There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
From one of Salmond's most memorable speeches on a previous visit to the US;
" we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term".
It's easy for Labour to offer this as virtuality all their MP's don't have the capability to do their existing job let alone a real one in the real world.
It's easy for Labour to offer this as virtuality all their MP's don't have the capability to do their existing job let alone a real one in the real world.
I'm trying to work out what problem it is designed to solve, and why law and medicine are excluded whilst other things are not? Is it designed to allow MPs more time with constituents? To make them work harder in parliament? Is it designed to prevent lobbying? If it's any of these, then it won't work.
Or it could just be that it's a bash-the-Tories-and-Blairites move.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
They do not mind because Westminster is the English parliament, they do not need any devolution , they have 100% of the power.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
From one of Salmond's most memorable speeches on a previous visit to the US;
" we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term".
A prophet.
I think you will be able to find many more examples of unionists in London boasting about their prowess, "No More Boom and Bust". Westminster a cesspit full of lying troughers. Can you tell me who approved the RBS takeover with doing any checking , oh yes Westminster and the bank of England.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
To be fair, it's one thing to comment/suggest/advise/warn (at least as the speaker perceives it: quite another actually to vote.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
To be fair, it's one thing to comment/suggest/advise/warn (at least as the speaker perceives it: quite another actually to vote.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
To be fair, it's one thing to comment/suggest/advise/warn (at least as the speaker perceives it: quite another actually to vote.
Yes. They voted too.
Did they? On what grounds did they feel they could intervene?
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
From one of Salmond's most memorable speeches on a previous visit to the US;
" we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term".
A prophet.
I think you will be able to find many more examples of unionists in London boasting about their prowess, "No More Boom and Bust". Westminster a cesspit full of lying troughers. Can you tell me who approved the RBS takeover with doing any checking , oh yes Westminster and the bank of England.
Yes, the guilty men in the banking fiasco are Brown, Darling, Salmond and Goodwin. Bloody English.
Looks like PtP was on the money, as always. Enjoy yer winnings!
Very kind, Pong.
He was my second string but great odds. Fine payday! :-)
(I think Stodge gave it too.)
Yep, put it up at the start of one of the Maria Miller threads yesterday.
I'm just back from the betting shop with a very nice wedge of cash having backed PINEAU DE RE at 33/1 each way. Mrs Stodge is eyeing up the winnings and suggesting an evening out at Harrild and Sons or possibly The Lockhart. I can't believe I've found the winner for the first time since EARTH SUMMIT (and that dates us all).
Not entirely down to in-depth form analysis I must confess - I was at Plumpton last Monday and in a group listening to Brendan Powell, he said this had a good chance and suggested it as an e/w bet.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
From one of Salmond's most memorable speeches on a previous visit to the US;
" we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term".
A prophet.
I think you will be able to find many more examples of unionists in London boasting about their prowess, "No More Boom and Bust". Westminster a cesspit full of lying troughers. Can you tell me who approved the RBS takeover with doing any checking , oh yes Westminster and the bank of England.
Yes, the guilty men in the banking fiasco are Brown, Darling, Salmond and Goodwin. Bloody English.
Typical lily livered unionist cowards, always have to blame someone else. Is it any wonder the UK is almost the most unequal country in the world, cowardly unionists in London filling their pockets and trying to blame all the ills on others , spineless gits.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
In which case, we come back to the WLQ which from what you say is plainly not enough of an issue to worry about. I still want to see statistics on how often it actually arises.
I wouldnt say it's not an issue. It's a consequence of the UK's complicated constitutional development. It's not a new issue though. One of the main contributors to the same sex marriage bill (for England and Wales) debate was from the DUP. Happily the English and Welsh dont seem to mind having their affairs interfered with by the Northern Irish and Scots.
To be fair, it's one thing to comment/suggest/advise/warn (at least as the speaker perceives it: quite another actually to vote.
Yes. They voted too.
Did they? On what grounds did they feel they could intervene?
On the grounds that it was a measure put before a Parliament they were a member of?
Alas, Mr. J. I don't think you actually had any figures to back-up your original claim of £50- £100 pcm worse off. because of tax increases. I think it best left at that.
A question of semantics. Any reduction of an allowance, credit, threshold or anything that increases the flow of money to George Osborne's is a much a tax increase as a rate change. That ultimately matters more politically than semantics, especially when real terms tax cut can be prioritised for the ultra rich.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
The principle has nothing whatever to do with devolution. For as long as the Sewell convention stands, it is inequitable that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs vote on non-reserved matters. Absence of devolution in England is perfectly compatible with English MPs only having a vote on Westminster legislation whose territorial application is to England, or only English and Welsh MPs having a vote on legislation whose territorial extent is England and Wales only.
Alas, Mr. J. I don't think you actually had any figures to back-up your original claim of £50- £100 pcm worse off. because of tax increases. I think it best left at that.
A question of semantics. Any reduction of an allowance, credit, threshold or anything that increases the flow of money to George Osborne's is a much a tax increase as a rate change. That ultimately matters more politically than semantics, especially when real terms tax cut can be prioritised for the ultra rich.
Or that you pulled a random number out of your arse.
Do you know how much cash a branch of major bookie holds - mine does not have enough liquidity to pay me out.
First, well done on finding the winner, Mr Financier. I'm sure a man of your financial wellbeing wouldn't be seen dead in a High Street bookies - presumably you have a telephone account with an unfeasibly large limit.
As to the question, I marked the boards in a bookies in Soho as a summer job in the 1980s (pre-screens and Sunday opening) and they kept, I would guess, around £10k in the shop. On Grand National day, that would presumably be a bigger amount given the amounts being wagered and I did see the Manager having to go round to another shop to get some cash on a couple of occasions - there was a gentleman who was supposedly involved in the adult film industry who would come in and bet in the hundreds (with two of his leading ladies). He once gave the shop £100 which paid for some drinks.
Biggest bet I ever saw was a man who came in (I kid you not) with £5k in cash to bet on a football match - I'd never seen so much money.
Alas, Mr. J. I don't think you actually had any figures to back-up your original claim of £50- £100 pcm worse off. because of tax increases. I think it best left at that.
A question of semantics. Any reduction of an allowance, credit, threshold or anything that increases the flow of money to George Osborne's is a much a tax increase as a rate change. That ultimately matters more politically than semantics, especially when real terms tax cut can be prioritised for the ultra rich.
Or that you pulled a random number out of your arse.
My word this is spectacularly dull. £545 a year lost for families earning £30k equals £45pcm. Chuck in a VAT, fuel costs and everything else and you are comfortably down in that range.
Well, completely off topic: I've just won £166 on Pineau de Re in the Grand National. Much joy in the Cyclefree household, not least because we were also successful in an earlier race with the Duke of Lucca.
I've also been invited to join a racing syndicate but I realise I ought to think more coolly about that....
@Charles And how many MP's go onto sell their constituency property and move elsewhere after they stand down from Parliament or lose their seat in a GE? If all the taxpayer did was cough up for a 1 bed flat in London while MP's were there during the week, how do you expect current or future prospective MP's with young families who wish to stay together during the week to cough up for two homes out of an MP's salary because a 1 bed flat is totally impracticable for them? The current system is broken, its led too many MP's being able to build up a property portfolio via taxpayers while the expenses system has become a joke!
A future taxpayer owned and maintained constituency home with the incumbent MP paying for their own accommodation needs whilst in London is the most flexible way to go. And if the MP already has a home in the constituency they can have the flexibility of renting it out or selling it too. I think that you are forgetting that we currently have a system where our elected Prime Minister and Chancellor both have to move out of their family homes and into London based flats paid for by the taxpayer above the shop. If that system is good enough for the PM and the chancellor, then it should be good enough for all MP's.
I think you missed my point: I was talking about local MPs who have a long established home in the constituency. Why should they have to go to all the disruption of moving for a position that could only be a 5 year post? And if not, why should they be disadvantaged vs. their peers?
Mr. Socrates, I have no idea what happened to English votes to English laws. If they keep ignoring the West Lothian Question it'll just increase the irritation of the English at the democratic deficit.
Could it be that the WLQ is mostly mythical and dreamt up by intentionally, or otherwise, troublemaking unionists? I don't know the answer, but consider this.
Virtually all policy decisions in Westminster that change English policies affect the budget allocation/costs and therefore also the Barnett formula. Which gives the Scots and Welsh MPs a legitimate locus.
How many, really, how many votes are there where the above does not apply? I recently saw a count by someone for, I think, 2011 and the number was minimal - and much of it was for the Much Hadham (Waterworks) (Consolidation) Act or similar local stuff.
And it is the unionist parties not the SNP who insist on making their Scottish (and Welsh, remember) MPs vote on purely English matters. Yes, the ones with HQs in London. To do that and then complain about it is perhaps just a wee bittie inconsistent.
No, it doesn't. All that creates is an incentive to increase spending in England. If their constituents don't use the services in question then they shouldn't have a say.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
To be fair, I'd say it's a limited and flawed analytical assumption rather than "leftist" per se.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
That would be the OBR that have never got a forecast anywhere near right. A five year old could differentiate themselves from the OBR.
In your haste to be acerbic, you miss the point again.
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
Feel free to post a link to back up that claim (on the Federal Reserve)
In your haste to be acerbic, you miss the point again.
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
Or is that the IFS consistently challenge the govt of the day. When you were in opposition you quite liked that, now not quite so much.
In your haste to be acerbic, you miss the point again.
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
Or is that the IFS consistently challenge the govt of the day. When you were in opposition you quite liked that, now not quite so much.
Not particularly, don't really care what they say. We have our own strategists and I put much more weight on their views.
Malcolm G The UK is nothing like the most unequal country in the world compared to the likes of the US, Brazil, Russian, India and China. But even if China is more unequal than under Mao, most Chinese are far richer than they were then!
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
To be fair, I'd say it's a limited and flawed analytical assumption rather than "leftist" per se.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
That would be the OBR that have never got a forecast anywhere near right. A five year old could differentiate themselves from the OBR.
In your haste to be acerbic, you miss the point again.
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
Charles, I did not miss anything , the OBR is a useless puppet of the Tories. They are useless and never get any forecasts correct.
Isam Mark Agree entirely, at least one debate should have Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, and Farage and Greens' leader Natalie Bennett. Plaid, the SNP and the NI Parties are not standing candidates UK wide unlike those parties so should not be invited to the UK general election debate, but they can be invited to their own regional forums
Malcolm G The UK is nothing like the most unequal country in the world compared to the likes of the US, Brazil, Russian, India and China. But even if China is more unequal than under Mao, most Chinese are far richer than they were then!
Go and read the facts , most unequal country in the world. Just the other week we saw that 5 families had more wealth than the bottom 20% of the population. Greedy employers taking 400 times the wage of their employees, endemic poverty and mushrooming foodbanks. Waken up and smell the coffee.
Would be interesting had Nader been included in the 2000 US debates, as Perot was in 1992, would he have taken enough votes off Gore to allow Bush to win the popular vote (of course Perot arguably lost Bush Snr many votes in 1992)
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon be free English.
You really are stupid, they are UK banks you turnip, regulated and run from London. Also if you want to be accurate most of the money came from the Federal Reserve. bankrupt UK could not have bailed out the UK banks on its own.
Feel free to post a link to back up that claim (on the Federal Reserve)
My son reviewed that show for an arts website he writes for. Not quite as impressed as you but did recommend a show by Chloe Early, currently on in Greek Street.
Malcolm G The UK is nothing like the most unequal country in the world compared to the likes of the US, Brazil, Russian, India and China. But even if China is more unequal than under Mao, most Chinese are far richer than they were then!
Go and read the facts , most unequal country in the world. Just the other week we saw that 5 families had more wealth than the bottom 20% of the population. Greedy employers taking 400 times the wage of their employees, endemic poverty and mushrooming foodbanks. Waken up and smell the coffee.
In your haste to be acerbic, you miss the point again.
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
Or is that the IFS consistently challenge the govt of the day. When you were in opposition you quite liked that, now not quite so much.
Not particularly, don't really care what they say. We have our own strategists and I put much more weight on their views.
For sure you will prefer your freeloading chums advice
I’d like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who have been in the news. I’ll read the name of a person and I’d like you to rate that person using something called the feeling thermometer. You can choose any number between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less favorable.
Malcolm G The UK is nothing like the most unequal country in the world compared to the likes of the US, Brazil, Russian, India and China. But even if China is more unequal than under Mao, most Chinese are far richer than they were then!
Go and read the facts , most unequal country in the world. Just the other week we saw that 5 families had more wealth than the bottom 20% of the population. Greedy employers taking 400 times the wage of their employees, endemic poverty and mushrooming foodbanks. Waken up and smell the coffee.
Doesn't the link say most unequal in the West? Where does it say it is the most unequal in the world?
Go on Rob , split hairs, it is the 4th most unequal country and most unequal in the west. Are you trying to say that is something to brag about. Typical Tory , I am all right jack , why do the poor not just eat cake.
"Chief executive Mary Wittenberg said: "This is one of our most festive runs and people really get into the Scottish spirit, dressing up in kilts and painting their faces."
Malcolm G Nigeria and Ethiopia particularly are very poor countries, you can be relatively equal, but have most people in deep poverty, that is not as good a country to live in as a richer one with more relative inequality
Presumably you also disapprove of Moonwalks and suchlike things?
The Americans have their own way of doing things, and it would not be my scene on this side of the ditch. But I would not dream of criticising what they do on their own turf, and to invite Mr Salmond to launch it, and for Mr Salmond to accept, is only good manners on both sides, not least because he is there in part to turn goodwill into economic benefit amongst other things.
Malcolm G Nigeria and Ethiopia particularly are very poor countries, you can be relatively equal, but have most people in deep poverty, that is not as good a country to live in as a richer one with more relative inequality
Hmmm, speaking as someone who is not poor I presume. Are you happy with the inequality in this country, children not getting fed and people stinking rich but still grubbing for more. Unionists seem like nice people , you are poor , cannot heat your home or feed your family , but just think you could be in Nigeria where everybody is poor. I am sure that helps them get to sleep at night. Just you keep kidding yourself how great a country it is.
Malcolm G That report was from 1996, about as much use as me quoting a report from the Renaissance as up to date. In any case, it says Australia has second highest inequality, pity those poor people in Australia, with one of the highest GDP per capita's and lowest unemployment rates and deficits in the developed world
Malcolm G That report was from 1996, about as much use as me quoting a report from the Renaissance as up to date. In any case, it says Australia has second highest inequality, pity those poor people in Australia, with one of the highest GDP per capita's and lowest unemployment rates and deficits in the developed world
Try some more then, do you have any that show how equal we are in this country by any chance
Looks like PtP was on the money, as always. Enjoy yer winnings!
Very kind, Pong.
He was my second string but great odds. Fine payday! :-)
(I think Stodge gave it too.)
Yep, put it up at the start of one of the Maria Miller threads yesterday.
I'm just back from the betting shop with a very nice wedge of cash having backed PINEAU DE RE at 33/1 each way. Mrs Stodge is eyeing up the winnings and suggesting an evening out at Harrild and Sons or possibly The Lockhart. I can't believe I've found the winner for the first time since EARTH SUMMIT (and that dates us all).
Not entirely down to in-depth form analysis I must confess - I was at Plumpton last Monday and in a group listening to Brendan Powell, he said this had a good chance and suggested it as an e/w bet.
Well done, young Stodge. I thought I remembered right. The horse was consistently well touted in the racing press. It definitely ticked all the boxes, so I was astonished at the price.
Funnily enough, I also backed Earth Summit. Won on bottomless ground, I recall. In between, I also got Comply Or Die, but today's win tops both. Tonite, the East End is a little less poor than usual.
Presumably you also disapprove of Moonwalks and suchlike things?
The Americans have their own way of doing things, and it would not be my scene on this side of the ditch. But I would not dream of criticising what they do on their own turf, and to invite Mr Salmond to launch it, and for Mr Salmond to accept, is only good manners on both sides, not least because he is there in part to turn goodwill into economic benefit amongst other things.
The last time Salmond was in New York I remember he lunched with Trump. God only knows what reptiles he's going to entertain at your expense this time.
@Charles And how many MP's go onto sell their constituency property and move elsewhere after they stand down from Parliament or lose their seat in a GE? If all the taxpayer did was cough up for a 1 bed flat in London while MP's were there during the week, how do you expect current or future prospective MP's with young families who wish to stay together during the week to cough up for two homes out of an MP's salary because a 1 bed flat is totally impracticable for them? The current system is broken, its led too many MP's being able to build up a property portfolio via taxpayers while the expenses system has become a joke!
A future taxpayer owned and maintained constituency home with the incumbent MP paying for their own accommodation needs whilst in London is the most flexible way to go. And if the MP already has a home in the constituency they can have the flexibility of renting it out or selling it too. I think that you are forgetting that we currently have a system where our elected Prime Minister and Chancellor both have to move out of their family homes and into London based flats paid for by the taxpayer above the shop. If that system is good enough for the PM and the chancellor, then it should be good enough for all MP's.
I think you missed my point: I was talking about local MPs who have a long established home in the constituency. Why should they have to go to all the disruption of moving for a position that could only be a 5 year post? And if not, why should they be disadvantaged vs. their peers?
Malcolm G Please, the poor today have JSA, housing benefit, child benefit, free schools, free healthcare, this is not Dickens. The rich also now pay 45% of their income in tax, which is actually higher than 1996. If we all had zero pounds we would all be equal, but far worse off
Do you know how much cash a branch of major bookie holds - mine does not have enough liquidity to pay me out.
First, well done on finding the winner, Mr Financier. I'm sure a man of your financial wellbeing wouldn't be seen dead in a High Street bookies - presumably you have a telephone account with an unfeasibly large limit.
As to the question, I marked the boards in a bookies in Soho as a summer job in the 1980s (pre-screens and Sunday opening) and they kept, I would guess, around £10k in the shop. On Grand National day, that would presumably be a bigger amount given the amounts being wagered and I did see the Manager having to go round to another shop to get some cash on a couple of occasions - there was a gentleman who was supposedly involved in the adult film industry who would come in and bet in the hundreds (with two of his leading ladies). He once gave the shop £100 which paid for some drinks.
Biggest bet I ever saw was a man who came in (I kid you not) with £5k in cash to bet on a football match - I'd never seen so much money.
I rarely bet on the horses unless I am at the races where I can see the condition of the horse on that day. However, I make an exception for the GN and the Derby in memory of my mother who was something of an expert in the exercise of closing her eyes, using a pin on the morning paper and asking me to put on 5 bob ew.
I thought I would be away overseas, but now am not and so placed my bet a little while ago at a lot better than 33/1 and much more than £100ew. Actually I enjoy going to the betting shop - we have just 2 in this small town - as it takes me to a new environment which I like to observe. The new electronic poker etc machines seem to be making some of the locals a bit brassic.
Trust Mrs Stodge has not spent all your winnings yet?
On the wealth front, it also depends what you count as wealth after interventions. A pension pot paying, say, £100 per week in retirement is quite a large amount of wealth. You'd not be counted as having any such wealth on the State Pension, yet it has the same effect. The value of a lifetime's health insurance in the US would be quite staggering; those with lifetime health cover in the UK don't get judged as having any wealth. If you've got a three-bedroomed semi in Oxford, you'd be accounted as having wealth to the tune of, say, £200-£300k. If you're in a similar house in Oxford through social housing or HB, you're counted as having nothing. How much is 14 years of schooling worth? The UK is nothing like Nigeria or Ethiopia in those terms. And, of course, if you're in debt, then a ten year old with a £10 note is well ahead of you on the wealth grounds. Someone in negative equity could well be behind said ten-year-old with a £10 note.
Presumably you also disapprove of Moonwalks and suchlike things?
The Americans have their own way of doing things, and it would not be my scene on this side of the ditch. But I would not dream of criticising what they do on their own turf, and to invite Mr Salmond to launch it, and for Mr Salmond to accept, is only good manners on both sides, not least because he is there in part to turn goodwill into economic benefit amongst other things.
The last time Salmond was in New York I remember he lunched with Trump. God only knows what reptiles he's going to entertain at your expense this time.
Whom he upset very badly. Again, as with Mr Souter, rather contradictory to your insinuations.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597484/Labour-plans-ban-MPs-second-jobs-double-salaries.html
Hahahahaha ha
" we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term".
A prophet.
Or it could just be that it's a bash-the-Tories-and-Blairites move.
(edited for blockquotes)
I'm just back from the betting shop with a very nice wedge of cash having backed PINEAU DE RE at 33/1 each way. Mrs Stodge is eyeing up the winnings and suggesting an evening out at Harrild and Sons or possibly The Lockhart. I can't believe I've found the winner for the first time since EARTH SUMMIT (and that dates us all).
Not entirely down to in-depth form analysis I must confess - I was at Plumpton last Monday and in a group listening to Brendan Powell, he said this had a good chance and suggested it as an e/w bet.
Do you know how much cash a branch of major bookie holds - mine does not have enough liquidity to pay me out.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 7m
Quote of the Week, about EdM: "Sometimes his staff applaud him when he returns from making a mediocre speech" http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/04/04/who-will-stop-clapping-first/ … …
Leicester City are promoted to the Premier League
As to the question, I marked the boards in a bookies in Soho as a summer job in the 1980s (pre-screens and Sunday opening) and they kept, I would guess, around £10k in the shop. On Grand National day, that would presumably be a bigger amount given the amounts being wagered and I did see the Manager having to go round to another shop to get some cash on a couple of occasions - there was a gentleman who was supposedly involved in the adult film industry who would come in and bet in the hundreds (with two of his leading ladies). He once gave the shop £100 which paid for some drinks.
Biggest bet I ever saw was a man who came in (I kid you not) with £5k in cash to bet on a football match - I'd never seen so much money.
You have clearly done much better, well done you.
Next thing The Spectator will tell is the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
Please....
Were you brought up in East London?
I've also been invited to join a racing syndicate but I realise I ought to think more coolly about that....
This isn't about the quality of their forecasts, but the fact that the IFS used to be the neutral organisation that the media turned to for a third-party commentary on the budget. Now the OBR provides that, the IFS needs to carve out a new role for themselves. They do that by trying to be clever and make media headline-winning criticisms, rather than give a dry and worthy assessment.
UK most unequal country in the West
Huge gap between rich and poor in Britain is the same as Nigeria and worse than Ethiopia, UN report reveals
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9245088/RBS-on-path-to-recover-as-it-pays-off-bail-out-loans.html
You can look up others yourself , I know you are used to servants doing things for you but you should be able to manage that.
http://www.glasgowsouthandeastwoodextra.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/tartan-race-kicks-off-themed-events-1-3366254
My ancestral blood runs cold at this tawdry spectacle.
I’d like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who have been in the news. I’ll read the name of a person and I’d like you to rate that person using something called the feeling thermometer. You can choose any number between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less favorable.
Mean Score
•Elizabeth Warren 48.6 [50.7] (49.2)
•Hillary Clinton 47.8 [48.5] (52.1)
•Paul Ryan 47.4 [46.7] (43.0)
•Bobby Jindal 47.1 [49.6] (45.2)
•Scott Walker 46.6 [49.2] (41.1)
•Marco Rubio 46.3 [47.1] (46.5)
•Mike Huckabee 46.1 [51.0]
•Rand Paul 45.7 [47.1] (44.8)
•Chris Christie 45.2 [55.5] (53.1)
•Jeb Bush 44.7 [45.1] (40.4)
•John Kasich 43.6 [49.5]
•Joe Biden 42.7 [43.7] (46.2)
•Ted Cruz 42.5 [43.9] (46.8)
•Peter King 41.6 [39.7] (43.6)
•Andrew Cuomo 41.2 [43.0] (43.9)
•Rick Santorum 40.9 [41.0] (40.7)
•Rick Perry 40.2 [41.2]
•Howard Dean 40.1 [37.2]
•Martin O’Malley 40.0 [42.1] (45.7)
•Brian Schweitzer 37.5 [40.6]
Percent Scoring >50
•Hillary Clinton 49% [47%] (49%)
•Joe Biden 37% [37%] (39%)
•Paul Ryan 35% [36%] (28%)
•Chris Christie 34% [45%] (37%)
•Jeb Bush 32% [30%] (22%)
•Mike Huckabee 30% [36%]
•Rand Paul 29% [33%] (28%)
•Marco Rubio 27% [28%] (25%)
•Rick Santorum 24% [25%] (24%)
•Ted Cruz 23% [25%] (15%)
•Rick Perry 23% [24%]
•Elizabeth Warren 23% [25%] (21%)
•Scott Walker 20% [20%] (12%)
•Bobby Jindal 20% [19%] (16%)
•Howard Dean 19% [14%]
•Andrew Cuomo 18% [21%] (20%)
•John Kasich 11% [13%]
•Peter King 10% [9%] (10%)
•Martin O’Malley 5% [6%] (7%)
•Brian Schweitzer 5% [6%]
Haven’t Heard Enough About to Form an Opinion
•Brian Schweitzer 81% [82%]
•Martin O’Malley 79% [77%] (78%)
•Peter King 68% [66%] (71%)
•John Kasich 64% [68%]
•Scott Walker 54% [57%] (65%)
•Bobby Jindal 53% [54%] (56%)
•Elizabeth Warren 46% [46%] (51%)
•Andrew Cuomo 41% [38%] (41%)
•Howard Dean 40% [43%]
•Ted Cruz 38% [36%] (60%)
•Marco Rubio 34% [34%] (36%)
•Rick Santorum 30% [28%] (30%)
•Rick Perry 30% [27%]
•Rand Paul 26% [22%] (28%)
•Mike Huckabee 24% [20%]
•Paul Ryan 20% [18%] (24%)
•Jeb Bush 18% [18%] (20%)
•Chris Christie 18% [17%] (21%)
•Joe Biden 4% [7%] (8%)
•Hillary Clinton 1% [2%] (2%)
Pass the sick bag, Ruth.
The Americans have their own way of doing things, and it would not be my scene on this side of the ditch. But I would not dream of criticising what they do on their own turf, and to invite Mr Salmond to launch it, and for Mr Salmond to accept, is only good manners on both sides, not least because he is there in part to turn goodwill into economic benefit amongst other things.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerry-hassan-the-fourth-most-unequal-country-in-the-world-1-2178654
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/05/30/distribution-of-wealth-in-the-4th-most-unequal-country-in-the-world/
Funnily enough, I also backed Earth Summit. Won on bottomless ground, I recall. In between, I also got Comply Or Die, but today's win tops both. Tonite, the East End is a little less poor than usual.
Enjoy the evening.
I rarely bet on the horses unless I am at the races where I can see the condition of the horse on that day. However, I make an exception for the GN and the Derby in memory of my mother who was something of an expert in the exercise of closing her eyes, using a pin on the morning paper and asking me to put on 5 bob ew.
I thought I would be away overseas, but now am not and so placed my bet a little while ago at a lot better than 33/1 and much more than £100ew. Actually I enjoy going to the betting shop - we have just 2 in this small town - as it takes me to a new environment which I like to observe. The new electronic poker etc machines seem to be making some of the locals a bit brassic.
Trust Mrs Stodge has not spent all your winnings yet?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/income-gap-narrowest-margin-25-years
A pension pot paying, say, £100 per week in retirement is quite a large amount of wealth. You'd not be counted as having any such wealth on the State Pension, yet it has the same effect.
The value of a lifetime's health insurance in the US would be quite staggering; those with lifetime health cover in the UK don't get judged as having any wealth.
If you've got a three-bedroomed semi in Oxford, you'd be accounted as having wealth to the tune of, say, £200-£300k. If you're in a similar house in Oxford through social housing or HB, you're counted as having nothing.
How much is 14 years of schooling worth?
The UK is nothing like Nigeria or Ethiopia in those terms.
And, of course, if you're in debt, then a ten year old with a £10 note is well ahead of you on the wealth grounds. Someone in negative equity could well be behind said ten-year-old with a £10 note.