When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Too busy polishing your halo?
Oh dear. QED
Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.
You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.
That's a fair point, SO.
So, stick around. Every message board has its morons. They're best left to show themselves up for what they are. The rest of us should just get on with exchanging views. It gets heated sometimes, but don't let fools drive you away.
I think you are being optimistic at saying that the job is half done - more like just about a quarter done.
There are so many improvements to be made as most of the world marches past western Europe.
There is still a horrendous amount of waste in both local and national public sectors, with little inclination for self-reform.
Our education system (and especially the STEM part) is being overtaken by the Asians (why do we have a minister in China discovering what they learned from us over 50 years ago?) Yet we have a growing number of uneducated and unemployable who live on benefits that we cannot afford.
We have too many unanswerable quangos making decisions that should be the province of Ministers and the HoP (e.g Environment Agency which is neither capable nor competent).
Our health service is tottering, whilst we waste too much time and thought on TB's ill-thought-out devolution (as badly as he thought out Iraq2). It will be an immense struggle to make our exports competitive and to increase their volume - perhaps we need to focus on import substitution.
No, I have been too generous, we may be just 10% of the way there.
I think you're missing the point a little. There are a few politicians (from all parties) who naturally grate on some voters. Usually those who always think they're right and accept no possibility of error. HH is one such.
I don't think for a second she's in any way supportive of paedo groups, and I doubt if many do. Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt aren't in the same category of irritating so if it was only those two, the story would never have had legs.
Harriet could have stated the obvious. NCCL had loads of affiliates and she was busy with other things (eg progressing her career) but she chose not to because that would have been admitting she was mortal.
So it's schadenfreude writ large. Had the story been about a Tory politician who was similarly annoying (and there are a few), the reaction from many would have been the same.
Not really a burning issue, but I found this an interesting story. There's a so-called doomsday vault [not the safe of Superman's deadly enemy], where seed samples from around the world are kept: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26338709
Sounds like a rather sensible idea. It only cost about £5m too.
What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only half done at best and that it needs a grown up to do it.
So we have seen lots of comments from him about the recovery being too much based on consumer spending, the need to increase exports and investment, the fact that we still have the largest deficit of any large country in Europe, the fact that a lot of this is structural and we need to cut public spending more etc etc.
The risk, as @TOPPING points out, is that he just might be a victim of his own success with people believing the problem is "fixed". How anyone can think it is fixed to the extent it would be safe to let Balls and Miliband anywhere near it is beyond me but presumably people do.
We are used to having election budgets designed to make the government in power more popular in the short term. I just wonder if we will see an austerity budget focussed on the deficit above all else (whilst acknowledging all the good news on unemployment, growth etc). I do think Osborne needs to get the focus of the discussion back to our horrendous and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.
If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
Some gimmes, yes, but what he can't afford to do is a wholesale giveaway, both literally and politically.
Literally, there isn't the money for it and it'd just be increasing the structural deficit, but politically the costs would be even worse, as it'd both imply that the deficit problem was sorted and that it must have been made out as worse than it was if there's now scope for significant goodies / tax cuts - which itself implies that the cuts were either ideological or cynical (so as to provide a pre-election slush fund).
The political strategy for the Conservatives has to be that they - and only they - can be trusted to run the economy. That means ensuring the public believe that there's still a job to be done there, which has the advantage of being true. Some dividend from the work already done might be justified, but not at the cost of undermining the whole.
I agree with you but bringing back the 10p tax rate in some shape or form would be a brilliant political move.
The unasked question in the Harman matter is what is she there for? What purpose does she serve? Deputy leaders should have a role that compliments and reinforces the leader. Prescott did that well for Blair. Harman, on the other hand, is a relic of the Brown era with the potential to be a loose cannon while not bring much to the table.
The other feature of today's YG is a huge leap in concern about the economy and benefits. As we were discussing a huge drop in concern a day or two ago from a different poll, we need to be careful in drawing conclusions.
On topic, I think the Mail discredited itself over Miliband senior (plus countless previous stories) for most people even vaguely inclined to vote Labour, and most people will be just shrugging and saying "There they go again", in the same way that an Express story about Diana doesn't make any of us spend time pondering the details.
Clearly some folk on here and elsewhere would love to believe Harman colluded with paedophiles. Sadly for them it is totally clear that she did not. Obviously, the same folk will also use this story to make broad statements about how dreadful lefties and the left are. That's what they do. So, why don't we all just agree that there are certain posters on here that are just *better* than others; that anyone with left of centre views is per se an evil, unpatriotic hypocrite who just *doesn't get it*; and then move on?
Anyone which does think that Harman 'colluded with paedophiles' is obviously bonkers.
However there is an issue over the activities of the NCCL, and whether their 'right-on' politics in the 1970s blinded officals high up in this organisation from asking questions, or from taking action which they should have taken.
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Too busy polishing your halo?
Oh dear. QED
Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.
You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.
That's a fair point, SO.
Just a I urge Scottish voters, I say to you :
"Stay"
Your "stay" plea might carry more weight if Scottish voters understood what they were staying in. A post-No Scotland is not going to be a very attractive proposition for you lot to sell. Not unless you are going to actually spell out what a No vote will lead to. Are BT going to do that?
And we have no idea about how a post-Yes Scotland will develop either. BT is arguing against a proposition. It is not a political party.
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Too busy polishing your halo?
Oh dear. QED
Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.
You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.
That's a fair point, SO.
Just a I urge Scottish voters, I say to you :
"Stay"
Your "stay" plea might carry more weight if Scottish voters understood what they were staying in. A post-No Scotland is not going to be a very attractive proposition for you lot to sell. Not unless you are going to actually spell out what a No vote will lead to. Are BT going to do that?
By "you lot" I presume you mean the majority of Scottish voters presently intending to vote NO.
As it's YES that is proposing substantial change it's incumbent on you to actually spell out what independence will mean ....
Try the currency issue again for starters .... Is it the groat or barter now ?
Are you sure it wasn't you who was laughing? After all, you have a low opinion of me as you said yourself yesterday for reasons which completely baffled me.
I haven't laughed about anything to do with this story, or said I was enjoying Harmans troubles. Click on my comments as proof if need be.
Personally have barely read about the Harman story, or watched anything about it on tv, and as such I think I only made one comment about the whole affair, which wasn't derogatory about her or anyone else.
I just don't get why you would keep saying "I'm not commenting on this" " I'm leaving" and then keep commenting about it and not leave.
What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only us and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.
If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
Some gimmes, yes, but what he can't afford to do is a wholesale giveaway, both literally and politically.
Literally, there isn't the money for it and it'd just be increasing the structural deficit, but politically the costs would be even worse, as it'd both imply that the deficit problem was sorted and that it must have been made out as worse than it was if there's now scope for significant goodies / tax cuts - which itself implies that the cuts were either ideological or cynical (so as to provide a pre-election slush fund).
The political strategy for the Conservatives has to be that they - and only they - can be trusted to run the economy. That means ensuring the public believe that there's still a job to be done there, which has the advantage of being true. Some dividend from the work already done might be justified, but not at the cost of undermining the whole.
I don't for one moment believe there isn't more money, there always is. What is the point of GO having an austerity last budget so that Balls can spend more ? View it as an insurance cost if you have to. Equally to a level it's simply a re-run of 2010 where if there are no sunny uplands after the pain, who is going to vote for more pain without gain ?
At a personal level the political animal that is GO is facing a choice of 15 months in office and then career dead or possibly hanging on for 6 more years. Which way do you think he will jump ?
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Too busy polishing your halo?
Oh dear. QED
Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.
You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.
That's a fair point, SO.
Just a I urge Scottish voters, I say to you :
"Stay"
Your "stay" plea might carry more weight if Scottish voters understood what they were staying in. A post-No Scotland is not going to be a very attractive proposition for you lot to sell. Not unless you are going to actually spell out what a No vote will lead to. Are BT going to do that?
By "you lot" I presume you mean the majority of Scottish voters presently intending to vote NO.
As it's YES that is proposing substantial change it's incumbent on you to actually spell out what independence will mean ....
Try the currency issue again for starters .... Is it the groat or barter now ?
Dickson will carry on using the Krona whatsoever September's referendum result. He's got no skin in the game.
I heard Jowell muddying the waters further for Harman on the Today programme. The former would have been wise to keep her head down and not be associated with this in any way, shape or form, whilst the latter could have put a stop to this circus earlier in the week, but lives in the weird world of the politician, where an apology of any kind is an admission of guilt. Someone needs to find a decent media adviser pretty smartish.
The Press are doing what they enjoy doing - kicking a politician. It's what their readership like to see, particularly when the subject is a pious member of the 'do as a I say, not as I do' brigade.
Even The Mirror is running stories now - that says a lot.
Hmm, never thought I'd see 'paedophile elephant' in a headline. - my life is complete...!
'Paedophile Elephant' was an early Disney character from a simpler time who had to be quietly dropped along with 'Nazi Giraffe' when attitudes changed.
There are a vast number of Scots who reside outwith Scotland who are passionate about the referendum and @Stuart_Dickson is one of them. I have no issue with that.
My main issue with some members of YES is their inference that only YES have the best interests of Scotland at heart and somehow members of NO are second class Scots.
Presently we form the majority of Scots. It is my firm belief that we shall remain so and that the Union will stand firm and Scotland will be better for it.
The way in which financial figures are presented to Parliament is archaic and simply obfuscatory.
Confusion will reign until someone puts all those figures into some pretty yellow boxes.
Please be serious, Neil.
Even the ONS are paying homage to the Yellow Box, or at least to the opinions of the box creator.
Just looking now at the Business Investment bulletin and noted the following commentary:
Estimates of business investment published in this release are of net investment, that is, the value of capital expenditure on acquisitions of assets less the proceeds received from disposals. It has been suggested that net investment was relatively weak through 2012 and 2013, compared with the growth in other sectors of the economy.
However, it should be noted that in 2012 and 2013, growth in the acquisition of assets has been relatively strong. The net level investment has been weaker, because it has been offset by increasing disposals of assets. These grew more strongly than acquisitions in 2012, and remain at a high level in 2013 (Table 1).
Funny that the ONS is starting to complain about its own distorting method of netting off flow measures.
It won't be long before they accuse themselves of being "archaic and obfuscatory".
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
I regret that you are going (unleass you have changed your mind?). But I can sympathise. However it does diminish the site and impoverish the rest of us - the diversity of views is so important and it's getting patchy enough already.
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Man up, Princess!
This is pretty much the only site I visit every day, and the only site I ever really post on. Sure, it's full of nutters, left, right and centre, but that makes it all the more fun. Tribal nastiness does grate a bit, but after a while, you get to know what the major posters are like, and you can tune a lot of the more crazy posts out. I don't think any sane person on here equates Harman with paedophilia, but the fact that she's in the hotseat, largely due to her inability to accept she made an error of judgement, 40 years ago, when life was a lot simpler, is the thing that's tickling me. Even the left wing press, including the Guardian and Mirror have questioned her handling, and to a lesser extent, the Labour party's handling of the matter.
By all means, if that offends you, then it's probably best that you do stop posting, but I assure you, if you stick around, you'll see just as worse coming from the left, when a Tory inevitably gets caught up in a similar scandal. It doesn't make smearing right, but even you must be able to admit that the left are just as good at smearing as the right. I urge you to stick around, I, as a poster who doesn't want to vote for any of the main party's or UKIP needs to have sane posters from all sides offering opinions.
I would say, however, that if you do resign your commission, I'm a little disappointed in your resignation speech. You shouldn't announce that I'm packing it in, but I'll post a little bit today. You should hijack a thread all guns blazing, expletive ridden, hurling abuse of the vilest kind at your political opponents. That's how I'm going down, when the time comes.
The Mirror Online. A very different beast that mixes some original content with a lot of aggregation. Looks like they are seeking to emulate the Mail Online model, not the News International paywall one.
Diplomacy post - Mollusc/Austinjc whoever you are (Lurkers or regs on this forum) the game is now up and we are awaiting your confirmation.
I'm just glad Hurtllama isn't in this one. @NickPalmer you may well be world champion, but it was somewhat a baptism of fire to be chucked in with @Hurstllama as a neighbour. Cunning beyond cunning, he has played a fantastic Turkey.
Hmm, never thought I'd see 'paedophile elephant' in a headline. - my life is complete...!
'Paedophile Elephant' was an early Disney character from a simpler time who had to be quietly dropped along with 'Nazi Giraffe' when attitudes changed.
LOL - I believer Muffin the Mule went the same way. ; )
One odd thing about the Mail's attacks on Harman and Dromey is that they've targeted the wrong bit of their seventies record. There's plenty for them to be ashamed of in their support for vicious thugs using violence and intimidation to prevent people going about their lawful business, including organising intimidatory secondary picketing against people completely uninvolved in industrial disputes.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
I didn't see any of the sensitive left being sympathetic to Socrates when Tim said he was drooling over child abuse stories... They were silent. So there is your proof that this is partisan
@TheLastBoyScout Can I ask you to reconsider - obviously if you need to do stuff no need to poster here every 5 seconds but the centre-left is getting a bit thin on the ground here and it gets tricky if it becomes just centre <-> rightish posters arguing over points.
You're definitely one of the more intelligent centre-left posters here, and your contributions are valuable.
What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only us and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.
If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
Some gimmes, yes, but what he can't afford to do is a wholesale giveaway, both literally and politically.
Literally, there isn't the money for it and it'd just be increasing the structural deficit, but politically the costs would be even worse, as it'd both imply that the deficit problem was sorted and that it must have been made out as worse than it was if there's now scope for significant goodies / tax cuts - which itself implies that the cuts were either ideological or cynical (so as to provide a pre-election slush fund).
The political strategy for the Conservatives has to be that they - and only they - can be trusted to run the economy. That means ensuring the public believe that there's still a job to be done there, which has the advantage of being true. Some dividend from the work already done might be justified, but not at the cost of undermining the whole.
I don't for one moment believe there isn't more money, there always is. What is the point of GO having an austerity last budget so that Balls can spend more ? View it as an insurance cost if you have to. Equally to a level it's simply a re-run of 2010 where if there are no sunny uplands after the pain, who is going to vote for more pain without gain ?
At a personal level the political animal that is GO is facing a choice of 15 months in office and then career dead or possibly hanging on for 6 more years. Which way do you think he will jump ?
There is plenty of money, Mr. Brooke.
And even more of it now George has booked £13 billion of future QE losses to this fiscal year's National Accounts.
So don't worry about electoral bribes.
The problem, insofar as it can be described as such, is that using liquidated assets to fund current expenditure is not a sustainable method of managing an economy over the long term.
It may be OK as a short term method of keeping the home fires burning but the austerity belt will need re-tightening from mid 2015 onwards.
Still the diet won't be as bad as it has been this term (the absence external shocks permitting).
The Mirror Online. A very different beast that mixes some original content with a lot of aggregation. Looks like they are seeking to emulate the Mail Online model, not the News International paywall one.
That's rather weak SO, no-one out there seperates the Mail Online from the Daily Mail...so why should the same apply to the Mirror?
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Man up, Princess!
This is pretty much the only site I visit every day, and the only site I ever really post on. Sure, it's full of nutters, left, right and centre, but that makes it all the more fun. Tribal nastiness does grate a bit, but after a while, you get to know what the major posters are like, and you can tune a lot of the more crazy posts out. I don't think any sane person on here equates Harman with paedophilia, but the fact that she's in the hotseat, largely due to her inability to accept she made an error of judgement, 40 years ago, when life was a lot simpler, is the thing that's tickling me. Even the left wing press, including the Guardian and Mirror have questioned her handling, and to a lesser extent, the Labour party's handling of the matter.
By all means, if that offends you, then it's probably best that you do stop posting, but I assure you, if you stick around, you'll see just as worse coming from the left, when a Tory inevitably gets caught up in a similar scandal. It doesn't make smearing right, but even you must be able to admit that the left are just as good at smearing as the right. I urge you to stick around, I, as a poster who doesn't want to vote for any of the main party's or UKIP needs to have sane posters from all sides offering opinions.
I would say, however, that if you do resign your commission, I'm a little disappointed in your resignation speech. You shouldn't announce that I'm packing it in, but I'll post a little bit today. You should hijack a thread all guns blazing, expletive ridden, hurling abuse of the vilest kind at your political opponents. That's how I'm going down, when the time comes.
Flounce or flounce not; there is no "flounce, taking effect not forthwith but at a specified time in the future." Or if there is it look a bit weak.
Diplomacy post - Mollusc/Austinjc whoever you are (Lurkers or regs on this forum) the game is now up and we are awaiting your confirmation.
I'm just glad Hurtllama isn't in this one. @NickPalmer you may well be world champion, but it was somewhat a baptism of fire to be chucked in with @Hurstllama as a neighbour. Cunning beyond cunning, he has played a fantastic Turkey.
PB is turning into the Ark on LSD !!
We've got paedo elephants, Nazi giraffes, muffin mules and now fantastic turkey's !!
Soon SeanT will be on horse again, OGH as bald eagle, Fitalass as pussy galore and all this talk of ginger rodents !!
Tim had his moments of wit and brilliance, but it was buried in a lot of repetitive personal abuse of politicians and occassionally of other posters. He was not a civilising influence, unlike LBS.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
I regret that you are going (unleass you have changed your mind?). But I can sympathise. However it does diminish the site and impoverish the rest of us - the diversity of views is so important and it's getting patchy enough already.
It is no more "patchy" now than it has always been. The main problem around here is the patchy moderation rather than the patchy contributors. Certain excellent posters have been viciously treated, while certain other total loop the loops have been able to rum amok unhindered. It is totally inexplicable. (Actually, it is very explicable, but you are just not allowed to explain it around here.)
Tim had his moments of wit and brilliance, but it was buried in a lot of repetitive personal abuse of politicians and occassionally of other posters. He was not a civilising influence, unlike LBS.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
My only regret with Tim is that I didn't follow and stick more money on his tips.
Tim had his moments of wit and brilliance, but it was buried in a lot of repetitive personal abuse of politicians and occassionally of other posters. He was not a civilising influence, unlike LBS.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
My only regret with Tim is that I didn't follow and stick more money on his tips.
My main regret is that he isnt around to take advantage of any more.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years
2/9 No 9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
- "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"
That cant' be right. The last Scottish general election, when the SNP won the overall majority, was only 2 years and 9 months ago, and IIRC it was a long time after that that Betfair opened their IndyRef market. So, I would guess that the market is about 2 years old. Unless there is a way of actually seeing the start date?
According to Oddschecker, Betfair prices start on 23rd July 2013, so barely 7 months. Also showing market currently suspended for some reason.
What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only us and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.
If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
Some gimmes, yes, but what he can't afford to do is a wholesale giveaway, both literally and politically.
ividend from the work already done might be justified, but not at the cost of undermining the whole.
I don't for one moment believe there isn't more money, there always is. What is the point of GO having an austerity last budget so that Balls can spend more ? View it as an insurance
At a personal level the political animal that is GO is facing a choice of 15 months in office and then career dead or possibly hanging on for 6 more years. Which way do you think he will jump ?
There is plenty of money, Mr. Brooke.
And even more of it now George has booked £13 billion of future QE losses to this fiscal year's National Accounts.
So don't worry about electoral bribes.
The problem, insofar as it can be described as such, is that using liquidated assets to fund current expenditure is not a sustainable method of managing an economy over the long term.
It may be OK as a short term method of keeping the home fires burning but the austerity belt will need re-tightening from mid 2015 onwards.
Still the diet won't be as bad as it has been this term (the absence external shocks permitting).
At the risk of covering old ground Mr Pole the problem has nothing to do with the cash management side that's the easy bit. The problem has to do with the fundamentals of the underlying economy and the inability to expand capacity to match our own needs. The structural changes which Osborne flunked in 2011 should have been kicking in now as it is they all have to be done again in the next Parliament or if Balls gets in the one after that. A wasted Parliament as I have told you before.
Tim had his moments of wit and brilliance, but it was buried in a lot of repetitive personal abuse of politicians and occassionally of other posters. He was not a civilising influence, unlike LBS.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.
Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however
My only regret with Tim is that I didn't follow and stick more money on his tips.
My main regret is that he isnt around to take advantage of any more.
Which losing bets did he make with you - his May next leader, a couple of Nadine Dorries tips and parliamentary seats = 650 were the ones I remember he made and I followed up on. He wasn't bad on the footy too.
@TSE is running favourite for TOTY this year though.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years
2/9 No 9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
- "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"
That cant' be right. The last Scottish general election, when the SNP won the overall majority, was only 2 years and 9 months ago, and IIRC it was a long time after that that Betfair opened their IndyRef market. So, I would guess that the market is about 2 years old. Unless there is a way of actually seeing the start date?
According to Oddschecker, Betfair prices start on 23rd July 2013, so barely 7 months. Also showing market currently suspended for some reason.
Thanks. I didn't think that Betfair market was all that old. Certainly not 3 years old. So 170,000 GBP traded in 7 months is not bad going. Eg. have a peek at the miniscule sums traded on most other UK politics markets, eg. London Mayor (800 GBP) or Next LD Leader (6,700 GBP).
By the way, it looks like SUSP on Oddschecker but in fact the market is open:
If you get him to put money on some of his more heartfelt prejudices you were always onto a winner. He paid out for Cameron not sacking Lansley and Osborne but perhaps the worst bet was the one on whether Osborne would apologise to the Commons for misleading it over Darling's actions. Those prejudices cost him a few hundred pounds but it all went to a good cause.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years
2/9 No 9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
- "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"
That cant' be right. The last Scottish general election, when the SNP won the overall majority, was only 2 years and 9 months ago, and IIRC it was a long time after that that Betfair opened their IndyRef market. So, I would guess that the market is about 2 years old. Unless there is a way of actually seeing the start date?
According to Oddschecker, Betfair prices start on 23rd July 2013, so barely 7 months. Also showing market currently suspended for some reason.
It's not suspended, the Betfair price is currently 5.4/5.5 which is about right by my reckoning.
2013 GDP growth weaker, first two quarters revised downwards (a fate I fear the last 2 quarters may well suffer).
Household spending fuelled most fo the growth of course, although investment and trade looked better in the final half and particularly final quarter.
Added to disappointing borrowing figures this really paints a picture of a typically weak Tory recovery.
Nothing really changes my belief that the UK is going to do well just to match 2013 for growth and some of the predictions of near 3% growth this year are wild and absurd.
The Mirror Online. A very different beast that mixes some original content with a lot of aggregation. Looks like they are seeking to emulate the Mail Online model, not the News International paywall one.
That's rather weak SO, no-one out there seperates the Mail Online from the Daily Mail...so why should the same apply to the Mirror?
I was commenting on the business model. It's interesting that the Mirror has gone for free-to-access aggregation, rather than a paywall.
Media platforms will carry a range of opinions. I would not necessarily equate the views of an online columnist with those of a whole newspaper, but that is another conversation.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
- "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"
That cant' be right. The last Scottish general election, when the SNP won the overall majority, was only 2 years and 9 months ago, and IIRC it was a long time after that that Betfair opened their IndyRef market. So, I would guess that the market is about 2 years old. Unless there is a way of actually seeing the start date?
According to Oddschecker, Betfair prices start on 23rd July 2013, so barely 7 months. Also showing market currently suspended for some reason.
Thanks. I didn't think that Betfair market was all that old. Certainly not 3 years old. So 170,000 GBP traded in 7 months is not bad going. Eg. have a peek at the miniscule sums traded on most other UK politics markets, eg. London Mayor (800 GBP) or Next LD Leader (6,700 GBP).
By the way, it looks like SUSP on Oddschecker but in fact the market is open:
According to link I sent in that post, stan James were 1/4 no on may 9th 201, that's why I said three years, but fair enough if Betfair joined later
It's about the same as was traded on olympiakos vs man utd first goalscorer market on Betfair yesterday so hardly massive in 7 months.
Don't see that this makes any difference to what the result will be, but the truth is that it's not a very strong betting market at the moment... Hardly surprising, but you can't really cite minor movements in price to prove anything really either way
If Sean Connery had a million quid on yes with hills I'm sure they'd move the price but so what? Same if Alex Ferguson had a mill on no
Comparison with london mayor are ridiculous, no one knows who's nominated, a simple yes or no bet is the easiest possible market to bet on.
I can almost guarantee that bookies are only moving prices on trade, not looking at opinion polls
The annual activity survey by Oil and Gas UK found a rapid increase in production costs, up by 15% last year.
The average cost of extracting a barrel of oil was up by 27% in only a year, to reach £17.
The number of fields with cost per barrel above £30 has doubled in the last 12 months.
Rising costs were cited last week by Centrica, which has decided to focus future investments in Norway and North America, rather than UK waters.
With rising costs, production tax payments to the UK Treasury are expected to fall from £6.5bn during the 2012-13 financial year to £5bn in the current year.
However, there is a more positive picture from high levels of investment in known reserves.
That is estimated to reach £13bn during this year, slightly below the £14.4bn record set last year. Much of that was focused in four big fields.
Following the rapid decline in oil and gas production from UK waters in recent years, the rate of fall slowed during 2013 - down by 8% to 1.43m barrels of oil per day, or its gas equivalent.
Output is expected to rise during this year, as 25 new fields come on stream.
@LBS - Don't go. Too few lefties here as it is. Just ignore topics/posters you don't like. Your dismay at others' pronouncements is just tilting at windmills. BTW, windmills and AGW are other topics I'd steer clear of
'I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however'
Strange that Nick Palmer didn't have a problem when Tim was doing the name calling,silly nicknames & abuse.
'I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however'
Strange that Nick Palmer didn't have a problem when Tim was doing the name calling,silly nicknames & abuse.
Exactly. Pretending to be impartial is the same as telling a big fat lie
Tim said Socrates drooled over child abuse... Not one left leaning poster pulled him up
I think the attacks on those who welcomed Harriet Harman being a recipient of the mud she happily has slung at others over the years are extraordinary. I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia - I don't think the Mail ever made that accusation. But she was a legal officer in the NCCL and seems from what I read in the Guardian today have been relatively relaxed about those organisations affiliated to it. I have no doubt that had this story related to a Tory politician the BBC, and left-wing posters here would have been all over it like a rash - remember McAlpine, how apt that it is Sally Bercow today who rushes to Harman's defence.
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
I would start to be concerned if growth went over 2% for any long spell of time. It would suggest to me that the economy was overheating into an inflationary boom. It is quite a feat to be producing figures of this order while tightening budgets and spending. I agree that some of this is consumers finding fresh confidence, but some is also delayed consumer spending from the Brown Bust happening. One can only defer replacing the car/sofa/computer for so long.
For all their faults, George and Danny have navigated some very difficult waters very well. Balls is increasingly realising that not only is plan A working, but that he will follow the same. He will put a lot of spin on some trivial differences, but the underlying course will be unchanged. Balls, and everyone else can see that it is the correct course.
2013 GDP growth weaker, first two quarters revised downwards (a fate I fear the last 2 quarters may well suffer).
Household spending fuelled most fo the growth of course, although investment and trade looked better in the final half and particularly final quarter.
Added to disappointing borrowing figures this really paints a picture of a typically weak Tory recovery.
Nothing really changes my belief that the UK is going to do well just to match 2013 for growth and some of the predictions of near 3% growth this year are wild and absurd.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
- "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"
SNIP
Thanks. I didn't think that Betfair market was all that old. Certainly not 3 years old. So 170,000 GBP traded in 7 months is not bad going. Eg. have a peek at the miniscule sums traded on most other UK politics markets, eg. London Mayor (800 GBP) or Next LD Leader (6,700 GBP).
By the way, it looks like SUSP on Oddschecker but in fact the market is open:
According to link I sent in that post, stan James were 1/4 no on may 9th 201, that's why I said three years, but fair enough if Betfair joined later
It's about the same as was traded on olympiakos vs man utd first goalscorer market on Betfair yesterday so hardly massive in 7 months.
Don't see that this makes any difference to what the result will be, but the truth is that it's not a very strong betting market at the moment... Hardly surprising, but you can't really cite minor movements in price to prove anything really either way
If Sean Connery had a million quid on yes with hills I'm sure they'd move the price but so what? Same if Alex Ferguson had a mill on no
Comparison with london mayor are ridiculous, no one knows who's nominated, a simple yes or no bet is the easiest possible market to bet on.
I can almost guarantee that bookies are only moving prices on trade, not looking at opinion polls
At no point did I say that any bookie was adjusting prices based on impending polls. I meant that the prices on No were lengthening because money was going on Yes, and conjectured as to why money might be going on Yes. Nothing more, nothing less.
'I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however'
Strange that Nick Palmer didn't have a problem when Tim was doing the name calling,silly nicknames & abuse.
Exactly. Pretending to be impartial is the same as telling a big fat lie
Tim said Socrates drooled over child abuse... Not one left leaning poster pulled him up
That's not right is it.
Didn't Tim just observe that Socrates got very excited by cases of child abuse where alleged perpetrators seemed to come from certain communities while plainly ignoring others?
I think the attacks on those who welcomed Harriet Harman being a recipient of the mud she happily has slung at others over the years are extraordinary. I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia - I don't think the Mail ever made that accusation. But she was a legal officer in the NCCL and seems from what I read in the Guardian today have been relatively relaxed about those organisations affiliated to it. I have no doubt that had this story related to a Tory politician the BBC, and left-wing posters here would have been all over it like a rash - remember McAlpine, how apt that it is Sally Bercow today who rushes to Harman's defence.
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
I don't think it's extraordinary that fair-minded people across the spectrum object to a smear campaign aiming to use old news to associate a politician with paedophilia. I've found it quite encouraging that people from across PB's normal tribal lines have seen it for what it is (equally, PB would be far less enjoyable if everyone agreed on anything, so it's equally welcome that you appear to take a different and, in my sole, humble and influence-free opinion, really dumb view of it).
What I don't get is this obsession with tribalism. It's not a war between a left-bloc and a right-bloc. There have been plenty of occasions where sensible posters at either end of the spectrum have sympathised with an opponent being unfairly treated, or taken an "ally" to task for some particularly stupid or obnoxious comments. But because (at least some of us) don't come here to fight the good fight for Team A or Team B, it doesn't mean that we're on the hook for everything posted by someone whose general views we sympathise. It must be a very strange world if I am only allowed to criticise the estimable Mr Nabavi for some apparent transgression if I have previously remembered to criticise Southam for the same kind of thing.
'I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however'
Strange that Nick Palmer didn't have a problem when Tim was doing the name calling,silly nicknames & abuse.
Exactly. Pretending to be impartial is the same as telling a big fat lie
Tim said Socrates drooled over child abuse... Not one left leaning poster pulled him up
That's not right is it.
Didn't Tim just observe that Socrates got very excited by cases of child abuse where alleged perpetrators seemed to come from certain communities while plainly ignoring others?
I share your recollection though am secretly impressed by isam's ability to (apparently unconsciously) elide the original statement to his modified, entirely different accusation. But to the more important point, isn't this just really, really dull?
I would start to be concerned if growth went over 2% for any long spell of time. It would suggest to me that the economy was overheating into an inflationary boom. It is quite a feat to be producing figures of this order while tightening budgets and spending. I agree that some of this is consumers finding fresh confidence, but some is also delayed consumer spending from the Brown Bust happening. One can only defer replacing the car/sofa/computer for so long.
For all their faults, George and Danny have navigated some very difficult waters very well. Balls is increasingly realising that not only is plan A working, but that he will follow the same. He will put a lot of spin on some trivial differences, but the underlying course will be unchanged. Balls, and everyone else can see that it is the correct course.
This is a very long way from plan A not least because plan A was predicated on rebalancing the economy and that, even now, is some way off.
Plan A was meant to reduce the deficit to near zero by 2015, but that is going to be some £70billion awry.
Plan A was meant to have seen GDP grow cumulatively by some 8pc by now, yet caused a double dip recession and sees the UK languishing somewhat below its pre recession peak.
Osborne has moved the goalposts as much as Gordon Brown used to and is still failing. I'm not surprised his fanclub fail to spot this.
I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia
Indeed. The charge against Harman is of appalling judgement, in that all of her views are thoughtless, hypocritical, spiteful, nasty or simply flat-out foolish. If Harman told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I would tend not to agree with her because she is so reliably wrong.
Being the legal officer of an anti-family pressure group, and not objecting - on the record - to its having paedophiles as fellow travellers is further evidence of her consistently appalling judgement. It's not evidence that she supported paedophiles. It's evidence that she hated something else- the nuclear family and the then laws around the age of consent - so much that she'd accept literally anyone who agreed with her as an ally without question.
It is this preoccupation with having a order of preference for its hatreds that undoes the left every time. If a lefty sees a police officer in a fight with a coal miner s/he knows immediately whose side to take - the left hates the police and likes miners. If s/he hears of a white farmer hitting a homosexual s/he knows whose side to take - the left hates farmers.
It is much harder for the lefty to know what position to take if a muslim man beats up a homosexual, or if a black South African police officer opens fire on black South African miners. The lefty considers all parties involved to be heroes above reproach, even though some sort of crime has clearly been committed.
If you rely on prejudice rather than rational thought to instruct you, end up with this sort of problem. It is worse for the left, because there is a maximum of one acceptable opinion on any matter and to vary from it is class treason and thoughtcrime.
Finding out that she wasn't bothered about having paedophiles in the tent is a litmus test of judgement that she fails, in the same way that having supported CND in the 1980s is a fail, or believing the dotcom hype in the 1990s is a fail.
Sally *innocent face* Bercow is defending Harriet Harman over PIE/NCCL lnks? This is the same Sally *innocent face* Bercow who was happy to smear a dying old man with fake pedophile links?
I've got that right, yes?
Do Lefties never stop to think how they look to everyone else? The hypocrisy is Oscar winning.
The same crowd likely approved when Prescott gave a member of the public 'a slap' for egg throwing.
Sally *innocent face* Bercow is defending Harriet Harman over PIE/NCCL links? This is the same Sally *innocent face* Bercow who was happy to smear a dying old man with fake pedophile links?
I've got that right, yes?
Do Lefties never stop to think how they look to everyone else? The hypocrisy is Oscar winning.
I think we all recognise on here that righties are just better people than lefties. So why don't we all just move on?
I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia
Indeed. The charge against Harman is of appalling judgement, in that all of her views are thoughtless, hypocritical, spiteful, nasty or simply flat-out foolish. If Harman told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I would tend not to agree with her because she is so reliably wrong.
Harman thoroughly deserves this.
Harman deserves to be smeared because you disagree with her?
I think the attacks on those who welcomed Harriet Harman being a recipient of the mud she happily has slung at others over the years are extraordinary. I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia - I don't think the Mail ever made that accusation. But she was a legal officer in the NCCL and seems from what I read in the Guardian today have been relatively relaxed about those organisations affiliated to it. I have no doubt that had this story related to a Tory politician the BBC, and left-wing posters here would have been all over it like a rash - remember McAlpine, how apt that it is Sally Bercow today who rushes to Harman's defence.
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
I don't think it's extraordinary that fair-minded people across the spectrum object to a smear campaign aiming to use old news to associate a politician with paedophilia. I've found it quite encouraging that people from across PB's normal tribal lines have seen it for what it is (equally, PB would be far less enjoyable if everyone agreed on anything, so it's equally welcome that you appear to take a different and, in my sole, humble and influence-free opinion, really dumb view of it).
What I don't get is this obsession with tribalism. It's not a war between a left-bloc and a right-bloc. There have been plenty of occasions where sensible posters at either end of the spectrum have sympathised with an opponent being unfairly treated, or taken an "ally" to task for some particularly stupid or obnoxious comments. But because (at least some of us) don't come here to fight the good fight for Team A or Team B, it doesn't mean that we're on the hook for everything posted by someone whose general views we sympathise. It must be a very strange world if I am only allowed to criticise the estimable Mr Nabavi for some apparent transgression if I have previously remembered to criticise Southam for the same kind of thing.
And in my 'humble and influence-free opinion' (sic) you're even dumber:))
I would have thought the sign of a less pleasant poster was making up statements about other posters who they disagree with and then gratuitously liken them to BNP supporters. And then, when given concrete evidence of why they were completely wrong, declining either to comment or apologise.
Hmm, never thought I'd see 'paedophile elephant' in a headline. - my life is complete...!
'Paedophile Elephant' was an early Disney character from a simpler time who had to be quietly dropped along with 'Nazi Giraffe' when attitudes changed.
That's hilarious!
I could just imagine a cartoon in which Paedophile Elephant invites little boys and girls to come and play with him.
I think the attacks on those who welcomed Harriet Harman being a recipient of the mud she happily has slung at others over the years are extraordinary. I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia - I don't think the Mail ever made that accusation. But she was a legal officer in the NCCL and seems from what I read in the Guardian today have been relatively relaxed about those organisations affiliated to it. I have no doubt that had this story related to a Tory politician the BBC, and left-wing posters here would have been all over it like a rash - remember McAlpine, how apt that it is Sally Bercow today who rushes to Harman's defence.
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
I don't think it's extraordinary that fair-minded people across the spectrum object to a smear campaign aiming to use old news to associate a politician with paedophilia. I've found it quite encouraging that people from across PB's normal tribal lines have seen it for what it is (equally, PB would be far less enjoyable if everyone agreed on anything, so it's equally welcome that you appear to take a different and, in my sole, humble and influence-free opinion, really dumb view of it).
What I don't get is this obsession with tribalism. It's not a war between a left-bloc and a right-bloc. There have been plenty of occasions where sensible posters at either end of the spectrum have sympathised with an opponent being unfairly treated, or taken an "ally" to task for some particularly stupid or obnoxious comments. But because (at least some of us) don't come here to fight the good fight for Team A or Team B, it doesn't mean that we're on the hook for everything posted by someone whose general views we sympathise. It must be a very strange world if I am only allowed to criticise the estimable Mr Nabavi for some apparent transgression if I have previously remembered to criticise Southam for the same kind of thing.
And in my 'humble and influence-free opinion' (sic) you're even dumber:))
Ideal. In the spirit of PB pedantry and analysis of minutiae, how does a double-bracketed smiley differ from the more conventional single-bracketed variant? Obviously I'd like to be sure I'm not missing some coded right-wing insult....
I think the attacks on those who welcomed Harriet Harman being a recipient of the mud she happily has slung at others over the years are extraordinary. I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia - I don't think the Mail ever made that accusation. But she was a legal officer in the NCCL and seems from what I read in the Guardian today have been relatively relaxed about those organisations affiliated to it. I have no doubt that had this story related to a Tory politician the BBC, and left-wing posters here would have been all over it like a rash - remember McAlpine, how apt that it is Sally Bercow today who rushes to Harman's defence.
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
I don't think it's extraordinary that fair-minded people across the spectrum object to a smear campaign aiming to use old news to associate a politician with paedophilia. I've found it quite encouraging that people from across PB's normal tribal lines have seen it for what it is (equally, PB would be far less enjoyable if everyone agreed on anything, so it's equally welcome that you appear to take a different and, in my sole, humble and influence-free opinion, really dumb view of it).
What I don't get is this obsession with tribalism. It's not a war between a left-bloc and a right-bloc. There have been plenty of occasions where sensible posters at either end of the spectrum have sympathised with an opponent being unfairly treated, or taken an "ally" to task for some particularly stupid or obnoxious comments. But because (at least some of us) don't come here to fight the good fight for Team A or Team B, it doesn't mean that we're on the hook for everything posted by someone whose general views we sympathise. It must be a very strange world if I am only allowed to criticise the estimable Mr Nabavi for some apparent transgression if I have previously remembered to criticise Southam for the same kind of thing.
And in my 'humble and influence-free opinion' (sic) you're even dumber:))
Ideal. In the spirit of PB pedantry and analysis of minutiae, how does a double-bracketed smiley differ from the more conventional single-bracketed variant? Obviously I'd like to be sure I'm not missing some coded right-wing insult....
I think you may be missing much - but not that one - just too much pressure on the keypad.
Plan A was meant to reduce the deficit to near zero by 2015, but that is going to be some £70billion awry.
Where do you think the missing £70 billion of cuts should have been found?
Greater investment in productive assets (and fewer cuts to capital, rather than revenue, expenditure) leading to sustained economic growth and higher tax revenues to eliminate the structural deficit sooner was the general idea. Fortunately for austerians, it's now just an untestable counterfactual.
When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.
In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.
As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.
I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
Such a shame. Your posts always made the thread easier to read, as I knew i could skip anything you ever said, as it was bound to be dull and/or pointless.
Is there anything we can do to make you reconsider?
Charmer.
Stick to wine recommendations. You are good at that.
Plan A was affected by the eurozone crisis, but has won out in the end. Those calling for more spending stimulus to improve growth as recently as a year ago have been shown to be wrong. Such spending would have caused an inflationary spiral. Further austerity is needed to right the deficit, but a growing economy can cope with that.
It is noticeable that the economies that went for austerity such as Ireland and Spain are now looking at bright prospects, while those that went for spending such as France are seeing the errors of their ways. China is also looking a little ropey as its spending stimulus looks to have generated more problems than it solved.
To quote Jim Callaghan:
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
I would start to be concerned if growth went over 2% for any long spell of time. It would suggest to me that the economy was overheating into an inflationary boom. It is quite a feat to be producing figures of this order while tightening budgets and spending. I agree that some of this is consumers finding fresh confidence, but some is also delayed consumer spending from the Brown Bust happening. One can only defer replacing the car/sofa/computer for so long.
For all their faults, George and Danny have navigated some very difficult waters very well. Balls is increasingly realising that not only is plan A working, but that he will follow the same. He will put a lot of spin on some trivial differences, but the underlying course will be unchanged. Balls, and everyone else can see that it is the correct course.
This is a very long way from plan A not least because plan A was predicated on rebalancing the economy and that, even now, is some way off.
Plan A was meant to reduce the deficit to near zero by 2015, but that is going to be some £70billion awry.
Plan A was meant to have seen GDP grow cumulatively by some 8pc by now, yet caused a double dip recession and sees the UK languishing somewhat below its pre recession peak.
Osborne has moved the goalposts as much as Gordon Brown used to and is still failing. I'm not surprised his fanclub fail to spot this.
On topic, and on most of this thread, blah blah blah meh.
OT EU: Cameron apparently doesn't like Merkel's favoured candidate for the EPP Commission nomination, not that he has much influence since he's left the EPP and his own group doesn't want to put up a candidate. It's a bit weird seeing Thorning-Schmidt floated again. It seems hard to believe the member states would go to the trouble of picking a fight with parliament by rejecting their nominee, only to pick somebody interesting who might have a mind of their own. Maybe Cameron's goal is just to make sure whoever he backs doesn't get the job, to avoid being implicated when the tabloids go after them over whatever.
I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia
Indeed. The charge against Harman is of appalling judgement, in that all of her views are thoughtless, hypocritical, spiteful, nasty or simply flat-out foolish. If Harman told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I would tend not to agree with her because she is so reliably wrong.
Harman thoroughly deserves this.
Harman deserves to be smeared because you disagree with her?
RIghty logic.
Telling the truth about someone's past record isn't a smear - albeit, it might not be what that person wants to hear.
Hmm, never thought I'd see 'paedophile elephant' in a headline. - my life is complete...!
'Paedophile Elephant' was an early Disney character from a simpler time who had to be quietly dropped along with 'Nazi Giraffe' when attitudes changed.
That's hilarious!
I could just imagine a cartoon in which Paedophile Elephant invites little boys and girls to come and play with him.
Plan A was meant to reduce the deficit to near zero by 2015, but that is going to be some £70billion awry.
Where do you think the missing £70 billion of cuts should have been found?
There doesn't need to be any cuts.
Phew - back on track with the left's proper and expert role of promoting economic illiteracy.
Back in 2010, when much of Europe and the rest of the world also was in chaos, with ratings agencies (in their time-honoured fashion) looking for the next downgrade, to announce a series of cuts, and austerity, was absolutely essential. Not to have done so would have been to tempt a downgrade (we got one) and a hike in interest rates that would have made the Q12015 rate rise "dilemma" seem like an economic nirvana.
There really was no alternative and had Lab/EdB been in power they would have done exactly the same thing.
The thug who punched the man saw he did not move after the assault.
Add to the fact he was obviously heading into a road where cars could have run him over and this combined with the fact that the kerb is higher than the road means that it is reasonably forseeable that there will be a sustained head injury and possibly death to the man he punched.
Also the perpetrator is a different skin colour to the victim so although I detest everything about this element of the law it could be argued race is an aggravating factor.
I think it should be charged as manslaughter (Probably couldn't make a murder charge stick) but a discretionary life sentence should be handed out.
I have not seen one post which actually accused her of supporting paedophilia
Indeed. The charge against Harman is of appalling judgement, in that all of her views are thoughtless, hypocritical, spiteful, nasty or simply flat-out foolish. If Harman told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I would tend not to agree with her because she is so reliably wrong.
Harman thoroughly deserves this.
Harman deserves to be smeared because you disagree with her?
RIghty logic.
Telling the truth about someone's past record isn't a smear - albeit, it might not be what that person wants to hear.
The truth maybe. Of course one could take the view of a former Prefect of Judaea.
Comments
I think you are being optimistic at saying that the job is half done - more like just about a quarter done.
There are so many improvements to be made as most of the world marches past western Europe.
There is still a horrendous amount of waste in both local and national public sectors, with little inclination for self-reform.
Our education system (and especially the STEM part) is being overtaken by the Asians (why do we have a minister in China discovering what they learned from us over 50 years ago?) Yet we have a growing number of uneducated and unemployable who live on benefits that we cannot afford.
We have too many unanswerable quangos making decisions that should be the province of Ministers and the HoP (e.g Environment Agency which is neither capable nor competent).
Our health service is tottering, whilst we waste too much time and thought on TB's ill-thought-out devolution (as badly as he thought out Iraq2). It will be an immense struggle to make our exports competitive and to increase their volume - perhaps we need to focus on import substitution.
No, I have been too generous, we may be just 10% of the way there.
I think you're missing the point a little. There are a few politicians (from all parties) who naturally grate on some voters. Usually those who always think they're right and accept no possibility of error. HH is one such.
I don't think for a second she's in any way supportive of paedo groups, and I doubt if many do. Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt aren't in the same category of irritating so if it was only those two, the story would never have had legs.
Harriet could have stated the obvious. NCCL had loads of affiliates and she was busy with other things (eg progressing her career) but she chose not to because that would have been admitting she was mortal.
So it's schadenfreude writ large. Had the story been about a Tory politician who was similarly annoying (and there are a few), the reaction from many would have been the same.
Oh well, fun's over so back to boring politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26338709
Sounds like a rather sensible idea. It only cost about £5m too.
On topic, I think the Mail discredited itself over Miliband senior (plus countless previous stories) for most people even vaguely inclined to vote Labour, and most people will be just shrugging and saying "There they go again", in the same way that an Express story about Diana doesn't make any of us spend time pondering the details.
However there is an issue over the activities of the NCCL, and whether their 'right-on' politics in the 1970s blinded officals high up in this organisation from asking questions, or from taking action which they should have taken.
Here is a man well deserving of praise and honours. Given that I have a needle phobia I find him particularly awesome.
http://xposethereal.com/alternative-news/man-with-the-golden-arm-saves-2million-babies-in-half-a-century-of-donating-rare-type-of-blood.html
That dreadful rightwing rag the er Mirror....
As it's YES that is proposing substantial change it's incumbent on you to actually spell out what independence will mean ....
Try the currency issue again for starters .... Is it the groat or barter now ?
Personally have barely read about the Harman story, or watched anything about it on tv, and as such I think I only made one comment about the whole affair, which wasn't derogatory about her or anyone else.
I just don't get why you would keep saying "I'm not commenting on this" " I'm leaving" and then keep commenting about it and not leave.
At a personal level the political animal that is GO is facing a choice of 15 months in office and then career dead or possibly hanging on for 6 more years. Which way do you think he will jump ?
That should calm in the markets, but the devil will be in the detail.
Hmm, never thought I'd see 'paedophile elephant' in a headline. - my life is complete...!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568092/Daily-Mail-Comment-Paedophile-Information-Exchange-Cant-Left-make-mistake.html
The Press are doing what they enjoy doing - kicking a politician. It's what their readership like to see, particularly when the subject is a pious member of the 'do as a I say, not as I do' brigade.
Even The Mirror is running stories now - that says a lot.
"Dickson will carry on using the Krona whatsoever September's referendum result. He's got no skin in the game."
.....................................................................
There are a vast number of Scots who reside outwith Scotland who are passionate about the referendum and @Stuart_Dickson is one of them. I have no issue with that.
My main issue with some members of YES is their inference that only YES have the best interests of Scotland at heart and somehow members of NO are second class Scots.
Presently we form the majority of Scots. It is my firm belief that we shall remain so and that the Union will stand firm and Scotland will be better for it.
Even the ONS are paying homage to the Yellow Box, or at least to the opinions of the box creator.
Just looking now at the Business Investment bulletin and noted the following commentary:
Estimates of business investment published in this release are of net investment, that is, the value of capital expenditure on acquisitions of assets less the proceeds received from disposals. It has been suggested that net investment was relatively weak through 2012 and 2013, compared with the growth in other sectors of the economy.
However, it should be noted that in 2012 and 2013, growth in the acquisition of assets has been relatively strong. The net level investment has been weaker, because it has been offset by increasing disposals of assets. These grew more strongly than acquisitions in 2012, and remain at a high level in 2013 (Table 1).
Funny that the ONS is starting to complain about its own distorting method of netting off flow measures.
It won't be long before they accuse themselves of being "archaic and obfuscatory".
Remember, you heard it here first!
This is pretty much the only site I visit every day, and the only site I ever really post on. Sure, it's full of nutters, left, right and centre, but that makes it all the more fun. Tribal nastiness does grate a bit, but after a while, you get to know what the major posters are like, and you can tune a lot of the more crazy posts out.
I don't think any sane person on here equates Harman with paedophilia, but the fact that she's in the hotseat, largely due to her inability to accept she made an error of judgement, 40 years ago, when life was a lot simpler, is the thing that's tickling me. Even the left wing press, including the Guardian and Mirror have questioned her handling, and to a lesser extent, the Labour party's handling of the matter.
By all means, if that offends you, then it's probably best that you do stop posting, but I assure you, if you stick around, you'll see just as worse coming from the left, when a Tory inevitably gets caught up in a similar scandal. It doesn't make smearing right, but even you must be able to admit that the left are just as good at smearing as the right.
I urge you to stick around, I, as a poster who doesn't want to vote for any of the main party's or UKIP needs to have sane posters from all sides offering opinions.
I would say, however, that if you do resign your commission, I'm a little disappointed in your resignation speech.
You shouldn't announce that I'm packing it in, but I'll post a little bit today. You should hijack a thread all guns blazing, expletive ridden, hurling abuse of the vilest kind at your political opponents. That's how I'm going down, when the time comes.
I'm just glad Hurtllama isn't in this one. @NickPalmer you may well be world champion, but it was somewhat a baptism of fire to be chucked in with @Hurstllama as a neighbour. Cunning beyond cunning, he has played a fantastic Turkey.
You're definitely one of the more intelligent centre-left posters here, and your contributions are valuable.
As TFS says MAN UP !
And even more of it now George has booked £13 billion of future QE losses to this fiscal year's National Accounts.
So don't worry about electoral bribes.
The problem, insofar as it can be described as such, is that using liquidated assets to fund current expenditure is not a sustainable method of managing an economy over the long term.
It may be OK as a short term method of keeping the home fires burning but the austerity belt will need re-tightening from mid 2015 onwards.
Still the diet won't be as bad as it has been this term (the absence external shocks permitting).
We've got paedo elephants, Nazi giraffes, muffin mules and now fantastic turkey's !!
Soon SeanT will be on horse again, OGH as bald eagle, Fitalass as pussy galore and all this talk of ginger rodents !!
Laters ....
@TSE is running favourite for TOTY this year though.
By the way, it looks like SUSP on Oddschecker but in fact the market is open:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.110033387
If you get him to put money on some of his more heartfelt prejudices you were always onto a winner. He paid out for Cameron not sacking Lansley and Osborne but perhaps the worst bet was the one on whether Osborne would apologise to the Commons for misleading it over Darling's actions. Those prejudices cost him a few hundred pounds but it all went to a good cause.
Also, she used a bream.
Household spending fuelled most fo the growth of course, although investment and trade looked better in the final half and particularly final quarter.
Added to disappointing borrowing figures this really paints a picture of a typically weak Tory recovery.
Nothing really changes my belief that the UK is going to do well just to match 2013 for growth and some of the predictions of near 3% growth this year are wild and absurd.
Media platforms will carry a range of opinions. I would not necessarily equate the views of an online columnist with those of a whole newspaper, but that is another conversation.
It's about the same as was traded on olympiakos vs man utd first goalscorer market on Betfair yesterday so hardly massive in 7 months.
Don't see that this makes any difference to what the result will be, but the truth is that it's not a very strong betting market at the moment... Hardly surprising, but you can't really cite minor movements in price to prove anything really either way
If Sean Connery had a million quid on yes with hills I'm sure they'd move the price but so what? Same if Alex Ferguson had a mill on no
Comparison with london mayor are ridiculous, no one knows who's nominated, a simple yes or no bet is the easiest possible market to bet on.
I can almost guarantee that bookies are only moving prices on trade, not looking at opinion polls
http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/cmsfiles/modules/publications/pdfs/EC040.pdf
The annual activity survey by Oil and Gas UK found a rapid increase in production costs, up by 15% last year.
The average cost of extracting a barrel of oil was up by 27% in only a year, to reach £17.
The number of fields with cost per barrel above £30 has doubled in the last 12 months.
Rising costs were cited last week by Centrica, which has decided to focus future investments in Norway and North America, rather than UK waters.
With rising costs, production tax payments to the UK Treasury are expected to fall from £6.5bn during the 2012-13 financial year to £5bn in the current year.
However, there is a more positive picture from high levels of investment in known reserves.
That is estimated to reach £13bn during this year, slightly below the £14.4bn record set last year. Much of that was focused in four big fields.
Following the rapid decline in oil and gas production from UK waters in recent years, the rate of fall slowed during 2013 - down by 8% to 1.43m barrels of oil per day, or its gas equivalent.
Output is expected to rise during this year, as 25 new fields come on stream.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-26337438
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26351445
@LBS - Don't go. Too few lefties here as it is. Just ignore topics/posters you don't like. Your dismay at others' pronouncements is just tilting at windmills. BTW, windmills and AGW are other topics I'd steer clear of
'I don't disagree with much of that and personally find name calling and negativity off putting as well. I do wonder , given your above post, why you want Tim to come back however'
Strange that Nick Palmer didn't have a problem when Tim was doing the name calling,silly nicknames & abuse.
Tim said Socrates drooled over child abuse... Not one left leaning poster pulled him up
At the end of the day what is sauce for the goose applies to the gander.
For all their faults, George and Danny have navigated some very difficult waters very well. Balls is increasingly realising that not only is plan A working, but that he will follow the same. He will put a lot of spin on some trivial differences, but the underlying course will be unchanged. Balls, and everyone else can see that it is the correct course.
Didn't Tim just observe that Socrates got very excited by cases of child abuse where alleged perpetrators seemed to come from certain communities while plainly ignoring others?
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/iphone/homepage.aspx#_article1e6f7a84-d6bd-4025-99d0-f2c35df1e0bf/waarticle1e6f7a84-d6bd-4025-99d0-f2c35df1e0bf/1e6f7a84-d6bd-4025-99d0-f2c35df1e0bf//true
For some reason I'm unable to find it anywhere else, and it is the same as the front page I saw in the paper shop this morning.
What I don't get is this obsession with tribalism. It's not a war between a left-bloc and a right-bloc. There have been plenty of occasions where sensible posters at either end of the spectrum have sympathised with an opponent being unfairly treated, or taken an "ally" to task for some particularly stupid or obnoxious comments. But because (at least some of us) don't come here to fight the good fight for Team A or Team B, it doesn't mean that we're on the hook for everything posted by someone whose general views we sympathise. It must be a very strange world if I am only allowed to criticise the estimable Mr Nabavi for some apparent transgression if I have previously remembered to criticise Southam for the same kind of thing.
Plan A was meant to reduce the deficit to near zero by 2015, but that is going to be some £70billion awry.
Plan A was meant to have seen GDP grow cumulatively by some 8pc by now, yet caused a double dip recession and sees the UK languishing somewhat below its pre recession peak.
Osborne has moved the goalposts as much as Gordon Brown used to and is still failing. I'm not surprised his fanclub fail to spot this.
Being the legal officer of an anti-family pressure group, and not objecting - on the record - to its having paedophiles as fellow travellers is further evidence of her consistently appalling judgement. It's not evidence that she supported paedophiles. It's evidence that she hated something else- the nuclear family and the then laws around the age of consent - so much that she'd accept literally anyone who agreed with her as an ally without question.
It is this preoccupation with having a order of preference for its hatreds that undoes the left every time. If a lefty sees a police officer in a fight with a coal miner s/he knows immediately whose side to take - the left hates the police and likes miners. If s/he hears of a white farmer hitting a homosexual s/he knows whose side to take - the left hates farmers.
It is much harder for the lefty to know what position to take if a muslim man beats up a homosexual, or if a black South African police officer opens fire on black South African miners. The lefty considers all parties involved to be heroes above reproach, even though some sort of crime has clearly been committed.
If you rely on prejudice rather than rational thought to instruct you, end up with this sort of problem. It is worse for the left, because there is a maximum of one acceptable opinion on any matter and to vary from it is class treason and thoughtcrime.
Finding out that she wasn't bothered about having paedophiles in the tent is a litmus test of judgement that she fails, in the same way that having supported CND in the 1980s is a fail, or believing the dotcom hype in the 1990s is a fail.
Harman thoroughly deserves this.
"John is John" after all.
RIghty logic.
And in my 'humble and influence-free opinion' (sic) you're even dumber:))
Using the phrase PIE/NCCL links is acceptable.
You're in danger of making the moderating team age the same way the McAlpine story did.
I could just imagine a cartoon in which Paedophile Elephant invites little boys and girls to come and play with him.
http://labourlist.org/2014/02/sorry-len-labour-shouldnt-rule-out-a-coalition-with-the-lib-dems/
Stick to wine recommendations. You are good at that.
It is noticeable that the economies that went for austerity such as Ireland and Spain are now looking at bright prospects, while those that went for spending such as France are seeing the errors of their ways. China is also looking a little ropey as its spending stimulus looks to have generated more problems than it solved.
To quote Jim Callaghan:
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
Speech to Labour conference 1976.
OT EU: Cameron apparently doesn't like Merkel's favoured candidate for the EPP Commission nomination, not that he has much influence since he's left the EPP and his own group doesn't want to put up a candidate. It's a bit weird seeing Thorning-Schmidt floated again. It seems hard to believe the member states would go to the trouble of picking a fight with parliament by rejecting their nominee, only to pick somebody interesting who might have a mind of their own. Maybe Cameron's goal is just to make sure whoever he backs doesn't get the job, to avoid being implicated when the tabloids go after them over whatever.
http://m.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55376cda-9e44-11e3-95fe-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2uPnAHAXl
Back in 2010, when much of Europe and the rest of the world also was in chaos, with ratings agencies (in their time-honoured fashion) looking for the next downgrade, to announce a series of cuts, and austerity, was absolutely essential. Not to have done so would have been to tempt a downgrade (we got one) and a hike in interest rates that would have made the Q12015 rate rise "dilemma" seem like an economic nirvana.
There really was no alternative and had Lab/EdB been in power they would have done exactly the same thing.
The thug who punched the man saw he did not move after the assault.
Add to the fact he was obviously heading into a road where cars could have run him over and this combined with the fact that the kerb is higher than the road means that it is reasonably forseeable that there will be a sustained head injury and possibly death to the man he punched.
Also the perpetrator is a different skin colour to the victim so although I detest everything about this element of the law it could be argued race is an aggravating factor.
I think it should be charged as manslaughter (Probably couldn't make a murder charge stick) but a discretionary life sentence should be handed out.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw