Search results

going back i see you believe Infosys invested in BP, when the deal goes the other way, and a multiyear deal not a single transaction. i'd say it's odd you've seen it like this, but evidently that's how it's been portrayed by some. how it was reported in India if interested. maybe we could go...

you're literally presenting it as a conspiracy, inferring the deal was only possible because of links between company and influence on future government policy. getting the investment wrong along the way, BP bought services from Infosys. the optics are indeed poor, people see what they want.

not defending them, it's questioning the reasoning. asking if politicans and families should be not be involved in business.

well the poster didnt say anything on that, they want to link company deals. we could say Murty's companies should have been barred from any furlough, should have funded them or closed them from the start. apply same to all politicans and their families, get the root of the issue rather than...

it's true in the past 15 years actions of politicans have caused inflated asset prices. some have become wealthy on the back of that. the cause and effect is not the right way round for harm caused by people being wealthy, they didn't make the politicans take that action - unless again we're...

what does one multinational company using another multinational company got to do with the question? it's people trying desperately to make a conspiracy.

someone owns shares in company their family built up. what actually is the harm? and where would that be, they do their trade mostly in US and India. as we have a hugely wealthy benefator owning BHA, hope some careful thinking in answers.

clearly say pensioners not pensions. that difference is the whole point i stuck my oar in. the poster i quoted goes far further (cut out for that reason), for some reason not picked up.

it would be nonsense, i said nothing like that. i was only agreeing the point about majority of wealth is in the held by those over 55. so maybe it could be appropriate for means testing of benefits currently auto-paid to this group. but not, to be absolutely clear, the state penion. that's...

believe it's over 50% of national wealth tied up in pensions, seperate from property assets. while there are many poor pensioner, there's also a lot of moderate to very well off pensioners too.

a lot of leaps being made there. just because a tweet makes a misinterpretation no need to follow them. pensioners, not pensions, being means tested has been talked about for years. example winter fuel payments, it has long been suggested should only go to those that actually need it...

funny though quite a few on the right have been saying Conservatives have failed because they haven't done these things. taxes have gone up, spending and government is ever increasing. after some crowing that Blair's New Labour had to adopt Thatherite policies, they now complain Tories adopted...

a trap that could be avoided, call out the cuts, explain how spending needs increasing and how it'll be funded. what we currently have is spending increases, tax increases, but apprently some cut to services, with no questions where or how that doesn't add up. and that's before any forecast...

that would be great, which option is the best to get that?

the Guardian article copied has that as their source.

i'm surprised the Resolution Foundation knows the budget ahead of time. that said, what do we want then: spending cuts, more taxes increases, more borrowing?

every opposition motion under May was unopposed? that would be a surprise. all the commentry of proceedings yesturday was highlighting the change of procedure to allow two amendments, not saying the government doing so was against procedure.

seems unlikely government wouldn't offer an amendment on such an important issue, especially as the motion was worded to go against their policy.

trying to understand this: Labour MPs have been threaten, so Hoyle on his own decides to break protocol to put the Labour amendment first, so they can vote in favour. presumably to register their vote in favour of a non-SNP specified ceasfire declaration. and this is considered a good response...

my contention is there might be influenced, most will pick up the media meeting their interests already. a left winger isnt buying or scrolling Daily Mail or watching GB News* and being convinced to change their views. they are read and watched by those already right leaning. same in reverse...