Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From Ohio, the Nuneaton of US politics, the GOP search for

SystemSystem Posts: 11,686
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From Ohio, the Nuneaton of US politics, the GOP search for its WH2016 nominee has its 1st official event tonight

Just as the first TV debate on the Labour leadership was in a seat that the party has to win if it is to succeed in a general election so Fox has chosen Cleveland in the key swing state of Ohio for the first TV debate of the Republican Party White House nomination race.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    They should select Roberta McCain
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT
    tlg86 said:

    Tim_B said:

    In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.

    The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.

    The $15 million is written off their taxes.

    There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.

    Neither is FBI involvement.

    Philanthropy is great - those that have earned a great deal of money during their careers should be free to do with it what they wish. But I do think people should do it after they've left the arena in which they've earned their money.
    Funding a charity to in essence pay your expenses gadding around the world pontificating on issues that are important to you doesn't look good at all though.

    Pretty sure if Mr Dancer funded a charity to pay his expenses as he gadded around the world enlightening people on the novel uses of various siege weapons that HMRC would take more than a passing interest in his tax affairs.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    OchEye said:

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Looks like many people are beginning to be afraid of the SNP

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576914.Journalist_who_found_alleged_flaws_in_police_investigation_into_Emma_Caldwell_murder_says_he_was_unlawfully_spied_on/

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13573343.SNP_under_fire_over_indyref_omission_from_conference_agenda/?ref=ar

    Pretty soon we should have the interesting sight of the members of the SNP being afraid of the elite of the party.
    Oh I do like morning comedy from loyalist zoomers.

    So somehow a murder which happened on Labour's watch, the investigation of which was botched on Labour's watch by a police force which no longer exists is causing the SNP to somehow instruct the police (in a way they have no power to do) to spy on journalists.

    True Turnipacy at its finest.
  • Options
    In soap-operatic terms, the Bush/Clinton saga has jumped the shark.
    Basta.
  • Options
    Dair said:

    OchEye said:

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Looks like many people are beginning to be afraid of the SNP

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576914.Journalist_who_found_alleged_flaws_in_police_investigation_into_Emma_Caldwell_murder_says_he_was_unlawfully_spied_on/

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13573343.SNP_under_fire_over_indyref_omission_from_conference_agenda/?ref=ar

    Pretty soon we should have the interesting sight of the members of the SNP being afraid of the elite of the party.
    Oh I do like morning comedy from loyalist zoomers.

    So somehow a murder which happened on Labour's watch, the investigation of which was botched on Labour's watch by a police force which no longer exists is causing the SNP to somehow instruct the police (in a way they have no power to do) to spy on journalists.

    True Turnipacy at its finest.
    Your boring monomania is well catered for elsewhere on the web. Take it there.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Dair said:

    OchEye said:

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Looks like many people are beginning to be afraid of the SNP

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576914.Journalist_who_found_alleged_flaws_in_police_investigation_into_Emma_Caldwell_murder_says_he_was_unlawfully_spied_on/

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13573343.SNP_under_fire_over_indyref_omission_from_conference_agenda/?ref=ar

    Pretty soon we should have the interesting sight of the members of the SNP being afraid of the elite of the party.
    Oh I do like morning comedy from loyalist zoomers.

    So somehow a murder which happened on Labour's watch, the investigation of which was botched on Labour's watch by a police force which no longer exists is causing the SNP to somehow instruct the police (in a way they have no power to do) to spy on journalists.

    True Turnipacy at its finest.
    One thing we do know that is true is that the SNP should not be trusted at any time about anything. A more duplicitous bunch it would be hard to find.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Good morning, everyone.

    Just seen the previous thread. I agree it's a weakness for Burnham but that only matters if he wins, and if he does I think he'll consider it a worthwhile price.

    On-topic: why the reticence to resume your previously winning strategy? Think Bush might just remain in the lead or merely awaiting the debate?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Andy Burnham's Today interview wasn't a car crash, it was a train crash.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Quite a good article about why the Republicans are frustrated that Trump is getting anywhere near this: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9100171/donald-trump-gop

    Frustration with the limitations of the real world as demonstrated by conventional politics is resulting in a desperate reach for fantasy all over. Whether it is Syrizia in Greece, Corbyn in the UK, the SNP in Scotland or Trump in the States a significant percentage of the people seem to think that reality is overrated.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,119
    edited August 2015
    'Governor of Florid' - like it.

    Dave is deffo the PM of Rubicund.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Donald Trump ? – I don’t get it, must be an American thing.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Dair said:

    OchEye said:

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Looks like many people are beginning to be afraid of the SNP

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576914.Journalist_who_found_alleged_flaws_in_police_investigation_into_Emma_Caldwell_murder_says_he_was_unlawfully_spied_on/

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13573343.SNP_under_fire_over_indyref_omission_from_conference_agenda/?ref=ar

    Pretty soon we should have the interesting sight of the members of the SNP being afraid of the elite of the party.
    Oh I do like morning comedy from loyalist zoomers.

    So somehow a murder which happened on Labour's watch, the investigation of which was botched on Labour's watch by a police force which no longer exists is causing the SNP to somehow instruct the police (in a way they have no power to do) to spy on journalists.

    True Turnipacy at its finest.
    Your boring monomania is well catered for elsewhere on the web. Take it there.
    Sleep well - MI7 are taking a well earned rest from hiding oil fields and are monitoring all calls between Bath and Zoomerland.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Morning. Given that Australia are pretty much evens and there's no real rain forecast, are we all as last week backing England and laying the draw?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Given that Australia are pretty much evens and there's no real rain forecast, are we all as last week backing England and laying the draw?

    Was a draw vs India last summer at Trent Bridge - an absolute road of a pitch - Cookie was reduced to bowling himself.

    England have a crap spinner who couldn't bowl out a rice pudding - a draw is possible.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Interesting piece on killing propaganda with facts, and how political belief or credulity can alter reporting. It's about Stalin/the Cold War, but still feels relevant given the way ISIS are using media:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33788518
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Off-topic, I know, but this is rather an interesting article on Corbyn:

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/05/corbyn-at-the-adelphi-vintage-80s-nostalgia-that-would-deliver-a-vintage-80s-labour-result/

    I particularly enjoyed the headline, but I was particularly worried by the 'second group' of Corbyn supporters:

    'A second group believe that Corbyn’s policies are so obviously right, and so manifestly appealing to the electorate , that it is inconceivable that he could ever lose... One told me that as a middle class lawyer, I clearly didn’t understand the depth of poverty and despair in the UK.'

    My experience of Labour members today - not forgetting exceptions like Dennis Skinner, who is a former miner - is that they are actually from very comfortable backgrounds and have very comfortable jobs, and simply do not understand poverty themselves. I don't think any of them have had to choose between being warm and having enough to eat, as I did in a period of unemployment a couple of years back (that was the winter of 2010-11 - believe me, I was very cold as a result). I never see any of them in old clothes that have been repeatedly patched, rather inexpertly, because you can't afford new ones even in discount shops - sometimes, even in charity shops. I hear them talking endlessly about food banks, without understanding that, actually, the real scandal of food banks is not that they are needed now, but that they have been badly needed by many people for years (even the most thrifty person on benefits can be mugged and need temporary support, or more usually be sued by HMRC in a major cock-up over tax credits) and that it was near-impossible to set them up and operate them under the Labour governments.
    (continued)
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Given that Australia are pretty much evens and there's no real rain forecast, are we all as last week backing England and laying the draw?

    Was a draw vs India last summer at Trent Bridge - an absolute road of a pitch - Cookie was reduced to bowling himself.

    England have a crap spinner who couldn't bowl out a rice pudding - a draw is possible.
    Just looked up that one, could have been an 8 day match and still not finished in time!
    I'm going to stick with the obvious until we see the pitch, if it's batting heaven then may re-evaluate later...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    (continued)
    The reason this concerns me is simple. Such Labour members are convinced that their policies will help these people. But they don't understand that when you are in that position, the only thing you want is work. Work makes it possible to keep the heating on - even if it's on low, and still have something to eat. It means you can buy clothes, without thinking of how you will replace the money you are spending. It means you can buy food in the normal way, rather than begging it from a local church.

    And this is the paradox. Most people in that situation are not interested in politics, largely because even if politicians do talk to them, rather than at them, there is no common reference point and politicians simply don't get what their life is like. But even if they were, why would they vote for a party whose avowed aim is to ameliorate the condition of being unemployed, rather than to sort out the economy and get them into work? Why would you vote for a party that will get rid of the crucial zero-hours contracts that allow you to earn at least a but of money and develop the all-important track record of employment that allows you to get a better job? Why would you vote, indeed, at all - because it's not voting, as far as they can see, that will make a difference?

    I think Labour is a party that has completely lost any sense of self-awareness. Voting for Corbyn, a former union official and civil servant from a very middle-class background representing what is actually a pretty middle-class seat, would be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility. Which is bad news for anyone who wants good government.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @roxley: Every-time Humprys pushed Batmanghelidjh on facts she defended with anecdotes & "vulnerable children" with zero contrition #kidscompany
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001

    Interesting piece on killing propaganda with facts, and how political belief or credulity can alter reporting. It's about Stalin/the Cold War, but still feels relevant given the way ISIS are using media:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33788518

    Did you see the wonderful story about the young Chechen women catfishing ISIS fighters?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,119
    edited August 2015
    FPT

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?
    There's abso-bluddy-lutely not a shadow of a doubt those are the reasons.

    Buckhaven to Edinburgh - 34.5 miles
    Selkirk to Edinburgh - 46.9 miles
    Glasgow to Edinburgh - 47.4 miles

    I believe the extra 0.5 miles of proximity to Selkirk was what swung it for Ruthie.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2015

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    On the Test I think we have to factor in that both of these teams have shown themselves to be vulnerable and prone to batting collapses. They both have a significant majority of players who think the correct response to the loss of a wicket is to go into 2020 mode and they have both shown themselves to be vulnerable to scoreboard pressure.

    In short, substantial weather aside, I simply do not see a draw between these teams. It is unlikely that the Test will even last 5 days. Who wins is something more of a lottery.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Given that Australia are pretty much evens and there's no real rain forecast, are we all as last week backing England and laying the draw?

    Was a draw vs India last summer at Trent Bridge - an absolute road of a pitch - Cookie was reduced to bowling himself.

    England have a crap spinner who couldn't bowl out a rice pudding - a draw is possible.
    Just looked up that one, could have been an 8 day match and still not finished in time!
    I'm going to stick with the obvious until we see the pitch, if it's batting heaven then may re-evaluate later...
    Without Anderson though, can England bowl Australia out twice?

    Admittedly, Michael Clarke has said he will be playing, which makes it a bit easier, but it still seems a tall order with such a very inexperienced attack.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Great piece by David Aaronovitch about why JC isn't good for Labour *because* he will do what he says.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4518550.ece
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, I know, but this is rather an interesting article on Corbyn:

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/05/corbyn-at-the-adelphi-vintage-80s-nostalgia-that-would-deliver-a-vintage-80s-labour-result/

    I particularly enjoyed the headline, but I was particularly worried by the 'second group' of Corbyn supporters:

    'A second group believe that Corbyn’s policies are so obviously right, and so manifestly appealing to the electorate , that it is inconceivable that he could ever lose... One told me that as a middle class lawyer, I clearly didn’t understand the depth of poverty and despair in the UK.'

    My experience of Labour members today - not forgetting exceptions like Dennis Skinner, who is a former miner - is that they are actually from very comfortable backgrounds and have very comfortable jobs, and simply do not understand poverty themselves. I don't think any of them have had to choose between being warm and having enough to eat, as I did in a period of unemployment a couple of years back (that was the winter of 2010-11 - believe me, I was very cold as a result). I never see any of them in old clothes that have been repeatedly patched, rather inexpertly, because you can't afford new ones even in discount shops - sometimes, even in charity shops. I hear them talking endlessly about food banks, without understanding that, actually, the real scandal of food banks is not that they are needed now, but that they have been badly needed by many people for years (even the most thrifty person on benefits can be mugged and need temporary support, or more usually be sued by HMRC in a major cock-up over tax credits) and that it was near-impossible to set them up and operate them under the Labour governments.
    (continued)

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015
    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    rcs1000 said:

    Interesting piece on killing propaganda with facts, and how political belief or credulity can alter reporting. It's about Stalin/the Cold War, but still feels relevant given the way ISIS are using media:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33788518

    Did you see the wonderful story about the young Chechen women catfishing ISIS fighters?
    Question is, did the CIA? It seems to have been far more effective than anything they're doing at the moment. Maybe they should take tips?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    It's particularly good for the Eurozone, which has basically zero indigenous oil supplies. The result is a 1%+ GDP kicker in 2015, and is one of the reasons why growth has surprised on the upside this year.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:



    I think Labour is a party that has completely lost any sense of self-awareness. Voting for Corbyn, a former union official and civil servant from a very middle-class background representing what is actually a pretty middle-class seat, would be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility. Which is bad news for anyone who wants good government.

    Not just good government, but also good opposition. Government needs to be held to account, and I (and several million others) need a choice of who to vote for at the next election.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:



    I think Labour is a party that has completely lost any sense of self-awareness. Voting for Corbyn, a former union official and civil servant from a very middle-class background representing what is actually a pretty middle-class seat, would be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility. Which is bad news for anyone who wants good government.

    Not just good government, but also good opposition. Government needs to be held to account, and I (and several mission others) need a choice of who to vote for at the next election.
    I entirely agree and that's what I meant. One of the reasons why Blair and Thatcher both lost their way was the ineffectual opposition they faced. Moreover, it was one reason why their parties stayed in power long after they should have been given a bit of time to recuperate.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,255
    ydoethur said:

    (continued)
    The reason this concerns me is simple. Such Labour members are convinced that their policies will help these people. But they don't understand that when you are in that position, the only thing you want is work. Work makes it possible to keep the heating on - even if it's on low, and still have something to eat. It means you can buy clothes, without thinking of how you will replace the money you are spending. It means you can buy food in the normal way, rather than begging it from a local church.

    And this is the paradox. Most people in that situation are not interested in politics, largely because even if politicians do talk to them, rather than at them, there is no common reference point and politicians simply don't get what their life is like. But even if they were, why would they vote for a party whose avowed aim is to ameliorate the condition of being unemployed, rather than to sort out the economy and get them into work? Why would you vote for a party that will get rid of the crucial zero-hours contracts that allow you to earn at least a but of money and develop the all-important track record of employment that allows you to get a better job? Why would you vote, indeed, at all - because it's not voting, as far as they can see, that will make a difference?

    I think Labour is a party that has completely lost any sense of self-awareness. Voting for Corbyn, a former union official and civil servant from a very middle-class background representing what is actually a pretty middle-class seat, would be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility. Which is bad news for anyone who wants good government.

    The Uncut article makes for pretty bleak reading for anyone vaguely of the left who wants to see an electable Lab party. The bit on wiping out all debts of previous students is a new policy announcement as far as I'm aware. Corbyn is already pushing Lab into difficult proposals such as renationalising the railways - well, pushing desperate Burnham at least.

    As Alan Johnson wrote yesterday, Vote Cooper and save us from this madness.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Kids Company -- genuine question -- why all the noise? Is it because of David Cameron's peripheral involvement? There seems to be too much spin on pb and elsewhere for £3 million. Is bad news being buried, and if so, what?
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    It sounds as if the money should run out in a couple of years, then Saudis will be paying taxes and having austerity to stay solvent. I cannot see that ending well.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Very true - the costs are of finding and drilling in the first place. Once the oil is flowing it's almost free to extract.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?
    There's abso-bluddy-lutely not a shadow of a doubt those are the reasons.

    Buckhaven to Edinburgh - 34.5 miles
    Selkirk to Edinburgh - 46.9 miles
    Glasgow to Edinburgh - 47.4 miles

    I believe the extra 0.5 miles of proximity to Selkirk was what swung it for Ruthie.
    It seems pretty clear that the Tory plan was for John Lamont to dethrone Michael Moore and with his Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire seat coming up for grab, Ruthie could swoop in and become a Constituency MSP instead of being the Glasgow barrel scraper.

    With the SNP winning in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the whole plan was scuppered and now in desperation, the Tories are realising that a split ticket could well see Ruthie out of Holyrood.

    The sheer desperation of this branch of failed loyalism is plain for all to see.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    edited August 2015
    notme said:


    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.

    Yes - it looks to me as though there may be underlying problems there (and I thought that when I heard her announcement last night). I won't put it more strongly than that without more information, but if there are it would of course make a criminal prosecution much more difficult even if there is a prima facie case of fraud (which we also don't know yet).
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2015

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    It sounds as if the money should run out in a couple of years, then Saudis will be paying taxes and having austerity to stay solvent. I cannot see that ending well.
    The concern now has to be how the Saudis will react to the loss of income - they have a huge demographic problem coming up with something like 50% of the population aged under 20.
    When they realise that they'll need to work for a living how many will become aligned with the nutcases of ISIS?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I was a eat-or-heater too over a similar period and TBH, in a very strange way - because of my early upbringing of not very much, I just knuckled down and bought a wind-up torch to get around in the dark. Frankly, I got very very irritated with quite a few on here, who spouted about poverty and had no idea what it meant.

    When you can't use the fridge because you can't afford to power to run it, wash things in the sink with cold water et al - it's beyond their comprehension. My single luxury was keeping my phone line.

    Without getting all Yorkshireman about it - being out of touch is terribly easy, if you haven't been there. My friends used to kid me about my 1950s attitude to thrift when I earned a small fortune too :smiley:
    ydoethur said:

    (continued)
    The reason this concerns me is simple. Such Labour members are convinced that their policies will help these people. But they don't understand that when you are in that position, the only thing you want is work. Work makes it possible to keep the heating on - even if it's on low, and still have something to eat. It means you can buy clothes, without thinking of how you will replace the money you are spending. It means you can buy food in the normal way, rather than begging it from a local church.

    And this is the paradox. Most people in that situation are not interested in politics, largely because even if politicians do talk to them, rather than at them, there is no common reference point and politicians simply don't get what their life is like. But even if they were, why would they vote for a party whose avowed aim is to ameliorate the condition of being unemployed, rather than to sort out the economy and get them into work? Why would you vote for a party that will get rid of the crucial zero-hours contracts that allow you to earn at least a but of money and develop the all-important track record of employment that allows you to get a better job? Why would you vote, indeed, at all - because it's not voting, as far as they can see, that will make a difference?

    I think Labour is a party that has completely lost any sense of self-awareness. Voting for Corbyn, a former union official and civil servant from a very middle-class background representing what is actually a pretty middle-class seat, would be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility. Which is bad news for anyone who wants good government.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    notme said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
    As I wrote in 2007: "The lesson here is simple: there is no “over” or “under” supply, there is only the price at which the market clears. And over the long-term, high oil prices will tend to encourage consumers to either reduce energy consumption or shift to other forms of energy. Similarly, investment in either inhospitable areas or in developing technologies will result in greater quantities of oil or synthetic crude coming on to the market. Each boom in the oil price sows the seeds of its own destruction."

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Borough, worth noting that Miliband also wanted to renationalise the railways.

    Of course, since his defenestration his former Shadow Cabinet have been criticising his rubbishness.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OP: It is said that Bush, former Governor of Florida, has very much lost his touch as a result of being out of front line politics for nearly a decade. Tonight he has to prove himself.

    Bush will be running as an outsider: the traditional route of the state governor: "I cleaned up my state and can do the same in Washington." The task of the other candidates is to paint Bush as the ultimate insider, via his family.

    Not exactly events, dear boy, events, but I do wonder if there will be a defining issue of the Americans' 2016 election, as healthcare was most recently. It may be that some hitherto dormant issue takes off, but whether it will be domestic surveillance, or perhaps the war on drugs, now that a couple of states have legalised dope without the sky falling in, or something else, I do not know, and am not anxious to get involved in betting until I've at least got an opinion.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    It sounds as if the money should run out in a couple of years, then Saudis will be paying taxes and having austerity to stay solvent. I cannot see that ending well.
    The concern now has to be how the Saudis will react to the loss of income - they have a huge demographic problem coming up with something like 50% of the population aged under 20.
    When they realise that they'll need to work for a living how many will become aligned with the nutcases of ISIS?
    Another Islamic failed state? Never seen that happen before.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    At this rate, Corbyn won't need to worry about stopping Brits selling arms to the Saudis - they won't have money to buy them.
    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,255
    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Plato said:

    I was a eat-or-heater too over a similar period and TBH, in a very strange way - because of my early upbringing of not very much, I just knuckled down and bought a wind-up torch to get around in the dark. Frankly, I got very very irritated with quite a few on here, who spouted about poverty and had no idea what it meant.

    When you can't use the fridge because you can't afford to power to run it, wash things in the sink with cold water et al - it's beyond their comprehension. My single luxury was keeping my phone line.

    Without getting all Yorkshireman about it - being out of touch is terribly easy, if you haven't been there. My friends used to kid me about my 1950s attitude to thrift when I earned a small fortune too :smiley:

    I was able to keep the fridge and freezer going, because they were good models and very energy-efficient. It was heating that was the killer, because I didn't have a very efficient boiler. (Even a price cap wouldn't have made a lot of difference, before anyone asks.) I borrowed a small oil-filled radiator and by very careful use of that I managed to keep one very small room (actually a bedroom) just bearable with lots of layers on, and stop the pipes freezing. But it wasn't easy.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?
    There's abso-bluddy-lutely not a shadow of a doubt those are the reasons.

    Buckhaven to Edinburgh - 34.5 miles
    Selkirk to Edinburgh - 46.9 miles
    Glasgow to Edinburgh - 47.4 miles

    I believe the extra 0.5 miles of proximity to Selkirk was what swung it for Ruthie.
    It seems pretty clear that the Tory plan was for John Lamont to dethrone Michael Moore and with his Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire seat coming up for grab, Ruthie could swoop in and become a Constituency MSP instead of being the Glasgow barrel scraper.

    With the SNP winning in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the whole plan was scuppered and now in desperation, the Tories are realising that a split ticket could well see Ruthie out of Holyrood.

    The sheer desperation of this branch of failed loyalism is plain for all to see.

    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Foxinsox, one does wonder how Mecca in the hands of ISIS would play out.

    From memory, it's an Islamic duty to perform hajj/pilgrimage and visit the city at least once during your life.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,255
    Plato said:

    At this rate, Corbyn won't need to worry about stopping Brits selling arms to the Saudis - they won't have money to buy them.

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    LOL. Although what happens to British Aerospace?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
    As I wrote in 2007: "The lesson here is simple: there is no “over” or “under” supply, there is only the price at which the market clears. And over the long-term, high oil prices will tend to encourage consumers to either reduce energy consumption or shift to other forms of energy. Similarly, investment in either inhospitable areas or in developing technologies will result in greater quantities of oil or synthetic crude coming on to the market. Each boom in the oil price sows the seeds of its own destruction."

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
    I love that putdown at the start:

    '“The world is consuming more oil than it is producing.” --The Economist, July 14-20 print edition.' Wow, that’s a shockingly foolish statement. Each day approximately 84 million barrels of oil are extracted from the earth, and approximately the same amount is consumed.

    It is brilliantly illogical to suggest that we are using more than we have of something. What were they thinking of?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
    As I wrote in 2007: "The lesson here is simple: there is no “over” or “under” supply, there is only the price at which the market clears. And over the long-term, high oil prices will tend to encourage consumers to either reduce energy consumption or shift to other forms of energy. Similarly, investment in either inhospitable areas or in developing technologies will result in greater quantities of oil or synthetic crude coming on to the market. Each boom in the oil price sows the seeds of its own destruction."

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
    Quite. Price is a function of supply and demand - has always been and will always be.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
    As I wrote in 2007: "The lesson here is simple: there is no “over” or “under” supply, there is only the price at which the market clears. And over the long-term, high oil prices will tend to encourage consumers to either reduce energy consumption or shift to other forms of energy. Similarly, investment in either inhospitable areas or in developing technologies will result in greater quantities of oil or synthetic crude coming on to the market. Each boom in the oil price sows the seeds of its own destruction."

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
    Quite. And it will never run out, just as it gets sparse, the price will increase to the point that other alternatives become valid. This is a major boom to our economy.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I had an oil radiator in the bedroom that I occasionally turned on, and cats make superb hot water bottles :smile:
    ydoethur said:

    Plato said:

    I was a eat-or-heater too over a similar period and TBH, in a very strange way - because of my early upbringing of not very much, I just knuckled down and bought a wind-up torch to get around in the dark. Frankly, I got very very irritated with quite a few on here, who spouted about poverty and had no idea what it meant.

    When you can't use the fridge because you can't afford to power to run it, wash things in the sink with cold water et al - it's beyond their comprehension. My single luxury was keeping my phone line.

    Without getting all Yorkshireman about it - being out of touch is terribly easy, if you haven't been there. My friends used to kid me about my 1950s attitude to thrift when I earned a small fortune too :smiley:

    I was able to keep the fridge and freezer going, because they were good models and very energy-efficient. It was heating that was the killer, because I didn't have a very efficient boiler. (Even a price cap wouldn't have made a lot of difference, before anyone asks.) I borrowed a small oil-filled radiator and by very careful use of that I managed to keep one very small room (actually a bedroom) just bearable with lots of layers on, and stop the pipes freezing. But it wasn't easy.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,983

    Mr. Foxinsox, one does wonder how Mecca in the hands of ISIS would play out.

    From memory, it's an Islamic duty to perform hajj/pilgrimage and visit the city at least once during your life.

    probably safest to do it perform hajj sooner rather than later..
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,255

    Mr. Borough, worth noting that Miliband also wanted to renationalise the railways.

    Of course, since his defenestration his former Shadow Cabinet have been criticising his rubbishness.

    Personally, I'm in favour of renationalising, but it really is not a priority. That money could be spent on the huge NHS funding hole. McTernan pretty convincingly demolishes the arguments in favour of doing something at the moment in yesterday's DT.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Doethur, that's a fantastic line.

    It's even better than the recent line, much highlighted in the media, that Cecil's brother Jericho, who is also a lion, has been killed.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?
    There's abso-bluddy-lutely not a shadow of a doubt those are the reasons.

    Buckhaven to Edinburgh - 34.5 miles
    Selkirk to Edinburgh - 46.9 miles
    Glasgow to Edinburgh - 47.4 miles

    I believe the extra 0.5 miles of proximity to Selkirk was what swung it for Ruthie.
    It seems pretty clear that the Tory plan was for John Lamont to dethrone Michael Moore and with his Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire seat coming up for grab, Ruthie could swoop in and become a Constituency MSP instead of being the Glasgow barrel scraper.

    With the SNP winning in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the whole plan was scuppered and now in desperation, the Tories are realising that a split ticket could well see Ruthie out of Holyrood.

    The sheer desperation of this branch of failed loyalism is plain for all to see.

    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.
    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Mr. Foxinsox, one does wonder how Mecca in the hands of ISIS would play out.

    From memory, it's an Islamic duty to perform hajj/pilgrimage and visit the city at least once during your life.

    Yes, every Muslim should travel for the Hajj to Mecca once in their lifetime.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,255
    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    Fascinating how wrong accepted wisdoms can be. Energy was only every going to get inextricably more expensive, peak oil, it was all running out etc etc etc.
    As I wrote in 2007: "The lesson here is simple: there is no “over” or “under” supply, there is only the price at which the market clears. And over the long-term, high oil prices will tend to encourage consumers to either reduce energy consumption or shift to other forms of energy. Similarly, investment in either inhospitable areas or in developing technologies will result in greater quantities of oil or synthetic crude coming on to the market. Each boom in the oil price sows the seeds of its own destruction."

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
    I love that putdown at the start:

    '“The world is consuming more oil than it is producing.” --The Economist, July 14-20 print edition.' Wow, that’s a shockingly foolish statement. Each day approximately 84 million barrels of oil are extracted from the earth, and approximately the same amount is consumed.

    It is brilliantly illogical to suggest that we are using more than we have of something. What were they thinking of?
    If you want humour value, read the comments at the end of the piece. I in shock for days at the intensity of the attack from the Peak Oil community. My favourite line "People like Smithson are part of the problem"
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. 1000, to be fair, I blame people like Smithson too. We never used to use oil before these 'Smithson' people turned up. They're clearly of a dubious nature.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    The implications for Australia of a defeat at Trent Bridge (if it happens):

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/906685.html

    Most of them hold good even if they win at Trent Bridge and then lose at the Oval.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    The Saudis haven't made any bet. They have not caused the price fall. That was caused by falling shale costs. The Saudis, rightly, knew they had to accept it, because if they cut production then shale players would just up production: the price would not go up much and the Saudis would just lose market share. The idea that the Saudis made the right choice in a difficult situation is not as good newspaper copy as a morality tale about them being punished by trying to drive others bankrupt, but its the reality.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Foxinsox, one does wonder how Mecca in the hands of ISIS would play out.

    From memory, it's an Islamic duty to perform hajj/pilgrimage and visit the city at least once during your life.

    Yes, every Muslim should travel for the Hajj to Mecca once in their lifetime.
    It is the fifth pillar of Islam, the other four being the declaration of faith, the prayer cycle, charitable giving and fasting in Ramadan. All Muslims are supposed to keep all five as far as they are able, although some exceptions may be made (e.g. charitable giving is not expected if giving the money would leave your own family in need of charitable assistance).
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    rcs1000 said:

    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?


    George Galloway?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That UnCut article is so sane - shame Corbynistas simply won't absorb what it's arguing.

    This is typical.
    Many of Corbyn’s supporters argue that it would be “suicidal” to chase Tory votes; the answer is to win the votes of people who didn’t bother to vote last time- starvelings who just need to be roused from their slumbers. It’s impossible to persuade this group that they might have a rather romantic view of non voters . They aren’t interested in knowing how many non-voters live in seats already held by Labour. They aren’t interested in hearing that Australia , where voting is compulsory, has a Tory government. They aren’t interested in the fact that non-voters don’t, on the whole, actually vote.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,210

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,575
    rcs1000 said:

    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?

    The cat's got my tongue.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,989

    Dair said:

    OchEye said:

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Looks like many people are beginning to be afraid of the SNP

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576914.Journalist_who_found_alleged_flaws_in_police_investigation_into_Emma_Caldwell_murder_says_he_was_unlawfully_spied_on/

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13573343.SNP_under_fire_over_indyref_omission_from_conference_agenda/?ref=ar

    Pretty soon we should have the interesting sight of the members of the SNP being afraid of the elite of the party.
    Oh I do like morning comedy from loyalist zoomers.

    So somehow a murder which happened on Labour's watch, the investigation of which was botched on Labour's watch by a police force which no longer exists is causing the SNP to somehow instruct the police (in a way they have no power to do) to spy on journalists.

    True Turnipacy at its finest.
    One thing we do know that is true is that the SNP should not be trusted at any time about anything. A more duplicitous bunch it would be hard to find.
    Looks like the zoonies have had too much sugar in their cereals this morning.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267

    Mr. Doethur, that's a fantastic line.

    It's even better than the recent line, much highlighted in the media, that Cecil's brother Jericho, who is also a lion, has been killed.

    Mr Dancer, flattered though I am, I'm also puzzled. What line, and what relation does it have to the unfortunate Cecil and Jericho?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    Yesterday she referred to helping 3,000 "off-book" kids. WTF?
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?

    This charity still seems to in rude health and run as a left-wing/union organisation. Its Patrons include Owen Jones and Mark Serwotka.

    http://www.waronwant.org/patrons

    Its management council seems composed of ex/current union/ists and charity professionals.

    http://www.waronwant.org/council-management
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Doethur, I refer to the revelation that Cecil the lion's brother is also a lion. As opposed to a flamingo, or bottle-nosed dolphin.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    The reality is the third sector has got far too fat off the taxpayer. I think there is certainly a role for charities bidding and running public programmes. But the issue is (and this is the same problem you get with many organisations who hoover up contracted out public services) that these bodies end up becoming just like the organisations they take over. Businesses like Capita are just as useless and inefficient at managing their public sector work as councils are, they just make a profit margin on top by overcharging on the margins of their contractual obligations.

    I can tell you where that money has gone, it would be gone into pensions and securing redundancy payments.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    Financier said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?

    This charity still seems to in rude health and run as a left-wing/union organisation. Its Patrons include Owen Jones and Mark Serwotka.

    http://www.waronwant.org/patrons

    Its management council seems composed of ex/current union/ists and charity professionals.

    http://www.waronwant.org/council-management
    That's a relaunch of War on Want (recreated 1991).

    The original one went bust in the mid 1980s...
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,210

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    Frankly, the whole of the Middle East is a series of failed states. Any replacement of the Saudis will almost certainly be worse. We need to develop alternative energy sources fast and we need, IMO, to be prepared to fight and defeat IS and all varieties of Islamist extremists because their ambitions extend beyond the Middle East and even if they were limited to there they would be a threat to the civilized world.

  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,575
    edited August 2015

    Kids Company -- genuine question -- why all the noise? Is it because of David Cameron's peripheral involvement? There seems to be too much spin on pb and elsewhere for £3 million. Is bad news being buried, and if so, what?

    Embedded in the celebretariat pretty much since it started.

    Blair being superficial. Brown needing a halo. Cameron possessing a soft nose.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    The Saudis haven't made any bet. They have not caused the price fall. That was caused by falling shale costs. The Saudis, rightly, knew they had to accept it, because if they cut production then shale players would just up production: the price would not go up much and the Saudis would just lose market share. The idea that the Saudis made the right choice in a difficult situation is not as good newspaper copy as a morality tale about them being punished by trying to drive others bankrupt, but its the reality.
    The Saudis are making significant industrial developments, including a phosphate and abauxite mine, an aluminium refinery and a huge new power station and desalination plant as well as a new port.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    Yesterday she referred to helping 3,000 "off-book" kids. WTF?
    Off Book means = someone's back pocket. When you have no controls you get fraud.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,989
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh

    Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255

    Either that, or she wants to represent a constituency nearer both her place of birth, education and home?
    There's abso-bluddy-lutely not a shadow of a doubt those are the reasons.

    Buckhaven to Edinburgh - 34.5 miles
    Selkirk to Edinburgh - 46.9 miles
    Glasgow to Edinburgh - 47.4 miles

    I believe the extra 0.5 miles of proximity to Selkirk was what swung it for Ruthie.
    It seems pretty clear that the Tory plan was for John Lamont to dethrone Michael Moore and with his Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire seat coming up for grab, Ruthie could swoop in and become a Constituency MSP instead of being the Glasgow barrel scraper.

    With the SNP winning in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the whole plan was scuppered and now in desperation, the Tories are realising that a split ticket could well see Ruthie out of Holyrood.

    The sheer desperation of this branch of failed loyalism is plain for all to see.

    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    LOL, Top Cuckoo of the day award.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    Frankly, the whole of the Middle East is a series of failed states. Any replacement of the Saudis will almost certainly be worse. We need to develop alternative energy sources fast and we need, IMO, to be prepared to fight and defeat IS and all varieties of Islamist extremists because their ambitions extend beyond the Middle East and even if they were limited to there they would be a threat to the civilized world.

    Except Israel!! The only natural resource it has is its people.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015
    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    The reality is the third sector has got far too fat off the taxpayer. I think there is certainly a role for charities bidding and running public programmes. But the issue is (and this is the same problem you get with many organisations who hoover up contracted out public services) that these bodies end up becoming just like the organisations they take over. Businesses like Capita are just as useless and inefficient at managing their public sector work as councils are, they just make a profit margin on top by overcharging on the margins of their contractual obligations.

    I can tell you where that money has gone, it would be gone into pensions and securing redundancy payments.
    The revelation from Today on Radio 4 was Cathy Evans of Children England revealing in an interview at 7.15 AM that there are 60,000 children's charities in the UK. When asked again she confirmed that figure.

    One wonders how many of those are doing anything useful versus the rackets, employment schemes and tax dodges.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,210

    Kids Company -- genuine question -- why all the noise? Is it because of David Cameron's peripheral involvement? There seems to be too much spin on pb and elsewhere for £3 million. Is bad news being buried, and if so, what?

    I can't answer the last question. But it is a high profile charity, the founder has cultivated the press and is now finding that she will die by it, there is Ministerial involvement and Ministerial directions are pretty rare, there is more to this story than meets the eye and if you look carefully at the stories that are out there you could make a reasonably educated good guess, legal reasons prevent more being said and the broad outlines are not hugely dissimilar from other saints who find their halos slipping, the waste of money is always interesting, how charities behave has been in the news lately and, most importantly, if children in need are now going to be abandoned - though I am a tad sceptical about the wailing coming from CB herself or her fans - that is a real issue.

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,989
    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?


    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    Frankly, the whole of the Middle East is a series of failed states. Any replacement of the Saudis will almost certainly be worse. We need to develop alternative energy sources fast and we need, IMO, to be prepared to fight and defeat IS and all varieties of Islamist extremists because their ambitions extend beyond the Middle East and even if they were limited to there they would be a threat to the civilized world.

    Except Israel!! The only natural resource it has is its people.

    It has other people's land as well
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    rcs1000 said:

    Financier said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The last high profile charity that went under in strange circumstances was War on Want.

    Can anyone remind me who was running that at the time?

    This charity still seems to in rude health and run as a left-wing/union organisation. Its Patrons include Owen Jones and Mark Serwotka.

    http://www.waronwant.org/patrons

    Its management council seems composed of ex/current union/ists and charity professionals.

    http://www.waronwant.org/council-management
    That's a relaunch of War on Want (recreated 1991).

    The original one went bust in the mid 1980s...
    "From 1983 to 1987, George Galloway was General Secretary of War On Want. The Daily Mirror accused Galloway of living luxuriously at the charity's expense. An independent auditor cleared him of misuse of funds, though he did repay £1,720 in contested expenses....

    More than two years after Galloway stepped down as General Secretary after being elected as a Labour MP, the British Government's Charity Commission investigated War on Want, finding accounting irregularities including that the financial reports were "materially mis-stated"[4] from 1985 to 1989, but little evidence that money was used for non-charitable purposes. .....The commission said responsibility lay largely with auditors and did not single out individuals for blame. War On Want was found to have been insolvent, and subsequently dismissed all its staff and went into administration. It was rescued and relaunched in 1991.

    In the 1990s, it focused on issues that resulted from globalisation, including workers' rights and a call to set up a Tobin tax on currency speculation. The charity set up the Tobin tax Network (now a separate charity called Stamp Out Poverty) to develop the proposal and press for its introduction.

    In 2006 War on Want launched a campaign for Palestinian human rights, including a report titled Profiting from the Occupation, which looked at European corporations who the charity claim are profiting from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories."

    Wiki
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    Yesterday she referred to helping 3,000 "off-book" kids. WTF?
    It's starting to sound like a Jersey children's home.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
    I hate to be pedantic Dair, but Scotland and England do not form the United Kingdom. They form the Kingdom of Great Britain (officially founded 1707, although used in some official documents before that for the sake of shortness - e.g. see the preamble to the King James Bible). This joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 to form 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' renamed 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1949 when Eire became a republic.

    So unless you take Northern Ireland with you on independence, there would still be a 'United Kingdom' left behind.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    Yesterday she referred to helping 3,000 "off-book" kids. WTF?
    Off Book means = someone's back pocket. When you have no controls you get fraud.
    When it comes to children's charities, operating with "no controls" screams of dangers far more worrying than fraud.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/
Sign In or Register to comment.