Not at all true that Blairite is a worse insult than Tory for Labour supporters. That is your view, but I can assure you it is completely wrong. Many Labour supporters consider themselves Blairites. It's a broad church - just more united, currently, than the Europe-riven broad church of its opponents.
I'm not a Labour member or anything so maybe my opinion doesn't count for these purposes but speaking as someone generally sympathetic to the current Labour Party, the Tories have gone nearly a full parliamentary term without either starting any wars over non-existent weapons or making it an imprisonable offence to fail to produce the keys to decrypt a file that isn't actually encrypted in the first place. I'm not sure exactly what "Blairite" means, but if it means, "somebody who would do the kind of thing Blair would do" you bet it's a worse insult than "Tory". (I'm not sure that "Tory" is an insult at all, but maybe that's just me.)
I think the public spending issue is on a different axis, though.
Not at all true that Blairite is a worse insult than Tory for Labour supporters. That is your view, but I can assure you it is completely wrong. Many Labour supporters consider themselves Blairites. It's a broad church - just more united, currently, than the Europe-riven broad church of its opponents.
I'm not a Labour member or anything so maybe my opinion doesn't count for these purposes but speaking as someone generally sympathetic to the current Labour Party, the Tories have gone nearly a full parliamentary term without either starting any wars over non-existent weapons or making it an imprisonable offence to fail to produce the keys to decrypt a file that isn't actually encrypted in the first place. I'm not sure exactly what "Blairite" means, but if it means, "somebody who would do the kind of thing Blair would do" you bet it's a worse insult than "Tory". (I'm not sure that "Tory" is an insult at all, but maybe that's just me.)
I think the public spending issue is on a different axis, though.
The Coalition also aren't paying a pensionable public sector salary to anyone whose job is to make up and disseminate rumours that the LotO's son was born disabled because the LotO gave his wife a venereal disease.
Two weeks ago there was a huge row on QT about the effects of mass immigration in Barking, East London... it went completely unmentioned on here. It is a snapshot of how those affected by the policy feel..
...
(snip)
Welcome back!
By the way, what Farage has suggested regarding Gay Marriage is almost exactly what I think, and said on here last year.. separate the legality from the church, let everyone marry under the eyes of the law, and let churches marry who they like without having to answer to anyone
Not enough due to lack of funds unfortunately. Will be happy enough with the result though.
But it's a sure thing. You are guaranteed to win. You should be borrowing to fund more bets, surely.
I have enough borrowings thank you very much. I am well aware of what "certainty " means having gambled for many decades and using the word to show my personal opinion does not make it happen. Whilst I believe YES will win , only death and taxes are really certainties.
Mrs J's read it. She got it out as a child from the British Council library in Ankara. She still remembers it fondly. I've never been able to get my hands on a copy, although the text is out there on t'Internet.
I back Osborne's changes to the savings and pensions regime. I am not going to vote Tory though.
What would it take for you to vote Tory? What offer could they give that would make you consider voting for them?
I'd need to see a lot more evidence that they see the world from the bottom up rather than the top down, that they see the state and the public sector as powerful forces for good, that they did not dislike trade unions, that they recognised the major flaws in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model and that they would not continually tack to the right in order to pander to UKIP switchers.
What have the actually *done* (rather than said) which is 'tacking right'?
One small example off the top of my head: they've made it a lot harder for people to take claims to an employment tribunal, thus weakening the protection this provided for employees.
It's not something I've ever had to worry about, but there has certainly been an issue with vexatious claimants - IIRC, the reforms were intended to mean that real claimants could go ahead, but people who were just looking for a quick settlement by threatening their employers found it more risky to do so.
That doesn't strike me as right or left wing, just a tidying up of a necessary function that wasn't working perfectly
Are Councils especially the hard left Labour ones like Derby and Derbyshire working to trim the flab, or in other words bloated and poor quality management performance and structure. Also how many of these claimants are genuinely ill, unable to work. As has been seen easy to pretend to be ill en masse.
Councils are doing a good deal to squeeze inefficiencies - it's always possible to find exceptions but overall it's not the current problem.
Your second point is, without being especially personal, the sort of out of touch comment that makes Tories disliked. In my opinion, there is a very large swathe of people who have no realistic chance of finding paid work without serious help and are being penalised instead of helped. You don't have to believe me.
So you offer two examples of Tory rightwingery, and then you simultaneously admit that the first is reasonable and that Labour would be forced to do the second, just like the coalition.
Nope. I said that the first would be reasonable as an occasional one-off but it's being pushed as a systematic agenda, year after year, with no public debate to justify it. The second is a choice that I don't agree with - we aren't all of one mind.
And you're not dim enough to have overlooked either point - you're just distorting because it suits your argument (which is par for the course and why I don't usually bother to argue policy here).
Just catching a plane so I'll leave it there anyway!
Not at all true that Blairite is a worse insult than Tory for Labour supporters. That is your view, but I can assure you it is completely wrong. Many Labour supporters consider themselves Blairites. It's a broad church - just more united, currently, than the Europe-riven broad church of its opponents.
I'm not a Labour member or anything so maybe my opinion doesn't count for these purposes but speaking as someone generally sympathetic to the current Labour Party, the Tories have gone nearly a full parliamentary term without either starting any wars over non-existent weapons or making it an imprisonable offence to fail to produce the keys to decrypt a file that isn't actually encrypted in the first place. I'm not sure exactly what "Blairite" means, but if it means, "somebody who would do the kind of thing Blair would do" you bet it's a worse insult than "Tory". (I'm not sure that "Tory" is an insult at all, but maybe that's just me.)
I think the public spending issue is on a different axis, though.
The Coalition also aren't paying a pensionable public sector salary to anyone whose job is to make up and disseminate rumours that the LotO's son was born disabled because the LotO gave his wife a venereal disease.
That sounds icky but if it keeps them busy when they could be doing something seriously harmful then whatever.
Considering the seat is in Lincolnshire, is Boris the Henry IV to Dave's Richard II?
Richard II was a king ahead of his time, with a visionary and anticipatory conception of monarchy. His reputation suffers from the fact that nearly all that has been written about him has been written with the benefit of Lancastrian-slanted hindsight. Thomas Walsingham, William Shakespeare, William Stubbs, R.H. Jones and A. Goodman all stand convicted on this count. David Cameron is no Richard II.
LOL. Today's latest rehash from Dan Hodges is worth a look if only for the comments at the bottom. It seems Telegraph readers are querying why, despite predicting a Labour collapse since the Year Dot, Labour's polling score remains resilient. My personal favourite was from one chap who wondered why, as he had been a Tory voter for 50 years and was not going to vote for Cameron, Hodges thought current Labour pledges would do so.
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
So Labour want faster deficit reduction with more cuts and more tax rises?
No - more growth! Why do Conservatives ALWAYS forget that?!
Considering the seat is in Lincolnshire, is Boris the Henry IV to Dave's Richard II?
Richard II was a king ahead of his time, with a visionary and anticipatory conception of monarchy. His reputation suffers from the fact that nearly all that has been written about him has been written with the benefit of Lancastrian-slanted hindsight. Thomas Walsingham, William Shakespeare, William Stubbs, R.H. Jones and A. Goodman all stand convicted on this count. David Cameron is no Richard II.
''Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly. ''
Nope. I think most tories would acknowledge the voter is always right. If labour win, there will be a good reason.
Well perhaps those on here are not representative, I'll grant you that.
Considering the seat is in Lincolnshire, is Boris the Henry IV to Dave's Richard II?
Richard II was a king ahead of his time, with a visionary and anticipatory conception of monarchy. His reputation suffers from the fact that nearly all that has been written about him has been written with the benefit of Lancastrian-slanted hindsight. Thomas Walsingham, William Shakespeare, William Stubbs, R.H. Jones and A. Goodman all stand convicted on this count. David Cameron is no Richard II.
Considering the seat is in Lincolnshire, is Boris the Henry IV to Dave's Richard II?
Richard II was a king ahead of his time, with a visionary and anticipatory conception of monarchy. His reputation suffers from the fact that nearly all that has been written about him has been written with the benefit of Lancastrian-slanted hindsight. Thomas Walsingham, William Shakespeare, William Stubbs, R.H. Jones and A. Goodman all stand convicted on this count. David Cameron is no Richard II.
While, his is not a particularly sympathetic portrait of Richard, Shakespeare depicts Bolingbroke as a repellent character. In no sense, could his play be said to be Lancastrian-slanted.
Mrs J's read it. She got it out as a child from the British Council library in Ankara. She still remembers it fondly. I've never been able to get my hands on a copy, although the text is out there on t'Internet.
£566 brand new or 120 used!
I would love to read it, maybe Ill try reading online
Mrs J's read it. She got it out as a child from the British Council library in Ankara. She still remembers it fondly. I've never been able to get my hands on a copy, although the text is out there on t'Internet.
£566 brand new or 120 used!
I would love to read it, maybe Ill try reading online
LOL. Today's latest rehash from Dan Hodges is worth a look if only for the comments at the bottom. It seems Telegraph readers are querying why, despite predicting a Labour collapse since the Year Dot, Labour's polling score remains resilient. My personal favourite was from one chap who wondered why, as he had been a Tory voter for 50 years and was not going to vote for Cameron, Hodges thought current Labour pledges would do so.
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
So Labour want faster deficit reduction with more cuts and more tax rises?
No - more growth! Why do Conservatives ALWAYS forget that?!
Personally I don't forget it, I just think it's a lie. you inherited a growing economy from someone else and you increased its debts and wrecked it. Now you're saying you could return that economy to growth and this time you'll use the growth to reduce the debt you created.
Pull the other one.
Labour wants to get into power because there are some people out there doing better than the average Labour voter. Labour really, really hates those people, and this time you've got a really good pretext to really dish those b@stards.
While, his is not a particularly sympathetic portrait of Richard, Shakespeare depicts Bolingbroke as a repellent character. In no sense, could his play be said to be Lancastrian-slanted.
The question is where did Shakespeare get his anti-Ricardian slant from. The answer is that he consulted histories based on the chronicles of his reign, most of whose authors wrote their accounts with a copy of the "Record and Process" of Richard II's deposition in front of them.
One of my colleagues has just shown me a couple of Cartoons from the last week or so featuring Ed Milliband that have been in the Times..... bloody hell they really are rather cruel (but accurate).
LOL. Today's latest rehash from Dan Hodges is worth a look if only for the comments at the bottom. It seems Telegraph readers are querying why, despite predicting a Labour collapse since the Year Dot, Labour's polling score remains resilient. My personal favourite was from one chap who wondered why, as he had been a Tory voter for 50 years and was not going to vote for Cameron, Hodges thought current Labour pledges would do so.
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
You didn't respond to my question the other day, so perhaps you will now.
Why was it growing in 2010 and was it sustainable?
One of my colleagues has just shown me a couple of Cartoons from the last week or so featuring Ed Milliband that have been in the Times..... bloody hell they really are rather cruel (but accurate).
This one is my favourite
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie 15h I love this cartoon from @BrookesTimes: Ed Miliband, champion of the people
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
So Labour want faster deficit reduction with more cuts and more tax rises?
No - more growth! Why do Conservatives ALWAYS forget that?!
So in the spectre of the largest fiscal deficit in the developed world, the worst recession in the developed world, the largest financial services sector as a proportion of GDP of major countries, and the Eurozone crisis the answer is more growth? Come off it. That is not a real answer. Any growth that the government could have stimulated between 2011 and 2012 would have been fleeting and evaporated at the first sign of trouble (much like Labour's phantom growth). No. More growth was not and still is not the answer. We as a country need to decide whether we are going to continue to pay people to be unproductive through the generous benefits and tax credits system or not. Social benefits make up 22% of GDP, that is a decision every government has put back over and over again.
One of my colleagues has just shown me a couple of Cartoons from the last week or so featuring Ed Milliband that have been in the Times..... bloody hell they really are rather cruel (but accurate).
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
So Labour want faster deficit reduction with more cuts and more tax rises?
No - more growth! Why do Conservatives ALWAYS forget that?!
So in the spectre of the largest fiscal deficit in the developed world, the worst recession in the developed world, the largest financial services sector as a proportion of GDP of major countries, and the Eurozone crisis the answer is more growth? Come off it. That is not a real answer. Any growth that the government could have stimulated between 2011 and 2012 would have been fleeting and evaporated at the first sign of trouble (much like Labour's phantom growth). No. More growth was not and still is not the answer. We as a country need to decide whether we are going to continue to pay people to be unproductive through the generous benefits and tax credits system or not. Social benefits make up 22% of GDP, that is a decision every government has put back over and over again.
Why bother?
Bob is even more clueless than Wallace on the Economy.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
You do realise that your statement is completely untrue. As I don't believe you are deliberately lying, the only explanation for your error is either complete ignorance of the true figures or an inability to understand or accept them.
It is this kind of ignorance/denial which makes voting Labour so dangerous. After all neither Ed Miliband nor Ed Balls have make any public statement which indicates they think anything else but the same as you, Bobafett.
Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin:
Public Net Debt Sector as Net Debt % £ billion GDP --------------------------- 2005 475.0 36.2 2006 509.2 36.7 2007 645.8 44.1 2008 2,137.3 149.8 2009 2,245.5 154.6
2010 2 249.8 148.7
2011 2 224.4 143.1 2012 2 187.8 137.6 2013 2 204.1 133.0 --------------------------- Source: ONS PSF Bulletin 21 March 2014
You will see from the table that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling increased debt from £475 billion to £2,250 billion in five years. In other words Labour increased net debt four and three quarters times over their last term of government. As a proportion of GDP net debt rose from 36.2% to 154.6%.
And these figures do not include the £200 billion of Quantitative Easing undertaken by the BoE and guaranteed by the taxpayer under Labour.
George by contrast has reduced debt over his first three years, albeit by a small amount, £45.7 billion. The ratio of PSND to GDP has also fallen from a peak of 154.6% under Brown/Darling to 133% under Osborne.
Mrs J's read it. She got it out as a child from the British Council library in Ankara. She still remembers it fondly. I've never been able to get my hands on a copy, although the text is out there on t'Internet.
£566 brand new or 120 used!
I would love to read it, maybe Ill try reading online
Hope your Cheltenham was more profitable than mine - Raceclear had a shocker, but ofc winners as soon as its over
Hello! Thank you
Well I didn't have a bet so at least I didn't lose anything! I worked on course Tue-Thu and ran the book in a pub on Gold Cup day so was very busy, but it was great fun
@michaelsavage: Oxford's Stephen Fisher on #bbcdp. He has fascinating model predicting election outcomes. Says 61% chance Tories will win most seats...
Two weeks ago there was a huge row on QT about the effects of mass immigration in Barking, East London... it went completely unmentioned on here. It is a snapshot of how those affected by the policy feel..
...
(snip)
Welcome back!
By the way, what Farage has suggested regarding Gay Marriage is almost exactly what I think, and said on here last year.. separate the legality from the church, let everyone marry under the eyes of the law, and let churches marry who they like without having to answer to anyone
1. Welcome back 2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for. 3. Your return is all the more welcome to disabuse more recent posters for the notion that all Kippers are frothing at the mouth Tory refugee retired Colonel golf club types.
2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for.
I don't think he is - you could still have the Church of England but have it not do marriages, couldn't you? Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a church and a state.
Two weeks ago there was a huge row on QT about the effects of mass immigration in Barking, East London... it went completely unmentioned on here. It is a snapshot of how those affected by the policy feel..
...
(snip)
Welcome back!
By the way, what Farage has suggested regarding Gay Marriage is almost exactly what I think, and said on here last year.. separate the legality from the church, let everyone marry under the eyes of the law, and let churches marry who they like without having to answer to anyone
1. Welcome back 2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for. 3. Your return is all the more welcome to disabuse more recent posters for the notion that all Kippers are frothing at the mouth Tory refugee retired Colonel golf club types.
Thank you
Well I'm not exactly sure what disestablishment is, but if that's what I am saying, then I guess that's what I mean!
On point three, surely no one believes that old stereotype nowadays?!
Did PtP find you? He thought you were there somewhere
Hi. No I didn't see him, as I was working in a box rather than a pitch. Have spoken since though. Next year I can prob get him plus guests in the box for a while if you go again, esp as he bets with the firm I worked for..
Two weeks ago there was a huge row on QT about the effects of mass immigration in Barking, East London... it went completely unmentioned on here. It is a snapshot of how those affected by the policy feel..
...
(snip)
Welcome back!
By the way, what Farage has suggested regarding Gay Marriage is almost exactly what I think, and said on here last year.. separate the legality from the church, let everyone marry under the eyes of the law, and let churches marry who they like without having to answer to anyone
1. Welcome back 2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for. 3. Your return is all the more welcome to disabuse more recent posters for the notion that all Kippers are frothing at the mouth Tory refugee retired Colonel golf club types.
Are you sure about 2? Methodists and RCs, for instance, have never been Established but can marry validly, can't they? And the Church of Scotland (the mainstream Presbyterian one) was disestablished IIRC in 1929 but can still marry.
I seem to recall that the Kirk was recently discussing completely opting out of marrying people in the legal/state registration sense, as a way of resolving the internal tensions over single-sex marriages and the perceptions (wrongly or otherwise) that it would have to accept state-imposed conditions such as no anti-gay stuff in order to keep marrying folk. Much as suggested above. I don't think the proposal got very far but I found it interesting that it was aired. It was inevitably whipped up in the media by the usual suspects as an anti-Scottish Gmt thing but in reality the Scottish Pmt is pretty much cross-party when it comes to such things, and Mr Cameron's own leadership has also tended to reinforce this.
The British public see this year's budget as the fairest since 2010 – and nine of its policies are supported by a majority
The penultimate budget of this parliament has won broad approval from the press, and Labour’s biggest criticism focused more on what wasn’t in it than what was – indeed, Ed Balls agreed with much of it.......
The standout policies have cross party appeal. 90% of Labour voters support raising the point at which the 40% tax rate comes into effect; 52% favour increasing the personal tax allowance to £1,500; 66% agree with increasing the amount of money people can save tax-free in an ISA; and 54% support making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension as a lump sum.
The only policy opposed by the majority of Labour voters (51%) is the cap on the welfare bill, which Labour have actually agreed to support..
2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for.
I don't think he is - you could still have the Church of England but have it not do marriages, couldn't you? Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a church and a state.
the difficulty stems from the distinction between Canon Law and statute law. Currently Canon Law does not allow same sex marriages. If Canon Law is amended (by the CoE) to allow same sex marriages then statute law will recognise this. It currently recognises Canon Law in not allowing same sex marriages.
The alternative is for statute law to remove the obligation of the Church to marry anyone who asks and thereby take a step towards disestablishment.
I'm sure that LIAMT can put it more elegantly than I can..!
LOL. Today's latest rehash from Dan Hodges is worth a look if only for the comments at the bottom. It seems Telegraph readers are querying why, despite predicting a Labour collapse since the Year Dot, Labour's polling score remains resilient. My personal favourite was from one chap who wondered why, as he had been a Tory voter for 50 years and was not going to vote for Cameron, Hodges thought current Labour pledges would do so.
Labour's argument is essentially that had they been left in charge the Ponzi scheme could have continued.
It is depressing that 35% or so of the electorate are so dumb and / or morally incompetent as to believe this and want to vote for it.
It's a well worn PB tradition that when the Conservatives are in panic mode (one of only two modes, the other being complacency), they blame the electorate for being too stupid to vote for them. It's a strategy of sorts, I suppose.
Boba - I have said for a number of years that the fury the voters will recieve on here on election night will be a sight to behold....it will be damn ugly.
There is every chance that in 2015 the election will be won by the party that wrecked not just our economy, but everyone else's as well. There is a block vote out there that does not want this fixed.
It's an Easter Island strategy and it's pretty revolting morally, since any thoughtful person can see that the consequences of trashing the economy with debt now are visited on people who don't get to vote on it because they aren't born yet.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
So Labour want faster deficit reduction with more cuts and more tax rises?
No - more growth! Why do Conservatives ALWAYS forget that?!
Perhaps because Labour have no policies or convincing narrative on how they'd create more growth?
Stopping investment in energy generation, because of a price freeze isn't a great start.....
Considering the seat is in Lincolnshire, is Boris the Henry IV to Dave's Richard II?
Richard II was a king ahead of his time, with a visionary and anticipatory conception of monarchy. His reputation suffers from the fact that nearly all that has been written about him has been written with the benefit of Lancastrian-slanted hindsight. Thomas Walsingham, William Shakespeare, William Stubbs, R.H. Jones and A. Goodman all stand convicted on this count. David Cameron is no Richard II.
A couple of years ago the BBC did a rather good radio play on Richard II, which showed him in a much more sympathetic light than he normally receives. However, even the BBC still left him as a figure out of place with the England of his time and enthralled by the absolute model of monarchy of the French. Was he ahead of his time? Maybe, whether that was a good thing for England is somewhat more in doubt. In many ways he strikes me as being an early prototype of Charles I and Charles II, absolutist, with poor political skills and in love with the Frogs. Not a good king of England.
Bolinbroke on the other hand was a five-star bastard but was good at the politics and in touch with his time. Though he too wasn't really a good king.
I'm an accountant who works in manufacturing not in private practice, you're by no means the first person who I've had to explain that to.
If I worked in private practice I would doubtless see changes and increases in government regulations as a fee earning opportunity whereas in my role they're just a cost and distraction from the main purpose of the business.
As to QA it isn't a choice, our customers insist on it and likewise we have to ensure that our suppliers meet various standards.
H&S is just a continual aggravation of form filling, training courses and inspections. Its certainly increased over the last decade and we now need to employ a specialist H&S manager.
The most annoying aspect of it is the claims made against us by people who worked for a few months over a decade ago, its a rare time when we don't have an active claim. Fortunately we have always taken H&S pretty seriously and have kept good records for our own payroll purposes - I doubt if we had used an outside payroll agency we would have the old info available needed to fight the claims. A problem is that H&S issues are always changing in 'fashion' - what was important 10 years ago is not what is being claimed for now. Industrial deafness seems to be the present 'fashion' so we receive claims for that dating back years, need to have noise audits taken by specialist contractors, instigate official noise policies, change safety equipment etc. In a few years doubtless some other disability will be all the rage and people will be making claims against their employers of long ago for that.
Now you probably think this is a tedious self-pitying rant, and to some extent it is as businesses should provide a safe working environment for their employees.
But you can be sure that all that 'Made In China' stuff which UK manufacturers are competing against does not operate under the same costs and regulations.
Two weeks ago there was a huge row on QT about the effects of mass immigration in Barking, East London... it went completely unmentioned on here. It is a snapshot of how those affected by the policy feel..
...
(snip)
Welcome back!
By the way, what Farage has suggested regarding Gay Marriage is almost exactly what I think, and said on here last year.. separate the legality from the church, let everyone marry under the eyes of the law, and let churches marry who they like without having to answer to anyone
1. Welcome back 2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for. 3. Your return is all the more welcome to disabuse more recent posters for the notion that all Kippers are frothing at the mouth Tory refugee retired Colonel golf club types.
Are you sure about 2? Methodists and RCs, for instance, have never been Established but can marry validly, can't they? And the Church of Scotland (the mainstream Presbyterian one) was disestablished IIRC in 1929 but can still marry.
I seem to recall that the Kirk was recently discussing completely opting out of marrying people in the legal/state registration sense, as a way of resolving the internal tensions over single-sex marriages and the perceptions (wrongly or otherwise) that it would have to accept state-imposed conditions such as no anti-gay stuff in order to keep marrying folk. Much as suggested above. I don't think the proposal got very far but I found it interesting that it was aired. It was inevitably whipped up in the media by the usual suspects as an anti-Scottish Gmt thing but in reality the Scottish Pmt is pretty much cross-party when it comes to such things, and Mr Cameron's own leadership has also tended to reinforce this.
See my answer to EiT.
As the Church is established, statute law has to accord with/recognise Canon Law. It is up to Canon Law (ie the Church) to decide for itself what it wants to do.
Rods Lambert & Butler pony juice model, Stephen Fisher, yellow boxes, swingback, stellar budget, yougov polls telling us the budget is fantastic, brilliant cartoons, Ed's crap, blank peice of paper.........and still no polling crossover. I blame the voters myself.
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
You do realise that your statement is completely untrue. As I don't believe you are deliberately lying, the only explanation for your error is either complete ignorance of the true figures or an inability to understand or accept them.
It is this kind of ignorance/denial which makes voting Labour so dangerous. After all neither Ed Miliband nor Ed Balls have make any public statement which indicates they think anything else but the same as you, Bobafett.
Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin:
Public Net Debt Sector as Net Debt % £ billion GDP --------------------------- 2005 475.0 36.2 2006 509.2 36.7 2007 645.8 44.1 2008 2,137.3 149.8 2009 2,245.5 154.6
2010 2 249.8 148.7
2011 2 224.4 143.1 2012 2 187.8 137.6 2013 2 204.1 133.0 --------------------------- Source: ONS PSF Bulletin 21 March 2014
You will see from the table that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling increased debt from £475 billion to £2,250 billion in five years. In other words Labour increased net debt four and three quarters times over their last term of government. As a proportion of GDP net debt rose from 36.2% to 154.6%.
And these figures do not include the £200 billion of Quantitative Easing undertaken by the BoE and guaranteed by the taxpayer under Labour.
George by contrast has reduced debt over his first three years, albeit by a small amount, £45.7 billion. The ratio of PSND to GDP has also fallen from a peak of 154.6% under Brown/Darling to 133% under Osborne.
Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
Comments
I think the public spending issue is on a different axis, though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26683935
A bit far from London for Boris, though.
Well done the Netherlanders.
Have the Irish bowlers been coached by Jade?
They beat us in 2009 at Lords.
Jade vs The Netherlands, when they do put the odds up, back the Netherlands to defeat England.
That doesn't strike me as right or left wing, just a tidying up of a necessary function that wasn't working perfectly
Your second point is, without being especially personal, the sort of out of touch comment that makes Tories disliked. In my opinion, there is a very large swathe of people who have no realistic chance of finding paid work without serious help and are being penalised instead of helped. You don't have to believe me. Nope. I said that the first would be reasonable as an occasional one-off but it's being pushed as a systematic agenda, year after year, with no public debate to justify it. The second is a choice that I don't agree with - we aren't all of one mind.
And you're not dim enough to have overlooked either point - you're just distorting because it suits your argument (which is par for the course and why I don't usually bother to argue policy here).
Just catching a plane so I'll leave it there anyway!
(Except the ones from Burnley, they're awesome)
I would love to read it, maybe Ill try reading online
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reich-Peter-Book-Dreams-Pbk/dp/0525484159
Hope your Cheltenham was more profitable than mine - Raceclear had a shocker, but ofc winners as soon as its over
Pull the other one.
Labour wants to get into power because there are some people out there doing better than the average Labour voter. Labour really, really hates those people, and this time you've got a really good pretext to really dish those b@stards.
Tapsell standing down as MP. 6/1 Boris stands in Louth & Horncastle at election.
http://bit.ly/1nJpOyO
Why was it growing in 2010 and was it sustainable?
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie 15h
I love this cartoon from @BrookesTimes: Ed Miliband, champion of the people
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4 … (no paywall)
Bob is even more clueless than Wallace on the Economy.
If he is going to stand in 2015, it will have to be a London seat.
He can be concurrently London Mayor and an MP for London but he can't be concurrently London Mayor and an MP outside of London.
Go Team Bojo!
PS. Maybe JackW knows the 2010 UKIP candidate, Pat Nurse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louth_and_Horncastle_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
You do realise that Ozzy will have almost doubled the national debt by 2015, and that he will miss his own deficit targets by ~£200bn, due to presiding over a flatlining economy for three years (which was growing when he took over).
You do realise that your statement is completely untrue. As I don't believe you are deliberately lying, the only explanation for your error is either complete ignorance of the true figures or an inability to understand or accept them.
It is this kind of ignorance/denial which makes voting Labour so dangerous. After all neither Ed Miliband nor Ed Balls have make any public statement which indicates they think anything else but the same as you, Bobafett.
Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin: You will see from the table that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling increased debt from £475 billion to £2,250 billion in five years. In other words Labour increased net debt four and three quarters times over their last term of government. As a proportion of GDP net debt rose from 36.2% to 154.6%.
And these figures do not include the £200 billion of Quantitative Easing undertaken by the BoE and guaranteed by the taxpayer under Labour.
George by contrast has reduced debt over his first three years, albeit by a small amount, £45.7 billion. The ratio of PSND to GDP has also fallen from a peak of 154.6% under Brown/Darling to 133% under Osborne.
I'd gladly place a bet at ~ 30-1 for both Boris and Farage to stand there.
Their egos would probably make the events related contingencies.
Well I didn't have a bet so at least I didn't lose anything! I worked on course Tue-Thu and ran the book in a pub on Gold Cup day so was very busy, but it was great fun
2. You are arguing for disestablishment. Which is fine but be clear that is what you are arguing for.
3. Your return is all the more welcome to disabuse more recent posters for the notion that all Kippers are frothing at the mouth Tory refugee retired Colonel golf club types.
Was a bad week...Got banned on here Thursday, sent off at football on the Saturday and put my back out playing the following week!
Will have to take it easier I think!
Huh, another deluded PB tory/PB Hodges
Always wrong, never learn....etc.etc.etc.....Wait til the result....oh what a wailing and a gnashing of teeth....
Well I'm not exactly sure what disestablishment is, but if that's what I am saying, then I guess that's what I mean!
On point three, surely no one believes that old stereotype nowadays?!
I seem to recall that the Kirk was recently discussing completely opting out of marrying people in the legal/state registration sense, as a way of resolving the internal tensions over single-sex marriages and the perceptions (wrongly or otherwise) that it would have to accept state-imposed conditions such as no anti-gay stuff in order to keep marrying folk. Much as suggested above. I don't think the proposal got very far but I found it interesting that it was aired. It was inevitably whipped up in the media by the usual suspects as an anti-Scottish Gmt thing but in reality the Scottish Pmt is pretty much cross-party when it comes to such things, and Mr Cameron's own leadership has also tended to reinforce this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585792/New-carpets-BBCs-1bn-HQ-just-18-months-opened-Corporation-bosses-demand-revamp-current-decor-not-inspiring-enough.html
Replacing the TV License with Subscription cannot come soon enough.
The penultimate budget of this parliament has won broad approval from the press, and Labour’s biggest criticism focused more on what wasn’t in it than what was – indeed, Ed Balls agreed with much of it.......
The standout policies have cross party appeal. 90% of Labour voters support raising the point at which the 40% tax rate comes into effect; 52% favour increasing the personal tax allowance to £1,500; 66% agree with increasing the amount of money people can save tax-free in an ISA; and 54% support making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension as a lump sum.
The only policy opposed by the majority of Labour voters (51%) is the cap on the welfare bill, which Labour have actually agreed to support..
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/21/budget-2014-fairest-since-2010/
The alternative is for statute law to remove the obligation of the Church to marry anyone who asks and thereby take a step towards disestablishment.
I'm sure that LIAMT can put it more elegantly than I can..!
Stopping investment in energy generation, because of a price freeze isn't a great start.....
A couple of years ago the BBC did a rather good radio play on Richard II, which showed him in a much more sympathetic light than he normally receives. However, even the BBC still left him as a figure out of place with the England of his time and enthralled by the absolute model of monarchy of the French. Was he ahead of his time? Maybe, whether that was a good thing for England is somewhat more in doubt. In many ways he strikes me as being an early prototype of Charles I and Charles II, absolutist, with poor political skills and in love with the Frogs. Not a good king of England.
Bolinbroke on the other hand was a five-star bastard but was good at the politics and in touch with his time. Though he too wasn't really a good king.
I'm an accountant who works in manufacturing not in private practice, you're by no means the first person who I've had to explain that to.
If I worked in private practice I would doubtless see changes and increases in government regulations as a fee earning opportunity whereas in my role they're just a cost and distraction from the main purpose of the business.
As to QA it isn't a choice, our customers insist on it and likewise we have to ensure that our suppliers meet various standards.
H&S is just a continual aggravation of form filling, training courses and inspections. Its certainly increased over the last decade and we now need to employ a specialist H&S manager.
The most annoying aspect of it is the claims made against us by people who worked for a few months over a decade ago, its a rare time when we don't have an active claim. Fortunately we have always taken H&S pretty seriously and have kept good records for our own payroll purposes - I doubt if we had used an outside payroll agency we would have the old info available needed to fight the claims. A problem is that H&S issues are always changing in 'fashion' - what was important 10 years ago is not what is being claimed for now. Industrial deafness seems to be the present 'fashion' so we receive claims for that dating back years, need to have noise audits taken by specialist contractors, instigate official noise policies, change safety equipment etc. In a few years doubtless some other disability will be all the rage and people will be making claims against their employers of long ago for that.
Now you probably think this is a tedious self-pitying rant, and to some extent it is as businesses should provide a safe working environment for their employees.
But you can be sure that all that 'Made In China' stuff which UK manufacturers are competing against does not operate under the same costs and regulations.
And now back to work ...
As the Church is established, statute law has to accord with/recognise Canon Law. It is up to Canon Law (ie the Church) to decide for itself what it wants to do.
On AV!
Just kidding, PB's second favourite topic.....
Is Mike Smithson The New Kate Bush ?