UK industrial production rose by 1.0 per cent month-on-month in February, when compared with the previous month, but even so remained at the same level as in September 2012. ... George is a skilled doctor. The English patient is slowly recovering. We must be patient and keep faith.
ALP, the great victory of your hero is that industrial production is back up to the heady heights achieved six months ago. Forgive me, but that is stagnation, not slow recovery.
Given all the desperate pump-priming for a house price boom that there was in the budget and it is obvious that George has given up on the rebalancing that is both so necessary and to be fair difficult. He's going for debt-fuelled growth as his last best hope of keeping his job beyond 2015.
What a whole load of old nonsense.
1. You cannot conclude any general trend from two datapoints. ONS's observation that the rate of growth in February 2013 over January 2013 takes the growth index level back to its position in September 2012 is a justified observation in context. Concluding that this represents stagnation is not.
2. How do you conclude that the mortgage support measures are "desperate pump-priming for a house price boom" ? What evidence do you have that the new schemes will cause a boom? More to the point where is your worked argument that it will? You would do well to look at recent figures from the Netherlands where house prices have fallen by 8.9% over the past year and ask yourself whether the same deflation could happen here and if not, why not.
3. Why is it "obvious that George has given up on rebalancing"? Is this why the OBR has moved in its forecast completion dates for meeting both primary fiscal mandate targets in their latest EFO? Is this why Standard & Poor's recently reaffirmed the UK's AAA rating and stated: “We believe that the government will implement its fiscal mandate and that it has the ability and willingness to respond rapidly to economic challenges”?
4. If George really is going for "debt-fuelled" growth can you explain why the ONS in its February Public Finances Bulletin stated that the Public Sector Net Borrowing had been reduced this fiscal year by 35.8% from £104.2bn to £66.9bn?
Mr Detritus, you must spend more time studying published data and less time listening to pundits such as tim.
Mr Pole you are increasingly like the Charlemagne Division fighting in the Reichstag. The leader isn't worth it, you're defending the indefensible and the result is inevitable. Do us all a favour and get a new CoE. It's not as if there isn't better talent available.
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
You are back to 'Make work pay'
Should benefit be dependant on 37 hour week of attendance for community projects and training. There is a life style that needs to be addressed in these instances. It is the reward without responsibilities.
Yes it should and the full range of benefits should be reformed so that benefits are like a wage. Equally since this is your employment you get treated like any other employee, backed by a remedial programme for consistent offenders.
Nice idea, Mr. Brooke. Of course in employment if a failing employee responds to feedback, they get sacked. I am not sure that the law allows benefits to be totally withdrawn. Perhaps it should and then the stick side of the equation would be in place. As you said some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered.
That still leaves the carrot though. Maybe if the stick were in place then some of the training schemes that have been offered might see some enthusiasm from the people who might benefit.
RT @sunnysingh_nw3: #PT sincerely wondering if those who hate #Thatcher today would be happy to pay 83% top tax rate or indeed a basic rate of 33% #curious
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
You are back to 'Make work pay'
Should benefit be dependant on 37 hour week of attendance for community projects and training. There is a life style that needs to be addressed in these instances. It is the reward without responsibilities.
Yes it should and the full range of benefits should be reformed so that benefits are like a wage. Equally since this is your employment you get treated like any other employee, backed by a remedial programme for consistent offenders.
Nice idea, Mr. Brooke. Of course in employment if a failing employee responds to feedback, they get sacked. I am not sure that the law allows benefits to be totally withdrawn. Perhaps it should and then the stick side of the equation would be in place. As you said some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered.
That still leaves the carrot though. Maybe if the stick were in place then some of the training schemes that have been offered might see some enthusiasm from the people who might benefit.
Unfortunately Mr L the sacking option isn't available. The state is the "employer" of last resort in this case and the bills and the hassle will come our way as there's nowhere else to go. But what should sanctions be ?
"Otherwise there is a particular talk in the Gresham College brochure that takes my fancy, I'll be sure to see if you might be interested in going too as soon as I know whether I can."
OK you are on. My attendance on here can be erratic, so you can always email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com.
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
RT @sunnysingh_nw3: #PT sincerely wondering if those who hate #Thatcher today would be happy to pay 83% top tax rate or indeed a basic rate of 33% #curious
The marginal rate on investment returns hit 98% and for some period(s) in the late sixties or early seventies was I am told around 130%, levied retrospectively.
The other thing to note is this was all IMF approved.
@iancollinsuk: Can we finally stop the silly 'it's all labour's fault' - that was THREE years ago. Move on. Let's stick to Thatcher's fault - 34 years ago.
"If Mr L. gives in I shall personally go down to Sussex and shoot his cat."
Oi!
I have total faith that you will tell my compatriot that he is off his head re Brown and pensions. I believe Neil is from a generation that doesn't remember what pensions once were.
"Otherwise there is a particular talk in the Gresham College brochure that takes my fancy, I'll be sure to see if you might be interested in going too as soon as I know whether I can."
OK you are on. My attendance on here can be erratic, so you can always email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com.
Ahoy Mr Llama it would be nice if you could make it to DD's next Friday! Belike and all that!
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
You are back to 'Make work pay'
Should benefit be dependant on 37 hour week of attendance for community projects and training. There is a life style that needs to be addressed in these instances. It is the reward without responsibilities.
Yes it should and the full range of benefits should be reformed so that benefits are like a wage. Equally since this is your employment you get treated like any other employee, backed by a remedial programme for consistent offenders.
Nice idea, Mr. Brooke. Of course in employment if a failing employee responds to feedback, they get sacked. I am not sure that the law allows benefits to be totally withdrawn. Perhaps it should and then the stick side of the equation would be in place. As you said some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered.
That still leaves the carrot though. Maybe if the stick were in place then some of the training schemes that have been offered might see some enthusiasm from the people who might benefit.
Unfortunately Mr L the sacking option isn't available. The state is the "employer" of last resort in this case and the bills and the hassle will come our way as there's nowhere else to go. But what should sanctions be ?
Frankly, Mr Brooke, the only sanction that would work is the total withdrawal of benefits. Personally, I would have no problem with that and I suspect that it would be OK with most of the electorate. However, I very much doubt any politician would have the guts to enact it and stand up to the whinging, in the courts as well as the press that would ensue.
@iancollinsuk: Can we finally stop the silly 'it's all labour's fault' - that was THREE years ago. Move on. Let's stick to Thatcher's fault - 34 years ago.
Beneath the overwhelming desire for welfare "reform" there still remains a huge amount of empathy and compassion towards the most vulnerable, those on benefits, most of whom voters accept are in genuine need.
This is why the Tories aren't benefitting. They don't look careful and considerate. They look like a bunch of nasty swines who are enjoying it all.
Of course having wretched salesmen like Cameron and Osborne doesn't help. But the sales pitch and product themselves are also faulty.
Wanted to make sure his girls were fluent French speakers, his wife was from Bordeaux and missed home & he wasn't ready for the lifestyle choice that moving into the family shed would have entailed.
Sinn Fein’s deputy First Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly Martin McGuiness called for an end to celebrations. “She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds,” he tweeted.
I have total faith that you will tell my compatriot that he is off his head re Brown and pensions. I believe Neil is from a generation that doesn't remember what pensions once were.
Is there anything factual I have posted about pensions on this thread that you particularly disagree with?
"Otherwise there is a particular talk in the Gresham College brochure that takes my fancy, I'll be sure to see if you might be interested in going too as soon as I know whether I can."
OK you are on. My attendance on here can be erratic, so you can always email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com.
Ahoy Mr Llama it would be nice if you could make it to DD's next Friday! Belike and all that!
Avast, Cap'n Doc. I will do my best, but I am booked in at another function elsewhere in the City early that evening so it depends what time that finishes - or at least what time I can sneak away without giving offence. We shall see, if I can I will.
I have total faith that you will tell my compatriot that he is off his head re Brown and pensions. I believe Neil is from a generation that doesn't remember what pensions once were.
Is there anything factual I have posted about pensions on this thread that you particularly disagree with?
Neil
It appears Mr. Brooke is having problems with his fax today.
The redeeming feature of his interchanges is that he has a very colourful and inventive imagination.
I have total faith that you will tell my compatriot that he is off his head re Brown and pensions. I believe Neil is from a generation that doesn't remember what pensions once were.
Is there anything factual I have posted about pensions on this thread that you particularly disagree with?
Err, you haven't actually posted anything factual. You've offered to have a discussion with Mr L. That's hardly a data mine.
Err, you haven't actually posted anything factual.
I posted some facts about changes to the pension regulatory / taxation environment that occurred under Thatcher's premiership!
Yes and there were lots of changes over the last decades. There were changes in pension schemes terms, actuarial assumptions and rates of returns. There were always changes every year none of which you've quantified. You have an opionon as do others and lost of us don't agree with each other, so what's your point ?
I must admit that even I've had as much as I can take of Osborne now. He's just plain weak unfortunately, what cuts? Where are the big changes the economy needs? And the politics just suck. I really wanted to forgive him for the reduction in top rate tax last year, but it was just too bloody stupid. Nothing gained really, loads of opposition groaning and an electorate, rightly or wrongly, pee'd off about fat cats.
He originates, not just from a different Conservative background to me, but from a different universe. He's just not up to it now. Bring in someone with both economic and political skills, ideally that would be Redwood but he just comes accross as too Vulcan. The Star Trek vote ain't enough. Clarke, well yes, but would he do it? I see no point in just playing musical chairs in the cabinet over this, the C of Exchequer really does have to be a shrewd and forward thinking economist.
The plan is just too weak, where is that bonfire of red tape and quangos for example? Why are we not doing absolutely everything possible to help the young/and small businesses? Grab the whole thing by the nuts are really squeeze the waste and bureaucracy out of the system. Cameron will leave it too late, he won't act after the 2013 local debacle that's rushing up on the horizon. By the time he sees the oncoming storm at the 2014 Euros there won't be time left to kick ozzy out on his ass.
Ironically, in ten years, this government will probably be looked back upon quite favourably. That won't help in 2015 though.
Unlike most, I don't really have a problem with Cameron, he's statesmanlike and I reckon he's following most of his core beliefs. Just scrub the loyalty at any cost nonsense. Shuffle the cabinet, get in an economist to run the economy, (and a frothing right wing psychopath to declare total and utter war on the ECHR and human rights crap-make up our own bill of rights instead).Leading on from that, get medieval on the legal profession and bring them down to size. Some of the sentencing and hippy inspired fogiveness eminating from our justice system is unforgivable.
And get David Davis on board somehow. For all his faults, he's probably the second or third most liked Tory in the land-I'm gonna get slaughtered on that observation.
Secondly, what benefit is all this activity actually going to have for the ordinary Joe? Yesterday morning I was chatting to a local lad in the paper shop. He was 20, left school at 16 and had never worked, though he said he wanted to. He was living with his girlfriend and their daughter on the village council estate and doing so entirely on benefits. Nice lad, probably not very bright and with an appalling education and next to no skills that an employer would want. In the afternoon I was in Wimpole Street where an old house was being renovated, not one of the builders or tradesman working on the site was English, they were all from Eastern Europe. How do we connect this "boom" to the lad in the paper shop? What is the point of growth if it doesn't lift the likes of that boy and his young family up with it?
HurstLlama 6:24PM
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
That is possibly the most depressing post I have read on PB. Hanging is too good for some of our educationalists. More wasted lives than Gordon Brown. What an epitaph.
Thanks for the figures and to be one of them.Tory and Labour still a bit short but libdems less than Ukip tells a story.However,Farage did say "2,000" and did not get there. Disappointed and alarmed at the hatred and abuse which the death of Margaret Thatcher seems to have unleashed.Gandhi is still right.Hate the sin,but love the sinner.
Sinn Fein’s deputy First Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly Martin McGuiness called for an end to celebrations. “She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds,” he tweeted.
RT @john_mcguirk: Margaret Thatcher closed 22 of Britains mines. Harold Wilson closed 93 in less time but was a man and in Labour so that was ok or something.
If your man was happy to go and live in France a decade ago he should have no fears about living under Labour, besides I am sure he will have his assets arranged in a tax efficient manner.
Whether we should want him back is another question.
He's worth having back - he went for love of his wife & wants to come back because he can no longer defer his duty.
Mr L., I agree with you about the education system (save that I would argue it has been sub-standard for a lot longer than 30 years, more like 140 years). However, even if it were miraculously fixed today the effects would not be felt for another 20+ years. Meanwhile what do we do about the likes of that young lad in the paper shop?
We can't just condemn him and his like to a life on benefits, in the hope that by about 2040 things will get better. That would be immoral and self-defeating. Yet he doesn't have the skills to get a job or the mental resources to break out form the rut he is in. Meanwhile, companies can recruit from overseas to staff the "boom" that is going on.
Mr L you appear to be picking up from where I left off last night. A hard topic and an abattoir full of sacred cows. As a nation our issue is increasingly how to deal with the bottom 10-20% by income and get them moving and self-supporting. It's a mixed up strata between those who can't and those who won't so really what is welfare for. In all cases we shouldn't be accepting lives spent on benefits; welfare should be a temporary measure to get people to work or to improve their skills so they can work.
So what do we do? Time limited benefits? National service type employment? How, given our education system failed them do we teach the disciplines of work? My wife works at a college and I genuinely believe that most of the students are less employable when they finish than when they started, so different from the requirements of work are the courses that they are "taught".
What makes me so angry is that it really is not their fault in many cases. Our educationalists did this to them. In times past the less than bright would have found their niches and worked hard and conscientously imbuing their good and worthy principles to their children. We have created a monster that threatens our civilisation. We simply do not have a large enough edge over our international competitors to carry this waste any more.
'This is why the Tories aren't benefitting. They don't look careful and considerate. They look like a bunch of nasty swines who are enjoying it all'
A lot of nasty swine out there.
'Two opinion polls yesterday revealed widespread public support for the government's welfare reforms. A YouGov poll for The Sun found that 60 per cent of voters think welfare payments are too generous. And 79 per cent said they backed the £500-a-week benefits cap, which comes into force today, despite opposition from Labour.
A separate poll for the Labour-supporting Sunday People found that 66 per cent of people agreed with George Osborne that Britain's welfare system is "broken".
"... where is that bonfire of red tape and quangos for example? Why are we not doing absolutely everything possible to help the young/and small businesses? Grab the whole thing by the nuts are really squeeze the waste and bureaucracy out of the system. "
Mr. David, when I have asked that question the answer I have always received is, "The Lib Dems, we can't do what is needed because Nick Clegg won't let us". Now that might be, probably is, true. That don't matter. A sufficient number conservative inclined voters will have been driven away by Cameron seeming to ignore them and their views whilst espousing policies that they just don't agree with (e.g. cutting defence whilst increasing the DfID budget).
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up."
If they wanted to have a future in the mining industry then they could only find mining jobs elsewhere which did cause communities in the older mining areas to break up.
There's no shortage of people in mining areas in Yorkshire or the midlands who have/had relatives who moved to work in those mines after the ones in Wales or Durham or Scotland shut.
To an extent it was these incomers who were the strogest supporters of Scargill in the 1980s.
After perhaps working at four or five pits in their original areas and seeing them shut one by one they then relocated to Yorkshire to work at mines with a promised future only to be then told that those were at risk of closure. Large numbers of the local Yorkshire miners were by contrast happy to take the very generous redundancy money.
RT @john_mcguirk: Margaret Thatcher closed 22 of Britains mines. Harold Wilson closed 93 in less time but was a man and in Labour so that was ok or something.
Plato
Those numbers are significantly on the low side but perhaps not too far off proportionally.
I wonder if that's meant to be mine closures within a region of Britain - Scotand, Wales or the North-East.
If material wealth was all you cared for, why would a low-skilled/low IQ worker bother to work in the current environment in the UK? Your net income will be higher by breeding a large dynasty. Only the sense of a higher purpose or pride or upbringing would make you want to go out to work to be financially and materially worse off.
The paradox is, the job with the lower pay will provide a better quality of life than the benefits with higher pay. The reason for this is the psychological and spiritual benefit of feeling like you have earned your crust. That's why there is such step change in attitudes between the working-working class and the non-working-working class. Those in the former recognise implicitly the advantage of working even if the financial return is worse - hedonistic happiness. Those in the latter do not recognise this, they haven't been educated or they have slipped through the net or they are stupid.
Either way, those who grasp this key truth need to drive it home - that work is important not just for the pay. But to really drive this message home we need a higher purpose.. a God to satisfy. But unfortunately no one believes in God any more so we are stuffed.
Where public services/health and education are concerned, the bold move would be to transplant Scandinavian style systems into Britain as soon as possible. They are better at it, trust me, they are! Just nick the ideas, it's not even a matter of costs going up or down, standards would improve accross the whole public sector. The British way of doing there things is 95% (being generous there), total fecking toilet.
The next person to state the NHS is the pride and envy of the world, needs sectioning under the mental health act. It's free at use, so overburdened with waste of time cases. It's red taped up the ass. And finally it's bloody dangerous. It's kills far too many people.
The education system is a farce, Swedish youngsters score overall higher in English tests at 11 and 16 than the bloody English. Are you fecking joking Britain? What the hell?
Every time I'm in the UK the public transport system makes my head explode. Expensive, crowded, unreliable and crap. Just ask the Nordics how they do it, or the Chinese, or the Japs.
Then you've got childcare priced so highly that most parents can't bloody afford it. Less child benefit and more subsidy, (300 UKP per child?), on childcare. The bleedin' obvious.
Britain should be doing much better than it is. Just ripoff those who do things better. We can run a great olympics, but manage to slaughter our old and infirm in death camp style hospitals that we in turn hero worship
When you put an old person through the UK hospital sysem you are playing Russian roulette with their lives. Mid staffs would have been considered a pretty effective nazi death camp results wise..
Mr L., I agree with you about the education system (save that I would argue it has been sub-standard for a lot longer than 30 years, more like 140 years). However, even if it were miraculously fixed today the effects would not be felt for another 20+ years. Meanwhile what do we do about the likes of that young lad in the paper shop?
We can't just condemn him and his like to a life on benefits, in the hope that by about 2040 things will get better. That would be immoral and self-defeating. Yet he doesn't have the skills to get a job or the mental resources to break out form the rut he is in. Meanwhile, companies can recruit from overseas to staff the "boom" that is going on.
Mr L you appear to be picking up from where I left off last night. A hard topic and an abattoir full of sacred cows. As a nation our issue is increasingly how to deal with the bottom 10-20% by income and get them moving and self-supporting. It's a mixed up strata between those who can't and those who won't so really what is welfare for. In all cases we shouldn't be accepting lives spent on benefits; welfare should be a temporary measure to get people to work or to improve their skills so they can work.
So what do we do? Time limited benefits? National service type employment? How, given our education system failed them do we teach the disciplines of work? My wife works at a college and I genuinely believe that most of the students are less employable when they finish than when they started, so different from the requirements of work are the courses that they are "taught".
What makes me so angry is that it really is not their fault in many cases. Our educationalists did this to them. In times past the less than bright would have found their niches and worked hard and conscientously imbuing their good and worthy principles to their children. We have created a monster that threatens our civilisation. We simply do not have a large enough edge over our international competitors to carry this waste any more.
It's a bag of shit and I don't claim to have answers. But I would start with some thoughts.
1. Forget ideology we have to start with what we have and recognise the problem has arisen over several decades and and numerous shades of government. 2. It will take time to fix. 3. The problem has to be addressed at two levels - those people caught in the current system and stopping new people entering the same spiral of decline. 4. Welfare should be there as a support to getting people in to work 5. We should be clean and honest about those on programmes and not try to hide them in fake government jobs or on the diability lists. 6. We should only pay benefits for people turning up and doing a 37 hr week or those undertaking remedial education to improve their employability. 7. Government work programmes are about getting people into a working mentality, time keeping and employability. They're also about making benefits acceptable to everyone else and keeping gaming the system to a minimum 8. We have to accept unfortunately that a minority may be doing this most of their lives but the demand should stay.
Really we need to work out what we would ask people to do and ensure that it doesn't clash with other paid employers and figure out how to manage a recession. But the thing I always look at is there are always things to be done.
"... where is that bonfire of red tape and quangos for example? Why are we not doing absolutely everything possible to help the young/and small businesses? Grab the whole thing by the nuts are really squeeze the waste and bureaucracy out of the system. "
Mr. David, when I have asked that question the answer I have always received is, "The Lib Dems, we can't do what is needed because Nick Clegg won't let us". Now that might be, probably is, true. That don't matter. A sufficient number conservative inclined voters will have been driven away by Cameron seeming to ignore them and their views whilst espousing policies that they just don't agree with (e.g. cutting defence whilst increasing the DfID budget).
ditto. which always raises the question can these people not do political trade-offs or is it just they think they can treat everyone like an idiot.
"...Others argue that, given the global drift towards free markets during the Eighties, many of the changes she incarnated would have happened anyway, albeit in an ameliorated form. Lady Thatcher, they say, was not just divisive, but needlessly so: had she not been so, well, Thatcherite, Britain would be a comfortable social democracy, not to mention a better place.
All of this is utter poppycock. It is seductive poppycock, admittedly, but only because it speaks to the preference for an easy life that was shared even by many within Lady Thatcher’s Cabinet (and was largely responsible for precipitating her departure). In truth, it was her very abrasiveness that was her peculiar genius. She was not alone in her diagnosis of the ills of the economy. But no one else, not even within the Conservative Party, had the will to do what needed to be done. Throughout her time in Downing Street, she drove her ministers on, put fire in their bellies, forced them to put what was right above what was convenient.
Lady Thatcher was divisive and confrontational. But she lived in a divided and confrontational time. Accommodation and conciliation had been tried by Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and many others, and had utterly failed: in place of strife had come more strife. The British economy was still held hostage by vested interests a hundred times more ruthless than those Lady Thatcher’s successors face today, determined to preserve their privileges even if it drove the economy to ruin. They cared not for the verdict of the voters: they wanted to destroy her government by any means necessary. Beyond that were those who wanted to destroy Britain itself: the rulers of the Soviet Union, who had all too many supporters on these shores... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9982183/Thatcherism-was-right-necessary-and-effective.html
'RT @john_mcguirk: Margaret Thatcher closed 22 of Britains mines. Harold Wilson closed 93 in less time but was a man and in Labour so that was ok or something.'
According to Cardiff University study 'The Decline of King Coal' 400,000 miners left the industry in the 1960's, I'm sure Labour will tell you that all happened before 1964.
RT @john_mcguirk: Margaret Thatcher closed 22 of Britains mines. Harold Wilson closed 93 in less time but was a man and in Labour so that was ok or something.
Of course, the unions never kicked up quite the stink they did under Maggie because old Harold would have been sure to throw a few bungs their way. That's the way it worked back then.
Secondly, what benefit is all this activity actually going to have for the ordinary Joe? Yesterday morning I was chatting to a local lad in the paper shop. He was 20, left school at 16 and had never worked, though he said he wanted to. He was living with his girlfriend and their daughter on the village council estate and doing so entirely on benefits. Nice lad, probably not very bright and with an appalling education and next to no skills that an employer would want. In the afternoon I was in Wimpole Street where an old house was being renovated, not one of the builders or tradesman working on the site was English, they were all from Eastern Europe. How do we connect this "boom" to the lad in the paper shop? What is the point of growth if it doesn't lift the likes of that boy and his young family up with it?
HurstLlama 6:24PM
This in a nutshell is the UKs problem, over the past 15 years too many young people have been poorly educated and have been convinced into believing that effort and hard work are not required to succeed, all you have to do is appear on X-factor. There is also a feeling of entitlement and laziness. We regularly take on electrical and mechanical apprentices and it is astonishing how poor their basic educational skills are, some of the CVs we receive would be laughable if they weren't so sad. At least 50% of our apprentices do not make it through their 4 year training simply through a cant be bothered attitude and lack of effort. Our starting rate of pay for a 16/17 year old is £160 per week and for a 4th year apprentice it is £400 per week. If they make is through the 4 years they have a trade for life and will always be employed.
We are currently advertising now for more apprentices and amazingly have received just one application. We have tried the government scheme where you get £2000 towards costs if you employ someone who has been out of work for over 6 months aged 18-24. We have not had a single application through that route. How mad is that? youngsters dont seem to want the jobs we are offering.
That is possibly the most depressing post I have read on PB. Hanging is too good for some of our educationalists. More wasted lives than Gordon Brown. What an epitaph.
@DavidL, this is what I've been banging on about for an age. Immigration is not the problem: it is the symptom of much more serious problems in our education and benefits systems. Banning immigration will not make the lad in the village housing estate into a productive member of society.
In keeping with her directions, the former Prime Minister will not lie in state for the public to visit or have a military fly-past.
Arrangements for lying in state have previously cost the public purse more than £825,000, according to the House of Commons Library.
Military costs for previous ceremonial funerals can also add up to more than £300,000, including fly-pasts and attendance by some regiments.
On the day of Lady Thatcher’s death, her spokesman, Lord Bell, said she did not want arrangements that would be a "waste of money - somewhat in character you might think”.
I hear there are many thousands of seasonal jobs in the farm trade. And cleaning jobs in hotels and elsewhere. And service jobs in pubs/clubs and restaurants throught the country.
Most are filled by hard working immigrant labour. May I suggest that they become filled instead by the longterm unemployed instead. The gentle urging of: 'do it you lazy feckless waste of space or we cut off all your benefits", might smooth things along a bit.
There are many many other jobs on the market, the situation where hard working honest foreigners come in take most of them is a disgrace on our society. On second thoughts, scrap my whole idea, the immigrants will always do the better job.
There should be a crackdown on the longterm unemployed such as Britan has never witnessed. We help you out of poverty first, then we force you out of poverty, and finally.....you don't wanna go there, just take a job offered, however s**t.
I doubt it could be fairly argued that the funeral arrangements will *save* taxpayers' money as the URL claims. They might cost less than they could have though.
1966 being the peak closure year with no less than 11.
As the link says, this is not the whole story as consolidation often occurred - two separate mines joined underground and worked as one more economic unit. But as a whole it shows the picture rather well.
In keeping with her directions, the former Prime Minister will not lie in state for the public to visit or have a military fly-past.
Arrangements for lying in state have previously cost the public purse more than £825,000, according to the House of Commons Library.
Military costs for previous ceremonial funerals can also add up to more than £300,000, including fly-pasts and attendance by some regiments.
On the day of Lady Thatcher’s death, her spokesman, Lord Bell, said she did not want arrangements that would be a "waste of money - somewhat in character you might think”.
Why not have a simple private ceremony then ? That will save money ! I think this is just humbug.
You need to add immobility of labour in the UK to that list -largely housing cost related.
You're saying a bloke can move 1,000 miles from Poland and find a job, but a UKer can't move 100 miles for the same job because of hosuing costs. So where does the Polish guy live ?
Mr L., I agree with you about the education system (save that I would argue it has been sub-standard for a lot longer than 30 years, more like 140 years). However, even if it were miraculously fixed today the effects would not be felt for another 20+ years. Meanwhile what do we do about the likes of that young lad in the paper shop?
We can't just condemn him and his like to a life on benefits, in the hope that by about 2040 things will get better. That would be immoral and self-defeating. Yet he doesn't have the skills to get a job or the mental resources to break out form the rut he is in. Meanwhile, companies can recruit from overseas to staff the "boom" that is going on.
Mr L you appear to be picking up from where I left off last night. A hard topic and an abattoir full of sacred cows. As a nation our issue is increasingly how to deal with the bottom 10-20% by income and get them moving and self-supporting. It's a mixed up strata between those who can't and those who won't so really what is welfare for. In all cases we shouldn't be accepting lives spent on benefits; welfare should be a temporary measure to get people to work or to improve their skills so they can work.
Our educationalists did this to them. In times past the less than bright would have found their niches and worked hard and conscientously imbuing their good and worthy principles to their children. We have created a monster that threatens our civilisation.
Oh give over. You sound like a drunk old duffer in a gentleman's club.
Britain's still great. Despite the best efforts of Maggie, Dave, Gideon and Co.
Looking at the viewing figures Andrea posting earlier I think the TV stations are going to have to ease off a bit on the "Thatcher is still dead" coverage.
Osborne must be gutted that he timed his big Mockney Makeover for last week when Dave was on holiday.
maybe we could have a debate between Mockney George and Transatlantic Tony, subtitles required.
The sold on tv rights for Maggies funeral will turn a healthy profit. If I was in the treasury right now I would be working out : 'Blair, cost of hitman,(natural causes free,cost wise, but unlikely to happen), plus bigger ego infested send off minus worldwide tv income. Kerrrrrching! If only most of our politicians weren't such political pygmies that we couldn't fill a telephone box for their services.
After witnessing the benefit scroungers boozing it up in Brixton last night, may I make an offer of an all you can eat buffet with drinks on me for when Galloway meets a natural death via beheading. I've seen exactly the sword I was looking for today. Bit blunt and rusty, but will add to the suffering.
In keeping with her directions, the former Prime Minister will not lie in state for the public to visit or have a military fly-past.
Arrangements for lying in state have previously cost the public purse more than £825,000, according to the House of Commons Library.
Military costs for previous ceremonial funerals can also add up to more than £300,000, including fly-pasts and attendance by some regiments.
On the day of Lady Thatcher’s death, her spokesman, Lord Bell, said she did not want arrangements that would be a "waste of money - somewhat in character you might think”.
Why not have a simple private ceremony then ? That will save money ! I think this is just humbug.
Quite so. How much is all this pointless ceremonial guff costing the hard-pressed taxpayer?
I'm sure the neutral think tank the Taxpayers Alliance will be on the case.
It's fairly basic stuff this but an immigrant is less likely to have a family. Same all over the world, always has been.
sure tim, but there has always been internal immigration too, and that also involves lots of single people. So why won't our guy go for the job and the Polish guy will ? They're both faced with the same local housing costs.
A slightly mawkish thought. With Margaret Thatcher's passing, the ex-Prime Minister's Club now has only three members - John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
I'm sure in the 1980s the Club had many more members - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Douglas-Hume and MacMillan were all still with us in the early to mid 80s, weren't they ?
In 1945, I think Churchill had only one living predecessor in Stanley Baldwin after Lloyd George died at the end of March. Ramsey MacDonald died in 1937 and Neville Chamberlain in 1940.
People prepared to move country are always going to work harder, it's Darwinism,it's human nature,it's just a fact. Remember in the 70's when the Brits were shocked when shops opened on a Sunday, or till 8pm?
The capitalist economy would work best if populations moved faster around. eg at the moment. swap a million Spanish twenty somethings for a million Brit retirees. The Spanish have the houses, we still need the young people. Wheres the downside, flights from Alicante to Stansted are plentiful, the weather is nice.
People prepared to move country are always going to work harder, it's Darwinism,it's human nature,it's just a fact. Remember in the 70's when the Brits were shocked when shops opened on a Sunday, or till 8pm?
The capitalist economy would work best if populations moved faster around. eg at the moment. swap a million Spanish twenty somethings for a million Brit retirees. The Spanish have the houses, we still need the young people. Wheres the downside, flights from Alicante to Stansted are plentiful, the weather is nice.
Or 2 million British retirees for a token 50,000 Spanish youngsters. UK housing crisis solved.
Comments
Ps even SeanT is now shooting at you.
That still leaves the carrot though. Maybe if the stick were in place then some of the training schemes that have been offered might see some enthusiasm from the people who might benefit.
I doubt apart from a few headlines most people will notice what the Labour party policies are.
We should just give 5 pledges, stick it on a card and call it a day.
We don't need any more pledges than that.
I find this childish and pathetic. Not funny. Not amusing in the slightest. Not even a smirk. No, definitely not.
The multiple moves on the internals in the YouGov polls are being ignored.
There will doubtless be many polls in the next few days. I'm reserving all judgement till we've seen more.
"Otherwise there is a particular talk in the Gresham College brochure that takes my fancy, I'll be sure to see if you might be interested in going too as soon as I know whether I can."
OK you are on. My attendance on here can be erratic, so you can always email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has problems signing in with Vanilla.
Oi!
F-ing delighted, it'd mean I was earning a fortune.
The marginal rate on investment returns hit 98% and for some period(s) in the late sixties or early seventies was I am told around 130%, levied retrospectively.
The other thing to note is this was all IMF approved.
Small matter of 2yrs and a GE campaign to be factored in.
RT @anthonyjwells: @DPJHodges @NickCohen4 @j_freedland @portraitinflesh @DAaronovitch @PCollinsTimes everyone overestimates the impact of everything on polls
You could pm currystar on vanilla.
You're selectively reading the polls.
Beneath the overwhelming desire for welfare "reform" there still remains a huge amount of empathy and compassion towards the most vulnerable, those on benefits, most of whom voters accept are in genuine need.
This is why the Tories aren't benefitting. They don't look careful and considerate. They look like a bunch of nasty swines who are enjoying it all.
Of course having wretched salesmen like Cameron and Osborne doesn't help. But the sales pitch and product themselves are also faulty.
Wanted to make sure his girls were fluent French speakers, his wife was from Bordeaux and missed home & he wasn't ready for the lifestyle choice that moving into the family shed would have entailed.
Sinn Fein’s deputy First Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly Martin McGuiness called for an end to celebrations.
“She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds,” he tweeted.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/security-fears-for-thatchers-funeral/story-fndir2ev-1226616908799#ixzz2PzoQuZV5
Very very true from Mr Wells there.
Belike, etc.
It appears Mr. Brooke is having problems with his fax today.
The redeeming feature of his interchanges is that he has a very colourful and inventive imagination.
Big grin.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Federal Reserve Scam/kennedy_killed_by_bankers.htm
I really wanted to forgive him for the reduction in top rate tax last year, but it was just too bloody stupid. Nothing gained really, loads of opposition groaning and an electorate, rightly or wrongly, pee'd off about fat cats.
He originates, not just from a different Conservative background to me, but from a different universe. He's just not up to it now. Bring in someone with both economic and political skills, ideally that would be Redwood but he just comes accross as too Vulcan. The Star Trek vote ain't enough. Clarke, well yes, but would he do it? I see no point in just playing musical chairs in the cabinet over this, the C of Exchequer really does have to be a shrewd and forward thinking economist.
The plan is just too weak, where is that bonfire of red tape and quangos for example? Why are we not doing absolutely everything possible to help the young/and small businesses? Grab the whole thing by the nuts are really squeeze the waste and bureaucracy out of the system. Cameron will leave it too late, he won't act after the 2013 local debacle that's rushing up on the horizon. By the time he sees the oncoming storm at the 2014 Euros there won't be time left to kick ozzy out on his ass.
Ironically, in ten years, this government will probably be looked back upon quite favourably. That won't help in 2015 though.
Unlike most, I don't really have a problem with Cameron, he's statesmanlike and I reckon he's following most of his core beliefs. Just scrub the loyalty at any cost nonsense. Shuffle the cabinet, get in an economist to run the economy, (and a frothing right wing psychopath to declare total and utter war on the ECHR and human rights crap-make up our own bill of rights instead).Leading on from that, get medieval on the legal profession and bring them down to size. Some of the sentencing and hippy inspired fogiveness eminating from our justice system is unforgivable.
And get David Davis on board somehow. For all his faults, he's probably the second or third most liked Tory in the land-I'm gonna get slaughtered on that observation.
Forgive me if I wait for the official press release.
Disappointed and alarmed at the hatred and abuse which the death of Margaret Thatcher seems to have unleashed.Gandhi is still right.Hate the sin,but love the sinner.
I agree - its been playing on my mind since Mr CurryStar posted.
What makes me so angry is that it really is not their fault in many cases. Our educationalists did this to them. In times past the less than bright would have found their niches and worked hard and conscientously imbuing their good and worthy principles to their children. We have created a monster that threatens our civilisation. We simply do not have a large enough edge over our international competitors to carry this waste any more.
'This is why the Tories aren't benefitting. They don't look careful and considerate. They look like a bunch of nasty swines who are enjoying it all'
A lot of nasty swine out there.
'Two opinion polls yesterday revealed widespread public support for the government's welfare reforms. A YouGov poll for The Sun found that 60 per cent of voters think welfare payments are too generous. And 79 per cent said they backed the £500-a-week benefits cap, which comes into force today, despite opposition from Labour.
A separate poll for the Labour-supporting Sunday People found that 66 per cent of people agreed with George Osborne that Britain's welfare system is "broken".
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/52369/ed-miliband-tax-cuts-polls-welfare-reform#ixzz2Pzu4N8P6
Mr. David, when I have asked that question the answer I have always received is, "The Lib Dems, we can't do what is needed because Nick Clegg won't let us". Now that might be, probably is, true. That don't matter. A sufficient number conservative inclined voters will have been driven away by Cameron seeming to ignore them and their views whilst espousing policies that they just don't agree with (e.g. cutting defence whilst increasing the DfID budget).
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up."
If they wanted to have a future in the mining industry then they could only find mining jobs elsewhere which did cause communities in the older mining areas to break up.
There's no shortage of people in mining areas in Yorkshire or the midlands who have/had relatives who moved to work in those mines after the ones in Wales or Durham or Scotland shut.
To an extent it was these incomers who were the strogest supporters of Scargill in the 1980s.
After perhaps working at four or five pits in their original areas and seeing them shut one by one they then relocated to Yorkshire to work at mines with a promised future only to be then told that those were at risk of closure. Large numbers of the local Yorkshire miners were by contrast happy to take the very generous redundancy money.
Those numbers are significantly on the low side but perhaps not too far off proportionally.
I wonder if that's meant to be mine closures within a region of Britain - Scotand, Wales or the North-East.
The paradox is, the job with the lower pay will provide a better quality of life than the benefits with higher pay. The reason for this is the psychological and spiritual benefit of feeling like you have earned your crust. That's why there is such step change in attitudes between the working-working class and the non-working-working class. Those in the former recognise implicitly the advantage of working even if the financial return is worse - hedonistic happiness. Those in the latter do not recognise this, they haven't been educated or they have slipped through the net or they are stupid.
Either way, those who grasp this key truth need to drive it home - that work is important not just for the pay. But to really drive this message home we need a higher purpose.. a God to satisfy. But unfortunately no one believes in God any more so we are stuffed.
The next person to state the NHS is the pride and envy of the world, needs sectioning under the mental health act. It's free at use, so overburdened with waste of time cases. It's red taped up the ass. And finally it's bloody dangerous. It's kills far too many people.
The education system is a farce, Swedish youngsters score overall higher in English tests at 11 and 16 than the bloody English. Are you fecking joking Britain? What the hell?
Every time I'm in the UK the public transport system makes my head explode. Expensive, crowded, unreliable and crap. Just ask the Nordics how they do it, or the Chinese, or the Japs.
Then you've got childcare priced so highly that most parents can't bloody afford it. Less child benefit and more subsidy, (300 UKP per child?), on childcare. The bleedin' obvious.
Britain should be doing much better than it is. Just ripoff those who do things better. We can run a great olympics, but manage to slaughter our old and infirm in death camp style hospitals that we in turn hero worship
When you put an old person through the UK hospital sysem you are playing Russian roulette with their lives. Mid staffs would have been considered a pretty effective nazi death camp results wise..
Get a feckin' grip people.
1. Forget ideology we have to start with what we have and recognise the problem has arisen over several decades and and numerous shades of government.
2. It will take time to fix.
3. The problem has to be addressed at two levels - those people caught in the current system and stopping new people entering the same spiral of decline.
4. Welfare should be there as a support to getting people in to work
5. We should be clean and honest about those on programmes and not try to hide them in fake government jobs or on the diability lists.
6. We should only pay benefits for people turning up and doing a 37 hr week or those undertaking remedial education to improve their employability.
7. Government work programmes are about getting people into a working mentality, time keeping and employability. They're also about making benefits acceptable to everyone else and keeping gaming the system to a minimum
8. We have to accept unfortunately that a minority may be doing this most of their lives but the demand should stay.
Really we need to work out what we would ask people to do and ensure that it doesn't clash with other paid employers and figure out how to manage a recession. But the thing I always look at is there are always things to be done.
Here is a list of Rhondda coal mines and the year they close:
http://www.anglesey.info/rhondda_collieries_chronologically.htm
Looks to me like:
1890s 3
1900s 3
1910s 1
1920s 5
1930s 12
1940s 9
1950s 10
1960s 14
1970s 2
1980s 2
1990s 2
1966 being the peak closure year with no less than 11.
You can still get 3/1 with PaddyPower
"...Others argue that, given the global drift towards free markets during the Eighties, many of the changes she incarnated would have happened anyway, albeit in an ameliorated form. Lady Thatcher, they say, was not just divisive, but needlessly so: had she not been so, well, Thatcherite, Britain would be a comfortable social democracy, not to mention a better place.
All of this is utter poppycock. It is seductive poppycock, admittedly, but only because it speaks to the preference for an easy life that was shared even by many within Lady Thatcher’s Cabinet (and was largely responsible for precipitating her departure). In truth, it was her very abrasiveness that was her peculiar genius. She was not alone in her diagnosis of the ills of the economy. But no one else, not even within the Conservative Party, had the will to do what needed to be done. Throughout her time in Downing Street, she drove her ministers on, put fire in their bellies, forced them to put what was right above what was convenient.
Lady Thatcher was divisive and confrontational. But she lived in a divided and confrontational time. Accommodation and conciliation had been tried by Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and many others, and had utterly failed: in place of strife had come more strife. The British economy was still held hostage by vested interests a hundred times more ruthless than those Lady Thatcher’s successors face today, determined to preserve their privileges even if it drove the economy to ruin. They cared not for the verdict of the voters: they wanted to destroy her government by any means necessary. Beyond that were those who wanted to destroy Britain itself: the rulers of the Soviet Union, who had all too many supporters on these shores... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9982183/Thatcherism-was-right-necessary-and-effective.html
'RT @john_mcguirk: Margaret Thatcher closed 22 of Britains mines. Harold Wilson closed 93 in less time but was a man and in Labour so that was ok or something.'
According to Cardiff University study 'The Decline of King Coal' 400,000 miners left the industry in the 1960's, I'm sure Labour will tell you that all happened before 1964.
@DavidL, this is what I've been banging on about for an age. Immigration is not the problem: it is the symptom of much more serious problems in our education and benefits systems. Banning immigration will not make the lad in the village housing estate into a productive member of society.
Princess Alexandra sounds rather nice. I just hope nobody's cocked up the succession legislation in the various nations involved.
In keeping with her directions, the former Prime Minister will not lie in state for the public to visit or have a military fly-past.
Arrangements for lying in state have previously cost the public purse more than £825,000, according to the House of Commons Library.
Military costs for previous ceremonial funerals can also add up to more than £300,000, including fly-pasts and attendance by some regiments.
On the day of Lady Thatcher’s death, her spokesman, Lord Bell, said she did not want arrangements that would be a "waste of money - somewhat in character you might think”.
Most are filled by hard working immigrant labour. May I suggest that they become filled instead by the longterm unemployed instead. The gentle urging of: 'do it you lazy feckless waste of space or we cut off all your benefits", might smooth things along a bit.
There are many many other jobs on the market, the situation where hard working honest foreigners come in take most of them is a disgrace on our society. On second thoughts, scrap my whole idea, the immigrants will always do the better job.
There should be a crackdown on the longterm unemployed such as Britan has never witnessed. We help you out of poverty first, then we force you out of poverty, and finally.....you don't wanna go there, just take a job offered, however s**t.
I doubt it could be fairly argued that the funeral arrangements will *save* taxpayers' money as the URL claims. They might cost less than they could have though.
Britain's still great. Despite the best efforts of Maggie, Dave, Gideon and Co.
as any fule kno.
The pilots would just need to ensure they didn't go too far too fast.
After witnessing the benefit scroungers boozing it up in Brixton last night, may I make an offer of an all you can eat buffet with drinks on me for when Galloway meets a natural death via beheading. I've seen exactly the sword I was looking for today. Bit blunt and rusty, but will add to the suffering.
I'm sure the neutral think tank the Taxpayers Alliance will be on the case.
They'll be dancing on the streets of Borussia tonight.
I tip a surprise Tory gain there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9981866/North-Korean-army-split-over-Kim-Jong-un.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo
I wonder why?
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/show/6803/poll-by-scottish-greens-shows-fairer-society-key-to-yes-vote
Amazing 2nd half in Istanbul as well.
Stupid, stupid....
Some people are going to party like it's 1981, I fear...
A slightly mawkish thought. With Margaret Thatcher's passing, the ex-Prime Minister's Club now has only three members - John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
I'm sure in the 1980s the Club had many more members - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Douglas-Hume and MacMillan were all still with us in the early to mid 80s, weren't they ?
In 1945, I think Churchill had only one living predecessor in Stanley Baldwin after Lloyd George died at the end of March. Ramsey MacDonald died in 1937 and Neville Chamberlain in 1940.
He (Conor Burns) said that she still had a great sense of humour, a quality that was often overlooked by those know knew her less well.
“I told her about Nick Clegg’s plans to abolish the House of Lords,” he said. “She said, ‘Well, we should abolish the Liberal Democrats’.
She was still capable of delivering the odd devastating one-liner.”
I recommend watching the highlights later. Drogba scored a cracker too.