Found it, here is the NAPO* report into the number of ex military in our prisons.
Is worth a read
The study finds that the military personnel had served Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Balkans. In many cases the symptoms of stress or depression did not become apparent for many years and included persistent flashbacks, nightmares, an inability to concentrate and paranoia.
*Napo is the trade union and professional association that represents probation staff including probation officers and other operational and administrative staff and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service staff in the United Kingdom
Theories have been put forward that the numbers of ex-servicemen in prison are on the increase, that ex-servicemen may be more likely to end up in prison than the civilian population, that recent action in Iraq and Afghanistan is significantly contributing to the rise of ex-servicemen in prison and that, in particular, it is combat-related trauma which is driving the crime that ex-servicemen commit.
The inquiry has found little or no evidence to justify any of these theories. The numbers of ex-servicemen in prison appear broadly similar to previous estimates, although there is no definitive survey available, and statistics suggest that ex-servicemen are less likely to be in prison than civilians. Ex-servicemen in prison are disproportionately older compared to the general prison population, and have offended many years after discharge. While post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a condition which does afflict a significant number of service leavers, there is no evidence that PTSD can be directly linked to offending behaviour.
Chair of the inquiry, Sir John Nutting QC, said: “To a degree this inquiry has been involved in a process of ‘myth-busting’. Ex-servicemen are not committing crimes shortly after leaving the plane from Helmand, and it is unlikely that combat trauma is driving criminal behaviour. The reality is that most ex-servicemen resettle into the community without problems but that for some, issues arise later in life which can lead to offending.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
But Edmund, building a conservatory on my house can't be outsourced to Asia, we are unlikely to start importing bread, you have to live here to clean our offices, etc etc. There are some things that won't go abroad. So if you're a builder, baker or cleaner you don't care about cheap Chinese TVs, you care about the immigrants taking low wage local jobs
Large parts of those jobs can be and are being outsourced to Asia. If you can't get a cheap builder to the UK, you can make the parts of the conservatory in a factory in China and ship them to the UK to assemble. If you can't get somebody cheap and well-behaved to clean an office, you can build robots in Vietnam, or just better vacuum cleaners in Malaysia, and lay off more of the cleaners. Or you can spend the money making the interior easier to clean and make the cleaning easier to mechanize - for example, make big plate-glass windows instead of lots of little ones.
Where you've got a point is that the difference is in the perception of the person who is getting undercut by globalization: When a job gets moved overseas it's harder for the person who doesn't have it to tell what's going on, because they can't see the person who's now doing it instead of them.
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
I sincerely hope you are right Mr Fenster, but how do you know what's going on in their heads when they are alone. Or in the middle of the night.
That said I was taught in the early 50's by several men who had relatively recently returned from being PoW's in the Far East and they all seemed to my adolescent eye as no odder than any of the other schoolmasters!
I'm 36 now and admire how they are all so unaffected by it. They are all early to mid twenties. I suppose I was quite gung-ho and immortal when I was younger. I think having children makes the thought of war more alarming, more heart-rending and more affecting to me than it did previously. I can see the horrors of war through the eyes of an innocent child now and it makes me shudder.
IF and I mean if, there is a big difference in the proportion of criminals who have been in the military and the proportion of males in the population who have been in the military then you shouldn't assume that its the military that turns people into criminals. I would have thought that people who are attracted to a military job may also be slightly more attracted to crime in the first place. If you like guns ,have no problem about killing others albeit legally (lets be honest you cannot if you are in the army) and want adventure I would say you are more likely than somebody who doesn't like these things to be a criminal.
Is it the army itself or the 'raw material' that lends to higher rates of criminality ,if indeed it does (I am still not sure that 10% figure is not far off the serving proportion of the male population as a whole
IF and I mean if, there is a big difference in the proportion of criminals who have been in the military and the proportion of males in the population who have been in the military then you shouldn't assume that its the military that turns people into criminals. I would have thought that people who are attracted to a military job may also be slightly more attracted to crime in the first place. If you like guns ,have no problem about killing others albeit legally (lets be honest you cannot if you are in the army) and want adventure I would say you are more likely than somebody who doesn't like these things to be a criminal.
Is it the army itself or the 'raw material' that lends to higher rates of criminality ,if indeed it does (I am still not sure that 10% figure is not far off the serving proportion of the male population as a whole
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
Glad it's not just me about Gordon.
The best warbook I have read about Nam, possibly the best warbook ever, was a book called Chickenhawk about a huey pilot in the 5th Cav. He ended up in jail for taking drugs over the border into the US.
What made the book so good was the incredibly vivid descriptions of the terror of flying around in a biscuit tin that was being turned into a collander and the truly amazing things that they did despite this obvious terror.
The drugs part comes out of the blue at the end and the book finished, IIRC, with "to this day I have no idea how I got there."
If you haven't read it I could not recommend it highly enough.
Why is it ok for someone who I am guessing you know well, and is a senior person on the site, to accuse me of cheering an innocent man being shot, when I have never done anything of the sort, and refuse to apologise?
I have proven on this thread that he only made the accusation after I had withdrawn what he claims incited it, and even if I hadn't it was still uncalled for
Can posters go around accusing others of laughing at hideous crimes and get away with it? There are plenty of sick crimes in the news, and plenty of people I disagree with on here... But the level of debate shouldn't descend to crass accusations
@JosiasJessop - thanks. Re (belatedly) high cost of infrastructure projects, I wondered if part of it is PFI (etc.) and part of it central government bureaucracy (in a parallel with the franchising system, which seems amazingly byzantine and still unfit for purpose, like something from the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
Modern Railways seems to be aimed at the profession even more than the serious enthusiast (including the rail user) - judging from the advertisements for one thing. I stopped taking it some years ago when it got too full of legal and accounting stuff, rather then engineering, back when John Major dropped the Great Britain train set on the floor in his horizontal rather than vertical reorganization. If the Stockton and Darlington Railway could learn very early on not to mix users on a single railway ... But I now take the mag again, to read about things like Crossrail engineering (whatever one might think of ever-increasing investment in and around London and to Hades with the rest.). It contains some articles which comprise such things as detailed hatchet jobs on things like the accounting behind Dept of Transport franchising and investment decisions, which might be up your street.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
Before we assume that the military are the cause of criminality I would still like to know what percentage of the male population have served in the military. Then also whether criminals who have in the past being in the military would have been criminals anyway even if never been in the military.
Wikipedia quotes a figure of 24,000 as an annual recruitment target for the armed forces, but notes that 10% of the armed forces are from the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. This leaves 21,600 per year from Britain.
There are at least 600,000 people in Britain who take GCSEs every year - clearly there are some people of the same age who do not take GCSEs, so this will be an underestimate.
This yields a percentage of 3.6% of the population who will have served in the military, which is 7.2% of the male population, though recruitment of women into the armed forces is also rising.
However, since recruitment into the armed forces was much higher in the recent past, it does seem as though a figure of about 10% does not suggest that ex-servicemen are any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
I sometimes wonder how far Ed Balls listens to his younger brother about the economy.
""More than once I heard [Andrew] referred to as Ed's clever brother. He's a modest, cerebral guy, without the pointy elbows of his brother. More thoughtful. More of a markets guy. He always had a modest way of putting his views across. Both are super-clever. Ed is much more political. Andrew is more interested in finding the truth about economics and markets. Ed is always looking for the political angle."
Why is it ok for someone who I am guessing you know well, and is a senior person on the site, to accuse me of cheering an innocent man being shot, when I have never done anything of the sort, and refuse to apologise?
I have proven on this thread that he only made the accusation after I had withdrawn what he claims incited it, and even if I hadn't it was still uncalled for
Can posters go around accusing others of laughing at hideous crimes and get away with it? There are plenty of sick crimes in the news, and plenty of people I disagree with on here... But the level of debate shouldn't descend to crass accusations
Here's the full quote.
You wrote
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
To which I replied
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
IF and I mean if, there is a big difference in the proportion of criminals who have been in the military and the proportion of males in the population who have been in the military then you shouldn't assume that its the military that turns people into criminals. I would have thought that people who are attracted to a military job may also be slightly more attracted to crime in the first place. If you like guns ,have no problem about killing others albeit legally (lets be honest you cannot if you are in the army) and want adventure I would say you are more likely than somebody who doesn't like these things to be a criminal.
Is it the army itself or the 'raw material' that lends to higher rates of criminality ,if indeed it does (I am still not sure that 10% figure is not far off the serving proportion of the male population as a whole
Good point, well made. - there are obviously many factors involved here, of which military service is but a part and not the defining factor.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
Before we assume that the military are the cause of criminality I would still like to know what percentage of the male population have served in the military. Then also whether criminals who have in the past being in the military would have been criminals anyway even if never been in the military.
Wikipedia quotes a figure of 24,000 as an annual recruitment target for the armed forces, but notes that 10% of the armed forces are from the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. This leaves 21,600 per year from Britain.
There are at least 600,000 people in Britain who take GCSEs every year - clearly there are some people of the same age who do not take GCSEs, so this will be an underestimate.
This yields a percentage of 3.6% of the population who will have served in the military, which is 7.2% of the male population, though recruitment of women into the armed forces is also rising.
However, since recruitment into the armed forces was much higher in the recent past, it does seem as though a figure of about 10% does not suggest that ex-servicemen are any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
The tricky bit here is how you control for original propensity to violence...
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
Before we assume that the military are the cause of criminality I would still like to know what percentage of the male population have served in the military. Then also whether criminals who have in the past being in the military would have been criminals anyway even if never been in the military.
Wikipedia quotes a figure of 24,000 as an annual recruitment target for the armed forces, but notes that 10% of the armed forces are from the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. This leaves 21,600 per year from Britain.
There are at least 600,000 people in Britain who take GCSEs every year - clearly there are some people of the same age who do not take GCSEs, so this will be an underestimate.
This yields a percentage of 3.6% of the population who will have served in the military, which is 7.2% of the male population, though recruitment of women into the armed forces is also rising.
However, since recruitment into the armed forces was much higher in the recent past, it does seem as though a figure of about 10% does not suggest that ex-servicemen are any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
The tricky bit here is how you control for original propensity to violence...
It's propensity to drink too much i.e. a propensity for risk-taking behaviour.
I'm off shopping for the rest of the afternoon, so feel free to sit on the outrage bus all on your own,
Please note, one poster made a very unpleasant smear/innuendo against me the same night about the Lee Rigby murder, you don't hear me going on and on about it. I made my reply to that comment that evening, and left it at that.
@JosiasJessop - thanks. Re (belatedly) high cost of infrastructure projects, I wondered if part of it is PFI (etc.) and part of it central government bureaucracy (in a parallel with the franchising system, which seems amazingly byzantine and still unfit for purpose, like something from the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
Modern Railways seems to be aimed at the profession even more than the serious enthusiast (including the rail user) - judging from the advertisements for one thing. I stopped taking it some years ago when it got too full of legal and accounting stuff, rather then engineering, back when John Major dropped the Great Britain train set on the floor in his horizontal rather than vertical reorganization. If the Stockton and Darlington Railway could learn very early on not to mix users on a single railway ... But I now take the mag again, to read about things like Crossrail engineering (whatever one might think of ever-increasing investment in and around London and to Hades with the rest.). It contains some articles which comprise such things as detailed hatchet jobs on things like the accounting behind Dept of Transport franchising and investment decisions, which might be up your street.
I'm not sure it's PFI, either, or at least on the sort of projects that PFI should be used on (i.e. not schools or hospitals).
It's probably a host of things. But it'd be good to know: a) if the problem of rising infrastructure costs is real, as I think, b) the scale of the problem, and c) the causes.
Someone (or some people if wages are a significant component of the problem) is making a great deal of money.
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
Glad it's not just me about Gordon.
The best warbook I have read about Nam, possibly the best warbook ever, was a book called Chickenhawk about a huey pilot in the 5th Cav. He ended up in jail for taking drugs over the border into the US.
What made the book so good was the incredibly vivid descriptions of the terror of flying around in a biscuit tin that was being turned into a collander and the truly amazing things that they did despite this obvious terror.
The drugs part comes out of the blue at the end and the book finished, IIRC, with "to this day I have no idea how I got there."
If you haven't read it I could not recommend it highly enough.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll get that and read it.
Nam was a horrific read, but I have my suspicions about how much of it was actually, really true. I'm sure Nam was hell. With widespread heroin use, killings and rapings and all sorts of crimes against humanity, but it was really hard to believe all I was reading. Having said that, it was a bestseller, so maybe it was that evil out there!
Re: Gordon Brown. Geez, honestly. I couldn't stand him. I couldn't get my head round the way Labour coronated a man who had behaved so appallingly throughout much of Blair's tenure. To me he was clearly a selfish, tribal, duplicitous and ruthless man, whose desire to carry out public service became clouded and then completely usurped by his jealous craving of power. Couldn't the Labour MPs see it? And when he achieved power, the closet was bare. A Greek Tragedy indeed. But a tragedy for the Labour party and the rest of us too.
There is much you can criticise the Tory party for but if Brown had been a Tory he wouldn't have become PM. The Tory MPs wouldn't have been so craven and cowardly in allowing him to waltz into a job the public never wanted him in.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
Before we assume that the military are the cause of criminality I would still like to know what percentage of the male population have served in the military. Then also whether criminals who have in the past being in the military would have been criminals anyway even if never been in the military.
Wikipedia quotes a figure of 24,000 as an annual recruitment target for the armed forces, but notes that 10% of the armed forces are from the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. This leaves 21,600 per year from Britain.
There are at least 600,000 people in Britain who take GCSEs every year - clearly there are some people of the same age who do not take GCSEs, so this will be an underestimate.
This yields a percentage of 3.6% of the population who will have served in the military, which is 7.2% of the male population, though recruitment of women into the armed forces is also rising.
However, since recruitment into the armed forces was much higher in the recent past, it does seem as though a figure of about 10% does not suggest that ex-servicemen are any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
The tricky bit here is how you control for original propensity to violence...
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Those lapetus Sutures will rue the day, mark my words.
Re: Gordon Brown. Geez, honestly. I couldn't stand him. I couldn't get my head round the way Labour coronated a man who had behaved so appallingly throughout much of Blair's tenure. To me he was clearly a selfish, tribal, duplicitous and ruthless man, whose desire to carry out public service became clouded and then completely usurped by his jealous craving of power. Couldn't the Labour MPs see it? And when he achieved power, the closet was bare. A Greek Tragedy indeed. But a tragedy for the Labour party and the rest of us too.
There is much you can criticise the Tory party for but if Brown had been a Tory he wouldn't have become PM. The Tory MPs wouldn't have been so craven and cowardly in allowing him to waltz into a job the public never wanted him in.
Oh well.
The tory party elected IDS as leader although they thought better of it before an election. There is something about the psychology of political parties that allows misanthropes to thrive and it is not just Labour.
But I agree with the point Mike made earlier. David Miliband's failure to challenge the lunacy that was Brown, even with promised support from Darling, was pathetic and meant that the Labour party chose the right brother for leader.
I'm off shopping for the rest of the afternoon, so feel free to sit on the outrage bus all on your own,
Please note, one poster made a very unpleasant smear/innuendo against me the same night about the Lee Rigby murder, you don't hear me going on and on about it. I made my reply to that comment that evening, and left it at that.
So you weren't the only one making unpleasant smears that night... so what?
If someone smeared you they should apologise as well. I didn't so I don't see what it has to do with it.
Everyone can now see that you only made the Jean de Menezes remark AFTER I had retracted the lawyer comment....
You relied on a lie.... that you made the Menezes remark in response to the Lawyer comment... so you must admit you were wrong and apologise, if you have decency about you.
Constant cheap smart arse comments aren't going to make me stop demanding an apology though, you can be sure of that
There's a killer comment on that article by 'PeterS378':
In the foreword Balls writes: "We can expect to inherit plans for further deep cuts to departmental budgets at a time when the deficit will still be large and the national debt rising."
But you have been telling us for nearly 4 years now that the cuts are too far and too fast. So surely the answer is to slow them down. Why do you need ideas for further cuts?
incoherent
That, my friends, is precisely Labour's problem. It's also why ditching Balls wouldn't help: the incoherence would still persist.
There is no way around this, which is why Ed Miliband is trying to shift the narrative onto living standards, and is pretending that energy companies, housebuilders, banks, and 'bankers' (whoever they are) can be raided to supply the largesse which previously Labour said should be provided on the never-never.
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
Glad it's not just me about Gordon.
The best warbook I have read about Nam, possibly the best warbook ever, was a book called Chickenhawk about a huey pilot in the 5th Cav. He ended up in jail for taking drugs over the border into the US.
What made the book so good was the incredibly vivid descriptions of the terror of flying around in a biscuit tin that was being turned into a collander and the truly amazing things that they did despite this obvious terror.
The drugs part comes out of the blue at the end and the book finished, IIRC, with "to this day I have no idea how I got there."
If you haven't read it I could not recommend it highly enough.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll get that and read it.
Nam was a horrific read, but I have my suspicions about how much of it was actually, really true. I'm sure Nam was hell. With widespread heroin use, killings and rapings and all sorts of crimes against humanity, but it was really hard to believe all I was reading. Having said that, it was a bestseller, so maybe it was that evil out there!
Re: Gordon Brown. Geez, honestly. I couldn't stand him. I couldn't get my head round the way Labour coronated a man who had behaved so appallingly throughout much of Blair's tenure. To me he was clearly a selfish, tribal, duplicitous and ruthless man, whose desire to carry out public service became clouded and then completely usurped by his jealous craving of power. Couldn't the Labour MPs see it? And when he achieved power, the closet was bare. A Greek Tragedy indeed. But a tragedy for the Labour party and the rest of us too.
There is much you can criticise the Tory party for but if Brown had been a Tory he wouldn't have become PM. The Tory MPs wouldn't have been so craven and cowardly in allowing him to waltz into a job the public never wanted him in.
I'm off shopping for the rest of the afternoon, so feel free to sit on the outrage bus all on your own,
Please note, one poster made a very unpleasant smear/innuendo against me the same night about the Lee Rigby murder, you don't hear me going on and on about it. I made my reply to that comment that evening, and left it at that.
So you weren't the only one making unpleasant smears that night... so what?
If someone smeared you they should apologise as well. I didn't so I don't see what it has to do with it.
Everyone can now see that you only made the Jean de Menezes remark AFTER I had retracted the lawyer comment....
You relied on a lie.... that you made the Menezes remark in response to the Lawyer comment... so you must admit you were wrong and apologise, if you have decency about you.
Constant cheap smart arse comments aren't going to make me stop demanding an apology though, you can be sure of that
The "prosecute the lawyer" comment was way too cretinous for a "retraction" to cut any ice, I'm afraid you need to change your name and pretend to be someone else. Alternatively, you might contemplate the fact that the internet is awash with discussion forums optimised for the dim and dislikeable and consider whether your posting talents would be more valuably employed there, than here.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
I'm off shopping for the rest of the afternoon, so feel free to sit on the outrage bus all on your own,
Please note, one poster made a very unpleasant smear/innuendo against me the same night about the Lee Rigby murder, you don't hear me going on and on about it. I made my reply to that comment that evening, and left it at that.
So you weren't the only one making unpleasant smears that night... so what?
If someone smeared you they should apologise as well. I didn't so I don't see what it has to do with it.
Everyone can now see that you only made the Jean de Menezes remark AFTER I had retracted the lawyer comment....
You relied on a lie.... that you made the Menezes remark in response to the Lawyer comment... so you must admit you were wrong and apologise, if you have decency about you.
Constant cheap smart arse comments aren't going to make me stop demanding an apology though, you can be sure of that
The "prosecute the lawyer" comment was way too cretinous for a "retraction" to cut any ice, I'm afraid you need to change your name and pretend to be someone else. Alternatively, you might contemplate the fact that the internet is awash with discussion forums optimised for the dim and dislikeable and consider whether your posting talents would be more valuably employed there, than here.
"Prosecute the lawyer" more cretinous than "you cheered when Jean de Menezes was shot"?
Having made your point perhaps it's best to let it drop now? It's just the internet.
I know I am going on, and I am sorry. But why cant he just apologise?
I hate to wade in, and I hate even more to wade in on the side of a poster who's annoyed me since the moment they turned up here, but isam has a point. If it isn't that big a deal then just apologise, and the fact that someone else has wronged you doesn't give you license to wrong others. If isam doesn't shut up after an apology then that's one thing, but the accuser was wrong and should just say so so that we can all move on from this. The ball is in their court.
Having made your point perhaps it's best to let it drop now? It's just the internet.
I know I am going on, and I am sorry. But why cant he just apologise?
I hate to wade in, and I hate even more to wade in on the side of a poster who's annoyed me since the moment they turned up here, but isam has a point. If it isn't that big a deal then just apologise, and the fact that someone else has wronged you doesn't give you license to wrong others. If isam doesn't shut up after an apology then that's one thing, but the accuser was wrong and should just say so so that we can all move on from this. The ball is in their court.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
So I retract my comment regarding Jean Charles de Menenez and offer apologies for upsetting his feelings.
I still maintain his comments the other day are bad and dangerous and as you recanted your ideas regarding defence counsels, you'll eventually recant your other views.
As you're an Arsenal fan
Now let's laugh at AVB who a few months ago said Arsenal were on a negative spiral.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
So I retract my comment regarding Jean Charles de Menenez and offer apologies for upsetting his feelings.
I still maintain his comments the other day are bad and dangerous and as you recanted your ideas regarding defence counsels, you'll eventually recant your other views.
As you're an Arsenal fan
Now let's laugh at AVB who a few months ago said Arsenal were on a negative spiral.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
So I retract my comment regarding Jean Charles de Menenez and offer apologies for upsetting his feelings.
I still maintain his comments the other day are bad and dangerous and as you recanted your ideas regarding defence counsels, you'll eventually recant your other views.
As you're an Arsenal fan
Now let's laugh at AVB who a few months ago said Arsenal were on a negative spiral.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
We had 3 wretched years because of Osborne's failed policies, with metrics across the board worse than he predicted, his own targets missed. So the incoming Labour Government will inherit a big mess, and have to undo some of the most damaging, and most brutal Tory policies within a tighter spending envelope.
You might not agree with it, but its coherent and, I would suggest, a message that might resonate with 2010 Lib and Lab.
If Osborne's policies have failed (it could be argued that the figures show the opposite), then what makes you think that Labour's policies would have been any better?
We had 3 wretched years because of Osborne's failed policies, with metrics across the board worse than he predicted, his own targets missed. So the incoming Labour Government will inherit a big mess, and have to undo some of the most damaging, and most brutal Tory policies within a tighter spending envelope.
You might not agree with it, but its coherent and, I would suggest, a message that might resonate with 2010 Lib and Lab.
That would be a 'brave' election campaign platform, and one that would have this 2010 Lib Dem snorting with derision. For it to work, people would have to believe that Labour's 2010 election pledges would have survived contact with reality (somehow being immune to the obstacles encountered by the Tories and Lib Dems in government), had Labour won that election.
The economy is recovering, albeit slowly. Labour have to convince the electorate that they would have achieved the same thing either (a) quicker, or (b) more compassionately. I look forward to seeing them try, given that their dire warnings of doom simply have not come to pass.
''So the incoming Labour Government will inherit a big mess, and have to undo some of the most damaging, and most brutal Tory policies within a tighter spending envelope.''
In attempting to defend ed you have made yourself equally incoherent.
You are saying the labour will spend more ('undo some of the most damaging and brutal tory policies') whilst....er.....spending less ( ' within a tighter spending envelope').
Hugh seems another angry lefty. Osborne was right. Balls was wrong. Labour lack any credibility on macro-economic policy and seem to have no real desire to get there - they are still fundamentally in deficit denial.
(not this is will necessarily have any meaningful difference on GE2015 outcome)
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Thanks. I agree that Iain Macwhirter is one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists, but that is unlikely to impress 99% of PBers. Most of them neither know nor care about Scottish columnists. Quality ones or otherwise.
That fact, in itself, is an opening of the Iapetus Suture.
At which point was Osborne right? Seems to me he gave up on his original plan because as Labour said it was unworkable and increased the deficit. Then lengthened the time span and flooded the economy with QE debt.so was he right before changing course, or right once he's listened to sense?
Osborne's policy all along has been to reduce the public sector spend at a rate that is fast enough to placate markets but slow enough to not to damage growth.
We never had the double or treble dip, we lost AAA with one rating agency but not the other and our debt costs show the UK is still effectively AAA. Employment is growing fast and it has been unequivocally demonstrated that it IS possible to slow spending and see growth.
For sure the spending changes were never the 'austerity' everyone banged on about - but the direction of travel was always correct, even if judging the speed was not always perfect. And the BoE played monetary policy very well, also proving you can cut spending and grow if you have a sensible interest rate / QE policy (disastrously lacking in the Eurozone).
Labour's direction of travel would have been French - and the outcomes too. It was an absolute necessity to evict the evil and horrific Gordon Brown - but we dodged a bullet by not having Balls at NO.11 too.
"It is a story of weak and indecisive leadership from senior managers. It is a story of secrecy and containment."
Labour supporters should hang their heads in shame. From the radio reports, it looks as though he was allowed to continue because he got results; i.e. met targets.
A side question: how many students would he have trained, or would have observed his procedures, during his time as a surgeon? Surely there is a need to tell bast practice to these people as well, just in case?
Why not American, Patrick? Keynesian stimulus followed by quicker recovery than ours. But of course that doesn't fit the script
Hmmm. America's position as the world's main reserve currency gives it advantages we did not have in coming out of recession. In addition, they were more insulated from the madness that went on in Europe.
PM Robert (Bob) Cecil, Marquees of Salisbury, was the uncle to his successor Arthur Balfour - hence "Bob's your Uncle"
Now it is your age that is showing, dear boy
You're right that Salisbury, PM, was the uncle to his successor.
But Salisbury's son, Robert Cecil, was also the KC in 4 Paper Buildings, which was the first set that Attlee worked in as a barrister. Hence, because technically, the Head of Chambers is a primus inter pares, Robert Cecil was Attlee's "leader among peers". There were also - hotly denied - allegations of nepotism (Attlee's father had conncetions with the Chambers) so "Bob's my uncle" might have been an aposite way of describing how he got the job.
But I don't know what Robert Cecil KC's views were on minorities. Perhaps they were similar to his father's, perhaps not.
It looks increasingly likely (not that it didn't some while back, in fact from the start) that Labour gambled everything on the premise that Osborne could not sort out the mess that Labour left by the time of the 2015 GE. Its a fair point to suggest that Labour deliberately made things as bad as possible(irresponsible spending) (which is why they should never be trusted with the economy) to make things as difficult as possible for the incoming Govt...IMHO it shows how little they care about the citizens of GB PLC). I think I read somewhere on the Spectator website that Cameron said "The Economy is getting stronger, Labour is getting weaker. Too true.
The American GDP journey was driven prinarily by massive QE and much less so by stimulus spend, in fact there's quite some evidence that their stimulus spend achieved close to zero. Proof of this will come when the Fed really pushes the 'taper' and their QE ends in 2014 - then we'll see what the GDP journey is on a sustainable basis. (If it is sustainable at all as the fed buys the majority of Treasuries right now and who the replacement buyers are is not at all clear when the Fed exits the market).
Personally I believe the UK's lower QE but higher spending discipline was better and our debt/GDP ratio is alot better than theirs.
Its a fair point to suggest that Labour deliberately made things as bad as possible(irresponsible spending) (which is why they should never be trusted with the economy) to make things as difficult as possible for the incoming Govt...
No, it's not a fair point, it's completely bonkers.
really... you have a short memory, don't you recall depts being told to spend every last penny they could before the election, or perhaps "there's no money left"
That's what Labour did....what they did was bonkers.... not me pointing it out.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Sometimes the non-financial costs outweigh the financial gains...
As I understand it the financial gains are made by the immigrants, rather than the existing population.
And presumably the employer of the immigrant. And therefore its shareholders too.
Whereas the costs are socialised, in the form of any incremental benefit payments to UK residents unable to compete for jobs plus incremental maintenance and capex required on infrastructure
Why not American, Patrick? Keynesian stimulus followed by quicker recovery than ours. But of course that doesn't fit the script
Well, it's nice to see a Labour supporter advocating that we should follow the US, with fracking, low energy prices, a flexible 'hire and fire' labour market, and less onerous regulation of business, but on the particular point of the 'Keynesian stimulus', there wasn't much of one in the US after the crash. That is because increases in Federal spending were offset by reduced State spending:
Apart from those advantages of the US economy, of course the crucial point is that the US is much less dependent on the Eurozone than we are, and also was less hit by imported inflation from high commodity prices, the two factors which delayed the UK recovery more than had been expected in 2010. It also is less dependent on financial services as a proportion of GDP, so was less badly hit in the first place.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
I think UKIP has sod all to do with evil men doing nasty things. And even if it won power (let alone seats), I doubt they could do much about it.
I also think you might be confusing UKIP with BNP. Don't worry, it is a common mistake.
Yeah but my point was about the political class ignoring it so none of that is relevant.
I hate to tell you of this, but UKIP has MEPs, including relatively high-profile ones.
They are as much the 'political class' as Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the SNP.
Also not relevant to my point.
It was very relevant to the quote: "You think the political class will stop ignoring this before Ukip start winning seats?" which I think you made above.
If you do not agree, please explain: a) Your point. b) How UKIP are *not* the political class. c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Thanks. I agree that Iain Macwhirter is one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists, but that is unlikely to impress 99% of PBers. Most of them neither know nor care about Scottish columnists. Quality ones or otherwise.
That fact, in itself, is an opening of the Iapetus Suture.
The 2% net positive economically is a putaway though... I don't deny the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn. for instance, that business owners are 6% better off because of mass immigration, while working classes are 4% worse off... then the richer folk go home to their unchanged nice areas, where immigrants cannot afford to live, while the working class find their hometowns changing before their eyes to go with the fall in their pay packet
At which point was Osborne right? Seems to me he gave up on his original plan because as Labour said it was unworkable and increased the deficit. Then lengthened the time span and flooded the economy with QE debt.so was he right before changing course, or right once he's listened to sense?
Freggles
You are muddling forecasts and plans.
The fiscal consolidation plan adopted by Osborne in 2010 has remained unchanged.
It was closely based on recommendations made by the OECD and sought to reduce the UK's cyclically adjusted current balance by 1% of GDP per year in real terms with the constant aim of achieving balance within a five year rolling forecast period. This target Osborne and the OBR have called the Primary Fiscal Mandate.
Osborne has sought to achieve the consolidation required by a ratio of tax rises to spending cuts of 20:80. In addition to the primary fiscal mandate Osborne also set a Supplementary Target of reducing Public Sector Net Debt as a proportion of GDP by the end of the 2015-16 Fiscal Year.
At all stages of this parliament Osborne's fiscal management of the economy has operated within the terms of his primary fiscal mandate. This has been confirmed in all periodic OBR EFOs.
The OBR currently forecast that Osborne will not meet his deadline for the Supplementary Target until the 2016-7 Fiscal Year. This deferred date has been brought forward as the economy has started to recover and is likely to further come in before the GE. In determining whether Osborne will meet his Supplementary Target, much will depend on the current accounting reclassification work being done by ONS (in order to comply with updated European Accounting Standards) and the rate of asset sales, mainly shares in the intervened banking groups, achieved before the end of this term.
There were two main discretionary policy decisions taken by Osborne when adopting his fiscal consolidation plan. The overall rate of consolidation which he fixed at 1% per annum (i.e. not at crisis levels like those adopted in the PIIGS countries, but still, in historic terms, high) and the proportion of consolidation to be achieved through tax increases and government spending cuts.
The reason the UK economy is now growing at a rate which exceeds all its partner G7 countries has widely been attributed to Osborne (and the OECD) setting both the consolidation rate and the balance between tax rises and spending cuts at optimal levels.
As to Osborne not meeting the original 2010 OBR forecasts for a range of economic metrics, this is very much of secondary importance. Governments rarely meet five year forecasts as both external and internal economic conditions change beyond their control during the forecast period. It should be noted however that Osborne is coming much closer to meeting such medium term forecasts than prior UK governments, in particular the Brown-Darling fiasco between 2005-10 where the margins of error between original forecast and outcome were at record levels (see OBR spreadsheet on pre-OBR forecasting accuracy http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/pubs/analysis_past_forecasting_perf_291110.pdf ).
What is Labour's next choreographed twitter theme, after visits to Royal Mail sorting offices, snaps from foodbanks, could it be dole queues or lines of kids waiting to see Santa Claus?
It was very relevant to the quote: "You think the political class will stop ignoring this before Ukip start winning seats?" which I think you made above.
If you do not agree, please explain: a) Your point. b) How UKIP are *not* the political class. c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?
The one lesson of all insurgent political movements, is that they are all - ultimately - just political movements run by ordinary politicians.
Anyway calling for 'change', especially if said person has no actual experience of government (Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Barack Obama, etc.) is ultimately going to disappoint. Government is the art of the possible. Those who make promises without understanding the fundamental compromises necessary when reality meets rhetoric are doomed to disappoint.
Should Farage achieve power - which he may well do, I suspect UKIP has more legs than many of its supporters do - then it will disappoint those said supporters terribly. Perhaps in regards to the people's pension; perhaps in regards to farmers' incomes; perhaps in that we are more bound to our European neighbours (through geography and history) than they would like. Those that came over for the (small 'c') social conservatism, and opposition to gay marriage will certainly be disappointed that they will never now be rolled back.
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Thanks. I agree that Iain Macwhirter is one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists, but that is unlikely to impress 99% of PBers. Most of them neither know nor care about Scottish columnists. Quality ones or otherwise.
That fact, in itself, is an opening of the Iapetus Suture.
The 2% net positive economically is a putaway though... I don't deny the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn. for instance, that business owners are 6% better off because of mass immigration, while working classes are 4% worse off... then the richer folk go home to their unchanged nice areas, where immigrants cannot afford to live, while the working class find their hometowns changing before their eyes to go with the fall in their pay packet
Forgive me, but what does 'putaway' mean, please? Unfamiliar term; thanks in advance ...
PM Robert (Bob) Cecil, Marquees of Salisbury, was the uncle to his successor Arthur Balfour - hence "Bob's your Uncle"
Now it is your age that is showing, dear boy
You're right that Salisbury, PM, was the uncle to his successor.
But Salisbury's son, Robert Cecil, was also the KC in 4 Paper Buildings, which was the first set that Attlee worked in as a barrister. Hence, because technically, the Head of Chambers is a primus inter pares, Robert Cecil was Attlee's "leader among peers". There were also - hotly denied - allegations of nepotism (Attlee's father had conncetions with the Chambers) so "Bob's my uncle" might have been an aposite way of describing how he got the job.
But I don't know what Robert Cecil KC's views were on minorities. Perhaps they were similar to his father's, perhaps not.
Gawd help us Charles you are simply wrong.
The question was not only to identify the three parliamentarians but also their shared link.
What was the Marquess of Salisbury's son distinct link to Lord Rosebery or Lord Home ??
"Leader among peers" clearly relates to Attlee's view of Salisbury as the best PM in Attlee's lifetime and also an indirect clue to the three subjects being peers.
Your tenuous "Bob's you uncle" reference is so thin that it doesn't require scrutiny whereas the widely accepted derivation of the term is as I quoted.
And lastly .... but most importantly ....
The referee's decision is final .... especially so when I'm 100% accurate.
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Thanks. I agree that Iain Macwhirter is one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists, but that is unlikely to impress 99% of PBers. Most of them neither know nor care about Scottish columnists. Quality ones or otherwise.
That fact, in itself, is an opening of the Iapetus Suture.
The 2% net positive economically is a putaway though... I don't deny the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn. for instance, that business owners are 6% better off because of mass immigration, while working classes are 4% worse off... then the richer folk go home to their unchanged nice areas, where immigrants cannot afford to live, while the working class find their hometowns changing before their eyes to go with the fall in their pay packet
Forgive me, but what does 'putaway' mean, please? Unfamiliar term; thanks in advance ...
Big UKIP surge coming next year. Can feel it in the waters.
Here are the reasons !
Immigration very high on salience Whole life tariff possibly to be ruled incompatible with EU law Euro Elections Bulgaria and Romania allowed access to these shores.
We had 3 wretched years because of Osborne's failed policies, with metrics across the board worse than he predicted, his own targets missed. So the incoming Labour Government will inherit a big mess, and have to undo some of the most damaging, and most brutal Tory policies within a tighter spending envelope.
You might not agree with it, but its coherent and, I would suggest, a message that might resonate with 2010 Lib and Lab.
If Osborne's policies have failed (it could be argued that the figures show the opposite), then what makes you think that Labour's policies would have been any better?
Witness the NHS in Wales ...
My point was about the next election, not the last one. Labour have the beginnings of a coherent and, possibly, convincing (to the people they need in order to win) story to tell.
That the Government made a mess of the economy for years. That the recovery, when it did finally come, did not benefit most people because of the Government's actions. That, because of the mess they will inherit, they can't spend more than the Govt. But they can, within that envelope, do things better.
So for example freeze energy prices. Raise tax on symbolic thing x (say, reversing the Govt's millionaires tax cut) to pay for reversal of nasty Govt policy y (say, the Bedroom Tax). Fix the mess in the NHS. And so on.
I can understand why Tories would utterly reject all of that as nonsense of the highest order. But remember, PB Tories, Labour neither need nor want your votes!
So can you understand why an overall package along those lines might look attractive to 2010 Labs and 2010 Lib defectors, or does it completely not compute?
"That the Government made a mess of the economy for years."
If by 'Government', you mean the Labour government, then you might have a point.
"Fix the mess in the NHS."
Now I know you're having a joke. Look at today's news about breast cancer patients, and note when it occurred. Also read the PB posts by people in the know within the NHS - the NHs post-Lansley isn't as bleak as you'd try to make out. Besides, the situation in Wales is directly relevant as it is in Labour's control.
Labour supporters might want to set a Year Zero in 2010. Unfortunately, the same people tend to mention 'Fatcher' a great deal, making it seem that certain periods of history are verboten. In particular, those when they f*ck up whilst in power.
Your point would compute if it was not laughable, for the reasons given above and more. Labour cannot just attack the current government,; they need to develop defence lines over their time in power.
If you have an area with a settled population with a roughly balanced number of young males and young females and then you add thousands of extra young men you get this
I think UKIP has sod all to do with evil men doing nasty things. And even if it won power (let alone seats), I doubt they could do much about it.
I also think you might be confusing UKIP with BNP. Don't worry, it is a common mistake.
Yeah but my point was about the political class ignoring it so none of that is relevant.
I hate to tell you of this, but UKIP has MEPs, including relatively high-profile ones.
They are as much the 'political class' as Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the SNP.
Also not relevant to my point.
It was very relevant to the quote: "You think the political class will stop ignoring this before Ukip start winning seats?" which I think you made above.
If you do not agree, please explain: a) Your point. b) How UKIP are *not* the political class. c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?
Westminster seats
and
"c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?"
Exactly the same thing as could be done with the grooming gangs once the political class' wall of silence was broken by the Times.
"Among the sites TalkTalk blocked as "pornographic" was BishUK.com, an award-winning British sex education site, which receives more than a million visits each year.
TalkTalk also lists Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre website as "pornographic.""
We had 3 wretched years because of Osborne's failed policies, with metrics across the board worse than he predicted, his own targets missed. So the incoming Labour Government will inherit a big mess, and have to undo some of the most damaging, and most brutal Tory policies within a tighter spending envelope.
You might not agree with it, but its coherent and, I would suggest, a message that might resonate with 2010 Lib and Lab.
If Osborne's policies have failed (it could be argued that the figures show the opposite), then what makes you think that Labour's policies would have been any better?
Witness the NHS in Wales ...
My point was about the next election, not the last one. Labour have the beginnings of a coherent and, possibly, convincing (to the people they need in order to win) story to tell.
That the Government made a mess of the economy for years. That the recovery, when it did finally come, did not benefit most people because of the Government's actions. That, because of the mess they will inherit, they can't spend more than the Govt. But they can, within that envelope, do things better.
So for example freeze energy prices. Raise tax on symbolic thing x (say, reversing the Govt's millionaires tax cut) to pay for reversal of nasty Govt policy y (say, the Bedroom Tax). Fix the mess in the NHS. And so on.
I can understand why Tories would utterly reject all of that as nonsense of the highest order. But remember, PB Tories, Labour neither need nor want your votes!
So can you understand why an overall package along those lines might look attractive to 2010 Labs and 2010 Lib defectors, or does it completely not compute?
What you are saying, Hugh, is that if Labour lie to its target groups and a sufficient number of people within the groups believe such lies then the party has a chance of securing power.
And now you wonder why Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are not trusted on the economy?
What is Labour's next choreographed twitter theme, after visits to Royal Mail sorting offices, snaps from foodbanks, could it be dole queues or lines of kids waiting to see Santa Claus?
Pictures of them worshipping a blank piece of paper?
Ripping out the pages of any encyclopaedia that mention the years 1997-2010?
Calling anyone who disagrees with them 'stalkers' ?
Comments
Is worth a read
The study finds that the military personnel had served Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Balkans. In many cases the symptoms of stress or depression did not become apparent for many years and included persistent flashbacks, nightmares, an inability to concentrate and paranoia.
http://www.napo.org.uk/about/news/news.cfm/newsid/39
*Napo is the trade union and professional association that represents probation staff including probation officers and other operational and administrative staff and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service staff in the United Kingdom
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html
"Britain's worst gang hit neighbourhoods are seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as in war zones, it was claimed today."
The political class can ignore it and pretend it's not happening but it is.
Where you've got a point is that the difference is in the perception of the person who is getting undercut by globalization: When a job gets moved overseas it's harder for the person who doesn't have it to tell what's going on, because they can't see the person who's now doing it instead of them.
I'm 36 now and admire how they are all so unaffected by it. They are all early to mid twenties. I suppose I was quite gung-ho and immortal when I was younger. I think having children makes the thought of war more alarming, more heart-rending and more affecting to me than it did previously. I can see the horrors of war through the eyes of an innocent child now and it makes me shudder.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/19/ed-balls-shadow-cabinet-money-saving-ideas#show-all
As predicted here by Nabavi (I think). TINO.
I would have thought that people who are attracted to a military job may also be slightly more attracted to crime in the first place. If you like guns ,have no problem about killing others albeit legally (lets be honest you cannot if you are in the army) and want adventure I would say you are more likely than somebody who doesn't like these things to be a criminal.
Is it the army itself or the 'raw material' that lends to higher rates of criminality ,if indeed it does (I am still not sure that 10% figure is not far off the serving proportion of the male population as a whole
The best warbook I have read about Nam, possibly the best warbook ever, was a book called Chickenhawk about a huey pilot in the 5th Cav. He ended up in jail for taking drugs over the border into the US.
What made the book so good was the incredibly vivid descriptions of the terror of flying around in a biscuit tin that was being turned into a collander and the truly amazing things that they did despite this obvious terror.
The drugs part comes out of the blue at the end and the book finished, IIRC, with "to this day I have no idea how I got there."
If you haven't read it I could not recommend it highly enough.
Why is it ok for someone who I am guessing you know well, and is a senior person on the site, to accuse me of cheering an innocent man being shot, when I have never done anything of the sort, and refuse to apologise?
I have proven on this thread that he only made the accusation after I had withdrawn what he claims incited it, and even if I hadn't it was still uncalled for
Can posters go around accusing others of laughing at hideous crimes and get away with it? There are plenty of sick crimes in the news, and plenty of people I disagree with on here... But the level of debate shouldn't descend to crass accusations
Modern Railways seems to be aimed at the profession even more than the serious enthusiast (including the rail user) - judging from the advertisements for one thing. I stopped taking it some years ago when it got too full of legal and accounting stuff, rather then engineering, back when John Major dropped the Great Britain train set on the floor in his horizontal rather than vertical reorganization. If the Stockton and Darlington Railway could learn very early on not to mix users on a single railway ... But I now take the mag again, to read about things like Crossrail engineering (whatever one might think of ever-increasing investment in and around London and to Hades with the rest.). It contains some articles which comprise such things as detailed hatchet jobs on things like the accounting behind Dept of Transport franchising and investment decisions, which might be up your street.
There are at least 600,000 people in Britain who take GCSEs every year - clearly there are some people of the same age who do not take GCSEs, so this will be an underestimate.
This yields a percentage of 3.6% of the population who will have served in the military, which is 7.2% of the male population, though recruitment of women into the armed forces is also rising.
However, since recruitment into the armed forces was much higher in the recent past, it does seem as though a figure of about 10% does not suggest that ex-servicemen are any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
""More than once I heard [Andrew] referred to as Ed's clever brother. He's a modest, cerebral guy, without the pointy elbows of his brother. More thoughtful. More of a markets guy. He always had a modest way of putting his views across. Both are super-clever. Ed is much more political. Andrew is more interested in finding the truth about economics and markets. Ed is always looking for the political angle."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/02/bonds-government-borrowing
You wrote
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
To which I replied
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
I'm off shopping for the rest of the afternoon, so feel free to sit on the outrage bus all on your own,
Please note, one poster made a very unpleasant smear/innuendo against me the same night about the Lee Rigby murder, you don't hear me going on and on about it. I made my reply to that comment that evening, and left it at that.
It's probably a host of things. But it'd be good to know:
a) if the problem of rising infrastructure costs is real, as I think,
b) the scale of the problem, and
c) the causes.
Someone (or some people if wages are a significant component of the problem) is making a great deal of money.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/time-to-look-at-the-motives-behind-immigration-claims.22972321
By one of the very best Scottish newspaper columnists (and one who by the way is at least publicly agnostic on indy yes or no).
This is another area (like positive feeling about the EU) where the Iapetus Suture* between Scotland and England seems to be opening up again, if one takes the rather lower UKIP vote as evidence. On the other hand, it's possible that the Tories ARE the local protest party, the UKIp equivalents ...
*Welding of continental plates back in the Palaeozoic - before that event, Scotland and England were many, many miles apart with a deep ocean in between them
Nam was a horrific read, but I have my suspicions about how much of it was actually, really true. I'm sure Nam was hell. With widespread heroin use, killings and rapings and all sorts of crimes against humanity, but it was really hard to believe all I was reading. Having said that, it was a bestseller, so maybe it was that evil out there!
Re: Gordon Brown. Geez, honestly. I couldn't stand him. I couldn't get my head round the way Labour coronated a man who had behaved so appallingly throughout much of Blair's tenure. To me he was clearly a selfish, tribal, duplicitous and ruthless man, whose desire to carry out public service became clouded and then completely usurped by his jealous craving of power. Couldn't the Labour MPs see it? And when he achieved power, the closet was bare. A Greek Tragedy indeed. But a tragedy for the Labour party and the rest of us too.
There is much you can criticise the Tory party for but if Brown had been a Tory he wouldn't have become PM. The Tory MPs wouldn't have been so craven and cowardly in allowing him to waltz into a job the public never wanted him in.
Oh well.
http://order-order.com/2013/12/19/mcmental-i-saved-the-world-but-no-one-listened/
Warning - reworking by photoshop.
Re: Gordon Brown. Geez, honestly. I couldn't stand him. I couldn't get my head round the way Labour coronated a man who had behaved so appallingly throughout much of Blair's tenure. To me he was clearly a selfish, tribal, duplicitous and ruthless man, whose desire to carry out public service became clouded and then completely usurped by his jealous craving of power. Couldn't the Labour MPs see it? And when he achieved power, the closet was bare. A Greek Tragedy indeed. But a tragedy for the Labour party and the rest of us too.
There is much you can criticise the Tory party for but if Brown had been a Tory he wouldn't have become PM. The Tory MPs wouldn't have been so craven and cowardly in allowing him to waltz into a job the public never wanted him in.
Oh well.
The tory party elected IDS as leader although they thought better of it before an election. There is something about the psychology of political parties that allows misanthropes to thrive and it is not just Labour.
But I agree with the point Mike made earlier. David Miliband's failure to challenge the lunacy that was Brown, even with promised support from Darling, was pathetic and meant that the Labour party chose the right brother for leader.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100251330/booming-london-is-becoming-a-separate-country/
Britain needs to decide how it is to respond as a nation to the move towards city states. Hobbling London would be the stupidest response.
I love London. I'm just glad I don;t live there, yet am near enough to pop in if I want some culture. (*)
(*) Cambridge being a cultural desert. Ahem.
If someone smeared you they should apologise as well. I didn't so I don't see what it has to do with it.
Everyone can now see that you only made the Jean de Menezes remark AFTER I had retracted the lawyer comment....
You relied on a lie.... that you made the Menezes remark in response to the Lawyer comment... so you must admit you were wrong and apologise, if you have decency about you.
Constant cheap smart arse comments aren't going to make me stop demanding an apology though, you can be sure of that
Having made your point perhaps it's best to let it drop now? It's just the internet.
In the foreword Balls writes: "We can expect to inherit plans for further deep cuts to departmental budgets at a time when the deficit will still be large and the national debt rising."
But you have been telling us for nearly 4 years now that the cuts are too far and too fast. So surely the answer is to slow them down. Why do you need ideas for further cuts?
incoherent
That, my friends, is precisely Labour's problem. It's also why ditching Balls wouldn't help: the incoherence would still persist.
There is no way around this, which is why Ed Miliband is trying to shift the narrative onto living standards, and is pretending that energy companies, housebuilders, banks, and 'bankers' (whoever they are) can be raided to supply the largesse which previously Labour said should be provided on the never-never.
Im afraid you think too much of yourself
So I retract my comment regarding Jean Charles de Menenez and offer apologies for upsetting his feelings.
I still maintain his comments the other day are bad and dangerous and as you recanted your ideas regarding defence counsels, you'll eventually recant your other views.
As you're an Arsenal fan
Now let's laugh at AVB who a few months ago said Arsenal were on a negative spiral.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/9906358/Tottenham-Hotspur-v-Arsenal-Andre-Villas-Boas-claims-north-London-derby-could-put-neighbours-in-negative-spin.html
Consider a line drawn under the whole matter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html
I also think you might be confusing UKIP with BNP. Don't worry, it is a common mistake.
I expect that he would do an article on the ONS reclassification issues in the Feb magazine, as the Jan copy is being published this week I think.
They are as much the 'political class' as Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the SNP.
Witness the NHS in Wales ...
The economy is recovering, albeit slowly. Labour have to convince the electorate that they would have achieved the same thing either (a) quicker, or (b) more compassionately. I look forward to seeing them try, given that their dire warnings of doom simply have not come to pass.
In attempting to defend ed you have made yourself equally incoherent.
You are saying the labour will spend more ('undo some of the most damaging and brutal tory policies') whilst....er.....spending less ( ' within a tighter spending envelope').
Until they have such a policy, Balls is safe.
Or just witness Wales. Full stop.
Hugh seems another angry lefty. Osborne was right. Balls was wrong. Labour lack any credibility on macro-economic policy and seem to have no real desire to get there - they are still fundamentally in deficit denial.
(not this is will necessarily have any meaningful difference on GE2015 outcome)
That fact, in itself, is an opening of the Iapetus Suture.
We never had the double or treble dip, we lost AAA with one rating agency but not the other and our debt costs show the UK is still effectively AAA. Employment is growing fast and it has been unequivocally demonstrated that it IS possible to slow spending and see growth.
For sure the spending changes were never the 'austerity' everyone banged on about - but the direction of travel was always correct, even if judging the speed was not always perfect. And the BoE played monetary policy very well, also proving you can cut spending and grow if you have a sensible interest rate / QE policy (disastrously lacking in the Eurozone).
Labour's direction of travel would have been French - and the outcomes too. It was an absolute necessity to evict the evil and horrific Gordon Brown - but we dodged a bullet by not having Balls at NO.11 too.
..
Keynesian stimulus followed by quicker recovery than ours. But of course that doesn't fit the script
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25446374
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2526259/How-NHS-surgeon-able-continue-carry-controversial-breast-cancer-surgeires-xx-years-AFTER-told-stop-Inquiry-women-victims-sue.html Labour supporters should hang their heads in shame. From the radio reports, it looks as though he was allowed to continue because he got results; i.e. met targets.
A side question: how many students would he have trained, or would have observed his procedures, during his time as a surgeon? Surely there is a need to tell bast practice to these people as well, just in case?
I think you're a wee bit confused.
PM Robert (Bob) Cecil, Marquees of Salisbury, was the uncle to his successor Arthur Balfour - hence "Bob's your Uncle"
Now it is your age that is showing, dear boy
You're right that Salisbury, PM, was the uncle to his successor.
But Salisbury's son, Robert Cecil, was also the KC in 4 Paper Buildings, which was the first set that Attlee worked in as a barrister. Hence, because technically, the Head of Chambers is a primus inter pares, Robert Cecil was Attlee's "leader among peers". There were also - hotly denied - allegations of nepotism (Attlee's father had conncetions with the Chambers) so "Bob's my uncle" might have been an aposite way of describing how he got the job.
But I don't know what Robert Cecil KC's views were on minorities. Perhaps they were similar to his father's, perhaps not.
Its a fair point to suggest that Labour deliberately made things as bad as possible(irresponsible spending) (which is why they should never be trusted with the economy) to make things as difficult as possible for the incoming Govt...IMHO it shows how little they care about the citizens of GB PLC).
I think I read somewhere on the Spectator website that Cameron said "The Economy is getting stronger, Labour is getting weaker.
Too true.
Personally I believe the UK's lower QE but higher spending discipline was better and our debt/GDP ratio is alot better than theirs.
That's what Labour did....what they did was bonkers.... not me pointing it out.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/us-fiscal-stimulus-less-what-you-might-think
Apart from those advantages of the US economy, of course the crucial point is that the US is much less dependent on the Eurozone than we are, and also was less hit by imported inflation from high commodity prices, the two factors which delayed the UK recovery more than had been expected in 2010. It also is less dependent on financial services as a proportion of GDP, so was less badly hit in the first place.
What about the economy are people concerned about?
Is it their own salaries, their own debt, interest rates, government spending, government debt, taxes, inflation, GDP growth rate, what exactly?
If you do not agree, please explain:
a) Your point.
b) How UKIP are *not* the political class.
c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?
You are muddling forecasts and plans.
The fiscal consolidation plan adopted by Osborne in 2010 has remained unchanged.
It was closely based on recommendations made by the OECD and sought to reduce the UK's cyclically adjusted current balance by 1% of GDP per year in real terms with the constant aim of achieving balance within a five year rolling forecast period. This target Osborne and the OBR have called the Primary Fiscal Mandate.
Osborne has sought to achieve the consolidation required by a ratio of tax rises to spending cuts of 20:80. In addition to the primary fiscal mandate Osborne also set a Supplementary Target of reducing Public Sector Net Debt as a proportion of GDP by the end of the 2015-16 Fiscal Year.
At all stages of this parliament Osborne's fiscal management of the economy has operated within the terms of his primary fiscal mandate. This has been confirmed in all periodic OBR EFOs.
The OBR currently forecast that Osborne will not meet his deadline for the Supplementary Target until the 2016-7 Fiscal Year. This deferred date has been brought forward as the economy has started to recover and is likely to further come in before the GE. In determining whether Osborne will meet his Supplementary Target, much will depend on the current accounting reclassification work being done by ONS (in order to comply with updated European Accounting Standards) and the rate of asset sales, mainly shares in the intervened banking groups, achieved before the end of this term.
There were two main discretionary policy decisions taken by Osborne when adopting his fiscal consolidation plan. The overall rate of consolidation which he fixed at 1% per annum (i.e. not at crisis levels like those adopted in the PIIGS countries, but still, in historic terms, high) and the proportion of consolidation to be achieved through tax increases and government spending cuts.
The reason the UK economy is now growing at a rate which exceeds all its partner G7 countries has widely been attributed to Osborne (and the OECD) setting both the consolidation rate and the balance between tax rises and spending cuts at optimal levels.
As to Osborne not meeting the original 2010 OBR forecasts for a range of economic metrics, this is very much of secondary importance. Governments rarely meet five year forecasts as both external and internal economic conditions change beyond their control during the forecast period. It should be noted however that Osborne is coming much closer to meeting such medium term forecasts than prior UK governments, in particular the Brown-Darling fiasco between 2005-10 where the margins of error between original forecast and outcome were at record levels (see OBR spreadsheet on pre-OBR forecasting accuracy http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/pubs/analysis_past_forecasting_perf_291110.pdf ).
OED birthday word generator: which words originated in your birth year?
Anyway calling for 'change', especially if said person has no actual experience of government (Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Barack Obama, etc.) is ultimately going to disappoint. Government is the art of the possible. Those who make promises without understanding the fundamental compromises necessary when reality meets rhetoric are doomed to disappoint.
Should Farage achieve power - which he may well do, I suspect UKIP has more legs than many of its supporters do - then it will disappoint those said supporters terribly. Perhaps in regards to the people's pension; perhaps in regards to farmers' incomes; perhaps in that we are more bound to our European neighbours (through geography and history) than they would like. Those that came over for the (small 'c') social conservatism, and opposition to gay marriage will certainly be disappointed that they will never now be rolled back.
The question was not only to identify the three parliamentarians but also their shared link.
What was the Marquess of Salisbury's son distinct link to Lord Rosebery or Lord Home ??
"Leader among peers" clearly relates to Attlee's view of Salisbury as the best PM in Attlee's lifetime and also an indirect clue to the three subjects being peers.
Your tenuous "Bob's you uncle" reference is so thin that it doesn't require scrutiny whereas the widely accepted derivation of the term is as I quoted.
And lastly .... but most importantly ....
The referee's decision is final .... especially so when I'm 100% accurate.
Here are the reasons !
Immigration very high on salience
Whole life tariff possibly to be ruled incompatible with EU law
Euro Elections
Bulgaria and Romania allowed access to these shores.
If by 'Government', you mean the Labour government, then you might have a point.
"Fix the mess in the NHS."
Now I know you're having a joke. Look at today's news about breast cancer patients, and note when it occurred. Also read the PB posts by people in the know within the NHS - the NHs post-Lansley isn't as bleak as you'd try to make out. Besides, the situation in Wales is directly relevant as it is in Labour's control.
Labour supporters might want to set a Year Zero in 2010. Unfortunately, the same people tend to mention 'Fatcher' a great deal, making it seem that certain periods of history are verboten. In particular, those when they f*ck up whilst in power.
Your point would compute if it was not laughable, for the reasons given above and more. Labour cannot just attack the current government,; they need to develop defence lines over their time in power.
and
"c) What you think anyone can do to stop such behaviour from anyone, of any political persuasion or background?"
Exactly the same thing as could be done with the grooming gangs once the political class' wall of silence was broken by the Times.
"Among the sites TalkTalk blocked as "pornographic" was BishUK.com, an award-winning British sex education site, which receives more than a million visits each year.
TalkTalk also lists Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre website as "pornographic.""
And now you wonder why Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are not trusted on the economy?
Ripping out the pages of any encyclopaedia that mention the years 1997-2010?
Calling anyone who disagrees with them 'stalkers' ?
:-)