My election notes. E-Day + 19
by Pseud O'Nym
The drugs that my doctor prescribed for me to help lower lower my blood pressure might have more likelihood of success if I didn’t read the news. Well ‘news’ in it’s loosest possible definition of the word, as this piece of irrelevant nonsense on todays MailOnline, aptly demonstrates
Britain will continue to pay millions of pounds in child benefit to children living across Europe after Brexit – despite widespread anger at the handouts.
The country forks out around £30 million a year in benefits to 34,000 children living across the bloc, mostly in Poland.
It chundred, before adding,
It was contained in a 15-page policy paper which sets out the government’s plans to protect the rights of EU nationals living in Britain.
The document states that the ‘export of UK benefits’ will be ‘protected for those that are exporting such UK benefits on the specified date, including child benefit, subject to on-going entitlement to the benefit’.
This means that EU nationals who arrive here before the cut off date – which will be some time between March this year and March 2019 – will still get the handouts.
It’s nonsense in the sense that it’s so trivial. I mean, £30 million a year in benefit payments for 34,000 children? No wonder the Mail is angry about it it, it’s just so amateur! Given that Teresa May has raised the bar so high with her £1 billion bribe for 10 D.U.P MP’s, Thats £100 million each!
And they say that votes can’t be bought!
And as if to prove that austerity is relative – the relative in question being if your relative happens to be the queen or or not – comes the news in todays Guardian that;
The Queen is in line for a near-doubling of her income to more than £82m due to a government decision to increase her funding to cover “essential works” to Buckingham Palace.
The Crown Estate, which owns most of Regent Street and swaths of St James’s as well as thousands of acres of farmland, forests and coastline, made £328.8m profit in the year to the end of March 2017, an 8% increase on the previous year.
The Queen’s sovereign grant, the amount she receives from taxpayers, is calculated as a percentage of Crown Estate profits. In November, it was announced that the percentage would rise for 10 years from 15% to 25%.
But one piece in the story is worth mentioning;
Of the cost, Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “It accounts for 65p per person per annum in the UK; that’s the price of a first class stamp. When you consider that against what the Queen does and represents for this country, I believe it represents excellent value for money.”
The funding increase to cover improvements to Buckingham Palace was decided in a review by the Royal Trustees – the prime minister, the chancellor and Reid. Officials have said the repair work, which is set to take 10 years, is essential to avoid the risk of “catastrophic building failure”.
If someone could explain to me the difference in reaction to this and to this, as reported in the Independent;
Kensington and Chelsea Council threatened a resident of Grenfell Tower with legal action after he blogged about his concerns over fire safety.
The Grenfell Action Group (GAG) raised their fears time and again both with the council and with the company which managed the doomed 24-storey tower block, writing an eerily prophetic post last year warning that only a “catastrophic event” would expose the “ineptitude and incompetence” of their landlord, the KCTMO.
Instead of taking their concerns seriously, the Conservative-run council replied with its own warning letter from solicitor, Vimal Sama, dated 25 July 2013 and addressed to Francis O’Connor, accusing him of “defamatory behaviour” and “harassment.”
Then please do.
I’ve blogged about this before, of how those in control of taxpayers funds deem some costs somehow more worthy than others. The queen lives on state benefits. She holidays at our expense. Are the D.W.P ever told about her leaving the country? She has numerous dwellings around the country, but does the D.W.P ask her what happens when she’s not there? Or even when she is there? How many bedrooms can one person sleep in at a time. So is she being sanctioned for under occupancy? Her eldest son runs a business? Are the D.W.P investigating him for fraud or is he taking the biscuit? One of her grandchildren gets married and we pay for it? In what way isn’t she a benefit cheat?
And how can we as a society afford this and but not this?
The fate of a centre for disabled children will be discussed at a cabinet meeting today.
The closure of Nascot Lawn Respite Centre, Langley Road was announced on Friday, June 16.
The centre which looks after disabled children with severe medical needs while their families rest, is due to close on October 31 due to funding cuts from the Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
It’s facing closure because its £700,000 annual running cost is too high. It’s yet another sad and telling indictment of what is and isn’t affordable. There will be more.