"George Osborne caved in to demands to impose a cap on payday lending costs to avert a parliamentary rebellion backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Independent has learnt.
Senior Conservatives were understood to have been fearful of losing a vote on a hostile amendment in the House of Lords on Tuesday which would have set a charge cap of 10 per cent on all short-term loans and placed other restrictions on their sale.
The amendment to the Banking Reform Bill was being backed by Archbishop Justin Welby, who was considering speaking out in its favour in the Lords debate. His support was expected to garner the backing of a significant number of cross-bench peers and inflict an embarrassing defeat of the Government.
“As you know, a large proportion of cross-benchers tend to be swayed by the idea of having God on their side,” said one Lords source in favour of the amendment.
“George Osborne’s change of heart had more to do with politics than conviction.”"
I can see the problem with the announcement of caps versus the energy freeze guff, but like raising teenagers you pick your fights and does Daddy O really want to fight about protecting the Wonga type lenders - I don't think so.
Red types would have loved him to of course, but can moan either way but this is the least bad option politically and whatever the motive, few will feel badly for the companies affected and it won't lose the blues votes whatever the motives.
'How about trying to explain why Labour couldn't be arsed to do anything about payday loans for 13 years?
Was it their intellectual incoherence or that they just didn't give a $hit?
No answer,there's a surprise.
As I thought, nothing to contribute & no attempt at an explanation.
Why bother?
Probably because payday loans weren't much of an issue for the first 11 years of the Labour government - it was only during the recession that they exploded - and have remained high as wages still remain stagnant. Until then it was assumed that ensuring that a loan company had to advertise a typical APR would ensure no one got screwed over, because people weren't desperate enough to borrow in that way - people were far more likely to run up credit card debts and then listen to Vorderman's shilling pleas to consolidate it into one manageable monthly payment and get into debt that way.
Sorry but attacking Labour for that is partisan idiocy that just sounds a little bit bitter that Osborne's realised they're right on this one and that politically he has to do something- it's rather like criticising John Major's administration for not fully understanding the implications of the internet and legislating against activities that later required curtailing.
Well of course, if you want to apply for a grant to investigate whether the moon is a grapefruit in the shape of a trombone, good luck to you.
But you would have a good chance of getting funding for credible "alternative" climate theories, because there's so much sloshing around from vested interests.
Problem is, there aren't really any credible alternative theories despite all the time, funding and effort that's gone into developing them.
I don't think that's right. It takes three to tango in research grant terms - you need both the money from Evil Vested Interest Corp., and a respected university at which to do the work. Getting the university on side is very likely to be a sticking point.
Anyway no one - I think - doubts that fossil fuels and cow farts contribute to the greenhouse effect. How could they not? The trouble is, Warmists think they have made their case if they stop there. They haven't actually got to first base because A. it is uncontroversial that the climate is always changing anyway for non-anthropogenic reasons. We have had snowball earth, and ice-free earth in the past and are now living in an interglacial period. The odds are surely about 50-50 that AGW will ameliorate a downturn rather than exacerbate an upturn. If not, why not? B. This is meant to be a catastrophe. It is a defining feature of catastrophes that they cannot be reversed by reversing the effect which caused them. Putting the engines of the Titanic to full speed astern doesn't help you. So why should the truth of AGW affect the way we act? and C. If you're that fussed about it, let's convert the whole world to a diet of nuclear power instead of arsing about with silly shaped light bulbs.
'How about trying to explain why Labour couldn't be arsed to do anything about payday loans for 13 years?
Was it their intellectual incoherence or that they just didn't give a $hit?
No answer,there's a surprise.
As I thought, nothing to contribute & no attempt at an explanation.
Why bother?
Probably because payday loans weren't much of an issue for the first 11 years of the Labour government - it was only during the recession that they exploded - and have remained high as wages still remain stagnant. Until then it was assumed that ensuring that a loan company had to advertise a typical APR would ensure no one got screwed over, because people weren't desperate enough to borrow in that way - people were far more likely to run up credit card debts and then listen to Vorderman's shilling pleas to consolidate it into one manageable monthly payment and get into debt that way.
Sorry but attacking Labour for that is partisan idiocy that just sounds a little bit bitter that Osborne's realised they're right on this one and that politically he has to do something- it's rather like criticising John Major's administration for not fully understanding the implications of the internet and legislating against activities that later required curtailing.
Wrong. It was very much an issue during the Labour years...
I don't think that's right. It takes three to tango in research grant terms - you need both the money from Evil Vested Interest Corp., and a respected university at which to do the work. Getting the university on side is very likely to be a sticking point.
Anyway no one - I think - doubts that fossil fuels and cow farts contribute to the greenhouse effect. How could they not? The trouble is, Warmists think they have made their case if they stop there. They haven't actually got to first base because A. it is uncontroversial that the climate is always changing anyway for non-anthropogenic reasons. We have had snowball earth, and ice-free earth in the past and are now living in an interglacial period. The odds are surely about 50-50 that AGW will ameliorate a downturn rather than exacerbate an upturn. If not, why not? B. This is meant to be a catastrophe. It is a defining feature of catastrophes that they cannot be reversed by reversing the effect which caused them. Putting the engines of the Titanic to full speed astern doesn't help you. So why should the truth of AGW affect the way we act? and C. If you're that fussed about it, let's convert the whole world to a diet of nuclear power instead of arsing about with silly shaped light bulbs.
Respected University Towers has no problem with money from Evil Vested Interest Corp, believe me. If you want fame and fortune by researching "alternatives" to the consensus, then climate science is where it is at.
This just makes the consensus more robust in climate science than elsewhere, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Your second paragraph is more about politics. Which is, of course, where the uncertainty / controversy is, because the basic science is so robust.
My own personal view at my most defeatist is that it's too late and we should now just hope for the best, and try to mitigate. It's also a selfish view, as our kids and grandkids will suffer rather than us, so I won't care.
I don't think that's right. It takes three to tango in research grant terms - you need both the money from Evil Vested Interest Corp., and a respected university at which to do the work. Getting the university on side is very likely to be a sticking point.
Anyway no one - I think - doubts that fossil fuels and cow farts contribute to the greenhouse effect. How could they not? The trouble is, Warmists think they have made their case if they stop there. They haven't actually got to first base because A. it is uncontroversial that the climate is always changing anyway for non-anthropogenic reasons. We have had snowball earth, and ice-free earth in the past and are now living in an interglacial period. The odds are surely about 50-50 that AGW will ameliorate a downturn rather than exacerbate an upturn. If not, why not? B. This is meant to be a catastrophe. It is a defining feature of catastrophes that they cannot be reversed by reversing the effect which caused them. Putting the engines of the Titanic to full speed astern doesn't help you. So why should the truth of AGW affect the way we act? and C. If you're that fussed about it, let's convert the whole world to a diet of nuclear power instead of arsing about with silly shaped light bulbs.
Respected University Towers has no problem with money from Evil Vested Interest Corp, believe me. If you want fame and fortune by researching "alternatives" to the consensus, then climate science is where it is at.
This just makes the consensus more robust in climate science than elsewhere, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Your second paragraph is more about politics. Which is, of course, where the uncertainty / controversy is, because the basic science is so robust.
My own personal view at my most defeatist is that it's too late and we should now just hope for the best, and try to mitigate. It's also a selfish view, as our kids and grandkids will suffer rather than us, so I won't care.
It isn't selfish to think that we shouldn't uselessly squander resources which would otherwise be available to our kids and grandkids.
My points A and B are basic science, not politics.
A married couple suspected of holding three women as slaves for more than 30 years are former Maoist activists Aravindan Balakrishnan and his wife Chanda, the BBC understands
What the chances the whole household voted Labour with the speed and efficiency of the postal vote!! Shocking story really and shouldn't jest but this is PB..
I'm not sure all those 23 votes made a whole heap of difference in Lambeth.
Fair point about it starting earlier, but the 2010 article rather proves the point that it only became a major issue towards the end of the Labour years, so to say Labour had 13 years to do something about it is still idiotic when it was a minor issue in 2003, and really took off from 2007-08 onwards.
The 2003 article seems to describe the genesis of the UK industry, with lenders realising what they can get away with and still attract consumers. The final quote seems pretty damning in hindsight, but it's hardly a unique trait of the 1997-2010 government to overlook issues when they're not hugely regarded politically and spend their time addressing what they perceive to be bigger ones.
It really hit the political agenda in about mid-2008, which means that you'd be well within your rights to say that a better Lab govt. should have dealt with it despite other obvious distractions, but then that would be inconvenient to those who want to try and glorify Mr Osborne's U-turn as he's had 3 years of it being a widely discussed political issue while doing naff all.
Hopefully due to Stella Creasy's campaigning and Osborne's survival instinct the right decision has been come to in the end.
Respected University Towers has no problem with money from Evil Vested Interest Corp, believe me. If you want fame and fortune by researching "alternatives" to the consensus, then climate science is where it is at.
This just makes the consensus more robust in climate science than elsewhere, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Your second paragraph is more about politics. Which is, of course, where the uncertainty / controversy is, because the basic science is so robust.
My own personal view at my most defeatist is that it's too late and we should now just hope for the best, and try to mitigate. It's also a selfish view, as our kids and grandkids will suffer rather than us, so I won't care.
It isn't selfish to think that we shouldn't uselessly squander resources which would otherwise be available to our kids and grandkids.
My points A and B are basic science, not politics.
Nah, they're about politics.
Point A, trends that act over thousands or millions of years tell us little about what we can do now. Or, if you like, we could easily stop "AGW" ending civilisation by "arsing about with lightbulbs", even though there's nowt we can do about the next Ice Age or asteroid doing similar in a few millenia.
Point B, every gram of carbon that we stop emitting means the problem becomes less serious.
As for selfishness, we are squandering our resources for short-term political / financial reasons, and it is our kids and grandkids that will suffer our consequences. If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.
A married couple suspected of holding three women as slaves for more than 30 years are former Maoist activists Aravindan Balakrishnan and his wife Chanda, the BBC understands
What the chances the whole household voted Labour with the speed and efficiency of the postal vote!! Shocking story really and shouldn't jest but this is PB..
I'm not sure all those 23 votes made a whole heap of difference in Lambeth.
Good point. It's only a tiny drop in the vast cesspool of Labour voter fraud.
I love how lefties think it is bad and mean and selfish to leave lovely tree stimulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the grandkids but have no problems leaving humongous debts for them.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Isn't that pub the 'Eagle' and has the 'RAF bar' ?
If so I was once passing by it when an American couple stopped me and asked the way to the nearest Starbucks.
Not being a local I was fortunately unable to help them.
I've had the same depressing experience in York as well.
I love how lefties think it is bad and mean and selfish to leave lovely tree stimulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the grandkids but have no problems leaving humongous debts for them.
Debts or wrecking the climate, they're both selfish.
But as the Right always tell us, it's a dog eat dog world, looking after number one is a Good Thing, right?
I love how lefties think it is bad and mean and selfish to leave lovely tree stimulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the grandkids but have no problems leaving humongous debts for them.
AGD: Anthropogenic Global Debt.
Perhaps there should be some studies on how to reduce it?
Perhaps some conferences to discuss how government can spend less?
Fair point about it starting earlier, but the 2010 article rather proves the point that it only became a major issue towards the end of the Labour years, so to say Labour had 13 years to do something about it is still idiotic when it was a minor issue in 2003, and really took off from 2007-08 onwards.
You mean it took off when people were no longer able to get multiple credit cards ?
Labour was never worried about people borrowing to spend, their entire economic policy depended upon it.
Didn't the Labour shill 'snowflake' tell us here than 'debt is wealth' back in 2007-2008 ?
"I love how lefties think it is bad and mean and selfish to leave lovely tree stimulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the grandkids but have no problems leaving humongous debts for them."
All Tories think about is money money and more money. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they had a soul?
As for the question: Has she got what it takes? I think so. I like her and she always strikes me as honest with her heart in the right place. So she probably won't attract many Tories but it'll be nice change after Johnson.
"He called on Mr Cameron to reject “the xenophobic and populistic and once again sometimes racist attitudes which are promoted by some other British politicians”."
Tony Gallagher @gallaghereditor 2m Romanian/Bulgarian migration becoming bigger political headache by the day for Cameron. Now the EU is backing them. Our splash tomorrow
"All but one of the inner London local authority areas fall into the 20 most deprived in England, and inequality within the capital means unemployment in the poorest wards is eight times that in the richest."
London's "boom" away from the posh bits and the BBC cameras
Ha! Question re. Sudan on University Challenge seemed to forget that South Sudan became independent a couple of years ago (Kenya does not border what remains of Sudan).
If I'd been on the show I'd remember it well - At the time I'd just received a gift of a lovely 6ft by 8ft framed world political map, which immediately became out of date. Darn inconvenient, especially since as a fairly large country bang in the centre of the standard European style of world maps, it is immediately apparent.
I think the trend of nationalism over the last century increasing the number of countries from 50 or so to over 200, was just a global conspiracy orchestrated by cartographers and Philatelists.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Dunwich is just a superb place.
I am off to Bury on Friday so must look into those snippets of history you mention.
I'm sure Tessa Jowell would be a formidible option for Labour candidate for London Mayor, but how did she phrase her decision to stand down as MP in 2015? I assume she went less with a 'have served long enough' approach and more 'seek new challenges' approach, or else running for London Mayor might seem a bit odd, as it's a fairly big job.
"He called on Mr Cameron to reject “the xenophobic and populistic and once again sometimes racist attitudes which are promoted by some other British politicians”."
Tony Gallagher @gallaghereditor 2m Romanian/Bulgarian migration becoming bigger political headache by the day for Cameron. Now the EU is backing them. Our splash tomorrow
If only Dave had a spine and was prepared to face down the xenophobes in his own party, and the very highly paid one running his campaigns.
"All but one of the inner London local authority areas fall into the 20 most deprived in England, and inequality within the capital means unemployment in the poorest wards is eight times that in the richest."
London's "boom" away from the posh bits and the BBC cameras
That's topical, a piece on London from 1995
oops, something a bit more up to date. same story though - the boom that never was
"And of the 20 English local authorities with the highest levels of child poverty 7 are in London, according to the report out today by Trust for London."
I'm sure Tessa Jowell would be a formidible option for Labour candidate for London Mayor, but how did she phrase her decision to stand down as MP in 2015? I assume she went less with a 'have served long enough' approach and more 'seek new challenges' approach, or else running for London Mayor might seem a bit odd, as it's a fairly big job.
I think anyone who winds up with merely 'sports minister' was already there just because they were last on the list, never mind if they know anything about sport or not. As you suggest, to promote people without caring where they go, is probably true of most sports ministers.
All Tories think about is money money and more money. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they had a soul?
That's not strictly true. I also think of guns, paving over rainforests, laughing as lefties are hung from lampposts, and also eating babies alive.
But, agreed, during daylight hours it's mostly about the money.
I knew it! Cameron had almost suckered me in as well. Close call.
It was indeed! In a way, its good that Tories have revealed their true colours and that all that Cameron PR was just PR guff. The world is back in equilibrium, and the Tories are unelectable again!
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Cambridge also has a very good branch of WH Smith.
I do not know what it is about WH Smith I really do not like their stores.
I love books and can rarely pass a book shop without going in, but Smith's I will walk past every time.
Sadiq Khan seems like he has more potential for the role. Still an up and comer as well, so better chance than a former leading figure. Or is London Mayor a slightly elevated Police and Crime Commissioner option for fading stars who still want to stay in the game?
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Cambridge also has a very good branch of WH Smith.
I do not know what it is about WH Smith I really do not like their stores.
I love books and can rarely pass a book shop without going in, but Smith's I will walk past every time.
The older stores are really grubby, would not be surprised if they are the next big high street name to go under
All Tories think about is money money and more money. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they had a soul?
That's not strictly true. I also think of guns, paving over rainforests, laughing as lefties are hung from lampposts, and also eating babies alive.
But, agreed, during daylight hours it's mostly about the money.
I knew it! Cameron had almost suckered me in as well. Close call.
It was indeed! In a way, its good that Tories have revealed their true colours and that all that Cameron PR was just PR guff. The world is back in equilibrium, and the Tories are unelectable again!
In all honesty, it sometimes feels like a lot of the Tories want to be a lot more right wing but their leadership doesn't think it will work and so fight that impression, a lot of LDs (or former LDs anyway) wanted to be a lot more left wing but the leadership wanted to pretend there was an even split between left and right in the party and so fought the impression, whereas most of Labour is closer to the centre now, and the leadership has to fight the impression it is not more left wing. So none of the leaderships seem hugely representative of their base, or totally honest in how they present to the public. It's just a bigger problem for the Tories, particularly as they openly admit to being toxic (which just reinforces the idea for a new generation - if even they keep saying they are, of course it is perpetuated)
Comments
Red types would have loved him to of course, but can moan either way but this is the least bad option politically and whatever the motive, few will feel badly for the companies affected and it won't lose the blues votes whatever the motives.
Sorry but attacking Labour for that is partisan idiocy that just sounds a little bit bitter that Osborne's realised they're right on this one and that politically he has to do something- it's rather like criticising John Major's administration for not fully understanding the implications of the internet and legislating against activities that later required curtailing.
Anyway no one - I think - doubts that fossil fuels and cow farts contribute to the greenhouse effect. How could they not? The trouble is, Warmists think they have made their case if they stop there. They haven't actually got to first base because A. it is uncontroversial that the climate is always changing anyway for non-anthropogenic reasons. We have had snowball earth, and ice-free earth in the past and are now living in an interglacial period. The odds are surely about 50-50 that AGW will ameliorate a downturn rather than exacerbate an upturn. If not, why not? B. This is meant to be a catastrophe. It is a defining feature of catastrophes that they cannot be reversed by reversing the effect which caused them. Putting the engines of the Titanic to full speed astern doesn't help you. So why should the truth of AGW affect the way we act? and C. If you're that fussed about it, let's convert the whole world to a diet of nuclear power instead of arsing about with silly shaped light bulbs.
2003: Payday loans: Worrying trend?
2010: Number of payday loan users has quadrupled
Anyway no one - I think - doubts that fossil fuels and cow farts contribute to the greenhouse effect. How could they not? The trouble is, Warmists think they have made their case if they stop there. They haven't actually got to first base because A. it is uncontroversial that the climate is always changing anyway for non-anthropogenic reasons. We have had snowball earth, and ice-free earth in the past and are now living in an interglacial period. The odds are surely about 50-50 that AGW will ameliorate a downturn rather than exacerbate an upturn. If not, why not? B. This is meant to be a catastrophe. It is a defining feature of catastrophes that they cannot be reversed by reversing the effect which caused them. Putting the engines of the Titanic to full speed astern doesn't help you. So why should the truth of AGW affect the way we act? and C. If you're that fussed about it, let's convert the whole world to a diet of nuclear power instead of arsing about with silly shaped light bulbs.
Respected University Towers has no problem with money from Evil Vested Interest Corp, believe me. If you want fame and fortune by researching "alternatives" to the consensus, then climate science is where it is at.
This just makes the consensus more robust in climate science than elsewhere, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Your second paragraph is more about politics. Which is, of course, where the uncertainty / controversy is, because the basic science is so robust.
My own personal view at my most defeatist is that it's too late and we should now just hope for the best, and try to mitigate. It's also a selfish view, as our kids and grandkids will suffer rather than us, so I won't care.
This just makes the consensus more robust in climate science than elsewhere, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Your second paragraph is more about politics. Which is, of course, where the uncertainty / controversy is, because the basic science is so robust.
My own personal view at my most defeatist is that it's too late and we should now just hope for the best, and try to mitigate. It's also a selfish view, as our kids and grandkids will suffer rather than us, so I won't care.
It isn't selfish to think that we shouldn't uselessly squander resources which would otherwise be available to our kids and grandkids.
My points A and B are basic science, not politics.
The 2003 article seems to describe the genesis of the UK industry, with lenders realising what they can get away with and still attract consumers. The final quote seems pretty damning in hindsight, but it's hardly a unique trait of the 1997-2010 government to overlook issues when they're not hugely regarded politically and spend their time addressing what they perceive to be bigger ones.
It really hit the political agenda in about mid-2008, which means that you'd be well within your rights to say that a better Lab govt. should have dealt with it despite other obvious distractions, but then that would be inconvenient to those who want to try and glorify Mr Osborne's U-turn as he's had 3 years of it being a widely discussed political issue while doing naff all.
Hopefully due to Stella Creasy's campaigning and Osborne's survival instinct the right decision has been come to in the end.
My points A and B are basic science, not politics.
Nah, they're about politics.
Point A, trends that act over thousands or millions of years tell us little about what we can do now. Or, if you like, we could easily stop "AGW" ending civilisation by "arsing about with lightbulbs", even though there's nowt we can do about the next Ice Age or asteroid doing similar in a few millenia.
Point B, every gram of carbon that we stop emitting means the problem becomes less serious.
As for selfishness, we are squandering our resources for short-term political / financial reasons, and it is our kids and grandkids that will suffer our consequences. If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.
If so I was once passing by it when an American couple stopped me and asked the way to the nearest Starbucks.
Not being a local I was fortunately unable to help them.
I've had the same depressing experience in York as well.
Where's he gone ?
But as the Right always tell us, it's a dog eat dog world, looking after number one is a Good Thing, right?
Perhaps there should be some studies on how to reduce it?
Perhaps some conferences to discuss how government can spend less?
Labour was never worried about people borrowing to spend, their entire economic policy depended upon it.
Didn't the Labour shill 'snowflake' tell us here than 'debt is wealth' back in 2007-2008 ?
"I love how lefties think it is bad and mean and selfish to leave lovely tree stimulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the grandkids but have no problems leaving humongous debts for them."
All Tories think about is money money and more money. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they had a soul?
As for the question: Has she got what it takes? I think so. I like her and she always strikes me as honest with her heart in the right place. So she probably won't attract many Tories but it'll be nice change after Johnson.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/inner-london-most-deprived-part-of-britain-1581185.html
"All but one of the inner London local authority areas fall into the 20 most deprived in England, and inequality within the capital means unemployment in the poorest wards is eight times that in the richest."
London's "boom" away from the posh bits and the BBC cameras
But, agreed, during daylight hours it's mostly about the money.
"@another_richard There's a Starbucks in Vienna. When I saw that, I despaired for humanity."
You don't like coffee?
"But, agreed, during daylight hours it's mostly about the money."
An honest Tory! As rare as a Starbucks in the Maldives
I think the trend of nationalism over the last century increasing the number of countries from 50 or so to over 200, was just a global conspiracy orchestrated by cartographers and Philatelists.
I am off to Bury on Friday so must look into those snippets of history you mention.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/10/london-poverty-capital-of-england/
"London, poverty capital of England"
"And of the 20 English local authorities with the highest levels of child poverty 7 are in London, according to the report out today by Trust for London."
http://www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/david-and-victoria-beckham-buy-west-london-home-for-40m-8962245.html
Con 56%
Lab 21%
Lib Dem 14%
Ukip 5%
YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Labour lead up to 8: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%
I love books and can rarely pass a book shop without going in, but Smith's I will walk past every time.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/10/london-poverty-capital-of-england/
or
http://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/media-centre/news/big-changes-in-london-poverty-patterns.html
It's all the same story.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
http://www.hiddenengland.com.ar/dunwich.htm
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Cambridge also has a very good branch of WH Smith.
I do not know what it is about WH Smith I really do not like their stores.
I love books and can rarely pass a book shop without going in, but Smith's I will walk past every time.
The older stores are really grubby, would not be surprised if they are the next big high street name to go under