'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
In relation to people assuming GO weill be next Tory leader, it has to be remembered his political capital is about as high as it has ever been right now, to the point that his potential to succeed Cameron has been more widely talked of outside of a joke for the first time by many pundits and people, so it's still fresh and new. Whether his chances even rise to the probable is up for debate, but right now he's looking good, we shall see about a year from now.
School children should take a 'Life in the UK' test to ensure they have the same understanding of British values as immigrants, Labour's Tristram Hunt said today.
The shadow education secretary called for a 'proper National baccalaureate qualification' in which all pupils are tested on British history and values before leaving school.
He said because immigrants are required to take a UK citizenship test so should British school children.
Is the Life in the UK test really meaningful anyway? I did a test quiz once and there was one question along the lines of 'Which of the following is not a British value?' with the answers being tolerance, democracy, freedom of speech, and extremism.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Because the deficit was getting smaller every year in 1997, and was on course to disappear. You went into surplus following Tory spending plans, remember?
Oh, and even Cameron has saidm including his conference speech in 2010, that Labour did not wholly cause the crash. Tories may have implied Labour should get all the blame, rather than most of the blame (a more reasonable accusation, if one that of course Labour are free to counter), but I do not believe they as a strategy claimed such a thing, precisely because it is nonsense to suggest they were responsible for a global crash, when arguing they made it worse here in the face of that crash is easier.
If anything, it was a Labour strategy from some quarters to portray any criticism of their record as ridiculous as they 'didn't cause a global crash' which is dangerous for their prospects, as they are making a defence against an argument implied but not made, and it enables comfort thinking in that the evil tories fooled people, yeah, that was it, rather than addressing that people did believe the Tories left things in a poor state, even if globally things were bad too.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We don't really encourage sensible eating, we encourage a grossly simplistic approach to nutrition and a politically correct diet that really stems from the corporate takeover of the FDA in the US in the 20th century. That is what's making people ill, and why levels of intolerances, allergies, cancer and other chronic diseases are through the roof.
Our answer to obesity is to put people on a calorie restricted diet, but all this generally does is get them eating more fractionated, skeletonised, processed foods, feeling hungrier, get an unsatisfactory fat loss result, fall off the wagon, and go back to being obese.
What people should be doing is eating more butter, cultured or raw dairy, soaked sprouted or sour leven grains, and organic meats, and fermented vegetables, and less to zero processed sugar, pasteurised dairy and fruit juices, processed carbohydrates, and unsoaked grains. As our ancestors did, and they weren't fat. Obesity is a symptom of our poor health, not a cause of it.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I do think that people who have never really monitored their diets struggle with an overload of information. A simple focus on avoiding eating large amounts of fat and sugar is a good start for them. If they struggle with doing that, they will then be motivated to finding out more nuances.
Whilst I agree with the principal of avoiding too much fat and sugar, in practice that isn't all that easy.
"Diet" and fat-free foods marketed as healthy and specifically for dieting are stuffed full of sugar. They take the fat out and replace with sugar, which makes the food worse for you, but sold as a healthy alternative.
It's criminal, it really is.
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Because the deficit was getting smaller every year in 1997, and was on course to disappear. You went into surplus following Tory spending plans, remember?
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Hodges on Miliband
Inevitably, you are correct.
The metaphor "flogging a dead horse" seems unusually apt on this occasion.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Nicholas Soames on Adam Afriyie?
Or is it me on Mark Reckless?
TSE, It's far too polite to be you on Mark Reckless.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
I don't, at least not so serious as to cause genuine problems. Their government will tell them they won a grand victory over the arrogant creditors, and the EU it seems will act as though they have reluctantly bowed to the wishes of the Greek people, and enough people will be satisified at being told how they stuck one to the EU and co to care if they actually have done it or not.
I think that's right. People struggle to follow the details (hell, even the leaders struggle to follow them) and go by the general feeling - the sense is that Tsipras bargained hard against overwhelming odds and has extracted some some of deal that evil Germans aren't happy with. In looking at the reactions, it's important to identify who is commenting. The Syriza MPs look generally loyal except for the ultras, the opposition are supportive in a we-told-you-so way. In Germany, the criticisms is mostly coming from senior FDP people (and the FDP is a marginal force nowhere near government) and middle-ranking MPs (who will probably mostly do what they're told in the end).
Whether Greek support will persist when the cuts bite is another question. But I don't think anyone can afford to turn the deal down now.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Because the deficit was getting smaller every year in 1997, and was on course to disappear. You went into surplus following Tory spending plans, remember?
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
That's simply not true. 2003 to 2007 all had bigger deficits than in 1996. Even with you arbitrarily cherry-picking by removing recession years and post-recession years from Labour's term, and including them for the Tories' term.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Nicholas Soames on Adam Afriyie?
Or is it me on Mark Reckless?
TSE, It's far too polite to be you on Mark Reckless.
One of my proudest moments as Guest editor was to write a thread header that included the following phrase
On Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Because the deficit was getting smaller every year in 1997, and was on course to disappear. You went into surplus following Tory spending plans, remember?
The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
You are just deflecting the issue. People below have pointed out that the global crash is not the issue, it is the state of Govt finances when entering the crash. But it is good that Labour carry on in this way for the fortunes of the Conservatives. Perhaps you might reflect on "We have abolished boom and bust". A stupid claim, from a fiscally stupid man, who thought there was a link between what the UK Govt did and the economic cycle.....
I'd say Nikki Haley (Governor of South Carolina) is a very decent bet for the GOP VP pick now. She's handled the confederate flag controversy well and would gender and ethnic diversity to the ticket.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
There is partisan argument to be had here about who (and to a debatable extent, which external forces) caused the recovery/flatlining and how solid that recovery was, but I'm not going to comment on that.
QE DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT. QE IS NOT "GOVERNMENT SPENDING" THAT COUNTS TOWARDS THE DEFICIT. THIS IS TRUE UNDER BOTH TORY AND LABOUR GOVERNMENTS.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
There is partisan argument to be had here about who (and to a debatable extent, which external forces) caused the recovery/flatlining and how solid that recovery was, but I'm not going to comment on that.
QE DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT. QE IS NOT "GOVERNMENT SPENDING" THAT COUNTS TOWARDS THE DEFICIT. THIS IS TRUE UNDER BOTH TORY AND LABOUR GOVERNMENTS.
This is an an Econ 101 announcement. That is all.
In fact, doesn't QE reduce the deficit, since the Treasury makes a small profit?
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
That's simply not true. 2003 to 2007 all had bigger deficits than in 1996. Even with you arbitrarily cherry-picking by removing recession years and post-recession years from Labour's term, and including them for the Tories' term.
What I am trying to point out is that deficits were manageable and low by historical and international comparisons, and have been a fact of life for decades, including under Conservatives, all of which shows they do not matter very much.
Greece is like Sisyphus, the king of Corinth who according to legend angered the gods and was condemned to push an enormous rock to the top of a hill. When Sisyphus neared the summit, the boulder would slip from his grasp and tumble back down to the bottom of the slope, forcing him to start again.
Alexis Tsipras, too, has angered the gods, in this case the European commission, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and most of the 18 other countries that are members of the single currency. His punishment for his five-month show of defiance will be to have Greece’s boulder replaced by an even bigger one.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Labour do seem to have been very unlucky with economic circumstances over the years.
In relation to people assuming GO weill be next Tory leader, it has to be remembered his political capital is about as high as it has ever been right now, to the point that his potential to succeed Cameron has been more widely talked of outside of a joke for the first time by many pundits and people, so it's still fresh and new. Whether his chances even rise to the probable is up for debate, but right now he's looking good, we shall see about a year from now.
In the Tories go for Osborne to replace Cameron, it really is history repeating itself. Brown succeeding Blair. Tories would be absolute idiots to do so.
In relation to people assuming GO weill be next Tory leader, it has to be remembered his political capital is about as high as it has ever been right now, to the point that his potential to succeed Cameron has been more widely talked of outside of a joke for the first time by many pundits and people, so it's still fresh and new. Whether his chances even rise to the probable is up for debate, but right now he's looking good, we shall see about a year from now.
In the Tories go for Osborne to replace Cameron, it really is history repeating itself. Brown succeeding Blair. Tories would be absolute idiots to do so.
Why would George Osborne want to take over as Prime Minister, with all the hassle that goes with that, when he can do pretty much whatever he likes as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why would George Osborne want to take over as Prime Minister, with all the hassle that goes with that, when he can do pretty much whatever he likes as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
A Prime Minister who is not David Cameron might not give him such unlimited power and influence
Why would George Osborne want to take over as Prime Minister, with all the hassle that goes with that, when he can do pretty much whatever he likes as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Because like so many politicians they are power hungry, have huge egos and what to be noted in history. People remember PM's, they remember so chancellors not all e.g. in 20 years we will still be talking about the disaster that was Brown as PM, but I doubt many will remember Darling being an ok chancellor under the extreme circumstances.
Brown couldn't have been more unsuitable for PM, and in his heart of heart must have known he couldn't do the job, but rather than stick to chancellor that played to his personal strengths, all he wanted was the top job.
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Don is too dismissive of Jeremy Corbyn,who has moved ahead of Yvette Cooper in constituency nominations with Andy Burnham in his sights.The priority has to be Scotland,as John Curtice has advised,although with SNP polling at 60% things are set to get even worse before they get better.
Why would George Osborne want to take over as Prime Minister, with all the hassle that goes with that, when he can do pretty much whatever he likes as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Do you get a refund if it doesn't make it till day 5 ?
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Never underestimate the ability of England to collapse spectacularly!
Can you make your decision towards the end of today? If so then it might be worth it if we're only a couple down, the danger is that there's just enough cricket on day 5 not to get a refund, or that you spend more time travelling than watching.
But to hell with that, it's the Ashes - everyone should see it once!
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Do you get a refund if it doesn't make it till day 5 ?
Why would George Osborne want to take over as Prime Minister, with all the hassle that goes with that, when he can do pretty much whatever he likes as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Looks good on the CV.
Perhaps. George Osborne strikes me as a man who is refreshingly free of status anxiety.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Malcolmg on the great British turnip farmer.
Everyone else on Malcolmg would be a better answer.
Do we might this test match is going to make 5 days? Ticket are still available for the last day and I am weighing up if it is worth it. Caveat it would be a fair old trip for me to head to Cardiff.
Never underestimate the ability of England to collapse spectacularly!
Can you make your decision towards the end of today? If so then it might be worth it if we're only a couple down, the danger is that there's just enough cricket on day 5 not to get a refund, or that you spend more time travelling than watching.
But to hell with that, it's the Ashes - everyone should see it once!
Good advice. Still seems to be plenty of tickets available for the final day, which seems kinda of surprising given Day 5 is a Sunday rather than a Monday.
Do we know what the min number of overs have to be bowled on a final day before no refund is possible? Or does that condition not apply to final day play as it does on Day 1-4?
In the past, when I have gone to final days, it hasn't been the Ashes and so never had a problem rocking up on the day (and traditionally Day 5's have been Mondays) knowing what the match situation was in advance.
Brown couldn't have been more unsuitable for PM, and in his heart of heart must have known he couldn't do the job, but rather than stick to chancellor that played to his personal strengths, all he wanted was the top job.
Was it that simple? A more nuanced take is that Brown could not do the presidential job that Blair had turned the PM-ship into, with Cabinet government sidelined and all decisions routed through Number Ten.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
There is partisan argument to be had here about who (and to a debatable extent, which external forces) caused the recovery/flatlining and how solid that recovery was, but I'm not going to comment on that.
QE DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT. QE IS NOT "GOVERNMENT SPENDING" THAT COUNTS TOWARDS THE DEFICIT. THIS IS TRUE UNDER BOTH TORY AND LABOUR GOVERNMENTS.
This is an an Econ 101 announcement. That is all.
In fact, doesn't QE reduce the deficit, since the Treasury makes a small profit?
My understanding of this is "it's complicated" - to some extent it's just shuffling money between different bits of government, but changes to the way BoE profits get dealt with have changed government borrowing requirements in a beneficial way.
Do recall that the BoE actually made a loss on QE at the start. Also when interest rates go up, expect losses that wipe out prior profits - but any net negative at the end of the day is going to be small potatoes when compared to GDP.
Claiming that QE was driving the Brown era deficit is an absurd claim that basically disqualifies the speaker from informed debate until they read an "economics for beginners" book - which would take them all of a weekend or two, so is not a demanding burden and would probably carry a strong personal benefit, so I highly recommend it. (No Labour finance spokesperson would make this sort of mistake, it is strictly one for the ultracrepidarians. Reminds me of the Professor we had on here who claimed that because GDP growth was below inflation then the economy was shrinking in real terms. Think he was a STEM subject guy too, but even technically minded people can make bizarre mistakes - I've seen exactly the same argument heavily upvoted on the comments pages of El Reg. If people haven't been taught what a GDP Deflator is at school, then sadly it isn't the kind of thing you pick up from watching the news or perusing the newspapers. Most people's impression of QE, if they have one at all, is remembering business correspondents on TV "illustrating" QE by taking a bundle of notes and throwing them around as "helicopter money"...understandable if viewers thought this would be a bloody expensive hole in the national budget, but not economically meaningful.)
Brown couldn't have been more unsuitable for PM, and in his heart of heart must have known he couldn't do the job, but rather than stick to chancellor that played to his personal strengths, all he wanted was the top job.
Was it that simple? A more nuanced take is that Brown could not do the presidential job that Blair had turned the PM-ship into, with Cabinet government sidelined and all decisions routed through Number Ten.
If the various accounts of his time as PM, he was even worse than Blair. Demanding everything had to go through him, and at the same time totally unable to make a decision in a reasonable length of time.
The real danger of buying a day 5 ticket is that Australia are 190-8 at the end of day 4, 200 runs behind...
That is why I asked if there was a minimum number of overs that have to be bowled on Day 5 for it to "count". It is the case Day 1-4 if you don't get x overs because of rain, you can get a refund.
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
As my mother would say "a little of what you fancy does you good"
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
I often wondered if that expression was related to the out of the blue desires one gets. I haven't eaten boiled eggs in months, then suddenly had the desire to rustle up a couple three breakfasts running.
Now, I'm off them again. Is that my body telling me to eat something or just my imagination?
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
As my mother would say "a little of what you fancy does you good"
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
DavidL '. At the moment the employment market for those over 25 is buoyant with virtually full employment and not much more than frictional unemployment in quite wide parts of the country.' Is it seriously to be suggested that 1.8million unemployed is compatible with any definition of full employment? Back in the 1950s and 1960s unemployment levels of 500,000 were seen as far too high and were politically toxic. We are nowhere near such conditions. In reality many of those who have come off the register are only in part-time work -and ,therefore, partly unemployed. If the data was compiled on an FTE basis we would still be looking at an unemployment level well in excess of 2 million.
Brown couldn't have been more unsuitable for PM, and in his heart of heart must have known he couldn't do the job, but rather than stick to chancellor that played to his personal strengths, all he wanted was the top job.
Was it that simple? A more nuanced take is that Brown could not do the presidential job that Blair had turned the PM-ship into, with Cabinet government sidelined and all decisions routed through Number Ten.
Perhaps, but once in No. 10 he could have turned things back from the Blair position. Personally I much preferred Brown to Blair.
Consistent trend seems to be building from last night's local election results of a declining ukip vote.Has the ukip bubble well and truly burst?
Temporarily perhaps, I suspect they'll surge again in the next year or so. It seemed to take several years to surge last time around, and they maintained it for quite some time after all.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I do think that people who have never really monitored their diets struggle with an overload of information. A simple focus on avoiding eating large amounts of fat and sugar is a good start for them. If they struggle with doing that, they will then be motivated to finding out more nuances.
But what if the urge to eat fat is genuinely because your body is asking for the essential mix of nutrients (vitamin K etc.) that come with butter, or beef, or olive oil, and you respond to the craving by eating a rancid processed unsaturated hydrocarbon like margarine or sunflower oil? Clearly you haven't given your body what it wanted, so it will carry on craving it, and you'll eat more.
Likewise when you crave sugar, the body is essentially asking for a fruit or vegetable at its maximum ripeness, when all its vitamins and minerals are at their best. Instead you give it can of coke or a chocolate bar, where the sugar has been stripped from its original source from the fibre, minerals, etc. that would have ensured its digestion and assimilation, and also limited the amount you could consume in one sitting.
In my opinion the body is not stupid, and we should listen to it when it asks us for something rather than ignoring it. That's why I think low calorie isn't a good idea - it pits you against your body. But we must also understand that it's not psychic, so it doesn't understand that we've created fake foods that won't work.
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
An enticing mystery indeed. Other intergovernmental organisations? Any old thing he dislikes that can be added to the list at a later date? The use of abbreviations and latin terms in english? Who knows.
I'd have thought he was ok with freedom though - freedom within the constraints permitted through Islam, of course.
Speaking of etc, when doing a little bit of medieval latin I was told once that where we use et cetera, latin speakers would have actually used a different term, though I forget what it was.
Labour don't have five years. They have roughly five weeks to disrupt the Conservatives' narrative. If they don't manage that, they'll have to hope events are kind to them.
I am not persuaded by that - during the summer months people are simply not listening to politics particularly in an immediate post-election period. What did for Labour post-2010 was their failure to even try to counter the blatant lies being peddled by the Coalition. Had they taken the argument on month by month using historical data to highlight - as an example - the fact that Tory Governments have found it more difficult to generate a Budget Surplus than Labour Governments they would probably had some success. There is always a strong tendency for new Governments to blame their predecessors for 'the mess we inherited' - as Labour did in 1964 and 1974. In 2010 Labour was also hampered by the fact that the Libdems had a political interest in going along with the same message - though Vince Cable and Shirley Williams have now admitted that they did not believe it.
I often wondered if that expression was related to the out of the blue desires one gets. I haven't eaten boiled eggs in months, then suddenly had the desire to rustle up a couple three breakfasts running.
Now, I'm off them again. Is that my body telling me to eat something or just my imagination?
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
As my mother would say "a little of what you fancy does you good"
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
The real danger of buying a day 5 ticket is that Australia are 190-8 at the end of day 4, 200 runs behind...
That is why I asked if there was a minimum number of overs that have to be bowled on Day 5 for it to "count". It is the case Day 1-4 if you don't get x overs because of rain, you can get a refund.
NVESTEC ASHES TEST - ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA, from 8th -12th July, 2015
Refund Policy applies to all 5 days of the Investec Test Match:
If play is restricted or does not take place at the ground on the day for which this ticket is valid, you may claim a refund of only the match ticket value subject to there being:
(a) 10 overs or less because of adverse weather conditions or completion of the match - a full refund; (b) 10.1 overs to 24.5 overs because of adverse weather conditions or completion of the match - a 50% refund.
In no other circumstances can money be refunded. Claims for refunds will be paid by cheque.
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
Life would get a great deal more tedious.
I'll say it again. In Muslim countries you have no or very little alcohol, gambling or fornicatoring.
No wonder they are so frustrated and angry.
Saudi Arabia needs a version of Politicalbetting.com and the world will be so much better.
From what I have read and heard of Saudi Arabia, there's plenty of all of them behind closed doors (ok, probably not freedom and democracy). I think I agree with the person who said a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former is about conscience - right and wrong, and the latter is about outward observance - honour and shame.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I do think that people who have never really monitored their diets struggle with an overload of information. A simple focus on avoiding eating large amounts of fat and sugar is a good start for them. If they struggle with doing that, they will then be motivated to finding out more nuances.
But what if the urge to eat fat is genuinely because your body is asking for the essential mix of nutrients (vitamin K etc.) that come with butter, or beef, or olive oil, and you respond to the craving by eating a rancid processed unsaturated hydrocarbon like margarine or sunflower oil? Clearly you haven't given your body what it wanted, so it will carry on craving it, and you'll eat more.
Likewise when you crave sugar, the body is essentially asking for a fruit or vegetable at its maximum ripeness, when all its vitamins and minerals are at their best. Instead you give it can of coke or a chocolate bar, where the sugar has been stripped from its original source from the fibre, minerals, etc. that would have ensured its digestion and assimilation, and also limited the amount you could consume in one sitting.
In my opinion the body is not stupid, and we should listen to it when it asks us for something rather than ignoring it. That's why I think low calorie isn't a good idea - it pits you against your body. But we must also understand that it's not psychic, so it doesn't understand that we've created fake foods that won't work.
People with wealth and abundance still got fat before processed food: just look at Henry VII. The body isn't stupid, but it did evolved over millions of years whereas farmed agriculture has only existed for 10,000. Some of its cravings are thus a bit off. What matters is not "low calorie" but "balanced calories". Yes, the choices of food that makes those calorie levels easier matters, but it's the second stage in knowledge. Most people are so ignorant that just them being aware how much really terrible stuff they're eating would be a big leap forward.
The real danger of buying a day 5 ticket is that Australia are 190-8 at the end of day 4, 200 runs behind...
That is why I asked if there was a minimum number of overs that have to be bowled on Day 5 for it to "count". It is the case Day 1-4 if you don't get x overs because of rain, you can get a refund.
NVESTEC ASHES TEST - ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA, from 8th -12th July, 2015
Refund Policy applies to all 5 days of the Investec Test Match:
If play is restricted or does not take place at the ground on the day for which this ticket is valid, you may claim a refund of only the match ticket value subject to there being:
(a) 10 overs or less because of adverse weather conditions or completion of the match - a full refund; (b) 10.1 overs to 24.5 overs because of adverse weather conditions or completion of the match - a 50% refund.
In no other circumstances can money be refunded. Claims for refunds will be paid by cheque.
Labour don't have five years. They have roughly five weeks to disrupt the Conservatives' narrative. If they don't manage that, they'll have to hope events are kind to them.
What is the Tory narrative? It seems to be that everyone is getting a pay rise. A pay rise means having more money to spend and feeling better off. If that turns out to be the case then nothing Labour says or does will make a difference. If, on the other hand, Osborne's claims are not matched by practical experience, then Labour has a chance.
The message isn't aimed at the low paid, so their practical experience is not going to be decisive. The narrative is that the Conservatives can reduce taxes on the middle classes while increasing pay for the poorer. That neither is happening is by the by.
It depends on how you define middle class. If the IFS turns out to be right it will be many more than the poorest who will see a negative effect from this budget. But essentially you are right: cuts that fall disproportionately on the poorest are being used to prop up the lifestyles of Tory voters.
Quite so - and that is what makes them so evil . An affront to any sense of human decency.
One thing about "so-called" Islamic State. Was the IRA ever referred to as the so-called "Irish" Republican Army?
Well implicitly by their splinter groups I guess, like the 'Real' IRA, but presumably not by the media. We now seem at a place where some people are mad we call IS what they call themselves, even if the alternatives they suggest might include the same thing they object to, and others are mad if we excuse what they call themselves but qualifying it with comments like 'so called'.
I think 'so called' is decent compromise to be honest. It doesn't pretend they don't call themselves IS and that hundreds of thousands in the world think they are aboslutely right ot call themselves that, but adds a note of skepticism about the claim inthe name without just whitewashing the point and pretending calling it something else entirely means we can ignore the support they do have.
Comments
On sugar/fat, makes me glad I kicked my coke habit* altogether.
*The beverage, of course, not the narcotic.
Is the Life in the UK test really meaningful anyway? I did a test quiz once and there was one question along the lines of 'Which of the following is not a British value?' with the answers being tolerance, democracy, freedom of speech, and extremism.
If anything, it was a Labour strategy from some quarters to portray any criticism of their record as ridiculous as they 'didn't cause a global crash' which is dangerous for their prospects, as they are making a defence against an argument implied but not made, and it enables comfort thinking in that the evil tories fooled people, yeah, that was it, rather than addressing that people did believe the Tories left things in a poor state, even if globally things were bad too.
Whether Greek support will persist when the cuts bite is another question. But I don't think anyone can afford to turn the deal down now.
On Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/30/memo-to-the-tories-never-hate-your-enemies-it-affects-your-judgement/
Aus 42/3 in the first hour this morning.
Edit: 42/4, only one bowler to get out now!
But it is good that Labour carry on in this way for the fortunes of the Conservatives.
Perhaps you might reflect on "We have abolished boom and bust".
A stupid claim, from a fiscally stupid man, who thought there was a link between what the UK Govt did and the economic cycle.....
I'd say Nikki Haley (Governor of South Carolina) is a very decent bet for the GOP VP pick now. She's handled the confederate flag controversy well and would gender and ethnic diversity to the ticket.
QE DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT. QE IS NOT "GOVERNMENT SPENDING" THAT COUNTS TOWARDS THE DEFICIT. THIS IS TRUE UNDER BOTH TORY AND LABOUR GOVERNMENTS.
This is an an Econ 101 announcement. That is all.
https://twitter.com/nick_forbes/status/619462693897027584
1222. He was born in 1970.Greece is like Sisyphus, the king of Corinth who according to legend angered the gods and was condemned to push an enormous rock to the top of a hill. When Sisyphus neared the summit, the boulder would slip from his grasp and tumble back down to the bottom of the slope, forcing him to start again.
Alexis Tsipras, too, has angered the gods, in this case the European commission, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and most of the 18 other countries that are members of the single currency. His punishment for his five-month show of defiance will be to have Greece’s boulder replaced by an even bigger one.
Labour's problem on overspending remains the Mr Micawber budget.
"Ah well," they'll say. "Economic doesn't work like that, The more you spend, the more you gain. Our economists tell us that"
The reply was "These are the economists who wandered blindfold into the biggest crash in decades. I'll stick to Mr Micawber, thanks."
And they still wonder why they lost the argument?
By the way, with no rain forecast lay the draw at 4/1!!
Brown couldn't have been more unsuitable for PM, and in his heart of heart must have known he couldn't do the job, but rather than stick to chancellor that played to his personal strengths, all he wanted was the top job.
I also hope the next Labour leader pledges to abolish boom and bust
He Could tell Ozzy to go F(oreign) Off(ice)
Can you make your decision towards the end of today? If so then it might be worth it if we're only a couple down, the danger is that there's just enough cricket on day 5 not to get a refund, or that you spend more time travelling than watching.
But to hell with that, it's the Ashes - everyone should see it once!
In the past, when I have gone to final days, it hasn't been the Ashes and so never had a problem rocking up on the day (and traditionally Day 5's have been Mondays) knowing what the match situation was in advance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20268679
Do recall that the BoE actually made a loss on QE at the start. Also when interest rates go up, expect losses that wipe out prior profits - but any net negative at the end of the day is going to be small potatoes when compared to GDP.
Claiming that QE was driving the Brown era deficit is an absurd claim that basically disqualifies the speaker from informed debate until they read an "economics for beginners" book - which would take them all of a weekend or two, so is not a demanding burden and would probably carry a strong personal benefit, so I highly recommend it. (No Labour finance spokesperson would make this sort of mistake, it is strictly one for the ultracrepidarians. Reminds me of the Professor we had on here who claimed that because GDP growth was below inflation then the economy was shrinking in real terms. Think he was a STEM subject guy too, but even technically minded people can make bizarre mistakes - I've seen exactly the same argument heavily upvoted on the comments pages of El Reg. If people haven't been taught what a GDP Deflator is at school, then sadly it isn't the kind of thing you pick up from watching the news or perusing the newspapers. Most people's impression of QE, if they have one at all, is remembering business correspondents on TV "illustrating" QE by taking a bundle of notes and throwing them around as "helicopter money"...understandable if viewers thought this would be a bloody expensive hole in the national budget, but not economically meaningful.)
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
Australia needed 107 more runs to win and England needed two wickets.
He decided against going as he didn't want to go all that way to see either two wickets fall or see Australia win.
He considers that the biggest mistake of his life.
Now, I'm off them again. Is that my body telling me to eat something or just my imagination?
'. At the moment the employment market for those over 25 is buoyant with virtually full employment and not much more than frictional unemployment in quite wide parts of the country.'
Is it seriously to be suggested that 1.8million unemployed is compatible with any definition of full employment? Back in the 1950s and 1960s unemployment levels of 500,000 were seen as far too high and were politically toxic. We are nowhere near such conditions. In reality many of those who have come off the register are only in part-time work -and ,therefore, partly unemployed. If the data was compiled on an FTE basis we would still be looking at an unemployment level well in excess of 2 million.
It begins
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol
Gambling
Fornication
Pornography
Usury
Democracy
Freedom
The UN etc
Until he gives up its a busted flush.
Likewise when you crave sugar, the body is essentially asking for a fruit or vegetable at its maximum ripeness, when all its vitamins and minerals are at their best. Instead you give it can of coke or a chocolate bar, where the sugar has been stripped from its original source from the fibre, minerals, etc. that would have ensured its digestion and assimilation, and also limited the amount you could consume in one sitting.
In my opinion the body is not stupid, and we should listen to it when it asks us for something rather than ignoring it. That's why I think low calorie isn't a good idea - it pits you against your body. But we must also understand that it's not psychic, so it doesn't understand that we've created fake foods that won't work.
No wonder they are so frustrated and angry.
Saudi Arabia needs a version of Politicalbetting.com and the world will be so much better.
I'd have thought he was ok with freedom though - freedom within the constraints permitted through Islam, of course.
Speaking of etc, when doing a little bit of medieval latin I was told once that where we use et cetera, latin speakers would have actually used a different term, though I forget what it was.
So if you vote to leave the EU you're voting for Sharia law
He meant PUNs, but someone took the P.
Maybe start a kick-starter fund?
Source: https://tickets.glamorgancricket.com - go to FAQs then Ts&Cs (at the bottom of the page)
cf.
Write (to)
Protest (against)
Debate (with)
Source: https://tickets.glamorgancricket.com - go to FAQs then Ts&Cs (at the bottom of the page)
Thanks.
Great news! (I think, or it could be, or it could be a complete disaster...)
Sapphire & Steel to be remade
I think 'so called' is decent compromise to be honest. It doesn't pretend they don't call themselves IS and that hundreds of thousands in the world think they are aboslutely right ot call themselves that, but adds a note of skepticism about the claim inthe name without just whitewashing the point and pretending calling it something else entirely means we can ignore the support they do have.