""The Labour Party has barely seemed to notice that the big economic story of the summer is the deficit soaring once again, while complacency remains the watchword of the Osborne/Alexander regime at the Treasury."
Exactly the point I made earlier, delighted that Patrick has picked up on it. Ukip will continue this message right up to the election, that the economic recovery is a nonsense
So the decrease in unemployment is a fantasy, is it?
Delusion rather than fantasy, zero hour contracts and part time work.
Anybody who believes the economy is recovering is bonkers, the debt is rising all the time. Of course that doesn't suit the govt agenda, I'm genuinely amazed that people believe it.
You are the one in a delusion. Some one is in a job and you give it a fantasy name and pretend it does not exist. Labour left a massive deficit and a massively shrunken economy - which even before it shrunk could not sustain Brown's spending plans - so it is inevitable that debt will rise. Millions more are in work and unemployment is falling. Get used to it.
One more thing on British banks: Yesterday I had to phone my British bank, because the only electronic communication they accept is fax. On my third attempt at a phone tree that I think must have been designed by Jorge Luis Borges, I finally managed to get through and speak to a human. He used the word "action" as a verb. Repeatedly.
This industry must be destroyed. Burn the whole thing down.
You haven't experienced the joy when the banks think you're money laundering or funding terrorism.
Once an account is closed, fraud prevention agencies put a flag against the customer's name so they cannot normally then open an account with another provider.
@TheScreamingEagles No TSE, I did not miss that part of the article, because I provided the full link. Only those who did not read it will have missed out. Hitchingbrooke appears to be turning things round without a proper financial plan, which is what you tend to frot off about when it is a "public" entity.
@Flightpath "unemployment is falling. Get used to it" And you can get used to paying the wage subsidies and housing benefits for the employers to benefit.
The last piece of the article on the Green's wealth tax proposal said the Greens were challenging the Lib in Bristol West.No prices on the Greens winning anywhere in Bristol,not even in the betting so where has this come from?
More North East voters back David Cameron as a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband, an exclusive Journal poll today reveals.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
Very funny and of course the shadow chancellor and leader of the opposition were demanding more regulation.
BTW: Why on earth is that that the Left can't their heads around the difference between 'more' regulation and 'effective' regulation? Every single time the subject comes up, they repeat the same idiotic mistake. Brown provided plenty 'more' regulation, in the brain-dead FSA with its thousands of staff and the corresponding army of compliance offices in RBS and all the other financial institutions. Fat lot of good it did, unsurprisingly, since no-one was actually supervising the system. They were just ticking boxes.
And in fact the kind of regulation we get from ignorant scumbag politicians makes things worse not better. Two examples suffice. MIFID II, which was originally envisaged as being a review of how MIFID was doing, has been repurposed into a regulatory monster which among other things will mimic the USA's regime of position limits in order to reduce price volatility.
The trouble with this is that position limits ration liquidity and thereby increase price volatility, a fact obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a chart of price volatility in instruments with and without such limits. They originated in the USA in 1917 to 1918 when the price of grain was volatile. A thoughtful person would have considered that this might have something to do with the Russian revolution, the German capture of the Ukraine, and the U-boat campaign against US exports to Europe. Politicians decided it was the fault of speculators, and introduced a bad "solution" that 100 years on is still making things worse.
The other example is Dodd Frank and its insistence on universal clearing. This of course simply moves the risk to a different place, and makes catastrophe both likelier and worse. As more instruments are forced to be cleared, margin requirements go up which in turn means more liquidations to fund margins which exacerbates price volatility which means margins go up.
The pols have been told a million times why this stupid but they continue to insist that better means more. Pretty well all the new financial regulation I have seen over the last 10 years has been about curing obesity by forcing people to eat more and to keep a food diary.
Taffys - despite all the propaganda the cuts have in fact been back loaded and not front loaded. An example of this was that immediately when the cuts were announced the local authority put ou that it was going close virtually all libraries. Most communities in our area started voluntary support schemes for libraries to keep them open. That has only just started this financial year and only now are library jobs going. Cuts are being made and I'd like to know where it is that spending is not under control as some allege?
More North East voters back David Cameron as a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband, an exclusive Journal poll today reveals.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
Cant help feeling that the EPL being flush with cash is just like the music industry in the 1980s. Live sports viewing will undergo the same transformation that music did. Why would anyone pay Sky to watch the EPL when you can stream online, hook an HDMI cable to your big screen and hey presto? Only a matter of time.
Cant help feeling that the EPL being flush with cash is just like the music industry in the 1980s. Live sports viewing will undergo the same transformation that music did. Why would anyone pay Sky to watch the EPL when you can stream online, hook an HDMI cable to your big screen and hey presto? Only a matter of time.
Cant help feeling that the EPL being flush with cash is just like the music industry in the 1980s. Live sports viewing will undergo the same transformation that music did. Why would anyone pay Sky to watch the EPL when you can stream online, hook an HDMI cable to your big screen and hey presto? Only a matter of time.
It is already happening, made worse by the drive to sell to international broadcasters the EPL. Maybe that is why SKY are not out bidding BT?
The really depressing, worrying thing is that Cameron and Osborne are repeating Brown's worst mistakes.
Stoking a debt-fuelled bubble, aggressive deregulation, dazzled by the spivs and speculators, a top-heavy trickle-down "long term economic plan".
Short termist and unsustainable.
The best reason to vote Labour next year is that they seem to have learned lessons from the Bankers Crash. The Tories merely saw it as an opportunity to play Fantasy Rightwing Government.
What?????
MIFID II? EMIR? The creation of ESMA, whereby Latvians will regulate the City of London?
Have you any idea what these are involving the financial sector in doing?
More North East voters back David Cameron as a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband, an exclusive Journal poll today reveals.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
On the subject of Brown as CotE, he is rightly lambasted for the perilous state of Govt finances that he presided over. He did however make one selfish decision which saved us from a catastrophe. He kept us out of the Euro. Albeit he did it because he did not want to give up power to the EC on this issue.
On the subject of Brown as CotE, he is rightly lambasted for the perilous state of Govt finances that he presided over. He did however make one selfish decision which saved us from a catastrophe. He kept us out of the Euro. Albeit he did it because he did not want to give up power to the EC on this issue.
Well, quite. To me that is like applauding Hitler's vegetarianism.
More North East voters back David Cameron as a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband, an exclusive Journal poll today reveals.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
More North East voters back David Cameron as a better Prime Minister than Ed Miliband, an exclusive Journal poll today reveals.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
Yeh - England's Jodie Stimpson has won the gold medal ahead of Canada's Kirsten Sweetland with England team-mate Vicky Holland claiming the bronze in the women's triathlon.
Aussies can't accuse us of only winning golds in events that require 'sitting down' this time....
Mr. Hugh, selling Royal Mail raised money. By definition, none was wasted because none was spent. You could argue the price was too low but that's not the same thing.
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
Fascinating volte face from Max Hastings, on Israel and Gaza:
The best piece I've read about this is by Dan Hodges. Those calling for a 'proportionate response' from Israel have completely failed to define what that response might actually be.
What they actually want is for Israel to sit there and take it.
Cant help feeling that the EPL being flush with cash is just like the music industry in the 1980s. Live sports viewing will undergo the same transformation that music did. Why would anyone pay Sky to watch the EPL when you can stream online, hook an HDMI cable to your big screen and hey presto? Only a matter of time.
Because the quality is awful and the signal very unreliable. You are conflating recorded material with live coverage
I have answered this question so many times on here I might ask Mike to pop up a sticky.
I'd have brought forward capital investment projects earlier in the parliament. Sure, the usual suspects will screech ha ha so you would increase borrowing to reduce borrowing?
My answer is yes: I would have brought forward investment projects with a large multiplier, get growth moving.
*screeching here"
you might have, but the markets would have had none of it. I know the capital markets are evil and a plaything of the military-industrial complex but they do matter, you know.
And regarding your famed multiplier, in exactly what time frame do you suppose the benefits would be delivered? What do you imagine the policy lag would be or do you have some areas of outstanding natural beauty already earmarked for new roads and bridges? And in the meantime you only have an increase in borrowing to show for it.
Three years wasted under Ozzy. The penny has now dropped with him that capital investment works - shame it took the guy three years to grasp a simple economic principle. By the way, I don't recognise that picture of the capital markets - it may be your view, it isn't mine.
@Patrick asked the other day if there were any centre-right/right wing commentators condeming Israel. The only one I could think of at the time was your good self.
This article by Max Hastings is quite remarkable in the context of how the war is being seen by those on the right who previously would have unhesitatingly backed Israel.
In 1945 and 1997, the voters blamed the Tories for the mess they were gotten into, regardless of them getting out of the mess.
Nobody, but the dimmest Labour supporter/troll believes the Tories were responsible for the economic mess that Labour presided over.
I mean look at all the warnings Brown received.
Two warnings that were conspicuous in their absence were those of Ozzy and Dave, who tied themselves to Labour spending plans and did not call for reform of banking regulation, except with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
More to the point, the NHS reforms haven't been abandoned in chaos. Just because the Left don't like them, for reasons which they've never bothered to try to explain, does not mean they were a waste of money.
In fact the most remarkable thing about this government is how few wasteful disasters there have been. Nothing like the Fire Control centres, or the Rural Payments Agency. Government procurement has been a quiet success of the coalition.
Cant help feeling that the EPL being flush with cash is just like the music industry in the 1980s. Live sports viewing will undergo the same transformation that music did. Why would anyone pay Sky to watch the EPL when you can stream online, hook an HDMI cable to your big screen and hey presto? Only a matter of time.
It is already happening, made worse by the drive to sell to international broadcasters the EPL. Maybe that is why SKY are not out bidding BT?
As someone who knows this field a bit.
Sky's decision not to compete with BT over Champs League is down to simple money.
BT massively overpaid for (Champions League) rights.
The two organisations who did that in the past, eventually went bust, I suspect with BT, they will have to charge customers like me, who get BT sport for free, a monthly subscription, and not all will pay.
Also Sky have their eye on something else.
BSkyB poised to seal ‘Sky Europe’ deal
UK broadcaster to acquire sister companies in Germany and Italy in deal that could net Rupert Murdoch as much as $10bn
Sky's strength is that they offer more than just football and their entertainment channels are worth gold, there's a reason they don't share Sky Atlantic with anyone else.
I have answered this question so many times on here I might ask Mike to pop up a sticky.
I'd have brought forward capital investment projects earlier in the parliament. Sure, the usual suspects will screech ha ha so you would increase borrowing to reduce borrowing?
My answer is yes: I would have brought forward investment projects with a large multiplier, get growth moving.
*screeching here"
you might have, but the markets would have had none of it. I know the capital markets are evil and a plaything of the military-industrial complex but they do matter, you know.
And regarding your famed multiplier, in exactly what time frame do you suppose the benefits would be delivered? What do you imagine the policy lag would be or do you have some areas of outstanding natural beauty already earmarked for new roads and bridges? And in the meantime you only have an increase in borrowing to show for it.
Three years wasted under Ozzy. The penny has now dropped with him that capital investment works - shame it took the guy three years to grasp a simple economic principle. By the way, I don't recognise that picture of the capital markets - it may be your view, it isn't mine.
It's not a view it is how they work.
Ozzy grasped the situation immediately: build up credibility in the markets (there's that word again) by a commitment to and delivery of austerity and then, when they were happy the UK wasn't about to go on a splurge, he could look at infrastructure projects. Which he is doing now. He simply couldn't have done this on day one.
I have answered this question so many times on here I might ask Mike to pop up a sticky.
I'd have brought forward capital investment projects earlier in the parliament. Sure, the usual suspects will screech ha ha so you would increase borrowing to reduce borrowing?
My answer is yes: I would have brought forward investment projects with a large multiplier, get growth moving.
*screeching here"
you might have, but the markets would have had none of it. I know the capital markets are evil and a plaything of the military-industrial complex but they do matter, you know.
And regarding your famed multiplier, in exactly what time frame do you suppose the benefits would be delivered? What do you imagine the policy lag would be or do you have some areas of outstanding natural beauty already earmarked for new roads and bridges? And in the meantime you only have an increase in borrowing to show for it.
Three years wasted under Ozzy. The penny has now dropped with him that capital investment works - shame it took the guy three years to grasp a simple economic principle. By the way, I don't recognise that picture of the capital markets - it may be your view, it isn't mine.
It's not a view it is how they work.
Ozzy grasped the situation immediately: build up credibility in the markets (there's that word again) by a commitment to and delivery of austerity and then, when they were happy the UK wasn't about to go on a splurge, he could look at infrastructure projects. Which he is doing now. He simply couldn't have done this on day one.
What I meant was the derogatory terms you used for them. I don't see the as evil or whatever else, you make me sound like some deranged Socialist Worker vendor
In 1945 and 1997, the voters blamed the Tories for the mess they were gotten into, regardless of them getting out of the mess.
Nobody, but the dimmest Labour supporter/troll believes the Tories were responsible for the economic mess that Labour presided over.
I mean look at all the warnings Brown received.
Two warnings that were conspicuous in their absence were those of Ozzy and Dave, who tied themselves to Labour spending plans and did not call for reform of banking regulation, except with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.
Labour didn't get any blame for the ERM crisis despite being supporters of our ERM membership
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
More to the point, the NHS reforms haven't been abandoned in chaos. Just because the Left don't like them, for reasons which they've never bothered to try to explain, does not mean they were a waste of money.
In fact the most remarkable thing about this government is how few wasteful disasters there have been. Nothing like the Fire Control centres, or the Rural Payments Agency. Government procurement has been a quiet success of the coalition.
Quick question - I have no idea if the NHS reforms are working or not, fortunately enough I am an infrequent user of the services..
Why did Dave promise "No top down reorganisation" of the NHS before he came into power (When he was planning exactly that) ?
He actually doesn't have Clegg's line that he simply didn't think he would be in Gov't...
I'm not saying the reorganisation is good, bad, necessary, unnecessary - just wondering why the hell he promised no "top down reorganisation" before the General Election.
He should have said "Our NHS faces significant challenges with an ageing population and more pressures than ever and so in order to deliver the best NHS in the world we will need to carry on, and further, Labour's good work and continue reform...." or something along those lines.
Mr. Eagles, didn't go dressed as Hannibal either. Of course, that would've required an eyepatch. And a change of ethnicity to one that doesn't really exist anymore...
You have posted once or twice about the benefits of religion. I assume that was mainly about the benefits of being religious vs not within an ethnically / religiously settled geography.
So..I agree that scooping the entire Middle East into the sea would be good for the planet - but to what extent do you admit that the reason this is necessary is becasue of the horrible impact competitive religion has?
@Pulpstar - It was a stupid thing to say. However, the NHS reorganisation was in the manifesto (and actually, some quite similar reforms in both the Labour and LibDem manifestos, come to that). I think he was making an over-subtle distinction between 'top-down' reorganisation and the doctor-led structure which Lansley was trying to put in place. But yes, it was an unforced error to use those particular words - your version is much better!
By the way, I think another interesting thread would be along the lines of 'When Voters do Fear.' Although negative campaigning appears to have less impact in the UK than US, if a fear meme takes hold it can be enough to swing an election. It is arguably far more powerful than the flip-side thread of voters not doing gratitude. Two examples in my lifetime particularly stand out:
1992 Kinnock and Labour's tax bombshell. This was one of the greatest turnarounds in election history. Really and truly the Conservatives should have lost 1992. They were out of steam, starting to look sleazy and tired and it was time for a change. The negative attacks about Labour tax plans combined with the personal assault on Kinnock, especially by the right-wing red-tops were sufficient to scare enough people back to the Tories. Who will ever forget that infamous Sun front page? http://sunheadlines.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/classics-if-kinnock-wins-please-turn.html
1983 Less stark but still effective was the attack on Michael Foot's Labour. The fear of god and just about everything else was sent into the electorate, portraying the prospect of a Labour victory as tantamount to surrendering to the Soviet Union. Although infamously described as 'the longest suicide note in history,' the 1983 Labour manifesto was probably not as left-wing as portrayed. Oh, and he wasn't really wearing a donkey jacket either http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html
Can anyone think of others where negative campaigning has been highly effective? I ask particularly because, trust me, the Conservatives will go for the jugular on this. Labour stuffed up the UK economy. Brown managed to squander just about everything, including our gold reserves. Combine that with a 'weirdo' (not my word) at the helm and you can bet that Fear will be used as a highly effective weapon next year. It is one of the reasons I am certain the Conservatives will have an outright victory.
Mr. Hugh, selling Royal Mail raised money. By definition, none was wasted because none was spent. You could argue the price was too low but that's not the same thing.
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
Mr. Owls, the point was about cost. The restructuring has gone through, the IT system cost more than thrice as much and isn't even in use.
If you're raising manifesto commitments: 1) This is a coalition. The big downside of coalitions is that manifesto commitments become optional. 2) Labour promised not to increase tuition fees or income tax, and then increased both.
@Pulpstar - It was a stupid thing to say. However, the NHS reorganisation was in the manifesto (and actually, some quite similar reforms in both the Labour and LibDem manifestos, come to that). I think he was making an over-subtle distinction between 'top-down' reorganisation and the doctor-led structure which Lansley was trying to put in place. But yes, it was an unforced error to use those particular words - your version is much better!
I don't think he was just being subtle TBF. As I recall, he was making a specific attack on Labour's reorganisations, which he rightly thought NHS staff were fed up with, not necessarily because they especially disliked them but simply that they wanted to get on with treating people and not messed about any more. The message was quite clearly that they wouldn't be bothered with any more stuff driven from the centre. The impression given was certainly not "we are going to enforce a new doctor-led structure", whether or not that would have been a good idea - he was explicitly claiming credit for not planning to do any such thing.
I have said many times, I am not in favour of people swapping nationalities to play for a different country. To me it removes the point of international competition...but whether you agree with me or not you will surely find this funny...
Mr Dancer surely you are not suggesting the LDs forced Lansley into a top down re-organisation that is wreaking havoc with the finances of the secondary care sector as we speak and will end up costing significantly more than 3bn
Mr. Owls, I'm suggesting coalition puts the manifesto effectively into the shredder. Fragments may survive. But even policies both parties agree on (reducing the number of MPs) might not.
I have said many times, I am not in favour of people swapping nationalities to play for a different country. To me it removes the point of international competition...but whether you agree with me or not you will surely find this funny...
According to the article he moved to the Ukraine 14 years ago, married a local girl and took up citizenship - don't think that quite comes under the "swapping nationalities to play for a different country" theme but hey...
Sean - I suspect you're right. All the 'isms, including all religion, are ultimately about control. Humans need to feel in control of their own life. And that spills into the need to control others. We crave money and power for the security it gives as much as anything. We fear. Darwin was right. Ain't life a bitch.
Political ideologies that embrace the reality of our imperfections and competitive nature stand a chance of working. Those that embrace something truly alien to our basic animal nature cannot. Your choice of title 'The Bible of the Dead' was spot on. Righties are nicer than lefties on the whole. And sexier apparently:
@Patrick "Political ideologies that embrace the reality of our imperfections and competitive nature stand a chance of working. Those that embrace something truly alien to our basic animal nature " Yes, a bunch of semi evolved apes who refuse to think in a rational fashion, but instead screech and hit each other with sticks is the only true way forward.
(Several people warned us against this, but what the hell? prophets and philosophers can be safely ignored)
Mr. Hugh, selling Royal Mail raised money. By definition, none was wasted because none was spent. You could argue the price was too low but that's not the same thing.
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
Free schools and UC remain to be seen.
No top down re-organisations of the NHS
Especially not one costin £3bn
No IT systems doesnt have the same ring
You'd think the Tories would be more careful with taxpayers money given the way they drone on about it.
Instead they've found billions to waste on failed reforms and pet projects.
What makes it even worse is that they've done it whilst imposing austerity on everyone else, with food bank queues lengthening, disabled people hammered by the Bedroom Tax etc.
@Patrick "Political ideologies that embrace the reality of our imperfections and competitive nature stand a chance of working. Those that embrace something truly alien to our basic animal nature " Yes, a bunch of semi evolved apes who refuse to think in a rational fashion, but instead screech and hit each other with sticks is the only true way forward.
(Several people warned us against this, but what the hell? prophets and philosophers can be safely ignored)
I have said many times, I am not in favour of people swapping nationalities to play for a different country. To me it removes the point of international competition...but whether you agree with me or not you will surely find this funny...
According to the article he moved to the Ukraine 14 years ago, married a local girl and took up citizenship - don't think that quite comes under the "swapping nationalities to play for a different country" theme but hey...
If I had moved anywhere in the world at 20 I'd still only ever play for England myself
I have said many times, I am not in favour of people swapping nationalities to play for a different country. To me it removes the point of international competition...but whether you agree with me or not you will surely find this funny...
According to the article he moved to the Ukraine 14 years ago, married a local girl and took up citizenship - don't think that quite comes under the "swapping nationalities to play for a different country" theme but hey...
If I had moved anywhere in the world at 20 I'd still only ever play for England myself
If you, Sam, were playing for England aged 34 then you'd likely be their best player on the pitch.
Can anyone think of others where negative campaigning has been highly effective?
Labour's entirely negative campaigns in 2001 and 2005 were very successful. Even the success of 1997 was partly based on negative campaigning, although in that election they did portray themselves as something new and desirable.
I don't think he was just being subtle TBF. As I recall, he was making a specific attack on Labour's reorganisations, which he rightly thought NHS staff were fed up with, not necessarily because they especially disliked them but simply that they wanted to get on with treating people and not messed about any more. The message was quite clearly that they wouldn't be bothered with any more stuff driven from the centre. The impression given was certainly not "we are going to enforce a new doctor-led structure", whether or not that would have been a good idea - he was explicitly claiming credit for not planning to do any such thing.
Do you have a reference to the actual words in context? Google just comes up with zillions of Labour sources, which I suppose is a tribute to the party's relentless discipline.
Can anyone think of others where negative campaigning has been highly effective? I ask particularly because, trust me, the Conservatives will go for the jugular on this. Labour stuffed up the UK economy. Brown managed to squander just about everything, including our gold reserves. Combine that with a 'weirdo' (not my word) at the helm and you can bet that Fear will be used as a highly effective weapon next year. It is one of the reasons I am certain the Conservatives will have an outright victory.
Labour used negative campaigning extensively - or perhaps exclusively in - 2001 and 2005. The Conservatives allowed Campbell, Mandelson & Co to creative in the public mind a bogeyman Thacherite image of their party. Hague and Howard were also portrayed as weird or sinister.
This policy was very effective and the Tories were poor at countering it. It just goes to show the importance to any party of defining itself clearly and boldly. Otherwise opponents will step in and do it themselves.
The two parties are more evenly matched at the present, although Labour is vulnerable as an Opposition as it has failed so far to define itself at all clearly.
Mr. Owls, the point was about cost. The restructuring has gone through, the IT system cost more than thrice as much and isn't even in use.
If you're raising manifesto commitments: 1) This is a coalition. The big downside of coalitions is that manifesto commitments become optional. 2) Labour promised not to increase tuition fees or income tax, and then increased both.
Not True. You refer to NPfIT, the National Programme for IT. It did in fact lead to hospitals getting electronic records systems, a nationwide secure network, and I think NHSmail as well, an encrypted email system that is now widely used.
But you don't read about that in the papers, you just read "Labour's NHS IT database didn't work"
Comments
Labour left a massive deficit and a massively shrunken economy - which even before it shrunk could not sustain Brown's spending plans - so it is inevitable that debt will rise. Millions more are in work and unemployment is falling. Get used to it.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2196771/NatWest-shut-sons-accounts-wont-say-why.html
Once an account is closed, fraud prevention agencies put a flag against the customer's name so they cannot normally then open an account with another provider.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18540832
No TSE, I did not miss that part of the article, because I provided the full link.
Only those who did not read it will have missed out.
Hitchingbrooke appears to be turning things round without a proper financial plan, which is what you tend to frot off about when it is a "public" entity.
This compares with 13 in 2010/11
"unemployment is falling. Get used to it"
And you can get used to paying the wage subsidies and housing benefits for the employers to benefit.
When asked which of the party leaders do they think would make the best Prime Minister, some 25% of the North East said Mr Cameron, versus just 16% for Ed Miliband.
The exclusive Other Lines of Enquiry North poll, using their in house Panelbase service, showed that even in Labour’s North East heartland, Mr Miliband is far from inspiring.
.......Mr Cameron has pinned his hopes of a 2015 election victory on the economy, and the Journal poll suggest this could secure him another term in No 10.
When asked which issue is most likely to influence their vote at the next General Election, some 35% of the North East said the economy, more even than the 27% nationally who named it as their number one consideration.
In the North East the second biggest issue was the NHS, at 23%, but nationally it was tied with Europe on 22%.
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/journal-poll-suggests-tough-times-7486039
The trouble with this is that position limits ration liquidity and thereby increase price volatility, a fact obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a chart of price volatility in instruments with and without such limits. They originated in the USA in 1917 to 1918 when the price of grain was volatile. A thoughtful person would have considered that this might have something to do with the Russian revolution, the German capture of the Ukraine, and the U-boat campaign against US exports to Europe. Politicians decided it was the fault of speculators, and introduced a bad "solution" that 100 years on is still making things worse.
The other example is Dodd Frank and its insistence on universal clearing. This of course simply moves the risk to a different place, and makes catastrophe both likelier and worse. As more instruments are forced to be cleared, margin requirements go up which in turn means more liquidations to fund margins which exacerbates price volatility which means margins go up.
The pols have been told a million times why this stupid but they continue to insist that better means more. Pretty well all the new financial regulation I have seen over the last 10 years has been about curing obesity by forcing people to eat more and to keep a food diary.
Cuts are being made and I'd like to know where it is that spending is not under control as some allege?
BritainEnglandMIFID II? EMIR? The creation of ESMA, whereby Latvians will regulate the City of London?
Have you any idea what these are involving the financial sector in doing?
Yeah, yeah, Godwin etc, I know already.
Lab 41
Con 36
UKIP 15
LD 4
You can see UKIP pulling out there.
Aussies can't accuse us of only winning golds in events that require 'sitting down' this time....
Botched Royal Mail flog-off, IDS's Universal Credit disaster, Gove's Free School experiment, Cameron's insane top-down reorganisation of the NHS.
There's quite a list when you think about it.
Mr. Hugh, selling Royal Mail raised money. By definition, none was wasted because none was spent. You could argue the price was too low but that's not the same thing.
The NHS change cost £3bn. Or, less than a third of the abandoned NHS IT database (£10bn plus) of Labour. Of course, £3bn's still serious money, but motes and beams spring to mind.
Free schools and UC remain to be seen.
The best piece I've read about this is by Dan Hodges. Those calling for a 'proportionate response' from Israel have completely failed to define what that response might actually be.
What they actually want is for Israel to sit there and take it.
Vetoed by Hammond Fallon
http://bbc.in/1nvxPp1
Words fail me.
So give them less to waste. People look after their own money much better than government. Let them keep it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28466434
This article by Max Hastings is quite remarkable in the context of how the war is being seen by those on the right who previously would have unhesitatingly backed Israel.
These times are a 'changing.
Usual Michelle Obama-led outcry. Followed by nothing.
In fact the most remarkable thing about this government is how few wasteful disasters there have been. Nothing like the Fire Control centres, or the Rural Payments Agency. Government procurement has been a quiet success of the coalition.
Sky's decision not to compete with BT over Champs League is down to simple money.
BT massively overpaid for (Champions League) rights.
The two organisations who did that in the past, eventually went bust, I suspect with BT, they will have to charge customers like me, who get BT sport for free, a monthly subscription, and not all will pay.
Also Sky have their eye on something else.
BSkyB poised to seal ‘Sky Europe’ deal
UK broadcaster to acquire sister companies in Germany and Italy in deal that could net Rupert Murdoch as much as $10bn
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/24/bskyb-sky-europe-germany-italy-rupert-murdoch
Sky's strength is that they offer more than just football and their entertainment channels are worth gold, there's a reason they don't share Sky Atlantic with anyone else.
Is £3million the new "rich" level?? Who has decided this and on what basis?
Anyway I'll hold the door open as a significant number of those affected up sticks and leave.
Ozzy grasped the situation immediately: build up credibility in the markets (there's that word again) by a commitment to and delivery of austerity and then, when they were happy the UK wasn't about to go on a splurge, he could look at infrastructure projects. Which he is doing now. He simply couldn't have done this on day one.
We have a full-on row between Holyrood and Westminster over the colour of smoke the Red Arrows use. Bodes well for post-Indy negotiations ..
As some lace-wearing, bell-bedecked people have noted, any separation would almost certainly be acrimonious.
The SNP can force the remainder of the UK to share a currency with an Independent Scotland but can't stop the Red Arrows using red smoke.
Why did Dave promise "No top down reorganisation" of the NHS before he came into power (When he was planning exactly that) ?
He actually doesn't have Clegg's line that he simply didn't think he would be in Gov't...
I'm not saying the reorganisation is good, bad, necessary, unnecessary - just wondering why the hell he promised no "top down reorganisation" before the General Election.
He should have said "Our NHS faces significant challenges with an ageing population and more pressures than ever and so in order to deliver the best NHS in the world we will need to carry on, and further, Labour's good work and continue reform...." or something along those lines.
Expect it to get very very messy indeed.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-defence-secretary-intervenes-to-slap-down-alex-salmond-in-red-arrows-commonwealth-games-row-9625976.html
You have posted once or twice about the benefits of religion. I assume that was mainly about the benefits of being religious vs not within an ethnically / religiously settled geography.
So..I agree that scooping the entire Middle East into the sea would be good for the planet - but to what extent do you admit that the reason this is necessary is becasue of the horrible impact competitive religion has?
EXCLUSIVE: Defence Secretary intervenes to slap down Alex Salmond in Red Arrows Commonwealth games row
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-defence-secretary-intervenes-to-slap-down-alex-salmond-in-red-arrows-commonwealth-games-row-9625976.html
Regarding the display team - "they were “ambassadors for the UK” and would never trail any other colours than the red, white and blue of the Union."
1992 Kinnock and Labour's tax bombshell. This was one of the greatest turnarounds in election history. Really and truly the Conservatives should have lost 1992. They were out of steam, starting to look sleazy and tired and it was time for a change. The negative attacks about Labour tax plans combined with the personal assault on Kinnock, especially by the right-wing red-tops were sufficient to scare enough people back to the Tories. Who will ever forget that infamous Sun front page? http://sunheadlines.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/classics-if-kinnock-wins-please-turn.html
1983 Less stark but still effective was the attack on Michael Foot's Labour. The fear of god and just about everything else was sent into the electorate, portraying the prospect of a Labour victory as tantamount to surrendering to the Soviet Union. Although infamously described as 'the longest suicide note in history,' the 1983 Labour manifesto was probably not as left-wing as portrayed. Oh, and he wasn't really wearing a donkey jacket either
Can anyone think of others where negative campaigning has been highly effective? I ask particularly because, trust me, the Conservatives will go for the jugular on this. Labour stuffed up the UK economy. Brown managed to squander just about everything, including our gold reserves. Combine that with a 'weirdo' (not my word) at the helm and you can bet that Fear will be used as a highly effective weapon next year. It is one of the reasons I am certain the Conservatives will have an outright victory.
Especially not one costin £3bn
No IT systems doesnt have the same ring
If you're raising manifesto commitments:
1) This is a coalition. The big downside of coalitions is that manifesto commitments become optional.
2) Labour promised not to increase tuition fees or income tax, and then increased both.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704080/Brazilian-footballer-Ukrainian-citizen-play-national-regrets-called-FIGHT.html
Political ideologies that embrace the reality of our imperfections and competitive nature stand a chance of working. Those that embrace something truly alien to our basic animal nature cannot. Your choice of title 'The Bible of the Dead' was spot on. Righties are nicer than lefties on the whole. And sexier apparently:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9264391/my-secret-lust-for-right-wing-women/
"Political ideologies that embrace the reality of our imperfections and competitive nature stand a chance of working. Those that embrace something truly alien to our basic animal nature "
Yes, a bunch of semi evolved apes who refuse to think in a rational fashion, but instead screech and hit each other with sticks is the only true way forward.
(Several people warned us against this, but what the hell? prophets and philosophers can be safely ignored)
Instead they've found billions to waste on failed reforms and pet projects.
What makes it even worse is that they've done it whilst imposing austerity on everyone else, with food bank queues lengthening, disabled people hammered by the Bedroom Tax etc.
Can anyone think of others where negative campaigning has been highly effective? I ask particularly because, trust me, the Conservatives will go for the jugular on this. Labour stuffed up the UK economy. Brown managed to squander just about everything, including our gold reserves. Combine that with a 'weirdo' (not my word) at the helm and you can bet that Fear will be used as a highly effective weapon next year. It is one of the reasons I am certain the Conservatives will have an outright victory.
Labour used negative campaigning extensively - or perhaps exclusively in - 2001 and 2005. The Conservatives allowed Campbell, Mandelson & Co to creative in the public mind a bogeyman Thacherite image of their party. Hague and Howard were also portrayed as weird or sinister.
This policy was very effective and the Tories were poor at countering it. It just goes to show the importance to any party of defining itself clearly and boldly. Otherwise opponents will step in and do it themselves.
The two parties are more evenly matched at the present, although Labour is vulnerable as an Opposition as it has failed so far to define itself at all clearly.
You refer to NPfIT, the National Programme for IT. It did in fact lead to hospitals getting electronic records systems, a nationwide secure network, and I think NHSmail as well, an encrypted email system that is now widely used.
But you don't read about that in the papers, you just read "Labour's NHS IT database didn't work"