|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 21, 2024 10:05:31 GMT
I wouldn't disagree and as things stand right this second, they won't win many, if any seats. But I suspect they are are only a few points off winning seats and with the trajectory only going one way, it could be quite the story. They need to get that polling up to 20%+ which is entirely plausible. Particularly given their Trump card (no pun intended) hasn't been unleashed yet. Do you actually think Farage will stand for them? Or is he biding his time, perhaps to try and take the Tory leadership? Can't work it out at the moment to be honest. He must have made a decision by now. He's certainly keeping people guessing but I feel like it's a massive moment if he does stand. No way would the liberals in the Tory party allow Farage to lead them in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 21, 2024 10:28:10 GMT
Do you actually think Farage will stand for them? Or is he biding his time, perhaps to try and take the Tory leadership? Can't work it out at the moment to be honest. He must have made a decision by now. He's certainly keeping people guessing but I feel like it's a massive moment if he does stand. No way would the liberals in the Tory party allow Farage to lead them in my opinion. As you know I'm no fan of Farage but just speaking in terms of electability and momentum isn't it a big moment (for him at least) whether he stands or not. Stand and get in and if anything he becomes more constrained by rules around being an MP, second jobs etc. Plus he doesn't have a great record for debate or attendance in that environment - see European Parliament. Stand and lose - not again - brand starts to look like a busted flush. Don't stand - as he didn't for the Brexit Party - and he starts to look like he's running scared. In the meantime he's on a nice little earner as a presenter and journalist with zero accountability. Also if he stays out of the very fast moving world of politics for too long (seemingly at pains not to be seen at Reform events) at what point does he start to become yesterday's man? He's about to enter his seventh decade so surley the time to either sh*t or get off the pot is edging ever closer if he wants to be seen as a serious politician rather than just a fringe operator?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 21, 2024 10:37:34 GMT
Can't work it out at the moment to be honest. He must have made a decision by now. He's certainly keeping people guessing but I feel like it's a massive moment if he does stand. No way would the liberals in the Tory party allow Farage to lead them in my opinion. As you know I'm no fan of Farage but just speaking in terms of electability and momentum isn't it a big moment (for him at least) whether he stands or not. Stand and get in and if anything he becomes more constrained by rules around being an MP, second jobs etc. Plus he doesn't have a great record for debate or attendance in that environment - see European Parliament. Stand and lose - not again - brand starts to look like a busted flush. Don't stand - as he didn't for the Brexit Party - and he starts to look like he's running scared. In the meantime he's on a nice little earner as a presenter and journalist with zero accountability. Also if he stays out of the very fast moving world of politics for too long (seemingly at pains not to be seen at Reform events) at what point does he start to become yesterday's man? He's about to enter his seventh decade so surley the time to either sh*t or get off the pot is edging ever closer if he wants to be seen as a serious politician rather than just a fringe operator? Yep all fair points. As a supporter I hope he stands. I think he'd get more done and cause more noise in Parliament than 100x Tories and 100x Labour mp's combined.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 21, 2024 11:11:26 GMT
Reform out in the lead amongst Brexit voters.
Interestingly though, a third of Tories have switched to Labour, the Libs and the Greens.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2024 11:21:58 GMT
Do you actually think Farage will stand for them? Or is he biding his time, perhaps to try and take the Tory leadership? Can't work it out at the moment to be honest. He must have made a decision by now. He's certainly keeping people guessing but I feel like it's a massive moment if he does stand. No way would the liberals in the Tory party allow Farage to lead them in my opinion. Not sure about that. In my opinion, they’d have Begum in if it guaranteed them the election.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Mar 21, 2024 11:32:49 GMT
Gov lose case with ombudsmen on women's pensions ombudsmen says compensation should be paid gov and dwp say no
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 21, 2024 12:02:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 12:20:33 GMT
Gov lose case with ombudsmen on women's pensions ombudsmen says compensation should be paid gov and dwp say no Another win for the boomer generation. Wonder which generation will be paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 12:34:08 GMT
Gov lose case with ombudsmen on women's pensions ombudsmen says compensation should be paid gov and dwp say no Another win for the boomer generation. Wonder which generation will be paying for it. Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 12:45:51 GMT
Another win for the boomer generation. Wonder which generation will be paying for it. Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit? I don't know enough on it. Pension age was changed in 1995 or something but wasn't communicated well enough? And now they're looking at billions of compensation. Student loans didn't exist for that generation they got it free. So if loans were written off its not really comparable, would just put my generation at an equal level (if we were refunded what we've paid so far.). I'm sure many of these people also benefited from right to buy too while my generation pays absurd rent. No issue with people being compensated for an injustice. Just merely highlighting that the boomers win again and its younger generations who will pay for it. And in return we will likely be rewarded with a measly state pension in our 70s if we are lucky. I'd like to reiterate if it's an injustice then they deserve to be compensated. But ultimately it is younger generations who will foot the bill again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2024 12:56:02 GMT
Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit? I don't know enough on it. Pension age was changed in 1995 or something but wasn't communicated well enough? And now they're looking at billions of compensation. Student loans didn't exist for that generation they got it free. So if loans were written off its not really comparable, would just put my generation at an equal level (if we were refunded what we've paid so far.). I'm sure many of these people also benefited from right to buy too while my generation pays absurd rent. No issue with people being compensated for an injustice. Just merely highlighting that the boomers win again and its younger generations who will pay for it. And in return we will likely be rewarded with a measly state pension in our 70s if we are lucky. I'd like to reiterate if it's an injustice then they deserve to be compensated. But ultimately it is younger generations who will foot the bill again. It’s always the younger generations Gawa, that’s how borrowing works. When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it. Each generation has had its challenges. Discrimination in workplaces still occur but there’s no way that our generation felt anything like women who were born in the 50’s, for example. Post-retirement, I also expect that medication for the elderly will be far better than it is now as well.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 13:32:38 GMT
I don't know enough on it. Pension age was changed in 1995 or something but wasn't communicated well enough? And now they're looking at billions of compensation. Student loans didn't exist for that generation they got it free. So if loans were written off its not really comparable, would just put my generation at an equal level (if we were refunded what we've paid so far.). I'm sure many of these people also benefited from right to buy too while my generation pays absurd rent. No issue with people being compensated for an injustice. Just merely highlighting that the boomers win again and its younger generations who will pay for it. And in return we will likely be rewarded with a measly state pension in our 70s if we are lucky. I'd like to reiterate if it's an injustice then they deserve to be compensated. But ultimately it is younger generations who will foot the bill again. It’s always the younger generations Gawa, that’s how borrowing works. When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it. Each generation has had its challenges. Discrimination in workplaces still occur but there’s no way that our generation felt anything like women who were born in the 50’s, for example. Post-retirement, I also expect that medication for the elderly will be far better than it is now as well. "When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it" Well actually historically it's always been the other way round cvillestokie. Every new generation actually had it easier than their predecessor so saying "how easy" a generation has had it isn't the norm. My generation is the first to be worse off than their parents. So lets not pretend it's the norm because it isn't. If anything it was largely the other way growing up where we'd be told "back in my day we had to deal with...." not "back in my day we had it much easier" I think when it comes to womens rights in the workplace that we really need to look at it from a higher level to see what has actually been achieved. If it now takes 80 hours of labour a week for a household to be as well off as one working 50 hours a week 60 years ago, then has anything really been achieved? Women may be more equal to men in terms of income but overall households are worse off. I'm a supporter of equality but I can't help but think that there is a coorelation between the growing wealth inequality over the last 50 years and the increase in equality in the work place. Households should be better off if they're working more hours as a cumulative but they're not. It's nearly as if wages have stagnated and became more equal between man and woman (i support this) but in doing so the profits from the extra labour and working hours have been syphoned through to the share holders and such who have done very well over these last number of years. Not sure if above paragraph makes sense as it's very difficult to articulate what I mean. But basically a household which works 80 hours a week in todays society should be better of on average than a household which worked 50-60 hours a week 60 years ago but in many cases they aren't in relative terms. And as a result we have a dwindling birth rate because these women with their equal opportunities now working full time cannot afford to own a home, cannot afford to raise children, cannot afford childcare costs. But that was affordable in the past on a single full time wage, so at a high level not alot really has been achieved. As in if you and your partner as a household started doing 70% more working hours than you do now, you'd expect to be rewarded for it, you wouldn't expect to be just as well of as you were before? And as for medication. I'm sure medication will be better but it won't be anywhere near as accessible because again compared to 50 years ago public health is less accessible at the moment and a disaster to say the least. I have very little confidence in any of this being fixed and instead think it's a convenient problem to have for those who wish to profiteer of us. So yes medicine will be better for those who can afford private health care. But it won't be better for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 21, 2024 13:36:43 GMT
Gov lose case with ombudsmen on women's pensions ombudsmen says compensation should be paid gov and dwp say no Another win for the boomer generation. Wonder which generation will be paying for it. Can't say I was ever particularly sympathetic to the claim, however they got off their arses, campaigned and did it legally - so good luck to them.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 13:55:06 GMT
Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit? I don't know enough on it. Pension age was changed in 1995 or something but wasn't communicated well enough? And now they're looking at billions of compensation. Student loans didn't exist for that generation they got it free. So if loans were written off its not really comparable, would just put my generation at an equal level (if we were refunded what we've paid so far.). I'm sure many of these people also benefited from right to buy too while my generation pays absurd rent. No issue with people being compensated for an injustice. Just merely highlighting that the boomers win again and its younger generations who will pay for it. And in return we will likely be rewarded with a measly state pension in our 70s if we are lucky. I'd like to reiterate if it's an injustice then they deserve to be compensated. But ultimately it is younger generations who will foot the bill again. You won't get a state pension and neither will I. Anyone not planning for that eventuality now needs to open their eyes. The student loan example really isn't comparable I think if you were to look at the percentage of each generation to go to university. It was more a what's good for goose type example. Here's as good a summary as you'll find on the WASPI issue www.ombudsman.org.uk/complaints-womens-state-pension-age#:~:text=Women%20born%20on%20or%20after%206%20April%201950%20are%20affected,changes%20made%20in%20subsequent%20years.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 21, 2024 14:10:34 GMT
Another win for the boomer generation. Wonder which generation will be paying for it. Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit? apparently equality and parity doesnt suit
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 21, 2024 14:31:21 GMT
Reform out in the lead amongst Brexit voters. Interestingly though, a third of Tories have switched to Labour, the Libs and the Greens. be interesting to see what would happen to the polls if boris stood for reform ?
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 21, 2024 14:34:59 GMT
Hate the player, not the game. Or something like that. Fair play to them for sticking it to the man. If it was student loan write offs would that be any different? When is an injustice not an injustice, when it doesn't suit? I don't know enough on it. Pension age was changed in 1995 or something but wasn't communicated well enough? And now they're looking at billions of compensation. Student loans didn't exist for that generation they got it free. So if loans were written off its not really comparable, would just put my generation at an equal level (if we were refunded what we've paid so far.). I'm sure many of these people also benefited from right to buy too while my generation pays absurd rent. No issue with people being compensated for an injustice. Just merely highlighting that the boomers win again and its younger generations who will pay for it. And in return we will likely be rewarded with a measly state pension in our 70s if we are lucky. I'd like to reiterate if it's an injustice then they deserve to be compensated. But ultimately it is younger generations who will foot the bill again.
wish the retirement age for men had been lowered in the interest of equality.
pity we can't seek some form of compensation
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2024 14:44:16 GMT
It’s always the younger generations Gawa, that’s how borrowing works. When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it. Each generation has had its challenges. Discrimination in workplaces still occur but there’s no way that our generation felt anything like women who were born in the 50’s, for example. Post-retirement, I also expect that medication for the elderly will be far better than it is now as well. "When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it" Well actually historically it's always been the other way round cvillestokie. Every new generation actually had it easier than their predecessor so saying "how easy" a generation has had it isn't the norm. My generation is the first to be worse off than their parents. So let’s not pretend it's the norm because it isn't. If anything it was largely the other way growing up where we'd be told "back in my day we had to deal with...." not "back in my day we had it much easier" I think when it comes to womens rights in the workplace that we really need to look at it from a higher level to see what has actually been achieved. If it now takes 80 hours of labour a week for a household to be as well off as one working 50 hours a week 60 years ago, then has anything really been achieved? Women may be more equal to men in terms of income but overall households are worse off. I'm a supporter of equality but I can't help but think that there is a coorelation between the growing wealth inequality over the last 50 years and the increase in equality in the work place. Households should be better off if they're working more hours as a cumulative but they're not. It's nearly as if wages have stagnated and became more equal between man and woman (i support this) but in doing so the profits from the extra labour and working hours have been syphoned through to the share holders and such who have done very well over these last number of years. Not sure if above paragraph makes sense as it's very difficult to articulate what I mean. But basically a household which works 80 hours a week in todays society should be better of on average than a household which worked 50-60 hours a week 60 years ago but in many cases they aren't in relative terms. And as a result we have a dwindling birth rate because these women with their equal opportunities now working full time cannot afford to own a home, cannot afford to raise children, cannot afford childcare costs. But that was affordable in the past on a single full time wage, so at a high level not alot really has been achieved. As in if you and your partner as a household started doing 70% more working hours than you do now, you'd expect to be rewarded for it, you wouldn't expect to be just as well of as you were before? And as for medication. I'm sure medication will be better but it won't be anywhere near as accessible because again compared to 50 years ago public health is less accessible at the moment and a disaster to say the least. I have very little confidence in any of this being fixed and instead think it's a convenient problem to have for those who wish to profiteer of us. So yes medicine will be better for those who can afford private health care. But it won't be better for everyone. I think that there is a matter of perspective to be considered there. I bet a lot of the “boomer” generation look at millenials and go, “wow, look how easy they have it”. The average job has fewer working hours, is less hard to do and has more protections + holidays. I for one am very glad about the number of options I had to build a life for myself after leaving school. They are certainly options that neither of my parents ever dreamed of. I certainly think that I’m happier with a bit of lower back pain as a consequence for too much work than the emphysema that took my Grandad ~10-15 years too early. However, at least he got a discount on coal for his troubles. As for women, I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to be completely dependent upon my partner’s spending and job stability for house and health. Women entering the workplace opened the door for a number of things for businesses to exploit that all center around convenience. Exploiting that has increased disparities in wealth. The rise of Amazon and the death of so many small businesses as a result is a good example of that. Most of the people (including myself) will still use it though. Overconsumption of needless crap is also another guilt of the millennial generation that keeps people spending 1000’s a year on things they don’t need instead of simply investing it into something that they do.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 15:34:39 GMT
"When we are older, Gen Z will bitch and moan about how easy we’ve had it" Well actually historically it's always been the other way round cvillestokie. Every new generation actually had it easier than their predecessor so saying "how easy" a generation has had it isn't the norm. My generation is the first to be worse off than their parents. So let’s not pretend it's the norm because it isn't. If anything it was largely the other way growing up where we'd be told "back in my day we had to deal with...." not "back in my day we had it much easier" I think when it comes to womens rights in the workplace that we really need to look at it from a higher level to see what has actually been achieved. If it now takes 80 hours of labour a week for a household to be as well off as one working 50 hours a week 60 years ago, then has anything really been achieved? Women may be more equal to men in terms of income but overall households are worse off. I'm a supporter of equality but I can't help but think that there is a coorelation between the growing wealth inequality over the last 50 years and the increase in equality in the work place. Households should be better off if they're working more hours as a cumulative but they're not. It's nearly as if wages have stagnated and became more equal between man and woman (i support this) but in doing so the profits from the extra labour and working hours have been syphoned through to the share holders and such who have done very well over these last number of years. Not sure if above paragraph makes sense as it's very difficult to articulate what I mean. But basically a household which works 80 hours a week in todays society should be better of on average than a household which worked 50-60 hours a week 60 years ago but in many cases they aren't in relative terms. And as a result we have a dwindling birth rate because these women with their equal opportunities now working full time cannot afford to own a home, cannot afford to raise children, cannot afford childcare costs. But that was affordable in the past on a single full time wage, so at a high level not alot really has been achieved. As in if you and your partner as a household started doing 70% more working hours than you do now, you'd expect to be rewarded for it, you wouldn't expect to be just as well of as you were before? And as for medication. I'm sure medication will be better but it won't be anywhere near as accessible because again compared to 50 years ago public health is less accessible at the moment and a disaster to say the least. I have very little confidence in any of this being fixed and instead think it's a convenient problem to have for those who wish to profiteer of us. So yes medicine will be better for those who can afford private health care. But it won't be better for everyone. I think that there is a matter of perspective to be considered there. I bet a lot of the “boomer” generation look at millenials and go, “wow, look how easy they have it”. The average job has fewer working hours, is less hard to do and has more protections + holidays. I for one am very glad about the number of options I had to build a life for myself after leaving school. They are certainly options that neither of my parents ever dreamed of. I certainly think that I’m happier with a bit of lower back pain as a consequence for too much work than the emphysema that took my Grandad ~10-15 years too early. However, at least he got a discount on coal for his troubles. As for women, I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to be completely dependent upon my partner’s spending and job stability for house and health. Women entering the workplace opened the door for a number of things for businesses to exploit that all center around convenience. Exploiting that has increased disparities in wealth. The rise of Amazon and the death of so many small businesses as a result is a good example of that. Most of the people (including myself) will still use it though. Overconsumption of needless crap is also another guilt of the millennial generation that keeps people spending 1000’s a year on things they don’t need instead of simply investing it into something that they do. It is a matter of perspective but then you work in the medical sector cville and you've immigrated to America and you can't wait to get your green card either. So you've actually left the UK for these opportunities. I'm sure had your parents left the UK they also may have been better of. I'd argue there weren't so many opportunities but I have great aunt and uncles from working class families who moved to Canada and Australia so it was possible. There's a reason why the NHS is struggling to retain staff at present and it's because the opportunities available outside the UK are much better than those in the UK. I don't think there was such an exodus of doctors when your parents were younger and I'm sure the doctors which did exist in the UK back then were much better off in comparison to the doctors today. If the opportunities are so great - why do we have such a struggle at retaining doctors? As for women, I said multiple times I support equality, I'll say it again however. Instead of being dependant on a partners wage we're now dependant on 2 partners both working full time. Like I said, no issue with women having equal opportunities, just pointing out that through that we've went from raising families on a singular wage in many cases, to requiring 2 wages. Overconsumption of needless crap I agree on but you're in danger of falling into the "Young people are worse off because of a £10 netflix subscription and eating an avocodo" trap which we hear. I wonder how many needless pints the average man buys after work these days compared to days gone by. It's all relative. But I think the key difference is the cost of food, housing, electric and gas rather than the netflix subscriptions. Like for instance you said one of your key things you spend on is food and ensuring you're eating well. That's excellent but the reality is a pizza in Iceland can be bought for a £1. A healthy meal will cost near 10x that for the ingredients as well as a couple of hours to prep, cook and clean up too. If we weren't dependant on two people working full time jobs then maybe people would have the time to be more self sustainable through growing their own veg and batch cooking and stuff. But when you are on the breadline with 4 mouths to feed and 2 parents working 40 hour weeks, it's not quite so easy. But rather than tackle this stuff which is causing a declining birth rate which in turn is resulting in increased immigration. We're not. Instead we're blaming people because of their consumption of needless crap. And what happens with immigration? More demand on public services. More demand on housing. Economic immigrants paid 20% less contributing to wage stagnation. etc.. etc.. It's not sustainable and it's just a sticking plaster.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 21, 2024 16:54:23 GMT
She's my MP, not heard anything from her since the last election.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 21, 2024 17:16:10 GMT
She's my MP, not heard anything from her since the last election. To your eternal shame?😏
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Mar 21, 2024 17:26:00 GMT
A recent joke in the German media goes: If you want to know what life was like in old East Germany: Visit Britain!
With subtitles.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 21, 2024 22:29:34 GMT
A recent joke in the German media goes: If you want to know what life was like in old East Germany: Visit Britain! With subtitles. And yet people say the Germans don't have a sense of humour
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 21, 2024 23:15:13 GMT
Reform out in the lead amongst Brexit voters. Interestingly though, a third of Tories have switched to Labour, the Libs and the Greens. be interesting to see what would happen to the polls if boris stood for reform ? Hopefully that weak, corrupt, liberal twat goes nowhere near Reform. Nige is the one who can make a difference. Everyone knows it but only he knows whether he wants it.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Mar 21, 2024 23:32:22 GMT
How would you spend 500 million?
Tories just seem to piss it up the wall on a scheme that won't work. There even now claiming June is spring
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 21, 2024 23:51:02 GMT
How would you spend 500 million? Tories just seem to piss it up the wall on a scheme that won't work. There even now claiming June is spring 🤣 👏 👏 👏
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 21, 2024 23:58:17 GMT
She's my MP, not heard anything from her since the last election. Not sure what this is about but I'd defo shag eet 😆
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 22, 2024 3:15:34 GMT
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023/households-below-average-income-an-analysis-of-the-uk-income-distribution-fye-1995-to-fye-2023the number of people living in absolute poverty (the government’s preferred measure) has risen for the second year in a row by 600,000, including 300,000 additional children in absolute poverty. Overall, during the year 22/23, 12 million people were in absolute poverty – equivalent to 18% of the population, including 3.6 million children. One in 10 people in poverty relied on food banks during the year, while 41% of universal credit claimants were food insecure, meaning they could not afford to buy sufficient food. Nearly 4 million people experienced destitution in 2022 which means individuals are unable to afford basic living essentials such as food, energy, bedding and clothing. More than two-thirds (69%) of UK children in poverty lived in families where at least one parent works, while 44% of children in lone-parent families were in poverty. An estimated 2.9 million children were in deep poverty, meaning their income was at least 50% below the poverty line. Nearly half (46%) of all families with three or more children were in poverty. Nearly one in 10 (8%) of pensioners struggled to eat regularly, pay essential bills or keep their home warm, up 2 percentage points year on year, and the first increase in material hardship measures among the over-65s since 2014. This is from the government’s own report. If anyone votes tory, they need to be OK with all of the above. But billionaires are doing well and we don’t want to tax them much as the trickle down is about to start, any minute now.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 22, 2024 3:38:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 22, 2024 8:29:22 GMT
It all depends on how much money it saves in the long run, a bit up front to save more in the long term. How often are flight to Rwanda from the UK, did it save on hotel bills for the amount of people on the plan, albeit they would have to be very expensive hotels Hopefully the BBC chipped in as well
|
|