Stephen Nolan, standing in for Victoria Derbyshire interviewed Edwina Currie…and it was a fair interview with Currie given a chance to make her points and Nolan didn’t get upset, Humphrys’ style, when challenged about his use of the ‘welfare Lobby’ type phrases…or ‘slogans’ as Currie put it.
Thought it was a far better interview and more informative than the adversarial interrogation we got from Humphrys with Ian Duncan Smith…having said that Currie was a much better communicator than IDS.
Perhaps Humphrys could learn something from Nolan’s style of interviewing….Nolan isn’t exactly a pushover himself.
Something for the diary…Nolan and Currie have both agreed to try and live on £53 for a week sometime soon…..all I can say is Currie should sleep with one eye open from the Wednesday on….Nolan must have a big appetite and already admits he doesn’t think he can live off that small amount….wouldn’t want to wake up and find a half starved Nolan chewing on your leg…having said that Currie wasn’t too fussy about John Major doing something similar.
This Stephen Nolan?
Ah..the wisdom of crowds…nice spot hadda:
‘He (Nolan) is one of a host of big Northern Ireland names who have formed their own companies.
It is a shrewd move as firms can pay less tax than an individual.
Others include Eamonn Holmes, Gloria Hunniford, Zoe Salmon and Manchester United player Jonny Evans
And Newtownards TV star Christine Bleakley is also laughing all the way to the bank.’
All paying their full wack of taxes of course…as we are told by the BBC….forming a company is not for the purposes of reducing their tax liabilities.
cant stand the both of these bbc creeps.currie makes my skin crawl with her bbc arselicking,what odds the bbc put them both up in a nice hotel electric and gas bills paid,laundry done,why was currie to scared to live on £53 alone.
If they both do it for 6 months, with no outside help whatsoever, with the chances of services (gas, electric phone….ect) being suspended, then fair play.
If not, it is a hollow gesture…mind you, it IS a hollow gesture regardless, no matter what, they both go back to their wonderful comfortable lives after.
Isn’t the point that you’re not meant to live on it, especially by choice, but get a job that pays more instead?
And a very good point you make too.
As is Chop’s prior.
The whole thing is pure bread and circuses, serving nothing rational but certainly giving our brain dead media and their mostly brain dead audiences something to gnaw on.
They whole thing defies rational commentary on near any basis, and it takes a special kind of unicell to decide you can compare apples with rebranded telecoms companies in any sensible way.
Still, it may yet serve to winnow out another weak one from the Westminster family unit who hasn’t grasped how the game is played by now.
I just worry about the mangy, lame ones the jackals are leaving free and clear to lead the whole stupid bunch of ‘trust us with the gnus’ herd over the precipice once installed.
Noone seems to ever make the point that in bankrupt Britain recipients of 53.00 pounds per week (not to say the Housing Benefit they receive) who have paid nothing into the system should feel grateful they get anything instead of moaning about it.
There are plenty of people who brazenly refuse to work and they should just be given 4 weeks to get a job then have everything cut off.
We need to stop encouraging parasites.
put both of these wealthy slobs stephen nolan and edwina currie in a damp council flat with a water meter,gas and electric meters,see how far there £53 goes in this cold weather.
Currie has done this once before, expect it was in the 80s or 90s . She actually failed although she claims she succeeded. Every penny went on food with nothing saved for the cold winter and nothing was put aside for clothing, or for repairs.
Now they will wait for the warmer weather so they don’t have to spend too much on utilities , or get too cold. Of course if they’re going to be in the same property then it’s not the same as trying to manage solo.
RCE the point is that this is supposed to be the amount of money that a working person has to live on not someone unemployed, if it was someone under 25 they’d have to live on something like £30 pw which even Currie might baulk at.
I have no doubt Currie will succeed at this even if she doesn’t eat for a week to do it, she has that stubbornness and she knows there’s a get out something which many don’t have.
Remember too that Matthew Parris made a fool of himself in attempting all this type of twaddle up on Tyneside for some regional programme in the 80s.
Maybe we could put IDS up against a good crop of Beeboids to see who would do best…bets etc and the money going to “cheridee”.
£53 wouldn`t even pay for Davis` piercings to be polished, nor for Johnny Dymonds drugs runner…so my money would be on IDS.
The more the BBC major on this sort of thing, the more obvious the need to lop the BBC properly…after savile you`d have thought that they`d learn.
Infirming the nation…the BBC does little else!
‘The minister in charge of cutting billions from Britain’s welfare bill had claimed he could live on £53 per week – the same amount as one benefit claimant said he survives on after rent and bills.’
‘The current rate of jobseekers’ allowance for unemployed people is up to £56.25 a week for people between the ages of 16 and 24, and up to £71 for an adult over that age.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9966305/MPs-would-struggle-to-live-on-53-a-week-like-benefit-claimants-says-Treasury-minister.html
Come on RCE if you’re going to post figures show you understand the story!
The guy isn’t unemployed, he works on a market, but earns a very low amount. IDS says that these benefits will make it more attractive to work than do nothing. This is why the bBC needed someone working who was worse off.
But even if you were using the example of an unemployed person you’ve failed to take into account the ‘bedroom tax’ and the fact they now have to pay rates which make the actual amount they receive less than the headline figure.
TBH this is the Tories trying to sweeten a benefits cut if they’d been a bunch of honest people they’d have just lopped £20 off everyones benefit and had done with it.
If a similar cut of around 30% was applied accross everyones wages then the defecit would be zero and debt paid off in no time!
£53 is £53, whether it is earned by working on a market or given in state handouts.
As for David Bennett; his story appears to have more inaccuracies than IDS’s CV:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302545/Truth-BBC-welfare-victim-David-Bennett-dared-Iain-Duncan-Smith-live-53-week.html
It seems it all comes down to what one means by ‘live on…’
Indeed it does, but the point still stands that although the headline figure is £71 few are receiving it after the benefit cuts.
Imagine the case of an under 25 on £56.25 unfortunate enough to be unemployed and whose parents have died leaving him a band H house. He will now be expected to give more back than he receives in benefit per week! No one can live on fresh air and this is almost certainly illegal under the rarely seen articles of the EctHR right to life & freedom from torture.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html
I heard blubberboy grovelling to the adulteress, she used to tuck John Major’s shirt tails into his underpants and like that stinking liar IDS must spend 50 quid a week on deodorants
If IDS is a “stinking liar” then the £50-worth of deodorants can’t be working very well.