Have you gone to get some help regarding your Muslim fixation yet. Best not have children until you've got some therapy for your years of drooling over one type of child abuse
Catholic priests.
Blimey!
I was pointing out all the comments he made about the priest scandal.
edit: in case it wasn't clear.
Sorry. I was responding to the original comment from tim.
Ah no probs. I thought it might have sounded like i meant something else.
May I recommend the Ignore function of EiT widget? It now works on both the main website and the backroom discussion forum. I use the backroom function as its much faster to load, has no adverts and shows posts in oldest first order.
I could still be getting smeared with allegations of "drooling over child abuse" behind my back.
I'll wait to make any decisions until we see whether certain posters are still on here.
Off topic, Farage back in Edinburgh for QT tonight apparently, along with Galloway. What was it George was saying about two cheeks of the same arse?
Farage and Galloway are always worth listening to. Will the SNP be adding to the star cast ?
Angus Robertson, and Lesley Riddoch as, I suppose, an approximate supporter of independence, Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar to make up the Unionist numbers (they get a bit feart if it's ever less than 2 to 1).
Wimbledon's half-German Angus Robertson ?
" Robertson's expenses claims included a television costing £1119, a £400 home cinema system, £500 for a bed, £20 for a corkscrew and £2324 for a sofa bed. "
" Robertson's expenses claims included a television costing £1119, a £400 home cinema system, £500 for a bed, £20 for a corkscrew and £2324 for a sofa bed. "
Is that all you've got, you naughty little ethnic nationalist you? I suppose Angus has at least managed that basic political achievement of being elected an MP. What did UKIP manage in the last Scottish vote, 0.28%? I'm sure the 16 and 17-year-olds of Scotland will be hanging on his every word.
Has anyone been on Question Time more often than Farage?
Dimbleby, just.
BBC Question Time Farage
05 Feb 2009 – Dunstable 28 May 2009 – London 08 Oct 2009 – Hull 25 Feb 2010 – Cardiff 15 Apr 2010 – London 22 July 2010 – Hartlepool 25 Nov 2010 – Maidstone 17 Feb 2011 – Barking 27 Oct 2011 – Winchester 23 Feb 2012 – Tunbridge Wells (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.) 26 Apr 2012 – Romford 25 Oct 2012 – Slough (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.) 15 Nov 2012 – Corby 17 Jan 2013 – Lincoln 28 Feb 2013- Eastleigh (Farage free; UKIP’s Neil Hamilton stands in.) 07 Mar 2013 – Dover (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.) 25 Apr 2013 – Worcester 30 May 2013 – London (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.) 13 Jun 2013 – Edinburgh
" Robertson's expenses claims included a television costing £1119, a £400 home cinema system, £500 for a bed, £20 for a corkscrew and £2324 for a sofa bed. "
Is that all you've got, you naughty little ethnic nationalist you? I suppose Angus has at least managed that basic political achievement of being elected an MP. What did UKIP manage in the last Scottish vote, 0.28%? I'm sure the 16 and 17-year-olds of Scotland will be hanging on his every word.
Let's hope Robertson is allowed to speak and not drowned out by a yob chorus of " Go home to Wimbledon " or " Raus " .
Surely Gordon Brown was on QT more often than Farage ?
New French poll out for next years Euro elections
"A new YouGov poll on the 2014 European elections puts France’s centre-right opposition UMP in the lead on 19%, far-right Front National on 18% and President François Hollande’s Socialist Party on 15%."
Since SeanT accused me of being racist last night (although I assume he was drunk) I thought I'd better respond
Yeah, the Chinks are only good at mass production, what with their slitty eyes and all. What dribbling, racist rubbish. China was an advanced civilisation when we were worshipping the moon.
Sure, China used to be an incredibly innovative country - when there were multiple local princes each with a court full of scientists and inventors keen to impress their masters.
Centralised control of such a vast empire has required centralised control of the population (most obviously post Mao, but even throughout the Manchurian era and before - what was the bureaucracy but a system of centralised control). Their examination system is designed to encourage hard work and rote learning.
These are all good attributes for a country - and China has many natural advantages - but in the work I do there I don't see much in the way of real innovation. **However* this is not the same as saying the Chinese people *can't* innovate. Taiwain, which lacks the natural advantages, is an incredibly innovative society.
So it's all about playing to strengths: China has lots of resources and, currently, relatively cheap labour plus a need to maintain social control. The last thing the government wants is successful mavericks. In the UK or the US it's often the maverick that makes a lot of money...
China does not have a very good history of consumer product innovation recently. This would seem to be due to the nature of their economy, rather than any racial characteristic. Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore certainly show that.
The critical thing will be how their economy adapts. They are living in interesting times, with their own property bubble and related issues at risk of popping, With a capital.ist economy, soonrr or later there will be an economic correction as part of the business cycle. How they handle it will affect all our countries. I suspect that they will find that economic freedom leads to political freedom.
It looks to me that China is the next economy to go pop as the crisis travels further east.
That's pretty close to my assessment as well. Additionally, I'm not sure they are that good at process innovation either (different from consumer innovation) - it involved tinkering and local adaption rather than centralised direction. Given the pullback in multiples for Chinese companies I'm not alone in my scepticism
Ashcroft .... "He should pay his taxes and shut up".
I agree. As should all political donors, including Labour ones, without avoidance advice.
Tax advoidance is perfectly legal. Ed Milliband did it himself when rewriting his fathers will on his Primrose Hill mansion. Nothing wrong with that. Unless you make an issue of it for others.
As a matter of interest, do you have any evidence for the assertion that Ed rewrote his father's will, or even personally instigated it?
Entirely from memory (although it would be a public domain) is they used a deed of variation. That's entirely legal and fairly standard practice. Who knows whether he would have instigated it - that's irrelevant. What matters is that he would have had to agree as these devices can only be employed with an affidavit of consent from all parties.
I used to have a kitty like this - we found his stash of £1 coins, rubberbands, jewellery, toys behind the sofa. He also hid pizza slices in the garden when he had the chance.
"A man has taken to Facebook to try and reunite items which his cat has stolen with their rightful owners. Theo, a three-year-old Siamese cross, has returned home with items including a phone charger, a hand puppet, a pen and a child's artwork.
Paul Edwards, who lives in Ipswich, says his neighbours are understanding. "We take photographs of things that Theo has brought home and put them up on Facebook, saying 'Excuse me, do any of you recognise these?'," he said.
Mr Edwards said he and his girlfriend Rachael Drouet started noticing cat toys around their house which they "didn't recognise".
Theo's roll of dishonour
Child's artwork Condom Crisp packets End caps from guttering Fluffy pen Hand puppet Muslin cloth Other cats' toys Phone charger
He said: "We would pick one up and say 'Did you buy this?' And we'd say 'No'. "We sheepishly had to go to our neighbour's with a handful of cat toys, which turned out to be his."
Mr Edwards said things "escalated" after that...
"We've got some other neighbours who have young children and quite like the cat so [they] had encouraged him into the house.
"He started stealing things from them and it kind of went downhill from there." Luckily they think it's hilarious."
Ms Drouet said Theo was becoming a "bit of a neighbourhood celebrity for all the wrong reasons". "We live in hope that one day he'll bring back an iPad or something of significant value," she said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-22886852
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft how do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
The SNP got 1.7% in 2010 so there's something very odd in the sampling, probably the huge numbers of dont knows and refused to say's
UKIP vote splits 19% men, 9% women.
Excluding don't knows and refusers, Scottish voters are weighted up from 44 to 55. C1 voters are weighted up from 86 to 133 and C2 voters from 37 to 70. C1 voters give the SNP 9% and C2 voters 13% [see Table 3]. It is logically impossible for 13% of C2 voters to support the SNP, unless Salmond has advanced the Scottish border down towards York and been greeted by a multitude of grateful new Scottish citizens.
The weightings take 2010 SNP voters from 19 in the unweighted sample to 32 in the weighted sample, as well.
ICM have a great track record, but it looks like they are having increasing problems in finding a good sample, and so the weightings are doing erratic things. This is obvious in its effect on the shares of small parties - we saw a similar thing with Welsh voters for the BNP in last month's Guardian ICM poll - but it is really hard to tell whether it will affect the larger parties.
It will be easier to find a reasonable sample for the larger parties in an overall sense, but then it is the somewhat smaller slice of the electorate who are swing voters that produce the moves between the parties that we are interested in.
I also think that, from a statistical point of view, when you are applying weightings that more than double the weight given to one respondent compared to another respondent [eg a male Scottish C2 voter who will tell ICM that they voted for the SNP in GE2010], then it has a large effect on the "margin of error". The 2-3% rule of thumb for a sample of 1000 that we are used to is based on an ideal situation where the sample is completely random and unbiased...
"Best not have children until you've got some therapy for your years of drooling over one type of child abuse"
Remember that tim posts all day every day and edits messages as soon as he has posted them because when they first come out they might not be that "elegant".
My reading of the offending post is that it _could_ be taken to mean: if you are so worried about child abuse and see that it exists everywhere, when it does not, then it will mean that when you have children you will be unnecessarily worried about them.
Which is not calling you a child abuser or anything like it.
"drooling" is clumsy (as is the whole post) and I bet if tim hadn't been fighting his worthy battle on so many fronts he would have edited the post himself.
And of course he would rather eat his big toe than accept that your mis-reading of the post was just that, a mis-reading.
I think this site needs tim. He is often wrong and he is often unpleasant. However, he is does represent both a tone and a strand of opinion in this country. We wish it didn't exist, but it does.
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft who do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
The Miliband family (I am assuming all were involved) chose to vary their father's will in a way that optimised inheritance tax planning. That is totally fine - my mother's family did the same, although in their case it was to give more money to the youngest sibling because she was at a different stage of life (i.e. needed to buy a house) compared to the others.
It just means that it is hypocritical to aggressively attack people who use legal means to minimise their taxes.
I have no idea what proportion of Cameron's wealth was based on offshore tax havens - his father was a partner in Panmure Gordon for years, so would have generated plenty of cash from other activities as well. But either way, those are the actions of Cameron's father, not Cameron. As for the inheritance tax cut the objective was to take inheritance tax back to what it was meant to be: a tax on the extremely wealthy. At the moment - and I agree property prices are too high as a whole - it has become effectively a regional tax on the middle classes. Far better to make taxes targeted, simple, hard to avoid and at a low marginal level. No point in making lawyers and accountants rich finding clever ways around the rules.
Must admit, as a casual reader / poster, it seems to me Socrates dishes out just as much short stuff as Tim. The only difference is in the response. Tim returns with interest, Socrates runs to teacher.
I actually quite like reading their exchanges sometimes, imp of the perverse in me I suppose!
On topic, Mike is spot on here. Ashcroft must be tearing his hair out, because he knows he's right about Tory strategy, he's done the polling.
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft how do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
Mick no one is having a go at Ed Milliband through his father, they're having a go at Ed Milliband. No one could possibly have a go at Ralph Milliband as the Deed of Variation (that allowed the potential tax liability to be reduced) was signed some time after he died.
It doesn't seem fair to accuse Cameron and Osborne of hypocrisy over tax.
They are clearly in favour of tax avoidance by the well off, so they're doing nothing about it in Government.
And they're clearly in favour of lowering taxes for the super rich (like themselves), so they've given the super rich (like themselves) a tax cut in Government.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
Suggest you look up the meaning of hypocrite before you start using long words.
Given that Cameron fought an election campaign prioritising inheritance tax cuts for wealthy families such as his own, whose wealth was based on offshore tax havens,hypocrisy is fitting don't you think?
But AFAICR the 'rich' are paying more tax under this government than they did under Labour. (*) Taking one tax change in isolation is wrong.
You also ignore the two million lifted out of income tax by the coalition. Do you welcome that?
There are many problems with this discussion, for instance of definition. When they see the word 'rich' people see different things; is an income of £60,000 pa 'rich'? And lumping such people together with the elite group of super-rich does not tell a true story.
Many people will see the 'rich' as being those who earn more than them, even if others further down the income scale will see them as being 'rich'.
(*) I would be glad for someone to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
It doesn't seem fair to accuse Cameron and Osborne of hypocrisy over tax.
They are clearly in favour of tax avoidance by the well off, so they're doing nothing about it in Government.
And they're clearly in favour of lowering taxes for the super rich (like themselves), so they've given the super rich (like themselves) a tax cut in Government.
All very consistent.
They've done quite a lot on tax avoidance - in particular the introduction of the GAAP (i.e. substance over form look-through rules) and "sourcing" (I'm a little uncomfortable with this) data from Liechenstein of people with bank accounts there.
I'm not aware that Cameron is a 50% / 45% tax payer. Perhaps you have evidence that he is? Either way his tax rate is substantially higher than it was 5 years ago, so I don't think you can really claim that he is reducing taxes on the rich.
The Miliband family (I am assuming all were involved) chose to vary their father's will in a way that optimised inheritance tax planning.
Shall we also assume the Cameron family were involved in the father's will and that it too was 'optimised' for inheritance tax planning? After all tax 'optimisation' seems to have been a speciality of Cameron's father. Don't bring the family into it if you aren't comfortable with that same standard being applied across the board.
It's not just little Ed who aggressively attacked people who use legal means to minimise their taxes, as Jimmy Carr will testify. Though not of course Cammie's chum Gary Barlow for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with hypocrisy either.
Cameron ducks Gary Barlow tax avoidance question
Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.
It doesn't seem fair to accuse Cameron and Osborne of hypocrisy over tax.
They are clearly in favour of tax avoidance by the well off, so they're doing nothing about it in Government.
And they're clearly in favour of lowering taxes for the super rich (like themselves), so they've given the super rich (like themselves) a tax cut in Government.
All very consistent.
Highest rate of income tax under Labour 1997-2010 ; 40 % Highest rate of income tax under Coalitition ; 50 % or 45 %.
I think that tim is deliberately baiting me now I've said I wouldn't respond to him. But just to respond to some of the charges, as the moderators may be interested:
- 95% of the time it has been tim that has pointedly attacked me first. Some times I respond in kind but mostly I try to simply address the smears and point out that I think everyone should be treated as individuals, and that slurs against any group are unacceptable. - Today all I did was point out in a conversation about an aging society, that tim has an antipathy to the elderly, as demonstrated by slurs like "coffin dodgers" in the past. This post was not addressed at him in the manner his nasty insults often are at other posters. - Saying someone needs to get therapy before they have children because they "drool over child abuse" is far worse than anything I, or indeed, any poster on here has ever said in a serious manner.
There is nothing "clumsy" about his use of the term "drool". He has used it a number of times to me, to isam and to other posters. It was no accident that he involved it in a post saying I needed "therapy" or else I shouldn't have children. While I expect nastiness from him, even I was shocked he took it to this new low.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
You know, if we'd have put half as much time, investment and imagination into renewable technologies as we have into fossil fuel innovation, we might have been able to put a serious brake on climate change.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
"Deep in the Arctic Circle, in the Messoyakha gas field of western Siberia, lies a pioneer in methane hydrate extraction. Back in 1967, Russian engineers began pumping natural gas from beneath the permafrost and piping it east across the tundra to the Norilsk metal smelter, the biggest industrial enterprise in the Arctic. In 1978 they decided to wind down the operation. According to their surveys, they had sapped nearly all the methane from the deposit. But despite their estimates, the gas just kept on coming. The gas field was re-opened and continues to power Norilsk today.
Where was this methane coming from?
Russian geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite -- the mystery methane was seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above. If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of methane hydrate."
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft who do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
The Miliband family (I am assuming all were involved) chose to vary their father's will in a way that optimised inheritance tax planning.
Shall we also assume Cameron's family were involved in his father's will and that it too was 'optimised' for inheritance tax planning? AFter all tax 'optimisation' seems to have been a specialty of Cameron's father.
I's not just little Ed who aggressively attacked people who use legal means to minimise their taxes, as Jimmy Carr will testify. Though not of course Cammie's chum Gary Barlow for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with hypocrisy either.
Cameron ducks Gary Barlow tax avoidance question
Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.
No point in making lawyers and accountants rich finding clever ways around the rules.
Scarcely any point in making any rules at all then Charles going by that justification.
Cameron's father's will was entirely up to him. If Cameron used a Deed of Variation to alter things to improve the tax planning after his father's death then he would be open to the same charge of hypocrisy as Ed Miliband. If not, then he wouldn't be.
Ed Miliband and his brother went to court to change their father's will after his death. That is the difference.
Must admit, as a casual reader / poster, it seems to me Socrates dishes out just as much short stuff as Tim. The only difference is in the response. Tim returns with interest, Socrates runs to teacher.
When have I ever said anything close to someone "drooling" over child abuse? When have I ever got involved in any "dishing out" with anyone other than tim? How many other posters does tim get in spats with?
OT Just watching Behind the Candelabra and what a pity it was shown as a TV movie in the US so can't be Oscared. It's super - I'm still having trouble with Matt Damon as Liberace's pal - and Rob Lowe as a plastic surgeon...but that's not because their acting is poor - they're almost too real and so different from their normal roles.
Well worth watching. Michael Douglas reminds me of his role in One Night At McCool's with the big hair - now that is a cracking film that never got the credit it deserved.
Has anyone been on Question Time more often than Farage?
Dimbleby, just.
BBC Question Time Farage
05 Feb 2009 – Dunstable 28 May 2009 – London 08 Oct 2009 – Hull 25 Feb 2010 – Cardiff 15 Apr 2010 – London 22 July 2010 – Hartlepool 25 Nov 2010 – Maidstone 17 Feb 2011 – Barking 27 Oct 2011 – Winchester 23 Feb 2012 – Tunbridge Wells (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.) 26 Apr 2012 – Romford 25 Oct 2012 – Slough (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.) 15 Nov 2012 – Corby 17 Jan 2013 – Lincoln 28 Feb 2013- Eastleigh (Farage free; UKIP’s Neil Hamilton stands in.) 07 Mar 2013 – Dover (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.) 25 Apr 2013 – Worcester 30 May 2013 – London (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.) 13 Jun 2013 – Edinburgh
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
You know, if we'd have put half as much time, investment and imagination into renewable technologies as we have into fossil fuel innovation, we might have been able to put a serious brake on climate change.
Must admit, as a casual reader / poster, it seems to me Socrates dishes out just as much short stuff as Tim. The only difference is in the response. Tim returns with interest, Socrates runs to teacher.
When have I ever said anything close to someone "drooling" over child abuse? When have I ever got involved in any "dishing out" with anyone other than tim? How many other posters does tim get in spats with?
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft who do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
The Miliband family (I am assuming all were involved) chose to vary their father's will in a way that optimised inheritance tax planning.
Shall we also assume Cameron's family were involved in his father's will and that it too was 'optimised' for inheritance tax planning? AFter all tax 'optimisation' seems to have been a specialty of Cameron's father.
I's not just little Ed who aggressively attacked people who use legal means to minimise their taxes, as Jimmy Carr will testify. Though not of course Cammie's chum Gary Barlow for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with hypocrisy either.
Cameron ducks Gary Barlow tax avoidance question
Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.
No point in making lawyers and accountants rich finding clever ways around the rules.
Scarcely any point in making any rules at all then Charles going by that justification.
Cameron's father's will was entirely up to him.
Really? Yet you were so quick to assume the Miliband family were involved in the will of Miliband senior. Curious indeed.
If Cameron used a Deed of Variation to alter things to improve the tax planning after his father's death then he would be open to the same charge of hypocrisy as Ed Miliband. If not, then he wouldn't be.
Ed Miliband and his brother went to court to change their father's will after his death. That is the difference.
So your point of 'principle' is that because Cammie didn't need to change his fathers will then clearly little Ed is the only one guilty of hypocrisy in benefiting from tax 'optimisation' while railing against it, despite Cameron doing so as well. Cammie did not give all that money back to charity Charles and it's not as if he felt the need to attack or repudiate such 'optimisation' when he personally benefited from it.
Do we assume your real beef with little Ed is that he too has not given up that money after joining in with Cammie and Osbrowne in attacking tax avoidance?
"You spent two years relentlessly posting on child abuse solely when it was committed by one religious demographic who you are disturbingly obsessed by."
@Socrates - Part of the problem with tim is that there are loads of people on here who allow themselves to be wound up by him, so they rise to all his baits. There is a reason for the internet phrase "Do Not Feed The Trolls".
And when tim does post on something serious, that doesn't involve yanking on anyone's chain, pretty much no-one responds to him. He posted about the ICM data tables earlier today, but because he didn't say anything controversial I was the only person who responded to him.
Everyone can see what tim posts. We can all judge him on that basis. You can't force him to be reasonable, but I hope you could trust most of everyone else to correctly judge when he is making himself look like an idiot.
"You spent two years relentlessly posting on child abuse solely when it was committed by one religious demographic who you are disturbingly obsessed by."
Literally amazing.
What other case of child abuse has been committed solely by men of one religion against children solely of one colour?
It sounds as though some don't like the answer's from Lord Ashcroft's polling and are trying to shoot the messenger?
Given the amount of money Lord Ashcroft wasted on that pair of losers Cameron and Osborne before the election you can see why Lord A might be a ****** off can't you?
I remember when he made his dramatic 5am intervention on election night - You could tell he wasn't a happy bunny, LOL!
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
You know, if we'd have put half as much time, investment and imagination into renewable technologies as we have into fossil fuel innovation, we might have been able to put a serious brake on climate change.
Probably too late now, sadly.
But fossil fuels power our world at the moment, and therefore time and investment go into them because the infrastructure and knowledge is there. After all, we still need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. However a vast amount of investment is going into renewables, but sadly the efficacy of many of the renewable schemes is doubtful.
To put it simply: do you invest in a scheme that has potential but considerable downsides and risks, yet is poorly understood (e.g. wave or tidal power), or in something that has potential, less risks and is relatively well understood and fits well into our existing energy infrastructure (e.g. fracking)?
The cost of any of these schemes (whether conventional or renewable) should not be underestimated, and companies will invest where there is the best risk / reward trade-off. Governments can effect this using subsidies and tariffs, but at the end of the day the consumer will pay.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
"Deep in the Arctic Circle, in the Messoyakha gas field of western Siberia, lies a pioneer in methane hydrate extraction. Back in 1967, Russian engineers began pumping natural gas from beneath the permafrost and piping it east across the tundra to the Norilsk metal smelter, the biggest industrial enterprise in the Arctic. In 1978 they decided to wind down the operation. According to their surveys, they had sapped nearly all the methane from the deposit. But despite their estimates, the gas just kept on coming. The gas field was re-opened and continues to power Norilsk today.
Where was this methane coming from?
Russian geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite -- the mystery methane was seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above. If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of methane hydrate."
I've got a horrible feeling I'm going to be caught in the new thread trap but hear goes.
Methane hydrate (aka clathrates) are also physically unstable and will realign to water ice, releasing the trapped methane. My concern is that if there's a concerted effort to 'mine' the sea bed clathrates it could trigger a catastrophic collapse of the clathrate beds releasing huge quantities of methane in an uncontrolled manner directly into the atmosphere. I leave it to others to discuss the greenhouse impact this would have.
This was one of the subjects in the Sci Fi book Mother of Storms by John Barnes. I think I've mentioned this before.
Cameron to be deposed pre GE 2015 is 5/2 (lets say 25% really) May to be next Tory leader 5/1 (lets say 14.5%)
Doesnt that make her to be PM pre 2015 about 26.5/1? (0.25*0.145) =0.036
Unless there is another way she can be PM I reckon the 5/1 next Tory leader is better, and you could back the 5/2 Cameron out before 2015 as a hedge.. you might get both
"You spent two years relentlessly posting on child abuse solely when it was committed by one religious demographic who you are disturbingly obsessed by."
Literally amazing.
Indeed. I have linked to articles about abuse rings within the Catholic church, the BBC, at a Jewish religious school and, in the most recent one, by men of Irish descent at a B&B. The reason I do this is because I think child abuse is an appalling crime and we have had many, many failings in how our society has dealt with this issue and it needs more attention. For this someone tries to smear my reputation on here as someone that "drools over" child abuse and shouldn't have children. When I ask the moderators to intervene to stop such outrageous slander, the normal suspects on here say I'm just "running to teacher". I hate to think what these people were like to weaker students at school.
I have NEVER used any slur against Muslims or any other group. I have also said on many, many occasions that there are large numbers of decent, pluralist Muslims that I am glad to have as fellow Britons. I've also said that no group should ever be condemned as a whole as everyone should be treated as individuals on their individual merit. tim knows this full well, but still continues to allege I'm a racist, doing it most recently yesterday. Considering he regularly said negative things about one group as a whole, and then uses nasty slurs against them, this is the height of hypocrisy. As is the fact he thinks slurs that are "funny" or a "joke" make them ok. Imagine if a right wing poster joked about Sikhs being "ragheads". People would have no tolerance for it.
Perhaps what is irritating some on the left is that rightists are no longer automatically cowed by the charge of being a 'racist' or 'a bigot' (whether accurate or not). These tags are no longer the catch-all argument winners they once were.
Indeed, that is now far from the case. These terms only serve to deepen arguments, as we have clearly seen on the thread this morning.
@Socrates - Part of the problem with tim is that there are loads of people on here who allow themselves to be wound up by him, so they rise to all his baits. There is a reason for the internet phrase "Do Not Feed The Trolls".
And when tim does post on something serious, that doesn't involve yanking on anyone's chain, pretty much no-one responds to him. He posted about the ICM data tables earlier today, but because he didn't say anything controversial I was the only person who responded to him.
Everyone can see what tim posts. We can all judge him on that basis. You can't force him to be reasonable, but I hope you could trust most of everyone else to correctly judge when he is making himself look like an idiot.
On many occasions I have not been baited, and I have simply asked for the post to be deleted. However, when posters are accusing others of being of a paedophile persuasion, it's a new low. I can't say more about it as we're not allowed to talk about moderation.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
You know, if we'd have put half as much time, investment and imagination into renewable technologies as we have into fossil fuel innovation, we might have been able to put a serious brake on climate change.
Probably too late now, sadly.
But fossil fuels power our world at the moment, and therefore time and investment go into them because the infrastructure and knowledge is there. After all, we still need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. However a vast amount of investment is going into renewables, but sadly the efficacy of many of the renewable schemes is doubtful.
To put it simply: do you invest in a scheme that has potential but considerable downsides and risks, yet is poorly understood (e.g. wave or tidal power), or in something that has potential, less risks and is relatively well understood and fits well into our existing energy infrastructure (e.g. fracking)?
The cost of any of these schemes (whether conventional or renewable) should not be underestimated, and companies will invest where there is the best risk / reward trade-off. Governments can effect this using subsidies and tariffs, but at the end of the day the consumer will pay.
The problem, of course, is that the financial risk /cost to companies investing in fossil fuels does not fully reflect the huge risk / cost associated with climate change.
A classic economic case of externalities / market failure.
This is where the State should come in, to ensure that the risks / costs of climate change are borne by those taking market decisions. But Governments don't, because the nature of democracy leads to weak / short termist policy in areas like energy.
What's the answer? God knows. Probably to carry on burning carbon, wrecking the climate, and let our kids and grandkids deal with the (almost certainly) terrible consequences!
Perhaps what is irritating some on the left is that rightists are no longer automatically cowed by the charge of being a 'racist' or 'a bigot' (whether accurate or not). These tags are no longer the catch-all argument winners they once were.
Indeed, that is now far from the case. These terms only serve to deepen arguments, as we have clearly seen on the thread this morning.
The Left have been caught out re shouts of racism as their first response to everything they disapprove of. Now when one deploys it - its roundly derided for the silly name calling that it is.
Being called a paedo is probably the last and most vile accusation left - and what a gruesome tactic for anyone to make a crappy point on a message board. Some tried it on here with me over my concern for Savile's victims. I think that says everything about them.
Emily Gosden @emilygosden 9m Centrica confirms buying into Cuadrilla's Bowland shale: 25pc stake for £40m + £60m on drilling/fracking + potentially upto £60m development
For a big boy like Centrica to buy-in to shale, they must have had the nod from Government.
Seems like small change for a big stake.
Sunday Times had interesting article on the "next big thing" after fracking - methane hydrate - plentiful supply at bottom of sea. Greenies will hate it obviously...
"Methane hydrate, a substance with a sherbetlike consistency comprised of methane gas and water, is believed to exist in a wide area of the seabed surrounding the Japanese archipelago. According to one estimate, those deposits are sufficient to cover the nation’s consumption of natural gas for around 100 years, prompting speculation that they could be potentially invaluable for resource-poor Japan."
Methane hydrates are incredibly exciting. IIRC, there is one (semi-commercial) methane hydrate 'mine' in Russia.
You know, if we'd have put half as much time, investment and imagination into renewable technologies as we have into fossil fuel innovation, we might have been able to put a serious brake on climate change.
Probably too late now, sadly.
But fossil fuels power our world at the moment, and therefore time and investment go into them because the infrastructure and knowledge is there. After all, we still need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. However a vast amount of investment is going into renewables, but sadly the efficacy of many of the renewable schemes is doubtful.
To put it simply: do you invest in a scheme that has potential but considerable downsides and risks, yet is poorly understood (e.g. wave or tidal power), or in something that has potential, less risks and is relatively well understood and fits well into our existing energy infrastructure (e.g. fracking)?
The cost of any of these schemes (whether conventional or renewable) should not be underestimated, and companies will invest where there is the best risk / reward trade-off. Governments can effect this using subsidies and tariffs, but at the end of the day the consumer will pay.
The problem, of course, is that the financial risk /cost to companies investing in fossil fuels does not fully reflect the huge risk / cost associated with climate change.
A classic economic case of externalities / market failure.
This is where the State should come in, to ensure that the risks / costs of climate change are borne by those taking market decisions. But Governments don't, because the nature of democracy leads to weak / short termist policy in areas like energy.
What's the answer? God knows. Probably to carry on burning carbon, wrecking the climate, and let our kids and grandkids deal with the (almost certainly) terrible consequences!
That is not an 'of course'. It is a matter of faith on your part. The risks / costs of climate change are uncertain, especially when you add the word 'anthropogenic' into the term. Many environmentalists see mitigating the effects of climate change as being more sensible and less costly than trying to stop the change.
The risks and costs of climate change (and preventing it) will always land on the consumer, even in a perfect system. If something costs more to produce, then people will have to pay more for it or do without. And as a society we cannot do without energy, although we can reduce consumption a little.
Governments can try to reduce the profits that energy companies make, but that effects their risk/profit calculations on investment and can reduce investment.
At the end of the day, you and I pay whatever happens.
Comments
I'll wait to make any decisions until we see whether certain posters are still on here.
" Robertson's expenses claims included a television costing £1119, a £400 home cinema system, £500 for a bed, £20 for a corkscrew and £2324 for a sofa bed. "
Stand by for an @IpsosMORI poll in tonight's @standardnews with more bad news for Parliament's tattered image ... (1/2)
2/2) ...2/3 of us don't trust MPs to tell truth; And 52% think MPs put themselves before party, country or constituents, sez @IpsosMORI
I suppose Angus has at least managed that basic political achievement of being elected an MP. What did UKIP manage in the last Scottish vote, 0.28%? I'm sure the 16 and 17-year-olds of Scotland will be hanging on his every word.
BBC Question Time Farage
05 Feb 2009 – Dunstable
28 May 2009 – London
08 Oct 2009 – Hull
25 Feb 2010 – Cardiff
15 Apr 2010 – London
22 July 2010 – Hartlepool
25 Nov 2010 – Maidstone
17 Feb 2011 – Barking
27 Oct 2011 – Winchester
23 Feb 2012 – Tunbridge Wells (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.)
26 Apr 2012 – Romford
25 Oct 2012 – Slough (Farage free; UKIP’s Paul Nuttall stands in.)
15 Nov 2012 – Corby
17 Jan 2013 – Lincoln
28 Feb 2013- Eastleigh (Farage free; UKIP’s Neil Hamilton stands in.)
07 Mar 2013 – Dover (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.)
25 Apr 2013 – Worcester
30 May 2013 – London (Farage free; UKIP’s Diane James stands in.)
13 Jun 2013 – Edinburgh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes
Just having an internal consultation re:tim
New French poll out for next years Euro elections
"A new YouGov poll on the 2014 European elections puts France’s centre-right opposition UMP in the lead on 19%, far-right Front National on 18% and President François Hollande’s Socialist Party on 15%."
It doesn't make him a bad man. Just a hypocrite.
"A man has taken to Facebook to try and reunite items which his cat has stolen with their rightful owners. Theo, a three-year-old Siamese cross, has returned home with items including a phone charger, a hand puppet, a pen and a child's artwork.
Paul Edwards, who lives in Ipswich, says his neighbours are understanding. "We take photographs of things that Theo has brought home and put them up on Facebook, saying 'Excuse me, do any of you recognise these?'," he said.
Mr Edwards said he and his girlfriend Rachael Drouet started noticing cat toys around their house which they "didn't recognise".
Theo's roll of dishonour
Child's artwork
Condom
Crisp packets
End caps from guttering
Fluffy pen
Hand puppet
Muslin cloth
Other cats' toys
Phone charger
He said: "We would pick one up and say 'Did you buy this?' And we'd say 'No'. "We sheepishly had to go to our neighbour's with a handful of cat toys, which turned out to be his."
Mr Edwards said things "escalated" after that...
"We've got some other neighbours who have young children and quite like the cat so [they] had encouraged him into the house.
"He started stealing things from them and it kind of went downhill from there." Luckily they think it's hilarious."
Ms Drouet said Theo was becoming a "bit of a neighbourhood celebrity for all the wrong reasons". "We live in hope that one day he'll bring back an iPad or something of significant value," she said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-22886852
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
Suggest you look up the meaning of hypocrite before you start using long words.
So Mick, what was David Cameron's involvement in setting up these offshore funds?
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft how do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
Suggest you look up the meaning of hypocrite before you start using long words.
Calm down dear. I suggest you look up the word "petulant" before another hissy fit.
While you do so take a lesson from omnishambles Osbrowne.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI
If his own words and amusing raised eyebrows don't tell you that Osbrowne is a man to be trusted on matters of tax avoidance, then what will?
The weightings take 2010 SNP voters from 19 in the unweighted sample to 32 in the weighted sample, as well.
ICM have a great track record, but it looks like they are having increasing problems in finding a good sample, and so the weightings are doing erratic things. This is obvious in its effect on the shares of small parties - we saw a similar thing with Welsh voters for the BNP in last month's Guardian ICM poll - but it is really hard to tell whether it will affect the larger parties.
It will be easier to find a reasonable sample for the larger parties in an overall sense, but then it is the somewhat smaller slice of the electorate who are swing voters that produce the moves between the parties that we are interested in.
I also think that, from a statistical point of view, when you are applying weightings that more than double the weight given to one respondent compared to another respondent [eg a male Scottish C2 voter who will tell ICM that they voted for the SNP in GE2010], then it has a large effect on the "margin of error". The 2-3% rule of thumb for a sample of 1000 that we are used to is based on an ideal situation where the sample is completely random and unbiased...
"Best not have children until you've got some therapy for your years of drooling over one type of child abuse"
Remember that tim posts all day every day and edits messages as soon as he has posted them because when they first come out they might not be that "elegant".
My reading of the offending post is that it _could_ be taken to mean: if you are so worried about child abuse and see that it exists everywhere, when it does not, then it will mean that when you have children you will be unnecessarily worried about them.
Which is not calling you a child abuser or anything like it.
"drooling" is clumsy (as is the whole post) and I bet if tim hadn't been fighting his worthy battle on so many fronts he would have edited the post himself.
And of course he would rather eat his big toe than accept that your mis-reading of the post was just that, a mis-reading.
My $0.02.
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft who do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
The Miliband family (I am assuming all were involved) chose to vary their father's will in a way that optimised inheritance tax planning. That is totally fine - my mother's family did the same, although in their case it was to give more money to the youngest sibling because she was at a different stage of life (i.e. needed to buy a house) compared to the others.
It just means that it is hypocritical to aggressively attack people who use legal means to minimise their taxes.
I have no idea what proportion of Cameron's wealth was based on offshore tax havens - his father was a partner in Panmure Gordon for years, so would have generated plenty of cash from other activities as well. But either way, those are the actions of Cameron's father, not Cameron. As for the inheritance tax cut the objective was to take inheritance tax back to what it was meant to be: a tax on the extremely wealthy. At the moment - and I agree property prices are too high as a whole - it has become effectively a regional tax on the middle classes. Far better to make taxes targeted, simple, hard to avoid and at a low marginal level. No point in making lawyers and accountants rich finding clever ways around the rules.
Must admit, as a casual reader / poster, it seems to me Socrates dishes out just as much short stuff as Tim. The only difference is in the response. Tim returns with interest, Socrates runs to teacher.
I actually quite like reading their exchanges sometimes, imp of the perverse in me I suppose!
On topic, Mike is spot on here. Ashcroft must be tearing his hair out, because he knows he's right about Tory strategy, he's done the polling.
No need to get upset. I think we all understand that PB tories going after little Ed through his fathers financial affairs is fine while Cammie's fathers financial affairs cannot possibly be questioned.
Though since this thread is about Lord Ashcroft how do you suppose he feels about Cammie clamping down on tax havens? (and failing) Fully behind him I would hope.
Mick no one is having a go at Ed Milliband through his father, they're having a go at Ed Milliband. No one could possibly have a go at Ralph Milliband as the Deed of Variation (that allowed the potential tax liability to be reduced) was signed some time after he died.
I'm sure you can see the difference now.
They are clearly in favour of tax avoidance by the well off, so they're doing nothing about it in Government.
And they're clearly in favour of lowering taxes for the super rich (like themselves), so they've given the super rich (like themselves) a tax cut in Government.
All very consistent.
Given that Cameron fought an election campaign prioritising inheritance tax cuts for wealthy families such as his own, whose wealth was based on offshore tax havens,hypocrisy is fitting don't you think?
But AFAICR the 'rich' are paying more tax under this government than they did under Labour. (*) Taking one tax change in isolation is wrong.
You also ignore the two million lifted out of income tax by the coalition. Do you welcome that?
There are many problems with this discussion, for instance of definition. When they see the word 'rich' people see different things; is an income of £60,000 pa 'rich'? And lumping such people together with the elite group of super-rich does not tell a true story.
Many people will see the 'rich' as being those who earn more than them, even if others further down the income scale will see them as being 'rich'.
(*) I would be glad for someone to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I'm not aware that Cameron is a 50% / 45% tax payer. Perhaps you have evidence that he is? Either way his tax rate is substantially higher than it was 5 years ago, so I don't think you can really claim that he is reducing taxes on the rich.
It's not just little Ed who aggressively attacked people who use legal means to minimise their taxes, as Jimmy Carr will testify. Though not of course Cammie's chum Gary Barlow for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with hypocrisy either. Scarcely any point in making any rules at all then Charles going by that justification.
Highest rate of income tax under Labour 1997-2010 ; 40 %
Highest rate of income tax under Coalitition ; 50 % or 45 %.
- 95% of the time it has been tim that has pointedly attacked me first. Some times I respond in kind but mostly I try to simply address the smears and point out that I think everyone should be treated as individuals, and that slurs against any group are unacceptable.
- Today all I did was point out in a conversation about an aging society, that tim has an antipathy to the elderly, as demonstrated by slurs like "coffin dodgers" in the past. This post was not addressed at him in the manner his nasty insults often are at other posters.
- Saying someone needs to get therapy before they have children because they "drool over child abuse" is far worse than anything I, or indeed, any poster on here has ever said in a serious manner.
@TOPPING
There is nothing "clumsy" about his use of the term "drool". He has used it a number of times to me, to isam and to other posters. It was no accident that he involved it in a post saying I needed "therapy" or else I shouldn't have children. While I expect nastiness from him, even I was shocked he took it to this new low.
Probably too late now, sadly.
Where was this methane coming from?
Russian geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite -- the mystery methane was seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above. If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of methane hydrate."
Shall we also assume Cameron's family were involved in his father's will and that it too was 'optimised' for inheritance tax planning? AFter all tax 'optimisation' seems to have been a specialty of Cameron's father.
I's not just little Ed who aggressively attacked people who use legal means to minimise their taxes, as Jimmy Carr will testify. Though not of course Cammie's chum Gary Barlow for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with hypocrisy either. Scarcely any point in making any rules at all then Charles going by that justification.
Cameron's father's will was entirely up to him. If Cameron used a Deed of Variation to alter things to improve the tax planning after his father's death then he would be open to the same charge of hypocrisy as Ed Miliband. If not, then he wouldn't be.
Ed Miliband and his brother went to court to change their father's will after his death. That is the difference.
Canadian PM Stephen Harper just reminded us that you can't borrow your way out of a debt crisis. Looked at Ed M directly as he said it.
PM Stephen Harper tells Cameron "You can't borrow your way out of debt". Ed Miliband shifts in his seat uncomfortably
Well worth watching. Michael Douglas reminds me of his role in One Night At McCool's with the big hair - now that is a cracking film that never got the credit it deserved.
*EDIT no you didnt!
Isnt a bit weird to have a list of all the times someone has been on Question Time including some times that he wasnt?
No more comments
Cameron's father's will was entirely up to him.
Really? Yet you were so quick to assume the Miliband family were involved in the will of Miliband senior. Curious indeed.
If Cameron used a Deed of Variation to alter things to improve the tax planning after his father's death then he would be open to the same charge of hypocrisy as Ed Miliband. If not, then he wouldn't be.
Ed Miliband and his brother went to court to change their father's will after his death. That is the difference.
So your point of 'principle' is that because Cammie didn't need to change his fathers will then clearly little Ed is the only one guilty of hypocrisy in benefiting from tax 'optimisation' while railing against it, despite Cameron doing so as well. Cammie did not give all that money back to charity Charles and it's not as if he felt the need to attack or repudiate such 'optimisation' when he personally benefited from it.
Do we assume your real beef with little Ed is that he too has not given up that money after joining in with Cammie and Osbrowne in attacking tax avoidance?
Literally amazing.
And when tim does post on something serious, that doesn't involve yanking on anyone's chain, pretty much no-one responds to him. He posted about the ICM data tables earlier today, but because he didn't say anything controversial I was the only person who responded to him.
Everyone can see what tim posts. We can all judge him on that basis. You can't force him to be reasonable, but I hope you could trust most of everyone else to correctly judge when he is making himself look like an idiot.
I ruled that this subject was now closed. To go on posting here please follow what is said. Your comment has been deleted - Mike Smithson'
The treatment of the old woman appears to be poor, but the NHS is a sacred cow, not to be criticised.
Given the amount of money Lord Ashcroft wasted on that pair of losers Cameron and Osborne before the election you can see why Lord A might be a ****** off can't you?
I remember when he made his dramatic 5am intervention on election night - You could tell he wasn't a happy bunny, LOL!
To put it simply: do you invest in a scheme that has potential but considerable downsides and risks, yet is poorly understood (e.g. wave or tidal power), or in something that has potential, less risks and is relatively well understood and fits well into our existing energy infrastructure (e.g. fracking)?
The cost of any of these schemes (whether conventional or renewable) should not be underestimated, and companies will invest where there is the best risk / reward trade-off. Governments can effect this using subsidies and tariffs, but at the end of the day the consumer will pay.
Methane hydrate (aka clathrates) are also physically unstable and will realign to water ice, releasing the trapped methane. My concern is that if there's a concerted effort to 'mine' the sea bed clathrates it could trigger a catastrophic collapse of the clathrate beds releasing huge quantities of methane in an uncontrolled manner directly into the atmosphere. I leave it to others to discuss the greenhouse impact this would have.
This was one of the subjects in the Sci Fi book Mother of Storms by John Barnes. I think I've mentioned this before.
May to be next Tory leader 5/1 (lets say 14.5%)
Doesnt that make her to be PM pre 2015 about 26.5/1? (0.25*0.145) =0.036
Unless there is another way she can be PM I reckon the 5/1 next Tory leader is better, and you could back the 5/2 Cameron out before 2015 as a hedge.. you might get both
No need to get shirty with me.
I have NEVER used any slur against Muslims or any other group. I have also said on many, many occasions that there are large numbers of decent, pluralist Muslims that I am glad to have as fellow Britons. I've also said that no group should ever be condemned as a whole as everyone should be treated as individuals on their individual merit. tim knows this full well, but still continues to allege I'm a racist, doing it most recently yesterday. Considering he regularly said negative things about one group as a whole, and then uses nasty slurs against them, this is the height of hypocrisy. As is the fact he thinks slurs that are "funny" or a "joke" make them ok. Imagine if a right wing poster joked about Sikhs being "ragheads". People would have no tolerance for it.
Indeed, that is now far from the case. These terms only serve to deepen arguments, as we have clearly seen on the thread this morning.
A classic economic case of externalities / market failure.
This is where the State should come in, to ensure that the risks / costs of climate change are borne by those taking market decisions. But Governments don't, because the nature of democracy leads to weak / short termist policy in areas like energy.
What's the answer? God knows. Probably to carry on burning carbon, wrecking the climate, and let our kids and grandkids deal with the (almost certainly) terrible consequences!
@PBModerator can you let me know the outcome of your decision via private message?
The answer is to tax a given type of pollution in proportion to its harm to the environment, and get out of the business of subsidies.
Being called a paedo is probably the last and most vile accusation left - and what a gruesome tactic for anyone to make a crappy point on a message board. Some tried it on here with me over my concern for Savile's victims. I think that says everything about them.
The risks and costs of climate change (and preventing it) will always land on the consumer, even in a perfect system. If something costs more to produce, then people will have to pay more for it or do without. And as a society we cannot do without energy, although we can reduce consumption a little.
Governments can try to reduce the profits that energy companies make, but that effects their risk/profit calculations on investment and can reduce investment.
At the end of the day, you and I pay whatever happens.