Appreciation of Downton is a proxy for IQ testing. People with an IQ from 105-135 do not get it (quite seriously, try this on your friends). People with an IQ sub 105 (average to stupid) enjoy it as soap opera, supersmart people (IQ over 135) clearly perceive its uncanny genius.
I am confused. I have an IQ over 135, but I enjoy "Downton Abbey" as a soap. I started watching it about 6 episodes ago (because of the rape episode) and I have watched it since. Before that, I only watched about 1 episode a year or so ago after Bates was arrested for murdering his wife.
Is there something wrong with me? Or is there something wrong with Sean's theory?
His theory is mince, purely there to try and point out how smart he is, NOT
I must admit that even though his theory would apparently mean I am one of the supersmart and I do like Downton, I agree with you. Too often I get the impression of the Emperor's New Clothes about our erstwhile resident author.
The comments on Guido are often hate filled filth, however this hits the nail on the head:
The Tories can’t win in 2015 as 1. No boundary changes 2. UKIP trending at ~ 15% in the polls; they cost the Tories 20 seats in 2010 with 3% of the vote. 3. Pilgrims still in position actively campaigning against the Government of the day using taxpayers money 4. Union education fund is still in place 5. No TU reform allowing Crow and his mob hold us to ransom 6. Tory constituency parties are disintegrating in protest at Cameron’s liberal policies 7. The Tories will lose 7/8 seats along the route of HS2 to single issue candidates 8. The Tories will lose one seat in Portsmouth due to shipbuilding being concentrated in Scotland 9. No control of mass immigration 10. Public spending still out of control and the national debt rising on a daily basis 11. Human Rights Act still in place 12. No referendum on Europe 13. State control of the press introduced 14. Cameron wanted to take us to war in Syria 15. Gay Marriage
Strikes me as a typical kipper frothing piece. No balance, no thoughtfulness.
It was the global banking crisis that broke Britain as everyone believed until the Tories started parroting the lie about Labour's debt crisis (that mysteriously affected the rest of the world) during the Labour leadership contest.
Ho hum. We borrowed when we should have been saving for a rainy day. We moved government debts off balance sheet when we should have consolidated it. We increased state contigent liabilities on benefits and salaries so that when a downturn hit they rocketed. We based taxation of utopian projections of property taxes and banking so that when the finance sector crashed we were the worst exposed. We didn't supervise banks so we then had to bail them out, etc. ad nauseam squared.
And when the mirage disappeared we were left with a smaller industrial base on which to base a recovery, bloated government expenses running at over £100bn a year, the deepeest recession ever and a mountain of debt with nothing to show for it.
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Saw the Desolation of Smaug at the flicks last night and would like to echo TSE’s comment on the subject - damn you Mr Peter ‘cliff hanger’ Jackson...!
PS. Not seen Sherlock yet – no spoilers ‘pretty’ please ; )
Have you noticed both Sherlock and the Desolation of Smaug features lots of Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch.
I did in deed – and the irony of missing Sherlock in order to watch Smaug was not lost either..!
It was the global banking crisis that broke Britain as everyone believed until the Tories started parroting the lie about Labour's debt crisis (that mysteriously affected the rest of the world) during the Labour leadership contest.
Ho hum. We borrowed when we should have been saving for a rainy day. We moved government debts off balance sheet when we should have consolidated it. We increased state contigent liabilities on benefits and salaries so that when a downturn hit they rocketed. We based taxation of utopian projections of property taxes and banking so that when the finance sector crashed we were the worst exposed. We didn't supervise banks so we then had to bail them out, etc. ad nauseam squared.
And when the mirage disappeared we were left with a smaller industrial base on which to base a recovery, bloated government expenses running at over £100bn a year, the deepeest recession ever and a mountain of debt with nothing to show for it.
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
Mr. Freggles, our deficit ballooned to astronomical proportions partly because we were already spending beyond our means. Running a surplus in a boom is not clever.
As for the banking crisis - that is not unrelated to the incompetence of Brown. Behold the marvel of the tri-partite regulatory system, which was proved worthless. Or, indeed, the merger he brokered between HBOS and Lloyds, meaning that 2/4 instead of 2/5 big banks had to be bailed out.
Edited extra bit: in response to your post immediately below mine (Mr. Freggles), you're mixing up debt and deficit.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
Is there not a fairly widespread view amongst right-of-centre opinion formers that public sector workers (other than front line service personnel, obviously) should not have votes?
Not necessarily. We're opposed to Labour voters having the vote.
It was the global banking crisis that broke Britain as everyone believed until the Tories started parroting the lie about Labour's debt crisis (that mysteriously affected the rest of the world) during the Labour leadership contest.
Ho hum. We borrowed when we should have been saving for a rainy day. We moved government debts off balance sheet when we should have consolidated it. We increased state contigent liabilities on benefits and salaries so that when a downturn hit they rocketed. We based taxation of utopian projections of property taxes and banking so that when the finance sector crashed we were the worst exposed. We didn't supervise banks so we then had to bail them out, etc. ad nauseam squared.
And when the mirage disappeared we were left with a smaller industrial base on which to base a recovery, bloated government expenses running at over £100bn a year, the deepeest recession ever and a mountain of debt with nothing to show for it.
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
The full tables show these figures: Lab 43, Con 12, LD 6, Green 6, UKIP 6, Don't know 25, others 3.
The DK % isn't especially high compared with other polls; presenting with them excluded as polls usually do makes it 58/18/8/8. Quite striking, as under the last Government I found that teachers were usually pretty hostile to Labour: they've found that it's possible to be much worse. Digging into the figures, the things that worry them most is cuts to mental health/SEN support. 79% think the Coalition has damaged the education system, compared with a derisory 4% who think it's improved it. and 13% who think it's remained the same. A cautionary note: the VI question comes after all the others, so respondents may have been influenced by the earlier probing (even though neutrally-phrased) on their views of the Coalition education policies.
TGOHF asks what parents think. I've not seen a poll, but doubt if many parents have an overall view - the non-politically motivated parents I know have strong views about the school where their kids go, but little interest in anywhere else.
Another risk for the May bet is that she could be chosen to replace Ashton.
This would kill various birds with one stone as seen from Dave's perspective.
1. Replacing a women with a women 2. Stopping her from contesting the next leadership election 3. Suitable eurosceptic credentials 4. Sufficiently high profile to get a good commisioner's job (eg freedom of movement of people brief)
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
The Hobbit is 320 pages, Lord of the Rings is 1216 pages.
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
"Luciana Berger MP, Labour’s Shadow Public Health Minister, said:
“Millions of people across the country will want to kick-start 2014 by getting fitter and more active.
“There is a real risk however that many people will be put off from keeping to their New Year’s resolutions by soaring gym charges and David Cameron’s failure to tackle the cost-of-living crisis."
It was the global banking crisis that broke Britain as everyone believed until the Tories started parroting the lie about Labour's debt crisis (that mysteriously affected the rest of the world) during the Labour leadership contest.
Ho hum. We borrowed when we should have been saving for a rainy day. We moved government debts off balance sheet when we should have consolidated it. We increased state contigent liabilities on benefits and salaries so that when a downturn hit they rocketed. We based taxation of utopian projections of property taxes and banking so that when the finance sector crashed we were the worst exposed. We didn't supervise banks so we then had to bail them out, etc. ad nauseam squared.
And when the mirage disappeared we were left with a smaller industrial base on which to base a recovery, bloated government expenses running at over £100bn a year, the deepeest recession ever and a mountain of debt with nothing to show for it.
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
Once again conflating debt and the deficit (and also the structural and cyclical aspects of the deficit).
Labour did borrow - and massively. not only did they engage in massive borrowing themselves as a government (using the boomtime conditions to mask the scale of the structural deficit), they also presided over even more massive borrowing from companies and individuals. Naturally, they were happy to benefit from the feelgood factor that came from all the unearned fun. They should have the good grace to accept the responsibility now the bills have arrived.
In any case, there was no consensus about economic policy under Brown. Had there been a Tory government, spending would have grown far more slowly beyond the first few years where budgets had already been set.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
Loved the latest Sherlock last night - even the cheeky bit of clever subliminal marketing when Sherlock was appraising Watson's soon to be fiancé, deducing that she read the Guardian and was "intelligent"....wonder how long before Dacre towers erupts?
You missed some of the other words
“Only Child. Disillusioned Lib Dem. Guardian. Bakes Own Bread.”
Edit:Full disclosure. I may have watched this episode of Sherlock three times already.
Hmmm. I'd have been more impressed if Sherlock had deduced that Watson's fiancé was played by Martin Freeman's real life partner, Amanda Abbington, who declared herself "bankrupt" last year over a £120,000 tax bill but continues to live in affluence with Freeman.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
The Hobbit is 320 pages, Lord of the Rings is 1216 pages.
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
But you're forgetting that the appendixes of the Lord of The Rings are quite substantial, and explain a lot of the events of The Hobbit.
Oh, and it's also now forgotten that the housing bubble, which had long been predicted to burst and cause a recession, did that during the recession but the global crisis gave Labour some cover as the financial aspect of the recession naturally stole all the limelight.
"Luciana Berger MP, Labour’s Shadow Public Health Minister, said:
“Millions of people across the country will want to kick-start 2014 by getting fitter and more active.
“There is a real risk however that many people will be put off from keeping to their New Year’s resolutions by soaring gym charges and David Cameron’s failure to tackle the cost-of-living crisis."
What other NY resolutions are at risk due to the "cost of living crisis" ?
Rising cost of satellite tv putting "dry January" at risk by making the pub look more attractive ?
Reduction in cleaning frequency of smoking shelters in public buildings ?
Corporate tax cuts encouraging chocolate advertising budgets to rise ?
Inspite of reading the article, I'm still all at sea regarding whether it's a bluff, a double bluff, the Emperors New Clothes or the real thing.
Bitcoin is a seriously important technology, especially if you want to bet against Ron Paul supporters.
One question for this site would be who will be the first British politician to accept donations in them. This seems to be the first elected congressman in the US:
It was the global banking crisis that broke Britain as everyone believed until the Tories started parroting the lie about Labour's debt crisis (that mysteriously affected the rest of the world) during the Labour leadership contest.
Ho hum. We borrowed when we should have been saving for a rainy day. We moved government debts off balance sheet when we should have consolidated it. We increased state
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
Not so. Brown pulled a con trick by increasing state debts and borrowing by moving items off balance sheet in wheezes such as PFI. He also didn't undertsand risk management where the deficit will balloon in bad times if you give everyone a big pay rise in the good. The last data showed the UK had a fiscal overshoot of 5.2% of GDP in 2007. That's splurge borrowing by any measure. The fact that it was at the peak of the economic cycle just shows how badly out of kilter we were. But then this was from the economic team who claimed they had killed boom and bust and who denied there was ever a major deficit in the first place.
Yes, Labour ran a deficit - similar to that run by its Tory predecessors. No-one's saying that was "near perfect". But as anyone can see, 2005 was the peak not 2007. It's almost as if some external event caused a debt and deficit crisis in 2008, any guesses on what it might have been?
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
The Hobbit is 320 pages, Lord of the Rings is 1216 pages.
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
As TSE has pointed out the Hobbit film contains a lot of other Middle Earth material from other Tolkein sources. Anyone who has read the book with a critical eye will realise that without this material the book is essentially unfilmable with characters simply wandering off and then reappearing later with no explanation as to where they have been. This does actually work in a book but would not work in a film.
So far the Hobbit films for me have been a wonderful rendition of both the story and the wider Middle Earth world.
Appreciation of Downton is a proxy for IQ testing. People with an IQ from 105-135 do not get it (quite seriously, try this on your friends). People with an IQ sub 105 (average to stupid) enjoy it as soap opera, supersmart people (IQ over 135) clearly perceive its uncanny genius.
I am confused. I have an IQ over 135, but I enjoy "Downton Abbey" as a soap. I started watching it about 6 episodes ago (because of the rape episode) and I have watched it since. Before that, I only watched about 1 episode a year or so ago after Bates was arrested for murdering his wife.
Is there something wrong with me? Or is there something wrong with Sean's theory?
His theory is mince, purely there to try and point out how smart he is, NOT
I must admit that even though his theory would apparently mean I am one of the supersmart and I do like Downton, I agree with you. Too often I get the impression of the Emperor's New Clothes about our erstwhile resident author.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
We're not now though are we (nor we in 2010)? How do you suppose that happened?
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
"Luciana Berger MP, Labour’s Shadow Public Health Minister, said:
“Millions of people across the country will want to kick-start 2014 by getting fitter and more active.
“There is a real risk however that many people will be put off from keeping to their New Year’s resolutions by soaring gym charges and David Cameron’s failure to tackle the cost-of-living crisis."
"A yearly pass now costs £368 on average, an increase of £15 since 2010 - but 48 councils introduced above average hikes" - That's less than 2% p.a increase, so a fall in real terms.
Congrats to the coalition for making gym participation more affordable.
Can't help wondering how many of the people affected by the obesity epidemic are also in the camp that we are told can't afford to feed their family.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
We're not now though are we (nor we in 2010)? How do you suppose that happened?
Because we have closer links to American financial markets and a liberalised, finance based economy.
And yes, that was unwise, but again that was not something the Tories were against.
I also admit that Labour stoked a housing boom. They got a lot wrong, but I don't think any of you honestly believe the Tories wouldn't have acted in much the same way. They might have spent a bit less, but probably would have left the most vulnerable to be even worse off.
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
In summary, Labour were stupid post-2003. The Tories on some evidence might have been marginally less stupid. Treat yourselves to a cookie.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
In summary, Labour were stupid post-2003. The Tories on some evidence might have been marginally less stupid. Treat yourselves to a cookie.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
I agree on everything bar your assertion on what a Con govt may or may not have done post 2003 - it can never be proved either way.
Using a guess at that as a defence for Labour doesn't really cut it. Let's be honest Brown was above critique by the media and by his own party - and that never ends well.
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
In summary, Labour were stupid post-2003. The Tories on some evidence might have been marginally less stupid. Treat yourselves to a cookie.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
I agree on everything bar your assertion on what a Con govt may or may not have done post 2003 - it can never be proved either way.
Using a guess at that as a defence for Labour doesn't really cut it. Let's be honest Brown was above critique by the media and by his own party - and that never ends well.
I'm happy to agree that William Hague wearing a baseball cap and IDS's election contributed to the UK crisis. LOL.
Appreciation of Downton is a proxy for IQ testing. People with an IQ from 105-135 do not get it (quite seriously, try this on your friends). People with an IQ sub 105 (average to stupid) enjoy it as soap opera, supersmart people (IQ over 135) clearly perceive its uncanny genius.
I am confused. I have an IQ over 135, but I enjoy "Downton Abbey" as a soap. I started watching it about 6 episodes ago (because of the rape episode) and I have watched it since. Before that, I only watched about 1 episode a year or so ago after Bates was arrested for murdering his wife.
Is there something wrong with me? Or is there something wrong with Sean's theory?
His theory is mince, purely there to try and point out how smart he is, NOT
I must admit that even though his theory would apparently mean I am one of the supersmart and I do like Downton, I agree with you. Too often I get the impression of the Emperor's New Clothes about our erstwhile resident author.
Well, I dislike Downton Abbey because too much of it is set in Hampstead 2013 rather than Hampshire 1913.
The values, attitudes and behaviours of far too many characters reflect the liberal-left PC mores of today, not what people would have done then. I don't know where that places me on Sean's scale.
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
In summary, Labour were stupid post-2003. The Tories on some evidence might have been marginally less stupid. Treat yourselves to a cookie.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
I agree on everything bar your assertion on what a Con govt may or may not have done post 2003 - it can never be proved either way.
Using a guess at that as a defence for Labour doesn't really cut it. Let's be honest Brown was above critique by the media and by his own party - and that never ends well.
I'm happy to agree that William Hague wearing a baseball cap and IDS's election contributed to the UK crisis. LOL.
Using that logic - Ed being crap is contributing to the Uk's economic recovery
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
In summary, Labour were stupid post-2003. The Tories on some evidence might have been marginally less stupid. Treat yourselves to a cookie.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
I agree on everything bar your assertion on what a Con govt may or may not have done post 2003 - it can never be proved either way.
Using a guess at that as a defence for Labour doesn't really cut it. Let's be honest Brown was above critique by the media and by his own party - and that never ends well.
I'm happy to agree that William Hague wearing a baseball cap and IDS's election contributed to the UK crisis. LOL.
Using that logic - Ed being crap is contributing to the Uk's economic recovery
Not really, he hasn't had a chance to be put to the test yet!
Furthermore let's not hear any counterfactuals about what would have happened if Labour had won in 2010 after all (such as to the NHS) seeing as "it can never be proved either way", deal?
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
FFS, you morons. The Downton IQ thing is a JOKE. Every so often I like to poke earnest lefties and troll bien pensant righties on here (and f*ck the site is a bit duller without tim, it has to be said) by referencing IQ, one of the few subjects guaranteed to get people interestingly spooked. And liven things up.
If you REALLY think I personally believe you can judge someone's IQ by their choice of TV soap opera, then you must have an IQ under 80.
Of course you can. Choice of soap opera reflects class. Class reflects income. Income reflects ability. Ability reflects IQ.
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
Did his recommendations become Tory policy?
Given that he was Shadow Chancellor at the time I suspect they could be considered the official Tory view yes.
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
Did his recommendations become Tory policy?
Given that he was Shadow Chancellor at the time I suspect they could be considered the official Tory view yes.
Too bad we'll never know if he would have made the crisis worse or better.
Off topic, I just avoided the telly tax by declaring truthfully that I don't watch live TV. iPlayer and Netflix are more than enough nowadays. Don't know why more people don't use this option
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
Did his recommendations become Tory policy?
Given that he was Shadow Chancellor at the time I suspect they could be considered the official Tory view yes.
Too bad we'll never know if he would have made the crisis worse or better.
Kind of blows your argument out of the water about no one arguing against Brown though doesn't it.
I need to go and get on with life but I leave you with this, the figures are there for anyone to see: whatever the OECD and IMF said, Britain was within normal parameters for debt and deficit in 2007 compared to similar economies.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
He was the primary cause of how shockingly poorly prepared both the government finances and the financial sector in general were for it though.
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
Yeah, because it was so inevitable that American investment bankers would package up mountains of bad debt into CDOs and get them rated AAA then sold on around the globe. It was all anyone talked about back in the day, "we need to cut our deficit in time for the 2008 global recession!"
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Actually if you go back and look there were plenty of people predicting a crash. It was the idiocy of Brown that he did nothing to hedge against the inevitable. Funnily enough other countries did and they came through the crisis in a far better state than the UK.
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
Did his recommendations become Tory policy?
Given that he was Shadow Chancellor at the time I suspect they could be considered the official Tory view yes.
Too bad we'll never know if he would have made the crisis worse or better.
Kind of blows your argument out of the water about no one arguing against Brown though doesn't it.
Lilley was talking specifically about tripartite regulation was he? Or BoE independence?
My point was about overall spending levels which the Tories committed to following (at least for a few years) rather than banking regulation. Don't pretend the Tories wanted to get off the housing boom bus.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
The Hobbit is 320 pages, Lord of the Rings is 1216 pages.
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
As TSE has pointed out the Hobbit film contains a lot of other Middle Earth material from other Tolkein sources. Anyone who has read the book with a critical eye will realise that without this material the book is essentially unfilmable with characters simply wandering off and then reappearing later with no explanation as to where they have been. This does actually work in a book but would not work in a film.
So far the Hobbit films for me have been a wonderful rendition of both the story and the wider Middle Earth world.
FFS, you morons. The Downton IQ thing is a JOKE. Every so often I like to poke earnest lefties and troll bien pensant righties on here (and f*ck the site is a bit duller without tim, it has to be said) by referencing IQ, one of the few subjects guaranteed to get people interestingly spooked. And liven things up.
If you REALLY think I personally believe you can judge someone's IQ by their choice of TV soap opera, then you must have an IQ under 80.
Of course you can. Choice of soap opera reflects class. Class reflects income. Income reflects ability. Ability reflects IQ.
Some murderers and serious offenders could receive US-style sentences totalling hundreds of years as part of a review of the UK's human rights laws.
The government is considering the plan after a European court ruled in 2013 that whole-life sentences breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 100-year terms would allow prisoners to have their sentences reviewed, satisfying the court.
Prison reform campaigners branded the proposals "dangerous nonsense".
Oh, and it's also now forgotten that the housing bubble, which had long been predicted to burst and cause a recession, did that during the recession but the global crisis gave Labour some cover as the financial aspect of the recession naturally stole all the limelight.
Eh? They were wholly connected events. And unlike in some other countries, Govt policy here has been almost exclusively aimed at preventing the housing crash being as deep as it should have been.
Oh, and it's also now forgotten that the housing bubble, which had long been predicted to burst and cause a recession, did that during the recession but the global crisis gave Labour some cover as the financial aspect of the recession naturally stole all the limelight.
Eh? They were wholly connected events. And unlike in some other countries, Govt policy here has been almost exclusively aimed at preventing the housing crash being as deep as it should have been.
Yes, but as (understandably) no-one was prepared to speak up for incompetent bankers, that meant that incompetent regulators, short-termist governments and imprudent borrowers got away with less of the blame than was deserved as the faulty logic went 'they were to blame therefore I can't have been'.
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
That's a fascinating area. But if you want really weird, then Parys Mountain on Anglesey can't be bettered in the UK, if only for the colours left by decades of copper mining:
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
Called critics of the scheme 'London-centric', according to BBG.
Is he suggesting it IS causing problems in London then? And just because there isn't a bubble in the rest of the country that doesn't mean it's all fine. It may just be that prices haven't hit the natural floor in the provinces.
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
SeanT always comes over as rather a sad little man with a desperate need for attention and approval. His boastful comments day after day can become rather tedious. Other people do not feel the need to do this so why should Sean?
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
Like it or not, it is quite delicious the Guardian proved my thesis by publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article - the very same hour I predicted the Guardian would be publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article.
I may have written the most accurate blog in history, and therefore like Alexander I have no more worlds to conquer, and I will have to retire.
*weeps like Alexander*
If you wanted to weep, surely you should be more like Hannibal.
He cried non stop after the shellacking Scipio gave him at Zama.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
Like it or not, it is quite delicious the Guardian proved my thesis by publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article - the very same hour I predicted the Guardian would be publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article.
I may have written the most accurate blog in history, and therefore like Alexander I have no more worlds to conquer, and I will have to retire.
*weeps like Alexander*
The Grauniad has an unfortunate tendency to duel with the Mail and Express. I read that article as a direct response to the stuff that has been churned out by those two for the last few weeks. The Telegraph has a fixation with the Grauniad. It's all a bit undergrad, rather like the government and opposition frontbenches.
Now that the Times has become a Coalition cheerleader, we do not have a decent newspaper for political coverage in this country. Given the number of papers there are that's a real shame.
Oh, and it's also now forgotten that the housing bubble, which had long been predicted to burst and cause a recession, did that during the recession but the global crisis gave Labour some cover as the financial aspect of the recession naturally stole all the limelight.
Eh? They were wholly connected events. And unlike in some other countries, Govt policy here has been almost exclusively aimed at preventing the housing crash being as deep as it should have been.
Yes, but as (understandably) no-one was prepared to speak up for incompetent bankers, that meant that incompetent regulators, short-termist governments and imprudent borrowers got away with less of the blame than was deserved as the faulty logic went 'they were to blame therefore I can't have been'.
I don't disagree with that. The problem is that one of our major parties has a doctrinaire hatred of regulation in all forms, and the other spent 13 years aping it. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the regulatory framework would have been strengthened or enforced to a greater degree under PM Hague, Howard or Duncan-Smith.
That's a fascinating area. But if you want really weird, then Parys Mountain on Anglesey can't be bettered in the UK, if only for the colours left by decades of copper mining:
China clay's weird stuff especially the fact they use it in magazines.
There's a place called Lochaline on the west coast of Scotland that has the whitest, purest sand you'll ever see. In fact, it looks a bit like china clay from a distance.
Until recently it was mined; the sand is prized for its purity, which makes it ideal for scientific instruments.
It was one of the more surprising finds on my coastal walk.
Last two winners at Southwell: 1.00 -- Sir Geoffrey 3/1 1.30 -- Silly Billy 9/4
Was on 'Only 10 percent' for the 13:00 (Win)
Ultra Du Chatel in the 2:20 at Ayr, Pulpstar?
Yep - I've switched my regular plan down to a fiver seeing as one of the main reasons for it being a tenner was to clear 365's bonus. And the £400 losing run wasn't much fun either ;p. 20 + 8.6 pts profit becomes 40 + 17.2 now anyway. May switch it back up to a tenner if I hit £0 again.
Some murderers and serious offenders could receive US-style sentences totalling hundreds of years as part of a review of the UK's human rights laws.
The government is considering the plan after a European court ruled in 2013 that whole-life sentences breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 100-year terms would allow prisoners to have their sentences reviewed, satisfying the court.
Prison reform campaigners branded the proposals "dangerous nonsense".
The suggestion may or may not be dangerous, but it is certainly specious nonsense. Any sentence which ensures that a person will die in prison without review, what the Strasbourg court terms an irreducible sentence, will be held to violate article 3 ECHR. What it appears that the government is trying to do is to introduce a regular right of review for prisoners who but for the judgment in Vinter would be serving whole life terms, but distract the public with headline-grabbing.
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
Like it or not, it is quite delicious the Guardian proved my thesis by publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article - the very same hour I predicted the Guardian would be publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article.
I may have written the most accurate blog in history, and therefore like Alexander I have no more worlds to conquer, and I will have to retire.
*weeps like Alexander*
The Grauniad has an unfortunate tendency to duel with the Mail and Express. I read that article as a direct response to the stuff that has been churned out by those two for the last few weeks. The Telegraph has a fixation with the Grauniad. It's all a bit undergrad, rather like the government and opposition frontbenches.
Now that the Times has become a Coalition cheerleader, we do not have a decent newspaper for political coverage in this country. Given the number of papers there are that's a real shame.
I've gone off the Times since yesterday's front page story on Schumacher where speeds of 60-100kph were helpfully translated to 37 to 62 mph -- innumerate hacks are one thing but surely the sub-editor should have amended it to 35-60mph.
It is the same lunacy that means lorries trundle up and down our roads just below the speed limit.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
Little chance of a French Maggie - they prefer malaise to reform.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France is a schizophrenic country. It has some superb companies of all sizes and across a much wider range of sectors than us, but it also has a highly destructive addiction to L'etat - and I say this as someone who in UK terms is on the centre left. The Socialists are not losing support to free marketeers, but to the FN which, putting the xenophobia to one side, is all about preserving (even enhancing) the role of the French state. Both Chirac and Sarkozy promised Thatcher-like reform, but ducked taking really hard decisions because they knew that voters would not have it. Instead, they pandered to what has become the highly-destructive notion of French exceptionalism.
^^ Hilarious, but for opposite reasons the author intended.
Taking on the Grauniad, the EU and immigration in one blog - truly SeanT is intent on challenging the assumptions and beliefs of his Telegraph readership. It's brave, uncompromising stuff, that's for sure :-)
Like it or not, it is quite delicious the Guardian proved my thesis by publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article - the very same hour I predicted the Guardian would be publishing a premature, "there is no flood" article.
I may have written the most accurate blog in history, and therefore like Alexander I have no more worlds to conquer, and I will have to retire.
*weeps like Alexander*
If you wanted to weep, surely you should be more like Hannibal.
He cried non stop after the shellacking Scipio gave him at Zama.
Of course the real reason that Alexander wept was not because there were no more worlds to conquer but rather the opposite: there were new worlds to conquer (India stood before him), but his army didn't fancy it and so Alexander threw an almighty strop.
Comments
And when the mirage disappeared we were left with a smaller industrial base on which to base a recovery, bloated government expenses running at over £100bn a year, the deepeest recession ever and a mountain of debt with nothing to show for it.
The UK recession is the deepest and longest as the mess from the noughties was huge. Everyone else is getting out of their crisis banks and all we're just about half way though ours and it went pear shaped between 1997 and 2010.
I did in deed – and the irony of missing Sherlock in order to watch Smaug was not lost either..!
The British government yesterday came closer than ever before to suggesting British membership of the newly launched euro was inevitable.
The Europe minister, Peter Hain, asserted it was not sustainable for sterling to co-exist indefinitely alongside the new European currency.
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/jan/02/euro-eu-currency-uk-sterling
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
As for the banking crisis - that is not unrelated to the incompetence of Brown. Behold the marvel of the tri-partite regulatory system, which was proved worthless. Or, indeed, the merger he brokered between HBOS and Lloyds, meaning that 2/4 instead of 2/5 big banks had to be bailed out.
Edited extra bit: in response to your post immediately below mine (Mr. Freggles), you're mixing up debt and deficit.
From 2001
Brown warned over public spending
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1299583.stm
From 2003
Chancellor Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm
From 2004
OECD warns on UK budget deficit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3412495.stm
Lab 43, Con 12, LD 6, Green 6, UKIP 6, Don't know 25, others 3.
The DK % isn't especially high compared with other polls; presenting with them excluded as polls usually do makes it 58/18/8/8. Quite striking, as under the last Government I found that teachers were usually pretty hostile to Labour: they've found that it's possible to be much worse. Digging into the figures, the things that worry them most is cuts to mental health/SEN support. 79% think the Coalition has damaged the education system, compared with a derisory 4% who think it's improved it. and 13% who think it's remained the same. A cautionary note: the VI question comes after all the others, so respondents may have been influenced by the earlier probing (even though neutrally-phrased) on their views of the Coalition education policies.
TGOHF asks what parents think. I've not seen a poll, but doubt if many parents have an overall view - the non-politically motivated parents I know have strong views about the school where their kids go, but little interest in anywhere else.
Tories 'to cut spending by £16bn'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1319127/Tories-to-cut-spending-by-16bn.html
and in 2005
Labour claims that the Tories will cut £35bn from public spending are again at the centre of the election debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4357741.stm
This would kill various birds with one stone as seen from Dave's perspective.
1. Replacing a women with a women
2. Stopping her from contesting the next leadership election
3. Suitable eurosceptic credentials
4. Sufficiently high profile to get a good commisioner's job (eg freedom of movement of people brief)
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
TGOHF, many thanks for highlighting this point prominently at the start of your post. Beyond parody.
Labour did borrow - and massively. not only did they engage in massive borrowing themselves as a government (using the boomtime conditions to mask the scale of the structural deficit), they also presided over even more massive borrowing from companies and individuals. Naturally, they were happy to benefit from the feelgood factor that came from all the unearned fun. They should have the good grace to accept the responsibility now the bills have arrived.
In any case, there was no consensus about economic policy under Brown. Had there been a Tory government, spending would have grown far more slowly beyond the first few years where budgets had already been set.
Then again, I'm partial to redheads.
Rising cost of satellite tv putting "dry January" at risk by making the pub look more attractive ?
Reduction in cleaning frequency of smoking shelters in public buildings ?
Corporate tax cuts encouraging chocolate advertising budgets to rise ?
A rich seam for Labour to mine here..
One question for this site would be who will be the first British politician to accept donations in them. This seems to be the first elected congressman in the US:
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-stockman-is-accepting-bitcoins-2014-1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9613703/UK-deficit-before-crisis-was-38bn-bigger-than-thought.html
Labour bankrupted the country, not a fantasy, just pure fact.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture
Yes, Labour ran a deficit - similar to that run by its Tory predecessors. No-one's saying that was "near perfect". But as anyone can see, 2005 was the peak not 2007.
It's almost as if some external event caused a debt and deficit crisis in 2008, any guesses on what it might have been?
So far the Hobbit films for me have been a wonderful rendition of both the story and the wider Middle Earth world.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
We're not now though are we (nor we in 2010)? How do you suppose that happened?
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/PublishingImages/hew/2012/Dec/chart1.GIF
Also note that the latest HEW figures last week showed £10Bn of repayment (ie a negative figure).
The more cynical may suggest Labour encouraged this boom in borrowing by the private sector.
I agree that Brown broke his own rules and shouldn't have. That was stupid.
BUT
All of that pales in comparison to the financial crisis that was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street. And yes, the banks should have been better regulated. But that doesn't change the fact that Brown was NOT the primary cause of the crisis, as evidenced by the global recession.
Congrats to the coalition for making gym participation more affordable.
Can't help wondering how many of the people affected by the obesity epidemic are also in the camp that we are told can't afford to feed their family.
And yes, that was unwise, but again that was not something the Tories were against.
I also admit that Labour stoked a housing boom. They got a lot wrong, but I don't think any of you honestly believe the Tories wouldn't have acted in much the same way.
They might have spent a bit less, but probably would have left the most vulnerable to be even worse off.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10542293/Borrowers-remain-cautious-on-mortgage-debts.html
"The Bank of England said mortgage borrowers built up £10.4bn housing equity in the three months to September - extending to five years the period in which homeowners have increased their property equity rather than grow their debts. This data, officially termed "housing equity withdrawal", measures the change in homeowners' collective equity in their property."
In Labour terms that is £10Bn being taken out of the economy...
It's like blaming God for a traffic accident when you've not changed tyres for so long that they've run bald and it then rains.
We should build houses and make stuff and not get in too much debt, agreed?
P.S. SeanT your Borisian fascination with IQ is a little bit creepy.
So much for me getting on with life. I'm fending off the hordes single handedly!
Using a guess at that as a defence for Labour doesn't really cut it. Let's be honest Brown was above critique by the media and by his own party - and that never ends well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25575750
The values, attitudes and behaviours of far too many characters reflect the liberal-left PC mores of today, not what people would have done then. I don't know where that places me on Sean's scale.
Furthermore let's not hear any counterfactuals about what would have happened if Labour had won in 2010 after all (such as to the NHS) seeing as "it can never be proved either way", deal?
And the idea that people were not warning that Brown was leaving us dangerously exposed with his changes to banking regulation is also a myth. Peter Lilley was making just such warnings in Parliament back in 1997.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/006114665X/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
A worthy addendum IMHO.
Hat tip ‘Unenlightened_Commentary’
iPlayer and Netflix are more than enough nowadays. Don't know why more people don't use this option
My point was about overall spending levels which the Tories committed to following (at least for a few years) rather than banking regulation. Don't pretend the Tories wanted to get off the housing boom bus.
Mr Andreou's article has good potential to immigration what http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html was to climate change.
Personally I reckon ~ 150k immigrants this year from Romania/Bulgaria mainly to London. But its very finger in the air stuff.
One for the retro gamers. How do you fancy a Bluetooth keyboard designed to look like a 48k Sinclair ZX Spectrum?
http://bluetoothzxspectrum.elite-systems.co.uk/
The government is considering the plan after a European court ruled in 2013 that whole-life sentences breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 100-year terms would allow prisoners to have their sentences reviewed, satisfying the court.
Prison reform campaigners branded the proposals "dangerous nonsense".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10546792/Donkey-meat-contaminated-by-fox-fears-Walmart.html
England to drop Joe Root
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/10546914/Ashes-2013-14-England-to-drop-Joe-Root-and-pick-Gary-Ballance-alongside-Boyd-Rankin-for-fifth-Test-in-Australia.html
*Nothing to do with me holding a betting slip on the Aussies winning 5 nil
Why 34 yo Carberry gets another chance is beyond me.
Hopefully they'll pick Sam Robson this summer.
I can see England buggering up our betting positions .
Maybe worth betting on England to win this test.
Called critics of the scheme 'London-centric', according to BBG.
Banking Specials - Will the BOE raise the base interest rate from 0.5% before the next election
No 1/3
Yes 9/4
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/1716075/Banking-Specials.html
They defeated us last season, and rumour has it, because of injuries and a lack of squad depth, Brendan may play the kids.
Best price is 28/1 with Victor, but between 24/1 to 20/1 with other bookies if Victor isn't available to you
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/fa-cup/liverpool-v-oldham/winner
Edit: This match is at Fortress Anfield, last season's match was at Oldham.
If I had a big floating rate mortgage, I'd be tempted to have a nibble at that.
Is this a scene from Lord of the Rings? No, these incredible pictures are a disused quarry in WALES
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532070/Is-scene-Lord-Rings-No-incredible-pictures-disused-quarry-WALES.html
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=parys+mountain&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SGfFUr_-CpCjhgeonIC4Bw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=924
(Sorry SeanT, but that mine caused loads of hardship in your native land).
Who is the worst striker to play for Liverpool since Sean Dundee.
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-pmi-2014-1
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
I think some left wing posters should take a look at the thread below the Guardian opinion piece on this too.
Either the debate has moved on, or that paper is suddenly attracting large numbers of fruitcakes and closet racists...
He cried non stop after the shellacking Scipio gave him at Zama.
1.00 -- Sir Geoffrey 3/1
1.30 -- Silly Billy 9/4
Now that the Times has become a Coalition cheerleader, we do not have a decent newspaper for political coverage in this country. Given the number of papers there are that's a real shame.
There's a place called Lochaline on the west coast of Scotland that has the whitest, purest sand you'll ever see. In fact, it looks a bit like china clay from a distance.
Until recently it was mined; the sand is prized for its purity, which makes it ideal for scientific instruments.
It was one of the more surprising finds on my coastal walk.
http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/289085/details/lochaline+silica+sand+mine/
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y235/Section1/swiki/l1/lochalinesandmine02.jpg
http://hopisen.com/?p=6051
He goes over the history of similar things, which makes me think either "counterweight to Ed Balls" or "somewhere to park Ed Balls".
It is the same lunacy that means lorries trundle up and down our roads just below the speed limit.
Looking forward to seeing ECHR enthusiast Sadiq Khan defend the court on this issue.