely balanced by the insight of "I can assure you I can be ruder than you"?

David Ainsworth ● 102d

“No need to be rude”.  Hmm

Jonathan Callaway ● 103d

Sorry. Pressed twice.

Steven Rose ● 103d

Having ditched Rishi Sunak's Rwanda scheme, which cost the British taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds and which may now be used free of charge by Germany, Keir Starmer is now meeting Giorgia Meloni to discuss Italy's plan of processing illegal migrants in Albania. The aim is exactly the same, namely to introduce a much needed element of deterrence to those thinking of paying traffickers to get them into the Channel. The difference is that it is not clear what happens to those in Albania who are refused asylum whereas Rwanda promised the migrants accommodation and a job.

Steven Rose ● 103d

Having ditched Rishi Sunak's Rwanda scheme, which cost the British taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds and which may now be used free of charge by Germany, Keir Starmer is now meeting Giorgia Meloni to discuss Italy's plan of processing illegal migrants in Albania. The aim is exactly the same, namely to introduce amuch needed element of deterrence to those thinking of paying traffickers to get them into the Channel. The difference is that it is not clear what happens to those in Albania who are refused asylum whereas Rwanda promised the migrants accommodation and a job.

Steven Rose ● 103d

Who are you talking about Michael, most have been on the forum years, we have a moan. But it doesn't matter whether they are on their own or what. If they are Putney or were, no need to be rude. Perhaps their lonely so put info on here as nothing better to do. I can assure you I can be ruder than you and I'm not on my own.

Barbara Stevens ● 103d

Yours. Obviously.I don't know you but my guess: Divorced, living alone.

Michael Brigo ● 103d

Wouldn’t work Jonathan as it would discourage new parties.  The electorate are already totally disillusioned with our current main parties.Surely the union donations to Labour are in essence from State fund’s already as the vast majority of union members work in the public sector.  The electorate are not naive and fully aware that anyone who donates to a political party wants something in return.Starmer’s lack of registration of these donations is hypocrisy.  Do as l say not as l do.

Robert Wheeler ● 103d

They are already state funded.I think you have confused party donations and undeclared personal gifts. Unless the whole Parliamentary Labour party gets the hand me downs the two are quite separate but of course have common concerns."Opposition parties receive state funding to pay administration cost; Short Money[2][13] in the House of Commons starting in 1975, and Cranborne Money in the House of Lords starting in 1996 however, there is no state funding available to parties for campaign purposes.In addition, there is a general policy development grant available to parties with two MPs who have taken the oath of allegiance. The Policy Development Grant scheme is administered by the Electoral Commission and allocates a total of £2m to eligible parties each year"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_funding_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Political%20parties%20in%20the%20UK,is%20reserved%20for%20administrative%20costs.

Ed Robinson ● 103d

Isn’t the answer to introduce state funding for political parties, thus doing away with the need to accept large wodges of cash from billionaires, few of whom tend to be purely altruistic?  So far, at least, the sums involved in the case of Starmer’s wife pale into insignificance alongside the reported £20 million in total that one donor gave to the Tories, sums not returned to him despite his having been widely reported as wishing to see Diane Abbott shot dead. But which party would support state funding and what would the electorate make of it?

Jonathan Callaway ● 103d

Perhaps Lord Alli is engaged in charity work (clothes donation), which is helping Starmer with wealth creation?

David Ainsworth ● 103d

Greedy hypocrites perhaps?

Sue Hammond ● 103d

Sorry, yours or mine Michael B.?

Ed Robinson ● 103d

Keir Starmer’s failure to declare gifts to his wife  in the parliamentary register was surprising given his criticism of Tory sleaze. But apart from the hypocrisy, why, given that he and his wife have a combined income of around £200k pa, do they need donations of clothing from Lord Alli in order to ‘look their best’?

Steven Rose ● 103d

"Much better Michael"Could this comment be any more patronising?

Michael Brigo ● 103d

"the charity and NGO 'third sector' of the economy or the Trade Union movement - ie the spenders not creators."I see. Do away with them then?Oh please - silly comment.I was just making a point that if the Government is made up of people who themselves have no experience of working in sectors that are wealth creating, they are unlikely to be very able of devising macro or micro economic policies that are aimed at producing a more wealthy country overall. And this I understand is Starmer's and Labour's aim.

John Hawkes ● 103d

"the charity and NGO 'third sector' of the economy or the Trade Union movement - ie the spenders not creators."I see. Do away with them then?

David Ainsworth ● 103d

It would be interesting to know how many on the Labour Front Bench have ever worked in the wealth generating world of business and industry rather than the charity and NGO 'third sector' of the economy or the Trade Union movement - ie the spenders not creators.Anyone know of any ?

John Hawkes ● 103d

Much better Michael,Branson is a non-resident.Dyson moved back to the UK and is reported to be one of the top UK taxpayers.I think Mike Lynch, God rest his soul, a critic of the Blair US extradition laws may have had his assets offshore via his wife.Unfortunately Clive Sinclair is also no longer with us. I still think his vision of a small lightweight electric vehicle is achievable and some modern sophisticated trikes do operate in some cities in China.A lot of writers and musicians used to be resident in Ireland for tax purposes.It's about getting the balance right.One can't help get the opinion that the UK doesn't really like new money or wealth creation.

Ed Robinson ● 104d

London yes, West Putney no.Hammersmith Bridge being closed has reduced options.Oddly stated cycling times are quicker!

Ed Robinson ● 104d

Ed. Branson, Dyson, the late Mike Lynch and Clive Sinclair ...

Michael Ixer ● 104d

The fact that you can only name one UK self made successful person says exactly what is wrong with the country.Growth and jobs tends to come from SMEs not large corporations.We need to get to the situation where there are more Sugar and Mullins taking risks and earning rewards.Sadly both the Conservatives & Labour have very little time for SMEs. Odd yet again Reform had some excellent policies. If they can come up with some why not the other parties?

Ed Robinson ● 104d

"The Sunday Times has a remarkable story that Lord Sugar tried to avoid tax by leaving the UK for Australia. The idea was that he'd cease to be UK resident, and so would escape £186m of tax on some very large UK dividends. Somehow neither Sugar, his team, or his advisers ever thought to do a simple Google search for "house of lords tax resident", which would have led them straight to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which deems all Lords and MPs to be automatically UK tax resident, and UK domiciled. Whoopsie."https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danneidle_why-alan-sugar-failed-to-become-a-tax-exile-activity-7106549702497562624-cg-w

Ed Robinson ● 104d

I've nothing against him making money from working hard and building up a business. It was his comment, which I perhaps should have said was in his self interest rather than selfish. I've a lot of respect for people like Alan Sugar, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs - even Bezos, etc who built multi-million/billion companies from nothing (although I may not agree with all their methods, views, etc). But I don't see Sugar rushing off to a middle eastern tax haven, or threatening to do so? (Perhaps I've missed it?) And Gates has certainly ploughed much of his wealth into his foundation to assist with global health issues.

Michael Ixer ● 104d

Not bad for a kid that left school at 15.Obviously the wrong kind of wealth creator for some.Good stuff here especially about growing a business and understanding mistakes. https://www.homegrownclub.co.uk/news/charlie-mullins-founder-of-pimlico-plumbers-a-rags-to-riches-story/

Ed Robinson ● 104d

Is it selfish of a man who worked hard, set up a major business that employs thousands to want to keep a good share for himself and his family? After all he has paid north if £100m in tax as a result of his success.Why shouldnt people be able to expect to keep a sizeable share of the benefits of their graft and chance taking when setting up a business. If not where is the point for entrepreneurs etc.This govt is about envy not reward.It says it wants people to get on and progress but when is a working man not a working man? It seems it's based on his salary. What is the size of that salary before a working man becomes the enemy.I suspect the pimlico plumber worked bloody hard to get off the Council estate and set up his business.

Andy Pike ● 104d

Is it selfish of a man who worked hard, set up a major business that employs thousands to want to keep a good share for himself and his family? After all he has paid north if £100m in tax as a result of his success.Why shouldnt people be able to expect to keep a sizeable share of the benefits of their graft and chance taking when setting up a business. If not where is the point for entrepreneurs etc.This govt is about envy not reward.It says it wants people to get on and progress but when is a working man not a working man? It seems it's based on his salary. What is the size of that salary before a working man becomes the enemy.I suspect the pimlico plumber worked bloody hard to get off the Council estate and set up his business.

Andy Pike ● 104d

As yet, the taxation status of the Pimlico Plumber hasn't changed, unlike that of pensioners. He's just trying to make a selfish point.

Michael Ixer ● 104d

The point was, they are taking money from everywhere. So if they are taking from the rich, why can't they pay the poor.

Barbara Stevens ● 104d

Ed, easy to get from Heathrow to London via the Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Express or Elizabeth Line. 

Michael Ixer ● 104d

Yes you are right David it would take hours to get from Heathrow to parts of London by public transport. Not helped by Hammersmith Bridge being out, the neglected Piccadilly line and buses that crawl along.

Ed Robinson ● 104d

"Even Pimlico Plumber is thinking of moving abroad, because even a Tax Raid on him."From Marbella or Dubai will be a heck of a commute for a leaky tap job.

David Ainsworth ● 104d