Mr. Llama, I dispute the alcohol point, though agree (in economic terms) entirely on smoking. Alcohol and related incidents cost a huge sum. It's a net loss for the UK, unlike smoking, which not only brings in huge taxation sums, but also often kills people before they claim much in pensions.
It's interesting to observe that the socially acceptable (drinking) vice does more harm in economic terms than the socially unacceptable (to a large degree, at least) one, which is actually a net plus.
But then, I find both excessive drinking and smoking to be odd behaviours.
For anyone who missed it Benefits Street was fascinating if depressing TV. Certainly don't think it is unfair to the people who live there.
I must admit I came away with a lot of sympathy for the Romanians - one lot were scrounging stuff out of bins and taking it to the tip to make money. The 2nd lot had about 13 of them living in a house and were exploited by their boss as slave labour. Some of them eventually ended up sleeping rough in London and said that was better than living in Brum.
I couldn't help wondering how all the Romanians had got here considering this was filmed last year before they were allowed to come here officially. Ditto how the Algerian bloke got here.
As for the locals, what a shower! White Dee was pretty much a poster child for where the benefits system has gone wrong - smoking, drinking, massively obese, playing the lotto, poor mother and no sign of looking for a job!
That in turn means that the annual debt costs will be bigger than the £5.5bn top end estimate set out in Mr Salmond’s white paper, perhaps £6bn. That’s both unfair and rubbish, nationalists may say. But the hard fact underlined by the Treasury statement is that on this issue, the opinions of politicians count for a lot less than the views of financial markets.
Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
what reason has tim got to hide behind another moniker?
None, if he comes baćk it will be as himself
Exactly. You can accuse tim of many things, but he was never shy.
Mr. Llama, I dispute the alcohol point, though agree (in economic terms) entirely on smoking. Alcohol and related incidents cost a huge sum. It's a net loss for the UK, unlike smoking, which not only brings in huge taxation sums, but also often kills people before they claim much in pensions.
It's interesting to observe that the socially acceptable (drinking) vice does more harm in economic terms than the socially unacceptable (to a large degree, at least) one, which is actually a net plus.
But then, I find both excessive drinking and smoking to be odd behaviours.
The problem is that licensing has vastly reduced the profitability and benefits to the nation of drink. In any event, one should be guided by the words of F.E. Smith: "Better England free than England sober."
For anyone who missed it Benefits Street was fascinating if depressing TV. Certainly don't think it is unfair to the people who live there.
I must admit I came away with a lot of sympathy for the Romanians - one lot were scrounging stuff out of bins and taking it to the tip to make money. The 2nd lot had about 13 of them living in a house and were exploited by their boss as slave labour. Some of them eventually ended up sleeping rough in London and said that was better than living in Brum.
I couldn't help wondering how all the Romanians had got here considering this was filmed last year before they were allowed to come here officially. Ditto how the Algerian bloke got here.
As for the locals, what a shower! White Dee was pretty much a poster child for where the benefits system has gone wrong - smoking, drinking, massively obese, playing the lotto, poor mother and no sign of looking for a job!
Did your Kleenex supply last the whole episode?
Perhaps you missed the Mirror getting excited about the welfare issue:
Evening all and some interesting polling this evening. Obviously I'm happy with the better ICM poll and this evening's improved YouGov but tomorrow night YouGov will probably have a 6 or 8% Labour lead since it swings about more than a pendulum.
The Scotland negotiations issue is an interesting one. David Cameron will manage to lead the rumpUK side perfectly well. He can follow the example of David Lloyd-George who oversaw the departure of another Celtic nation within the British Isles.
I suspect that DC has already held private talks with other leading UK politicians at Privy Counsellor level, leading EU politicians and leading US politicians with a view to establishing some kind of international body to oversee the negotiations like the George Mitchell committee in Northern Ireland a few years ago.
Eck might not get to negotiate for long. It is perfectly possible that in the Scottish election he would call following a YES vote, the Scottish electorate would reward him by turfing him and the SNP out. After all Britain's most successful PM of the 20th century was rewarded with leading the country through WWII by being replaced by Clement Attlee in 1945. There would be a supreme irony if the final independence negotiations were conducted by Johann frae Pollock representing Scotland and Dave representing rumpUK with Eck huffing and puffing from the sidelines.
For anyone who missed it Benefits Street was fascinating if depressing TV. Certainly don't think it is unfair to the people who live there.
I must admit I came away with a lot of sympathy for the Romanians - one lot were scrounging stuff out of bins and taking it to the tip to make money. The 2nd lot had about 13 of them living in a house and were exploited by their boss as slave labour. Some of them eventually ended up sleeping rough in London and said that was better than living in Brum.
I couldn't help wondering how all the Romanians had got here considering this was filmed last year before they were allowed to come here officially. Ditto how the Algerian bloke got here.
As for the locals, what a shower! White Dee was pretty much a poster child for where the benefits system has gone wrong - smoking, drinking, massively obese, playing the lotto, poor mother and no sign of looking for a job!
Let's pay people (British people) to work, and not pay them to not work.
In this way, we would combine the goals of isam and MikeK (lower immigration), with my instinctive love of freedom.
They would result in less immigration (because immigrants would be priced out of the low-end of the market by Brits who were benefitting from negative taxation), while we would continue to have a completely barrier free system for Polish Python programmers and their opera singing girlfriends.
Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
I like to imagine all posters are Peter Andre, Sandi Toksvig or Ant McPartlin. It's a more constructive use of time than speculating in detail over their identities.
Dec, is that you?
Are you planning on an answer to the question I asked earlier? It's I'm just off to bed and don't want to be rude by ignoring you. The question was
In your honest opinion were the coalition left a poisonous legacy? If not why not?
Glad to see that the chap who killed my old university pal John Morrison (former LibDem leader of East Dunbartonshire Council) got 5 years today. John was so gentle he couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag so the defence of self-defence was a nonsense.
For anyone who missed it Benefits Street was fascinating if depressing TV. Certainly don't think it is unfair to the people who live there.
I must admit I came away with a lot of sympathy for the Romanians - one lot were scrounging stuff out of bins and taking it to the tip to make money. The 2nd lot had about 13 of them living in a house and were exploited by their boss as slave labour. Some of them eventually ended up sleeping rough in London and said that was better than living in Brum.
I couldn't help wondering how all the Romanians had got here considering this was filmed last year before they were allowed to come here officially. Ditto how the Algerian bloke got here.
As for the locals, what a shower! White Dee was pretty much a poster child for where the benefits system has gone wrong - smoking, drinking, massively obese, playing the lotto, poor mother and no sign of looking for a job!
Let's pay people (British people) to work, and not pay them to not work.
In this way, we would combine the goals of isam and MikeK (lower immigration), with my instinctive love of freedom.
They would result in less immigration (because immigrants would be priced out of the low-end of the market by Brits who were benefitting from negative taxation), while we would continue to have a completely barrier free system for Polish Python programmers and their opera singing girlfriends.
Mr. Neil, I'm not interested in regulating your drinking behaviour. I'm interested in regulating pubs in order to reduce rates of drunkenness and related crime/health issues. Get as drunk as you like in your own home. When people get drunk in public their actions often cost the taxpayer money. Smokers, by contrast, bolster the Treasury.
A busy day - afternoon at Plumpton, evening at Tesco's - not that I'm in any way implying any kind of link (however obscure) between the two in any way, shape or form.
Nice to come in and see the LD share back toward 15% on ICM. Not much for either Conservative or Labour parties to cheer in this poll as their combined share eases back to barely 2/3 of those expressing a preference (not far away from 2010). The big winners are of course UKIP and fair play to them.
None of this matters with a view to the 2015 GE at this time except it's all to play for all the parties.
Benefits Street throws up all sorts of questions. The main one for me concerns immigration. On the one hand, you've got 14 Romanians, coming over here, taking jobs that British workers could be doing. On the other, you've got 14 Romanians, coming over here, doing jobs that British workers won't take. Admittedly, the Romanians were little more than slaves, ripped off, scared, mislead and exploited. I genuinely can't blame the Romanians. They're just doing the best they can, for them, and their families. They believe the best thing for that is moving here, getting work, and if they can get benefits, whose fault is that? They were willing to work for 40 quid a day, picking crops, I know they never got that, but let's let that slide for the moment. There's no shame in working for 40 quid a day. I've done it, when I needed the money, when my kids were young, and my wife wasn't working. 40 quid a day is 5 quid an hour, for an 8 hour day. Surely, some of the British lads could be persuaded to work for that, if they were gonna get some extra help from the government? There are plenty of minimum wage jobs, on farms, for miles around where I live. We need to make those jobs attractive to British workers. I quite like Robert Smithson's take on low pay.
Mr. Neil, I'm not interested in regulating your drinking behaviour.
Yes you are. You want me to be chucked out of pubs at 11.30pm.
There are few things more tyrannical than prohibiting the sale of drink at certain times. If only so-called 24 hour drinking had materialised in practice!
Benefits Street throws up all sorts of questions. The main one for me concerns immigration. On the one hand, you've got 14 Romanians, coming over here, taking jobs that British workers could be doing. On the other, you've got 14 Romanians, coming over here, doing jobs that British workers won't take. Admittedly, the Romanians were little more than slaves, ripped off, scared, mislead and exploited. I genuinely can't blame the Romanians. They're just doing the best they can, for them, and their families. They believe the best thing for that is moving here, getting work, and if they can get benefits, whose fault is that? They were willing to work for 40 quid a day, picking crops, I know they never got that, but let's let that slide for the moment. There's no shame in working for 40 quid a day. I've done it, when I needed the money, when my kids were young, and my wife wasn't working. 40 quid a day is 5 quid an hour, for an 8 hour day. Surely, some of the British lads could be persuaded to work for that, if they were gonna get some extra help from the government? There are plenty of minimum wage jobs, on farms, for miles around where I live. We need to make those jobs attractive to British workers. I quite like Robert Smithson's take on low pay.
Fraser Nelson has a well written post on Benefit Street, although again its easy to see the problem, more difficult to sort it out.
"Benefits Street has shown us the people that have been forgotten in this way – and they’re good people, who look out for each other. Entrepreneurial people, like Smoggy. But they are people who have been abandoned to a system that has scandalously little interest in (or ability to) use their talent properly. The waste of money, while appalling, is nothing compared to the waste of human potential."
Campbell saying Ed won't win in 2015 is a bit of a shock IMO. I know he's a Blairite but I thought he'd still be doing everything possible to support the party.
So, in summary, a bit of drift over 16 months back from Lab to LibDem, and from UKIP to Con as the real choice comes into view, and JackW will be proven right about Ed M.
How does ICM do their weighting ? Vote recall ? Did I read they halve "non voters" ? That will go against UKIP numbers as many probably did not vote. Also some Labour stay-in's.
Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
Yet more blatant proof of hypocrisy. Thanks for that.
Campbell saying Ed won't win in 2015 is a bit of a shock IMO. I know he's a Blairite but I thought he'd still be doing everything possible to support the party.
Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
Well if it isn't we'll have to just make do with McTim.
Incidentally, is Hugh tim? Single Christian name for a username, follows Ashcroft polling closely, uses the "PBTories" term, clearly enjoys the provocative post... He's removed the nastiness, but I'm suspicious.
Well if it isn't
Aren't you and Socrates going to petulantly demand he be banned forever? You've already make a fool out of someone and it sure isn't tim or Hugh.
"Ed Miliband was accused of watering down attempts to weaken the stranglehold of Labour’s union paymasters on his party last night amid claims that his Spring showdown with the unions will last just two hours.
The Labour leader has billed the meeting with the union barons in March as an historic event that will redraw the relationship between union and party members.
But his aides have already had to admit that plans to make union members ‘opt in’ if they want hand over part of their union subscriptions to the party will take five years to implement.
At the moment the money is seized automatically unless union members opt out.
According to Labour’s own website, the conference will begin at 11am on March 1 and a separate Labour local government conference will be under way by 1pm, suggesting that the union element will only last for two hours.
The timings suggest that Mr Miliband wants to minimise the degree to which the union issue is aired in public.
Union bosses, who are resisting the plans, will meet this week to form a united front amid signs that opposition to the plans is hardening. Several unions are contemplating cutting their donations to Labour if Mr Miliband enforces changes they don’t like.
The Labour leader has already backed down from proposals to reform the union vote in leadership elections and at conference.
The changes were deemed necessary after accusations that the Unite union attempted to fix a selection in the Falkirk constituency. Labour are also reeling from publicity about Unite’s bully boy tactics during the strike at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant, when union officials intimidated staff and their families."
What, no messages in an hour and a half? Free the Thailand One! Bring back SeanT! Overthrow the oppressive tyranny of Old Grumpy Head!
Anyway, it's odd how the results of mid-term opinion polls (of how people say they would vote in a general election "tomorrow") are always different from the eventual result. It's almost as if a significant minority of people are giving an answer to a different question from the one they are actually asked. A bit like the 2011 referendum, in which a lot of people thought that the question was "Do you like Nick Clegg?".
The difference between mid-term opinion polls and actual general election results is a measure of the thickness of the peasants and the dimness of the proles.
This is not "midterm". We are now almost exactly three-quarters of the way through this parliament, so late term by any sensible measure. Wake up and eat your sausages.
No no no, you frantically mega-silly booliak. "Mid-term" means from 1 year after the previous GE to 1 year before the next GE, i.e. 60% of the time. Or more; the dates can be adjusted to suit the circumstances of whatever point I want to make. So there.
Alexandra Bastedo has died, we are told. Still young, sadly. I shall file that as part of the case she must have been a "good one", alongside her beauty, polyglottery, deeply English devotion to animals, and how she dated David Frost - who I trust had a good eye for these things.
As cultural icons of greener days depart, I sense the breath of time swooshing by and blowing the world new again. On one hand it severs the past irreparably away from us, on t'other it cuts apart the generations. The young ones could not care when I say so-and-so they did not know has died. In their ignorance of our common mortality or its impendence, they rightly wonder why I sense any personal affliction over the loss of someone known only unto me through what I saw or read or was transmitted to me in the medium of electromagnetic radiation (or latterly, who came to me in network packets). But they in turn are stupified I fail to recognise the great and universal, in sight and sound, who assuredly "everybody knows - except you".
Which reeks of truth. Names from the newspaper gossip ping over my head like UFOs. The attached photographic evidence of the fabulous, glamorous and spritely summon but blurry watercolour memories of too-loud opening ceremonies, or late-night reality shows hopped through.
It's funny how when I was young, adults were stupid. Their baffled unawareness of the very era they were living through was a damning sign of their cultural blindness; their superior knowledge of latter days an aberration explicable only by their longevity. I would keep my eyes and ears open, stay in touch with the moment, and grow up as a great repository of the lives and happenings of all my times. Now I am the stupid one - shorn at least of an element of arrogance - and all whose passing I lament are a mere Who The Hell Was (S)he.
I know now so many of my formative memories are tethered to a lump of time that is dissolving around us, swirled by forces of age and progress that act on us all. Much of that mass I grasp less solidly now; sometimes some report or random recollection stirs up a glimmer, in which light I recapture a moment and a mood. The psychologists tell of a deep link twixt memory and emotion. Perhaps that's why we feel so cut up by the departure of our favourite musicians - our emotional flow has been modulated to a soundscape of our lives that they provided, and something gapes in us when that is cast away. I'd add a brief, deep childhood crush to that, as a captivating beauty becomes a haunting one.
Last year I happened upon a repeat of The Champions on ITV4. It dawned on me that at primary school my taste in drama had been ghastly. Apparently at that age, plot can safely be dispensed with. A fascination with exotic locations could be quenched by some inexpensively dressed sets, a few cans of stock footage, and the English countryside recast in a new role. At least there was no lamentable CGI - laughable sound effects were cheaper, of course. Now I can marvel at its simultaneous ingenuity and disingenuousness. Back then, I was enthralled.
But my taste in women had been impeccable. Better then, than it is now ... Bastedo had an ethereal quality, which renders the effects of time more melancholic, even somewhat mystifying. I was astonished to discover in her obituaries that "EastEnders actress Alexandra Bastedo has died aged 67". That region of popular culture has never been within my remit. For the vision of her I had formed when I was little, Albert Square would be too earthy, too mortal. Perhaps when the BBC has dumbed down sufficiently, "Classic 'Enders" shall be rebroadcast on BBC4, and I can discern whether her beauty held itself, or if it had been a mere fleeting facet of youth.
I know now so many of my formative memories are tethered to a lump of time that is dissolving around us, swirled by forces of age and progress that act on us all. Much of that mass I grasp less solidly now; sometimes some report or random recollection stirs up a glimmer, in which light I recapture a moment and a mood. The psychologists tell of a deep link twixt memory and emotion. Perhaps that's why we feel so cut up by the departure of our favourite musicians - our emotional flow has been modulated to a soundscape of our lives that they provided, and something gapes in us when that is cast away. I'd add a brief, deep childhood crush to that, as a captivating beauty becomes a haunting one.
I salute your reflective posting. I don't know either Ms Bastedo or The Champions. I recognize yr sentiments about popular culture. Having left the UK in 2006, I am perhaps at a further remove from it.
I think eastenders was good once though..
but i preferred coronation st for its camp theatricality.
anyhow. I'd better get some work done, before shuffling off
Evening all and some interesting polling this evening. Obviously I'm happy with the better ICM poll and this evening's improved YouGov but tomorrow night YouGov will probably have a 6 or 8% Labour lead since it swings about more than a pendulum.
The Scotland negotiations issue is an interesting one. David Cameron will manage to lead the rumpUK side perfectly well. He can follow the example of David Lloyd-George who oversaw the departure of another Celtic nation within the British Isles.
I suspect that DC has already held private talks with other leading UK politicians at Privy Counsellor level, leading EU politicians and leading US politicians with a view to establishing some kind of international body to oversee the negotiations like the George Mitchell committee in Northern Ireland a few years ago.
Eck might not get to negotiate for long. It is perfectly possible that in the Scottish election he would call following a YES vote, the Scottish electorate would reward him by turfing him and the SNP out. After all Britain's most successful PM of the 20th century was rewarded with leading the country through WWII by being replaced by Clement Attlee in 1945. There would be a supreme irony if the final independence negotiations were conducted by Johann frae Pollock representing Scotland and Dave representing rumpUK with Eck huffing and puffing from the sidelines.
Many thanks all - some interesting comments from fitalass and others, though I would hardly agree with all, nor wish to compare a post-Yes vote to 1945 (except inasmuch as the SNP are arguably the defenders of that postwar consensus in British politics).
On one point, Salmond can surely hardly call a Scottish election (black swan events aparst) as the existing parliament IS the Scottish Parliament and has fixed terms. Which IIRC expires in May 2016 next (black swans apart) - after the provisional date set for indy day. IT would need a major revision to change that and that is something for after indy. My feeling is that people would vote for a non-London party to make sure that negotiations were completed in their interests (this need not be SNP, of course, but would Ms Lamont be in charge of a suddenly truly separate Scottisy Labour Party?).
Imagine Labour win in Westminster and in Scotland as well (and remember that the Labour Scottish admin would be a minority gmt anyway, which could well need SNP support ...
Please believe me when I say that I am NOT one of those thicko's who thinks that polls are rubbish. I would not be on this site if I did. However, given Labours period in office, especially the Gordy Brune years, I cannot believe that a majority of people are ready to give them another opportunity to bankrupt the country. Further, based on the "typical" British attitude towards the benefits of mass immigration and Labours track record in that area, how can people but them back in office ?
Comments
Mr. Llama, I dispute the alcohol point, though agree (in economic terms) entirely on smoking. Alcohol and related incidents cost a huge sum. It's a net loss for the UK, unlike smoking, which not only brings in huge taxation sums, but also often kills people before they claim much in pensions.
It's interesting to observe that the socially acceptable (drinking) vice does more harm in economic terms than the socially unacceptable (to a large degree, at least) one, which is actually a net plus.
But then, I find both excessive drinking and smoking to be odd behaviours.
Wiki - The Scheme (TV series)
That in turn means that the annual debt costs will be bigger than the £5.5bn top end estimate set out in Mr Salmond’s white paper, perhaps £6bn. That’s both unfair and rubbish, nationalists may say. But the hard fact underlined by the Treasury statement is that on this issue, the opinions of politicians count for a lot less than the views of financial markets.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/peter-jones-money-markets-matter-more-than-mps-1-3266938
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/raymond-hull-drug-dealer-dad-3009937
The Scotland negotiations issue is an interesting one. David Cameron will manage to lead the rumpUK side perfectly well. He can follow the example of David Lloyd-George who oversaw the departure of another Celtic nation within the British Isles.
I suspect that DC has already held private talks with other leading UK politicians at Privy Counsellor level, leading EU politicians and leading US politicians with a view to establishing some kind of international body to oversee the negotiations like the George Mitchell committee in Northern Ireland a few years ago.
Eck might not get to negotiate for long. It is perfectly possible that in the Scottish election he would call following a YES vote, the Scottish electorate would reward him by turfing him and the SNP out. After all Britain's most successful PM of the 20th century was rewarded with leading the country through WWII by being replaced by Clement Attlee in 1945. There would be a supreme irony if the final independence negotiations were conducted by Johann frae Pollock representing Scotland and Dave representing rumpUK with Eck huffing and puffing from the sidelines.
In this way, we would combine the goals of isam and MikeK (lower immigration), with my instinctive love of freedom.
They would result in less immigration (because immigrants would be priced out of the low-end of the market by Brits who were benefitting from negative taxation), while we would continue to have a completely barrier free system for Polish Python programmers and their opera singing girlfriends.
In your honest opinion were the coalition left a poisonous legacy? If not why not?
I've no interest in regulating your drinking behaviour. If only you had as little interest in regulating mine!
Anyway, I'm off for the night.
A busy day - afternoon at Plumpton, evening at Tesco's - not that I'm in any way implying any kind of link (however obscure) between the two in any way, shape or form.
Nice to come in and see the LD share back toward 15% on ICM. Not much for either Conservative or Labour parties to cheer in this poll as their combined share eases back to barely 2/3 of those expressing a preference (not far away from 2010). The big winners are of course UKIP and fair play to them.
None of this matters with a view to the 2015 GE at this time except it's all to play for all the parties.
Ed Miliband saves the Middle Classes (or is he hoping the Middles Classes will save him?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10569973/Ed-Miliband-I-can-save-the-middle-class.html
It sounds like another of those utterly vacuous sound bite speeches from Miliband.
'There will be embarrassment when Labour bounce back in the polls'
I thought it was already embarrassing for Labour,without any bounce back.
Easterross Sorry to hear about your friend and while his attacker has been brought to justice perhaps he should have got a longer sentence?
Hurst I think you encountered the 16% of the population with an IQ below 85!
I genuinely can't blame the Romanians. They're just doing the best they can, for them, and their families. They believe the best thing for that is moving here, getting work, and if they can get benefits, whose fault is that?
They were willing to work for 40 quid a day, picking crops, I know they never got that, but let's let that slide for the moment. There's no shame in working for 40 quid a day. I've done it, when I needed the money, when my kids were young, and my wife wasn't working.
40 quid a day is 5 quid an hour, for an 8 hour day. Surely, some of the British lads could be persuaded to work for that, if they were gonna get some extra help from the government? There are plenty of minimum wage jobs, on farms, for miles around where I live.
We need to make those jobs attractive to British workers. I quite like Robert Smithson's take on low pay.
Fraser Nelson has a well written post on Benefit Street, although again its easy to see the problem, more difficult to sort it out.
"Benefits Street has shown us the people that have been forgotten in this way – and they’re good people, who look out for each other. Entrepreneurial people, like Smoggy. But they are people who have been abandoned to a system that has scandalously little interest in (or ability to) use their talent properly. The waste of money, while appalling, is nothing compared to the waste of human potential."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/in-defence-of-channel-4s-benefits-street/
JohnO likes to continue the party until he gets to the south coast!
LOL
Aren't you and Socrates going to petulantly demand he be banned forever?
You've already make a fool out of someone and it sure isn't tim or Hugh.
"Ed Miliband was accused of watering down attempts to weaken the stranglehold of Labour’s union paymasters on his party last night amid claims that his Spring showdown with the unions will last just two hours.
The Labour leader has billed the meeting with the union barons in March as an historic event that will redraw the relationship between union and party members.
But his aides have already had to admit that plans to make union members ‘opt in’ if they want hand over part of their union subscriptions to the party will take five years to implement.
At the moment the money is seized automatically unless union members opt out.
According to Labour’s own website, the conference will begin at 11am on March 1 and a separate Labour local government conference will be under way by 1pm, suggesting that the union element will only last for two hours.
The timings suggest that Mr Miliband wants to minimise the degree to which the union issue is aired in public.
Union bosses, who are resisting the plans, will meet this week to form a united front amid signs that opposition to the plans is hardening. Several unions are contemplating cutting their donations to Labour if Mr Miliband enforces changes they don’t like.
The Labour leader has already backed down from proposals to reform the union vote in leadership elections and at conference.
The changes were deemed necessary after accusations that the Unite union attempted to fix a selection in the Falkirk constituency. Labour are also reeling from publicity about Unite’s bully boy tactics during the strike at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant, when union officials intimidated staff and their families."
As cultural icons of greener days depart, I sense the breath of time swooshing by and blowing the world new again. On one hand it severs the past irreparably away from us, on t'other it cuts apart the generations. The young ones could not care when I say so-and-so they did not know has died. In their ignorance of our common mortality or its impendence, they rightly wonder why I sense any personal affliction over the loss of someone known only unto me through what I saw or read or was transmitted to me in the medium of electromagnetic radiation (or latterly, who came to me in network packets). But they in turn are stupified I fail to recognise the great and universal, in sight and sound, who assuredly "everybody knows - except you".
Which reeks of truth. Names from the newspaper gossip ping over my head like UFOs. The attached photographic evidence of the fabulous, glamorous and spritely summon but blurry watercolour memories of too-loud opening ceremonies, or late-night reality shows hopped through.
It's funny how when I was young, adults were stupid. Their baffled unawareness of the very era they were living through was a damning sign of their cultural blindness; their superior knowledge of latter days an aberration explicable only by their longevity. I would keep my eyes and ears open, stay in touch with the moment, and grow up as a great repository of the lives and happenings of all my times. Now I am the stupid one - shorn at least of an element of arrogance - and all whose passing I lament are a mere Who The Hell Was (S)he.
I know now so many of my formative memories are tethered to a lump of time that is dissolving around us, swirled by forces of age and progress that act on us all. Much of that mass I grasp less solidly now; sometimes some report or random recollection stirs up a glimmer, in which light I recapture a moment and a mood. The psychologists tell of a deep link twixt memory and emotion. Perhaps that's why we feel so cut up by the departure of our favourite musicians - our emotional flow has been modulated to a soundscape of our lives that they provided, and something gapes in us when that is cast away. I'd add a brief, deep childhood crush to that, as a captivating beauty becomes a haunting one.
But my taste in women had been impeccable. Better then, than it is now ... Bastedo had an ethereal quality, which renders the effects of time more melancholic, even somewhat mystifying. I was astonished to discover in her obituaries that "EastEnders actress Alexandra Bastedo has died aged 67". That region of popular culture has never been within my remit. For the vision of her I had formed when I was little, Albert Square would be too earthy, too mortal. Perhaps when the BBC has dumbed down sufficiently, "Classic 'Enders" shall be rebroadcast on BBC4, and I can discern whether her beauty held itself, or if it had been a mere fleeting facet of youth.
I think eastenders was good once though..
but i preferred coronation st for its camp theatricality.
anyhow. I'd better get some work done, before shuffling off
On one point, Salmond can surely hardly call a Scottish election (black swan events aparst) as the existing parliament IS the Scottish Parliament and has fixed terms. Which IIRC expires in May 2016 next (black swans apart) - after the provisional date set for indy day. IT would need a major revision to change that and that is something for after indy. My feeling is that people would vote for a non-London party to make sure that negotiations were completed in their interests (this need not be SNP, of course, but would Ms Lamont be in charge of a suddenly truly separate Scottisy Labour Party?).
Imagine Labour win in Westminster and in Scotland as well (and remember that the Labour Scottish admin would be a minority gmt anyway, which could well need SNP support ...