They had immense pleasure in signing off the final damage report as
Captains Basham, Buckle and Dent
Our chief witness in the first case I was ever involved in during my articles rejoiced in the name of Randy Kruk....
There is no point in this conversation.
Nothing will ever beat the British Ambassador (in Moscow, I think) during 1916 who wrote to the Foreign Officer to report that he had a new colleague by the name of Mustapha Kunt.
As he put it "we all feel like that from time to time, but it takes a Turk to put in on their card"
Archibald Kerr, Lord Inverchapel, British Ambassador to Moscow, writing to Reginald Pembroke in 1943, when the outcome of Barbarossa was still in doubt:
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador"
I have actually seen the original, which is in the National Archives and has a government stamp on it, so despite Wikipedia casting doubt on it it is genuine!
"I hear that Team Corbyn has started ringing round senior Labour MPs to check whether they are willing to serve in a Jeremy Corbyn-led Shadow Cabinet. They may not be measuring the curtains, but they are leafing through the catalogues." http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/road-corbyn/31401
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
I hope it proves all you would have wished for. Seriously. I don't agree with Corbyn on most things, and I think Labour are showing some odd priorities, but whatever works for you I guess.
Incidentally, one thing I didn't realise until today is that any full member can vote in this election, and full membership is open to anyone over 14 (how I found this out is probably pretty obvious, given my profession).
My reply to any questions on the subject at school was, 'I never thought I would see a British political party commit mass suicide in my lifetime.' I'm still hoping against hope that I won't.
NFL starts tonight - Steelers at Patriots. Tom Brady in search of redemption and they unveil their Super Bowl banner. NFL Sunday Ticket starts this weekend, with the amazing Red Zone Channel. America's Team host the Giants on the NBC Sunday Night game.
The unwatchable exhibition games are finally over! I can't wait!
I still have not visited Jerry World, something I need to rectify soon.
Carrie Underwood is back with the theme song....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdS5vkADA0I
I've put a couple of quid on Jarryd Hayne for regular season MVP at 150/1 - there's political reasons why he wouldn't even have to be the best player just in the running to win it.
There's actually quite a few good value bets on him (3/1 for a rushing touchdown during the season, 9/1 on a receiving touchdown, 9/4 on a return TD and others).
They had immense pleasure in signing off the final damage report as
Captains Basham, Buckle and Dent
Our chief witness in the first case I was ever involved in during my articles rejoiced in the name of Randy Kruk....
There is no point in this conversation.
Nothing will ever beat the British Ambassador (in Moscow, I think) during 1916 who wrote to the Foreign Officer to report that he had a new colleague by the name of Mustapha Kunt.
As he put it "we all feel like that from time to time, but it takes a Turk to put in on their card"
Archibald Kerr, Lord Inverchapel, British Ambassador to Moscow, writing to Reginald Pembroke in 1943, when the outcome of Barbarossa was still in doubt:
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador"
I have actually seen the original, which is in the National Archives and has a government stamp on it, so despite Wikipedia casting doubt on it it is genuine!
They had immense pleasure in signing off the final damage report as
Captains Basham, Buckle and Dent
Our chief witness in the first case I was ever involved in during my articles rejoiced in the name of Randy Kruk....
There is no point in this conversation.
Nothing will ever beat the British Ambassador (in Moscow, I think) during 1916 who wrote to the Foreign Officer to report that he had a new colleague by the name of Mustapha Kunt.
As he put it "we all feel like that from time to time, but it takes a Turk to put in on their card"
Archibald Kerr, Lord Inverchapel, British Ambassador to Moscow, writing to Reginald Pembroke in 1943, when the outcome of Barbarossa was still in doubt:
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador"
I have actually seen the original, which is in the National Archives and has a government stamp on it, so despite Wikipedia casting doubt on it it is genuine!
Somebody put it in Scunthorpe
They used to elect Cumberland's MPs at Cockermouth, which when you think about it is quite appropriate.
Credit to her for atleast having the humility and self-awareness to recognise that she/the Blairites got things wrong. But she goes onto demonstrate just why they've failed when she describes the EU referendum as "the defining event of our generation": most Labour members, even ones who are pro-EU (leaving aside the growing Lefty Eurosceptics) rank fighting austerity and inequality as higher priorities than staying in Europe.
It just goes to show you how blinkered the Blairites are in their Europhilia. The EU isn't a means to an end for them - to fight social justice, to increase growth, to fight terrorism etc - it's an end in itself. They just want to be in it for the sake of being in it, above all else.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
If Tessa is ahead on the first preferences tomorrow, that is probably a signal to pile on to Yvette. If she is a distant second, then JC is Lord.
Jowell isn't like any of the leadership candidates though is she. She's horribly complacent, totally muddy in her views, and a bit smug. That makes her entirely the best Mayoral candidate, but in the leadership election there are (just about) higher standards.
This doesn't seem to fit very comfortably with Kezia's 50/50 gender balance policy - or is there something some of these male SLAB stalwarts are not disclosing about their current gender ?
It just feeds more strongly into the East/West split of the current round of the SLAB meltdown. The more Kez tries to reform Scottish Labour into a more inclusive and meritorious party (in her mind) the more the Dinosaurs of West Central Scotland will do just the opposite.
What better way to confront Kez than appointing a gluttenous, leching beast to what is, amazingly, now Scottish Labour's most powerful political position.
I think Kezia is trying to run the party from Edinburgh and trying to manoeuvre around the SLAB's Glasgow Office. The last I read, only the folks who were party members or affiliates in mid June 2015 are going to be allowed to vote on the regional list placings in February 2016.
At least Murray has confirmed he would serve in a Corbyn cabinet.
The problem with that strategy from Kez is that the bulk of the membership and therefore the last few coppers of their money is all in the West. She's trying to use the money from the dinosaurs to marginalise them.
I don't like to make such assumptions, and perhaps it would still be wrong, but with all the times Abbot claims not to have meant something, or her meaning is being misinterpreted (as I'm sure she will here), even assuming for a hostile media she does seem somewhat thick, with her simplistic bluster and being so easy to provoke by asking her straightforward questions. Sheer intellect is not necessarily all that is needed of course, but her pronouncements generally do not encourage giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Your time on this planet has not been wasted! The digging up and posting of that photo has I'm sure improved the life of the many billions of PB readers.
ok, millions...
er, thousands then...
surely.. oh, never mind!
Anyway three cheers (or however many we can muster) for MD!
Credit to her for atleast having the humility and self-awareness to recognise that she/the Blairites got things wrong. But she goes onto demonstrate just why they've failed when she describes the EU referendum as "the defining event of our generation": most Labour members, even ones who are pro-EU (leaving aside the growing Lefty Eurosceptics) rank fighting austerity and inequality as higher priorities than staying in Europe.
It just goes to show you how blinkered the Blairites are in their Europhilia. The EU isn't a means to an end for them - to fight social justice, to increase growth, to fight terrorism etc - it's an end in itself. They just want to be in it for the sake of being in it, above all else.
You are missing the point. She has to say something for goodness sake, something that can act as a figleaf.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
This morning, and thus before I could arm myself with a glass of wine, I heard a comment on BBC radio to the effect that Cruddas was one of the great, and deep, thinkers in the Labour party. They then went on to interview him, and he explained that he couldn't make up his mind because basically he didn't know who would win.
Are the BBC changing their spots? I felt this to be a subtle and devastating stab at Mr Cruddas.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Mr. Taffys, not sure it'll harm Labour that much in such areas.
Mr. Borough, the Sheffield Rally happened before the polls opened, though.
For those a little older than me, was 1992 or 2015 the more shocking result?
Good question. I'd say 2015 actually, because virtually no-one say a Tory majority coming. Though a lot of people thought 1992 would be either small Lab majority or a hung parliament, a Tory majority was also seen as a possibility - and after 1983, 1987 many Labour supporters were not that optimistic.
A close call but I'd go for 1992 simply because as the view was that Labour had a majority in the bag, which was never really the case in 2015 because of the SNP gains. I still believe that it was the sun 'wot won it', but the weather not the paper. Where I was telling the sun shone all day, people came out for a walk in the afternoon and evening and decided life wasn't so bad after all, so why risk voting Labour.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic "idiots"?
Very funny. But no.
"Engineers for Corbyn" I'm a member of that demographic.
BTW, does your name hint at a connection with Newcastle?
Diane Abbott is a complete dickhead. I do so want her to be appointed shadow chancellor , then she can explain why she wants to nationalise everything whilst sending her own kid to private school.
On the other hand, in 2015 the published polls all agreed it was neck-and-neck, hung Parliament territory, and had done for months.
The turnout in 1992 was 78% against 66% in 2015 - I must confess I'm surprised at the gap, especially given the clampdown on voter registration in 2015.
On the other hand, in 2015 the published polls all agreed it was neck-and-neck, hung Parliament territory, and had done for months.
Didn't the polls in 1992, with the exception of one ICM poll two days before, constantly point to a Labour majority - including three on the Sheffield Rally day which all put the Labour lead at between five and seven points?
Although nobody expected a Conservative majority this year, was anyone actually expecting them to be even within spitting distance of largest party? I know they weren't, which is why they were manufacturing implausible scenarios to try and mount a legal challenge to Cameron staying at No. 10 if he did not get to 326 (with a complete lack of irony, of course).
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Adams' Grammar School is not private. It is a state grammar.
Those forum members really do have something to apologise for. They were very concrete on the predictions, and mocking of those who disagreed, and they were completely wrong.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Abbott is bright. The parallels with Portillo are interesting. She went to the Girl's school which was connected with the Boy's school he went to - both (at the time) Grammar schools.
Portillo is a happy, and at-ease-with-himself person because the political convictions that he's held have rather come to the ascendency. Abbott is a bit itchy-scratchy because her views really haven't done so well.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic "idiots"?
Very funny. But no.
"Engineers for Corbyn" I'm a member of that demographic.
BTW, does your name hint at a connection with Newcastle?
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not I a not an" engineer for Corbyn", I quoted logic, and voting for Corbyn is Illogical.
To be fair, when we talk about 2015 result being "unexpected", it depends what the starting point for those expectations were. Back in late 2014, when Miliband was almost ousted, it was almost consensus that the Tories were going to be easily the largest party, with some of us (humblebrag alert) tipping a Tory majority. It was only when the polls didn't move as expected in the run-up to the election that people began to say a Tory majority was impossible.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Welcome to the site! Always good to get more unusual views.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Adams' Grammar School is not private. It is a state grammar.
Are you sure it was at the time Corbyn went there? I think it was a direct grant school rather than a state school although I could easily be wrong.
Scott_P said: It may well turn out that this is deemed bad news in the long run, but the desperation to me looks like it is coming from all the commentators now aftertiming madly that the rebate they never mentioned was always part of the deal.
It wasn't. Now it is. That's a win however you spin it.
bigjohnowls said
Can you not read simple English.
Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
You are making yourself look stupid.
The only concession is the delay to July and September 2015 instead of December.
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Adams' Grammar School is not private. It is a state grammar.
Are you sure it was at the time Corbyn went there? I think it was a direct grant school rather than a state school although I could easily be wrong.
Ah, I'm not sure of the exact status in Corbyn's time, but in recent decades it is most definitely a state grammar.
To be fair, when we talk about 2015 result being "unexpected", it depends what the starting point for those expectations were. Back in late 2014, when Miliband was almost ousted, it was almost consensus that the Tories were going to be easily the largest party, with some of us (humblebrag alert) tipping a Tory majority. It was only when the polls didn't move as expected in the run-up to the election that people began to say a Tory majority was impossible.
The other factor that caught almost everybody out was the scale of the LibDem collapse. Without that there would have been no Tory majority.
To be fair, when we talk about 2015 result being "unexpected", it depends what the starting point for those expectations were. Back in late 2014, when Miliband was almost ousted, it was almost consensus that the Tories were going to be easily the largest party, with some of us (humblebrag alert) tipping a Tory majority. It was only when the polls didn't move as expected in the run-up to the election that people began to say a Tory majority was impossible.
Good point. And, of course, the (false) impact of social media. In 1992 we only had the canvass returns and the polls to go on (and, frankly, neither of them looked good from a Tory perspective).
Well, that's left me speechless. She is astonishingly dense. Just the sort of two short planks we need as Labour Mayoral candidate.
What's more worrying is that she has a better academic record, a better background outside politics and a better record of public service than Jeremy Corbyn (she was at least briefly a shadow minister). Which suggests she is still more intelligent, more rounded and more experienced than him.
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are we really still clinging onto the idea that best-educated automatically equals most intelligent?
Well, they were educated at comparable schools - albeit, in Corbyn's case, a private selective school (Adam's Grammar) rather than a state grammar (Harrow County). However, insofar as that is different, it would favour Corbyn. Corbyn scraped Es at A-level, Abbott made it to Cambridge.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
Adams' Grammar School is not private. It is a state grammar.
Are you sure it was at the time Corbyn went there? I think it was a direct grant school rather than a state school although I could easily be wrong.
Ah, I'm not sure of the exact status in Corbyn's time, but in recent decades it is most definitely a state grammar.
I think the main state grammar school for boys in that area at the time Corbyn was around was Wellington Grammar, which my father and grandfather both attended (my father is roughly Corbyn's age - about two years older). Adams Grammar certainly started as a private foundation before entering the state system which is why it still has boarding, and I think it become a state school in the 1970s. However, I know very little for definite about the school, and as I say I could quite easily be wrong.
There are all sorts of questions, in my mind, about a state school that offers private boarding - I'm also uneasy about Royal Wolverhampton's plans to become a free school for that reason. But that's not relevant to the question of its status in the early 1960s, or indeed to why Corbyn is rubbish at academic subjects while somebody clearly not blessed with great intelligence, going through a comparable system, did well at them.
Very first Prime Minister's Questions. I find it fascinating that up until 1989 - if Tim Yeo is correct - that spending on Defence exceeded that on the NHS:
This morning, and thus before I could arm myself with a glass of wine, I heard a comment on BBC radio to the effect that Cruddas was one of the great, and deep, thinkers in the Labour party. They then went on to interview him, and he explained that he couldn't make up his mind because basically he didn't know who would win. Are the BBC changing their spots? I felt this to be a subtle and devastating stab at Mr Cruddas.
Well Cruddas did say in the Times today that Jeremy Corbyn's ''Trotskyist tribute act could destroy Labour' . Thats the same Jeremy Corbyn that he nominated BTW. And he is married to the Baroness of Primrose Hill so credit to the lad. :-)
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
I haven't spent much time listening to the Labour leadership debate. 300,000 seems a slightly disappointing number though. Hardly 'Corbynmania'. I've been working in a small team in the public sector in recent months with people I would generally consider 'average' voters. Averagely well off but not on the whole university educated and a mix of ages. I can't imagine any of them being Corbyn fans - they'd rather talk about house prices and the Great British Bake Off! One person in the office is a committed non-voter but my make an exception for the EU referendum.
Amongst my social circle things are rather different. This includes a lot of fairly young, bookish, Russell Groups types. I was at a social event the other night (one where we don't usually talk about politics) and was surprised that virtually everyone around the table had voted in the Labour leadership election. Almost all for Corbyn bar one chap who thought he wasn't a 'winner'. Amongst the group was a lady I know very well (and the only person I know who calls themselves 'upper middle class') who'd decided she was voting for Jeremy rather than Yvette but was getting a bit bored with how long it was carrying on for. Plenty of them work in the private sector. Another friend who works in marketing for a very famous firm and is I think generally disillusioned with politics as a whole has decided to register through his Union to vote for the 'big C' (his words not mine) not out of any great conviction but just doing his bit and making a statement to the system. I also read a rather endearing blog piece by an old university friend who is also backing Corbyn, with some reservations, because if he in all unlikelihood won an election he felt it would be like having his dad as prime minister who'd always been his political hero growing up.
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
NFL starts tonight - Steelers at Patriots. Tom Brady in search of redemption and they unveil their Super Bowl banner. NFL Sunday Ticket starts this weekend, with the amazing Red Zone Channel. America's Team host the Giants on the NBC Sunday Night game.
The unwatchable exhibition games are finally over! I can't wait!
I still have not visited Jerry World, something I need to rectify soon.
Carrie Underwood is back with the theme song....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdS5vkADA0I
I've put a couple of quid on Jarryd Hayne for regular season MVP at 150/1 - there's political reasons why he wouldn't even have to be the best player just in the running to win it.
There's actually quite a few good value bets on him (3/1 for a rushing touchdown during the season, 9/1 on a receiving touchdown, 9/4 on a return TD and others).
This doesn't seem to fit very comfortably with Kezia's 50/50 gender balance policy - or is there something some of these male SLAB stalwarts are not disclosing about their current gender ?
It just feeds more strongly into the East/West split of the current round of the SLAB meltdown. The more Kez tries to reform Scottish Labour into a more inclusive and meritorious party (in her mind) the more the Dinosaurs of West Central Scotland will do just the opposite.
What better way to confront Kez than appointing a gluttenous, leching beast to what is, amazingly, now Scottish Labour's most powerful political position.
I think Kezia is trying to run the party from Edinburgh and trying to manoeuvre around the SLAB's Glasgow Office. The last I read, only the folks who were party members or affiliates in mid June 2015 are going to be allowed to vote on the regional list placings in February 2016.
At least Murray has confirmed he would serve in a Corbyn cabinet.
The problem with that strategy from Kez is that the bulk of the membership and therefore the last few coppers of their money is all in the West. She's trying to use the money from the dinosaurs to marginalise them.
I can't see that working.
To complicate matters further for Kez I think Corbyn's man on the ground in Scotland is going to be Neil Findlay. I wouldn't put it past Corbyn to appoint Findlay as SoS with Murray as his deputy !!
Pretty sure Corbyn's grammar was a state school, no?
His parents, like many good socialists, lived in a seven-bedroom mansion. There is no reason why they should not have sent their son to a private school except a purely philosophical one - and as we know from a Certain Person, usually genetic possessiveness trumps principles in such cases.
It is a state school now: nobody disputes that, although it is an unusual state school. The question is whether it was in the early 1960s, and I believe it wasn't. If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, I will admit my error.
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?
I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
George Osborne, David Cameron and the Commons Treasury Select Committee need to explain what happened. Their silence speaks volumes.
What's the funniest thing about all of this is the bill came about by the UK deciding to include items such as prostitution and drug dealing in our GDP figures and to backdate it to 2010 !!
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?
I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.
At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.
He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
George Osborne, David Cameron and the Commons Treasury Select Committee need to explain what happened. Their silence speaks volumes.
What has happened is what was agreed at the time. The payments were agreed, £850bn in two stages and paid by Sept 15. The issue of the rebate was agreed at the time. And of course the payment, based on GDP, was not paid immediately as demanded but over a year later. Whether its right to speculate on GDP in order to arrive at payments is another matter.
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?
I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.
At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.
He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.
Oh, spoiler alert.
Very many thanks for this lovely summary - I thought no-one would even see my query when I realised I'd caught the new thread.
This doesn't seem to fit very comfortably with Kezia's 50/50 gender balance policy - or is there something some of these male SLAB stalwarts are not disclosing about their current gender ?
It just feeds more strongly into the East/West split of the current round of the SLAB meltdown. The more Kez tries to reform Scottish Labour into a more inclusive and meritorious party (in her mind) the more the Dinosaurs of West Central Scotland will do just the opposite.
What better way to confront Kez than appointing a gluttenous, leching beast to what is, amazingly, now Scottish Labour's most powerful political position.
I think Kezia is trying to run the party from Edinburgh and trying to manoeuvre around the SLAB's Glasgow Office. The last I read, only the folks who were party members or affiliates in mid June 2015 are going to be allowed to vote on the regional list placings in February 2016.
At least Murray has confirmed he would serve in a Corbyn cabinet.
The problem with that strategy from Kez is that the bulk of the membership and therefore the last few coppers of their money is all in the West. She's trying to use the money from the dinosaurs to marginalise them.
I can't see that working.
To complicate matters further for Kez I think Corbyn's man on the ground in Scotland is going to be Neil Findlay. I wouldn't put it past Corbyn to appoint Findlay as SoS with Murray as his deputy !!
Haha, would be hilarious. Might even force Murray to defect to the Libs then they would be 9 (or back to 8) middle aged, white men as their entire Westminster contingent.
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone is in line for a top role if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership race
Ken Livingstone has been suggested as a leader of the 'Corbyn army' It would include all those who paid £3 to back him in the leadership race Corbyn set to call shadow cabinet members to assess suitability to serve under him
This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
Now that's what I call satire...!
That was my guess too.
We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now. Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM? I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
kle4 has covered it. I think one of the contenders was found drunk in the back of a taxi (George Brown style) and others shot themselves in the foot. Sir Humphrey also realised he was likely to be Cabinet Secretary as well and of course aided the plotting. Plus the scriptwriters were on his side as well. As I say - labour have moved beyond parody and satire.
So, as it is revealed that we paid the full £1.7b, worth looking back on an old thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014 • edited November 2014 I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522 November 2014 So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655 November 2014 the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834 November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
George Osborne, David Cameron and the Commons Treasury Select Committee need to explain what happened. Their silence speaks volumes.
What's the funniest thing about all of this is the bill came about by the UK deciding to include items such as prostitution and drug dealing in our GDP figures and to backdate it to 2010 !!
Whats funny is you do not know the reason but will shout your ignorance. 'The surcharge is affected by changes in the way the EU calculated gross national income, which now includes elements such as prostitution and illegal drugs.' (the Financial Times). The reassessment led to Germany paying less. 'A Commission spokesman aid it was principally due to changes in the relative economic strength of the EU's member states.' (Huffington). Take your pick - but nothing to do with any unilateral UK decision. The surcharge refers to years 2002-13 in fact, so the sum is spread over 11 years.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic idiots?
Cornyn is drawing support from a very wide set of demographics. They can't all be idiots.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic idiots?
Cornyn is drawing support from a very wide set of demographics. They can't all be idiots.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic idiots?
Cornyn is drawing support from a very wide set of demographics. They can't all be idiots.
Well I'm an engineer from Solihull and I finally joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Quite a few people in my demographic that I know have done the same.
Is your demographic idiots?
Cornyn is drawing support from a very wide set of demographics. They can't all be idiots.
The advanced technology made it easier for modern enthusiasts to play Rajdhani Day Night Matka regardless of their current location. He can simply choose a website, and participate in various Matka draws anytime and anywhere. http://sattamatkaresults.in/
Comments
Not concerned by his friends, or pronouncements on the Falklands or Northern Ireland?
Somebody put it in Scunthorpe
My reply to any questions on the subject at school was, 'I never thought I would see a British political party commit mass suicide in my lifetime.' I'm still hoping against hope that I won't.
There's actually quite a few good value bets on him (3/1 for a rushing touchdown during the season, 9/1 on a receiving touchdown, 9/4 on a return TD and others).
They used to elect Cumberland's MPs at Cockermouth, which when you think about it is quite appropriate.
https://twitter.com/DianeforLondon/status/640998409932013568
There's also the Captain Picard/Commander Riker synchronised face-palming photo for situations such as this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNqpQuLUcAIYVmj.jpg:large
I can't see that working.
Your time on this planet has not been wasted! The digging up and posting of that photo has I'm sure improved the life of the many billions of PB readers.
ok, millions...
er, thousands then...
surely.. oh, never mind!
Anyway three cheers (or however many we can muster) for MD!
So how preternaturally useless must he be?
Are the BBC changing their spots? I felt this to be a subtle and devastating stab at Mr Cruddas.
So it would suggest to me that actually, she is more intelligent than he is.
EDIT - or of course, she might just be harder working. But either way, it doesn't say much for Corbyn!
BTW, does your name hint at a connection with Newcastle?
On the other hand, in 2015 the published polls all agreed it was neck-and-neck, hung Parliament territory, and had done for months.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34208841
Although nobody expected a Conservative majority this year, was anyone actually expecting them to be even within spitting distance of largest party? I know they weren't, which is why they were manufacturing implausible scenarios to try and mount a legal challenge to Cameron staying at No. 10 if he did not get to 326 (with a complete lack of irony, of course).
thread, and remembering that partisan confidence doesn't mean they're right
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-03/u-k-settles-eu-bill-once-called-appalling-by-cameron
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
November 2014 • edited November 2014
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
TGOHF • Posts: 12,522
November 2014
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
felix • Posts: 2,655
November 2014
the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
November 2014
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1973/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-if-the-miliband-rumblings-haven-t-quietened-down-after-the/p5
Mr. Doethur, not sure. Too long ago for me to remember, too recent for me to have read Livy's view on the subject.
Those forum members really do have something to apologise for. They were very concrete on the predictions, and mocking of those who disagreed, and they were completely wrong.
Portillo is a happy, and at-ease-with-himself person because the political convictions that he's held have rather come to the ascendency. Abbott is a bit itchy-scratchy because her views really haven't done so well.
However, it's also eclipsed by the migrant crisis, so traction in the media will be limited, I suspect.
November 2014
Scott_P said:
It may well turn out that this is deemed bad news in the long run, but the desperation to me looks like it is coming from all the commentators now aftertiming madly that the rebate they never mentioned was always part of the deal.
It wasn't. Now it is. That's a win however you spin it.
bigjohnowls said
Can you not read simple English.
Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
You are making yourself look stupid.
The only concession is the delay to July and September 2015 instead of December.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw
There are all sorts of questions, in my mind, about a state school that offers private boarding - I'm also uneasy about Royal Wolverhampton's plans to become a free school for that reason. But that's not relevant to the question of its status in the early 1960s, or indeed to why Corbyn is rubbish at academic subjects while somebody clearly not blessed with great intelligence, going through a comparable system, did well at them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CiNqfEJLsw
And he is married to the Baroness of Primrose Hill so credit to the lad. :-)
Amongst my social circle things are rather different. This includes a lot of fairly young, bookish, Russell Groups types. I was at a social event the other night (one where we don't usually talk about politics) and was surprised that virtually everyone around the table had voted in the Labour leadership election. Almost all for Corbyn bar one chap who thought he wasn't a 'winner'. Amongst the group was a lady I know very well (and the only person I know who calls themselves 'upper middle class') who'd decided she was voting for Jeremy rather than Yvette but was getting a bit bored with how long it was carrying on for. Plenty of them work in the private sector. Another friend who works in marketing for a very famous firm and is I think generally disillusioned with politics as a whole has decided to register through his Union to vote for the 'big C' (his words not mine) not out of any great conviction but just doing his bit and making a statement to the system. I also read a rather endearing blog piece by an old university friend who is also backing Corbyn, with some reservations, because if he in all unlikelihood won an election he felt it would be like having his dad as prime minister who'd always been his political hero growing up.
https://twitter.com/Neil_FindlayMSP/status/642045670711496708
It is a state school now: nobody disputes that, although it is an unusual state school. The question is whether it was in the early 1960s, and I believe it wasn't. If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, I will admit my error.
Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
Who moved the border?
Rememeber, the £1.7b was paid this week.
chestnut • Posts: 2,068
November 2014
Speedy said:
Cameron will pay the full amount
chestnut said
All £850m.
As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks
Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
November 2014
He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.
Charles • Posts: 9,777
November 2014
Speedy said:
Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.
Charles said
Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.
I think they are paying £850m too much.
But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p1
I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.
He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.
Oh, spoiler alert.
(edited for spelling)
Derek Hatton must be on tenterhooks, waiting for that call.
It will be quite interesting.
Ken Livingstone and 99,999 evil baby eating Tory infiltrators.
Presumably they are all concentration camp guards.
Plus the scriptwriters were on his side as well. As I say - labour have moved beyond parody and satire.
Competitions for oral recitations of the complete Koran are common, I think from early teens.
It is about 3 times as long as Hamlet.
'The surcharge is affected by changes in the way the EU calculated gross national income, which now includes elements such as prostitution and illegal drugs.' (the Financial Times). The reassessment led to Germany paying less.
'A Commission spokesman aid it was principally due to changes in the relative economic strength of the EU's member states.' (Huffington).
Take your pick - but nothing to do with any unilateral UK decision.
The surcharge refers to years 2002-13 in fact, so the sum is spread over 11 years.
http://sattamatkaresults.in/