What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Sure. But we do know that Tory chancellors have raised VAT following the last two elections in which the Tories have ended up in government, despite the Tories denying they were planning to do it before those elections. It is perfectly legitimate for Labour to suggest that it will happen a third time - especially as the Tories have not been clear about where their planned cuts are going to fall during the next Parliament.
If it is not legitimate because the Tories have denied it, then it is not legitimate for the Tories to claim that Labour will do things that they have denied they will do.
I thought the Tories had been clear on the % from cuts vs tax rises with all (almost all?) coming from cuts. If my memory is correct, then Labour's position is even more dubious
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
It only appears important if you live in the South East. Up here and further north no-one really cares that much. All you're saying is your regional industry should get preference,
And then you wonder why the Tories struggle north of Banbury.
As for cars the biggest threat to UK industry has been the fall of the wall where production has shifted to eastern Europe. This isn't just a UK phenomenon but has hit all Western European countries. The Uk will gain more imo if multinats couldn't just willy nilly assume they get all the benefits of market access for no serious presence in the UK.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
His parents were worried about the collateral damage to his other major organs which would severely impair his life quality post treatment which is why they took him to Prague. Clearly their decision has been vindicated and NHS/Police/social services have some serious soul searching to do over why they tried to stop this boy receiving treatment which has not only saved his life but also not impacted the quality of his life.
If you can't see why they were wrong to try and stop the family going to Prague then you have serious problems Rog.
I'm one of those strange creatures that stands up when someone comes in the room, turns off/mutes the TV/Radio or Whatever and offers my seat. New visitors get a handshake, all visitors get a formal welcome across the threshold.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
Because a producer of telly adverts is an expert on oncology?
It doesn't matter a damn what the cure rate in the hospital was, the parents have an absolute right to seek treatment for their child where ever they want, without being arrested for it. The child is cured thankfully. The treatment of the parents was a disgrace, listen to the father:
Brett King has said, his son’s doctor didn’t appear to be willing to discuss alternative treatments. “He said, more or less, that if I questioned him in anyway regarding his treatment they would get an emergency protection order and take [Ashya] away from me.”
I imagine you approve of this sort of high handed behaviour.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
His parents were worried about the collateral damage to his other major organs which would severely impair his life quality post treatment which is why they took him to Prague. Clearly their decision has been vindicated and NHS/Police/social services have some serious soul searching to do over why they tried to stop this boy receiving treatment which has not only saved his life but also not impacted the quality of his life.
If you can't see why they were wrong to try and stop the family going to Prague then you have serious problems Rog.
I have every sympathy for the NHS saying "we won't pay for this unproven treatment".
But to try to stop the parents exercising their judgement is extraordinary
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Sure. But we do know that Tory chancellors have raised VAT following the last two elections in which the Tories have ended up in government, despite the Tories denying they were planning to do it before those elections. It is perfectly legitimate for Labour to suggest that it will happen a third time - especially as the Tories have not been clear about where their planned cuts are going to fall during the next Parliament.
If it is not legitimate because the Tories have denied it, then it is not legitimate for the Tories to claim that Labour will do things that they have denied they will do.
I thought the Tories had been clear on the % from cuts vs tax rises with all (almost all?) coming from cuts. If my memory is correct, then Labour's position is even more dubious
80 -20 is what I remember
Back in the Thatcher years I thought they ran on moving tax from direct to indirect taxation. IIRC the top rate of tax was 97% an standard rate 35%
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
Listen to Mr Wang, China's richest investor talking to the BBC last week
Wang Jianlin, chair of China's largest property company, Dalian Wanda, said the UK had one of the most open markets and that investment was not subject to the same scrutiny as elsewhere.
Mr Wang told the BBC he was looking to invest $1bn (£667m) in the UK entertainment industry.
He is also considering buying an English or Italian football club.
"I've travelled to many countries to consider them for investment, and most admire Britain's market," he said.
If you listen to the interview video on the same page he says that he is not worried about the UK leaving the EU because:
"the UK is relatively independent in the EU at the moment, it does not use the Euro, so i don't think it will exert a great impact on external investors like us. The UK and the USA are the top choices of my global investment strategy"
I really don't see why Scottish voters would be upset. You could argue Labour's prospects might be damaged though I am not sure whether people will remember this in May.
Scottish voters are now in a position to think that they could control the destiny of the next Parliament with just 8% of the population - talk about punching above the weight !
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
The Uk will gain more imo if multinats couldn't just willy nilly assume they get all the benefits of market access for no serious presence in the UK.
Which is tantamount to saying we should leave the EU. Or, in a triumph of optimism over experience, hope that we will be able to get the EU to drop one of its four founding principles.
The EU is a monster because it guarantees that companies will pick the best locations from the perspective of tax or wage costs within a single market etc but then totally ignores the impact this will have on some countries and then chides the losers for being unable to compete - even when national bankruptcy stares them in the face. How is a single market and single currency possibly sustainable in a fragmented world of nation states with their own budgets and tax laws and social spending etc?
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
The Uk will gain more imo if multinats couldn't just willy nilly assume they get all the benefits of market access for no serious presence in the UK.
Which is tantamount to saying we should leave the EU. Or, in a triumph of optimism over experience, hope that we will be able to get the EU to drop one of its four founding principles.
The EU is a monster because it guarantees that companies will pick the best locations from the perspective of tax or wage costs within a single market etc but then totally ignores the impact this will have on some countries and then chides the losers for being unable to compete - even when national bankruptcy stares them in the face. How is a single market and single currency possibly sustainable in a fragmented world of nation states with their own budgets and tax laws and social spending etc?
Regrettably much truth in what you say. Without a mechanism to help rebalance regions and economies, the losers get the crap kicked out of them. Unless of course they're big enough to fight their corner.
Blimey, 632 posts. Let's talk about something else.
I feel the potential impact of LD-Lab switchers has received insufficient attention. UKIPpers: is their honesty and deep sincerity a handicap? LDs: too principled for their own good? Who is audreyanne posting as?
Interesting that the Daily Telegraph has today called for Scottish Tories to tactically vote Labour against the SNP, as the main paper of choice amongst Scotch Tories that could help a few Labour MPs in tight battles with the SNP hold on
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Sorry Richard you are simply being disingenuous , simply fezz up for once and admit that your party misled the electorate in the run up to 2010 .
The Lib Dems have absolutely no room to talk on the subject of broken pledges after putting tuition fees at the centre of their platform, to the extent of having a 'signed name' gimmick.
I really don't see why Scottish voters would be upset. You could argue Labour's prospects might be damaged though I am not sure whether people will remember this in May.
Scottish voters are now in a position to think that they could control the destiny of the next Parliament with just 8% of the population - talk about punching above the weight !
Thats the problem for labour. Voting SNP is really a no brainer for most people, regardless of your political position.
If you're left wing, then a SNP+labour government is good for you. Even if your right wing, then a SNP+labour government would be good 'for scotland'.
Ed Miliband dismisses Alex Salmond's claims the SNP could influence a Labour Budget if his party holds the balance of power in the event of a Hung Parliament."
Better late than never I guess, Aunty finally gets around to commenting on yesterday’s boasts by Alex Salmond – and lets Ed write their headline. #bless.
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
- Sensible energy prices - fracking would have helped. They've also made some moves towards eliminating onshore wind subsidies. But tough when you have a fluffy running the relevant department
Fracking is an irrelevancy now, as the low price of oil makes it uneconomic in the UK.
At a minimum you need Brent above $80 for it to make financial sense, and more realistically, more like $100.
If Brent stays below $60, then - with all the government good will in the world - there will be no shale gas in the UK.
(The long-term contracts at which we buy LNG from abroad is typically bought at 85% of Brent on a calorie equivalent basis. This - more or less - means you divide the price of oil by seven. So, at $55, we import natural gas at $7.85. That is less than the price that was needed to get fracking going in the US, and no-one is going to make the investment in drilling up the North of England unless the gas price is north of $10/mmcf.)
Interesting that the Daily Telegraph has today called for Scottish Tories to tactically vote Labour against the SNP, as the main paper of choice amongst Scotch Tories that could help a few Labour MPs in tight battles with the SNP hold on
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
I agree. ''Look we've got a great UK car industry, attracting loads of inward investment and technology. Tell you what, lets change totally the terms of our trade and just hope it does not harm it. All on the dubious uncosted off chance we might might do even better than we are already. Oh, and for sure there is no chance no chance at all of our totally foreign owned car industry relocating abroad.''
Given the demise of BMC/Leyland/Austin Rover/ Rover MG - hundreds of thousands of cars per year we are extremely lucky to have any cars built here at all. As it is car manufacturing is rising and the added value rising as well. The UK manufactures about 2.5 million car engines a year as well.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
I think you've compelty misjudged the position. In a post election tussle between Miliband and Salmond it'll be like a ten-stone weakling against Ali in his prime.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
His parents were worried about the collateral damage to his other major organs which would severely impair his life quality post treatment which is why they took him to Prague. Clearly their decision has been vindicated and NHS/Police/social services have some serious soul searching to do over why they tried to stop this boy receiving treatment which has not only saved his life but also not impacted the quality of his life.
If you can't see why they were wrong to try and stop the family going to Prague then you have serious problems Rog.
I have every sympathy for the NHS saying "we won't pay for this unproven treatment".
But to try to stop the parents exercising their judgement is extraordinary
Absolutely, that isn't really the issue though, and if the NHS didn't believe it was worthwhile they wouldn't be budgeting for two proton therapy centres in the UK for 2016-2018 delivery.
It really felt like a "we know best and the NHS is the best". Nannying at its worst. Horrible decision making all around.
Just what leaders picture will he be putting on his election leaflets?
Come to think of it - I have the answer to Labour's problem.
What they need is a bit of lateral thinking. They should make a virtue of necessity and put Nicola's picture on the election leaflets. She's much more popular and articulate than Ed, and she'll be running things anyway.
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
Vettel for a podium at 2.75 is worth consideration. Same odds as winner without Hamilton/Rosberg, but more chance of it occurring (if the Mercedes break down, for example).
- Sensible energy prices - fracking would have helped. They've also made some moves towards eliminating onshore wind subsidies. But tough when you have a fluffy running the relevant department
Fracking is an irrelevancy now, as the low price of oil makes it uneconomic in the UK.
At a minimum you need Brent above $80 for it to make financial sense, and more realistically, more like $100.
If Brent stays below $60, then - with all the government good will in the world - there will be no shale gas in the UK.
(The long-term contracts at which we buy LNG from abroad is typically bought at 85% of Brent on a calorie equivalent basis. This - more or less - means you divide the price of oil by seven. So, at $55, we import natural gas at $7.85. That is less than the price that was needed to get fracking going in the US, and no-one is going to make the investment in drilling up the North of England unless the gas price is north of $10/mmcf.)
RCS, I thinks it's Charles advocating fracking.
Personally I just want green energy taxes cut. I see no point in shutting UK foundries ( for example ) to then have a coal fired plant with a worse record on pollution open up in India or China to make the same products which we then import.
The best position for the UK and probably the greenest is to become more energy efficient.
Come to think of it - I have the answer to Labour's problem.
What they need is a bit of lateral thinking. They should make a virtue of necessity and put Nicola's picture on the election leaflets. She's much more popular and articulate than Ed, and she'll be running things anyway.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
You are underestimating the SNP leadership. If their actions were to 'put the hated Tories back in power', you can be absolutely certain that they would find a way to blame Labour.
1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.
2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.
The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.
Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.
But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?
Well, no, the Balance of Payments deficit is a mathematical consequence of supporting the economy with debt-bingeing. I suppose I could have come to the same conclusion by looking at the OBR forecasts for the Balance of Payments, which see us continuing in deficit as far as they care to forecast.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
I don't think you understand the current dynamic in Scotland post referendum. Labour = Tory now. The true Scots/SNP hate them both equally.
If Salmond sees the advantage of voting down a Labour motion of confidence then he will do so, and right now it would be advantageous as it would allow for another independence referendum sooner rather than later.
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
First off, learn to spell it.
Secondly the local water makes a difference.
Scotchmen don't own the spelling. It comes from the Gaelic word uisge which one may transliterate as one likes. I could spell it wisci if it suited me. I used the spelling in the initial post.
The local water? Is the suggestion then that if you used water from Cornwall to make Irish whiskey, and alongside it you made otherwise identical Irish whiskey, a whiskey pseud could tell them apart? Has that ever been demonstrated?
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
You are underestimating the SNP leadership. If their actions were to 'put the hated Tories back in power', you can be absolutely certain that they would find a way to blame Labour.
Salmond won't have to do anything, it'll be up to Miliband to make him an offer to make him support it.
Labour are more likely to be in need of SNP support than the SNP need to support labour. In fact they don't need to do anything of the sort.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
I don't think you understand the current dynamic in Scotland post referendum. Labour = Tory now. The true Scots/SNP hate them both equally.
If Salmond sees the advantage of voting down a Labour motion of confidence then he will do so, and right now it would be advantageous as it would allow for another independence referendum sooner rather than later.
And that`s why the SNP have ruled out supporting a Tory government in any form?
There's a Rat restaurant in Taiwan that has a saying that the only thing that flies that they wont eat is an aeroplane the only thing found in the sea is a submarine and the only thing on four legs is a table.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
I don't think you understand the current dynamic in Scotland post referendum. Labour = Tory now. The true Scots/SNP hate them both equally.
If Salmond sees the advantage of voting down a Labour motion of confidence then he will do so, and right now it would be advantageous as it would allow for another independence referendum sooner rather than later.
And that`s why the SNP have ruled out supporting a Tory government in any form?
Salmond can't/won't deal with Cameron. He see's Miliband as weak enough so that he can keep him in his pocket.
There's a Rat restaurant in Taiwan that has a saying that the only thing that flies that they wont eat is an aeroplane the only thing found in the sea is a submarine and the only thing on four legs is a table.
I think I'd give Taiwanese whisky a miss
I thought you were in to all this multi culti diversity farrago ?
I was standing in the supermarket on Saturday looking at how the Japanese and Swedes were slowly taking up more whiskey shelf space as time went on and thinking we really need to up our game to stay on top of the industry.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren`t an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
I don't think you understand the current dynamic in Scotland post referendum. Labour = Tory now. The true Scots/SNP hate them both equally.
If Salmond sees the advantage of voting down a Labour motion of confidence then he will do so, and right now it would be advantageous as it would allow for another independence referendum sooner rather than later.
And that`s why the SNP have ruled out supporting a Tory government in any form?
Salmond can't/won't deal with Cameron. He see's Miliband as weak enough so that he can keep him in his pocket.
The coward who won`t debate is the strong one.Ha ha ha
On Danzcuk, we know that he is so unpopular with the local Labour party that he almost cost Labout the by-election in Heywood.
Though I can't see him losing Rochdale even if the local Labour party abandons him, I think he's relatively safe because he will suck up the white british vote as he is the only white british candidate of a major party and he has taken a strong social conservative stance (he clearly is playing the ethnic card). Though the Green party or the LD might see some unusual seepage from Labour, that might be balanced by the equally unusual seepage of votes to Danzcuk from UKIP and the NF.
In summary, Danzcuk is a prime example of a Red Kipper in a constituency that he needs to be a Red Kipper in order to win.
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
First off, learn to spell it.
Secondly the local water makes a difference.
Scotchmen don't own the spelling. It comes from the Gaelic word uisge which one may transliterate as one likes. I could spell it wisci if it suited me. I used the spelling in the initial post.
The local water? Is the suggestion then that if you used water from Cornwall to make Irish whiskey, and alongside it you made otherwise identical Irish whiskey, a whiskey pseud could tell them apart? Has that ever been demonstrated?
In principle, I believe, depending on the distinctiveness of the water - peat/iron content etc. I doubt it's been tried.
Jeffrey Bernard's great insight was that drinking, say, vodka makes you an alcoholic, but whisky both makes you an alcoholic and, independently, drives you mad.
I'm one of those strange creatures that stands up when someone comes in the room, turns off/mutes the TV/Radio or Whatever and offers my seat. New visitors get a handshake, all visitors get a formal welcome across the threshold.
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
First off, learn to spell it.
Secondly the local water makes a difference.
Scotchmen don't own the spelling. It comes from the Gaelic word uisge which one may transliterate as one likes. I could spell it wisci if it suited me. I used the spelling in the initial post.
The local water? Is the suggestion then that if you used water from Cornwall to make Irish whiskey, and alongside it you made otherwise identical Irish whiskey, a whiskey pseud could tell them apart? Has that ever been demonstrated?
It'd partly depend on the volatiles in the water used for distilling, and also the solid non-volatile content of the water used for later dilution, and their interaction with the other ingredients. So partly on the peatbogs and partly on the local geology. But very much on the individual still and the distilling.
Whisky = Scots, Whiskey = Irish, or for that matter Appalachian IIRC, by well-established convention. It causes confusion to adopt an alternative usage, so deliberate flouting might just possibly be seen as ill-mannered to your readership.
Anyway, here is a constructive suggestion: look into the Scots Malt Whisky Society. My dad is a member, to our mutual pleasure. (But you need to google with the correct spellings ...).
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
First off, learn to spell it.
Secondly the local water makes a difference.
Scotchmen don't own the spelling. It comes from the Gaelic word uisge which one may transliterate as one likes. I could spell it wisci if it suited me. I used the spelling in the initial post.
The local water? Is the suggestion then that if you used water from Cornwall to make Irish whiskey, and alongside it you made otherwise identical Irish whiskey, a whiskey pseud could tell them apart? Has that ever been demonstrated?
It'd partly depend on the volatiles in the water used for distilling, and also the solid non-volatile content of the water used for later dilution, and their interaction with the other ingredients. So partly on the peatbogs and partly on the local geology. But very much on the individual still and the distilling.
Whisky = Scots, Whiskey = Irish, or for that matter Appalachian IIRC, by well-established convention. It causes confusion to adopt an alternative usage, so deliberate flouting might just possibly be seen as ill-mannered to your readership.
Anyway, here is a constructive suggestion: look into the Scots Malt Whisky Society. My dad is a member, to our mutual pleasure. (But you need to google with the correct spellings ...).
Carnyx you are trying to educate a moronic cretinous half witted numpty.
Comments
And then you wonder why the Tories struggle north of Banbury.
As for cars the biggest threat to UK industry has been the fall of the wall where production has shifted to eastern Europe. This isn't just a UK phenomenon but has hit all Western European countries. The Uk will gain more imo if multinats couldn't just willy nilly assume they get all the benefits of market access for no serious presence in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/19/nick-clegg-obama
If you can't see why they were wrong to try and stop the family going to Prague then you have serious problems Rog.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/eds-2010-leadership-campaign-financed-by-hedge-fund-tycoon-second-mayfair-based-offshore-hedge-fund-backer-revealed/
I wonder if the BBC are ever going to ask him about this?
It makes you wonder if Bram Stoker had had debt collection encounters.
It doesn't matter a damn what the cure rate in the hospital was, the parents have an absolute right to seek treatment for their child where ever they want, without being arrested for it. The child is cured thankfully. The treatment of the parents was a disgrace, listen to the father: I imagine you approve of this sort of high handed behaviour.
But to try to stop the parents exercising their judgement is extraordinary
Back in the Thatcher years I thought they ran on moving tax from direct to indirect taxation. IIRC the top rate of tax was 97% an standard rate 35%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/19/simon-danczuk-labour-mp-censured-late-registration-daily-mail-cash
http://m.bbc.com/news/business-31838296 If you listen to the interview video on the same page he says that he is not worried about the UK leaving the EU because:
Scottish voters are now in a position to think that they could control the destiny of the next Parliament with just 8% of the population - talk about punching above the weight !
The EU is a monster because it guarantees that companies will pick the best locations from the perspective of tax or wage costs within a single market etc but then totally ignores the impact this will have on some countries and then chides the losers for being unable to compete - even when national bankruptcy stares them in the face. How is a single market and single currency possibly sustainable in a fragmented world of nation states with their own budgets and tax laws and social spending etc?
It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing
I feel the potential impact of LD-Lab switchers has received insufficient attention.
UKIPpers: is their honesty and deep sincerity a handicap?
LDs: too principled for their own good?
Who is audreyanne posting as?
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/taiwan-whisky-beats-scotch-to-top-award-1-3725944
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11489170/Huge-US-aircraft-carrier-too-big-to-dock-in-Portsmouth.html
If you're left wing, then a SNP+labour government is good for you. Even if your right wing, then a SNP+labour government would be good 'for scotland'.
Ed Miliband dismisses Alex Salmond's claims the SNP could influence a Labour Budget if his party holds the balance of power in the event of a Hung Parliament."
Better late than never I guess, Aunty finally gets around to commenting on yesterday’s boasts by Alex Salmond – and lets Ed write their headline. #bless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32015394
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-02-23&number=158&display=allvotes
It has always been my impression that the degree of processing involved in whiskey production would tend to obviate any advantages from producing it in a particular geography. I wouldn't think the same of wine, since there is relatively little done to wine apart from letting it age. With whiskey the choices made by the distillers must have more bearing on the end result than minor differences in the ingredients used.
In consequence there seems no obvious reason why whiskey should be any better from one location than another.
Is that about right? Whiskey is a hobby I intend to take up in retirement and while I've been to whiskey tastings where very marked differences in flavour were apparent, there was no suggestion that it was the ingredients rather than the process had achieved this.
Nob can also be a shortened version of 'nobleman'.
Might have an early bet on Malaysia. Contemplating it.
At a minimum you need Brent above $80 for it to make financial sense, and more realistically, more like $100.
If Brent stays below $60, then - with all the government good will in the world - there will be no shale gas in the UK.
(The long-term contracts at which we buy LNG from abroad is typically bought at 85% of Brent on a calorie equivalent basis. This - more or less - means you divide the price of oil by seven. So, at $55, we import natural gas at $7.85. That is less than the price that was needed to get fracking going in the US, and no-one is going to make the investment in drilling up the North of England unless the gas price is north of $10/mmcf.)
''Look we've got a great UK car industry, attracting loads of inward investment and technology. Tell you what, lets change totally the terms of our trade and just hope it does not harm it. All on the dubious uncosted off chance we might might do even better than we are already. Oh, and for sure there is no chance no chance at all of our totally foreign owned car industry relocating abroad.''
Given the demise of BMC/Leyland/Austin Rover/ Rover MG - hundreds of thousands of cars per year we are extremely lucky to have any cars built here at all. As it is car manufacturing is rising and the added value rising as well. The UK manufactures about 2.5 million car engines a year as well.
It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.
He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.
Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
It really felt like a "we know best and the NHS is the best". Nannying at its worst. Horrible decision making all around.
What they need is a bit of lateral thinking. They should make a virtue of necessity and put Nicola's picture on the election leaflets. She's much more popular and articulate than Ed, and she'll be running things anyway.
Secondly the local water makes a difference.
Personally I just want green energy taxes cut. I see no point in shutting UK foundries ( for example ) to then have a coal fired plant with a worse record on pollution open up in India or China to make the same products which we then import.
The best position for the UK and probably the greenest is to become more energy efficient.
@chrisdeerin: Superb @mortenmorland SNP cartoon http://t.co/woAoUYeERP
Despite their own poll showing SNP-43,Lab 12,they seem to have gone with the Professor`s worse case scenario of SNP 53 Lab 2 seats for the projection.
If Salmond sees the advantage of voting down a Labour motion of confidence then he will do so, and right now it would be advantageous as it would allow for another independence referendum sooner rather than later.
The local water? Is the suggestion then that if you used water from Cornwall to make Irish whiskey, and alongside it you made otherwise identical Irish whiskey, a whiskey pseud could tell them apart? Has that ever been demonstrated?
Labour are more likely to be in need of SNP support than the SNP need to support labour. In fact they don't need to do anything of the sort.
The price is likely to be high.
Alanbrooke
There's a Rat restaurant in Taiwan that has a saying that the only thing that flies that they wont eat is an aeroplane the only thing found in the sea is a submarine and the only thing on four legs is a table.
I think I'd give Taiwanese whisky a miss
I was standing in the supermarket on Saturday looking at how the Japanese and Swedes were slowly taking up more whiskey shelf space as time went on and thinking we really need to up our game to stay on top of the industry.
Though I can't see him losing Rochdale even if the local Labour party abandons him, I think he's relatively safe because he will suck up the white british vote as he is the only white british candidate of a major party and he has taken a strong social conservative stance (he clearly is playing the ethnic card).
Though the Green party or the LD might see some unusual seepage from Labour, that might be balanced by the equally unusual seepage of votes to Danzcuk from UKIP and the NF.
In summary, Danzcuk is a prime example of a Red Kipper in a constituency that he needs to be a Red Kipper in order to win.
Jeffrey Bernard's great insight was that drinking, say, vodka makes you an alcoholic, but whisky both makes you an alcoholic and, independently, drives you mad.
Just brilliant!
Whisky = Scots, Whiskey = Irish, or for that matter Appalachian IIRC, by well-established convention. It causes confusion to adopt an alternative usage, so deliberate flouting might just possibly be seen as ill-mannered to your readership.
Anyway, here is a constructive suggestion: look into the Scots Malt Whisky Society. My dad is a member, to our mutual pleasure. (But you need to google with the correct spellings ...).