Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
The people pretending that there's been no inflation from 2010 to 2015 because inflation is low right now are doing my nut in. £1000 of 2009 money is £1198 in 2014 money.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Depends on the individual, a fair few of my friends are on low incomes. Some are extremely good at managing their money... one in particular having gone through an IVA so they know what's what in the world (Yes I know that sounds like a contradiction but it is the case), whereas others are shockingly awful.
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
OT..WTF is Germany going to do with all of its invited guests..no one else wants them..
In my youthful experience (many years ago) gatecrashers to a party were forcibly removed if they were reluctant to leave. I don't suppose much has changed regarding parties but governments currently seem strangely reluctant to follow this practice which would be universally understood at an individual level regardless of the reasons given for wanting to enjoy the party. Some time, and I suspect that time is not too far distant, governments will realise that the people know best.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Depends on the individual, a fair few of my friends are on low incomes. Some are extremely good at managing their money... one in particular having gone through an IVA so they know what's what in the world (Yes I know that sounds like a contradiction but it is the case), whereas others are shockingly awful.
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
My point was not that those on low incomes can't manage their money, although if a large proportion of your money is spent day-to-day and you have little put aside for unexpected expenses money management is that much harder.
Rather my point was that if you give a man on low incomes £1,000, he spends it thinking that it is his to keep, and then five years down the line you ask for it back, so he must cancel his holiday/washing machine/etc. to pay it back, he is likely to feel worse and not better off than if none of this ever happened.
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
What Eurocrat is that? Isn't the government formatin being blocked by Portugal's president?
''Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.''
Indeed, and whilst Mr Morris has correctly pointed out that Portugal has been discussed here, what is interesting is that it has made little impact in the mainstream eurosceptic press.
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
What Eurocrat is that? Isn't the government formatin being blocked by Portugal's president?
Technically you are correct but why is he blocking a democratically elected government? The EU is forcing his hand.
If they really want to make the average person less hard up, sort out the housing issue. Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average). If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year. If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Pulpstar is right about time value of money but the tax credit context you use is misleading since the £1000 would have be paid annually and then stopped, not asked for back. The impact of no longer getting what you've grown accustomed to is not good, much like being made redundant. Shit happens as they say but no one suggests that the government should pay the recently unemployed the salary they enjoyed before being made unemployed.
Leaders of all UK parties excluding the Tories and the Lib Dems have signed a petition to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which would otherwise allow US corporations to sue the UK Government for not selling them parts of the NHS: https://www.rt.com/uk/319770-ttip-nhs-exempt-pledge/
Bigger issue than anyone seems to realise. If the EU is not there to protect Europe from the worst US corporate excesses, what is its function?
Mr. 1983, sometimes hear of TTIP (and other related agreements the US is signing elsewhere, think). It seems extremely shady and may push some on the left towards Out (I believe it'd be a US-EU deal rather than US-UK).
If they really want to make the average person less hard up, sort out the housing issue. Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average). If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year. If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
When interest rates start to rise we'll be in for an interesting time.
Leaders of all UK parties excluding the Tories and the Lib Dems have signed a petition to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which would otherwise allow US corporations to sue the UK Government for not selling them parts of the NHS: https://www.rt.com/uk/319770-ttip-nhs-exempt-pledge/
Bigger issue than anyone seems to realise. If the EU is not there to protect Europe from the worst US corporate excesses, what is its function?
I’m somewhat surprised, and concerned that the LD’s haven’t signed up.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Depends on the individual, a fair few of my friends are on low incomes. Some are extremely good at managing their money... one in particular having gone through an IVA so they know what's what in the world (Yes I know that sounds like a contradiction but it is the case), whereas others are shockingly awful.
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
My point was not that those on low incomes can't manage their money, although if a large proportion of your money is spent day-to-day and you have little put aside for unexpected expenses money management is that much harder.
Rather my point was that if you give a man on low incomes £1,000, he spends it thinking that it is his to keep, and then five years down the line you ask for it back, so he must cancel his holiday/washing machine/etc. to pay it back, he is likely to feel worse and not better off than if none of this ever happened.
It's not asking for money they have been given to be paid back, it is ceasing to give money that you previously gave
The equivalent of a shop or small business stopping a small annual bonus scheme
Gambling losses per person 1 Australia 2 Singapore 3 US 4 NZ 5 Finland 6 Ireland 7 Norway 8 Italy 9 Canada 10 UK https://t.co/TUhlqX4S3F
After watching 2 mins of today's Victoria Derbyshire programme on Gamblers Anonymous, my plan is to pretend to have a gambling problem, go to a meeting and ask for their gold dust/unrestricted accounts
The impact of no longer getting what you've grown accustomed to is not good
With this in mind, Brown's largesse was both bad for our borrowing figures and ultimately bad for the recipients of the cash. I guess if you had kids in 2000, 2001 and 2002 as a single parent on say a 16 hr week you've enjoyed a golden era of free money.
Gambling losses per person 1 Australia 2 Singapore 3 US 4 NZ 5 Finland 6 Ireland 7 Norway 8 Italy 9 Canada 10 UK https://t.co/TUhlqX4S3F
After watching 2 mins of today's Victoria Derbyshire programme on Gamblers Anonymous, my plan is to pretend to have a gambling problem, go to a meeting and ask for their gold dust/unrestricted accounts
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
What Eurocrat is that? Isn't the government formatin being blocked by Portugal's president?
Technically you are correct but why is he blocking a democratically elected government? The EU is forcing his hand.
We chewed this over a couple of days ago. There isn't any reason to think that the EU has contacted Portugal's President, never mind forced his hand. But he's certainly using the EU as a stated reason for not allowing parties different from his own to take power.
The position, to put it neutrally, is that the sitting right-wing government has lost its majority but the majority consists of moderate left (the largest alternative group), radical left (think Tsipras) and Communist parties, and there is reason to be unsure whether all of the moderate left would vote for a coalition. The President has invited the sitting PM to submit a Budget, which is likely to be voted down. He would then normally ask the second largest party to try and form a majority. He is not legally compelled to - he could appoint a technocrat government to administer the country while he called fresh elections, and reportedly he is considering doing that, since he thinks that a Government containing Communists and Trotskyists would be bad for Portugal's recovery. The counter-argument is that the electorate has made its decision and he should allow the opposition to see whether they can produce a viable majority, as in Greece etc. - after all, the electorate might take a dim view of refusing to do that and if ordered to think again might simply elect the left with a bigger majority. It is all very reminiscent of the sequence of events in Greece.
The irony is that right-wing Eurosceptics in other countries are fiercely standing up for the rights of the left against the right-wing pro-austerity but europhile Government. We welcome your support, comrades.
Gambling losses per person 1 Australia 2 Singapore 3 US 4 NZ 5 Finland 6 Ireland 7 Norway 8 Italy 9 Canada 10 UK https://t.co/TUhlqX4S3F
After watching 2 mins of today's Victoria Derbyshire programme on Gamblers Anonymous, my plan is to pretend to have a gambling problem, go to a meeting and ask for their gold dust/unrestricted accounts
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Depends on the individual, a fair few of my friends are on low incomes. Some are extremely good at managing their money... one in particular having gone through an IVA so they know what's what in the world (Yes I know that sounds like a contradiction but it is the case), whereas others are shockingly awful.
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
My point was not that those on low incomes can't manage their money, although if a large proportion of your money is spent day-to-day and you have little put aside for unexpected expenses money management is that much harder.
Rather my point was that if you give a man on low incomes £1,000, he spends it thinking that it is his to keep, and then five years down the line you ask for it back, so he must cancel his holiday/washing machine/etc. to pay it back, he is likely to feel worse and not better off than if none of this ever happened.
It's not asking for money they have been given to be paid back, it is ceasing to give money that you previously gave
The equivalent of a shop or small business stopping a small annual bonus scheme
I was working from what Pulpstar wrote.
If it's tax credits Pulpstar was talking about then I agree with you.
It was bad policy. The Lords did its job. Labour got it right.
Yes, yes, and no, Mr Jonathan. If Labour had supported the Lib Dem amendment, they could have forced Osborne to think again and bring the measure back as a proper finance bill, having been passed by the House of Commons - or not as the case may be.
At least it would have given the Tory rebel MPs a chance to vote on the issue. We need to see what they are made of. At present, some Tory MPs are just huff, puff and bluff, criticising Osborne to grab a quick headline, but then caving in meekly to fall into line.
If they really want to make the average person less hard up, sort out the housing issue. Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average). If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year. If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
When interest rates start to rise we'll be in for an interesting time.
*if
There is a great series of articles on ft alphaville by (I think) Izabella Kaminska wondering whether (IIRC, and I really am précis-ing from memory here) the surplus supply of capital in the world means we're in for long term super low bank rates.
Due to the time value of money, you're better off being given £1000 in 2009 and having to pay it back in 2015 rather than having no change !
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
Not sure what discussion this was a part of but to give someone on, say, a low income £1000 then unexpectedly ask for it back down the line would not be preferable for the individual.
Depends on the individual, a fair few of my friends are on low incomes. Some are extremely good at managing their money... one in particular having gone through an IVA so they know what's what in the world (Yes I know that sounds like a contradiction but it is the case), whereas others are shockingly awful.
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
My point was not that those on low incomes can't manage their money, although if a large proportion of your money is spent day-to-day and you have little put aside for unexpected expenses money management is that much harder.
Rather my point was that if you give a man on low incomes £1,000, he spends it thinking that it is his to keep, and then five years down the line you ask for it back, so he must cancel his holiday/washing machine/etc. to pay it back, he is likely to feel worse and not better off than if none of this ever happened.
It's not asking for money they have been given to be paid back, it is ceasing to give money that you previously gave
The equivalent of a shop or small business stopping a small annual bonus scheme
I was working from what Pulpstar wrote.
If it's tax credits Pulpstar was talking about then I agree with you.
If they really want to make the average person less hard up, sort out the housing issue. Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average). If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year. If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
When interest rates start to rise we'll be in for an interesting time.
*if
There is a great series of articles on ft alphaville by (I think) Izabella Kaminska wondering whether (IIRC, and I really am précis-ing from memory here) the surplus supply of capital in the world means we're in for long term super low bank rates.
Someone in an evening class I went to who also works in managing accounting was utterly convinced rates were going up circa 2012-13. My house isn't the best but not sure I want to give up being able to borrow at 1.89+base for a good while yet ^^;
Nick, that was exactly my favoured solution - except with the caveats Antifrank cites.
I think Bishops do add (aside from my innate conservative preference not to disestablish) a useful moral voice in debates, and the law lords expertise was also helpful. We effectively have big business and industry Lords.
Why not medical Lords, education Lords, small business owner and farmer Lords, as well as geographical representatives?
However, I would not make any of those subject matter Lords coterminous with industry unions like the BMA or NUT or NFA to avoid a conspiracy against the public.
Yes. I'd give the power of appointments to the current independent Commission, scrapping the influence of political parties in putting forward nominees (anyone could write in with a suggestion, of course), with an explicit instruction that they should avoid appointing anyone who has a vested interest as a producer union representative etc.
They could also be asked to include some iconoclasts and people from unpopular groups, which are also a sort of specialism, to counter the antifrank danger - Frank Field, George Galloway, Richard Littlejohn, a pacifist, a hedge fund manager, a tax avoidance consultant, a refugee, an imam, a recently discharged prisoner, a benefits claimant, etc. I'd dislike the likely opinions of some of these and you might dislike others, but among 1000 members they would not be able to cause serious trouble, but it would be useful to have them on a committee considering a Bill touching on their experience.
This might be the first time you and I have agreed on a policy!
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
Acceleration in the EU? Are you having a laugh? They would kill for a 2.2% annual growth rate.
EU growth remains below UK growth - that does not contradict my point that the UK is slowing down whilst the EU is accelerating a bit. Even 2.2% growth could be 'below trend'.
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
What Eurocrat is that? Isn't the government formatin being blocked by Portugal's president?
Technically you are correct but why is he blocking a democratically elected government? The EU is forcing his hand.
The irony is that right-wing Eurosceptics in other countries are fiercely standing up for the rights of the left against the right-wing pro-austerity but europhile Government. We welcome your support, comrades.
Nick, I think that the 'right-wing Eurosceptics' are standing up for the right of the people of Portugal to choose who governs them. if the incumbents cannot pass a vote of confidence then the opposition should be invited to try before another election takes place. The closest equivalent in the UK would have been Gordon Brown trying to hang on after the 2010 election.
There are no doubt many on here with greater statistical knowledge than I but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
If they really want to make the average person less hard up, sort out the housing issue. Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average). If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year. If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
The impact of no longer getting what you've grown accustomed to is not good
With this in mind, Brown's largesse was both bad for our borrowing figures and ultimately bad for the recipients of the cash. I guess if you had kids in 2000, 2001 and 2002 as a single parent on say a 16 hr week you've enjoyed a golden era of free money.
This instinctively sounds right but it would be a hard case to make to the tribal left. GB kept us out of the Euro (to spite TB) but I cannot recall another good call he made. He was truly shite and we're still living with the consequences.
This might be the first time you and I have agreed on a policy!
Most of the Tories for Palmer were enticed by finding they agreed on a particular policy or two that I'd come up with :-).
Actually, the older I get, the more I think that finding that sort of issue is more interesting than routine party exchanges. There's probably more scope for creative cross-party discussion than we think in our polarised world.
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
The economy grew by 0.5%, how is that a slowdown?
Because in the previous quarter it grew by 0.7% - ie growing at 0.5% is slower than growing at 0.7%!
Given the margins of error in the first draft GDP figures, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if it ultimately transpired that GDP grew more strongly in Q3 than in Q2.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
It is an exceptional situation, although I have zero doubt he thinks, privately at the least, that the budget is always too small, as the actions of EU bureaucrats demonstrate only too well.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
This might be the first time you and I have agreed on a policy!
Most of the Tories for Palmer were enticed by finding they agreed on a particular policy or two that I'd come up with :-).
Actually, the older I get, the more I think that finding that sort of issue is more interesting than routine party exchanges. There's probably more scope for creative cross-party discussion than we think in our polarised world.
Nah, you're totally wrong on everything else ;-)
But still, it's nice to - as you say - be able to explore issues in a non-partisan way wherever that is possible.
Some of the comment on the tax credit cuts is over excited. The Chancellor is a long term strategist. He moves his chess pieces slowly and deliberately. At this equivalent stage of the last government he had just unveiled the highest postwar cuts in public spending. Labour achieved its first lead in a major opinion poll for three years. Commentators said that a shift in sentiment was occurring. A fat lot of good it was when it came to a general election. There are two strategic aims for this Conservative government now. The first is to entrench the Opposition leader so that he is still there in 2020. The second is to reinforce the Conservative reputation for economic toughness on deficit reduction. What follows several years down the line will then be a choice between that reputation on the one hand and socialist fantasy on the other. The Chancellor will sacrifice many pawns on the way. The impressions of October 2015 will be as worthless as those being expressed in October 2010 in judging the outcome of the next election. Has anyone on the Left any strategy at all? I doubt it.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Some of the comment on the tax credit cuts is over excited. The Chancellor is a long term strategist. He moves his chess pieces slowly and deliberately. At this equivalent stage of the last government he had just unveiled the highest postwar cuts in public spending. Labour achieved its first lead in a major opinion poll for three years. Commentators said that a shift in sentiment was occurring. A fat lot of good it was when it came to a general election. There are two strategic aims for this Conservative government now. The first is to entrench the Opposition leader so that he is still there in 2020. The second is to reinforce the Conservative reputation for economic toughness on deficit reduction. What follows several years down the line will then be a choice between that reputation on the one hand and socialist fantasy on the other. The Chancellor will sacrifice many pawns on the way. The impressions of October 2015 will be as worthless as those being expressed in October 2010 in judging the outcome of the next election. Has anyone on the Left any strategy at all? I doubt it.
"He is too educated for his intelligence" - Skinner on Osborne.
Some of the comment on the tax credit cuts is over excited. The Chancellor is a long term strategist. He moves his chess pieces slowly and deliberately. At this equivalent stage of the last government he had just unveiled the highest postwar cuts in public spending. Labour achieved its first lead in a major opinion poll for three years. Commentators said that a shift in sentiment was occurring. A fat lot of good it was when it came to a general election. There are two strategic aims for this Conservative government now. The first is to entrench the Opposition leader so that he is still there in 2020. The second is to reinforce the Conservative reputation for economic toughness on deficit reduction. What follows several years down the line will then be a choice between that reputation on the one hand and socialist fantasy on the other. The Chancellor will sacrifice many pawns on the way. The impressions of October 2015 will be as worthless as those being expressed in October 2010 in judging the outcome of the next election. Has anyone on the Left any strategy at all? I doubt it.
"The Chancellor will sacrifice many pawns on the way" Yes....about 3 million of them
Leaders of all UK parties excluding the Tories and the Lib Dems have signed a petition to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which would otherwise allow US corporations to sue the UK Government for not selling them parts of the NHS: https://www.rt.com/uk/319770-ttip-nhs-exempt-pledge/
Bigger issue than anyone seems to realise. If the EU is not there to protect Europe from the worst US corporate excesses, what is its function?
I’m somewhat surprised, and concerned that the LD’s haven’t signed up.
It's mainly because it's bollocks. The NHS is not threatened in any way shape or form by TTIP. The protections on the NHS were laid out specifically by the EU in a response to the Health Select Committee of the House of Commons.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
Seems to me it has all worked out pretty well. Osborne gets a chance to U-turn while blaming the Lords and preserving his leadership ambitions, while the working poor end up with a better deal.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
The economy grew by 0.5%, how is that a slowdown?
Because in the previous quarter it grew by 0.7% - ie growing at 0.5% is slower than growing at 0.7%!
Given the margins of error in the first draft GDP figures, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if it ultimately transpired that GDP grew more strongly in Q3 than in Q2.
Manufacturing now down 3 quarters in a row. Deep recession. I can now see why my company's sales are plummeting. We only sell to the manufacturing sector.
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." -
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
My fav Bond line
'I'm shtanding on it'
No Mr Bond, I expect you to die.
Nah. The best Bond line is
"Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls."
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
Talking of constitutional crises, it is interesting that what is happening in Portugal doesn't have wider coverage here.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
If you are in the Euro and in debt then democracy ceases to exist. Its been obvious from the start that you have given away all sovereignty if you cannot control your own economy.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
What Eurocrat is that? Isn't the government formatin being blocked by Portugal's president?
Technically you are correct but why is he blocking a democratically elected government? The EU is forcing his hand.
We chewed this over a couple of days ago. There isn't any reason to think that the EU has contacted Portugal's President, never mind forced his hand. But he's certainly using the EU as a stated reason for not allowing parties different from his own to take power.
The position, to put it neutrally, is that the sitting right-wing government has lost its majority but the majority consists of moderate left (the largest alternative group), radical left (think Tsipras) and Communist parties, and there is reason to be unsure whether all of the moderate left would vote for a coalition. The President has invited the sitting PM to submit a Budget, which is likely to be voted down. He would then normally ask the second largest party to try and form a majority. He is not legally compelled to - he could appoint a technocrat government to administer the country while he called fresh elections, and reportedly he is considering doing that, since he thinks that a Government containing Communists and Trotskyists would be bad for Portugal's recovery. The counter-argument is that the electorate has made its decision and he should allow the opposition to see whether they can produce a viable majority, as in Greece etc. - after all, the electorate might take a dim view of refusing to do that and if ordered to think again might simply elect the left with a bigger majority. It is all very reminiscent of the sequence of events in Greece.
The irony is that right-wing Eurosceptics in other countries are fiercely standing up for the rights of the left against the right-wing pro-austerity but europhile Government. We welcome your support, comrades.
its not a right/left issue though is it. You can ONLY have an EU compliant government.
True story. In the early 1950s a fitness fanatic drank 10 pints of carrot juice in one day. He died of liver failure because his liver couldn't process that much vitamin A. He was bright yellow and the symptoms were practically indistinguishable from alcohol poisoning.
John Farnham, left-wing comedian and author, commented of this case; 'The moral of the story is that if you're going to die anyway, why not enjoy yourself along the way?'
Seems to me it has all worked out pretty well. Osborne gets a chance to U-turn while blaming the Lords and preserving his leadership ambitions, while the working poor end up with a better deal.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
The opposition should get its fair degree of praise. The Lib Dems went over the top and failed miserably. Labour's language was spot on.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
Yes, the films made when Fleming was alive are approximately a million times better than the ones made after he died.
Fleming of course did die as a result of alcohol, tobacco and (allegedly) drug misuse, so that sort of contradicts my earlier post!
There are no doubt many on here with greater statistical knowledge than I but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
Tax credit is also well targeted. That is why it is very difficult to cut without hitting the poor because they are the main recipients.
True story. In the early 1950s a fitness fanatic drank 10 pints of carrot juice in one day. He died of liver failure because his liver couldn't process that much vitamin A. He was bright yellow and the symptoms were practically indistinguishable from alcohol poisoning.
John Farnham, left-wing comedian and author, commented of this case; 'The moral of the story is that if you're going to die anyway, why not enjoy yourself along the way?'
"The irony is that right-wing Eurosceptics in other countries are fiercely standing up for the rights of the left against the right-wing pro-austerity but europhile Government. We welcome your support, comrades."
Yeah, that's what happens when people have principles.
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
The economy grew by 0.5%, how is that a slowdown?
Because in the previous quarter it grew by 0.7% - ie growing at 0.5% is slower than growing at 0.7%!
Given the margins of error in the first draft GDP figures, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if it ultimately transpired that GDP grew more strongly in Q3 than in Q2.
Manufacturing now down 3 quarters in a row. Deep recession. I can now see why my company's sales are plummeting. We only sell to the manufacturing sector.
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." -
Antifrank, your comments would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Apart from 2008-2009, I have not seen anything like this since 1993.
Or others simply don't want to buy your products, for other reasons. Perhaps cheaper and better are available elsewhere? Why not ask yourself that, before simply blaming the government.
I know many engineering and manufacturing businesses that are doing extremely well.
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
The economy grew by 0.5%, how is that a slowdown?
Because in the previous quarter it grew by 0.7% - ie growing at 0.5% is slower than growing at 0.7%!
Given the margins of error in the first draft GDP figures, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if it ultimately transpired that GDP grew more strongly in Q3 than in Q2.
Manufacturing now down 3 quarters in a row. Deep recession. I can now see why my company's sales are plummeting. We only sell to the manufacturing sector.
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." -
"Britain’s economy is stronger than the headlines suggest.
Consider the headline measure of economic growth. The initial estimate of quarterly gross domestic product, which generates the most news, suggests the UK is indeed inferior. If you looked only at these first drafts of the GDP data for every quarter since the recovery began in 2009, you would conclude that the US economy was now 15 per cent larger than in the dark days of the crisis, and that the UK had grown about half as fast.
But long after US commentators have punched the air, attributing American superiority to a more enlightened policy towards the government deficit, the numbers keep being revised. Statisticians in Washington have a habit of being a bit brash at first, while their British counterparts, cocooned in a bunker in Newport in South Wales, are overly cautious.
The latest estimates, soon to be incorporated in official data, say that the UK economy has grown 13.4 per cent since 2009, against 13.7 per cent in the US. Britain’s recovery, in other words, is just as good as America’s — and it was achieved with a rapidly shrinking offshore oil sector, a greater burden from damaged banks and closer proximity to the eurozone crisis. Not too bad, as the British like to say."
It was bad policy. The Lords did its job. Labour got it right.
Yes, yes, and no, Mr Jonathan. If Labour had supported the Lib Dem amendment, they could have forced Osborne to think again and bring the measure back as a proper finance bill, having been passed by the House of Commons - or not as the case may be.
At least it would have given the Tory rebel MPs a chance to vote on the issue. We need to see what they are made of. At present, some Tory MPs are just huff, puff and bluff, criticising Osborne to grab a quick headline, but then caving in meekly to fall into line.
Just like the Labour Party.
As a Lib Dem, I take it, your maths is poor. Even with Labour support the motion would have failed because there was virtually no crossbench support.
By "delaying", the CB ers could be persuaded to vote for the amendment.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
My fav Bond line
'I'm shtanding on it'
"My name is Pussy Galore."
"I must be dreaming."
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Seems to me it has all worked out pretty well. Osborne gets a chance to U-turn while blaming the Lords and preserving his leadership ambitions, while the working poor end up with a better deal.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
Ozzie handled Treasury Questions well in the HoC this morning, he was relaxed and accommodating, but firm in his determination to save money on welfare.
Regarding Portugal, it seems to be the president is being quite stupid. He is on his way out and the next Presidential election is in January.
Surely if Passos carries on without a majority and is unable to win any votes, it just makes it more likely a Socialist will be next President and will then appoint Costa in February
Seems to me it has all worked out pretty well. Osborne gets a chance to U-turn while blaming the Lords and preserving his leadership ambitions, while the working poor end up with a better deal.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
Ozzie handled Treasury Questions well in the HoC this morning, he was relaxed and accommodating, but firm in his determination to save money on welfare.
There may be some frippery to deal with the transition and the Lords have signalled their wonderful virtue but the changes are coming regardless.
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
My fav Bond line
'I'm shtanding on it'
No Mr Bond, I expect you to die.
When I worked at IG we had a punter called Mr Bond who bet on the cricket and I always wanted to quote him 20 runs below the spread so when he said 'you don't think I'm going to sell that do you?' I could say
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
My fav Bond line
'I'm shtanding on it'
No Mr Bond, I expect you to die.
When I worked at IG we had a punter called Mr Bond who bet on the cricket and I always wanted to quote him 20 runs below the spread so when he said 'you don't think I'm going to sell that do you?' I could say
Seems to me it has all worked out pretty well. Osborne gets a chance to U-turn while blaming the Lords and preserving his leadership ambitions, while the working poor end up with a better deal.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
Ozzie handled Treasury Questions well in the HoC this morning, he was relaxed and accommodating, but firm in his determination to save money on welfare.
Good on him, it's going to be difficult and politically unpopular but he needs to get the finances under control.
To be still borrowing c.10% of govt spending 7 years after the recession is unprecedented but understandable in the circumstances. The easy cuts have mostly been made and there's not much scope for more tax receipts, so we're now onto the difficult stuff. From a political viewpoint the changes that affect the general public are best done early in the Parliament, as we see with tax credits.
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Was it in The Sound of Music when the family "Uncle" refers to the girls as "pussies" ?
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Eric Morecambe was highly resistant to the idea of being in bed with Ernie. He was only persuaded when it was pointed out to him that Laurel and Hardy had shared a bed:
Evidence today of UK economic slowdown as the rest of EU shows some signs of acceleration. Manufacturing sector back in recession.
The economy grew by 0.5%, how is that a slowdown?
Because in the previous quarter it grew by 0.7% - ie growing at 0.5% is slower than growing at 0.7%!
Given the margins of error in the first draft GDP figures, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if it ultimately transpired that GDP grew more strongly in Q3 than in Q2.
Manufacturing now down 3 quarters in a row. Deep recession. I can now see why my company's sales are plummeting. We only sell to the manufacturing sector.
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." -
"Britain’s economy is stronger than the headlines suggest.
Consider the headline measure of economic growth. The initial estimate of quarterly gross domestic product, which generates the most news, suggests the UK is indeed inferior. If you looked only at these first drafts of the GDP data for every quarter since the recovery began in 2009, you would conclude that the US economy was now 15 per cent larger than in the dark days of the crisis, and that the UK had grown about half as fast.
But long after US commentators have punched the air, attributing American superiority to a more enlightened policy towards the government deficit, the numbers keep being revised. Statisticians in Washington have a habit of being a bit brash at first, while their British counterparts, cocooned in a bunker in Newport in South Wales, are overly cautious.
The latest estimates, soon to be incorporated in official data, say that the UK economy has grown 13.4 per cent since 2009, against 13.7 per cent in the US. Britain’s recovery, in other words, is just as good as America’s — and it was achieved with a rapidly shrinking offshore oil sector, a greater burden from damaged banks and closer proximity to the eurozone crisis. Not too bad, as the British like to say."
You guys live in the Service economy. We don't. For us, it is Manufacturing. GB is dying.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Same as Skyfall then. A terrible film.
It was awful, but everyone else seems to disagree. I just found it boring. And I cringed at the toe-curlingly embarassing self-tribute to the DB5 and its ejector seat.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
I've probably only ever seen 3 or 4 Bond films, but it seems, as with so many things, it's better to die young and leave a pretty corpse
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
I've seen all of them many times, own multiple box sets, and love the franchise. But, to be honest, it might be getting to the point where Bond is over for me.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
My fav Bond line
'I'm shtanding on it'
No Mr Bond, I expect you to die.
When I worked at IG we had a punter called Mr Bond who bet on the cricket and I always wanted to quote him 20 runs below the spread so when he said 'you don't think I'm going to sell that do you?' I could say
'No Mr Bond, I expect you to buy'
LOL, having worked with guys on various trading floors over the years, the banter never ceases to amuse me!
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Was it in The Sound of Music when the family "Uncle" refers to the girls as "pussies" ?
I missed that one! But yes, you're right, he called them 'gloomy pussies'. However, that was all the children not just the girls.
EDIT - I first saw Are you Being Served when I was very young. It took me a long while to understand why Mrs Slocombe's pussy was so amusing to everyone else as my parents wouldn't explain!
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Was it in The Sound of Music when the family "Uncle" refers to the girls as "pussies" ?
I missed that one! But yes, you're right, he called them 'gloomy pussies'. However, that was all the children not just the girls.
EDIT - I first saw Are you Being Served when I was very young. It took me a long while to understand why Mrs Slocombe's pussy was so amusing to everyone else as my parents wouldn't explain!
As for David Milliband's suggestion re settling a further 2 million in Europe (over the next 5 years) at a rate of 400,000 a year and his comment about “the tumultuous convulsions inside significant parts of the Islamic world." and that "30 to 40 nations that can’t meet the basic needs of their citizens and contain ethnic, political and religious differences among their people..” I do wonder why people like him think that Europe should invite in people whose ethnic, political and religious differences lead to "tumultous convulsions".
I simply do not want the Islamic world's tumultuous convulsions to spread to or be replicated here.
I saw a pulp TV clip show about the 90s/00s yesterday - I didn't see a minute of TV during the entire decade and was WTF WTF WTF at some of the stuff screened. It was just so amazingly tasteless and OTT.
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Eric Morecambe was highly resistant to the idea of being in bed with Ernie. He was only persuaded when it was pointed out to him that Laurel and Hardy had shared a bed:
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Was it in The Sound of Music when the family "Uncle" refers to the girls as "pussies" ?
I missed that one! But yes, you're right, he called them 'gloomy pussies'. However, that was all the children not just the girls.
EDIT - I first saw Are you Being Served when I was very young. It took me a long while to understand why Mrs Slocombe's pussy was so amusing to everyone else as my parents wouldn't explain!
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
I don't know how the BBC got Round the Horne past the censors. It's so filthy. Presumably, that too was down to the fact that the censors didn't understand what was being said.
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Eric Morecambe was highly resistant to the idea of being in bed with Ernie. He was only persuaded when it was pointed out to him that Laurel and Hardy had shared a bed:
There was something on TV a while back stating that a couple could not be depicted in a bed together on US TV until the 1970s. It was not counted as 'being in bed' if at least one foot was on the floor, or if they were in twin beds. Cue memories of exactly this: one person in bed, the other half-sitting on, with his foot on the floor.
Reading through it, the films must've been rather boring affairs! I'm almost tempted to write a story that breaks every line of that code, although I daresay SeanT's beaten me to it ...
That was a whole studio thingy about one-foot. Just look at the more daring Doris Day films. There's a rather nice bio of Ms Day called I Knew Her Before She Was A Virgin.
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Because the censor didn't know what it meant! Lord Harlech, for example, passed a bedroom scene with a naked unmarried couple in bed together on the basis that it was clearly made up - 'men and women don't go to bed with no clothes on'.
Eric Morecambe was highly resistant to the idea of being in bed with Ernie. He was only persuaded when it was pointed out to him that Laurel and Hardy had shared a bed:
There was something on TV a while back stating that a couple could not be depicted in a bed together on US TV until the 1970s. It was not counted as 'being in bed' if at least one foot was on the floor, or if they were in twin beds. Cue memories of exactly this: one person in bed, the other half-sitting on, with his foot on the floor.
As for David Milliband's suggestion re settling a further 2 million in Europe (over the next 5 years) at a rate of 400,000 a year and his comment about “the tumultuous convulsions inside significant parts of the Islamic world." and that "30 to 40 nations that can’t meet the basic needs of their citizens and contain ethnic, political and religious differences among their people..” I do wonder why people like him think that Europe should invite in people whose ethnic, political and religious differences lead to "tumultous convulsions".
I simply do not want the Islamic world's tumultuous convulsions to spread to or be replicated here.
Miliband (D) is an idiot. It's clear to most of us that the migrant situation in Europe is now way more than a few Syrians trying to escape a civil war, this is looking more and more likely to be the issue that leads to revolution in a number of EU countries if it's not sorted out quickly.
The best thing Miliband can do from his ivory towers and $400k salary in New York is to help the British govt in setting up places of refuge in Syria and surrounding countries that can accommodate those displaced by the conflict until it dies down.
Comments
It's lazy to assume all low income people can't manage their money. But is oft true !
Rather my point was that if you give a man on low incomes £1,000, he spends it thinking that it is his to keep, and then five years down the line you ask for it back, so he must cancel his holiday/washing machine/etc. to pay it back, he is likely to feel worse and not better off than if none of this ever happened.
Amusing that we are debating the actions of the unelected HoL on a minor budget issue on here today when an elected government in an EU country is barred from office by the Eurocrats.
Indeed, and whilst Mr Morris has correctly pointed out that Portugal has been discussed here, what is interesting is that it has made little impact in the mainstream eurosceptic press.
Rents/mortgages have been increasing and increasing - not because of hoarding or grasping, but simply because the supply has failed to match the demand - for decades.
I've had a quick look at the housing completions, existing housing stock, and change in number of households since 1971.
If we assume that housing lasts for 100 years, on average, we need to build 450,000 houses per year just to stand still at current levels (there's no guidance, but the withdrawn 1992 guidance stated that houses should last for 60 years on average).
If an average house lasts for 200 years, we need to build 310,000 houses per year.
If an average house lasts for 1000 years, we can get away with 200,000 houses per year.
We've been building 200,000 too few homes per year since the early seventies, if we assume a 100 year lifespan. Not really much of a shock that house prices have soared. Recent rates haven't even kept up with the increase in households, even assuming existing houses will have an infinite lifespan.
So the lower paid will continue to feel an increasing squeeze. So housing costs will continue to rise. So more and more areas of the country will be priced out of range of more and more people, except for those fortunate few with subsidised housing. And we'll continue to tinker around with taxes and benefits, while the tide continues to rise.
1 Australia
2 Singapore
3 US
4 NZ
5 Finland
6 Ireland
7 Norway
8 Italy
9 Canada
10 UK https://t.co/TUhlqX4S3F
Bigger issue than anyone seems to realise. If the EU is not there to protect Europe from the worst US corporate excesses, what is its function?
Osborne now casting the House of Lords as the enemy of welfare reform.
The equivalent of a shop or small business stopping a small annual bonus scheme
The position, to put it neutrally, is that the sitting right-wing government has lost its majority but the majority consists of moderate left (the largest alternative group), radical left (think Tsipras) and Communist parties, and there is reason to be unsure whether all of the moderate left would vote for a coalition. The President has invited the sitting PM to submit a Budget, which is likely to be voted down. He would then normally ask the second largest party to try and form a majority. He is not legally compelled to - he could appoint a technocrat government to administer the country while he called fresh elections, and reportedly he is considering doing that, since he thinks that a Government containing Communists and Trotskyists would be bad for Portugal's recovery. The counter-argument is that the electorate has made its decision and he should allow the opposition to see whether they can produce a viable majority, as in Greece etc. - after all, the electorate might take a dim view of refusing to do that and if ordered to think again might simply elect the left with a bigger majority. It is all very reminiscent of the sequence of events in Greece.
The irony is that right-wing Eurosceptics in other countries are fiercely standing up for the rights of the left against the right-wing pro-austerity but europhile Government. We welcome your support, comrades.
'A MAN who extended his life span by avoiding processed meats bitterly regrets having done so, it has emerged.
103-year-old Roy Hobbs never ate sausages, bacon or black pudding apart from a one-off fried breakfast which he admits was mind-bendingly delicious'
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/it-wasnt-worth-it-says-103-year-old-vegetarian-20151027103301
If it's tax credits Pulpstar was talking about then I agree with you.
Edit: I see ReggieCide has said the same thing.
At least it would have given the Tory rebel MPs a chance to vote on the issue. We need to see what they are made of. At present, some Tory MPs are just huff, puff and bluff, criticising Osborne to grab a quick headline, but then caving in meekly to fall into line.
Just like the Labour Party.
There is a great series of articles on ft alphaville by (I think) Izabella Kaminska wondering whether (IIRC, and I really am précis-ing from memory here) the surplus supply of capital in the world means we're in for long term super low bank rates.
...Britain and the British media's inherent racism
Peak Guardian?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/16/black-woman-anti-muslim-rant-british-racism-islamophobia
Actually, the older I get, the more I think that finding that sort of issue is more interesting than routine party exchanges. There's probably more scope for creative cross-party discussion than we think in our polarised world.
Can't they come up with something fresh?
Casino Royale is a far superior film. It's quite clear the only person who truly understood Bond, and how to do him properly, was Fleming and its a tragedy he died so (relatively) young.
But still, it's nice to - as you say - be able to explore issues in a non-partisan way wherever that is possible.
There are two strategic aims for this Conservative government now. The first is to entrench the Opposition leader so that he is still there in 2020. The second is to reinforce the Conservative reputation for economic toughness on deficit reduction. What follows several years down the line will then be a choice between that reputation on the one hand and socialist fantasy on the other.
The Chancellor will sacrifice many pawns on the way. The impressions of October 2015 will be as worthless as those being expressed in October 2010 in judging the outcome of the next election. Has anyone on the Left any strategy at all? I doubt it.
But as long as people pay for the brand without thinking whether they actually like it, it will continue I guess...
Sounds like the Labour and Tory parties!
The NHS is not threatened in any way shape or form by TTIP. The protections on the NHS were laid out specifically by the EU in a response to the Health Select Committee of the House of Commons.
If all Bond is going to be is a frontman for selling big brand products and a proxy figure of our culture wars, trying to find the most PC fit for modern Britain (with total f**king idiots thinking it should be a woman) then, sadly, it's time it came to an end.
Looking at the range of issues the Tories now face, a credible opposition would be making a fair bit of hay. I guess you can't have everything.
'I'm shtanding on it'
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." -
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34646496
Antifrank, your comments would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Apart from 2008-2009, I have not seen anything like this since 1993.
"Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls."
John Farnham, left-wing comedian and author, commented of this case; 'The moral of the story is that if you're going to die anyway, why not enjoy yourself along the way?'
McDonnell was also very good on TV.
Fleming of course did die as a result of alcohol, tobacco and (allegedly) drug misuse, so that sort of contradicts my earlier post!
I'm very fond of liver but know I could poison myself with it.
Yeah, that's what happens when people have principles.
I know many engineering and manufacturing businesses that are doing extremely well.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ab4b852-5c70-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html
"Britain’s economy is stronger than the headlines suggest.
Consider the headline measure of economic growth. The initial estimate of quarterly gross domestic product, which generates the most news, suggests the UK is indeed inferior. If you looked only at these first drafts of the GDP data for every quarter since the recovery began in 2009, you would conclude that the US economy was now 15 per cent larger than in the dark days of the crisis, and that the UK had grown about half as fast.
But long after US commentators have punched the air, attributing American superiority to a more enlightened policy towards the government deficit, the numbers keep being revised. Statisticians in Washington have a habit of being a bit brash at first, while their British counterparts, cocooned in a bunker in Newport in South Wales, are overly cautious.
The latest estimates, soon to be incorporated in official data, say that the UK economy has grown 13.4 per cent since 2009, against 13.7 per cent in the US. Britain’s recovery, in other words, is just as good as America’s — and it was achieved with a rapidly shrinking offshore oil sector, a greater burden from damaged banks and closer proximity to the eurozone crisis. Not too bad, as the British like to say."
By "delaying", the CB ers could be persuaded to vote for the amendment.
"I must be dreaming."
(How on earth Fleming got away with that in the far more conservative early 1960s (homosexuality and abortion were still get to be legalised, the pill was barely 18 months old, and we still had the death penalty) I will never know)
Surely if Passos carries on without a majority and is unable to win any votes, it just makes it more likely a Socialist will be next President and will then appoint Costa in February
'No Mr Bond, I expect you to buy'
To be still borrowing c.10% of govt spending 7 years after the recession is unprecedented but understandable in the circumstances. The easy cuts have mostly been made and there's not much scope for more tax receipts, so we're now onto the difficult stuff. From a political viewpoint the changes that affect the general public are best done early in the Parliament, as we see with tax credits.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GaR6AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=eric+morecambe+ernie+bed+laurel+hardy&source=bl&ots=Zi05waC1qG&sig=IfKZirtTWnZMpx-gjHA_im80vrg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwB2oVChMI0bT94N_iyAIVgboUCh2A6ANp#v=onepage&q=eric morecambe ernie bed laurel hardy&f=false
Whatever happened to IG in the end?
EDIT - I first saw Are you Being Served when I was very young. It took me a long while to understand why Mrs Slocombe's pussy was so amusing to everyone else as my parents wouldn't explain!
As for David Milliband's suggestion re settling a further 2 million in Europe (over the next 5 years) at a rate of 400,000 a year and his comment about “the tumultuous convulsions inside significant parts of the Islamic world." and that "30 to 40 nations that can’t meet the basic needs of their citizens and contain ethnic, political and religious differences among their people..” I do wonder why people like him think that Europe should invite in people whose ethnic, political and religious differences lead to "tumultous convulsions".
I simply do not want the Islamic world's tumultuous convulsions to spread to or be replicated here.
The lady with the wine bottle on Big Brother?!?!
Edit: apparently it was the Hays Code, introduced in the 1930s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Reading through it, the films must've been rather boring affairs! I'm almost tempted to write a story that breaks every line of that code, although I daresay SeanT's beaten me to it ...
The best thing Miliband can do from his ivory towers and $400k salary in New York is to help the British govt in setting up places of refuge in Syria and surrounding countries that can accommodate those displaced by the conflict until it dies down.