Did every other f*cker in the country manage to get mis-sold PPI except me.
I feel like I've missed out.
No I am another one. Personally I thought they were a tax on stupidity. It is a bit galling when stupidity is rewarded.
I remember in the mid- 2000s every conversation with my bank resulted in them trying to sell me PPI. Listening to the terms and conditions however, I could see that I wasn't eligible and so I declined.
If Ed is still in position by the GE that may feature......
Carlotta
We need a prediction of a triple dip recession.
Balls is safe on the double dip as it was reinstated in a recent ONS revision to post recession GDP numbers.
I pointed that out to Paul Staines in a tweet last night.
Result? Silence.
I wouldn't bank on the double dip sticking, Ben.
The ONS are revising like a Somerville chemist before Finals. And many of the revisions result from methodology changes, reclassifications and compliance with new accounting standards so anticipate major fluctuations.
The double dip may come and go but you can take comfort that the twin 'eded' dipsticks will stay at least until summer 2015.
Avery , Can you not just say "fiddling the books".They will change methods till they get the number they want, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , why do they just not accept that it is a duck. We had a double dip recession and everyone , even Tories , know it.
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
Did every other f*cker in the country manage to get mis-sold PPI except me.
I feel like I've missed out.
No I am another one. Personally I thought they were a tax on stupidity. It is a bit galling when stupidity is rewarded.
I remember in the mid- 2000s every conversation with my bank resulted in them trying to sell me PPI. Listening to the terms and conditions however, I could see that I wasn't eligible and so I declined.
I did 3 cases in the 2000s when people clearly did qualify and the insurer refused to pay until taken to court.
So not only did they have the problem they had supposedly insured against, they also had a court case with all the anxiety that that causes (especially with me at the wheel). Even I managed to win all 3 cases although in 2 of them the clients took less than they were entitled to in settlement to bring it to an end.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
Personally, I thought the only people from 2013 worth honouring were the three women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers and comforted him as he lay dying. That shows true class and, frankly, does not need some bauble. But if we are to have honours I'd rather it went to fewer and more worthwhile people than now.
I'd add this guy, Dr David Knott, interviewed by Eddie Mair last week. If you listen to any interviews from last year, make it these:
He's worked as a surgeon in a lot of the world's hot spots, Syria for the last couple of years. As you suggest, baubles are probably of miniscule interest to people like this.
If Ed is still in position by the GE that may feature......
Carlotta
We need a prediction of a triple dip recession.
Balls is safe on the double dip as it was reinstated in a recent ONS revision to post recession GDP numbers.
I pointed that out to Paul Staines in a tweet last night.
Result? Silence.
I wouldn't bank on the double dip sticking, Ben.
The ONS are revising like a Somerville chemist before Finals. And many of the revisions result from methodology changes, reclassifications and compliance with new accounting standards so anticipate major fluctuations.
The double dip may come and go but you can take comfort that the twin 'eded' dipsticks will stay at least until summer 2015.
Avery , Can you not just say "fiddling the books".They will change methods till they get the number they want, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , why do they just not accept that it is a duck. We had a double dip recession and everyone , even Tories , know it.
Malcolm.
"Fiddling the books" and getting "a number they want" suggests that the perpetrator is seeking a gain. I don't think this applies to ONS statisticians. It is just Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's original 1955 observations were:
(1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" ;and,
(2) "Officials make work for each other."
This is the ONS at work.
And as for everyone knowing that we had a double dip recession this is a fallacy. Current thinking is that the ONS has understated growth since the recession, this being a convenient way to avoid having to explain why productivity has fallen so dramatically.
So the expectations of pipeline revisions are, in the most part, for upward revisions.
It is only your compatriots idling on rigs in coastal waters that are letting the side down.
If Ed is still in position by the GE that may feature......
Carlotta
We need a prediction of a triple dip recession.
Balls is safe on the double dip as it was reinstated in a recent ONS revision to post recession GDP numbers.
I pointed that out to Paul Staines in a tweet last night.
Result? Silence.
I wouldn't bank on the double dip sticking, Ben.
The ONS are revising like a Somerville chemist before Finals. And many of the revisions result from methodology changes, reclassifications and compliance with new accounting standards so anticipate major fluctuations.
The double dip may come and go but you can take comfort that the twin 'eded' dipsticks will stay at least until summer 2015.
Avery , Can you not just say "fiddling the books".They will change methods till they get the number they want, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , why do they just not accept that it is a duck. We had a double dip recession and everyone , even Tories , know it.
Malcolm.
"Fiddling the books" and getting "a number they want" suggests that the perpetrator is seeking a gain. I don't think this applies to ONS statisticians. It is just Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's original 1955 observations were:
(1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" ;and,
(2) "Officials make work for each other."
This is the ONS at work.
And as for everyone knowing that we had a double dip recession this is a fallacy. Current thinking is that the ONS has understated growth since the recession, this being a convenient way to avoid having to explain why productivity has fallen so dramatically.
So the expectations of pipeline revisions are, in the most part, for upward revisions.
It is only your compatriots idling on rigs in coastal waters that are letting the side down.
Avery, They cover their buttocks by calling it estimates rather than outright fibs manipulated to suit their purpose. If the wind changes direction they revisit their fibs.
Our foreign aid budget is now £11.3 bn. I would find half of the money being allocated to welfare cuts there.
I would use the half you want to cut to place orders with British Companies for items that are required in the deprived world and get the products made and shipped to the needy destination, thus creating employment, business and doing good.
Our foreign aid budget is now £11.3 bn. I would find half of the money being allocated to welfare cuts there.
I fear the LD coalition partners would stamp their feet and cry, at such a suggestion.
These are post election cuts so their views may not matter. If the tories are going into an election promising nothing but more blood sweat and tears this is really where they have to start. It may not be very popular at dinner parties in London but I don't care. In fact that might be a positive benefit.
Personally, I thought the only people from 2013 worth honouring were the three women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers and comforted him as he lay dying. That shows true class and, frankly, does not need some bauble. But if we are to have honours I'd rather it went to fewer and more worthwhile people than now.
I'd add this guy, Dr David Knott, interviewed by Eddie Mair last week. If you listen to any interviews from last year, make it these:
He's worked as a surgeon in a lot of the world's hot spots, Syria for the last couple of years. As you suggest, baubles are probably of miniscule interest to people like this.
As well as possibly being a danger to him in his work, if he is deemed to be officially linked in any way to the UK Gmt?
On a more personal level, some of us tend to the philosophy of Rabbie Burns on this (The rank is but the guinea's stamp/The man's the gowd for a that). I gather that the trouble is that even the most self-respecting person can find it difficult to refuse an award if it is seen (by that person or others) to cast badly needed lustre upon your employer, university or other organization such as the overall body for Morris Dancing (a most laudable activity in my opinion, BTW, and a fine background to a pint of ale outside a Dorset pub).
Our foreign aid budget is now £11.3 bn. I would find half of the money being allocated to welfare cuts there.
I fear the LD coalition partners would stamp their feet and cry, at such a suggestion.
It would also breach the Conservative party manifesto commitment.
Which shows how stupid manifestos are that cover all sorts of minor detail. It should be a matter for the individual candidate to set out a view and local voters to make a choice.
Personally, I thought the only people from 2013 worth honouring were the three women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers and comforted him as he lay dying. That shows true class and, frankly, does not need some bauble. But if we are to have honours I'd rather it went to fewer and more worthwhile people than now.
I'd add this guy, Dr David Knott, interviewed by Eddie Mair last week. If you listen to any interviews from last year, make it these:
He's worked as a surgeon in a lot of the world's hot spots, Syria for the last couple of years. As you suggest, baubles are probably of miniscule interest to people like this.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
I suppose that the people who most deserve honours are those who are least concerned about being given them.
Ed Miliband is turning off voters by forcing MPs into a "torturous repetition of political mantras" such as the party's "One Nation" slogan, one of his backbenchers has warned.
Repeatedly "parroting" phrases and using "vacuous sloganeering" causes people to switch off from politics and ultimately stay away from the ballot box on election day, Simon Danczuk said.
Increasing overseas aid whilst cutting at home was always going to be tricky.
Maybe you are right. I wonder what might happen if Farage pledged to slash the overseas aid budget in half, however.
What if Farage phased it like this;-
"The foreign aid budget is 12bn a year and most of this is developement aid, only about 250m is actually feeding starving people etc.
Therefore we plan to cut the forign aid budget buy 11bn, this still leaves plenty for helping the deserving but also allows us to reduce income tax by 2 pence in the pound for every working person."
Plenty of non voters, and tory and labour waiverers would sit up and take notice.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
I suppose that the people who most deserve honours are those who are least concerned about being given them.
And some of those who are least concerned about them may have been offered one and turned it down.
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
I suppose that the people who most deserve honours are those who are least concerned about being given them.
And some of those who are least concerned about them may have been offered one and turned it down.
Although the honours system is abused and dumbed down nowadays it is not as serious as the abuse that happens in appointees to the House of Lords who can actually then get to vote and claim 'expenses' for it
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
I suppose that the people who most deserve honours are those who are least concerned about being given them.
There was a fantastic comic strip in Viz about a decade or so ago called "Donald Sinden in 'There Goes My Knighthood' " in which Sinden ends up masturbating while sitting in a bucket of pig shite wearing a Nazi t-shirt saying "F*ck off out of it you blasted queen!"" while Her Maj is watching from the Royal box
@isam A few years ago there was a theory in the US that the presidential candidate with the most luxuriant hair always won. That has been debunked since John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney all lost to less follically-blessed rivals. So perhaps Mr Cameron should go for the short back and sides and polish on top?
Disclosure of interest: I'm currently sporting a number one, as usual.
He should go for the Walter White look. Shave off his hair, and grow a really evil looking moustached and beard.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
FWIW what I would do is make the Overseas Aid budget 6bn quid but allocate ALL of it to Emergency Response - so basically there would be minimal regular spending on a day to day basis, but every time a Philippines typhoon or similar came along when people were genuinely in need of help the UK would pile in with cash and significant actual help (tents, food, medicines, blankets etc) ready to roll at a moment's notice. How much would it cost to set up a few ER hubs and ready to go teams? (ALOT less than 11bn!). We'd spend alot less and do much more for our international image.
I can't comment on the detail of the Mirror story but my first thought is that this reinforces the image of a man who is in politics first and foremost to serve his mates and their interests. Maybe Dave's hairdresser was born on a council estate or from some small mining village in the north. The background doesn't really matter, it just looks like another tale of the chumocracy in action.
Very good discussion on immigration on Daily Politics, have to say Charles Kennedy is so much more respectful of opinions different to his own than most politicians I have seen.
Nick Robinsons programme at 930pm tonight looks worth watching, "The Truth About Immigration"
I'd change the honours system. The basic idea is good, but too often those who already have rewards for their work (money, wealth, bulletproof pension) get gongs too. Volunteers, charity workers, people who are exceptionally brave (the women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers, for example), the military and those who make exceptional contributions, particularly in fields like science, should get them.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
I suppose that the people who most deserve honours are those who are least concerned about being given them.
And some of those who are least concerned about them may have been offered one and turned it down.
Although the honours system is abused and dumbed down nowadays it is not as serious as the abuse that happens in appointees to the House of Lords who can actually then get to vote and claim 'expenses' for it
As for overseas aid I do not mind the actual amount spent personally . I am suspicious of what it is spent on (or whose pockets it ultimately ends in after trickle 'up' bribes and fees) . I hope and expect the UK government is sincere when it says it does go to the right people
Very good discussion on immigration on Daily Politics, have to say Charles Kennedy is so much more respectful of opinions different to his own than most politicians I have seen.
Nick Robinsons programme at 930pm tonight looks worth watching, "The Truth About Immigration"
Remains to be seen how that goes - but Isn't he about 5 years too late?
Very good discussion on immigration on Daily Politics, have to say Charles Kennedy is so much more respectful of opinions different to his own than most politicians I have seen.
Nick Robinsons programme at 930pm tonight looks worth watching, "The Truth About Immigration"
I know OGH is no fan and Kennedy may have or had 'issues' of one sort or another but as a political communicator he is a class act. Not many, if any, of the current generation on the same level as him. He's been around a long time but it's strange to think he's a man now in his mid-fifties.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
I agree with that. There is no merit in borrowing money to be charitable.
What irritates me is the comment "so you'd balance the budget on the backs of the world's poorest" - the worst kind of emotional blackmail. A government's primary responsbility is towards its own citizens, not towards humanity in general.
As for overseas aid I do not mind the actual amount spent personally . I am suspicious of what it is spent on (or whose pockets it ultimately ends in after trickle 'up' bribes and fees) . I hope and expect the UK government is sincere when it says it does go to the right people
Is there any reason for not thinking that it's what it always was i.e. a way of supporting Swiss and UK banks via 3rd world politicians?
Just about the first of the mainstream forecasters to think that the UK should hit 3%. It is encouraging that the trend in forecasts is still up although I suspect this trend will come to an end fairly shortly. They are even more optimistic about the fall in unemployment than the BoE although they too are expecting a pick up in productivity.
A Populus poll of 4,071 British adults has found that more than half (55%) are more inclined to agree that, on the whole, immigration into Britain is a bad thing for the country, rather than a good thing.
KP was the best of our top order in Aus (Not that that means much)...
If either him or Flower had to go I'd choose Flower.
I'd tell the South African show pony to do one.
I've still not forgiven him for his betrayal of Andrew Strauss.
The most despicable betrayal in this country since Donald MacLean started to learn Russian.
Captain Cook is the problem. I saw it even here when we won 3-0.
Dreadfully defensive fields Slow over rates - I know that doesn;'t really often affect the match but it's dire to watch England get through 11 overs an hour bowling. No momentum in the batting, happy to pootle at 1-2 runs an over at times. That's fine if you can bat for 2 days but fat chance of that recently. Immediate thought is how can we not lose this game. Pup always focussed on the win. A massive mentality diffrerence.
The Oval test was the best example of these differences, although the Aussies were saved by Dar's light meter - they tried to WIN that game.Cook would have just batted out for the draw. A dire negative captain who needs to focus on being the rock at the top of the order that he should be.
On honours, I don't think I know any one who has ever received one. I think the ex head of our fire authority had something, but can't remember what. The likes of Ken Knight get them, but people like him and the head of the fire authority are politicians anyway.
KP was the best of our top order in Aus (Not that that means much)...
If either him or Flower had to go I'd choose Flower.
I'd tell the South African show pony to do one.
I've still not forgiven him for his betrayal of Andrew Strauss.
The most despicable betrayal in this country since Donald MacLean started to learn Russian.
Captain Cook is the problem. I saw it even here when we won 3-0.
Dreadfully defensive fields Slow over rates - I know that doesn;'t really often affect the match but it's dire to watch England get through 11 overs an hour bowling. No momentum in the batting, happy to pootle at 1-2 runs an over at times. That's fine if you can bat for 2 days but fat chance of that recently. Immediate thought is how can we not lose this game. Pup always focussed on the win. A massive mentality diffrerence.
The Oval test was the best example of these differences, although the Aussies were saved by Dar's light meter - they tried to WIN that game.Cook would have just batted out for the draw. A dire negative captain who needs to focus on being the rock at the top of the order that he should be.
Cook gets unfair criticism, remember the criticism he got for being defensive in the New Zealand match, but we won.
That said, I'd replace Cook as Captain, so he can focus upon his batting.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
I think this is almost entirely misguided. The vast majority of UK foreign aid has nothing to do with Cameron strutting the world stage - it's used to help people to whom hardship as usually defined in Britain sounds like an impossible dream. It's bad enough that Osborne wants to finance tax cuts at the expense of poor people in Britain, without extending it to virtually starving people abroad.
KP was the best of our top order in Aus (Not that that means much)...
If either him or Flower had to go I'd choose Flower.
I'd tell the South African show pony to do one.
I've still not forgiven him for his betrayal of Andrew Strauss.
The most despicable betrayal in this country since Donald MacLean started to learn Russian.
But TSE, the problem is not technical skills or ability, it is man management and morale.
If England are to stick with Captain Cook then they need to address the psychology bits by replacing Flower. A Brearley type is needed, one who can get the best out of all of Cook, KP and the rest of the team.
Vaughan was suggesting Collingwood but more as an assistant to Flower than a replacement.
Any suggestions from those who know the cricket world?
David Cameron's enthusiasm for overseas aid has absolutely nothing to do either with the detox strategy, a metropolitan world-view, dinner-parties in Notting Hill, or attracting voters from the left. It arises, very simply, from the paternalistic tradition of many old-style Conservatives, of which he is a classic example.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
FWIW what I would do is make the Overseas Aid budget 6bn quid but allocate ALL of it to Emergency Response - so basically there would be minimal regular spending on a day to day basis, but every time a Philippines typhoon or similar came along when people were genuinely in need of help the UK would pile in with cash and significant actual help (tents, food, medicines, blankets etc) ready to roll at a moment's notice. How much would it cost to set up a few ER hubs and ready to go teams? (ALOT less than 11bn!). We'd spend alot less and do much more for our international image.
Easier said than done. We already have the UK Fire Service International Search and Rescue Team, ready to go in under 24 hours. Its finding a plane to transport the personnel and equipment that is the trouble!
Now Tom Watson is on talking about FOBT's... great DP today!
Im torn whether these machines should be banned, or whether it is the people that play thems stupidity that needs sorting... I was "addicted" to fruit machines as a teenager, despite knowing you couldn't win.. you learn through your pocket
David Cameron's enthusiasm for overseas aid has absolutely nothing to do either with the detox strategy, a metropolitan world-view, dinner-parties in Notting Hill, or attracting voters from the left. It arises, very simply, from the paternalistic tradition of many old-style Conservatives, of which he is a classic example.
Absolutely, Richard.
Getting Cameron to reduce international aid would be as difficult as persuading Charles to drop his charitable work.
On this issue, Cameron's views will be identical to Nick Palmer's, who is a bit of an "old-school" labourite himself.
KP was the best of our top order in Aus (Not that that means much)...
If either him or Flower had to go I'd choose Flower.
I'd tell the South African show pony to do one.
I've still not forgiven him for his betrayal of Andrew Strauss.
The most despicable betrayal in this country since Donald MacLean started to learn Russian.
But TSE, the problem is not technical skills or ability, it is man management and morale.
If England are to stick with Captain Cook then they need to address the psychology bits by replacing Flower. A Brearley type is needed, one who can get the best out of all of Cook, KP and the rest of the team.
Vaughan was suggesting Collingwood but more as an assistant to Flower than a replacement.
Any suggestions from those who know the cricket world?
Brearley was never a coach (or a decent Batsman) just a very good captain.
What we need is someone like Kim Jong-Un in charge of England cricket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
I think this is almost entirely misguided. The vast majority of UK foreign aid has nothing to do with Cameron strutting the world stage - it's used to help people to whom hardship as usually defined in Britain sounds like an impossible dream. It's bad enough that Osborne wants to finance tax cuts at the expense of poor people in Britain, without extending it to virtually starving people abroad.
Who is financing tax cuts? We are trying to eliminate a massive structural deficit. the tax burden has not fallen through this Parliament and is unlikely to fall in the next. It has been switched to some extent from the poor to the rich but presumably you approve of that (as do I).
You are offering a false choice. The real choices are (a) we cut welfare spending by £12bn causing real hardship for many of our fellow citizens who are not well off (b) we cut foreign aid spending until the deficit is eliminated and we are paying our way again (c) we increase taxes and hope that this does not prove self defeating by damaging the economy or (d) we cut something else.
Suggestions are welcome but all I see from Labour are promises (or aspirations) to replace spending that has been cut and aspirations to spend more.
Bit far away yet and things may change, but can anyone tell me how West Indies can POSSIBLY be shorter price than New Zealand for the cricket world cup ?
Bit far away yet and things may change, but can anyone tell me how West Indies can POSSIBLY be shorter price than New Zealand for the cricket world cup ?
'Cause the Windies are good at one day cricket, they also be the reigning world t20 champions.
Bit far away yet and things may change, but can anyone tell me how West Indies can POSSIBLY be shorter price than New Zealand for the cricket world cup ?
'Cause the Windies are good at one day cricket, they also be the reigning world t20 champions.
I'm trying to square that circle with what I watched after England had been routed in the last test. (They were playing New Zealand), and were thrashed.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
FWIW what I would do is make the Overseas Aid budget 6bn quid but allocate ALL of it to Emergency Response - so basically there would be minimal regular spending on a day to day basis, but every time a Philippines typhoon or similar came along when people were genuinely in need of help the UK would pile in with cash and significant actual help (tents, food, medicines, blankets etc) ready to roll at a moment's notice. How much would it cost to set up a few ER hubs and ready to go teams? (ALOT less than 11bn!). We'd spend alot less and do much more for our international image.
Easier said than done. We already have the UK Fire Service International Search and Rescue Team, ready to go in under 24 hours. Its finding a plane to transport the personnel and equipment that is the trouble!
How many planes would you get for 6bn quid? A few! Shit, we could add a few hercs to the defense budget but require the MoD to prioritise ER except in times of war and remove the Overseas Aid budget altogether then.
Now Tom Watson is on talking about FOBT's... great DP today!
Im torn whether these machines should be banned, or whether it is the people that play thems stupidity that needs sorting... I was "addicted" to fruit machines as a teenager, despite knowing you couldn't win.. you learn through your pocket
The crucial difference is that you could not lose £100s an hour on fruit machines.
Labour might still be in power if these were banned (or if they'd never allowed them in the first place) as by sucking money out of the economy and families, they are deflationary and mean that families and whole areas are worse off. Whether the personal micro-economies of Conservative supporters is as affected is open to doubt.
Satellite television and mobile phone subscriptions were probably the equivalent for Conservatives in 1997s -- leaving so little for "fun" discretionary spending that people felt worse off than the Treasury statisticians claimed they ought to be.
Bit far away yet and things may change, but can anyone tell me how West Indies can POSSIBLY be shorter price than New Zealand for the cricket world cup ?
'Cause the Windies are good at one day cricket, they also be the reigning world t20 champions.
Chris Gayle is phenomenal... The rest of the Windies team are mediocre at best. In T20 terms they are pretty much the definition of a One-Man Team.
I thought foreign aid was an expensive way of giving subsidies to businesses in marginal seats. So, we give money to Sierre Leone, which then decides it desparately needs to spend half the money on new mobile phone masks from a company that happens to be in Eastleigh.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
FWIW what I would do is make the Overseas Aid budget 6bn quid but allocate ALL of it to Emergency Response - so basically there would be minimal regular spending on a day to day basis, but every time a Philippines typhoon or similar came along when people were genuinely in need of help the UK would pile in with cash and significant actual help (tents, food, medicines, blankets etc) ready to roll at a moment's notice. How much would it cost to set up a few ER hubs and ready to go teams? (ALOT less than 11bn!). We'd spend alot less and do much more for our international image.
Easier said than done. We already have the UK Fire Service International Search and Rescue Team, ready to go in under 24 hours. Its finding a plane to transport the personnel and equipment that is the trouble!
How many planes would you get for 6bn quid? A few! Shit, we could add a few hercs to the defense budget but require the MoD to prioritise ER except in times of war and remove the Overseas Aid budget altogether then.
How many planes? Probably none, but a big fat MoD contract for BAe to design something for delivery in 2050.
I thought foreign aid was an expensive way of giving subsidies to businesses in marginal seats. So, we give money to Sierre Leone, which then decides it desparately needs to spend half the money on new mobile phone masks from a company that happens to be in Eastleigh.
Or they could buy those masts from china. There is absolubtely no obligation on them to spend the cash we give them back with UK companies.
You indicate that it is a marginal argument with the word 'expensive' but it might not even subsidise British business, let alone those in key marginals !
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
Sad but true. And I don't think it got him an extra vote for the party either since bleeding heart types will vote for lefty parties even if Pol Pot was in charge.
I think you'll find it is Dave more than anyone else who thinks spending 11bn quid on foreign aid is a fine idea. It reinforces his image of Britain as a great and magnanimous benefactor and his own self-image as a statesman. That it is a colossal waste of money we haven't got doesn't really occur to him. It's not his money. Which is why I don't think Dave is really a conservative. He's all a bit bien-pensant right-on metrosexual. He lacks the simple instinctive journey to a correct intellectual outcome that Maggie or Farage might make: '11bn quid to buy corrupt Johnny Foreigner dictators a new Merc? Up yer bum!'
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
I think it was an important part of the detox strategy. But the timing was terrible. When we are running a surplus no doubt foreign aid can be looked at again. At the moment I would not want hundreds of thousands of people in this country to suffer hardship so our leaders can strut the world stage.
FWIW what I would do is make the Overseas Aid budget 6bn quid but allocate ALL of it to Emergency Response - so basically there would be minimal regular spending on a day to day basis, but every time a Philippines typhoon or similar came along when people were genuinely in need of help the UK would pile in with cash and significant actual help (tents, food, medicines, blankets etc) ready to roll at a moment's notice. How much would it cost to set up a few ER hubs and ready to go teams? (ALOT less than 11bn!). We'd spend alot less and do much more for our international image.
Easier said than done. We already have the UK Fire Service International Search and Rescue Team, ready to go in under 24 hours. Its finding a plane to transport the personnel and equipment that is the trouble!
How many planes would you get for 6bn quid? A few! Shit, we could add a few hercs to the defense budget but require the MoD to prioritise ER except in times of war and remove the Overseas Aid budget altogether then.
How many planes? Probably none, but a big fat MoD contract for BAe to design something for delivery in 2050.
Indeed - if you allow a weasel bullshit politican to design it that way. We could just go to the manufacturers / second hand market and say: 'I've got 1bn quid to spend - how many Chinooks or Hercules or Antonovs in excellent nick can you sell me?'
I thought foreign aid was an expensive way of giving subsidies to businesses in marginal seats. So, we give money to Sierre Leone, which then decides it desparately needs to spend half the money on new mobile phone masks from a company that happens to be in Eastleigh.
Or they could buy those masts from china. There is absolubtely no obligation on them to spend the cash we give them back with UK companies.
You indicate that it is a marginal argument with the word 'expensive' but it might not even subsidise British business, let alone those in key marginals !
Incredibly given the foreign reserves China have ,don't we still give aid to China? Or at least we did until very recently
I think people would have more confidence in spending on overseas aid if the department stated how much it spent on what country and on what (and then show a tangible result from each amount spent). They may do so but I ,who keeps a closer eye I think on Government spending than your average joe have never seen such analysis
Bit far away yet and things may change, but can anyone tell me how West Indies can POSSIBLY be shorter price than New Zealand for the cricket world cup ?
'Cause the Windies are good at one day cricket, they also be the reigning world t20 champions.
I'm trying to square that circle with what I watched after England had been routed in the last test. (They were playing New Zealand), and were thrashed.
No Gayle, and Duckworth-Lewis shafts you when you lose both openers for ducks.
I thought foreign aid was an expensive way of giving subsidies to businesses in marginal seats. So, we give money to Sierre Leone, which then decides it desparately needs to spend half the money on new mobile phone masks from a company that happens to be in Eastleigh.
Or they could buy those masts from china. There is absolubtely no obligation on them to spend the cash we give them back with UK companies.
You indicate that it is a marginal argument with the word 'expensive' but it might not even subsidise British business, let alone those in key marginals !
Incredibly given the foreign reserves China have ,don't we still give aid to China? Or at least we did until very recently
Actually now I remember the Chinese are very much in Africa, improving lives of African people. Making money out of the deal too. Lots of money !
Is our "aid" as lucrative as the Chinese-African relationship ? If it is a massive PR exercise needs to be done...
Comments
Picture of Lino Carbosiero
This man has just won an MBE, what service does he provide for the Prime Minister?
(a) Chef
(b) Security Guard
(c) Hairdresser
(d) Ski instructor
OGH vindicated for this thread in my eyes
I remember in the mid- 2000s every conversation with my bank resulted in them trying to sell me PPI. Listening to the terms and conditions however, I could see that I wasn't eligible and so I declined.
Fewer celebrities, politicians and civil servants should get them.
And more morris dancers should.
An apparently trivial thing with some traction. Good call, Mike.
So not only did they have the problem they had supposedly insured against, they also had a court case with all the anxiety that that causes (especially with me at the wheel). Even I managed to win all 3 cases although in 2 of them the clients took less than they were entitled to in settlement to bring it to an end.
Anyone offering me PPI after that got laughed at.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/07/boris-johnson-public-sector-spending-cuts-clegg-prophylactic
http://tinyurl.com/n5smxt9
http://tinyurl.com/ocn75cy
He's worked as a surgeon in a lot of the world's hot spots, Syria for the last couple of years. As you suggest, baubles are probably of miniscule interest to people like this.
"Fiddling the books" and getting "a number they want" suggests that the perpetrator is seeking a gain. I don't think this applies to ONS statisticians. It is just Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's original 1955 observations were:
(1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" ;and,
(2) "Officials make work for each other."
This is the ONS at work.
And as for everyone knowing that we had a double dip recession this is a fallacy. Current thinking is that the ONS has understated growth since the recession, this being a convenient way to avoid having to explain why productivity has fallen so dramatically.
So the expectations of pipeline revisions are, in the most part, for upward revisions.
It is only your compatriots idling on rigs in coastal waters that are letting the side down.
http://bit.ly/1aDGBrB
I hear only loud contented snoring.
I believe the photo was by Roger.
Now all we need to do is wait for the great one to post and we will find out who the girlfriend is.
What did you make of 'The Book Thief' and Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine?
On a more personal level, some of us tend to the philosophy of Rabbie Burns on this (The rank is but the guinea's stamp/The man's the gowd for a that). I gather that the trouble is that even the most self-respecting person can find it difficult to refuse an award if it is seen (by that person or others) to cast badly needed lustre upon your employer, university or other organization such as the overall body for Morris Dancing (a most laudable activity in my opinion, BTW, and a fine background to a pint of ale outside a Dorset pub).
Sounds like an exceptional chap.
His image with his metrosexual buddies of the international stage matter more to him than the 11bn quid hole in our pocket.
Ed Miliband is turning off voters by forcing MPs into a "torturous repetition of political mantras" such as the party's "One Nation" slogan, one of his backbenchers has warned.
Repeatedly "parroting" phrases and using "vacuous sloganeering" causes people to switch off from politics and ultimately stay away from the ballot box on election day, Simon Danczuk said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/07/ed-miliband-simon-danczuk_n_4553872.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
"The foreign aid budget is 12bn a year and most of this is developement aid, only about 250m is actually feeding starving people etc.
Therefore we plan to cut the forign aid budget buy 11bn, this still leaves plenty for helping the deserving but also allows us to reduce income tax by 2 pence in the pound for every working person."
Plenty of non voters, and tory and labour waiverers would sit up and take notice.
The reason for the popularity of UKIP, in a nutshell.
You should stop wandering the streets of London carrying a hairdresser's mirror.
Andy Flower may quit as England team director if Kevin Pietersen plays on
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/07/andy-flower-england-team-director-kevin-pietersen
Nick Robinsons programme at 930pm tonight looks worth watching, "The Truth About Immigration"
If either him or Flower had to go I'd choose Flower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours
I've still not forgiven him for his betrayal of Andrew Strauss.
The most despicable betrayal in this country since Donald MacLean started to learn Russian.
Remains to be seen how that goes - but Isn't he about 5 years too late?
What irritates me is the comment "so you'd balance the budget on the backs of the world's poorest" - the worst kind of emotional blackmail. A government's primary responsbility is towards its own citizens, not towards humanity in general.
Just about the first of the mainstream forecasters to think that the UK should hit 3%. It is encouraging that the trend in forecasts is still up although I suspect this trend will come to an end fairly shortly.
They are even more optimistic about the fall in unemployment than the BoE although they too are expecting a pick up in productivity.
http://www.populus.co.uk/?post_type=item&p=2560&preview=true
Dreadfully defensive fields
Slow over rates - I know that doesn;'t really often affect the match but it's dire to watch England get through 11 overs an hour bowling.
No momentum in the batting, happy to pootle at 1-2 runs an over at times. That's fine if you can bat for 2 days but fat chance of that recently.
Immediate thought is how can we not lose this game. Pup always focussed on the win. A massive mentality diffrerence.
The Oval test was the best example of these differences, although the Aussies were saved by Dar's light meter - they tried to WIN that game.Cook would have just batted out for the draw. A dire negative captain who needs to focus on being the rock at the top of the order that he should be.
That said, I'd replace Cook as Captain, so he can focus upon his batting.
Wouldn't have a decision to make were I in charge!
If England are to stick with Captain Cook then they need to address the psychology bits by replacing Flower. A Brearley type is needed, one who can get the best out of all of Cook, KP and the rest of the team.
Vaughan was suggesting Collingwood but more as an assistant to Flower than a replacement.
Any suggestions from those who know the cricket world?
You have been warned
The Sunday People @thesundaypeople 9m
Ever wondered what happens when politicians adopt the hairdos of their partners? YES YOU HAVE - STOP LYING.
http://bit.ly/leaderhairswap
Im torn whether these machines should be banned, or whether it is the people that play thems stupidity that needs sorting... I was "addicted" to fruit machines as a teenager, despite knowing you couldn't win.. you learn through your pocket
Getting Cameron to reduce international aid would be as difficult as persuading Charles to drop his charitable work.
On this issue, Cameron's views will be identical to Nick Palmer's, who is a bit of an "old-school" labourite himself.
What we need is someone like Kim Jong-Un in charge of England cricket.
You are offering a false choice. The real choices are (a) we cut welfare spending by £12bn causing real hardship for many of our fellow citizens who are not well off (b) we cut foreign aid spending until the deficit is eliminated and we are paying our way again (c) we increase taxes and hope that this does not prove self defeating by damaging the economy or (d) we cut something else.
Suggestions are welcome but all I see from Labour are promises (or aspirations) to replace spending that has been cut and aspirations to spend more.
You are probably right, but I wouldn;t want to take that to the doorsteps of a cash strapped midlands marginal.
Cameron's crimper lto be interviewed live on Sky News.
Tune in now.
Labour might still be in power if these were banned (or if they'd never allowed them in the first place) as by sucking money out of the economy and families, they are deflationary and mean that families and whole areas are worse off. Whether the personal micro-economies of Conservative supporters is as affected is open to doubt.
Satellite television and mobile phone subscriptions were probably the equivalent for Conservatives in 1997s -- leaving so little for "fun" discretionary spending that people felt worse off than the Treasury statisticians claimed they ought to be.
You indicate that it is a marginal argument with the word 'expensive' but it might not even subsidise British business, let alone those in key marginals !
They may do so but I ,who keeps a closer eye I think on Government spending than your average joe have never seen such analysis
Is our "aid" as lucrative as the Chinese-African relationship ? If it is a massive PR exercise needs to be done...