Mr. K, homophonic typos are my problem.' Caught' and 'got'. The problem is they look stupid as well as wrong.
In the same book (some time ago) I found "That little western..." where 'western' was meant to mean something insulting, but I have no idea what it was meant to be.
There is no literally no chance Labour are going to be electing a Blairite candidate (or anyone else from "Progress") for the leadership anytime soon
Admittedly Liz Kendall doesn't get on my nerves as much as that vapid lightweight Chuka (the other mentioned Progress faction leadership candidate), but she would be a disaster for the party and would repeat all the mistakes that have constantly been made in the past 8 years. She's constantly spouting all this thinktankese gobbledygook about "people-powered public services" which means absolutely nothing to anything outside of the Westminster bubble.
Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't mean it may not,
One look at virtually any Labourlist comments section will tell you how popular Blairites are with the Labour grassroots.
The mistake the Neos are making is in thinking that there will be a Labour Party to lead; they dont come near grasping the likely scale of the Labour defeat.All there will be a week after The Election is a pile of pieces, easy enough to pick up but impossible to fit together.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
I think the betfair premium charge kicks in once you win what would be 250k pa for a couple of months
Absolute filth
It's a lot worse than that isam. What you refer to is the Super Premium Charge which is charged at between 40-60% of weekly winning. You also have the standard Premium charge which is between 20-25%, you only have to get to about £8k of lifetime P/L before you start having your pockets picked. It all goes on your win rate and a complicated formula called implied commission. I've made a small but consistent profit on rugby over the years and I get charged it even if I only win a tenner that week. It stinks, the only way they get away with it is because of the monopoly on in play liquidity.
Yes I was hoping Ladbrokes exchange or smarkets might provide competition but they were Betamax To betfairs VHS unfortunately
Although Ladbrokes bought Betdaq, they never really put any muscle behind it, then they tried to re-launch exchange betting under their own name, but once again in a half-hearted way, linked to their existing positively awful website. Meanwhile Betfair became more and more dominant and are now way larger than Laddies in terms of market cap value. Of course the really big mistake by them and indeed by Hills, Corals, etc. was having failed to buy Betfair ten years ago when they were still a loss-making minnow with a great idea and some decent software to go with it.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Lack of manners crops up on occasion, but I can assure you this place is nothing as to the wastelands of the internet and political websites. In some places stating the wrong opinion will get you hounded by idiots - here, you generally have to be idiotic or adopt an aggressively insulting tone at the same time. Here, I'll prove it:
I think Ed M will be an ok Prime Minister.
Let's see what happens.
I would also tentatively ask why should crass comments or posters be banned? Insulting or rude, to a point, that can makes sense, but someone being crass? Your hysteria is striking me as pretty crass, but not something to ban someone over - what next, banning people for being stupid? That hardly seems fair to someone in that state.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Chill out! If you want some intelligent debate, then how about starting it yourself?
Perhaps commenting on the delightful @Leicesterliz and her many fine attributes?
(Incidentally, I am fairly sure that I tipped Liz before TSE)
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Mike started the Site from scratch nearly eleven years ago. It has been an enormous success. Part of the reason has been that he controls it with a light hand.
OK, so there are more f*ckwits posting than one would actually want, but that's life. Regular posters know who they want to follow and why. The rest are easily passed over.
The mistake the Neos are making is in thinking that there will be a Labour Party to lead; they dont come near grasping the likely scale of the Labour defeat.All there will be a week after The Election is a pile of pieces, easy enough to pick up but impossible to fit together.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
I never learn when I'm being punished.
Mostly because it is Gabriela, the Misstress of Pain who punishes me.
Blairites will always lose. The neo-Tories should join their mother party - the Conservative Party !
People like Alan Milburn, John Hutton are traitors. They are too stupid to think that the Tories wanted their ideas. Tories wouldn't give two fingers to their "policy papers". They just want divisions in the Labour Party.
Come to think of it. There is still a remnant of the last bunch of traitors. It is called the Liberal Democrats - all 5% of them !
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
I never learn when I'm being punished.
Mostly because it is Gabriela, the Misstress of Pain who punishes me.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
I never learn when I'm being punished.
Mostly because it is Gabriela, the Misstress of Pain who punishes me.
My mum works there... They've taken over most of the independent chemists round here
I stopped shopping at Boots about a decade ago, when they adopted top dollar pricing on pretty much everything. At around the same time as WH Smith did the same.
It's a company that milks the NHS, avoids tax, pays low wages, refuses to recognise certain unions, uses its financial muscle to squeeze out competition and offers poor service. No wonder Tories on here like to trumpet it as a wealth creator. Sadly, most of the wealth Boots creates leaves the country.
My word - how odd that such an evil company wasn't closed down between 97 & 2010 - how remiss of the last Labour govt.
That would be you mistaking me, who did not vote Labour at the last GE, for a supporter of the last Labour government. Its attitude to the kind of predatory capitalism practised by Boots boss was a disgrace. See also Cadbury's and numerous other examples.
No - I simply believe that the private sector needs to be profitable or we don't get a public sector! Miliband does not seem to get this.
Isnt this the difference between the Blairites and the non Blairites? You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it.
Mr. Surbiton, John Hutton was a top chap, who seemed genuinely interested in the welfare of the armed forces and who I believe correctly forecast that Brown would be a '****ing disaster' as PM [as quoted, then anonymously, by Nick Robinson].
Blairites will always lose. The neo-Tories should join their mother party - the Conservative Party !
People like Alan Milburn, John Hutton are traitors. They are too stupid to think that the Tories wanted their ideas. Tories wouldn't give two fingers to their "policy papers". They just want divisions in the Labour Party.
Come to think of it. There is still a remnant of the last bunch of traitors. It is called the Liberal Democrats - all 5% of them !
There is no literally no chance Labour are going to be electing a Blairite candidate (or anyone else from "Progress") for the leadership anytime soon
Admittedly Liz Kendall doesn't get on my nerves as much as that vapid lightweight Chuka (the other mentioned Progress faction leadership candidate), but she would be a disaster for the party and would repeat all the mistakes that have constantly been made in the past 8 years. She's constantly spouting all this thinktankese gobbledygook about "people-powered public services" which means absolutely nothing to anything outside of the Westminster bubble.
She could join the Liberal Democrats and become their leader !
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Wow and I thought I sometimes went a little overboard with stroppiness.
I find this poster doubly amusing however for his lefty views that more taxpayers money should be spent when if we take his screen name at face value and not as an act of self aggrandizement he will pay absolutely zero income tax.
Mr. Surbiton, John Hutton was a top chap, who seemed genuinely interested in the welfare of the armed forces and who I believe correctly forecast that Brown would be a '****ing disaster' as PM [as quoted, then anonymously, by Nick Robinson].
I need no more introduction of a Labour ex-Minister who resigned 6 months before a general election and who is now being eulogised by a neo-Con PBTory, That is all I need to know of that collaborator !
@Moses_ The Tories are well ahead in things like that, bankers prefer coke to alcohol. I believe there are one or two connoisseurs of Columbian marching powder "high" up in the party.
EdM has also lost the respect of the Jewish community. Lots of fundraisers were cancelled and donations are down considerably in comparison to previous years.
Absolutely not, Diane Abbott probably has a better shot. Not only will Kendall not be the candidate of Blairites, they will more likely back Umunna (who may also win Ed Miliband's backing after having backed him in 2010), the Brown/Balls faction will back Cooper and the unions Burnham. In any case, on public spending at least as Danny 565 points out there is an argument for saying the Miliband-Balls policy of 'austerity lite' is actually to the right of Blair and Brown's public spending investment and a more populist Syriza anti-austerity message may have been more successful if Labour do not win
My mum works there... They've taken over most of the independent chemists round here
I stopped shopping at Boots about a decade ago, when they adopted top dollar pricing on pretty much everything. At around the same time as WH Smith did the same.
It's a company that milks the NHS, avoids tax, pays low wages, refuses to recognise certain unions, uses its financial muscle to squeeze out competition and offers poor service. No wonder Tories on here like to trumpet it as a wealth creator. Sadly, most of the wealth Boots creates leaves the country.
My word - how odd that such an evil company wasn't closed down between 97 & 2010 - how remiss of the last Labour govt.
That would be you mistaking me, who did not vote Labour at the last GE, for a supporter of the last Labour government. Its attitude to the kind of predatory capitalism practised by Boots boss was a disgrace. See also Cadbury's and numerous other examples.
No - I simply believe that the private sector needs to be profitable or we don't get a public sector! Miliband does not seem to get this.
Big difference between being profitable and Tories milking the system for their chums. Tories seem to be all for just their pals profiting and everybody else paying for it.
When are Boots being closed down in Scotland?
Pardon, can you elaborate
Surely such evil can't be allowed to flourish and prosper in Salmond and Sturgeon's bonny Scotland?
You stuck in the past saddo, reality too much for you
Absolutely not, Diane Abbott probably has a better shot. Not only will Kendall not be the candidate of Blairites, they will more likely back Umunna (who may also win Ed Miliband's backing after having backed him in 2010), the Brown/Balls faction will back Cooper and the unions Burnham. In any case, on public spending at least as Danny 565 points out there is an argument for saying the Miliband-Balls policy of 'austerity lite' is actually to the right of Blair and Brown's public spending investment and a more populist Syriza anti-austerity message may have been more successful if Labour do not win
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
hmm, some kind of mutant cretin I presume. Have you ever been in formal education , your grammar is pants.
Mr. Alistair, can't be long to the Six Nations. Any thoughts on that?
World Cup years messes up the 6N. The temptation to try combinations and keep things under wraps ruins decent analysis. That said I think with Englands injury problems being so concentrated at lock and centre Wales surely have to beat them at home. I've also patriotically punted minuscule money on Scotland winning in Paris, I think the 4.5 they are quoted at is too long, more like 4 or 3.75 so a value bet.
France will be rank in the 6N and do way better at the World Cup.
My speciality is Guinness Pro 12 rugby. The bookies are so poor at it that it almost seems unfair.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
clearly people on here have all the solutions to teh countries problems yet all these amazing people can't be bothered to actually run for office and put there words into actions.
In addition to being a nonsensical argument supposing people cannot proffer solutions or offer criticism unless they run for office themselves (putting almost all pundits, journalists and spokespeople out of work just for starters), for all you know many people on here have run for office, or held office, at one level or another.
Most almost certainly won't have done so, but the idea one cannot comment, even with what is often undue certainty and faux-authoritativeness, without having done so (that is, being personally involved in what one is criticising), is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen in my life, one with profound implications for almost all facets of human endeavour.
Yes, and frankly undemocratic. How can you have an informed electorate without debate, and what use is democracy without an informed electorate? Furthermore, our democracy is premised upon the voters holding Members accountable. So, in effect, every vote is a policy statement and a policy critique.
My first inclination was to ignore the rude ignorant illiterate, but given others have commented, thought I'd just add this.
Labour has confirmed that it will not use photographs of David Cameron on any of its election posters in a deliberate attempt to avoid pitting Ed Miliband in a head to head battle against the Prime Minister.
Party chiefs insist the decision to eschew personal attacks is a bid to avoid an American-style negative presidential campaign.
But the move will almost certainly lead to accusations that the party is nervous of asking voters to make a direct comparison between the telegenic Mr Cameron, who usually receives higher opinion poll ratings than his party, and the often socially awkward Mr Miliband
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
hmm, some kind of mutant cretin I presume. Have you ever been in formal education , your grammar is pants.
Have you met Malc yet,he was unusually polite to you.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Ah, now I get it. Parody.
Methinks Mr ZenPagan is a crass, ill-mannered child bully who likes being punished.
clearly people on here have all the solutions to teh countries problems yet all these amazing people can't be bothered to actually run for office and put there words into actions.
This forum is a pretty diverse place, though Labour posters are probably under-represented in the comments section. If you can wade through alot of the guff then there is often a decent discussion of politics and betting.
Seconded. PB is currently a place where the right wing argue with the centre-right (compare to UKPR, where the left argue with the centre-left), but that doesn't limit its usefulness. If you ask people a direct factual question and are genuinely interested in the answer, they will usually respond, and thanks to Richard Tyndall, Socrates, MalcolmMG, and several other posters, I now know what UKIP policy is regarding the EEA/EFTA, the geographical distribution of "Yes" votes in Scotland, desired limits on UK net migration, the meaning of "overround", the fact that Sporting Index suspends trading inconveniently, and even the meaning of "Manichean". I think the only person who flat-out refused was SeanT, but he has a busy life. If you take it as a resource instead of a place where friends congregate, it can be very useful.
If the forum is a political/betting forum and used to discuss politics fine.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Ah, now I get it. Parody.
Methinks Mr ZenPagan is a crass, ill-mannered child bully who likes being punished.
At one point, this chap was favourite to be the French President instead of Hollande
Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the dock for 'pimping'
Onetime French presidential favourite Dominique Strauss-Kahn facing ten years in prison as three-week trial for "pimping" opens in Lille, northern France
Pulpstay Indeed, and Diane has a higher media profile, more personality and actually stands for something!
Liz Kendall has plenty of personality, and what she stands for is fairly easy to find.
She believes that for the welfare state to survive (and she wants it to survive) it needs to be focussed on the service user, allow choice and flexibility, and to focus on preventative aspects. She wants services to be IT accessible so that users can access them easily. She also supports "the sharp elbowed middle classes" in agitating for improvements, as they are the more articulate and engaged group. She seems to believe that when the middle classes cease to use government services then they will not be viable for the poor. I agree.
Mind you this tweet from Jeremy Hunt may make her head explode. Or tim's, you almost wonder if Hunt is trying to cause a split:
Pulpstay Indeed, and Diane has a higher media profile, more personality and actually stands for something!
Liz Kendall has plenty of personality, and what she stands for is fairly easy to find.
She believes that for the welfare state to survive (and she wants it to survive) it needs to be focussed on the service user, allow choice and flexibility, and to focus on preventative aspects. She wants services to be IT accessible so that users can access them easily. She also supports "the sharp elbowed middle classes" in agitating for improvements, as they are the more articulate and engaged group. She seems to believe that when the middle classes cease to use government services then they will not be viable for the poor. I agree.
Mind you this tweet from Jeremy Hunt may make her head explode. Or tim's, you almost wonder if Hunt is trying to cause a split:
twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/558574807563137024
I have noticed that the Tories and CCHQ have been engaging in some top quality trolling via twitter in recent months.
stopped shopping at Boots about a decade ago, when they adopted top dollar pricing on pretty much everything. At around the same time as WH Smith did the same.
It's a company that milks the NHS, avoids tax, pays low wages, refuses to recognise certain unions, uses its financial muscle to squeeze out competition and offers poor service. No wonder Tories on here like to trumpet it as a wealth creator. Sadly, most of the wealth Boots creates leaves the country.
My word - how odd that such an evil company wasn't closed down between 97 & 2010 - how remiss of the last Labour govt.
That would be you mistaking me, who did not vote Labour at the last GE, for a supporter of the last Labour government. Its attitude to the kind of predatory capitalism practised by Boots boss was a disgrace. See also Cadbury's and numerous other examples.
No - I simply believe that the private sector needs to be profitable or we don't get a public sector! Miliband does not seem to get this.
Isnt this the difference between the Blairites and the non Blairites? You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it.
The irony is that it's actually the "Blairites"* thesedays who have the least "credible" stance of all. They essentially say that it's possible to have both economic competence AND fairness and strong public services at the same time, but everyone in the real world can see these are mutually exclusive things. If you want to have a strong safety net for the poor and services, that inevitably costs a hell of a lot of money, making "economic competence" (by it's traditional definition) impossible. And if someone believes that balanced budgets and encouraging business growth is the top priority ahead of everything else (a legitimate viewpoint even if I personally don't agree with it), then inevitably there is not going to be much resources to help the poor in any meaningful way. But you simply can't have strong public services and fiscal responsibility simultaneously, any more than you could buy a bun but keep the penny at the same time.
(*important to distinguish here that in this case by "Blairites", I mean today's Blairites, who are a total caricature of what Blair actually stood for when he led Labour. Although Blair himself has also lived up to that caricature since leaving office and going crazy.)
TSE Well DSK can always comfort himself that he had Gerard Depardieu play him in the movie of his downfall, perhaps if he is jailed he can play him in the sequel too
clearly people on here have all the solutions to teh countries problems yet all these amazing people can't be bothered to actually run for office and put there words into actions.
This forum is a pretty diverse place, though Labour posters are probably under-represented in the comments section. If you can wade through alot of the guff then there is often a decent discussion of politics and betting.
PB is currently a place where the right wing argue with the centre-right
How dare you. I for one am pure Centre. Centre centre-right at most,
The irony is that it's actually the "Blairites"* thesedays who have the least "credible" stance of all. They essentially say that it's possible to have both economic competence AND fairness and strong public services at the same time, but everyone in the real world can see these are mutually exclusive things. If you want to have a strong safety net for the poor and services, that inevitably costs a hell of a lot of money, making "economic competence" (by it's traditional definition) impossible. And if someone believes that balanced budgets and encouraging business growth is the top priority ahead of everything else (a legitimate viewpoint even if I personally don't agree with it), then inevitably there is not going to be much resources to help the poor in any meaningful way. But you simply can't have strong public services and fiscal responsibility simultaneously, any more than you could buy a bun but keep the penny at the same time.
(*important to distinguish here that in this case by "Blairites", I mean today's Blairites, who are a total caricature of what Blair actually stood for when he led Labour. Although Blair himself has also lived up to that caricature since leaving office and going crazy.)
So where do you expect the money to come from to pay for this fairness and strong safety net? Should other countries simply lend money to us with no realistic hope of repayment? Why should workers on 6p a day in other countries subsidise our generous welfare system?
What is this Blairism that all these Blairites are supposed to be perpetuating? I thought it was all about grabbing power - and then filling your address book with lucrative contacts for when the public tired of your political buccaneering.... Is there more to it that I'm not seeing?
Pulpstay Indeed, and Diane has a higher media profile, more personality and actually stands for something!
Liz Kendall has plenty of personality, and what she stands for is fairly easy to find.
She believes that for the welfare state to survive (and she wants it to survive) it needs to be focussed on the service user, allow choice and flexibility, and to focus on preventative aspects. She wants services to be IT accessible so that users can access them easily. She also supports "the sharp elbowed middle classes" in agitating for improvements, as they are the more articulate and engaged group. She seems to believe that when the middle classes cease to use government services then they will not be viable for the poor. I agree.
Mind you this tweet from Jeremy Hunt may make her head explode. Or tim's, you almost wonder if Hunt is trying to cause a split:
twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/558574807563137024
I have noticed that the Tories and CCHQ have been engaging in some top quality trolling via twitter in recent months.
Not sure where Morgan will get the headteachers from to replace all the sacked ones if there's not a 100% tts pass rate for year 6s. The 85% targets haven't even come in yet. And a serious recruitment issue as is.
@DPJHodges: Mark the moment. @MSmithsonPB just called the next election for Ed Miliband. Big gamble, (literally), in his line of work...
Has OGH tipped "Loser Ed" to win the election?
Not quite, Mike wondered what Dan would right when the limo takes Ed to visit the Queen.
Oh...
"Why Becoming Prime Minister Is A Disaster For Ed"
Labour taking power after the general election is going to be very grim for them. Have they the stomach for the fiscal discipline they have committed themselves to?
Whoever wins is not going to have a happy parliament, Conservative supporters expect their party to eat away at public spending, Labour supporters have no such anticipation.
stopped shopping at Boots about a decade ago, when they adopted top dollar pricing on pretty much everything. At around the same time as WH Smith did the same.
It's a company that milks the NHS, avoids tax, pays low wages, refuses to recognise certain
My word - how odd that such an evil company wasn't closed down between 97 & 2010 - how remiss of the last Labour govt.
That would be you mistaking me, who did not vote Labour at the last GE, for a supporter of the last Labour government. Its attitude to the kind of predatory capitalism practised by Boots boss was a disgrace. See also Cadbury's and numerous other examples.
No - I simply believe that the private sector needs to be profitable or we don't get a public sector! Miliband does not seem to get this.
Isnt this the difference between the Blairites and the non Blairites? You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it.
The irony is that it's actually the "Blairites"* thesedays who have the least "credible" stance of all. They essentially say that it's possible to have both economic competence AND fairness and strong public services at the same time, but everyone in the real world can see these are mutually exclusive things. If you want to have a strong safety net for the poor and services, that inevitably costs a hell of a lot of money, making "economic competence" (by it's traditional definition) impossible. And if someone believes that balanced budgets and encouraging business growth is the top priority ahead of everything else (a legitimate viewpoint even if I personally don't agree with it), then inevitably there is not going to be much resources to help the poor in any meaningful way. But you simply can't have strong public services and fiscal responsibility simultaneously, any more than you could buy a bun but keep the penny at the same time.
(*important to distinguish here that in this case by "Blairites", I mean today's Blairites, who are a total caricature of what Blair actually stood for when he led Labour. Although Blair himself has also lived up to that caricature since leaving office and going crazy.)
Im not sure why these are mutually exclusive? A strong safety net welfare state, well funded public services and sound economic management. You can argue where the slider is on taxes and public spending. Mainstream Conservatives would want it to be towards 35% of gdp, mainstream Labour around 40%.
The problem with public services in the UK is not underfunding.
What is this Blairism that all these Blairites are supposed to be perpetuating? I thought it was all about grabbing power - and then filling your address book with lucrative contacts for when the public tired of your political buccaneering.... Is there more to it that I'm not seeing?
This is a fairly current definition of "Blairism" though the last couple of paragraphs do not quite ring true.
@DPJHodges: Mark the moment. @MSmithsonPB just called the next election for Ed Miliband. Big gamble, (literally), in his line of work...
Has OGH tipped "Loser Ed" to win the election?
Not quite, Mike wondered what Dan would right when the limo takes Ed to visit the Queen.
Oh...
"Why Becoming Prime Minister Is A Disaster For Ed"
Labour taking power after the general election is going to be very grim for them. Have they the stomach for the fiscal discipline they have committed themselves to?
Whoever wins is not going to have a happy parliament, Conservative supporters expect their party to eat away at public spending, Labour supporters have no such anticipation.
We'd be able to have a good laugh as Ed was ripped apart day in day out though, especially if he had to grovel to Alex everytime he wanted to pass some middling piece of legislation.
Alas, I don't think we're going to get to enjoy the spectacle...
If any of Karen Gillan, Kimberly Walsh, Megan Fox, Nicole Kidman, Christina Hendricks, Scarlett Johansson, Emma Stone, Kelly Brook, Margot Robbie, Lara Pulver, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Sofia Viagra, Cobie Smulders or Gemma Arterton would like to flog me for my terrible assault on the English language, I'm available.
Been away this weekend - what have I missed? Latest tweets suggest OGH has called Ed M as the next PM in May. He's certainly been sending that message here for a while.
If any of Karen Gillan, Kimberly Walsh, Megan Fox, Nicole Kidman, Christina Hendricks, Scarlett Johansson, Emma Stone, Kelly Brook, Margot Robbie, Lara Pulver, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Sofia Viagra, Cobie Smulders or Gemma Arterton would like to flog me for my terrible assault on the English language, I'm available.
If any of Karen Gillan, Kimberly Walsh, Megan Fox, Nicole Kidman, Christina Hendricks, Scarlett Johansson, Emma Stone, Kelly Brook, Margot Robbie, Lara Pulver, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Sofia Viagra, Cobie Smulders or Gemma Arterton would like to flog me for my terrible assault on the English language, I'm available.
@DPJHodges: Mark the moment. @MSmithsonPB just called the next election for Ed Miliband. Big gamble, (literally), in his line of work...
Has OGH tipped "Loser Ed" to win the election?
Not quite, Mike wondered what Dan would right when the limo takes Ed to visit the Queen.
Oh...
"Why Becoming Prime Minister Is A Disaster For Ed"
Labour taking power after the general election is going to be very grim for them. Have they the stomach for the fiscal discipline they have committed themselves to?
Whoever wins is not going to have a happy parliament, Conservative supporters expect their party to eat away at public spending, Labour supporters have no such anticipation.
We'd be able to have a good laugh as Ed was ripped apart day in day out though, especially if he had to grovel to Alex everytime he wanted to pass some middling piece of legislation.
Alas, I don't think we're going to get to enjoy the spectacle...
I've watched with interest how they've applied the job of Opposition without any consistency. Everything has been knee jerk. They've almost too much enjoyed the most difficult decisions that the Government has had to make.
They repeatedly kick at the government for carrying policies and systems that they themselves had put in place. I was once called evil because i am a Tory, the irony was that the reference to Evil was around benefit reform, more specifically what they refer to as the bedroom tax and benefit sanctions.
No matter how much I explained that both policies were derived from the previous government, and while we could agree that the implementation of the BT was flawed, its principle wasnt, i was still denounced as evil. IDS in the same discussion was referred to as a murderer because of the assessments carried out by ATOS for DLA. Again, i pointed out.
I see also from the last thread and the BBC site that Labour are avoiding Cammon on their posters to avoid negative campaigning.... how noble.
I cynically first thought it might be because comparing Cammo to Ed might not work too well... as ever with the reds, a more noble higher-calling reason is surely correct.
fox Which is why Greece has just elected a radical, anti austerity party and seen the Blairite Pasok trounced and why Labour is leaking votes to the Greens and SNP, the mood is not for simply rehashed Blairism and even if it were voters would vote for the Coalition parties not Labour
Im not sure why these are mutually exclusive? A strong safety net welfare state, well funded public services and sound economic management. You can argue where the slider is on taxes and public spending. Mainstream Conservatives would want it to be towards 35% of gdp, mainstream Labour around 40%.
The problem with public services in the UK is not underfunding.
They're mutually exclusive because if you want strong public services, lots of money is needed for them. That money can come from deficit spending, from higher taxes or from direct regulation of businesses (all of which today's Blairites probably think goes against "fiscal responsibility" and "being pro-business"), but strong public services certainly aren't going to be magicked out of thin air without any money being spent on them or with some silver-bullet "reforms".
Comments
In the same book (some time ago) I found "That little western..." where 'western' was meant to mean something insulting, but I have no idea what it was meant to be.
BUT IF POSTERS ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND BEING CRASS WITH NO MANNERS AND ACTING LIKE SOME TRASH TALKING DAILY MAIL EDITOR THEN THEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
BULLIES ONLY LEARN LESSONS WHEN THEY ARE PUNISHED..
SO WHY ARE RUDE, CRASS, INSULTING STONE THROWERS NOT BANNED?
Also, 'stone throwers' ought to be hyphenated.
Of course the really big mistake by them and indeed by Hills, Corals, etc. was having failed to buy Betfair ten years ago when they were still a loss-making minnow with a great idea and some decent software to go with it.
I think Ed M will be an ok Prime Minister.
Let's see what happens.
I would also tentatively ask why should crass comments or posters be banned? Insulting or rude, to a point, that can makes sense, but someone being crass? Your hysteria is striking me as pretty crass, but not something to ban someone over - what next, banning people for being stupid? That hardly seems fair to someone in that state.
Perhaps commenting on the delightful @Leicesterliz and her many fine attributes?
(Incidentally, I am fairly sure that I tipped Liz before TSE)
OK, so there are more f*ckwits posting than one would actually want, but that's life. Regular posters know who they want to follow and why. The rest are easily passed over.
Like it or not, the formula works.
Mostly because it is Gabriela, the Misstress of Pain who punishes me.
People like Alan Milburn, John Hutton are traitors. They are too stupid to think that the Tories wanted their ideas. Tories wouldn't give two fingers to their "policy papers". They just want divisions in the Labour Party.
Come to think of it. There is still a remnant of the last bunch of traitors. It is called the Liberal Democrats - all 5% of them !
I shall ignore the troll in future.
14.0 on Betfair.
I find this poster doubly amusing however for his lefty views that more taxpayers money should be spent when if we take his screen name at face value and not as an act of self aggrandizement he will pay absolutely zero income tax.
Has Ed 'weaponised' the business community too?
Nobody told me I'd been promoted!
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/111499/fight_the_power.html
I like her feistiness and energy. I think she is right on public services too.
That's an achievement on it's own.
The Tories are well ahead in things like that, bankers prefer coke to alcohol.
I believe there are one or two connoisseurs of Columbian marching powder "high" up in the party.
http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4746/Laying-the-Foundations-for-a-Labour-Century
I am not just boosting her because I got on at 50/1. Honestly...
France will be rank in the 6N and do way better at the World Cup.
My speciality is Guinness Pro 12 rugby. The bookies are so poor at it that it almost seems unfair.
My first inclination was to ignore the rude ignorant illiterate, but given others have commented, thought I'd just add this.
Methinks Mr ZenPagan is a crass, ill-mannered child bully who likes being punished.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the dock for 'pimping'
Onetime French presidential favourite Dominique Strauss-Kahn facing ten years in prison as three-week trial for "pimping" opens in Lille, northern France
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/dominique-strauss-kahn/11382885/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-in-the-dock-for-pimping.html
She believes that for the welfare state to survive (and she wants it to survive) it needs to be focussed on the service user, allow choice and flexibility, and to focus on preventative aspects. She wants services to be IT accessible so that users can access them easily. She also supports "the sharp elbowed middle classes" in agitating for improvements, as they are the more articulate and engaged group. She seems to believe that when the middle classes cease to use government services then they will not be viable for the poor. I agree.
Mind you this tweet from Jeremy Hunt may make her head explode. Or tim's, you almost wonder if Hunt is trying to cause a split:
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/558574807563137024
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/560416891416870912
(*important to distinguish here that in this case by "Blairites", I mean today's Blairites, who are a total caricature of what Blair actually stood for when he led Labour. Although Blair himself has also lived up to that caricature since leaving office and going crazy.)
Purity of ideology is only for oppositions who do not intend to exercise power. Losers as they are otherwise known.
Shadsy now has under GE specials Labour doing worse than 2010 on 2.75, and 25% or less at 9.0
I think the latter is probably stretching it a bit, even with the triple threat of SNP, Kippers and Greens.
"Why Becoming Prime Minister Is A Disaster For Ed"
You just know that headline would appear from Dan within hours of Ed The Younger being anointed.
Whoever wins is not going to have a happy parliament, Conservative supporters expect their party to eat away at public spending, Labour supporters have no such anticipation.
I'm blaming auto-correct for that one.
The problem with public services in the UK is not underfunding.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/01/30/the-last-word-a-blairite-writes/
Alas, I don't think we're going to get to enjoy the spectacle...
Not funny. Not the slightest bit funny.
I'm making my prediction now.
SNP lead in every seat polled on Q1 very substantially, on q2, it is a more complicated.
They repeatedly kick at the government for carrying policies and systems that they themselves had put in place. I was once called evil because i am a Tory, the irony was that the reference to Evil was around benefit reform, more specifically what they refer to as the bedroom tax and benefit sanctions.
No matter how much I explained that both policies were derived from the previous government, and while we could agree that the implementation of the BT was flawed, its principle wasnt, i was still denounced as evil. IDS in the same discussion was referred to as a murderer because of the assessments carried out by ATOS for DLA. Again, i pointed out.
Biggest Q1, Q2 swing I'd guess would be Caithness.
I cynically first thought it might be because comparing Cammo to Ed might not work too well... as ever with the reds, a more noble higher-calling reason is surely correct.
Apparently, the SNP should hold all of them...