Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
I think the only way Corbyn could win a general election is if the entire Conservative party was banned from standing. Even then, he might struggle.
(Blanchflower's letter is the kiss of death for Corbyn's economic credibility among the intelligentsia anyway - a man who owes his career to being completely wrong on every major issue, but as it happens, completely in accord with the views of those he is speaking to. He has the credibility of Hugo Chavez's daughter without the ability.)
Danny Blanchflower in 2009 said Tory plans would lead to four million unemployed. Five million was "not inconceivable". It is actually around 1.85m.
But George Osborne is not a fool. Blanchflower's predictions were based on Osborne's Plan A. When Osborne realised his critics were right and he had indeed choked off Labour's recovery and flatlined the economy, he abandoned Plan A and switched to a new plan, confusingly also called Plan A.
Let me stop you right there. Labour's recovery?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You were saying?
The economy was recovering under Labour. Osborne flat-lined it.
That is the biggest oft-repeated piece of bullshit in the recent Labour playbook.
Find me anybody twith a credibility higher than Blanchflower's who thinks Labour's economic position going into the 2010 election was SUSTAINABLE. The word is missing from every leftist dictionary.
I look forward to a time when it's possible to go from Mandela Avenue through Hezbollah Way past Mcguiness Square and into the Peoples Chamber without ever having to pass the statue of Citizen Thatcher
On the way to Savile 'fuss about nothing' Childrens' Hospital?
While enjoying the view of the Hamas gallows and gibbet?
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
What recovery was this? Osborne inherited an economy that had undergone a major contraction.
RE Blanchflower.. Since his infamous declaration about unemployment that proved to be utter nonsense , his appearances dwindled on the BBC such that I cannot remember the last time I saw him on TV. After all, any prognostication he might make should be met with a question about why anyone should believe anything he says given his track record.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
Labour lost that argument in the 2010 election and again in the 2015 election. It looks like being run out again for 2020. I wonder what tbe result will be this time?
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
Eck had a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, on the date of his choosing, with his choice of wording, in the most benign financial and political climate imaginable, and managed to blow it.
Nicola inherits all the crises initiated on his watch.
Police Scotland. Education, at all levels, in crisis.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
Labour lost that argument in the 2010 election and again in the 2015 election. It looks like being run out again for 2020. I wonder what tbe result will be this time?
Labour did not make that argument in 2015, which is what a lot of people are complaining about.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
Labour lost that argument in the 2010 election and again in the 2015 election. It looks like being run out again for 2020. I wonder what tbe result will be this time?
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of people like me who would like to be able to vote Labour but can't as long as they retain their lack of economic credibility.
Indeed - the sharp intake of breath at that Leaders' Debate spoke volumes. Who asked the question is irrelevant, it was EdM's answer that stole the show for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
Labour lost that argument in the 2010 election and again in the 2015 election. It looks like being run out again for 2020. I wonder what tbe result will be this time?
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
Um, collapse of tax revenues because of a recession does not contribute to a structural deficit.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
What recovery was this? Osborne inherited an economy that had undergone a major contraction.
Indeed. Remember this from the year before. The economy was screwed then and getting worse
Cooper has finally - too late, probably - said what needed saying about the importance of Labour not giving legitimacy and credibility to extremists, particularly at a time when extremists are recruiting and grooming. The whole interview can be read over at the Telegraph.
Incidentally, I saw that a 16 year old was taken into care to save her from Islamist grooming by her parents, with it being described by the judge as on a par with child abuse.
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
The fact that that substantially increased revenue spending had been embedded as a 'structural' feature of the economy on the basis that the increased City tax revenues would never collapse might have had some thing to do with the consequences after...
I think the only way Corbyn could win a general election is if the entire Conservative party was banned from standing. Even then, he might struggle.
(Blanchflower's letter is the kiss of death for Corbyn's economic credibility among the intelligentsia anyway - a man who owes his career to being completely wrong on every major issue, but as it happens, completely in accord with the views of those he is speaking to. He has the credibility of Hugo Chavez's daughter without the ability.)
Danny Blanchflower in 2009 said Tory plans would lead to four million unemployed. Five million was "not inconceivable". It is actually around 1.85m.
But George Osborne is not a fool. Blanchflower's predictions were based on Osborne's Plan A. When Osborne realised his critics were right and he had indeed choked off the recovery inherited from Labour, and flatlined the economy, he abandoned Plan A and switched to a new plan, confusingly also called Plan A.
I think he's been through several iterations since then. I think he's now reached Plan A.
"Austerity" is a political slogan, no more, no less. And a highly effective one for the Conservatives, because the public are in a position where they "accept" that "austerity" is necessary. So he can tweak/change his plans to his heart's content to adapt to what the economy is doing, but it doesn't matter what he does it's still "austerity". It also makes his opponents look in(un?)credible, because by attacking "austerity" without ever quite being able to define what austerity means, they are constantly attacking a moving target, and can never credibly present an alternative. The moment they try and articulate an alternative they find that Osborne has commandeered it, and their alternative has been renamed as "austerity".
(the irony of course is that Labour has a problem that the SNP has commandeered the alternative slogan "anti-austerity", and they don't act upon it either)
The Telegraph can disclose that Unite, the biggest trade union, has been encouraging its members to sign up to vote for Mr Corbyn in order to “wrest control of the Labour party” out of the hands of the “Blairite elite”.
A local Unite branch secretary in south London, also urged backers of the Lewisham People Before Profit Party – a rival political party - to join Labour and vote for Mr Corbyn. This would be a clear breach of Labour’s rules intended to stop non-Labour supporters from taking part in the leadership election.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
I look forward to a time when it's possible to go from Mandela Avenue through Hezbollah Way past Mcguiness Square and into the Peoples Chamber without ever having to pass the statue of Citizen Thatcher
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
morning kle4, I could name you a few , mainly the "Scottish" Scotland haters on here mind you.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
Turnip award looming , you may rival Scott in future by the looks of it. Spoofer does not even come close.
Anyone can grow an economy in the short term if you're doing it by increasing government spending even faster. The point is that it's like claiming you'll win a marathon when you're sprinting during a 20m patch in the middle and everyone else is pacing themselves. Prudent economic management means looking long term. Labour governments typically avoid doing this, which is why they always leave office with higher unemployment than they got in with.
I would give a whole English pound (honorary Cardi) to be a fly on the wall when MalcolmG reads this:
We saw in the Scottish Independence referendum, it is possible to garner (and hold on to) the support of 45% of voters, even if your economic policies are incoherent, lacking in any economic or fiscal reality, so long as you can sell a vision that your plans are better than the status quo. 45% might not win a referendum, but under FPTP it can lead to a landslide in a general election. One of the things the SNP have managed to do brilliantly is get people who haven’t voted in the past to come out and vote for them, something Labour haven’t been able to replicate, Corbyn might be the man to do that with a different, bold vision.
Although I would of course want to be out of range of a rolled-up newspaper!
Would it be possible, for PB to have a whipround, to give TSE some evening classes, in basic grammar, most especially the purpose, of the comma?
Of course as a practitioner of the pedagogical arts (I believe you may have mentioned it once or twice), perhaps you could make yourself available for some home tutoring?
Mr. G, some cleaning is due to occur today, an ideal time to check.
Sometimes I wish the house could be hermetically sealed. Had that 5" spider story the other day, and found one [thankfully not that size] in the afternoon.
Maybe I should breed a smaller species of enormo-haddock to tackle the insectoid and arachnid menace.
Speaking of insectoids, not that long until XCOM 2 comes out. Still don't get why it's PC-only to start with. Be interesting to see if the PS4 gets that or Banner Saga first.
I'm still playing XCOM and have sunk something like 70 hours into the super mod 'long war' alone so far- I think the success of such mods made them want to go after the PD crowd first even harder. Maybe if people come up with good changes for them in gratitude they'll add them to non Pc releases pitched as a super edition or something.
In all honesty it seems weird though, the reboot sold well on other platforms I'd have though. The banner saga was good, but short
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
Turnip award looming , you may rival Scott in future by the looks of it. Spoofer does not even come close.
Mr. Doethur, that's eminently possible. Next time the beast is uncaged we'll see if she has anything in her fur (suspect it's been eaten by now, but still worth a look).
Likely to be doing a Cameron and hiding under the couch or similar
The long term plan requires such. Short term thinkers wouldn't get it.
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
The fact that that substantially increased revenue spending had been embedded as a 'structural' feature of the economy on the basis that the increased City tax revenues would never collapse might have had some thing to do with the consequences after...
Indeed. Building a fiscal model entirely dependent on permanently high financial profits is as stupid as Middle East governments doing the same on a permanently high oil price. Labour ran an econony on the delusion that they had abolished rainy days, and thus never needed to save for them. We are the poorer for it.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
Total idiocy
it was the over reliance on City revenues which made Brown's spending binge so toxic and caused the severity of the recession.
A balanced economy with spending under control would have recovered much quicker.
When the sun was shining Labour burnt the roof timbers to create more heat.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
Mr. Divvie, if we're to educate Mr. Eagles then his abysmal 'grasp' of classical history must be considered the top priority for improvement.
Mr. kle4, indeed, it sold loads on all platforms, as I understand it.
I've also heard good things about the Long War mod. I wonder if Fallout 4 will be unique (or rare) in offering console mods, or if this will become a new standard.
I recall Red Alert 3 coming late to the PS3, but with a few extras (maps, behind the scenes bits etc).
Mind you, whilst I want to play XCOM 2 the fact it isn't released, initially, for PS4 does mean I can just focus on Fallout 4. I already have cunning plans to ensure security of my home base (inspired by medieval defensive doctrine).
Indeed. Building a fiscal model entirely dependent on permanently high financial profits is as stupid as Middle East governments doing the same on a permanently high oil price. Labour ran an econony on the delusion that they had abolished rainy days, and thus never needed to save for them. We are the poorer for it.
Indeed. Building a fiscal model entirely dependent on permanently high financial profits is as stupid as Middle East governments doing the same on a permanently high oil price. Labour ran an econony on the delusion that they had abolished rainy days, and thus never needed to save for them. We are the poorer for it.
Is it Conservative policy to save for rainy days? Surely any Conservative Chancellor would come under sustained pressure to cut taxes? I do not think higher taxes than necessary feature in any party's programme, not even Corbynite Labour.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
Turnip award looming , you may rival Scott in future by the looks of it. Spoofer does not even come close.
Mr. L, the only for government debt to decline would be to run a surplus that exceeds interest payments. Given Labour bitched about cutting 'too far and too fast', the claim the deficit hasn't been cut fast enough would seem a shade... incongruous.
It must make Conservatives yearn for the days of Gordon Brown paying off Conservative debt. Brown was also the last Chancellor to run a surplus, but then surpluses were more common under Labour than Conservative governments since the war.
That couldn't be anything to do with the state of the economy they inherited and its trajectory, could it?
The economy's trajectory was up, until Osborne choked off the recovery he inherited.
The economy in 2010 was in a far poorer position than the one Brown inherited in 1997.
Labour lost that argument in the 2010 election and again in the 2015 election. It looks like being run out again for 2020. I wonder what tbe result will be this time?
Labour did not make that argument in 2015, which is what a lot of people are complaining about.
They went for an odd message - "no we didn't spend too much, how dare you...but it is now vital we get spending under control and will not promise to reverse any cuts". I think austerity is needed and Osborne has gone too slow, but labour made the error of trying to act like they accepted the need for restraint while ed m clearly didn't actually believe that. It was incoherent politicking.
Labour need either to genuinely accept the overspending point, not believe it but keep quiet about it and leave the argument to economists and historians while the Tories win this round, or they need to fight it properly - maybe they lose even harder, maybe after another five years people will be willing to hear it after all, but they need to pick.
If you look at Britain's economic history since the War in a dispassionate and non partisan way you will not see any sign that one party is different to the other. You can highlight the first Thatcher administration as having the worst performance by quite some big margin. But that is a big outlier. If you support your team because you think they are better at counting the beans you are living in a dream world.
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
Total idiocy
it was the over reliance on City revenues which made Brown's spending binge so toxic and caused the severity of the recession.
A balanced economy with spending under control would have recovered much quicker.
When the sun was shining Labour burnt the roof timbers to create more heat.
The best summary yet of Brown's time as CoE!
Does anyone know who the other 40 economists are in the Guardian?
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
So the SNP are going to campaign on the slogan "the White paper was a lie"?
awesome
People are always able to say the circumstances have changed so they have changed position. How big a change they can get away with depends on popularity of the people proposing the change and what that change is. At some point the SNP will be in a position to do so. Given how popular they are if they wanted they could probably do it now, but the time is not right.
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
That would be pointless. Why hold a referendum (which is supposed to make a decision) if one side won't accept a result that goes against them?
"the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation deducted from any compensation"
Don't know their Human Rights Act, do they.
The resulting court cases and subsequent awards would tie the Government in knots. cost £100s of millions in legal fees AND lend in record £billions in compensation...
Why is Brown the last chap to run a surplus? Could it be that he initially copied Conservative economic plans, then crashed the economy with the worst recession in history meaning we still have a massive deficit after five years of cuts that were 'too far and too fast'?
You silly sausage.
The crash was global and not caused here. You are in danger of arguing that Gordon Brown was a towering genius who kept Britain safe from the global economic meltdown, only to be undone by a quite separate, homegrown collapse.
Do you still not know who was in charge of bank regulation ?
London was at the time the world's largest financial centre.
It is the collapse of tax revenues from the City that caused the large structural deficit, and not spending beforehand. Banking regulation, for good or ill, was not the cause of the global financial meltdown.
Total idiocy
it was the over reliance on City revenues which made Brown's spending binge so toxic and caused the severity of the recession.
A balanced economy with spending under control would have recovered much quicker.
When the sun was shining Labour burnt the roof timbers to create more heat.
The best summary yet of Brown's time as CoE!
Does anyone know who the other 40 economists are in the Guardian?
Spot on and for DJL who doesn't seem to grasp basic budgeting.. Suppose you work for a firm and you are used to getting bonuses every year. The imprudent spend that bonus expecting that bonus to come at the end of the year to pay off their credit card bills.
When the bonus does not happen the imprudent is stuffed and that's what happened with Brown.
The prudent spend the bonus after receipt, not before..
On topic, no, Corbyn is unelectable. Even if there is another recession, the following election would be 1992 with knobs on: clinging to nurse for fear of worse. Greece can be fited as an example of the far left gaining power but the right can now also cite it as an example of them bringing chaos on top of austerity.
As for his dodgy connections, it is one thing to talk when there is something to talk about - in Major's cas, it was the IRA who asked for talks - it's quite another to stage a publicity stunt in their favour at a time when they're engaged in an armed campaign against the people and values of the country.
If you look at Britain's economic history since the War in a dispassionate and non partisan way you will not see any sign that one party is different to the other. You can highlight the first Thatcher administration as having the worst performance by quite some big margin. But that is a big outlier. If you support your team because you think they are better at counting the beans you are living in a dream world.
What's funny is sometimes partisans accept the charcterisation given to them by their opponents, and adjust them to be a strength rather than just refute them outright, or indeed accept to some degree the positives claimed by their opponents but claim the overall package is bad. At its most basic they might even relish the actual difference as not being left or right but one side leading with head and one with heart.
Does anyone know who the other 40 economists are in the Guardian?
David Blanchflower professor of economics, Dartmouth and Stirling; Mariana Mazzucato professor, economics of innovation, Sussex; Dr Judith Heyer Emeritus Fellow, Somerville College, Oxford, Grazia Ietto-Gillies, emeritus professor, London South Bank University Malcolm Walker, emeritus professor, Leeds Robert Wade, professor, LSE Michael Burke, economist Steve Keen, professor, Kingston Victoria Chick, emeritus professor, UCL Anna Coote, NEF, personal capacity Ozlem Onaran, professor, Greenwich Andrew Cumbers, professor, Glasgow Tina Roberts, economist Dr Suzanne J Konzelmann, Birkbeck, Tanweer Ali, lecturer, New York John Weeks, professor, SOAS Marco Veronese Passarella, lecturer, Leeds Dr Jerome De-Henau, senior lecturer, Open University. Stefano Lucarelli, professor, Bergamo Paul Hudson, formerly Universität Wissemburg-Halle Mario Seccareccia, professor, Ottawa Dr Pritam Singh, professor, Oxford Brookes Arturo Hermann, senior research fellow at Istat, Rome Dr John Roberts, Brunel Cyrus Bina, professor, Minnesota Alan Freeman, retired former economist George Irvin, professor, SOAS Susan Pashkoff, economist Radhika Desai, professor, Manitoba Diego Sánchez-Ancochea, associate professor, Oxford Guglielmo Forges Davanzati, associate professor, Salento Jeanette Findlay, senior lecturer, Glasgow Raphael Kaplinsky, emeritus professor, Open University John Ross, Socialist Economic Bulletin Steven Hail, adjunct lecturer, Adelaide Louis-Philippe Rochon, associate professor, Laurentian Hilary Wainwright, editor, Red Pepper Arturo Hermann, senior researcher, ISAE, Rome Joshua Ryan-Collins, NEF, personal capacity James Medway, lecturer City University Alberto Paloni, professor, Glasgow Dr Mary Roberton, Leeds
Impressive !! ......getting the Death Star quotation into the first few lines of a Corbyn thread. He may well have a point that he was ahead of his time in talking to these people. There is a leading military officer calling this morning for us to talk to ISIS.
On topic, no, Corbyn is unelectable. Even if there is another recession, the following election would be 1992 with knobs on: clinging to nurse for fear of worse. Greece can be fited as an example of the far left gaining power but the right can now also cite it as an example of them bringing chaos on top of austerity.
As for his dodgy connections, it is one thing to talk when there is something to talk about - in Major's cas, it was the IRA who asked for talks - it's quite another to stage a publicity stunt in their favour at a time when they're engaged in an armed campaign against the people and values of the country.
more difficult when they're still murdering and beating people.
Why have the BbC got this before the victims given its an independent enquiry???
"The findings of the Jimmy Savile inquiry are secretly circulating among BBC bosses – but have yet to be shown to victims.
Sources say the long-delayed independent report ‘tears the BBC apart’ and is ‘much worse than expected’. In particular, it is said to show that abuse on the Corporation’s premises was far more widespread than previously feared during the period Savile worked there. BBC chiefs are also braced for severe criticism over its failure to act on rumours of Savile’s behaviour towards children and young people."
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
That would be pointless. Why hold a referendum (which is supposed to make a decision) if one side won't accept a result that goes against them?
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against. A defeat is merely a delay. Until independence is not popular among a significant portion of the country a political force asking for it will call referendums at some point, how can they not? If they remain popular by or in spite of committing to or leaving the door open to asking the people again, they can.
On another matter, I did scoff at the idea the Scottish conservatives should change their names, and apparently any unionist transfer votes were minimal, but maybe they really should change their name to the Scottish unionist party or something. It's not like it will hurt them even if it won't help.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
We could arrange mid-afternoon tea, just after the industrial scale rape, and just before the crucifixion of children in the evening.
Don't agree with it Mr Morris but the point was made and supported by the looks in some areas of the establishment and military You will of course never be able to "talk too" such fanatics but it will strike a chord. It is if you like the approach the Chamberlin took to that nice Mr Hitler and look how that turned out?
Personally I am fed up with the pussyfooting around and the hand wringing after every attack saying they will never win. There is only one solution to ISIS of course.
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
So the SNP are going to campaign on the slogan "the White paper was a lie"?
awesome
People are always able to say the circumstances have changed so they have changed position. How big a change they can get away with depends on popularity of the people proposing the change and what that change is. At some point the SNP will be in a position to do so. Given how popular they are if they wanted they could probably do it now, but the time is not right.
kle4, you would be better talking to a brick. Scott is just a sad SNP hater , not bright enough to take in what you are saying due to his weird fixation.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
The comments on the article are 'interesting', many contributors from barking, and Bryant has joined them.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Another economic illiterate.. Apart from being a loathsome individual he has no grasp that putting contracts out to tender to get value for money is a good thing.
Impressive !! ......getting the Death Star quotation into the first few lines of a Corbyn thread. He may well have a point that he was ahead of his time in talking to these people. There is a leading military officer calling this morning for us to talk to ISIS.
They don't want to talk right now. The ira similarly weren't ready to be talked to. Governments are secretly ready to talk to anyone at some point, but the right moment is important and you need to be firm until then. Corbyn appears to just believe you should try to talk no matter the circumstances, which undercuts your own hand when trying to negotiate. Declare you will definitely end hostilities no matter what beforehand, and you don't get a good deal at the actual peace talks.
Miss Vance, quite. I wonder if the BBC will be reducing executive/'star' pay to help make ends meet, or just focus on stuff that will catch the public's eye?
On topic, no, Corbyn is unelectable. Even if there is another recession, the following election would be 1992 with knobs on: clinging to nurse for fear of worse. Greece can be fited as an example of the far left gaining power but the right can now also cite it as an example of them bringing chaos on top of austerity.
As for his dodgy connections, it is one thing to talk when there is something to talk about - in Major's cas, it was the IRA who asked for talks - it's quite another to stage a publicity stunt in their favour at a time when they're engaged in an armed campaign against the people and values of the country.
more difficult when they're still murdering and beating people.
Or not bring up the bodies. Corbyn is an odious old fool, unfit to shovel shit...
Miss Vance, wasn't that Hamas in Gaza? Or did both do it?
Incidentally, I'm occasionally having an issue when, upon reloading for fresh comments, it seems to freeze. Closing the tab and opening in a new one resolves the issue.
Impressive !! ......getting the Death Star quotation into the first few lines of a Corbyn thread. He may well have a point that he was ahead of his time in talking to these people. There is a leading military officer calling this morning for us to talk to ISIS.
Talking implies that you're prepared to come to an arrangement and hence are prepared to make concessions. What possible concessions could reasonably be made to ISIS?
One reason why the talks on N Ireland were possible is that fundamental concessions weren't made by the state; as Sinn Fein said they could have had everything on offer in 1998 back in1973.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Why have the BbC got this before the victims given its an independent enquiry???
"The findings of the Jimmy Savile inquiry are secretly circulating among BBC bosses – but have yet to be shown to victims.
Sources say the long-delayed independent report ‘tears the BBC apart’ and is ‘much worse than expected’. In particular, it is said to show that abuse on the Corporation’s premises was far more widespread than previously feared during the period Savile worked there. BBC chiefs are also braced for severe criticism over its failure to act on rumours of Savile’s behaviour towards children and young people."
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Another economic illiterate.. Apart from being a loathsome individual he has no grasp that putting contracts out to tender to get value for money is a good thing.
Indeed - it may even secure a lower bid from the Met Office.....
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Back in 2011 my local council as a first approach to making savings threatened to withdraw all the lollipop crossing ladies and men which caused uproar.
meanwhile they voted themselves an extra expenses allowance.
The BBC's online weather system is atrocious in terms of both accuracy of data and implementation. The experience of using their complaints system (which I used to tell them of a problem with their weather system) is something that Douglas Adams would have rejected as being too improbable.
Basically: it's not fit for purpose. Whether that's the BBC's fault, the Met Office's, or both, I cannot tell.
Review may be up today or in a few days, but for those into classical history I can recommend James Romm's Ghost on the Throne, covering the years immediately after Alexander's death.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Another economic illiterate.. Apart from being a loathsome individual he has no grasp that putting contracts out to tender to get value for money is a good thing.
Indeed - it may even secure a lower bid from the Met Office.....
Everything is connected. Will the government make up the drop in Met Office income?
Eck had a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, on the date of his choosing, with his choice of wording, in the most benign financial and political climate imaginable, and managed to blow it.
Nicola inherits all the crises initiated on his watch.
Police Scotland. Education, at all levels, in crisis.
And Swinney
There is also the infighting as the list SNP MSP's try to become constituency MSP's. All those new members actually wanting to make choices that the old guard in the local party committees don't want to get.
Also, not being widely reported, is the disappearing Conservative party. A lot of them are standing down while regarded Gavin Brown is leaving for better opportunities. Ruth Davidson's move from Glasgow to Edinburgh doesn't seem to be popular within the party stalwarts.
Chris Bryant MP tweets: It's difficult not to feel that the Met Office have lost the BBC contract thanks to Osborne assault on funding. Classic Tory own goal.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Another economic illiterate.. Apart from being a loathsome individual he has no grasp that putting contracts out to tender to get value for money is a good thing.
Indeed - it may even secure a lower bid from the Met Office.....
Everything is connected. Will the government make up the drop in Met Office income?
Everything is connected. Except, in your mind, Labour's economic illiteracy and the economic crash ...
Why have the BbC got this before the victims given its an independent enquiry???
"The findings of the Jimmy Savile inquiry are secretly circulating among BBC bosses – but have yet to be shown to victims.
Sources say the long-delayed independent report ‘tears the BBC apart’ and is ‘much worse than expected’. In particular, it is said to show that abuse on the Corporation’s premises was far more widespread than previously feared during the period Savile worked there. BBC chiefs are also braced for severe criticism over its failure to act on rumours of Savile’s behaviour towards children and young people."
If the BBC are to be heavily criticised isn't it a principle of equities that they get sight of it so they can respond?
Basing from the chilcott report doing that, it means this one should be released in10 years or so.
Perhaps but it means the BBC can have all there arguments / defences sorted before the victims even see the report. No doubt the victims will see it only when the findings appear in the press and victims associations will be asked to give views right away. Meanwhile the BBC has plenty of time to prepare.
Impressive !! ......getting the Death Star quotation into the first few lines of a Corbyn thread. He may well have a point that he was ahead of his time in talking to these people. There is a leading military officer calling this morning for us to talk to ISIS.
Talking implies that you're prepared to come to an arrangement and hence are prepared to make concessions. What possible concessions could reasonably be made to ISIS?
One reason why the talks on N Ireland were possible is that fundamental concessions weren't made by the state; as Sinn Fein said they could have had everything on offer in 1998 back in1973.
One must praise TSE for putting together such an entertainingly enjoyable narrative on this charming late summer early morning.
However as the gentleman in white coats glide effortlessly toward Chez TSE armed with a screen grab as incontrovertible proof on insanity, let us collectively remember him in his pomp :
Recall those salad days as he danced election nights away in those red shoes and sequin encrusted lycra shorts quoting tracts of ancient history as Con GAIN flashed over our screens and he poured forth on the finer details of upcoming AV threads mixed in with oblique references to pop hits of the 1970's and 80's.
We shall remember him ....
Men in white coats with straightjackets are rather old school.
The modern fashion is for deluded people to be looked after outside institutions, somewhere where they have a little company and pleasant diversion. It is known as "Social Media".
And are you suggesting that "Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister"?
I plead guilty to "old school" .... bring back Wackford Squeers.
On the prime ministerial and government aspirations of Messr J Corbyn & N Palmer Esq I must point out it's more likely that OGH might never refer again to a minor betting coup relating to the election of 44th President of the United States.
The BBC refused to say who the remaining bidders were, insisting the tender process was ‘ongoing’, but they are thought to be Metra, an offshoot of the New Zealand national forecasting service and Meteo, a collaboration between the Press Association, based in the UK, and the Dutch national weather service.
Kids Company helped scores of immigrants stay in UK on benefits and arranged private sex-change against NHS doctors advice
Kids Company spent public money helping immigrants and on surgery A 207-page report from 2013 states that between March 2011 - March 2013 charity helped 123 people with 'immigration issues' by paying legal bills Sources also say gender reassignment surgery, funded by one of the charity’s private donors, was organised after NHS refused to carry it out It also doled out £60,000 to Oxford University graduate over past 2 years Follows revelations founder Camila Batmanghelidjh had a 'personal private swimming pool' in a £5,000-a-month mansion paid for from charity's funds
Eck had a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, on the date of his choosing, with his choice of wording, in the most benign financial and political climate imaginable, and managed to blow it.
Nicola inherits all the crises initiated on his watch.
Police Scotland. Education, at all levels, in crisis.
And Swinney
There is also the infighting as the list SNP MSP's try to become constituency MSP's. All those new members actually wanting to make choices that the old guard in the local party committees don't want to get.
Also, not being widely reported, is the disappearing Conservative party. A lot of them are standing down while regarded Gavin Brown is leaving for better opportunities. Ruth Davidson's move from Glasgow to Edinburgh doesn't seem to be popular within the party stalwarts.
Ruth is desperate to cling to the wreckage of the sub regional Tory lifeboat, making sure she gets the only lifejacket
The Corbynistas have right and democracy on their side. Ed Miliband threw open the leadership contest to trade union members and anyone who paid £3. They, and party members, can have a full vote on equal terms. It was a democratic impulse, partly designed to weaken the influence of the trade union machines. But it made no difference. Last time, 211,000 trade unionists voted, making up 33 per cent of the vote, as a separate section of Labour’s antique (although it dated only from 1981) electoral college. This time 190,000 trade unionists have signed up, accounting for 31 per cent of the total.
Kids Company helped scores of immigrants stay in UK on benefits and arranged private sex-change against NHS doctors advice
Kids Company spent public money helping immigrants and on surgery A 207-page report from 2013 states that between March 2011 - March 2013 charity helped 123 people with 'immigration issues' by paying legal bills Sources also say gender reassignment surgery, funded by one of the charity’s private donors, was organised after NHS refused to carry it out It also doled out £60,000 to Oxford University graduate over past 2 years Follows revelations founder Camila Batmanghelidjh had a 'personal private swimming pool' in a £5,000-a-month mansion paid for from charity's funds
The BBC is doing its' moral duty by dumping the Met Office after the latter disgracefully provided a public forecast of rain for the fourth and fifth days of the 5th Test Match, thereby giving vital intelligence to the Australian team that then applied the follow-on to our brave fellows.
The BBC refused to say who the remaining bidders were, insisting the tender process was ‘ongoing’, but they are thought to be Metra, an offshoot of the New Zealand national forecasting service and Meteo, a collaboration between the Press Association, based in the UK, and the Dutch national weather service.
Comments
Find me anybody twith a credibility higher than Blanchflower's who thinks Labour's economic position going into the 2010 election was SUSTAINABLE. The word is missing from every leftist dictionary.
Eck had a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, on the date of his choosing, with his choice of wording, in the most benign financial and political climate imaginable, and managed to blow it.
Nicola inherits all the crises initiated on his watch.
Police Scotland. Education, at all levels, in crisis.
And Swinney
And then he fell off the stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Incidentally, I saw that a 16 year old was taken into care to save her from Islamist grooming by her parents, with it being described by the judge as on a par with child abuse.
Would it be possible, for PB to have a whipround, to give TSE some evening classes, in basic grammar, most especially the purpose, of the comma?
Of course as a practitioner of the pedagogical arts (I believe you may have mentioned it once or twice), perhaps you could make yourself available for some home tutoring?
In all honesty it seems weird though, the reboot sold well on other platforms I'd have though. The banner saga was good, but short
Democracy means that sometimes you lose.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13620831.Revealed__new_Scottish_left_party_named_as_RISE/
Indeed. Building a fiscal model entirely dependent on permanently high financial profits is as stupid as Middle East governments doing the same on a permanently high oil price. Labour ran an econony on the delusion that they had abolished rainy days, and thus never needed to save for them. We are the poorer for it.
it was the over reliance on City revenues which made Brown's spending binge so toxic and caused the severity of the recession.
A balanced economy with spending under control would have recovered much quicker.
When the sun was shining Labour burnt the roof timbers to create more heat.
Mr. kle4, indeed, it sold loads on all platforms, as I understand it.
I've also heard good things about the Long War mod. I wonder if Fallout 4 will be unique (or rare) in offering console mods, or if this will become a new standard.
I recall Red Alert 3 coming late to the PS3, but with a few extras (maps, behind the scenes bits etc).
Mind you, whilst I want to play XCOM 2 the fact it isn't released, initially, for PS4 does mean I can just focus on Fallout 4. I already have cunning plans to ensure security of my home base (inspired by medieval defensive doctrine).
"Nicola inherits all the crises initiated on his watch"
You just have to laugh out loud at such a disregard for reality. Will Nicola have an overall majority in 2016 or merely a very large lead over SLAB?
No more boom. And bust.
Edit: older quotes snipped as quoting was broken.
awesome
Labour need either to genuinely accept the overspending point, not believe it but keep quiet about it and leave the argument to economists and historians while the Tories win this round, or they need to fight it properly - maybe they lose even harder, maybe after another five years people will be willing to hear it after all, but they need to pick.
Does anyone know who the other 40 economists are in the Guardian?
Corbyn extreme? No
t at all
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/aug/23/housing-planning-controls-overhaul
Don't know their Human Rights Act, do they.
The resulting court cases and subsequent awards would tie the Government in knots. cost £100s of millions in legal fees AND lend in record £billions in compensation...
Ignorant muppets.
When the bonus does not happen the imprudent is stuffed and that's what happened with Brown.
The prudent spend the bonus after receipt, not before..
As for his dodgy connections, it is one thing to talk when there is something to talk about - in Major's cas, it was the IRA who asked for talks - it's quite another to stage a publicity stunt in their favour at a time when they're engaged in an armed campaign against the people and values of the country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785
Mariana Mazzucato professor, economics of innovation, Sussex;
Dr Judith Heyer Emeritus Fellow, Somerville College, Oxford,
Grazia Ietto-Gillies, emeritus professor, London South Bank University
Malcolm Walker, emeritus professor, Leeds
Robert Wade, professor, LSE
Michael Burke, economist
Steve Keen, professor, Kingston
Victoria Chick, emeritus professor, UCL
Anna Coote, NEF, personal capacity
Ozlem Onaran, professor, Greenwich
Andrew Cumbers, professor, Glasgow
Tina Roberts, economist
Dr Suzanne J Konzelmann, Birkbeck,
Tanweer Ali, lecturer, New York
John Weeks, professor, SOAS
Marco Veronese Passarella, lecturer, Leeds
Dr Jerome De-Henau, senior lecturer, Open University.
Stefano Lucarelli, professor, Bergamo
Paul Hudson, formerly Universität Wissemburg-Halle
Mario Seccareccia, professor, Ottawa
Dr Pritam Singh, professor, Oxford Brookes
Arturo Hermann, senior research fellow at Istat, Rome
Dr John Roberts, Brunel
Cyrus Bina, professor, Minnesota
Alan Freeman, retired former economist
George Irvin, professor, SOAS
Susan Pashkoff, economist
Radhika Desai, professor, Manitoba
Diego Sánchez-Ancochea, associate professor, Oxford
Guglielmo Forges Davanzati, associate professor, Salento
Jeanette Findlay, senior lecturer, Glasgow
Raphael Kaplinsky, emeritus professor, Open University
John Ross, Socialist Economic Bulletin
Steven Hail, adjunct lecturer, Adelaide
Louis-Philippe Rochon, associate professor, Laurentian
Hilary Wainwright, editor, Red Pepper
Arturo Hermann, senior researcher, ISAE, Rome
Joshua Ryan-Collins, NEF, personal capacity
James Medway, lecturer City University
Alberto Paloni, professor, Glasgow
Dr Mary Roberton, Leeds
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/news/comment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207453/Yes-know-cause-outrage-believe-talk-ISIS-explosive-intervention-led-respected-veteran-led-British-troops-Iraq-War.html
Why have the BbC got this before the victims given its an independent enquiry???
"The findings of the Jimmy Savile inquiry are secretly circulating among BBC bosses – but have yet to be shown to victims.
Sources say the long-delayed independent report ‘tears the BBC apart’ and is ‘much worse than expected’. In particular, it is said to show that abuse on the Corporation’s premises was far more widespread than previously feared during the period Savile worked there.
BBC chiefs are also braced for severe criticism over its failure to act on rumours of Savile’s behaviour towards children and young people."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207502/Jimmy-Savile-report-tears-BBC-apart-Victims-fury-findings-secretly-handed-Corporation-bosses.html#ixzz3jclBemzI
We could arrange mid-afternoon tea, just after the industrial scale rape, and just before the crucifixion of children in the evening.
On another matter, I did scoff at the idea the Scottish conservatives should change their names, and apparently any unionist transfer votes were minimal, but maybe they really should change their name to the Scottish unionist party or something. It's not like it will hurt them even if it won't help.
Or its the BBC playing the 'funding cuts card' to generate public support......
Personally I am fed up with the pussyfooting around and the hand wringing after every attack saying they will never win. There is only one solution to ISIS of course.
Miss Vance, quite. I wonder if the BBC will be reducing executive/'star' pay to help make ends meet, or just focus on stuff that will catch the public's eye?
Incidentally, I'm occasionally having an issue when, upon reloading for fresh comments, it seems to freeze. Closing the tab and opening in a new one resolves the issue.
One reason why the talks on N Ireland were possible is that fundamental concessions weren't made by the state; as Sinn Fein said they could have had everything on offer in 1998 back in1973.
Basing from the chilcott report doing that, it means this one should be released in10 years or so.
meanwhile they voted themselves an extra expenses allowance.
The BBC's online weather system is atrocious in terms of both accuracy of data and implementation. The experience of using their complaints system (which I used to tell them of a problem with their weather system) is something that Douglas Adams would have rejected as being too improbable.
Basically: it's not fit for purpose. Whether that's the BBC's fault, the Met Office's, or both, I cannot tell.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-leadership-contest-they-think-its-all-over-and-its-all-ed-milibands-fault-10467340.html
Also, not being widely reported, is the disappearing Conservative party. A lot of them are standing down while regarded Gavin Brown is leaving for better opportunities. Ruth Davidson's move from Glasgow to Edinburgh doesn't seem to be popular within the party stalwarts.
On the prime ministerial and government aspirations of Messr J Corbyn & N Palmer Esq I must point out it's more likely that OGH might never refer again to a minor betting coup relating to the election of 44th President of the United States.
That unlikely.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207392/Met-Office-fury-BBC-gives-contract-worth-millions-foreigners.html#ixzz3jcufXbiG
The BBC is doing its' moral duty by dumping the Met Office after the latter disgracefully provided a public forecast of rain for the fourth and fifth days of the 5th Test Match, thereby giving vital intelligence to the Australian team that then applied the follow-on to our brave fellows.
Huzzah for patriotic BBC.
Mandy advising the EU on how to keep us in.
Sort of makes you want to vote out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11817263/Peter-Mandelson-advising-EU-on-stopping-British-exit.html