Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/neil-kinnock-david-cameron-will-be-forced-out-like-thatcher-if-he-goes-ahead-with-cruel-tax-credit-a6697736.html

I do hope Kinnock is right.

Nothing clever about altering one's settings...

Oh Ana you are so clever, mine is just whatever the default is. Think I will have to grovel to you again.

Going to go and do something useful now!

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/tory-mps-at-risk-tax-credits

Osborne might have to change his plans.

OFGS I meant 50 per page...perhaps you're right, Nonnie. Must be time for a glass of .

Nonnie, my number of posts per page is set at 100, so I am still only on page 7

(get a grip yourself...)

I hadn't read all the posts, had I
which I think I saw someone had put as one of their 'three things I hate list'

someone else pointed that out to me
I hadn't read all the posts, had I

13 now Ana get a grip!

Just finished the wood filling so come on to see what rubbish/misquotes and surprise surprise there is more! I did not use the word sanity so it must have been 'made up' but it does make me reflect on that subject if someone else has used it maybe they should think about it? DJ are you not worried about your memory or understanding of the written word?

At the point of writing my original post I did not read beyond the first page as that is what my post related to. I still haven't and have not actually posted about the OP, just about the nastiness, obfuscation and fiction which has followed my post.

Thanks rose someone else pointed that out to me and I apologised for my mistake which Elegran kindly accepted. What a shame that others who, to put it charitably, make mistakes, do not apologise. Maybe they are not 'mistakes' I can only assume they are deliberate unless their memories or comprehension is failing. Neither did I know it was compulsory but maybe someone has their own rules they haven't shared with the rest of us.

I've only got 7 pages - already read the posts though!

"Sorry, only read the first page (can't believe 11 pages in such a short time). I totally agree with ceesnan, Ana just wanted to ask a simple question, nothing more or less and a whole load of people jumped to all sorts of conclusions. What is wrong with you all? Do you know her personally? Can you read her mind? I have experienced just such behaviour towards me and found that when challenged such people have no answer.

Not reading the rest for the sake of my own well-being. Fortunately now I'm retired I no longer have to associate with people I consider unpleasant."

This was Nonnie's first contribution, and we get criticised for being personal?
At least some of us have tried to write about the topic.

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/16/david-cameron-spokesman-respond-question-time-tax-credits-complaint

You're right, Nonnie 11 pages is too much to read through, so I am repeating what has been resolved

Apologies all

She did say she wasn't going to read the rest of the thread for her own sanity. I do not think I made that up. I give no credence to someone who says that, so that's okay, then.
Anyway, she's not going to be on any more as she is woodfilling. By the time she finishes, there will probably be another ten pages for her not to read.

She probably thinks that people are unpleasant if they keep assuming that all others are delighted about the things that they are concerned about. If there were less rhetoric, there would be more posters on the political threads.
Nonnie I read that as Elegran showing support for people (you perhaps?) who do not automatically take a stance with certain other posters. ie some posters think that 'if you're not with me you must be against me', whereas some people could be questioning, need to know more about a situation or just see things differently - but necessarily the polar opposite.
In fact, I don't think the above statement was directed at you, just an observation imo.

In fact what is the point of commenting on a political thread that you cannot be bothered to read it? Or any thread, come to that?

Well you could, of course, just be responding to the OP with your own views. I didn't know it was compulsory to read the whole thread to have an opinion on the OP and to express it freely.

Now I shall go and put woodfiller in my latest wood project, far more satisfying than reading rubbish.

I will take advice from most people but not from someone who distorts what I say, reads that she is wrong and is not sufficiently mature to apologise. I can give no credence to anything such a person says. Not only that but repeats a word which she has already been told was her invention. Really it beggars belief that she had the responsible position she claims.

9 Oct 15.25pm I answered The Resolution Foundation definition.
It becomes a benefits question not a baseline question in this country.

Well, Nonnie, there's another page you needn't bother reading.

Soon, as Gracesgran started the thread about research from The Resolution Foundation, why do you not just go on their website and look at their definition of poverty? You never know, you might agree with it.

soon, there may be many definitions of poverty, just think of the definitions of Christian

The definitions of poverty are numerous now I have had a chance to google.

www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/ms/wealth/def_of_poverty/definitions.shtml

Don't worry, nonnie

I always perk up if offered tea and cake.