Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown joins asset manager Pimco

Alistair Darling joins Morgan Stanley

Benn's legacy of hypocrisy: This week it was revealed the arch-socialist left £5m to his children - with none to left-wing causes. But that's just the start of a breathtaking story of riches, tax avoidance and double standards

Champagne socialist's property empire: How one £2.9m north London home is just not enough for sacked 'snob' MP

• Ms Thornberry lives in an Islington townhouse worth roughly £2.9million
• The wealthy barrister also owns a £600,000 flat in Guildford, Surrey
• MP and her husband also bought a property in Clerkenwell for £572,000

Labour shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer pockets £125,000 from law firm derailing Britain’s EU exit

Former Director of Public Prosecutions reveals he was paid up to £750 an hour by Mishcon de Reya

...............

Thrugelmir

This to me is the best of the lot. Maggie's arch rival...Different rules for different classes of socialists. A flat in the Barbican in London no less.

The former National Union of Mineworkers leader Arthur Scargill has lost his fight to have the union continue to meet the costs of his London flat for his lifetime.

The NUM had asked Mr Justice Underhill at London's high court to declare that it has no such continuing obligation to 74-year-old Scargill, who was its president for 20 years until July 2002.

Scargill has occupied the Barbican apartment, rented from the Corporation of London, since June 1982.

The union also successfully disputed Scargill's fuel allowance at his Barnsley home and payment for the preparation of his annual tax return, but not the cost of the security system at his Yorkshire home.

Explaining his decision, the judge said Scargill's predecessors had enjoyed the "very generous benefit" of having houses in or near London bought for them by the union, adding that they were also allowed to occupy the properties after retiring at a very low rent, or to buy them at a "very reduced price".

But Scargill, he noted, had not taken up the benefit when it appeared in his first contract in 1982 – although the union's national executive committee had agreed to pay the rent and other expenses on his Barbican flat, which was near the NUM's London headquarters.

He rejected Scargill's claims that the union's payment of the rent on the flat was intended to replace the benefit his predecessors had enjoyed and was therefore a lifetime benefit.

The judge said the claim was not reflected in the original minutes of the NEC, was not backed up by the contract Scargill signed, and pointed out that the union had continued to subsidise the mortgage on his Yorkshire home.

He added: "It was [also] known at the time of his election that the union might well shortly be moving its headquarters outside London (as it in fact did). I have found that it is more likely that the understanding at that time was that the payment of the rent of the Barbican flat was in the nature of a facility to enable Mr Scargill to do his job properly and that he retained the right in due course to have a house bought for him by the union."

The judge went on to note that the union had not paid the rent on the flat for a six-year period from 1985, and that Scargill had decided in 1991 that he did not want to take up the housing benefit to which he had been entitled since 1982, preferring the union to resume paying the rent on the flat.

Conrad

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/266606/How-did-Lord-Mandelson-get-so-filthy-rich

Ah he who got caught red handed for mortgage fraud, twice I think if memory serves, and let off, whereas little people have gone to jail for it

Fella

michaels wrote: »

Labour would be extremely cautious about using the nuclear deterrent - as opposed to the Tories who use it a couple of times a week with giving it a second thought?

Of all of his stupid positions (& they are many) Corbyn's supposed stance on Nuclear has the be the stupidest of all. "No first use". Seriously? If you don't want to have nukes at all then fair enough. Surely having nuclear weapons & saying you wouldn't use them FIRST is the worst of all possible worlds. The one thing there would be literally no point doing, is using them second!

cogito

Moby wrote: »

They really are empty headed muppets aren't they. Over the next 18 months May will get the run around from the 27 re-invigorated by Macron's alliance with Merkel. .

What alliance is that? there's as much chance of Macron and Merkel forming an alliance as there is of me winning the lottery. Macron who wants the ECB to issue eurobonds which would put Germany on the hook for Italian debt, for example. Only an empty headed muppet would think that a possibility.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

What alliance is that? there's as much chance of Macron and Merkel forming an alliance as there is of me winning the lottery. Macron who wants the ECB to issue eurobonds which would put Germany on the hook for Italian debt, for example. Only an empty headed muppet would think that a possibility.

Macron is going to turn out like Trump. Plenty of words but no action. He needs MP's to be elected to support him. There is where his troubles start.........

Sapphire

setmefree2 wrote: »

Tony Blair's Bucks home

Doesn't he also have a mansion near Marble Arch? :mad:

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

How many of Labour's leaders have not gone to selective schools?..

Callaghan. Never went to University. Actually had a job. Inland Revenue, I think. And I believe the Milibean went to a comp. Probably Kinnock as well.

They're not all like Blair and Fettes. Or Attlee, who was proper middle class, and worth ten of Blair on a bad day, so it didn't do him any harm.

Moby

The mistake all the tory muppets make of course......is they miss the point that it's not what school you went to but what you want to do for a class ridden country....do you want to perpetuate social injustice or spread the wealth?

I don't give a toss how much money Blair has or how big his country house is.....that's not the point! The point is did Blair in power have the policies that lowered the class differences....did Blair have policies that improved the life chances and services of everyone......did Blair believe in social justice....yes he did!. There is no evidence that May has any understanding of that! Putting up examples of labour wealth as demonstrating hypocrisy completely misses the point and is a distraction from the social justice intention of the policies. There again the usual tory tactic of hurling abuse at the reds under the bed, champagne socialists is a distraction from the reality of their rather self interested view of the world......lets point the finger at socialist hypocrisy.....to avoid looking at our own values and motives!

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Now you're denigrating the proleteriat?

Shame on you.:)

Only the tory ones.....I mean who votes for the very scum bags who are screwing you?;)