ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
I've just been having a little surf about re a totally trivial subject - and something struck me, when was the last time anyone of us searched the interwebs and couldn't find what we wanted? [bar video clips that have been removed for copyright violations]
I had a quick look to see how big Wikipedia is now and its over 4.25m pages in English - my trivial search query was idle curiosity ... I thought I noticed an actor from Supernatural in CSI NY so checked IMDb, and someone had gone to the effort of writing a synopsis of the episode and linked it to every cast member's profile.
The time and trouble many take is really incredible. I confess to having written quite a few reviews myself and the odd wiki contribution - but the scale of what's on the web today is staggering.
And to think we used to have door to door encyclopaedia salesmen as recently as the early 90s...in fact when the X-Files was first on TV.
Precedence would determine Philip II just as William IV eventually followed the joint reign of Dutch William III and English Mary II.
I'm pretty certain James I was known as James I & VI, not just James VI.
Similarly you had James II, albeit briefly.
What's the precedent for using the higher regnal number?
Yes - but the Act of Union changed that - tho in true British fashion there has been muddle & fudge:
After the realms were united with the Acts of Union 1707, separate numbers were not needed for the next five monarchs: Anne and the four Georges. However, when William IV acceded in 1830, he was not called William III in Scotland. (George Croly pointed out in 1830 the new king was William I, II, III, and IV: of Hanover, Ireland, Scotland, and England respectively.) Nor were Edward VII and Edward VIII known as Edward I and Edward II (or possibly II and III, if one counts the disputed reign of Edward Balliol) of Scotland. These kings all followed the numbering consistent with the English sequence of sovereigns (which, incidentally, was also the higher of the two numbers in all occurring cases). This was not without controversy in Scotland, however; for example, Edward VII's regnal number was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the established Church of Scotland, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle". The issue arose again with the accession of the current monarch, Elizabeth II, as Scotland has never before had a regnant Queen Elizabeth, the previous queen of that name having been queen of England only. In order to avoid controversy, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Robert would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Robert to reign in England. Many residents of Scotland were either unaware of or unhappy with this convention upon the accession of the present monarch in 1952, and made their feelings known. Objections were raised, and sustained, to the use of the Royal Cypher EIIR anywhere in Scotland, resulting in several violent incidents, including the destruction of one of the first new EIIR pillar boxes in Scotland, at Leith in late 1952. Since that time, the cipher used in Scotland on all government and Crown property and street furniture has carried no lettering, but simply the Crown of Scotland from the Honours of Scotland. A court case, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style “Elizabeth II” within Scotland, was lost in 1953.
I've just been having a little surf about re a totally trivial subject - and something struck me, when was the last time anyone of us searched the interwebs and couldn't find what we wanted? [bar video clips that have been removed for copyright violations]
I had a quick look to see how big Wikipedia is now and its over 4.25m pages in English - my trivial search query was idle curiosity ... I thought I noticed an actor from Supernatural in CSI NY so checked IMDb, and someone had gone to the effort of writing a synopsis of the episode and linked it to every cast member's profile.
The time and trouble many take is really incredible. I confess to having written quite a few reviews myself and the odd wiki contribution - but the scale of what's on the web today is staggering.
And to think we used to have door to door encyclopaedia salesmen as recently as the early 90s...in fact when the X-Files was first on TV.
And that's just the surface web (the deep web is a scary place I'm glad I've never been).
Probably the best tactic is to wait until around the day of birth and hang around in the nearest bookies to wait for some opportunistic insider to nip down.
Precedence would determine Philip II just as William IV eventually followed the joint reign of Dutch William III and English Mary II.
I'm pretty certain James I was known as James I & VI, not just James VI.
Similarly you had James II, albeit briefly.
What's the precedent for using the higher regnal number?
Yes - but the Act of Union changed that - tho in true British fashion there has been muddle & fudge:
After the realms were united with the Acts of Union 1707, separate numbers were not needed for the next five monarchs: Anne and the four Georges. However, when William IV acceded in 1830, he was not called William III in Scotland. (George Croly pointed out in 1830 the new king was William I, II, III, and IV: of Hanover, Ireland, Scotland, and England respectively.) Nor were Edward VII and Edward VIII known as Edward I and Edward II (or possibly II and III, if one counts the disputed reign of Edward Balliol) of Scotland. These kings all followed the numbering consistent with the English sequence of sovereigns (which, incidentally, was also the higher of the two numbers in all occurring cases). This was not without controversy in Scotland, however; for example, Edward VII's regnal number was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the established Church of Scotland, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle". The issue arose again with the accession of the current monarch, Elizabeth II, as Scotland has never before had a regnant Queen Elizabeth, the previous queen of that name having been queen of England only. In order to avoid controversy, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Robert would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Robert to reign in England. Many residents of Scotland were either unaware of or unhappy with this convention upon the accession of the present monarch in 1952, and made their feelings known. Objections were raised, and sustained, to the use of the Royal Cypher EIIR anywhere in Scotland, resulting in several violent incidents, including the destruction of one of the first new EIIR pillar boxes in Scotland, at Leith in late 1952. Since that time, the cipher used in Scotland on all government and Crown property and street furniture has carried no lettering, but simply the Crown of Scotland from the Honours of Scotland. A court case, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style “Elizabeth II” within Scotland, was lost in 1953.
So a convention that was invented as a sop to people who were upset with QEII being used in Scotland? Doesn't feel particularly binding on future behaviour.
I've just been having a little surf about re a totally trivial subject - and something struck me, when was the last time anyone of us searched the interwebs and couldn't find what we wanted? [bar video clips that have been removed for copyright violations]
I had a quick look to see how big Wikipedia is now and its over 4.25m pages in English - my trivial search query was idle curiosity ... I thought I noticed an actor from Supernatural in CSI NY so checked IMDb, and someone had gone to the effort of writing a synopsis of the episode and linked it to every cast member's profile.
The time and trouble many take is really incredible. I confess to having written quite a few reviews myself and the odd wiki contribution - but the scale of what's on the web today is staggering.
And to think we used to have door to door encyclopaedia salesmen as recently as the early 90s...in fact when the X-Files was first on TV.
And that's just the surface web (the deep web is a scary place I'm glad I've never been).
The most amazing thing I ever watched on teh interwebs was a negotiation between three credit card fraudsters who were auctioning off cards/security code generator algorithms in batches of 100s at a time. It was part of a pitch from a company that specialised in stamping out such things for the banks and it was fascinating viewing.
ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.
You do realise Osborne is spending more than Labour did don't you?
Labour's all over the place on the economy. It takes a certain kind of ineptitude to make Osborne look good, but the two Eds are succeeding with loads of room to spare.
Lions get an 8 point lead and then lose their discipline. The Aussies are going to win this if we're not careful. Self-inflicted wounds. So frustrating.
ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.
You do realise Osborne is spending more than Labour did don't you?
Labour's all over the place on the economy. It takes a certain kind of ineptitude to make Osborne look good, but the two Eds are succeeding with loads of room to spare.
The polling says George is uniquely toxic.
No they don't, they say Balls and Osborne are both toxic and their parties should replace them.
Has Balls private polling ever been revealed as to why people dislike him ?
Lions Labour get an 8 point lead and then lose their discipline. The Aussies Tories are going to win this if we're not careful. Self-inflicted wounds. So frustrating.
ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.
You do realise Osborne is spending more than Labour did don't you?
Labour's all over the place on the economy. It takes a certain kind of ineptitude to make Osborne look good, but the two Eds are succeeding with loads of room to spare.
The polling says George is uniquely toxic.
No they don't, they say Balls and Osborne are both toxic and their parties should replace them.
Has Balls private polling ever been revealed as to why people dislike him ?
Balls has a 3 pont lead over Osborne among all voters and a 31 point lead among th 2010 Lib Dems.
George Osborne is uniquely toxic.
Don't be ridiculous tim. Both Balls and Osborne have held the crown for " I've trodden in better " over the last two years, occasionally they swap. Neither however has held a position where the bulk of voters rate them, both are toxic.
ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.
You do realise Osborne is spending more than Labour did don't you?
Labour's all over the place on the economy. It takes a certain kind of ineptitude to make Osborne look good, but the two Eds are succeeding with loads of room to spare.
The polling says George is uniquely toxic.
No they don't, they say Balls and Osborne are both toxic and their parties should replace them.
Has Balls private polling ever been revealed as to why people dislike him ?
Balls has a 3 pont lead over Osborne among all voters and a 31 point lead among th 2010 Lib Dems.
George Osborne is uniquely toxic.
Don't be ridiculous tim. Both Balls and Osborne have held the crown for " I've trodden in better " over the last two years, occasionally they swap. Neither however has held a position where the bulk of voters rate them, both are toxic.
A few million up or down on borrowing is neither here nor there. George should have been as ridiculed for claiming borrowing was falling as those who now claim it is rising.
The reality is, as I said at the time, that George took 2 years off deficit reduction in the 2012 budget. He did that because the international outlook, particularly in the EZ, was truly awful and it is very likely that had he not we would have ended up with a depression rather than flatlining. That flatline has kept a lot of people in jobs and houses that otherwise would have lost them.
Having put off the evil day, however, he now needs to proceed with deficit reduction in the run up to an election. This is somewhat unusual politics to put it mildly, as I have been pointing out since his first budget in 2010 when I moaned about cuts being end loaded. Unfortunately the state of the economy, both our own and internationally has given George few options.
The temptation to further defer the pain will be great. Whether he will or not will give us a very good indication as to how the Treasury really thinks growth is going to turn out this year. If we are heading for nearer 1.5% we will see the cuts being discussed. If anything less there will be some easing, probably with some additional capital spending through Vince's department to keep him onside and to leave Labour nowhere to go.
If its clear - its Supermoon night - it was pretty impressive last night and very bright down here
The so-called "supermoon" occurs when the Moon reaches its closest point to earth, known as a perigee full moon.
The effect is to make the Moon seem 30% bigger and 14% brighter than when it is furthest from the planet.
Skywatchers who miss the phenomenon this weekend because of cloudy skies will have to wait until August 2014 for the next one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23013393
ED Miliband will today admit he CANNOT promise to reverse George Osborne’s new £11.5billion cuts.
The Labour leader will warn unions and party activists they have to accept the “hard reality” there is no money left.
The dramatic declaration is Mr Miliband’s latest bid to rebuild Labour’s shattered credibility on the economy.
But he risks a furious backlash from the party’s union paymasters — who have vowed to fight Coalition cutbacks.
Mr Miliband’s speech to Labour’s policy-making body comes as the Chancellor prepares to unveil cuts of £11.5billion in his spending review.
The Opposition leader will say: “We cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue.
“So when George Osborne stands up next week and announces his cuts, we won’t be able to promise to reverse them. It’s a hard reality. But I am clear about it and everyone in the Labour Party should be clear about it.”
Earlier this month Mr Miliband dropped his opposition to the Coalition’s £83billion cuts over the past three years.
Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.
You do realise Osborne is spending more than Labour did don't you?
Labour's all over the place on the economy. It takes a certain kind of ineptitude to make Osborne look good, but the two Eds are succeeding with loads of room to spare.
The polling says George is uniquely toxic.
No they don't, they say Balls and Osborne are both toxic and their parties should replace them.
Has Balls private polling ever been revealed as to why people dislike him ?
Balls has a 3 pont lead over Osborne among all voters and a 31 point lead among th 2010 Lib Dems.
George Osborne is uniquely toxic.
Don't be ridiculous tim. Both Balls and Osborne have held the crown for " I've trodden in better " over the last two years, occasionally they swap. Neither however has held a position where the bulk of voters rate them, both are toxic.
Osborne is Chancellor,making loads of tough decisions with a difficult economic background. Understandable that he's pretty unpopular. Balls should be riding high with the public just by saying no to everything. The fact that he's considered a total berk by those same voters says a lot.
Unfortunately for Labour, come 2015 he will be out there reminding everyone he was Brown's bitch, plus he's a gibbering idiot when put under pressure.
Ed/Labour in 2015 = Wallabies last kick of the game...!
Thank God. The Lions got hugely lucky there. They need to up their game massively. From eight points up they just stopped playing. The Aussies have to be favourites for next week.
You underestimated the Aussie's ability to screw things up, something we will hopefully see a lot of this summer.
I am not a sufficient expert on the rules of rugby which seem amazingly complex but the number of penalties awarded to Australia seemed remarkable. Was this simply a reflection of their pressure or was the ref playing a homie?
You underestimated the Aussie's ability to screw things up, something we will hopefully see a lot of this summer.
I am not a sufficient expert on the rules of rugby which seem amazingly complex but the number of penalties awarded to Australia seemed remarkable. Was this simply a reflection of their pressure or was the ref playing a homie?
He was a southern hemisphere ref, but not a homie. The Lions lacked a lot of discipline and made so many unforced errors. So did the Australians to be fair. But they have not played for a while so it's more understandable. I think the Lions will be disappointed with the performance, but to get the result is everything. If they'd lost today it would have almost certainly been series over.
They are the LAWS of the game, not rules. I did not see the match but generally speaking the side with the momentum gets penalties because a side defending and under pressure inevitably does something in contravention of the laws.
Osbornes plan fell apart long before the omnishambles budget,
Ed hasn't even got a plan - except to follow Osborne.
bizarre.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
In 2012, while the media got excited about pasties, he changed course and basically stopped the downward pressure on UK aggregate demand. We are now starting to see some benefits from that in terms of growth but the deficit has remained higher.
The real story of our economy continues to be hidden by bizarre and dishonest political positioning and a media who are incredibly reluctant to come to terms with how serious the situation was and is. None of the parties are innocent in this.
@tim You need to think opportunity cost, not absolute. Saying the Chancellor lags the Tory party is the wrong comparison - the comparison is with some alternative Chancellor - or it you think it's both the man and the plan, then with a different Chancellor pursuing a different policy. Either way, the polling doesn't make that comparison.
They are the LAWS of the game, not rules. I did not see the match but generally speaking the side with the momentum gets penalties because a side defending and under pressure inevitably does something in contravention of the laws.
You are quite right and I have shown the extent of my ignorance. My rugby watching is generally restricted to the 6 nations and the world cup. There were a lot of moans on the BBC website but it was not clear if they were from people like me or people who knew what they were talking about.
I hope we keep adam J and Alex C in mothballs this week. For a Kiwi, the ref wasn't too bad.
Got to feel sorry for the Aussie kicker, though. No one deserves that.
The Aussies were heroic and they have some sensational backs. I don't really feel sorry for the kicker. He had a chance and blew it. He's a great player though. Agree about J and C.
Osbornes plan fell apart long before the omnishambles budget,
Ed hasn't even got a plan - except to follow Osborne.
bizarre.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
In 2012, while the media got excited about pasties, he changed course and basically stopped the downward pressure on UK aggregate demand. We are now starting to see some benefits from that in terms of growth but the deficit has remained higher.
The real story of our economy continues to be hidden by bizarre and dishonest political positioning and a media who are incredibly reluctant to come to terms with how serious the situation was and is. None of the parties are innocent in this.
Osborne by the end of 2010 was as aware as anyone else that the EZ was in trouble. He responded by crossing his fingers and hoping the problem would go away. A sensible chancellor would have put some domestic measures in place to counter act the headwinds.
"You are quite right and I have shown the extent of my ignorance"
I played for years and never knew the laws of the game (I was a forward so thinking wasn't obligatory). The ref will soon put you straight, so you play to his interpretation.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
That's a pretty basic flaw. Economies can't all have export-led recoveries at the same time, and it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
I know you've been keeping an eye on murder stats for a couple of years now - do you know of a listing re what they died from? I assume some org keeps a cause of death register but I haven't tripped over it so far.
I know you've been keeping an eye on murder stats for a couple of years now - do you know of a listing re what they died from? I assume some org keeps a cause of death register but I haven't tripped over it so far.
Nonsense, Mike! You know full well that AGW caused the end of the last Ice Age c. 15,000 years ago, when our cave-man ancestors first experimented with large-scale power stations and internal combustion engines!
I know you've been keeping an eye on murder stats for a couple of years now - do you know of a listing re what they died from? I assume some org keeps a cause of death register but I haven't tripped over it so far.
A limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a global 'nuclear winter', triggering a famine that would last ten years, and killing up to a billion people worldwide -
"So, we’re in a terrible situation. People don’t realize that the use of nuclear weapons is still the greatest danger that the planet faces. And we have to solve this problem so that we can have the luxury of worrying about global warming – which is also a problem."
A limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a global 'nuclear winter', triggering a famine that would last ten years, and killing up to a billion people worldwide -
"So, we’re in a terrible situation. People don’t realize that the use of nuclear weapons is still the greatest danger that the planet faces. And we have to solve this problem so that we can have the luxury of worrying about global warming – which is also a problem."
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
That's a pretty basic flaw. Economies can't all have export-led recoveries at the same time, and it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
The net trade of all countries should be zero. In fact it usually isn't because of failures of recording and illegal money flows but it should be near enough.
In 2010 several countries were running very large surpluses, in our neck of the wood Germany. The pressure should have been on them to increase their domestic demand.
The idea that Osborne with a £160bn deficit and a substantial trade deficit with the worst composite debt situation (public +private) in the world and a banking system on the edge of collapse should have been doing more to stimulate demand in the UK is strictly for the birds. There are many things Osborne might be criticised for (especially with the benefit fo hindsight) but that is certainly not one of them.
I had a small punt on the referendum happening this year as there will be a referendum on abolishing the Senate anyway but it will surely happen next year. Who wants to canvass in Donegal North East?
Anyhow Paddy Power still have a 2014 referendum at 8/5 so fill your boots... (ok, it's Paddy Power so they will be small boots). (It's not a risk free bet as the referendum may not happen next year but it certainly looks like obscene value.)
I had a small punt on the referendum happening this year as there will be a referendum on abolishing the Senate anyway but it will surely happen next year. Who wants to canvass in Donegal North East?
Anyhow Paddy Power still have a 2014 referendum at 8/5 so fill your boots... (ok, it's Paddy Power so they will be small boots). (It's not a risk free bet as the referendum may not happen next year but it certainly looks like obscene value.)
Referendums on Divorce, and now referendums on Marriage?
Miliband trawls history to show that Labour can take tough decisions. Have his speech writers not yet managed joined up whiting, as they prove that they are mere small fry, who should know their plaice. Once again it is a load of codswallop, or should I just say pollocks.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
That's a pretty basic flaw. Economies can't all have export-led recoveries at the same time, and it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
The net trade of all countries should be zero. In fact it usually isn't because of failures of recording and illegal money flows but it should be near enough.
In 2010 several countries were running very large surpluses, in our neck of the wood Germany. The pressure should have been on them to increase their domestic demand.
The idea that Osborne with a £160bn deficit and a substantial trade deficit with the worst composite debt situation (public +private) in the world and a banking system on the edge of collapse should have been doing more to stimulate demand in the UK is strictly for the birds. There are many things Osborne might be criticised for (especially with the benefit fo hindsight) but that is certainly not one of them.
Edmund is correct on trying to export when the market's depressed. Instead of exports we should have been concentrating on import substitution to offset depressed markets ( indeed we still should be taking this path ) . This would have created employment and reduced the trade deficit. Likewise some more spending on infrastructure and housing where the demand is purely domestic would have helped.
Miliband trawls history to show that Labour can take tough decisions. Have his speech writers not yet managed joined up whiting, as they prove that they are mere small fry, who should know their plaice. Once again it is a load of codswallop, or should I just say pollocks.
A limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a global 'nuclear winter', triggering a famine that would last ten years, and killing up to a billion people worldwide -
"So, we’re in a terrible situation. People don’t realize that the use of nuclear weapons is still the greatest danger that the planet faces. And we have to solve this problem so that we can have the luxury of worrying about global warming – which is also a problem."
And people say we should renew Trident because we need a national status symbol. Crazy. Absolutely bloody insane.
IANAE, but that story (and it is a story) seems rather unlikely from a technical viewpoint.
India has 90-100 nuclear warhead, at a maximum of 20-60 kt (1). Not all warheads will be available for use at the same time, as some will be undergoing deep maintenance; delivery mechanisms are also a problem for both sides.
Pakistan has 110-120 warheads, of 25-40kt. (2)
India has tested a hydrogen bomb, but it is unknown if the technology is in a deliverable state; the 1998 test was possibly a dud.
There are lots of uncertainties in this: the yields are estimates from tests, but it is unlikely they will have massively larger weapons available without either side having successfully tested them.
I'm not sure that this is enough to cause a nuclear winter, even under 'ideal' conditions. Compare with the tests done in the 1950s and 1960s around the world. Whilst some of these would have been underground tests, many would have had much larger yields than the weapons believed to be in India or Pakistan's hands. (4) They would also have been more distributed in terms of time and location.
All in all, I doubt either country has enough usable weapons to trigger a nuclear winter.
However, it may have other undesirable effects on the atmosphere: see (3).
Whatever, it would not be good. A much more balanced and realistic article is from the Economist at (5). But they'll probably rue the day they printed that ...
Miliband trawls history to show that Labour can take tough decisions. Have his speech writers not yet managed joined up whiting, as they prove that they are mere small fry, who should know their plaice. Once again it is a load of codswallop, or should I just say pollocks.
It's parr for the course that modern Labour are clueless, the party lost its sole under Blair.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
That's a pretty basic flaw. Economies can't all have export-led recoveries at the same time, and it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
The net trade of all countries should be zero. In fact it usually isn't because of failures of recording and illegal money flows but it should be near enough.
In 2010 several countries were running very large surpluses, in our neck of the wood Germany. The pressure should have been on them to increase their domestic demand.
The idea that Osborne with a £160bn deficit and a substantial trade deficit with the worst composite debt situation (public +private) in the world and a banking system on the edge of collapse should have been doing more to stimulate demand in the UK is strictly for the birds. There are many things Osborne might be criticised for (especially with the benefit fo hindsight) but that is certainly not one of them.
Emund is correct on trying to export when the market's depressed. Instead of exports we should have been concentrating on import substitution to offset depressed markets ( indeed we still should be taking this path ) . This would have created employment and reduced the trade deficit. Likewise some more spending on infrastructure and housing where the demand is purely domestic would have helped.
And how exactly was the government to encourage this import substitution, other than adopting a monetary policy which kept the pound weak, back ending the cuts so that domestic demand did not collapse and keeping interest rates at a record low, all of which they did?
We are bound by a series of trade laws, principally through the EU but also through the WTO. The government is not in a position to subsidise manufacturing here even if it had the money to do so. I think you are blaming Osborne for things well beyond his control.
Again with the benefit of hindsight there were clearly some errors. He should not have kept Darling's huge cuts in capital spending, especially when he was largely winding up PFI at the same time. The consequences for construction were severe and are only starting to fade now.
Mistakes were made in respect of North sea oil taxation. It was not appreciated how marginal these fields were. These have since been corrected but they had significant consequences.
Increasing benefits at the full rate of inflation at a time when real wages were falling was a serious and expensive mistake. Not doing that might have released some capital for the first point.
Cable has been given too much influence and has been far too slow in sorting out our banking sector. The lack of credit for SMEs has been a major problem and government policy did not do enough about it.
Our energy policy under the last government was incredibly disastrous. With the help of Lib Dems committed to green costs not nearly enough has been done to make our energy costs competitive. This has certainly not helped import substitution.
Unlike Avery I am a long way from an apologist for this government. But I do think Osborne got the big picture macro position pretty much bang on in a situation where getting it wrong was easier. For all the mistakes he is due a lot of credit for that.
Miliband trawls history to show that Labour can take tough decisions. Have his speech writers not yet managed joined up whiting, as they prove that they are mere small fry, who should know their plaice. Once again it is a load of codswallop, or should I just say pollocks.
It's parr for the course that modern Labour are clueless, the party lost its sole under Blair.
Its just parr for the course, or a load of scallops, but Tony knew that he had enough muscle to secured his plaice in history.
"Whatever, it would not be good. A much more balanced and realistic article is from the Economist at (5). But they'll probably rue the day they printed that ..."
They certainly will if they helped lull people into a false sense of security with catastrophic consequences. Being the victim of a global famine probably would count as "ruing the day", even for the supposedly flame-proof editor of the Economist.
As for the limitations on India and Pakistan's arsenals, the article makes clear that 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons on each side would be sufficient to produce the effect.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
That's a pretty basic flaw. Economies can't all have export-led recoveries at the same time, and it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
The net trade of all countries should be zero. In fact it usually isn't because of failures of recording and illegal money flows but it should be near enough.
In 2010 several countries were running very large surpluses, in our neck of the wood Germany. The pressure should have been on them to increase their domestic demand.
The idea that Osborne with a £160bn deficit and a substantial trade deficit with the worst composite debt situation (public +private) in the world and a banking system on the edge of collapse should have been doing more to stimulate demand in the UK is strictly for the birds. There are many things Osborne might be criticised for (especially with the benefit fo hindsight) but that is certainly not one of them.
Emund is correct on trying to export when the market's depressed. Instead of exports we should have been concentrating on import substitution to offset depressed markets ( indeed we still should be taking this path ) . This would have created employment and reduced the trade deficit. Likewise some more spending on infrastructure and housing where the demand is purely domestic would have helped.
And how exactly was the government to encourage this import substitution, other than adopting a monetary policy which kept the pound weak, back ending the cuts so that domestic demand did not collapse and keeping interest rates at a record low, all of which they did?
We are bound by a series of trade laws, principally through the EU but also through the WTO. The government is not in a position to subsidise manufacturing here even if it had the money to do so. I think you are blaming Osborne for things well beyond his control.
Again with the benefit of hindsight there were clearly some errors. He should not have kept Darling's huge cuts in capital spending, especially when he was largely winding up PFI at the same time. The consequences for construction were severe and are only starting to fade now.
Mistakes were made in respect of North sea oil taxation. It was not appreciated how marginal these fields were. These have since been corrected but they had significant consequences.
Increasing benefits at the full rate of inflation at a time when real wages were falling was a serious and expensive mistake. Not doing that might have released some capital for the first point.
Cable has been given too much influence and has been far too slow in sorting out our banking sector. The lack of credit for SMEs has been a major problem and government policy did not do enough about it.
Our energy policy under the last government was incredibly disastrous. With the help of Lib Dems committed to green costs not nearly enough has been done to make our energy costs competitive. This has certainly not helped import substitution.
Unlike Avery I am a long way from an apologist for this government. But I do think Osborne got the big picture macro position pretty much bang on in a situation where getting it wrong was easier. For all the mistakes he is due a lot of credit for that.
You could start by changing capital allowances to make manufacturing more competitive in this country and encourage investment in new capacity, that the corporate sector is cash rich is also a happy coincidence. Then reduce energy taxes to make many of the products which we madly off-shored in the noughties profitable in this country again.
We then have a BiS department whose role is to get industry moving in this country, they should be looking at structural weaknesses in our BoP and getting suppliers of the products set up and selling through our retailers, by encouraging local sourcing, simplifying regulation and if necessary mounting trade fairs. It's a damned sight simpler to sell at home than it is overseas, yet we send our BiS chaps to far-off places where growing the market will take 10 years not 10 months. And as for the we're bound by agreements nonsense, all the other major economies seem to be able to manage the rules quite adequately.
None of this is results over night stuff but they are all issues this country is going to have to tackle and which will bring better results faster than the path GO has chosen to take.
Osborne's central plan was based on squeezing domestic demand but for this to be compensated for by exports/import substitution on the back of the massive Darling devaluation. Had this been achieved the economy would be in a much, much healthier state.
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
... it was pretty obvious by the time the government came into office that things weren't going to be wonderful in the Eurozone for a while.
Simply untrue. You only need to consult the OECD Economic Outlook No 87 published in May-June 2010 to see that the consensus view at the time was that government intervention spurred recovery of 2009-10 would persist.
Here is a relevant extract from the report on the Eurozone as a whole:
GDP growth is projected to strengthen over the coming quarters as exports benefit from the rebound in world trade. Consumption is also likely to pick up further, aided by higher financial wealth, stabilisation of house prices and low real interest rates, though being offset somewhat by the weakness in the labour market and deleveraging by highly indebted households. Investment is likely to recover only gradually in the coming quarters, held back by remaining excess capacity, continued credit constraints and weak growth prospects. As more robust world growth boosts exports and financial conditions improve further, private non– residential investment should start to make a more substantial contribution to the overall recovery. However, in some countries the process may be held back by overcapacity in structurally weak industries.
At the time most forecasters were deceived by Germany's bounceback from the 2008-9 crisis on the back (mainly) of manufacturing exports to China. Germany's GDP was growing at 4.02% in 2010
It is a matter of great irony that the Eurozone was forecast to grow faster over the 2010-2014. period than the UK Today the positions have reversed with the UK expected to grow 5.54% in this period and the Eurozone 3.33%. Morevover, recent trends have been to revise up the UK's forecasts for growth and to revise down the Eurozone,
This is the reason George is laughing and looking smug. It was he who got it right against the forecasters. We can argue forever whether this was luck or skill but we can't argue with the actual figures.
"Whatever, it would not be good. A much more balanced and realistic article is from the Economist at (5). But they'll probably rue the day they printed that ..."
They certainly will if they helped lull people into a false sense of security with catastrophic consequences. Being the victim of a global famine probably would count as "ruing the day", even for the supposedly flame-proof editor of the Economist.
As for the limitations on India and Pakistan's arsenals, the article makes clear that 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons on each side would be sufficient to produce the effect.
I'd rather take the Economist's view on this over yours, sorry, especially as the story is based on the evidence of one scientist. He may be right, but there are hardly a great deal of links to other material within. (For more info, see (1))
As for the 'article': as ever, look at the source. Your hated of the Economist is well-known; sadly, your source is far more biased towards one conclusion.
My scepticism radar is bleeping at this.
If you are worried that people being lulled into a false sense of security is a danger, then are you also worried about the dangers of alarmist stories, for instance MMR?
It is great to be here in Birmingham. Labour Birmingham. Where we took control of the council over a year ago and are already making a difference. Including with policies like a living wage.
Who writes this nonsense -
Its great to be here in.........insert City name.
Labour....insert City name here - check it matches the one in the space above. We have been in control of this council of ....making a difference with policies like....insert flavour of the month...
Went to Aldi this morning, guess how much assistant managers and managers earn there...
Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience.
The Greens' highest share was 62.15% in Warwick/Leamington Brunswick, and their lowest 1.10% in Allerdale/Maryport South. The party polled more than 20% in 66 divisions/wards:
"If you are worried that people being lulled into a false sense of security is a danger, then are you also worried about the dangers of alarmist stories, for instance MMR?"
I think BSE is a far better example than MMR. How many years were we told that those were just "scare stories" that had passed into wacko history? The scare stories were right, and the precautionary principle should have prevailed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience."
AndyJS - Interesting, I was a Tory candidate in Leamington Brunswick in 2003 in my final year at Warwick Uni, although Labour held the seat I held off the LDs during their Iraq War boost and am sure I beat the Greens, they must have had quite a boost since then there!
"If you are worried that people being lulled into a false sense of security is a danger, then are you also worried about the dangers of alarmist stories, for instance MMR?"
I think BSE is a far better example than MMR. How many years were we told that those were just "scare stories" that had passed into wacko history? The scare stories were right, and the precautionary principle should have prevailed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But surely by the precautionary principle should have also applied to MMR? Or have stopped people living under power lines as they might cause cancer. Or stopped the LHC from operating as it might have caused the end of the universe.
You can't just cherry-pick the occasions when the scare stories were right, because mostly they are wrong.
If man took 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' as a mantra then we would never have any progress as nothing can ever be proved 100% safe before it is tried.
A limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a global 'nuclear winter', triggering a famine that would last ten years, and killing up to a billion people worldwide -
"So, we’re in a terrible situation. People don’t realize that the use of nuclear weapons is still the greatest danger that the planet faces. And we have to solve this problem so that we can have the luxury of worrying about global warming – which is also a problem."
And people say we should renew Trident because we need a national status symbol. Crazy. Absolutely bloody insane.
IANAE, but that story (and it is a story) seems rather unlikely from a technical viewpoint.
So India's total arsenal (assuming all the weapons all at maximum yield - which is unlikely as once it starts the chances of all of them being set off must be vanishingly small) is 6MT, and Pakistan's 5MT. - a total of 11MT
The USA's largest weapon test was 15MT, the USSR's 50MT, the UK's 3MT, France's 2.6 MT and China's 3.3MT.
The Mount Tabora explosion which led to one 'volcanic winter' in 1816 was equivalent to 800 MT.....
.....so I think it would be fair to say I share your scepticism......
Miliband trawls history to show that Labour can take tough decisions. Have his speech writers not yet managed joined up whiting, as they prove that they are mere small fry, who should know their plaice. Once again it is a load of codswallop, or should I just say pollocks.
Joined up whiting ? Is it a policy to make people white ?
Went to Aldi this morning, guess how much assistant managers and managers earn there...
Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience.
Aldi go with a limited range of high quality products sold cheaply. You won't have to go through a dozen brands of baked beans, there will be own brand in a couple of varieties and that's it. But the food they sell is to the same standard as Germany, Black Forest Ham at 99p for 8 slices is cracking value - and stands up well to most other supermarkets and major food brands. When I shop there it's ususally 20% cheaper than at the big supermarkets.
Went to Aldi this morning, guess how much assistant managers and managers earn there...
Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience.
It's ridiculously cheap, and I don't really notice the difference from when I shop at Waitrose. Not as much choice as some other supermarkets, but you probably half your shopping bill.
Toro Loco Tempranillo red wine at £3.70 beat off other wines at almost ten times the price in the supermarket awards.
Fruit and veg is almost half Waitrose price.
I've even got the cat eating their pet food! And he won't touch whiskas!
Even the label snobs I know are customers
The ad for the managers job is offering £45k after training... Sounds good dough for a local job
"Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience."
"So India's total arsenal (assuming all the weapons all at maximum yield - which is unlikely as once it starts the chances of all of them being set off must be vanishingly small) is 6MT, and Pakistan's 5MT. - a total of 11MT
The USA's largest weapon test was 15MT, the USSR's 50MT, the UK's 3MT, France's 2.6 MT and China's 3.3MT."
All points covered in the article. It's not just about yield, otherwise atmospheric testing in the early years of the Cold War would already have caused a nuclear winter. It's about what happens to the target cities after they are bombed.
As for the limitations on India and Pakistan's arsenals, the article makes clear that 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons on each side would be sufficient to produce the effect.
Then why was that effect not produced during testing of much greater explosive force?
50 Hiroshima sized weapons is not even a megaton...heck, we even set of an atom bomb that big in our efforts to impress the Americans.....
"So India's total arsenal (assuming all the weapons all at maximum yield - which is unlikely as once it starts the chances of all of them being set off must be vanishingly small) is 6MT, and Pakistan's 5MT. - a total of 11MT
The USA's largest weapon test was 15MT, the USSR's 50MT, the UK's 3MT, France's 2.6 MT and China's 3.3MT."
All points covered in the article. It's not just about yield, otherwise atmospheric testing in the early years of the Cold War would already have caused a nuclear winter. It's about what happens to the target cities after they are bombed.
Comments
I had a quick look to see how big Wikipedia is now and its over 4.25m pages in English - my trivial search query was idle curiosity ... I thought I noticed an actor from Supernatural in CSI NY so checked IMDb, and someone had gone to the effort of writing a synopsis of the episode and linked it to every cast member's profile.
The time and trouble many take is really incredible. I confess to having written quite a few reviews myself and the odd wiki contribution - but the scale of what's on the web today is staggering.
And to think we used to have door to door encyclopaedia salesmen as recently as the early 90s...in fact when the X-Files was first on TV.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFBfdXVyTFluc1JaVUpYaWhjZEZNWkE#gid=0
Slash and burn George, slash and burn: don't forget to salt the ground...
http://news.sky.com/story/1106942/jan-ullrich-tour-de-france-winner-admits-doping
Story of Captain’s courage resurfaces after 98 years
Captain John Bell was hailed a hero when he faced down the might of a German U-boat by ramming it with his tiny, unarmed cargo ship, becoming the first to sink such a vessel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10134954/Story-of-Captains-courage-resurfaces-after-98-years.html
Phillip could be a runner I think if Prince Phillip becomes ill again soon. Albert perhaps?.Samuel is a lovely name at a humongous 80/1!!!
If its a girl, Alberta?
Kate's grandfather who died just as they got engaged was Peter? I just had a tenner at 250/1 on betfair
George is what I'd back though.
So a convention that was invented as a sop to people who were upset with QEII being used in Scotland? Doesn't feel particularly binding on future behaviour.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE9jMmxSbFRSZzNCbzJscUtMVWJDb3c#gid=0
'Not a lot of point to a labour government then.... If they cant spend like a drunken sailor.'
The audience in Birmingham agrees as Ed u-turn struggles to get any applause.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1331686/Kate-Middleton-Story-woman-gave-looks-family-wealth.html
Backed Peter at 250s and 50s
Olive at 66s
Valerie at 66s
Can't get prices on Edith, Dorothy or Constance
Has Balls private polling ever been revealed as to why people dislike him ?
very unlikely choices.
Nephthys for a girl?
Didn't I read somewhere, (everywhere?), that these bloody Wallabies would be a walkover...?
The reality is, as I said at the time, that George took 2 years off deficit reduction in the 2012 budget. He did that because the international outlook, particularly in the EZ, was truly awful and it is very likely that had he not we would have ended up with a depression rather than flatlining. That flatline has kept a lot of people in jobs and houses that otherwise would have lost them.
Having put off the evil day, however, he now needs to proceed with deficit reduction in the run up to an election. This is somewhat unusual politics to put it mildly, as I have been pointing out since his first budget in 2010 when I moaned about cuts being end loaded. Unfortunately the state of the economy, both our own and internationally has given George few options.
The temptation to further defer the pain will be great. Whether he will or not will give us a very good indication as to how the Treasury really thinks growth is going to turn out this year. If we are heading for nearer 1.5% we will see the cuts being discussed. If anything less there will be some easing, probably with some additional capital spending through Vince's department to keep him onside and to leave Labour nowhere to go.
The so-called "supermoon" occurs when the Moon reaches its closest point to earth, known as a perigee full moon.
The effect is to make the Moon seem 30% bigger and 14% brighter than when it is furthest from the planet.
Skywatchers who miss the phenomenon this weekend because of cloudy skies will have to wait until August 2014 for the next one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23013393
Unfortunately for Labour, come 2015 he will be out there reminding everyone he was Brown's bitch, plus he's a gibbering idiot when put under pressure.
Ed/Labour in 2015 = Wallabies last kick of the game...!
I am not a sufficient expert on the rules of rugby which seem amazingly complex but the number of penalties awarded to Australia seemed remarkable. Was this simply a reflection of their pressure or was the ref playing a homie?
bizarre.
Pedant alert
They are the LAWS of the game, not rules. I did not see the match but generally speaking the side with the momentum gets penalties because a side defending and under pressure inevitably does something in contravention of the laws.
Dave and George followed Darlings spending commitments in 2010
Unfortunately with nearly 50% of our exports going to the EZ and their determination to keep pressing on that self destruct button that has not happened resulting in very low growth and no increase in aggregate demand.
In 2012, while the media got excited about pasties, he changed course and basically stopped the downward pressure on UK aggregate demand. We are now starting to see some benefits from that in terms of growth but the deficit has remained higher.
The real story of our economy continues to be hidden by bizarre and dishonest political positioning and a media who are incredibly reluctant to come to terms with how serious the situation was and is. None of the parties are innocent in this.
I hope we keep adam J and Alex C in mothballs this week. For a Kiwi, the ref wasn't too bad.
Got to feel sorry for the Aussie kicker, though. No one deserves that.
And what ?
What?
"You are quite right and I have shown the extent of my ignorance"
I played for years and never knew the laws of the game (I was a forward so thinking wasn't obligatory). The ref will soon put you straight, so you play to his interpretation.
Time to ditch Balls and get someone in who can credibly sing from the same sheet.
With a credible shadow chancellor, I may come around to Milliband as PM.
He blew it on the penultimate kick. He slipped on the last kick and that was unlucky.
I know you've been keeping an eye on murder stats for a couple of years now - do you know of a listing re what they died from? I assume some org keeps a cause of death register but I haven't tripped over it so far.
Many thanks in advance if you can help.
Here is another article on the Global Warming schtick:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351762/global-warming-assumes-room-temperature-cont-mark-steyn
"Appendix tables"
"Table 2.04: Offences currently recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing and sex of victim, 2001/02 to 2011/12"
Might be to your liking.
EDIT Crikey - Table 1 in the Bulletin download is fascinating - it compares CoD by ethic grouping and the variance is marked.
"So, we’re in a terrible situation. People don’t realize that the use of nuclear weapons is still the greatest danger that the planet faces. And we have to solve this problem so that we can have the luxury of worrying about global warming – which is also a problem."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=477
And people say we should renew Trident because we need a national status symbol. Crazy. Absolutely bloody insane.
In 2010 several countries were running very large surpluses, in our neck of the wood Germany. The pressure should have been on them to increase their domestic demand.
The idea that Osborne with a £160bn deficit and a substantial trade deficit with the worst composite debt situation (public +private) in the world and a banking system on the edge of collapse should have been doing more to stimulate demand in the UK is strictly for the birds. There are many things Osborne might be criticised for (especially with the benefit fo hindsight) but that is certainly not one of them.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum-on-gay-marriage-to-be-held-in-2014-29364000.html
I had a small punt on the referendum happening this year as there will be a referendum on abolishing the Senate anyway but it will surely happen next year. Who wants to canvass in Donegal North East?
Anyhow Paddy Power still have a 2014 referendum at 8/5 so fill your boots... (ok, it's Paddy Power so they will be small boots). (It's not a risk free bet as the referendum may not happen next year but it certainly looks like obscene value.)
Ed Miliband's speech can be summarised very simply: 'Tough on sardines tough on and the causes of sardines.' #sameoldLabour #fishyonspending
India has 90-100 nuclear warhead, at a maximum of 20-60 kt (1). Not all warheads will be available for use at the same time, as some will be undergoing deep maintenance; delivery mechanisms are also a problem for both sides.
Pakistan has 110-120 warheads, of 25-40kt. (2)
India has tested a hydrogen bomb, but it is unknown if the technology is in a deliverable state; the 1998 test was possibly a dud.
There are lots of uncertainties in this: the yields are estimates from tests, but it is unlikely they will have massively larger weapons available without either side having successfully tested them.
I'm not sure that this is enough to cause a nuclear winter, even under 'ideal' conditions. Compare with the tests done in the 1950s and 1960s around the world. Whilst some of these would have been underground tests, many would have had much larger yields than the weapons believed to be in India or Pakistan's hands. (4) They would also have been more distributed in terms of time and location.
All in all, I doubt either country has enough usable weapons to trigger a nuclear winter.
However, it may have other undesirable effects on the atmosphere: see (3).
Whatever, it would not be good. A much more balanced and realistic article is from the Economist at (5). But they'll probably rue the day they printed that ...
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
(2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
(3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Ozone_depletion
(4): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing#Nuclear_testing_by_country
(5): http://www.economist.com/node/1153356
We are bound by a series of trade laws, principally through the EU but also through the WTO. The government is not in a position to subsidise manufacturing here even if it had the money to do so. I think you are blaming Osborne for things well beyond his control.
Again with the benefit of hindsight there were clearly some errors. He should not have kept Darling's huge cuts in capital spending, especially when he was largely winding up PFI at the same time. The consequences for construction were severe and are only starting to fade now.
Mistakes were made in respect of North sea oil taxation. It was not appreciated how marginal these fields were. These have since been corrected but they had significant consequences.
Increasing benefits at the full rate of inflation at a time when real wages were falling was a serious and expensive mistake. Not doing that might have released some capital for the first point.
Cable has been given too much influence and has been far too slow in sorting out our banking sector. The lack of credit for SMEs has been a major problem and government policy did not do enough about it.
Our energy policy under the last government was incredibly disastrous. With the help of Lib Dems committed to green costs not nearly enough has been done to make our energy costs competitive. This has certainly not helped import substitution.
Unlike Avery I am a long way from an apologist for this government. But I do think Osborne got the big picture macro position pretty much bang on in a situation where getting it wrong was easier. For all the mistakes he is due a lot of credit for that.
http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
They certainly will if they helped lull people into a false sense of security with catastrophic consequences. Being the victim of a global famine probably would count as "ruing the day", even for the supposedly flame-proof editor of the Economist.
As for the limitations on India and Pakistan's arsenals, the article makes clear that 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons on each side would be sufficient to produce the effect.
We then have a BiS department whose role is to get industry moving in this country, they should be looking at structural weaknesses in our BoP and getting suppliers of the products set up and selling through our retailers, by encouraging local sourcing, simplifying regulation and if necessary mounting trade fairs. It's a damned sight simpler to sell at home than it is overseas, yet we send our BiS chaps to far-off places where growing the market will take 10 years not 10 months. And as for the we're bound by agreements nonsense, all the other major economies seem to be able to manage the rules quite adequately.
None of this is results over night stuff but they are all issues this country is going to have to tackle and which will bring better results faster than the path GO has chosen to take.
Cardiff North: Mari Williams
http://mariwilliamslabour.wordpress.com/
South Basildon & East Thurrock: Mike Le Surf
http://mikelesurf.blogspot.it/
Calder Valley: Joshua Fenton-Glynn
http://www.joshforcaldervalley.org.uk/
Birmingham Yardley: Jess Phillips
http://www.jessphillips.org
Bury North: James Frith
http://www.james4burynorth.com/
Here is a relevant extract from the report on the Eurozone as a whole:
GDP growth is projected to strengthen over the coming quarters as exports benefit from the rebound in world trade. Consumption is also likely to pick up further, aided by higher financial wealth, stabilisation of house prices and low real interest rates, though being offset somewhat by the weakness in the labour market and deleveraging by highly indebted households. Investment is likely to recover only gradually in the coming quarters, held back by remaining excess capacity, continued credit constraints and weak growth prospects. As more robust world growth boosts exports and financial conditions improve further, private non– residential investment should start to make a more substantial contribution to the overall recovery. However, in some countries the process may be held back by overcapacity in structurally weak industries.
At the time most forecasters were deceived by Germany's bounceback from the 2008-9 crisis on the back (mainly) of manufacturing exports to China. Germany's GDP was growing at 4.02% in 2010
It is a matter of great irony that the Eurozone was forecast to grow faster over the 2010-2014. period than the UK Today the positions have reversed with the UK expected to grow 5.54% in this period and the Eurozone 3.33%. Morevover, recent trends have been to revise up the UK's forecasts for growth and to revise down the Eurozone,
This is the reason George is laughing and looking smug. It was he who got it right against the forecasters. We can argue forever whether this was luck or skill but we can't argue with the actual figures.
As for the 'article': as ever, look at the source. Your hated of the Economist is well-known; sadly, your source is far more biased towards one conclusion.
My scepticism radar is bleeping at this.
If you are worried that people being lulled into a false sense of security is a danger, then are you also worried about the dangers of alarmist stories, for instance MMR?
(1): http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
Labour Birmingham.
Where we took control of the council over a year ago and are already making a difference.
Including with policies like a living wage.
Who writes this nonsense -
Its great to be here in.........insert City name.
Labour....insert City name here - check it matches the one in the space above.
We have been in control of this council of ....making a difference with policies like....insert flavour of the month...
I'd rather take the view of a climate expert over the Economist's, and most certainly over yours. Sorry.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGFuUHZONEplQzhFVGtkYkIzQ1dWZmc#gid=0
I think BSE is a far better example than MMR. How many years were we told that those were just "scare stories" that had passed into wacko history? The scare stories were right, and the precautionary principle should have prevailed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
They sell Ribena.
You can't just cherry-pick the occasions when the scare stories were right, because mostly they are wrong.
If man took 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' as a mantra then we would never have any progress as nothing can ever be proved 100% safe before it is tried.
The USA's largest weapon test was 15MT, the USSR's 50MT, the UK's 3MT, France's 2.6 MT and China's 3.3MT.
The Mount Tabora explosion which led to one 'volcanic winter' in 1816 was equivalent to 800 MT.....
.....so I think it would be fair to say I share your scepticism......
Absolutely, at least until the evidence in the other direction became overwhelming, which eventually it did.
Toro Loco Tempranillo red wine at £3.70 beat off other wines at almost ten times the price in the supermarket awards.
Fruit and veg is almost half Waitrose price.
I've even got the cat eating their pet food! And he won't touch whiskas!
Even the label snobs I know are customers
The ad for the managers job is offering £45k after training... Sounds good dough for a local job
"Hasn't Aldi just won Supermarket of the Year again? Some of my friends rave about the quality vs cost. I don't have one locally but would be interested in hearing about shoppers experience."
Replies on a slow boat to China please...
The USA's largest weapon test was 15MT, the USSR's 50MT, the UK's 3MT, France's 2.6 MT and China's 3.3MT."
All points covered in the article. It's not just about yield, otherwise atmospheric testing in the early years of the Cold War would already have caused a nuclear winter. It's about what happens to the target cities after they are bombed.
50 Hiroshima sized weapons is not even a megaton...heck, we even set of an atom bomb that big in our efforts to impress the Americans.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2334996/Aldi-tops-taste-test-Budget-chains-hams-tea-cakes-beat-M-S-Harrods.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149036/It-s-corker-Red-wine-costing-3-59-sold-Aldi-scoops-international-award.html
Because cities were not destroyed by the tests, Carlotta. Apologies to everyone else for having to repeat myself.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE#gid=0