Cameron has much more to lose by not doing the debates than by doing them.
OK, forget the head to head as that can't go ahead without him.
But he should simply go ahead and do the two 7 leader debates.
Joe Public isn't going to be interested in the minutiae. If debates take place large numbers of people will be completely baffled why he is not there - it will look terrible and it will cost him votes.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
BTW: you should definitely take the bet if MarkSenior wants to take the other side. Your estate will pay if you lose, and think how smug and self satisfied you'd feel if you won :-)
In general I take the view that if there are lots of divorces then it's probably a good thing if the number of marriages also declines. Better not to enter into the marriage in the first place.
That or adopt the practice found in some science fiction tales whereby a marriage contract has a set duration at the outset, and has to be explicitly renewed.
Wasn't one or more of our political parties talking about granting marriage rights to cohabiting partners, so your long term girlfriend gets a maintenance settlement etc. The only way not to get screwed, would be not to get screwed (so to speak) or at the most only have a selection of short term partners.
Its beginning to sound like IR35, where the social services will attempt to look through the contractual arrangement (or lack there of) and deem the underlying relationship according to the circumstances, no danger of any problems there
Well, that is already the case for people claiming tax credits, and other benefits at that end of the income scale. Similarly, marriage is of no consequence when it comes to being liable for maintenance payments for children of the relationship.
So the dystopia you are fearful of is almost entirely here already...
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
It would be a relief if Cameron said yes to a head to head with the geek..We would be spared his screaming across the desk every week at what is supposed to be a forum for debate.
It would be an amazing coup if UKIP managed to sign up Jeremy Clarkson. I think I'll ask him later today.
Isn't Clarkson very pro-European Union?
Yes he is and some of his musings on the subject are quite bizarre to the extent there may be a closet socialist hiding somewhere within that brusque exterior.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
Fpt @MarkSenior , given that you're "pretty sure", who specifically is it that you believe would support Clarkson if he had been "been doing Saville type crimes"?
Time to name names. Or stop talking such cr@p.
nobody knows what it is that he's done, do they? and yet they are supporting regardless
Do you think there's a chance he was suspended by the Beeb for Saville type crimes? And if he were, that there are plenty of people who would still support him?
If he *was* suspended for assaulting a colleague the level of support is kind of surprising. If one of my family was assaulted at work I don't think I'd feel too good about a massive petition to protect the culprit from the normal repercussions.
Has John Inverdale been suspended for inappropriate language yet btw?
Right, supposing I was the person who had been attacked, I would be feeling in a pretty dark place now to have so many of my countrymen rally around my attacker. Kind of like complaining to a headteacher about being bullied at school and having your life made a misery by all the other kids for being a snitch.
People commit suicide in these sorts of situations.
Hopefully it will all have been some sort of misunderstanding that can be smoothed over quickly with an apology and everyone can move on, but if it is more serious than that we have a potentially very ugly situation brewing.
A highlight of my potential Top Gear For Trains would have a Star in a Reasonably Priced Train circumnavigate London's Circle Line* in as fast a time as possible
*In its original "circle" form of course. Um, and after finish of late night passenger services so as to avoid hitting civilians!
;-)
"And now over to the studio, where James's studying a Duchess with her skirt off, and Richard's getting intimate with Princess Margaret's running gear. Meanwhile, Jeremy watches Natalie Portman in some heavy pump-trolley action!"
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
Well maybe first time ever have started a Cheltenham day with 2 winners.
Gets harder from here.
I am small stakes today, saving money for tomorrows Stan James treat for Mrs BJ and me.
Anyone got any tips for tomorrows card.
Stan James "treat" ?
4th Floor Hospitality Box for tomorrow.
I obviously lose too much with SJ.
Had one at Haydock earlier in the season and didnt get a single winner. Mrs BJ picking on a names only basis had 4 of 6
Bloody annoying I mean who picks horses on names alone.
Where is TSE?
Haha I'm banned from Stan and James :P
Just had a cheeky tenner on Don Poli for next year's gold cup, he utterly flew up the hill today.
Stan and James will be there tomorrow no doubt along with several other minor celebrities.
But heck they are more famous than me. Some in the Box usually bet very large sums indeed but nobody will shout a winner up the hill louder than Mrs BJ with hr £2 E/W
Cameron has much more to lose by not doing the debates than by doing them.
OK, forget the head to head as that can't go ahead without him.
But he should simply go ahead and do the two 7 leader debates.
Joe Public isn't going to be interested in the minutiae. If debates take place large numbers of people will be completely baffled why he is not there - it will look terrible and it will cost him votes.
Sorry but that is a political geek's viewpoint. :-)
Most average voters are totally and utterly tired of politicking and politicians halfway through a GE campaign so not having a debate to watch - or read about - or listen to reports about - is of zero consequence - and may very well be a source of relief to others...
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
And already this time around, the debate about the debates is sucking the life out of the warm up before the GE campaign kicks off. Incredible to note that just weeks before the GE, Ed Miliband wastes a whole PMQ's whinging about Cameron not being prepared to debate with him rather than tackling him on the important issues that will really decide the next GE. Someone should tell Ed Miliband that rather than selling the Leadership debates to the public, he is now turning people off them.
The TV broadcasters are not going to empty chair David Cameron during the short GE campaign, no matter how much some of his opponents may wish it in the mistaken belief that pulling such a political stunt will damage Cameron personally. If the broadcasters give Ed Miliband an hour of prime time TV, they will also have to do the same for Cameron, and I suspect Cameron and his team would be extremely happy with that format. And where would that leave Clegg, Farage or the other party leaders if that was to happen?
"It would be an amazing coup if UKIP managed to sign up Jeremy Clarkson. I think I'll ask him later today."
Actually it would probably be good for both Cameron and Farage. Farage for being able to attract the right-wing petrol-head's favourite fruitcake and Cameron for managing to dissociate himself from the right-wing petrol-head's favourite fruitcake
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
It would be a relief if Cameron said yes to a head to head with the geek..We would be spared his screaming across the desk every week at what is supposed to be a forum for debate.
Only two pmqs left and next week will be dominated by the budget
Cameron has much more to lose by not doing the debates than by doing them.
OK, forget the head to head as that can't go ahead without him.
But he should simply go ahead and do the two 7 leader debates.
Joe Public isn't going to be interested in the minutiae. If debates take place large numbers of people will be completely baffled why he is not there - it will look terrible and it will cost him votes.
Sorry but that is a political geek's viewpoint. :-)
Most average voters are totally and utterly tired of politicking and politicians halfway through a GE campaign so not having a debate to watch - or read about - or listen to reports about - is of zero consequence - and may very well be a source of relief to others...
But people did watch them.
And they were the number 1 news story by a million miles.
Sorry - it's going to look absolutely terrible and it may well cost him the election - just when everything was going perfectly.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
Indeed: the Life Assurance Act 1774.
Thanks. I could believe it today - but hadn't realised it was law and that it went back so far. I thought such third party cover was not unknown in the Victorian era.
And already this time around, the debate about the debates is sucking the life out of the warm up before the GE campaign kicks off. Incredible to note that just weeks before the GE, Ed Miliband wastes a whole PMQ's whinging about Cameron not being prepared to debate with him rather than tackling him on the important issues that will really decide the next GE. Someone should tell Ed Miliband that rather than selling the Leadership debates to the public, he is now turning people off them.
The TV broadcasters are not going to empty chair David Cameron during the short GE campaign, no matter how much some of his opponents may wish it in the mistaken belief that pulling such a political stunt will damage Cameron personally. If the broadcasters give Ed Miliband an hour of prime time TV, they will also have to do the same for Cameron, and I suspect Cameron and his team would be extremely happy with that format. And where would that leave Clegg, Farage or the other party leaders if that was to happen?
But the other two will almost certainly go ahead with six leaders rather than seven.
I think Cameron is absolutely mad - the only thing I can think (and this is a very long shot) is that Archie Norman is Chairman of ITV and he has given Cameron the nod that they'll scrap it if he doesn't take part. But I doubt that.
John Harris @johnharris1969 45 mins45 minutes ago And still Cameron goes on and on abt the SNP, like a broken Dalek. Good for their poll ratings; the union looking ever-more fragile #PMQs
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith 37 mins37 minutes ago SNP must be loving all these Tory warnings on Westminster influence -- exactly the message they're trying to tell Scottish voters.
Strategically, the Tories want Labour to be completely smashed in Scotland, as its insurance against any Labour improvement in England. It also such up huge Labour Party energy and resources in a place where worst case, the Tories lose 1 seat.
Is it now safe to say that Miliband has now lost it? On Sunday, you have his crazy, laughable idea of legislating for TV debates. Today he uses all 6 questions on the debates, something that interests 4% of the population. Labour used to be pretty astute users of polling information. It now looks like Ed has said I don't care what the polls say, I'm doing it my way, and if I lose, I lose on my terms.
Its very likely to get much worse for labour from now on.
Miliband reminds me of the IJN in WW2. The battle they just lost wasn't decisive, and didn't matter. The one that mattered was the next one, that would follow as a result of the current cunning wheeze. Then, after there'd been a battle and they'd comprehensively lost it, it was the next one that was going to be the big one that turned the tide their way.
Eventually it was a nice August morning in Hiroshima.
Similarly, as the years passed and we heard nothing but juvenile studenty posturing from the ghastly twerp Miliband, some of us thought this was because he was saving it all up for the big battle. His best arguments had yet to be seen. The intellectual Yamato of Milibandism's policy fleet had not yet raised steam for 27 knots, but by golly when it did - that would be decisive.
Here we are 2 months out, and the oily tax dodging creep has nothing better to talk about in 6 questions than debates nobody's interested in.
Cameron has much more to lose by not doing the debates than by doing them.
OK, forget the head to head as that can't go ahead without him.
But he should simply go ahead and do the two 7 leader debates.
Joe Public isn't going to be interested in the minutiae. If debates take place large numbers of people will be completely baffled why he is not there - it will look terrible and it will cost him votes.
Sorry but that is a political geek's viewpoint. :-)
Most average voters are totally and utterly tired of politicking and politicians halfway through a GE campaign so not having a debate to watch - or read about - or listen to reports about - is of zero consequence - and may very well be a source of relief to others...
But people did watch them.
And they were the number 1 news story by a million miles.
Sorry - it's going to look absolutely terrible and it may well cost him the election - just when everything was going perfectly.
Nobody will particularly give two hoots about what is said either. The entire focus will be on Dave not showing up.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
UK industrial output fell by 0.1% in January compared with a month earlier, official figures have shown.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3 @DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
Indeed: the Life Assurance Act 1774.
Thanks. I could believe it today - but hadn't realised it was law and that it went back so far. I thought such third party cover was not unknown in the Victorian era.
It was aimed at a very eighteenth century problem: an unscrupulous person identifying someone else whose life they would like to insure and that person shortly afterwards suffering an unfortunate accident.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
It tells us everything we need to know that the reinstatement of a boorish oaf is the latest cause celebre of the right. These are the same people who were so up in arms and ranted here morning, noon and night about the Labour MP who got drunk and hit somebody in the Commons bar.
It tells us everything we need to know about you that you have invented an entirely fictional set of posts about Eric Joyce.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
Indeed: the Life Assurance Act 1774.
Thanks. I could believe it today - but hadn't realised it was law and that it went back so far. I thought such third party cover was not unknown in the Victorian era.
It was aimed at a very eighteenth century problem: an unscrupulous person identifying someone else whose life they would like to insure and that person shortly afterwards suffering an unfortunate accident.
Indeed that was the problem. The law was changed after one such episode, in 1856 or so, I find on checking, though the difference from the 1774 act escapes me.
UK industrial output fell by 0.1% in January compared with a month earlier, official figures have shown.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3 @DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
In general I take the view that if there are lots of divorces then it's probably a good thing if the number of marriages also declines. Better not to enter into the marriage in the first place.
That or adopt the practice found in some science fiction tales whereby a marriage contract has a set duration at the outset, and has to be explicitly renewed.
Wasn't one or more of our political parties talking about granting marriage rights to cohabiting partners, so your long term girlfriend gets a maintenance settlement etc. The only way not to get screwed, would be not to get screwed (so to speak) or at the most only have a selection of short term partners.
Its beginning to sound like IR35, where the social services will attempt to look through the contractual arrangement (or lack there of) and deem the underlying relationship according to the circumstances, no danger of any problems there
Well, that is already the case for people claiming tax credits, and other benefits at that end of the income scale. Similarly, marriage is of no consequence when it comes to being liable for maintenance payments for children of the relationship.
So the dystopia you are fearful of is almost entirely here already...
The issue is that these "rights" are in fact exposures and liabilities of which the cohabitants could avail themselves any time it suited them by getting married.
Because fewer people are getting married there is less work for lawyers, so their solution is to have the state conduct forced marriages between people at least one of whom is reluctant to be married voluntarily.
The response from men to defend themselves from this will be to shun even unmarried cohabitation, as they have shunned marriage. So that we will presumably then see a situation where couples have children together, but the father lives alone, elsewhere. It will, in effect, instutionalise as normal that which is currently the outcome only of a divorce.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
Fpt @MarkSenior , given that you're "pretty sure", who specifically is it that you believe would support Clarkson if he had been "been doing Saville type crimes"?
Time to name names. Or stop talking such cr@p.
nobody knows what it is that he's done, do they? and yet they are supporting regardless
Do you think there's a chance he was suspended by the Beeb for Saville type crimes? And if he were, that there are plenty of people who would still support him?
If he *was* suspended for assaulting a colleague the level of support is kind of surprising. If one of my family was assaulted at work I don't think I'd feel too good about a massive petition to protect the culprit from the normal repercussions.
Has John Inverdale been suspended for inappropriate language yet btw?
Right, supposing I was the person who had been attacked, I would be feeling in a pretty dark place now to have so many of my countrymen rally around my attacker. Kind of like complaining to a headteacher about being bullied at school and having your life made a misery by all the other kids for being a snitch.
People commit suicide in these sorts of situations.
Hopefully it will all have been some sort of misunderstanding that can be smoothed over quickly with an apology and everyone can move on, but if it is more serious than that we have a potentially very ugly situation brewing.
Oh get over yourselves. According to most press reports Clarkson aimed a single punch at a producer, it's not even clear if he made physical contact (unlike, say, John Prescott).
It wasn't "an attack". It appears he briefly lost his temper. And we're not sure if the producer had provoked him in any other way. Clarkson's, May's and Hammond's very relaxed tweets since the incident show they think it is trivial.
The reason its causing such a fuss in the public - the petition will probably hit half a million signatories this afternoon - is that 1. Clarkson is hugely popular, in the UK and worldwide, and 2 there is a public suspicion, rightly held in my opinion, that many in the liberal-left BBC fear and despise Clarkson and would like any excuse to get rid of him
Like I said, I hope you are right and this wasn't more serious, but we don't know, and while we don't know hundreds of thousands of people are leaping in to support one side of an argument.
If you're wrong then they will all have leapt to the support of a thug and a bully. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that possibility.
"59, 600, 000 not signed. Crossover expect in April 2384."
I depends but based on current progress, I'd say the whole population, minus you, will have signed it before voting on May 7th. Go on, you know you want to.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
UK industrial output fell by 0.1% in January compared with a month earlier, official figures have shown.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3 @DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
dont remember Prescott having to resign when he threw a punch, seem to remember Blair saying something along the lines of "John is John", wasn't there a labour MP recently who threw a punch in the commons bar
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
That's actually quite an interesting proposition...on current mortality rates, a man in his early fifties should reasonably expect another 30 or so years; will the LibDems make it that long? I think I might back our resident right wing hyberbolist.
Seems there might be a bit of moral hazard on the SeanT side of the bet. I think you'd have to clarify that dead by the hand of a PBer nulls the bet.
I' surprised nobody has mentioned life insurance as a layoff ...
You wouldn't believe how sniffy insurers get when you try to buy life cover for unconnected third parties.
Indeed: the Life Assurance Act 1774.
Thanks. I could believe it today - but hadn't realised it was law and that it went back so far. I thought such third party cover was not unknown in the Victorian era.
It was aimed at a very eighteenth century problem: an unscrupulous person identifying someone else whose life they would like to insure and that person shortly afterwards suffering an unfortunate accident.
I was aware of the 'insurable interest' concept, but what I have never understood is how it was ever legal to buy other people's endowment policies? You then made more money if they fell under a bus than you made if you kept up the premiums - which paid you if they died?!
Anyone who made a lot of money off those had ba11s of steel, because how that was never banned is a mystery to me.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
UK industrial output fell by 0.1% in January compared with a month earlier, official figures have shown.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3 @DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
My God! Production fell 0.1% in January!!!!
Quick! To the life rafts!
Don't panic! Don't Panic! Your life belt is under your bed!
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
I'd be backing Sean to survive. I reckon there is a point with substance abuse where if it hasn't killed you it kind of tans your system - turns it to leather so you are practically immortal.
dont remember Prescott having to resign when he threw a punch, seem to remember Blair saying something along the lines of "John is John", wasn't there a labour MP recently who threw a punch in the commons bar
Prescott was provoked by being egged. And the Labour MP is called Eric Joyce who is now an independent MP and standing down at the election.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC and succeeding
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
Unless the EU federalises government debt it won't survive anyway. I notice Iceland no longer wants to join the EU.
Spain won't survive?
As in the increasing employment by 85,000 jobs per month, running a current account surplus, lower government debt-to-GDP than the UK Spain?
Sure.
The Euro obviously, but perhaps Spain in its current borders won't survive either.
There is an issue with measuring job creation from an arbitrary date, he who chooses the date creates the message. Much of Europe works on a different economic cycle to us, slightly less so now. When we dropped out of the ERM, we had sustained economic growth, and sustained job creation right up until the crash, it then went badly wrong (everywhere). And in the last three years we have had stunning levels of job creation.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC and succeeding
But these presenters are the show. They are bigger than the show itself.
I was aware of the 'insurable interest' concept, but what I have never understood is how it was ever legal to buy other people's endowment policies? You then made more money if they fell under a bus than you made if you kept up the premiums - which paid you if they died?!
Anyone who made a lot of money off those had ba11s of steel, because how that was never banned is a mystery to me.
For life insurance - insurable interest only had to exist at the time of effecting the policy. For marine insurance - insurable interest has to exist at the point of making a claim.
(You can transfer the insurance policy e.g. when the ownership of marine cargo changes mid voyage)
For other policies insurable interest must exist at inception AND point of claim.
With regard to second-hand endowments (which could only really be traded in the last few years), someone with a policy that they did not need, or who needed ready cash, or who could not afford to continue making payments, could 'sell' the policy to a third person who would keep up payments and then gain the benefits when the policy matured.
Obviously at the peak of the market insurance companies were paying quite high terminal bonuses and the gamble was to work out what the rate of return would be when the policy matured. i.e. the cash purchase value + remaining premiums compared with the final payout.
Because the bonuses in the last few years were worth so much more (at the time), it was worthwhile holding on to maturity rather than making a quick kill (pun intended).
Interesting the Clinton emails and Benghazi leakings reported in the Washington Times. Some people really don't like her and/or the thought of her being President.
Even the last one, headlined Hillary's Not The Problem, is led with an aggressive looking black and white picture of Tricky Dicky. How is that good for Hillary?
Mr. Roger, I think lots of Top Gear viewers are hacked off because they don't watch very much at all on the BBC yet are obliged to pay for it. I imagine there's a significant overlap between Top Gear viewers and people pissed off by the BBC adopting the approach of Judas Iscariot when it came to F1 coverage.
The SeanT - Liberal Democrat spread bet: which which last longer?
£1,000/year - capped at £10,000 perhaps. The LibDems are declared to be dead when they either: fall to below 5% in two successive general elections, or lose all their MPs, or merge into another party.
SeanT is declared to be dead when... well, it's obvious really.
No-one is allowed to nobble the bet by persuading SeanT to get back into his old habits.
Who'd take which side?
For reasons I'm sure you understand, I will decline the wager. Incidentally, what was the correct ranking of those countries by job production you mentioned t'other day?
I was intrigued, but too busy to address it properly.
Ireland +20% Spain +13% Germany +10.5% UK +10% France +9.5% Italy +9%
Greece, btw, is down 20% IIRC.
That's roughly what I'd have guessed, I knew Spain was doing very well (before the Crash)
Italy is a surprise, though. Given the total stagnancy of their economy.
Yes, I'd assumed the UK would have done a lot better.
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
Interesting the Clinton emails and Benghazi leakings reported in the Washington Times. Some people really don't like her and/or the thought of her being President.
I tend to ignore anything anti-Democratic in the Washington Times. They are so right wing and are the presumed mouthpiece of the CIA on defence and intelligence issues.
What is interesting is that the bulk of the media response - and some of the most ferocious attacks - is coming from the Clinton-friendly mainstream and left-leaning media. NYT, Washington Post, New York Magazine, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, CNN, politico.com - even MSNBC for god's sake - are laying in.
Interesting the Clinton emails and Benghazi leakings reported in the Washington Times. Some people really don't like her and/or the thought of her being President.
I tend to ignore anything anti-Democratic in the Washington Times. They are so right wing and are the presumed mouthpiece of the CIA on defence and intelligence issues.
What is interesting is that the bulk of the media response - and some of the most ferocious attacks - is coming from the Clinton-friendly mainstream and left-leaning media. NYT, Washington Post, New York Magazine, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, CNN, politico.com - even MSNBC for god's sake - are laying in.
Yeah but you don't really want the deep state out to get you. The whole media sings from the same song sheet.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC successfully
I doubt you watch Top Gear, so I suspect you are entirely clueless. As ever.
The show depends entirely on the strange but amusing contrast of the three middle aged blokes teasing each other, with all their history of in-jokes, calamities, scrapes, embarrassments, and occasional triumphs, etc etc - all of which are shared and enjoyed by a loyal fanbase around the world. Especially important is the comic genius of Clarkson.
So the show is isn't "Top Gear", it is the Jeremy Clarkson show, also starring James May and Richard Hammond, with some cars.
You can now see the problem, if you take away all three stars (as will certainly happen: if Clarkson goes the others will go too).
It's like the Stephen Colbert show. When Colbert went, taking his genius, they couldn't slide in someone else and pretend he *was* Colbert and nothing had changed.
Presumably Clarkson et al could leave en masse and create a new show with a new, equally catchy name. I cannot imagine that there is anything in the format of the show that the BBC could claim was copyrightable and hence which the new show could not copy and adapt. I would imagine that upwards of 90% of viewers would follow Clarkson to his new show and channel. After all, Top Gear is a destination show, not something which relies on any lead ins the BBC brings.
John O'Farrell @mrjohnofarrell 1h1 hour ago Culture Secretary blaming BBC for Clarkson 'fracas'. Now we have permission to punch Tories and then tell them they should manage us better.
There is an issue with measuring job creation from an arbitrary date, he who chooses the date creates the message. Much of Europe works on a different economic cycle to us, slightly less so now. When we dropped out of the ERM, we had sustained economic growth, and sustained job creation right up until the crash, it then went badly wrong (everywhere). And in the last three years we have had stunning levels of job creation.
I chose "start of the Euro", because that seemed to be the fairest to work out how bad the Euro was for each individual country. (The answer being: monumentally bad for Greece, not as bad for Spain as people think.)
I completely accept that where you choose the start and end points makes a massive difference.
Sir Edric's Temple should be re-released this year, and Sir Edric's Treasure probably comes out in 2016 (off-chance it could be 2015).
Actually, one of my early beta readers compared him to Flashman, which unfortunately means I can't now read any Flashman novels because I'm worried about either copying [even by coincidence] or shifting Sir Edric away from what he is.
After today's dreadful PMQ'S isn't it becoming obvious that the issues that will dominate the election are the economy, the effect of a large number of SNP MPs on RUK and the Trident question with the SNP and upto 75% of Labour MPs wanting to abolish it
UK industrial output fell by 0.1% in January compared with a month earlier, official figures have shown.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3 @DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
Typical kipper attitude - they love it when the news seems "bad" for the nation. Just like Labour - no ideas, just whining. You should judge economic performance over a longer period than a month.
Former footballer Paul Gascoigne has told the High Court he was "scared to speak to anybody" by phone during the 10 years his voicemail was hacked by Mirror Group journalists.
Ed....Ed.....calling Ed....10 years of having his phone hacked. Now if that had been the NOTW, the BBC would be running this story 24/7, the Guardian front pages for a month, and Ed would be calling for a inquiry.
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ 's GE Seats projection updated today shows the Tories powering further ahead on 295 seats, a lead of 28 seats over Labour's 267 seats. It will be interesting to see whether Prof. Stephen Fisher's next forecast due on Friday demonstrates a similar movement.
"BBC faces multimillion-pound bill from Jeremy Clarkson's suspension"
Sued by all the broadcasters around the world, their most profitable TV brand collapses, Clarkson goes to Sky. The licence becomes that bit more unsustainable, at the worst possible moment. And lots of people start to hate the BBC.
And all because the BBC is run by a bunch of talentless po-faced overpaid liberal no-marks.
It tells us everything we need to know that the reinstatement of a boorish oaf is the latest cause celebre of the right. These are the same people who were so up in arms and ranted here morning, noon and night about the Labour MP who got drunk and hit somebody in the Commons bar.
It tells us everything we need to know about you that you have invented an entirely fictional set of posts about Eric Joyce.
The archive will show otherwise.
Over to you, then. You made the slur. Substantiate it.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC successfully
I doubt you watch Top Gear, so I suspect you are entirely clueless. As ever.
The show depends entirely on the strange but amusing contrast of the three middle aged blokes teasing each other, with all their history of in-jokes, calamities, scrapes, embarrassments, and occasional triumphs, etc etc - all of which are shared and enjoyed by a loyal fanbase around the world. Especially important is the comic genius of Clarkson.
So the show is isn't "Top Gear", it is the Jeremy Clarkson show, also starring James May and Richard Hammond, with some cars.
You can now see the problem, if you take away all three stars (as will certainly happen: if Clarkson goes the others will go too).
It's like the Stephen Colbert show. When Colbert went, taking his genius, they couldn't slide in someone else and pretend he *was* Colbert and nothing had changed.
Would Amazon Instant or Netflix be willing to take the plunge into light entertainment in the way they have with solid drama?
"BBC faces multimillion-pound bill from Jeremy Clarkson's suspension"
Sued by all the broadcasters around the world, their most profitable TV brand collapses, Clarkson goes to Sky. The licence becomes that bit more unsustainable, at the worst possible moment. And lots of people start to hate the BBC.
And all because the BBC is run by a bunch of talentless po-faced overpaid liberal no-marks.
Mr. NorthWales, some of us have been banging on about the unsustainable madness of the current set-up of governance for a while.
Why Miliband hasn't ruled out a formal coalition (which is nigh on impossible anyway and the SNP probably wouldn't even want) is beyond me. But then, Miliband's an empty-headed fool who thought fixing a commodity price at the height of the market was terribly clever.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC successfully
I doubt you watch Top Gear, so I suspect you are entirely clueless. As ever.
The show depends entirely on the strange but amusing contrast of the three middle aged blokes teasing each other, with all their history of in-jokes, calamities, scrapes, embarrassments, and occasional triumphs, etc etc - all of which are shared and enjoyed by a loyal fanbase around the world. Especially important is the comic genius of Clarkson.
So the show is isn't "Top Gear", it is the Jeremy Clarkson show, also starring James May and Richard Hammond, with some cars.
You can now see the problem, if you take away all three stars (as will certainly happen: if Clarkson goes the others will go too).
It's like the Stephen Colbert show. When Colbert went, taking his genius, they couldn't slide in someone else and pretend he *was* Colbert and nothing had changed.
Would Amazon Instant or Netflix be willing to take the plunge into light entertainment in the way they have with solid drama?
yes. and given the world wide popularity of (british) top gear, i think it is extremely likely they will both make a bid for clarkson and co
Less than 50% of Tories think Cameron cuts the mustard on any quality measured
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 11/03/2015 14:23 How Tories and Kippers see @David_Cameron -> pic.twitter.com/SN6bpxHcGp
Lets see what UKIP voters think of Cameron vs Miliband:
Sticks to what he believes in +13 Decisive +12 Strong +5 A natural leader +8 Charismatic +12 Good in a crisis +10 Honest +2 In touch with the concerns of ordinary people -2
Mr. Owls, is O'Farrell the odious creature who once said he wished Thatcher had been assassinated by the IRA?
If you've read his book, which was excellent, he admits he did at the time as an angry young man. He later said he wasn't proud of wanting her dead. The truth is if she had been assassinated plenty of Brits would have been celebrating. You might not like it but it's the truth.
Mr. Notme, it'd be guaranteed to turn a profit [or as guaranteed as a thing can be in such a world]. I think they'd seriously consider it.
Mr. Owls, O'Farrell's wiki entry: His selection was seen as an interesting move by Labour in a seat where they were rank outsiders[26] however during the campaign the Daily Mail and other papers quoted extracts from his political memoir in which he confessed that in 1984 he had momentarily regretted that the Brighton bomb had not been successful in assassinating Margaret Thatcher.[27] He also recalled that he had wanted "Great Britain to lose the Falklands War for the benefit of Great Britain"
Edited extra bit: Mr. Booth, so what if it's the truth? Lots of fundamentalists want sharia law, but that doesn't mean to say I have to consider that a respectable opinion. O'Farrell was 22 (or possibly 21) when he regretted that terrorists had failed to assassinated the Prime Minister of his own country, and only a little younger when he regretted that his own country had won a war against a foreign aggressor.
John O'Farrell @mrjohnofarrell 1h1 hour ago Culture Secretary blaming BBC for Clarkson 'fracas'. Now we have permission to punch Tories and then tell them they should manage us better.
Comments
Cameron has much more to lose by not doing the debates than by doing them.
OK, forget the head to head as that can't go ahead without him.
But he should simply go ahead and do the two 7 leader debates.
Joe Public isn't going to be interested in the minutiae. If debates take place large numbers of people will be completely baffled why he is not there - it will look terrible and it will cost him votes.
So the dystopia you are fearful of is almost entirely here already...
I obviously lose too much with SJ.
Had one at Haydock earlier in the season and didnt get a single winner. Mrs BJ picking on a names only basis had 4 of 6
Bloody annoying I mean who picks horses on names alone.
Where is TSE?
Just had a cheeky tenner on Don Poli for next year's gold cup, he utterly flew up the hill today.
Lac Fontana each way 20/1 Coral Cup 2.40 pm.
Did you do much yesterday?
I only had one bet yesterday got 2nd race winner.
People commit suicide in these sorts of situations.
Hopefully it will all have been some sort of misunderstanding that can be smoothed over quickly with an apology and everyone can move on, but if it is more serious than that we have a potentially very ugly situation brewing.
"And now over to the studio, where James's studying a Duchess with her skirt off, and Richard's getting intimate with Princess Margaret's running gear. Meanwhile, Jeremy watches Natalie Portman in some heavy pump-trolley action!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Princess_Coronation_Class_6229_Duchess_of_Hamilton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Princess_Royal_Class_6203_Princess_Margaret_Rose
This fits with the idea that people agree with things that Miliband does, but completely do not rate him as an individual.
But heck they are more famous than me. Some in the Box usually bet very large sums indeed but nobody will shout a winner up the hill louder than Mrs BJ with hr £2 E/W
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=40180
Probably goes off 7-2 on the day if he gets there !
Sorry but that is a political geek's viewpoint. :-)
Most average voters are totally and utterly tired of politicking and politicians halfway through a GE campaign so not having a debate to watch - or read about - or listen to reports about - is of zero consequence - and may very well be a source of relief to others...
The TV broadcasters are not going to empty chair David Cameron during the short GE campaign, no matter how much some of his opponents may wish it in the mistaken belief that pulling such a political stunt will damage Cameron personally. If the broadcasters give Ed Miliband an hour of prime time TV, they will also have to do the same for Cameron, and I suspect Cameron and his team would be extremely happy with that format. And where would that leave Clegg, Farage or the other party leaders if that was to happen?
"It would be an amazing coup if UKIP managed to sign up Jeremy Clarkson. I think I'll ask him later today."
Actually it would probably be good for both Cameron and Farage. Farage for being able to attract the right-wing petrol-head's favourite fruitcake and Cameron for managing to dissociate himself from the right-wing petrol-head's favourite fruitcake
Spain is turning out like the UK in (geographic) reverse. Catalonia, the Basque Country, the area around Madrid are all doing pretty well again - employment is surging (it grew 85,000 in February for the country, and that was almost entirely the North of the country and private sector). But the South coast, which is full of people with limited skillsets outside building apartment blocks that no-one wants to buy is still in full blow depression mode.
As an aside, I think the fact that Spain is still a lot, lot richer (with a greater proportion of the population in employment than in 1999) than when they entered the Euro means that Podemas will struggle to move up from their current 25% in the polls.
Voters know the debates will tell them nothing about the parties they don't already know.
The only people who are upset are the fools in the media who want to drone on about Miliband's voice or Cameron's tie.
And they were the number 1 news story by a million miles.
Sorry - it's going to look absolutely terrible and it may well cost him the election - just when everything was going perfectly.
59, 600, 000 not signed. Crossover expect in April 2384.
But the other two will almost certainly go ahead with six leaders rather than seven.
I think Cameron is absolutely mad - the only thing I can think (and this is a very long shot) is that Archie Norman is Chairman of ITV and he has given Cameron the nod that they'll scrap it if he doesn't take part. But I doubt that.
Eventually it was a nice August morning in Hiroshima.
Similarly, as the years passed and we heard nothing but juvenile studenty posturing from the ghastly twerp Miliband, some of us thought this was because he was saving it all up for the big battle. His best arguments had yet to be seen. The intellectual Yamato of Milibandism's policy fleet had not yet raised steam for 27 knots, but by golly when it did - that would be decisive.
Here we are 2 months out, and the oily tax dodging creep has nothing better to talk about in 6 questions than debates nobody's interested in.
Unless the EU federalises government debt it won't survive anyway. I notice Iceland no longer wants to join the EU.
Could well be that the Tory plan is starting to come unstuck.
I've just finished watching PMQ's on iPlayer. What a frenzy of cat calling, and poor old Red Ed; 6 questions on the debate. I must also admit that Carswell's question on immigration was timidly and awkwardly asked, he should have chosen Defence as I tweeted to him earlier today. Not a future leader of UKIP, methinks.
@atmikekayes3
@DouglasCarswell Defence is a weak spot in Tory policy. also sans cammo in debates, stir the pot. - Mar 11
As in the increasing employment by 85,000 jobs per month, running a current account surplus, lower government debt-to-GDP than the UK Spain?
Sure.
The archive will show otherwise.
Quick! To the life rafts!
Because fewer people are getting married there is less work for lawyers, so their solution is to have the state conduct forced marriages between people at least one of whom is reluctant to be married voluntarily.
The response from men to defend themselves from this will be to shun even unmarried cohabitation, as they have shunned marriage. So that we will presumably then see a situation where couples have children together, but the father lives alone, elsewhere. It will, in effect, instutionalise as normal that which is currently the outcome only of a divorce.
If you're wrong then they will all have leapt to the support of a thug and a bully. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that possibility.
"59, 600, 000 not signed. Crossover expect in April 2384."
I depends but based on current progress, I'd say the whole population, minus you, will have signed it before voting on May 7th. Go on, you know you want to.
dont remember Prescott having to resign when he threw a punch, seem to remember Blair saying something along the lines of "John is John", wasn't there a labour MP recently who threw a punch in the commons bar
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-ed-miliband-could-be-spared-the-curse-of-wallace-10100855.html
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
11/03/2015 14:23
How Tories and Kippers see @David_Cameron -> pic.twitter.com/SN6bpxHcGp
Anyone who made a lot of money off those had ba11s of steel, because how that was never banned is a mystery to me.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/20/68/b8/2068b8f11dda3fb1564bc67ae8074810.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929179/Is-Plasticine-Mr-Miliband-New-character-Wallace-Gromit-creators-bears-uncanny-resemblance-Red-Ed.html
No offence, Sean.
'Good. F*ck the BBC. It's time to scrap the licence fee and let this bloated pile of overpaid pomposity pay for itself, if it can."
Of course the BBC own the show so will likely find three new presenters. They have an excellent record of seamlessly changing presenters. Much better than any other station has of taking presenters from the BBC and succeeding
Where you choose the curve, depends on how you present the success:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployed-persons
For marine insurance - insurable interest has to exist at the point of making a claim.
(You can transfer the insurance policy e.g. when the ownership of marine cargo changes mid voyage)
For other policies insurable interest must exist at inception AND point of claim.
With regard to second-hand endowments (which could only really be traded in the last few years), someone with a policy that they did not need, or who needed ready cash, or who could not afford to continue making payments, could 'sell' the policy to a third person who would keep up payments and then gain the benefits when the policy matured.
Obviously at the peak of the market insurance companies were paying quite high terminal bonuses and the gamble was to work out what the rate of return would be when the policy matured. i.e. the cash purchase value + remaining premiums compared with the final payout.
Because the bonuses in the last few years were worth so much more (at the time), it was worthwhile holding on to maturity rather than making a quick kill (pun intended).
(Trust me, I am an insurance broker.)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/11/realclearroundup_hillarys_email_presser_125901.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/11/for_hillary_questions_still_swirl_125896.html
http://nypost.com/2015/03/10/hillary-acts-stupid-when-she-plays-dumb/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/3-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-convenience-argument-on-her-email-controversy-probably-wont-work/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-the-email-controversy-and-the-2016-presidential-race.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/11/why_clintons_emails_matter_125899.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/charles-hurt-hillary-clinton-press-conference-a-po/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/11/hillary_in_free_fall_what_happens_next_125900.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-115951.html?ml=m_a2_1#.VQBfo0swwpF
Even the last one, headlined Hillary's Not The Problem, is led with an aggressive looking black and white picture of Tricky Dicky. How is that good for Hillary?
Mr. Roger, I think lots of Top Gear viewers are hacked off because they don't watch very much at all on the BBC yet are obliged to pay for it. I imagine there's a significant overlap between Top Gear viewers and people pissed off by the BBC adopting the approach of Judas Iscariot when it came to F1 coverage.
Benghazi is interesting, 22 CIA agents on location, dead ambassador, arms to Syria, failed state, falsified intelligence.
What is interesting is that the bulk of the media response - and some of the most ferocious attacks - is coming from the Clinton-friendly mainstream and left-leaning media. NYT, Washington Post, New York Magazine, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, CNN, politico.com - even MSNBC for god's sake - are laying in.
I see that your books will soon be available from a publishing company. Congrats, I'm sure they'll do well.
I suspect you're right about the petrol heads.
Culture Secretary blaming BBC for Clarkson 'fracas'. Now we have permission to punch Tories and then tell them they should manage us better.
I completely accept that where you choose the start and end points makes a massive difference.
Sir Edric's Temple should be re-released this year, and Sir Edric's Treasure probably comes out in 2016 (off-chance it could be 2015).
Actually, one of my early beta readers compared him to Flashman, which unfortunately means I can't now read any Flashman novels because I'm worried about either copying [even by coincidence] or shifting Sir Edric away from what he is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31829338
Ed....Ed.....calling Ed....10 years of having his phone hacked. Now if that had been the NOTW, the BBC would be running this story 24/7, the Guardian front pages for a month, and Ed would be calling for a inquiry.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/11/business-leaders-slam-labour-economy/
It will be interesting to see whether Prof. Stephen Fisher's next forecast due on Friday demonstrates a similar movement.
The government has saved £1billion by turning around the lives of England’s troubled families
Ampp3d @ampp3d 1h1 hour ago
Eric Pickles says Troubled Families program saved £1.2bn but his own dpt appears to disagree! http://bit.ly/1EbzEi4
Why Miliband hasn't ruled out a formal coalition (which is nigh on impossible anyway and the SNP probably wouldn't even want) is beyond me. But then, Miliband's an empty-headed fool who thought fixing a commodity price at the height of the market was terribly clever.
and given the world wide popularity of (british) top gear, i think it is extremely likely they will both make a bid for clarkson and co
Sticks to what he believes in +13
Decisive +12
Strong +5
A natural leader +8
Charismatic +12
Good in a crisis +10
Honest +2
In touch with the concerns of ordinary people -2
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/info/23/people/48/resident_population
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DnLF39Z0sm8/UW0sHpZv53I/AAAAAAAAH_Q/af8Nd7WuJ0Q/s640/Piers_Morgan_s_Life_Stories__Paul_Gascoigne.jpg
Mr. Owls, O'Farrell's wiki entry:
His selection was seen as an interesting move by Labour in a seat where they were rank outsiders[26] however during the campaign the Daily Mail and other papers quoted extracts from his political memoir in which he confessed that in 1984 he had momentarily regretted that the Brighton bomb had not been successful in assassinating Margaret Thatcher.[27] He also recalled that he had wanted "Great Britain to lose the Falklands War for the benefit of Great Britain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Farrell_(author)
Edited extra bit: Mr. Booth, so what if it's the truth? Lots of fundamentalists want sharia law, but that doesn't mean to say I have to consider that a respectable opinion. O'Farrell was 22 (or possibly 21) when he regretted that terrorists had failed to assassinated the Prime Minister of his own country, and only a little younger when he regretted that his own country had won a war against a foreign aggressor.
Pretty poor renewal though, no offence to Somersby but showed it was a fairly modest renewal. Champagne Fever would have probably run close.
Why is the BBC getting involved with Clarkson's spat with the producer about why there was no food provided on the day of filming?
Has he got a book to sell, or was he trying to advise Eric Joyce how to spend an evening at a Commons bar?