So, we have this....

 

Give Queen a new royal yacht for diamond jubilee, says Michael Gove

Exclusive: Education secretary proposes taxpayers fund gift – likely to cost at least £60m – to mark 'momentous occasion' (no, Gove, howabout YOU and the rest of the rich Tory w*n**rs pay for the "gift"...?)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/15/q...P=FBCNETTXT9038

 

Michael Gove (*cough cough* w*n**r *cough*) has brushed aside Britain's economic problems to propose the public donate a new royal yacht to the Queen as a mark of respect during this year's diamond jubilee celebrations, according to a confidential letter to fellow ministers.

 

In the letter, which has been sent to Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary and minister overseeing the celebrations, and to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, Gove at one point comes close to suggesting that Britain's dire economic climate means that a large-scale celebration is required to lift the country's spirits.

 

The education secretary writes: "In spite, and perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees and mark the greater achievement that the diamond anniversary represents."

 

The Liberal Democrats privately expressed surprise at the proposal, which is likely to cost at least £60m, at a time of national austerity.

 

Meanwhile Tom Watson, the Labour party vice-chairman, said: "When school budgets are being slashed, parents will be wondering how Gove came even to suggest this idea."

 

Gove, an enthusiastic monarchist, writes in the letter: "I feel strongly that the diamond jubilee gives us a tremendous opportunity to recognise in a very fitting way the Queen's highly significant contribution to the life of the nation and the Commonwealth."

 

Commenting on draft celebration proposals prepared by Hunt, Gove expresses his reservations at a lack of ambition, saying: "I feel strongly more should be done to achieve a longer lasting legacy. Events such as proms and the party at the palace organised for the diamond jubilee, and street parties, although excellent, are transient. It would be appropriate to do something that will mark the significance of this occasion with fitting ceremony.

 

"My suggestion would be a gift from the nation to her majesty; thinking about David Willetts's excellent suggestion of a royal yacht, and something tangible to commemorate this momentous occasion." He adds: "The year ahead provides an enormous opportunity to showcase the very best of Britain."

 

Hinting at cabinet tensions over the way in which the culture department is focusing so heavily on the Olympics in the year of the jubilee, Gove says: "The diamond jubilee must not be overshadowed by the Olympic Games, but form an integral part of this great year for our country."

 

Some of Gove's extravagant language reveals the difficulties created for politicians by the coincidence of the jubilee and the Olympics, alongside forecasts that the UK economy will slip back into recession this year and see a further severe squeeze on living standards. Labour will be watching for any sign the national celebrations are used by the government to distract from the state of the economy.

 

Gove ends his letter by suggesting that if insufficient taxpayer funds are available a private donation could be sought, before making a naked departmental bid for every schoolchild or school to be given a gift as a permanent reminder of the event. Gove's office confirmed the authenticity of the letter but refused to comment.

 

The royal yacht Britannia was decommissioned by the Labour government in December 1997 and became a visitor attraction in Edinburgh. It was last seen listing after a leak during repairs over the New Year holiday.

 

Various efforts have been made to propose a new royal yacht, but have been rejected on the grounds of cost, estimated in 1997 at £60m. However, during the June celebrations a luxury cruiser boat, the Spirit of Chartwell, which is already being dressed up as a royal barge, will carry the Queen along the Thames as part of a pageant.

 

 

And as if that wasn't bad enough, we have THIS....

 

Fury as education secretary Michael Gove rewards teacher pay freeze adviser with bumper pay rise

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics...86908-23680409/

 

AN EDUCATION spin doctor has been given an £11,000 pay rise.

 

Michael Gove rewarded key aide Dominic Cummings after telling teachers their pensions were being cut and their wages frozen.

 

Cummings now earns a taxpayer-funded £69,266 a year, up from £58,200 just six months ago.

 

Teachers’ unions reacted with fury to the bumper rise.

 

Chris Keates, of the NASUWT, said: “It is unjustifiable for the same people cutting the pay and pensions of public sector workers to approve a significant pay rise for a special adviser.”

 

Mark Serwotka, of the civil service PCS union, added: “With public servants’ jobs, pay and pensions being cut, it’s obscene for ministers to be boosting salaries for their political friends.”

 

Cummings claimed the extra cash wasn’t a pay rise.

 

He said: “It was agreed before I started I would be paid £69,000, and the change happened because of the administrative delay in sorting this out.”

 

It was also revealed that the bill for Government special advisers has hit £5.4million this year, up from £4.5million in the first 11 months of the Con-Dem coalition.

 

Special advisers on the public payroll have risen from 72 to 79 in the past six months as the Tory-led Government have set about slashing public sector jobs.

 

A Whitehall insider claimed other advisers have also received rises – which have been hidden by keeping their pay below the £58,200 limit at which salaries must be declared.

 

Cummings’s rise piled the pressure on to Education Secretary Gove, who is already under fire for his savage treatment of public sector workers.

 

Yesterday, he started another row by claiming those who oppose turning schools into academies are “happy with failure”.

 

Critics of academies, which have more freedom over staffing and pay, argue they suck resources and good pupils from other schools.

 

Gove branded the critics “enemies of promise”.

 

In a speech at an academy in London, he said: “Let’s be clear what these people mean.

 

“Let’s hold their prejudices up to the light. What are they saying? If you’re poor, if you’re Turkish, if you’re Somali, then we don’t expect you to succeed. You will always be second class.”

 

Union boss Keates said there was “not one shred of evidence” that the Government’s plan to turn all schools into academies would raise standards.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, how to solve a problem like Michael Gove... Gee, I dunno, maybe hit it repeatedly in its smug, supercilious Tory mug with a two-by-four perhaps....? -_-

he's on the list of politicans who you could misinterpret as comedy characters, along with Boris Johnson. Quite frankly his boat idea is ridculous in a time we can barely afford anything in this country.

 

I'm not one for punching people in the face, but just look at his face, it's like it's asking to be punched. Michael Gove: the most punchable face in Britain.

Is there anyone in the Cabinet who hasn't done or suggested something outrageously daft in the last twelve months? The concerning thing is that the majority of the media will hammer home that it's for the Queen and, given so many people in this country are Royalists for no apparent logical reason, there'll be relatively little fuss over it.

And talking about a MASSIVE YACHT:

 

Gove's idea of as new boat for the Queen has to rank as one of the daftest ideas from a cabinet minister for a long time. If she wants one then let her pay for it herself. I'm sure she can afford it.

 

Does anyone know how long it would take to build it? Or, to put it crudely, what are the chances that she will die before it's finished so that it ends up being delivered to her jug-eared son?

 

It should be noted that the £60m estimate dates from 1997. The current cost is likely to be far higher.

 

And how convenient for Gove that the story about his spin doctor should slip out on the same day that the news is full of his boat idea.

 

 

I think a new Royal Yacht as a present to The Queen for her 60 years of service to us as our Monarch is a great idea. We owe her our thanks for what she's done for this country, attracted tourists and hence millions of pounds spent here. It should be started immediately and completed as fast as possible to give Her Majesty a few years' holiday on it. Yes I am a Royalist and damned proud of it. They deserve every penny the State gives them and more besides.

 

All those of you here criiticising it, have any of you served this country for SIXTY YEARS and longer 24/7 FOR 365 days a year?

Edited January 16, 201213 yr by Common Sense

When I saw this I thought "wtf it's convenient how money can suddenly appear".

 

Moving on, David C's seen sense.

Downing Street rejects diamond jubilee royal yacht idea

 

David Cameron believes it inappropriate to spend public money on vessel, prime minister's spokesman says

 

Queen_UK Elizabeth Windsor

Mr Gove on the phone. Says one can have his toy boat as a diamond jubilee present, although he will miss it at bath times.

6 hours ago

I think a new Royal Yacht as a present to The Queen for her 60 years of service to us as our Monarch is a great idea. We owe her our thanks for what she's done for this country, attracted tourists and hence millions of pounds spent here. It should be started immediately and completed as fast as possible to give Her Majesty a few years' holiday on it. Yes I am a Royalist and damned proud of it. They deserve every penny the State gives them and more besides.

 

All those of you here criiticising it, have any of you served this country for SIXTY YEARS and longer 24/7 FOR 365 days a year?

No, because my father was an actuary not head of state. However, I haven't used my dad's status to demand a job as an actuary for life.

No, because my father was an actuary not head of state. However, I haven't used my dad's status to demand a job as an actuary for life.

 

To be fair though it wasn't her fault that she was born in to an hereditary monarchy though was it? What should she have done, given it up after her uncle had disgraced the family by doing that?

When I saw this I thought "wtf it's convenient how money can suddenly appear".

 

Moving on, David C's seen sense.

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/16/critics-cold-water-royal-yacht" target="_blank">Downing Street rejects diamond jubilee royal yacht idea

 

David Cameron believes it inappropriate to spend public money on vessel, prime minister's spokesman says</a>

 

Well he's lost my vote for that.

To be fair though it wasn't her fault that she was born in to an hereditary monarchy though was it? What should she have done, given it up after her uncle had disgraced the family by doing that?

That would have been an excellent move as long as the rest of her family did the same.

 

As for her uncle, I think his sympathy for Nazi Germany was far worse than the fact that he wanted to marry a divorcee.

As for her uncle, I think his sympathy for Nazi Germany was far worse than the fact that he wanted to marry a divorcee.

 

Yes I do agree with you there.

Ah, the troll is back. Chris, you seem to join whichever side is being comprehensively thrashed in ANY argument on the forum, that's hardly going to be coincidence. Anyone who genuinely believed half of the crap you defend I doubt could form coherent sentences, as proved when we are graced with the presence of an idiotic thug now and again who lasts about a day before being banned.

I think a new Royal Yacht as a present to The Queen for her 60 years of service to us as our Monarch is a great idea. We owe her our thanks for what she's done for this country, attracted tourists and hence millions of pounds spent here. It should be started immediately and completed as fast as possible to give Her Majesty a few years' holiday on it. Yes I am a Royalist and damned proud of it. They deserve every penny the State gives them and more besides.?

 

So, she "deserves" a £60 million yacht just by virtue of the fact that she's not dead yet...? Seriously... That's your argument in a nut-shell.. Are you just a complete moron Chris, or are you actually capable of having a thought not put into your head by The Scum or the Daily Fail...? And, even if she did "deserve" it (which she doesn't, she's Head of State purely by an accident of birth as opposed to having the job on MERIT), her jug-eared, full of shit, adulterer prick of son and his horsey-faced mistress sure as hell DO NOT, and those b'stards would inherit it when Queenie pops her clogs.... You've not really thought this through have you...? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and I am just LOVING the furious back-peddling Michael "most punchable face in Britain" Gove is now being forced to do on his whole idea of the tax-payer stumping up the money, trying to make out that he wasn't REALLY suggesting the public pick up the tab, when it turned out that the idea was about as popular with the country as drowning every single first-born infant in the Thames.... :lol: :lol: People are not really so willing to kow-tow and play the serf to "her Madge" anymore, and we certainly dont want to hear of crack-pot ideas from their lick-spittle, brown-nosing advocates in Parliament like Gove who is clearly angling for a mention in the next New Years "honours"..... -_-

 

And, just to put things into perspective here, while we're suggesting gifting one pensioner a nice big yacht which she can afford to pay for herself.....

 

Elderly may be told to pay £60,000 for care

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhea...0-for-care.html

 

A report from a working group set up by the Department of Health, seen by The Daily Telegraph, has recommended almost doubling a proposed £35,000 cap on the amount an elderly or disabled person would pay for care over their lifetime.

 

Working adults will be told to take out private insurance or release equity from their properties to cover the future cost of care home places or any help they will need in old age. A national campaign will also “nudge” individuals to prepare for elderly support costs through pension schemes or through buying a home which can be used later to pay care bills.

 

Ministers have been advised to set the cap on lifetime care costs at between £50,000 and £60,000. A decision could be announced when Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, publishes a White Paper on the future of social care in April. Cross-party talks to reach a consensus on care funding are due to begin this week.

 

Mr Lansley, a Conservative, Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat care services minister, and Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall, Labour’s health spokesmen, are due to take part.

 

Currently, there is no limit on the costs that individuals can incur for elderly care and an estimated 20,000 people are forced to sell their homes to pay for residential places each year. Senior government sources have told The Daily Telegraph that the idea of introducing a cap on care costs for the first time is widely seen as a “game changer” for reforming the system. A cap would allow private insurance firms and pensions providers to develop new financial products which working-age adults could buy to protect themselves against care costs in old age.

 

Other recommendations from the Department of Health working group included “regular awareness campaigns” and a joint information drive from the Government and financial services industry to highlight “the importance of planning for care costs” to working adults. It called for “a comprehensive system of social marketing, information, nudges and advice to support financial decisions as people work, retire and grow older”.

 

While people are working, they should be “encouraged to buy a home” and save into their pensions, the report proposed. Financial services firms would offer products to help individuals pay for their care costs, including “insurance, equity release, pensions and savings”. Ministers should introduce clear and consistent national rules for assessing the eligibility of pensioners and disabled adults for care services, the report said.

 

Under the current system, one in 10 pensioners faces care bills of more than £100,000. However, anyone with assets of more than £23,250, including in property, receives no help from the state towards the cost of a care home place.

 

Earlier this month, an unprecedented alliance of more than 60 experts, charities and government advisers warned the Prime Minister in a letter to The Daily Telegraph that the care system is in crisis and needs urgent funding reform. They said 800,000 people were being denied the basic care they needed.

 

When the Coalition took office in 2010, ministers established a commission to draw up recommendations for reforming the way social care is funded to protect pensioners from being forced to sell their homes. Last July, Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, recommended a “cap” on the amount anyone should be expected to pay for care over their lifetimes.

 

His report said “£35,000 is the most appropriate and fair figure”, with the Government stepping in to cover any costs above that. However, the Treasury was believed to be reluctant to meet the cost of a cap at that level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All pensioners are equal... But some pensioners are more equal than othes.... (apologies to George Orwell) -_-

 

 

Isn't it amusing how possibly the biggest and most obvious benefit scrounger in the country (and no, I'm not on about Chris) gets such universal fawning from the right wing media?

 

And no Chris, it's not to do with the Queen having no option but to do the job. It's to do with the fact that we subsidise her enough as it is. Why should we give her a yacht by virtue of the fact that she was lucky enough to fall out of a royal vagina and live this long when we have so many other spending priorities in this country? Why should a boat for one person be given as a gift out of taxpayers' money when we're told time and time again that there's no money left and we're 'all in this together'?

Isn't it amusing how possibly the biggest and most obvious benefit scrounger in the country (and no, I'm not on about Chris) gets such universal fawning from the right wing media?

 

And no Chris, it's not to do with the Queen having no option but to do the job. It's to do with the fact that we subsidise her enough as it is. Why should we give her a yacht by virtue of the fact that she was lucky enough to fall out of a royal vagina and live this long when we have so many other spending priorities in this country? Why should a boat for one person be given as a gift out of taxpayers' money when we're told time and time again that there's no money left and we're 'all in this together'?

 

HEAR HEAR.... :cheer:

 

Isn't it amusing how possibly the biggest and most obvious benefit scrounger in the country (and no, I'm not on about Chris) gets such universal fawning from the right wing media?

 

And no Chris, it's not to do with the Queen having no option but to do the job. It's to do with the fact that we subsidise her enough as it is. Why should we give her a yacht by virtue of the fact that she was lucky enough to fall out of a royal vagina and live this long when we have so many other spending priorities in this country? Why should a boat for one person be given as a gift out of taxpayers' money when we're told time and time again that there's no money left and we're 'all in this together'?

Precisely. It really made me sick this morning hearing Nicholas "Fatty" Soames (Tory) and Tom Watson (Lab) MPs on the radio this morning. While they both agreed that spending £60m (or more) on a boat wouldn't be right at this time they both kept going on about "this momentous occasion" and other similar arse-licking phrases. What's momentous about it? She got a job in her twenties without having to anything as vulgar as applying for it or - perish the thought - attending an interview and competing against other applicants. She then had the benefit of being able to eat some of the very best food every day without having to worry about the cost. If she was ill she would have doctors looking after her every need until she recovered. Somehow, through all this luxury, she has managed to live for a further 60 years. Where's the "momentous occasion" in that?

 

OTOH, my father was born two months early and left to die. He only survived because his mother insisted that he should get priority over her. He later spent time in a children's home because his mother couldn't afford to look after him and all his siblings when his parents divorced. Despite that difficult start in life, he managed to get a mathematics degree and qualify as an actuary. Later this year he will be 85. That is an event far more worthy of commemoration (and I don't mean my dad should be given a bloody big boat for his birthday).

So, she "deserves" a £60 million yacht just by virtue of the fact that she's not dead yet...? Seriously... That's your argument in a nut-shell.. Are you just a complete moron Chris, or are you actually capable of having a thought not put into your head by The Scum or the Daily Fail...? And, even if she did "deserve" it (which she doesn't, she's Head of State purely by an accident of birth as opposed to having the job on MERIT), her jug-eared, full of shit, adulterer prick of son and his horsey-faced mistress sure as hell DO NOT, and those b'stards would inherit it when Queenie pops her clogs.... You've not really thought this through have you...? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and I am just LOVING the furious back-peddling Michael "most punchable face in Britain" Gove is now being forced to do on his whole idea of the tax-payer stumping up the money, trying to make out that he wasn't REALLY suggesting the public pick up the tab, when it turned out that the idea was about as popular with the country as drowning every single first-born infant in the Thames.... :lol: :lol: People are not really so willing to kow-tow and play the serf to "her Madge" anymore, and we certainly dont want to hear of crack-pot ideas from their lick-spittle, brown-nosing advocates in Parliament like Gove who is clearly angling for a mention in the next New Years "honours"..... -_-

 

And, just to put things into perspective here, while we're suggesting gifting one pensioner a nice big yacht which she can afford to pay for herself.....

 

Elderly may be told to pay £60,000 for care

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhea...0-for-care.html

 

A report from a working group set up by the Department of Health, seen by The Daily Telegraph, has recommended almost doubling a proposed £35,000 cap on the amount an elderly or disabled person would pay for care over their lifetime.

 

Working adults will be told to take out private insurance or release equity from their properties to cover the future cost of care home places or any help they will need in old age. A national campaign will also “nudge” individuals to prepare for elderly support costs through pension schemes or through buying a home which can be used later to pay care bills.

 

Ministers have been advised to set the cap on lifetime care costs at between £50,000 and £60,000. A decision could be announced when Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, publishes a White Paper on the future of social care in April. Cross-party talks to reach a consensus on care funding are due to begin this week.

 

Mr Lansley, a Conservative, Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat care services minister, and Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall, Labour’s health spokesmen, are due to take part.

 

Currently, there is no limit on the costs that individuals can incur for elderly care and an estimated 20,000 people are forced to sell their homes to pay for residential places each year. Senior government sources have told The Daily Telegraph that the idea of introducing a cap on care costs for the first time is widely seen as a “game changer” for reforming the system. A cap would allow private insurance firms and pensions providers to develop new financial products which working-age adults could buy to protect themselves against care costs in old age.

 

Other recommendations from the Department of Health working group included “regular awareness campaigns” and a joint information drive from the Government and financial services industry to highlight “the importance of planning for care costs” to working adults. It called for “a comprehensive system of social marketing, information, nudges and advice to support financial decisions as people work, retire and grow older”.

 

While people are working, they should be “encouraged to buy a home” and save into their pensions, the report proposed. Financial services firms would offer products to help individuals pay for their care costs, including “insurance, equity release, pensions and savings”. Ministers should introduce clear and consistent national rules for assessing the eligibility of pensioners and disabled adults for care services, the report said.

 

Under the current system, one in 10 pensioners faces care bills of more than £100,000. However, anyone with assets of more than £23,250, including in property, receives no help from the state towards the cost of a care home place.

 

Earlier this month, an unprecedented alliance of more than 60 experts, charities and government advisers warned the Prime Minister in a letter to The Daily Telegraph that the care system is in crisis and needs urgent funding reform. They said 800,000 people were being denied the basic care they needed.

 

When the Coalition took office in 2010, ministers established a commission to draw up recommendations for reforming the way social care is funded to protect pensioners from being forced to sell their homes. Last July, Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, recommended a “cap” on the amount anyone should be expected to pay for care over their lifetimes.

 

His report said “£35,000 is the most appropriate and fair figure”, with the Government stepping in to cover any costs above that. However, the Treasury was believed to be reluctant to meet the cost of a cap at that level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All pensioners are equal... But some pensioners are more equal than othes.... (apologies to George Orwell) -_-

!!!

 

What the actual fuck.

!!!

 

What the actual fuck.

 

My thoughts exactly.... Really nice thing to do to the generation who fought against Hitler and Stalinism, isn't it...?

My thoughts exactly.... Really nice thing to do to the generation who fought against Hitler and Stalinism, isn't it...?

Bear in mind though that what is being proposed will leave many people needing long-term care better off than they are at the moment. It is also closer to what Labour and Lib Dems were proposing before the election than it is the the Tories' proposals which would have largely benefitted the better off.

 

Perhaps this should be a separate thread.