This may seem a daft suggestion re rain - but have you considered a dog hat? Having a raincoat isn't bad either even if she has a good fur coat. Getting your face wet doesn't appeal to some dogs as much as we don't like it.
Making her a happy walkies seems worth trying a few options rather than dragging her about during inclement weather.
Pleasantly surprised the dog's not barking her head off given some near neighbours have been launching umpteen fireworks about 20 yards away to entertain their offspring...
Dog hat
There's some stuff on PB, there really is!
You're barking mad, the pair of you. (You could see that coming a mile off)
However, since the 'Five Eyes' countries invariably act extremely closely together, it is all but inconceivable that the UK would go out on a limb. What would be the point, anyway?
It is possible that countries outside the 'Five Eyes' group might do something different, although the trend in recent years is in the opposite direction.
If you can make a company reduce the security of a product to keep doing business in the UK then the weakness will be exploitable by governments (and hackers) everywhere, so all the Five Eyes governments will be able to benefit. Hell, intelligence agencies (and hackers) are still getting data from their targets thanks to protocol weaknesses in SSL that introduced to cope with US crypto export restrictions that were repealed over a decade ago.
[Edited from "repealed in 1992" - apparently the repeal was gradual so there were still some restrictions 1992 to 2000]
This may seem a daft suggestion re rain - but have you considered a dog hat? Having a raincoat isn't bad either even if she has a good fur coat. Getting your face wet doesn't appeal to some dogs as much as we don't like it.
Making her a happy walkies seems worth trying a few options rather than dragging her about during inclement weather.
Pleasantly surprised the dog's not barking her head off given some near neighbours have been launching umpteen fireworks about 20 yards away to entertain their offspring...
Dog hat
There's some stuff on PB, there really is!
You're barking mad, the pair of you. (You could see that coming a mile off)
Here's the Tory one.
TGI Friday...
Don't want to quibble but that looks like a poor young kitten some Evil Tory forced to sweep a chimney.
On the betting front,I make it 4-1 the field on the next Tory leadership so,as I have posted before,is Osborne is lay,lay,lay at 2-1 up to this price.My 1st ever political bet was on John Major at 10-1 and as TSE has posted Tory leadership elections are very unpredictable anyway.What price was Mrs Thatcher a few years before she was elected? I still think the best politician the Tories have is Theresa May and 8-1 is too big.She too though may come a cropper if the IPBill goes tits-up.Her speech on immigration was distasteful but will appeal to the Owen Paterson brigade. The race for Tory leader is wide open.
I think you read too much into Mrs Thatcher. She stood in place of Keith Joseph and the Tories were already moving in that direction after an election defeat. The other candidate was Heath who was a recently defeated failure. By knocking Heath out she gained dare I say it momentum. This election will be one for a party in power and their will be no incumbent.
This may seem a daft suggestion re rain - but have you considered a dog hat? Having a raincoat isn't bad either even if she has a good fur coat. Getting your face wet doesn't appeal to some dogs as much as we don't like it.
Making her a happy walkies seems worth trying a few options rather than dragging her about during inclement weather.
Pleasantly surprised the dog's not barking her head off given some near neighbours have been launching umpteen fireworks about 20 yards away to entertain their offspring...
Dog hat
There's some stuff on PB, there really is!
You're barking mad, the pair of you. (You could see that coming a mile off)
Here's the Tory one.
TGI Friday...
Don't want to quibble but that looks like a poor young kitten some Evil Tory forced to sweep a chimney.
Investigator: black boxes "distinctly show sound of explosion"
French television channel France 2 is reporting that the black boxes "distinctly show the sound of an explosion during the flight", according to an investigator who had access to them.
They said: "the explosion would not be secondary from engine failure".
Reports now coming in that the crashed plane suffered an explosion on board, according to the cockpit voice recorder which has been listened to (French sources). More evidence mounting for the terrorism theory, unfortunately.
Hmmm. IAAAFAIIPTGFAE, but is a CVR's recording accurate enough to tell (say) an explosive device from a catastrophic explosive decompression (although the former may well lead to the latter).
That was a translation of an unofficial report. It is true that a baby's body was found some way from the rest of the wreckage but the distance is not confirmed. One suggestion is a confusion between a search area of 20 square miles and the body being at the edge of that zone being 20 miles away (a 20 sq mi zone would likely be c. 7x3 miles).
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Certainly if it doesn't turn out to be a bomb it'll make the Iraq dodgy dossier "intelligence" look like the gold standard.
The US has a lot of intimidation of companies going on behind the scenes but in democracies it's hard to pass secret laws.
Yes, this government is breaking new ground in providing democratic oversight and transparency for things which in the past have been done in a kind of legal no-man's-land. To be fair, though, the last Labour government made the first steps on that road with RIPA.
Boris has cut Osborne's lead as next Tory leader according to Conservativehome but Osborne is still likely to succeed in my view. Had Labour picked a moderate and charismatic leader he would be vulnerable but they picked the far left and uncharismatic Corbyn and when you say they are 'effectively tied' you ignore the fact Osborne still beats him. Even if Corbyn is replaced, probably by Hilary Benn, I expect Osborne would still lead the largest party in a hung parliament especially post boundary changes. He may then lose to Chuka Umunna in 2025 but he would get one term in No 10
I think a fight between Osborne and Corbyn would have only one winner. However, I don't think the Tories are going to pick Osborne as leader, should I still be a member at the time of the leadership election I will vote for whoever Osborne is facing off against as long as they aren't a raving Europhile like him.
He may be good at strategy but he has proven time and again he has no sense of tactical awareness, at all. Crosby absolutely took Labour to cleaners in 2015 because he knew when and how to deploy the best strategies, Osborne was unable to do it in 2010 which undoubtedly cost the Tories a majority.
You overrate tactics as opposed to strategy in the same way that Blind underrates visits to Manchester and the visits of local Manchester politicians to China.
Mr. Nabavi, hasn't RIPA been horrendously overused by the police, including using it search journalists' computers and so on?
Quite possibly. Before RIPA you could never tell, because the powers and restrictions on those powers were never defined. It wasn't even clear that it was illegal for ordinary citizens and companies to snoop on, for example, emails, until RIPA was enacted. And listening in to recorded mobile phone messages (misleadingly called 'hacking') was definitely not illegal, although they might have tried to prosecute using the dubious 'stealing electricity' wheeze.
The US has a lot of intimidation of companies going on behind the scenes but in democracies it's hard to pass secret laws.
Yes, this government is breaking new ground in providing democratic oversight and transparency for things which in the past have been done in a kind of legal no-man's-land. To be fair, though, the last Labour government made the first steps on that road with RIPA.
The process goes way back beyond RIPA - it's always been: - Go up to and over the boundary of what's permitted by existing laws. - Say, "look at all these things we're doing in grey area, we need to widen the boundary" - Repeat.
But the key thing here isn't what's being done by intelligence agencies behind closed doors, it's what legal ability they have to force other people to do things for them. For example, making it illegal for security researchers to report vulnerabilities is something that is just not in the law now, and this bill wants to make it law. Likewise, the right to ban companies from making fundamentally secure products is just not something that the government is legally able to do at the moment, and if this bill passed it would be.
I'm really rather impressed at what HMG have done here - not just fiddling about the FO website guidance, but saying Nope to allowing Sharm's bent security to put our citizens at risk.
I can't recall a similar decision - when if ever did we last do this at a single airport?
That the Egyptians are playing silly buggers only hurts themselves - and I say this as someone who is very fond of the place in general and would love to go there again at a safer point.
Listening to the BBC reporting Russia's decision to stop all flights to all of Egypt they cannot bring themselves to referring to the UK's decision now trying to imply it was a Western decision. They really are disapponted that David Cameron and the UK have been vindicated
Some years ago I flew into Cairo , on to Luxor and then to Assam before returning to Cairo and they were all third world airports with little security. I would not want to go back to Egypt due to security issues which is a shame as it is a wonderful Country to visit
Strange really. They need tourism. You would thin the places would be crawling with security. You would think they would be touting themselves as world leaders. Yet we read that Sinai which is the back door to Sharm is threatened by terrorists. How many UK visitors flying into Sharm ever knew that? Assuming this was a bomb then we must be grateful that the target was Russian. Putin with his real 'swagger' (not a cheapshot made up one) set himself up for a fall.
Can you clarify that last remark. I'm sure I'm being stupid, but I can't seem to read it in any way that doesn't show you to be a total pyscho.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
The other reason I think Osborne would make a poor leader is his poor judgement wrt to China. He wants to name Corbyn a threat to national security (which is probably correct) but then in the same breath announces how great it is that China (a nation with whom we are not strategically aligned) are investing in vital national infrastructure which they will take up part ownership of without any reservations or clawback procedure. It strikes me as short sighted.
A lot of people I know wonder why it is right for the Chinese state to own part of our power infrastructure, for the German, French and Dutch states to own our railway franchises, for the German, French and Italian states to own and run most of our energy sector but the British state is either barred or tied up from doing the same. The next leader of the Tories will have to address this imbalance as we become more nationalist in our consumer choices.
Mr. Nabavi, hasn't RIPA been horrendously overused by the police, including using it search journalists' computers and so on?
Quite possibly. Before RIPA you could never tell, because the powers and restrictions on those powers were never defined. It wasn't even clear that it was illegal for ordinary citizens and companies to snoop on, for example, emails, until RIPA was enacted. And listening in to recorded mobile phone messages (misleadingly called 'hacking') was definitely not illegal, although they might have tried to prosecute using the dubious 'stealing electricity' wheeze.
I find it both sad and incredible that anyone would begin to defend RIPA. An act that introduced the concept that even telling anyone you had been arrested was a criminal offence.
RIPA was a complete travesty of a law and that fact that this new act might be marginally less authoritarian is perhaps the only thing it has going for it. But it is still a long way from what should be considered acceptable in a democratic society.
Boris has cut Osborne's lead as next Tory leader according to Conservativehome but Osborne is still likely to succeed in my view. Had Labour picked a moderate and charismatic leader he would be vulnerable but they picked the far left and uncharismatic Corbyn and when you say they are 'effectively tied' you ignore the fact Osborne still beats him. Even if Corbyn is replaced, probably by Hilary Benn, I expect Osborne would still lead the largest party in a hung parliament especially post boundary changes. He may then lose to Chuka Umunna in 2025 but he would get one term in No 10
Hilary Benn eh. Oddly enough I'd think of him as a big wheel too. Chuka is the end product of the Labour machine. The PM for all. Our first really manufactured politician. However he's failed quality control.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
The process goes way back beyond RIPA - it's always been: - Go up to and over the boundary of what's permitted by existing laws. - Say, "look at all these things we're doing in grey area, we need to widen the boundary" - Repeat.
Not really. Until 1989 the government didn't even admit that MI5 existed. There was no legal framework at all for it, and of course no parliamentary oversight at all. Hard to have oversight over something which doesn't exist!
For example, making it illegal for security researchers to report vulnerabilities is something that is just not in the law now, and this bill wants to make it law. Likewise, the right to ban companies from making fundamentally secure products is just not something that the government is legally able to do at the moment, and if this bill passed it would be.
I don't know about that bit of the bill: that's your characterisation of it, presumably.
The real losers from the past few weeks' events have been (yet again) the political commentariat and their dire analysis. It was just a few weeks ago when they were fawning over Osborne claiming he was "in the centre-ground" and "stealing Labour's clothes", at the very same time as he was pushing a tax credits policy that even Norman "get on yer bike" Tebbit said was too cruel to the poor.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
I find it both sad and incredible that anyone would begin to defend RIPA. An act that introduced the concept that even telling anyone you had been arrested was a criminal offence.
RIPA was a complete travesty of a law and that fact that this new act might be marginally less authoritarian is perhaps the only thing it has going for it. But it is still a long way from what should be considered acceptable in a democratic society.
I agree, in respect of some parts of the Act. But there was also some good stuff in RIPA. For the first time it made it illegal to snoop on emails and other electronic communications. It set up, again for the first time, independent oversight of surveillance.
Boris has cut Osborne's lead as next Tory leader according to Conservativehome but Osborne is still likely to succeed in my view. Had Labour picked a moderate and charismatic leader he would be vulnerable but they picked the far left and uncharismatic Corbyn and when you say they are 'effectively tied' you ignore the fact Osborne still beats him. Even if Corbyn is replaced, probably by Hilary Benn, I expect Osborne would still lead the largest party in a hung parliament especially post boundary changes. He may then lose to Chuka Umunna in 2025 but he would get one term in No 10
Hilary Benn eh. Oddly enough I'd think of him as a big wheel too. Chuka is the end product of the Labour machine. The PM for all. Our first really manufactured politician. However he's failed quality control.
He is now engaged and ideally placed to take over in 2020 and then win the 2025 election, Benn would be the Michael Howard figure ensuring Labour saved the furniture and made modest progress leaving Umunna the chance to face Osborne leading a tired government and offering a fresh telegenic, more moderate face
Don, I notice you mentioned that Labour had described Osbourne’s tax change in 2013 as a “a hedge-fund tax cut”. Was it, however? I assume the tax change to which you are alluding was the abolition of schedule 19 stamp duty reserve tax in the 2013 budget. This was levied on UK-domicile unit trusts and investment funds when investors sold their units in the funds. It was widely welcome by asset management funds based in Edinburgh and London, which had been losing business to funds domiciled abroad, especially Dublin. Essentially, it brought Britain into line with the rest of Europe. The main beneficiaries were asset management funds (widely used by the general public) not particularly hedge funds. Indeed, although most European hedge funds are managed from London the funds are rarely domiciled in the UK. The party which acted most blatantly in favour of hedge funds was the Labour party which reduced the CGT rate to 10% following their lobbying and fought tooth and nail against Osborne’s demands in 2006 for a levy on non-doms who were very prominent in the sector.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
The real losers from the past few weeks' events have been (yet again) the political commentariat and their dire analysis. It was just a few weeks ago when they were fawning over Osborne claiming he was "in the centre-ground" and "stealing Labour's clothes", at the very same time as he was pushing a tax credits policy that even Norman "get on yer bike" Tebbit said was too cruel to the poor.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
Tebbit and others have proposed no solutions to cutting the in-working benefits bill from the current £30bn to anything like the £10bn it was intended to be.
Housing benefits, pensions and in-working benefits all need to have an axe taken to them, Labour, you, Norman Tebbit and others are proposing no alternatives or solutions, all the while the debt ticks up and deficit reductions grinds to a halt.
I liked Charles' suggestion earlier to help lower the housing benefits bill, where are Labour's suggestions on that aspect of the benefits bill, which is essentially just subsidies for private landlords to pay off their buy-to-let mortgages.
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Oh I don't know I would say MH17 stands out for, thanks to the criminal incompetency and congenital lying of the Ukrainians. Namely:
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold. The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs. The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs. The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces. The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible. The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
The real losers from the past few weeks' events have been (yet again) the political commentariat and their dire analysis. It was just a few weeks ago when they were fawning over Osborne claiming he was "in the centre-ground" and "stealing Labour's clothes", at the very same time as he was pushing a tax credits policy that even Norman "get on yer bike" Tebbit said was too cruel to the poor.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
276,000 receiving an average £20,000 a year tax free for having 4 or more kids, plus help with housing costs.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
What galls me (again as someone who doesn't pass traditional identity checks for Torydom) is that the thrust of the article is something that can be argued analytically and on the basis of facts, polls etc - whether one likes the conclusion or not, it is at least an arguable case. There's simply no need for the emotive language. We all know David Herdson's views politically, but his pieces (even where his views come across clearly) are never expressed so vituperatively. This piece is more emotive than analytical, and yet doesn't come across as intentionally persuasive either - it's either written as if preaching to the echo chamber of the converted, or simply there as an "I told you so" piece in case it's predictions come off.
For what it's worth, osbophiles tick me off too, but I have found that I like (or at least, respect) Osborne more than I expected to. Back in 2010 he was, for me, the biggest single impediment to considering voting blue. By 2015, he wasn't.
(The £55 million hedge fund figure is an intriguing one - I've seen it thrust about on left-leaning blogs all over the shop, but have been unable to confirm it in a more objective location or seen a solid citation. I have no doubt that the Tories benefit from their relationship with high financiers, but am sceptical it's really all the hedgies' doing. The kind of person who whips this statistic out every time they want to bash "The City" generally is unable to distinguish between a hedge fund and a pension fund. Would probably even struggle separating them from so-called "investment *ankers" for that matter.)
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I've named one and I'll add you to it. One more wont be hard to find.
I notice you do nothing to refute my comments about debt/deficit/Germany.
The real losers from the past few weeks' events have been (yet again) the political commentariat and their dire analysis. It was just a few weeks ago when they were fawning over Osborne claiming he was "in the centre-ground" and "stealing Labour's clothes", at the very same time as he was pushing a tax credits policy that even Norman "get on yer bike" Tebbit said was too cruel to the poor.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
Tebbit and others have proposed no solutions to cutting the in-working benefits bill from the current £30bn to anything like the £10bn it was intended to be.
Housing benefits, pensions and in-working benefits all need to have an axe taken to them, Labour, you, Norman Tebbit and others are proposing no alternatives or solutions, all the while the debt ticks up and deficit reductions grinds to a halt.
I liked Charles' suggestion earlier to help lower the housing benefits bill, where are Labour's suggestions on that aspect of the benefits bill, which is essentially just subsidies for private landlords to pay off their buy-to-let mortgages.
WRT pensioners, this item is presumably trivia in terms of savings but it would send a good signal: why on earth doesn't the government restrict bus passes to one's home county, as they started out? It's one thing to subsidise travel around the pensioner's local area, and quite another effectively to subsidise pensioners' holidays.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
The government aim was to eliminate the structural deficit. This turned out to be larger than supposed. See the OBR. Thus rather than deeper cuts the period was extended. This is not sycophancy to remind you of that.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I've named one and I'll add you to it. One more wont be hard to find.
I notice you do nothing to refute my comments about debt/deficit/Germany.
On the betting front,I make it 4-1 the field on the next Tory leadership so,as I have posted before,is Osborne is lay,lay,lay at 2-1 up to this price.My 1st ever political bet was on John Major at 10-1 and as TSE has posted Tory leadership elections are very unpredictable anyway.What price was Mrs Thatcher a few years before she was elected? I still think the best politician the Tories have is Theresa May and 8-1 is too big.She too though may come a cropper if the IPBill goes tits-up.Her speech on immigration was distasteful but will appeal to the Owen Paterson brigade. The race for Tory leader is wide open.
I think you read too much into Mrs Thatcher. She stood in place of Keith Joseph and the Tories were already moving in that direction after an election defeat. The other candidate was Heath who was a recently defeated failure. By knocking Heath out she gained dare I say it momentum. This election will be one for a party in power and their will be no incumbent.
Four years out from their election, virtually every person who became Conservative leader from Douglas-Home on would have been long odds to be next at the job (or, in some cases, to be leader within five years as Howard, say, wouldn't have been 'next' leader four years before he got the gig).
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
The deficit isn't rising.
The rest is all a matter of opinion, though I would agree that Osborne has been on the end of poor press following the tax credit changes which have been poorly communicated and savings could be achieved with a higher degree of political skill.
He isn't a Prime Minister, in my view. Neither is Boris.
My problem with Mr Osborne's proposals is that on the basic concept he is absolutely right but his implementation is so cack handed that he has managed to let his opponents tarnish the whole idea. Whilst I doubt it will have his see impact, this is very similar to the poll tax fiasco where a fundamentally good idea was botched in the execution.
I'm still not convinced Osborne will even run. He strikes me as more of a Mandelsonian, behind the scenes figure. What's more I think he's probably well aware that he isn't the most acceptable face of the party.
More likely in my opinion is nearer the time he makes his preference clear and plays kingmaker. Maybe even tries to remain on as Chancellor.
Oh and on topic I think this is one of the poorest and most partisan thread headers I have ever read on PB. I am not a Tory but I would certainly understand their disdain and anger at these repeated partial commentaries that are being produced by Mr Brind.
What galls me (again as someone who doesn't pass traditional identity checks for Torydom) is that the thrust of the article is something that can be argued analytically and on the basis of facts, polls etc - whether one likes the conclusion or not, it is at least an arguable case. There's simply no need for the emotive language. We all know David Herdson's views politically, but his pieces (even where his views come across clearly) are never expressed so vituperatively. This piece is more emotive than analytical, and yet doesn't come across as intentionally persuasive either - it's either written as if preaching to the echo chamber of the converted, or simply there as an "I told you so" piece in case it's predictions come off.
For what it's worth, osbophiles tick me off too, but I have found that I like (or at least, respect) Osborne more than I expected to. Back in 2010 he was, for me, the biggest single impediment to considering voting blue. By 2015, he wasn't.
(The £55 million hedge fund figure is an intriguing one - I've seen it thrust about on left-leaning blogs all over the shop, but have been unable to confirm it in a more objective location or seen a solid citation. I have no doubt that the Tories benefit from their relationship with high financiers, but am sceptical it's really all the hedgies' doing. The kind of person who whips this statistic out every time they want to bash "The City" generally is unable to distinguish between a hedge fund and a pension fund. Would probably even struggle separating them from so-called "investment *ankers" for that matter.)
You make good points and remind me why I am right to ignore Me Brind. I am of course happy to observe his one-eyed view of the world.it marks disaster for labour. Mr Brind does not know what he is talking about and Corbyn is so dim he takes it all as gospel.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I've named one and I'll add you to it. One more wont be hard to find.
I notice you do nothing to refute my comments about debt/deficit/Germany.
Who mentioned Osborne as leader? I'm talking about him as chancellor.
You should by now have learnt that the one who resorts to insults has lost.
Look, the conservatives are in power, to you that is the only thing that matters, it's entirely reasonable that others point out that once the smoke rises they really aren't very good at governing. Cameron made two key pledges, one on the deficit, one on immigration, he asked to be judged by them. He and Osborne are the same person, you know that.
My problem with Mr Osborne's proposals is that on the basic concept he is absolutely right but his implementation is so cack handed that he has managed to let his opponents tarnish the whole idea. Whilst I doubt it will have his see impact, this is very similar to the poll tax fiasco where a fundamentally good idea was botched in the execution.
On the betting front,I make it 4-1 the field on the next Tory leadership so,as I have posted before,is Osborne is lay,lay,lay at 2-1 up to this price.My 1st ever political bet was on John Major at 10-1 and as TSE has posted Tory leadership elections are very unpredictable anyway.What price was Mrs Thatcher a few years before she was elected? I still think the best politician the Tories have is Theresa May and 8-1 is too big.She too though may come a cropper if the IPBill goes tits-up.Her speech on immigration was distasteful but will appeal to the Owen Paterson brigade. The race for Tory leader is wide open.
I think you read too much into Mrs Thatcher. She stood in place of Keith Joseph and the Tories were already moving in that direction after an election defeat. The other candidate was Heath who was a recently defeated failure. By knocking Heath out she gained dare I say it momentum. This election will be one for a party in power and their will be no incumbent.
Four years out from their election, virtually every person who became Conservative leader from Douglas-Home on would have been long odds to be next at the job (or, in some cases, to be leader within five years as Howard, say, wouldn't have been 'next' leader four years before he got the gig).
Yes, but every Tory leader since Churchill who has taken over when the party was in government has either been Chancellor or Foreign Secretary, which suggests Hammond is Osborne's main rival
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I know some of you kippers have a strange and sad obsession with me but here's the facts
1) The other week I said I probably wouldn't be voting for Osborne
2) I've been laying Osborne for quite some time, I have repeatedly said the favourite this far out seldom gets it
3) When Osborne is dicking about I say so for example his deficit law
4) I described the tax credits change as a blunder and Dave and George's poll tax
5) I often wrote pieces/comments saying Osborne should be replaced by Ken Clarke between 2008 and 2013
I must be the crappest cheerleader in the world.
I do like Osborne on a few levels. His calmness under fire in 2007 and him advising Dave in 2014 not to focus on trying to outKip UKIP but focus on the Lib Dems stand out.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I know some of you kippers have a strange and sad obsession with me but here's the facts
1) The other week I said I probably wouldn't be voting for Osborne
2) I've been laying Osborne for quite some time, I have repeatedly said the favourite this far out seldom gets it
3) When Osborne is dicking about I say so for example his deficit law
4) I described the tax credits change as a blunder and Dave and George's poll tax
5) I often wrote pieces/comments saying Osborne should be replaced by Ken Clarke between 2008 and 2013
I must be the crappest cheerleader in the world.
I do like Osborne on a few levels. His calmness under fire in 2007 and him advising Dave in 2014 not to focus on trying to outKip UKIP but focus on the Lib Dems stand out.
See what I mean?
Osborne would be a bad PM, not Osborne is a bad Chancellor.
My problem with Mr Osborne's proposals is that on the basic concept he is absolutely right but his implementation is so cack handed that he has managed to let his opponents tarnish the whole idea. Whilst I doubt it will have his see impact, this is very similar to the poll tax fiasco where a fundamentally good idea was botched in the execution.
What really annoys me us that the argument for ending tax credits should be almost unassailable and one that all parties should be able to agree with from their various different viewpoints. What amazes me is that it has been so badly presented so far.
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
@david herdson,with your knowledge of Bradford politics and Bradford,just asking if you heard anything of a mini riot last night,what I have seen of my local pub with windows smashed,it's worrying.
My problem with Mr Osborne's proposals is that on the basic concept he is absolutely right but his implementation is so cack handed that he has managed to let his opponents tarnish the whole idea. Whilst I doubt it will have his see impact, this is very similar to the poll tax fiasco where a fundamentally good idea was botched in the execution.
What really annoys me us that the argument for ending tax credits should be almost unassailable and one that all parties should be able to agree with from their various different viewpoints. What amazes me is that it has been so badly presented so far.
You make my point well Mr Tyndall.
The conservatives are so busy gloating about power they've lost sight of how to govern properly and the opposition is too bad to hold them to account.
Not a very good piece by Mr Brind but the Osbophiles he refers to are just as bad. The deficit is still unacceptably high and as a consequence the national debt is rising to levels that will severely punish our children and grandchildren.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
Are you being serious?
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
I know some of you kippers have a strange and sad obsession with me but here's the facts
1) The other week I said I probably wouldn't be voting for Osborne
2) I've been laying Osborne for quite some time, I have repeatedly said the favourite this far out seldom gets it
3) When Osborne is dicking about I say so for example his deficit law
4) I described the tax credits change as a blunder and Dave and George's poll tax
5) I often wrote pieces/comments saying Osborne should be replaced by Ken Clarke between 2008 and 2013
I must be the crappest cheerleader in the world.
I do like Osborne on a few levels. His calmness under fire in 2007 and him advising Dave in 2014 not to focus on trying to outKip UKIP but focus on the Lib Dems stand out.
See what I mean?
Osborne would be a bad PM, not Osborne is a bad Chancellor.
Osborne was given a turd of a legacy as Chancellor. I'm a little bit more forgiving in the circumstances.
If George and Dave could walk on water you'd be whining that they can't swim.
Oh and points 1,2,4 and 5 are about his not so good bits as Chancellor.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
Mr chestnut, the deficit can be measured in so many ways we could argue about it all day.
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
They said they would eliminate the structural deficit, agreed.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
My problem with Mr Osborne's proposals is that on the basic concept he is absolutely right but his implementation is so cack handed that he has managed to let his opponents tarnish the whole idea. Whilst I doubt it will have his see impact, this is very similar to the poll tax fiasco where a fundamentally good idea was botched in the execution.
What really annoys me us that the argument for ending tax credits should be almost unassailable and one that all parties should be able to agree with from their various different viewpoints. What amazes me is that it has been so badly presented so far.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
Hillary launching her first negative ads on Trump? A Trump v Clinton battle would certainly be one of the most vicious catfights in US political history
'Guess who is behind the ad campaign that targets a Presidential candidate and literally calls him a "Racist F*ck"? It’s not just some random activist group! We found out that a Super PAC that EXCLUSIVELY funds a certain Presidential candidate from the opposing party directly paid the ad creator to produce the ad. Did the opposing party candidate see and approve the ad? Yes, although we are told that they will deny it if asked. If the ad is effective, expect to see a lot more similar nastiness from the same candidate, and a lot more shocking stunts designed to hurt the target candidate'
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
The key test will be the next polls
Believe me if even MSNBC ( a democratic media bastion) and the Washington Post (another democratic media bastion) say that Politico overdone it and Carson has a point, imagine what republican and conservative media would be saying about it.
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago *Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point. -Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
How can a surplus by 2020 not be an 'economic target'?
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
How can a surplus by 2020 not be an 'economic target'?
Because it's not being done for anything other than political reasons...it's so that at GE2020 he can boast about creating a surplus...it's become irrelevant to him how it's being achieved
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed. Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
3+ hours ago I invited supporters of Osborne that are Conservative voters to come forward and declare themselves for him in response to Mr Brind's "Osbophiles" comment. We have been underwhelmed by the response... Fewer than 5 were positive. The lack of enthusiasm for him on this site, a site which is often painted by the lefties as stuffed full of die hard Tories, is indicative of the problems Osborne's Leadership campaign faces. So yes Mr Brind many of us are fully aware of the lack of appeal of Osborne and many folk on here have major doubts on his suitability as PM/Leader.....
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
The key test will be the next polls
Believe me if even MSNBC ( a democratic media bastion) and the Washington Post (another democratic media bastion) say that Politico overdone it and Carson has a point, imagine what republican and conservative media would be saying about it.
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago *Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point. -Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
Regardless of who spins what today has been negative headlines for Carson, he may still win Iowa but he is not going to be nominee as far as I am concerned
It was obvious within about 3 hours of that Russian airliner going down that the official messages from Moscow and Cairo had nothing to do with factual back up and more to do with a desire to pretend a malicious cause couldn't be responsible. The Russians have since progressively rowed back. An onsite team could probably identify the likelihood of an explosive device within hours of searching the wreckage.
Two interesting side notes:
1. The Russians appear to lack the big ears that their Western friends have. 2. Its possible Western agencies released info deliberately to force others into an acknowledgement of the possible circumstances.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
That is the point. Since tax credits are being used to supplement wages you increase wages so you don't need tax credits. Obviously there will be a debate about what is a reasonable minimum income but in the end we have kind of already had that debate by the very fact we are giving people tax credits in the first place.
A lot, if not all, of Osborne's problems have been as a result of him painting himself in to a corner with his desire to create a surplus by 2020. It's a political target, not an economic one and it's resulting in the creation of short term policies and solutions. Take for example the £6.6 billion corporation tax cuts due to come in at the back end of the Parliament which are being covered up by forcing larger companies to pay their liabilities earlier. It's a short-term conjuring act to bring forward CT receipts in to this Parliament.
How can a surplus by 2020 not be an 'economic target'?
Because it's not being done for anything other than political reasons...it's so that at GE2020 he can boast about creating a surplus...it's become irrelevant to him how it's being achieved
That would make it an economic target for political reasons, rather than your initial rather loosely and inaccurately phrased claim.
3+ hours ago I invited supporters of Osborne that are Conservative voters to come forward and declare themselves for him in response to Mr Brind's "Osbophiles" comment. We have been underwhelmed by the response... Fewer than 5 were positive. The lack of enthusiasm for him on this site, a site which is often painted by the lefties as stuffed full of die hard Tories, is indicative of the problems Osborne's Leadership campaign faces. So yes Mr Brind many of us are fully aware of the lack of appeal of Osborne and many folk on here have major doubts on his suitability as PM/Leader.....
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
How high a wage does an employer need to pay a man/woman with 12 kids so they have no need to claim benefit?
Should an employer set staff wages according to how many children the employee has because that is a key factor that directly determines tax credit awards?
Wages and welfare cannot be synchronised.
Being on minimum wage and being on tax credits do not come as an exclusive pair.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
That is the point. Since tax credits are being used to supplement wages you increase wages so you don't need tax credits. Obviously there will be a debate about what is a reasonable minimum income but in the end we have kind of already had that debate by the very fact we are giving people tax credits in the first place.
Sounds very socialist...paying workers according to what the state says rather than by their true worth. You're clearly not an employer
The real losers from the past few weeks' events have been (yet again) the political commentariat and their dire analysis. It was just a few weeks ago when they were fawning over Osborne claiming he was "in the centre-ground" and "stealing Labour's clothes", at the very same time as he was pushing a tax credits policy that even Norman "get on yer bike" Tebbit said was too cruel to the poor.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
Tebbit and others have proposed no solutions to cutting the in-working benefits bill from the current £30bn to anything like the £10bn it was intended to be.
Housing benefits, pensions and in-working benefits all need to have an axe taken to them, Labour, you, Norman Tebbit and others are proposing no alternatives or solutions, all the while the debt ticks up and deficit reductions grinds to a halt.
I liked Charles' suggestion earlier to help lower the housing benefits bill, where are Labour's suggestions on that aspect of the benefits bill, which is essentially just subsidies for private landlords to pay off their buy-to-let mortgages.
WRT pensioners, this item is presumably trivia in terms of savings but it would send a good signal: why on earth doesn't the government restrict bus passes to one's home county, as they started out? It's one thing to subsidise travel around the pensioner's local area, and quite another effectively to subsidise pensioners' holidays.
(edited to add missing word)
Yes, I agree. Instead of being a way of getting oldies off the roads and giving them free local travel, it is turning into free day trips.
Do all parties get PPB's on here or is it just Labour?
Some feel the Tories and LDs get them too.
What works best are articles that give real insight into what is going on and a UKIP article assessing how we should judge their efforts to replace Labour would be useful. For example what number of councillor gains in 2016 would signify progress? Are there any Labour councils that UKIP should turn from a Labour majority into a hung council? What also are UKIPs chances in those festering cesspits that abused girls on an industrial level?
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
The headlines would have been similar regardless.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Exactly as I predicted about 3 hours ago, the Politico story on Carson has collapsed instead of Carson:
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago "Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
The key test will be the next polls
Believe me if even MSNBC ( a democratic media bastion) and the Washington Post (another democratic media bastion) say that Politico overdone it and Carson has a point, imagine what republican and conservative media would be saying about it.
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago *Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point. -Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
Regardless of who spins what today has been negative headlines for Carson, he may still win Iowa but he is not going to be nominee as far as I am concerned
Actually this may turn out good for Carson because journalists will have to double check their facts before attacking him, and even if they do he can shrug them off a bit by pointing to the botched job Politico did as a "media conspiracy". Republicans might even be forced to rally around him given that the CNBC disaster is still very fresh.
Remember, republican voters are very distrustful and conspiratorial with the media, even a crumb of evidence will be enough to convince them that the "liberal" media are out to get them.
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
I agree Tax Credits reduced at the same time as wages increased. Its a no brainer that employers should pay employees enough to live on without the state having to subsidise them.
We have concensus!!
Very much so. Osborne could have tied reducing tax credits directly to increasing the legal minimum wage. Obviously it would be more complex and refined than that but it would clearly have shown the intent of the policy and prevented the £1300 a year worse off headlines.
You forget that many families on tax credits are earning above the minimum wage
Comments
Cat version http://cdnstatic.visualizeus.com/thumbs/0e/92/cat,magic,tophat-0e92a9579c42abe481b07d21176696bb_h.jpg
[Edited from "repealed in 1992" - apparently the repeal was gradual so there were still some restrictions 1992 to 2000]
I've never before seen an aviation accident (and I've researched loads over the years, as you may have guessed!) where there's been such a release of information and disinformation all second and third hand in the days afterwards. The nations involved and the possible terrorism and geopolitical angles certainly don't help in this regard.
Certainly if it doesn't turn out to be a bomb it'll make the Iraq dodgy dossier "intelligence" look like the gold standard.
Edited extra bit: got to go [don't want you to reply and then think I'm ignoring your response].
- Go up to and over the boundary of what's permitted by existing laws.
- Say, "look at all these things we're doing in grey area, we need to widen the boundary"
- Repeat.
But the key thing here isn't what's being done by intelligence agencies behind closed doors, it's what legal ability they have to force other people to do things for them. For example, making it illegal for security researchers to report vulnerabilities is something that is just not in the law now, and this bill wants to make it law. Likewise, the right to ban companies from making fundamentally secure products is just not something that the government is legally able to do at the moment, and if this bill passed it would be.
The refusal of the US and Kiev regimes to release satellite and cockpit recordings they may hold.
The claim the rebels had a BUK, when the official position of both the US and Kiev regimes position, both before, and after the event was that the rebels did not posses medium to long range SAMs.
The Dutch report debunking the Ukrainian lies that a Russian MIG or Pantsir SAM (they are right, if the rebels were to be given a SAM it would have been a Pantsir not a BUK) shot-down an SU-25 and AN-26 in the days before, again they were shot-down by MANPADS consistent with all other prior shoot-downs.
The Dutch report confirming that the missile used was one only utilised by the Ukrainian armed forces and long out of service in the Russian armed forces.
The refusal of the US regime to release their data after John Kerry declared on July 20, 2014, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” Leaks to CIA alumni Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern confirming that the evidence held leads to the conclusion the Ukrainian Armed Forces were responsible.
The failure of the Kiev regime to explain why their BUK units of the 156th Air Defense Regiment had been deployed to the area around the launch site of Zaroshchens’ke with electronic data of the Ukrainian regime turning on the radar that is used by BUK systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian regime to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/05/sinai-plane-crash-m17-russia-west
Yes this tragedy has been handled in far superior manner than the MH17. Absolutely disgraceful.
A lot of people I know wonder why it is right for the Chinese state to own part of our power infrastructure, for the German, French and Dutch states to own our railway franchises, for the German, French and Italian states to own and run most of our energy sector but the British state is either barred or tied up from doing the same. The next leader of the Tories will have to address this imbalance as we become more nationalist in our consumer choices.
RIPA was a complete travesty of a law and that fact that this new act might be marginally less authoritarian is perhaps the only thing it has going for it. But it is still a long way from what should be considered acceptable in a democratic society.
I mean think about that. Outflanked on the Left by NORMAN TEBBIT, for goodness sake.
I assume the tax change to which you are alluding was the abolition of schedule 19 stamp duty reserve tax in the 2013 budget. This was levied on UK-domicile unit trusts and investment funds when investors sold their units in the funds. It was widely welcome by asset management funds based in Edinburgh and London, which had been losing business to funds domiciled abroad, especially Dublin. Essentially, it brought Britain into line with the rest of Europe.
The main beneficiaries were asset management funds (widely used by the general public) not particularly hedge funds. Indeed, although most European hedge funds are managed from London the funds are rarely domiciled in the UK.
The party which acted most blatantly in favour of hedge funds was the Labour party which reduced the CGT rate to 10% following their lobbying and fought tooth and nail against Osborne’s demands in 2006 for a levy on non-doms who were very prominent in the sector.
Housing benefits, pensions and in-working benefits all need to have an axe taken to them, Labour, you, Norman Tebbit and others are proposing no alternatives or solutions, all the while the debt ticks up and deficit reductions grinds to a halt.
I liked Charles' suggestion earlier to help lower the housing benefits bill, where are Labour's suggestions on that aspect of the benefits bill, which is essentially just subsidies for private landlords to pay off their buy-to-let mortgages.
I wonder if Norman Tebbit knows that.
Still, he's a conservative chancellor so that's irrelevant on pb.com, he can do no wrong.
For what it's worth, osbophiles tick me off too, but I have found that I like (or at least, respect) Osborne more than I expected to. Back in 2010 he was, for me, the biggest single impediment to considering voting blue. By 2015, he wasn't.
(The £55 million hedge fund figure is an intriguing one - I've seen it thrust about on left-leaning blogs all over the shop, but have been unable to confirm it in a more objective location or seen a solid citation. I have no doubt that the Tories benefit from their relationship with high financiers, but am sceptical it's really all the hedgies' doing. The kind of person who whips this statistic out every time they want to bash "The City" generally is unable to distinguish between a hedge fund and a pension fund. Would probably even struggle separating them from so-called "investment *ankers" for that matter.)
You're very keen to throw this sort of stuff around but I rarely see any evidence.
Name three.
I'm not here to name names but the Tory sycophancy on here (with a couple of exceptions) is nauseous. TSE is the cheerleader, others join in enthusiastically.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Cameron said he would eliminate the deficit, Osborne has arguably halved it but depending on measures used its rising. He was humiliated over tax credits and last week the Germans sent him home with his tail between his legs. If it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were fretting about protesters he'd be roasted.
Strawmen aren't worth anything. Not even wasting pixels reading them. So much for brass tacks.
I notice you do nothing to refute my comments about debt/deficit/Germany.
(edited to add missing word)
Still. Do carry on making a Charlie of yourself. Stop digging.
The rest is all a matter of opinion, though I would agree that Osborne has been on the end of poor press following the tax credit changes which have been poorly communicated and savings could be achieved with a higher degree of political skill.
He isn't a Prime Minister, in my view. Neither is Boris.
More likely in my opinion is nearer the time he makes his preference clear and plays kingmaker. Maybe even tries to remain on as Chancellor.
You should by now have learnt that the one who resorts to insults has lost.
Look, the conservatives are in power, to you that is the only thing that matters, it's entirely reasonable that others point out that once the smoke rises they really aren't very good at governing. Cameron made two key pledges, one on the deficit, one on immigration, he asked to be judged by them. He and Osborne are the same person, you know that.
The argument for isn't hard but they failed entirely. Everyday on Jeremy Kyle there are at least two examples of why it's a good idea FFS.
I thought the Poll Tax was a very fair policy that was holed below the water by crap PR too.
1) The other week I said I probably wouldn't be voting for Osborne
2) I've been laying Osborne for quite some time, I have repeatedly said the favourite this far out seldom gets it
3) When Osborne is dicking about I say so for example his deficit law
4) I described the tax credits change as a blunder and Dave and George's poll tax
5) I often wrote pieces/comments saying Osborne should be replaced by Ken Clarke between 2008
and 2013
I must be the crappest cheerleader in the world.
I do like Osborne on a few levels. His calmness under fire in 2007 and him advising Dave in 2014 not to focus on trying to outKip UKIP but focus on the Lib Dems stand out.
Here is an interesting (to me at least) and short history of the HS2 project.
http://www.railengineer.uk/2015/11/05/hs2-the-story-so-far/
What is unarguable is that Cameron said he'd eliminate it and didn't
Trump – 25% (22)
Carson – 23% (14)
Rubio – 13% (5)
Cruz – 11% (8)
Bush – 5% (5)
Fiorina – 4% (7)
Jindal – 4% (2)
Christie – 3% (3)
Graham – 2% (2)
Huckabee – 2% (7)
Kasich – 2% (2)
Paul – 2% (5)
Gilmore – * (*)
Pataki – * (*)
Santorum – * (1)
Undecided – 3% (4)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/11/05/relia2.pdf
(Though we wait to see whether Carson falls as rapidly as Herman Cain after today's news)
Osborne would be a bad PM, not Osborne is a bad Chancellor.
Caleb Howe @CalebHowe 39m39 minutes ago
"Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 39m39 minutes ago
The Politico overreach may save him from any consequences for the fib on grounds of media bias. We'll see.
daveweigel @daveweigel 1h1 hour ago
Compare the Politico lede on what Carson was claiming w/ what Carson claimed 3 months ago.
So Carson escapes unharmed because the exclusive article was more false than his past claims and republicans blame the media.
As I said, when it comes to the GOP race my advice is actually trustworthy.
Nothing on the T&A site.
The conservatives are so busy gloating about power they've lost sight of how to govern properly and the opposition is too bad to hold them to account.
If George and Dave could walk on water you'd be whining that they can't swim.
Oh and points 1,2,4 and 5 are about his not so good bits as Chancellor.
The current rolling PSBR is £70bn. Debt interest is about £50bn. So primary deficit is £20bn.
In a £1.8tn economy, with a state spending £750bn a year that's reasonably close, but yes, you are correct, it's no cigar.
A wasted year due to a timid 2012 budget was the cause, in my view.
As for immigration - they've done well enough on non-EU immigration, but clearly have zero control over the EU. Thankfully, we'll get our say soon enough.
We have concensus!!
I hope Don produces the next official Labour PPB shown on all channels.
'Guess who is behind the ad campaign that targets a Presidential candidate and literally calls him a "Racist F*ck"? It’s not just some random activist group! We found out that a Super PAC that EXCLUSIVELY funds a certain Presidential candidate from the opposing party directly paid the ad creator to produce the ad. Did the opposing party candidate see and approve the ad? Yes, although we are told that they will deny it if asked. If the ad is effective, expect to see a lot more similar nastiness from the same candidate, and a lot more shocking stunts designed to hurt the target candidate'
http://blindgossip.com/?p=74703
Mainly fee paying university students isn't it?
And all this was predicted by me, when I read the story that OGH tweeted I wrote that Carson is safe because even within the article towards it's end Carson in his own book wrote that he never applied to West Point, because he wanted to be a doctor, when that was offered to him at a banquet with Westmorland.
So the article itself was more misleading and inaccurate than Carson's claims, especially the large screaming title.
And here is CNN too rejecting the Politico story:
Dylan Byers @DylanByers 1h1 hour ago
*Not accurate* in Politico story:
-Carson claimed to have applied to West Point.
-Campaign admitted Carson fabricated history.
Jeremy Corbyn's senior policy adviser Andrew Fisher has been suspended from the Labour Party pending a report by its ruling body.
However, good old Corby still supports this aid. Is this the start of the underground Labour civil war coming to the surface?
Try to establish who these people are, it's like the deficit we discussed earlier, it's a morass of spin and misinformation, and we know why.
There's no sensible stuff going on here. http://www.sunnation.co.uk/corbyn-aide-dubbed-77-bombings-revenge-for-iraq-war/
When the Politico story came out Carson immediately got a big dump on the betting markets, now that the story has collapsed there is a betting opportunity, but be quick Ladbrokes already switched Carson to 12/1 when the story came out from 7/1, but now they switched him at 8/1 as the story collapsed.
Betfair still has him on 133/10 from 10/1 when the story came out, so be quick.
Two interesting side notes:
1. The Russians appear to lack the big ears that their Western friends have.
2. Its possible Western agencies released info deliberately to force others into an acknowledgement of the possible circumstances.
@HenryGManson would never put his name to this cobblers. I miss his incisive analysis.
Should an employer set staff wages according to how many children the employee has because that is a key factor that directly determines tax credit awards?
Wages and welfare cannot be synchronised.
Being on minimum wage and being on tax credits do not come as an exclusive pair.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
Republicans might even be forced to rally around him given that the CNBC disaster is still very fresh.
Remember, republican voters are very distrustful and conspiratorial with the media, even a crumb of evidence will be enough to convince them that the "liberal" media are out to get them.
I think that had quite an impact on betting, which was entirely unfounded given the final result.