politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though it is well over four years since it was in powe

They deserve it.

Surely it's "a little over four years", rather than "well over".

This is the one of the great dangers of Labour's tactic of keeping schtum on the economy for fear of splitting the party -- that Labour is blamed for the global crisis. The other danger is that the coalition gets credit for a recovery it delayed.

So the voting public aren't entirely stupid then.

Is there a box for those who wish to praise the cuts?

If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

You can't trust Labour with the economy.

On the contrary they have proved themselves absolutely consistent and reliable in terms of outcomes. It is those who refuse to accept the consistent evidence that I find exasperating.

There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.

Pulpstar said:

If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?

If 34% blame Labour then 66% don't, just over half of which are going to vote Labour, apparently.

The Tories are fishing in the pool that blame both. Those who blame the Coalition or neither are almost certainly beyond reach (and help).

Pulpstar said:

If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?

Because for many, while the answer to the question "most to blame" is Labour, it's 60:40 with the shenanigans in the City, and among financiers (not necessarily our correspondent of that name) generally.
It's felt/hoped that Labour have learned their lesson and will take a tougher line over some of the shadier practices.

In the words of the very best of PB Hodges...." I can see a crossover coming....I....can see a crossover coming".

MrJones said:

Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

Weird coincidence huh.

Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.

Yes, it must be a CONSPIRACY.

BTW. Very cool story I knew nothing off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

You can't trust Labour with the economy.

On the contrary they have proved themselves absolutely consistent and reliable in terms of outcomes. It is those who refuse to accept the consistent evidence that I find exasperating.

There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.

I thought the bacon sandwich policy was a creation of Ed's.

Brown took the credit for the froth of the global credit mania which was worse here than almost anywhere else due to the City effect. He took all that unsustainable tax revenues and spent them. And then he spent some more creating the highest structural deficit in the western world. He allowed our banks to spiral out of control and our combined public and private debt ratios to reach the highest levels in the world. Anything to keep the wheels spinning and a delusion of wealth.

We had the worse fall in GDP because we were the most exposed to this uncontrolled lunacy. We recovered more slowly because our debt ratios were worse than anyone else and our broken banks were unable to supply credit. We created the absurd and unsustainable expectation that nearly 60% of our population were magically going to get more from the state than they pay towards it.

So there were global problems but they were problems that London played a key part in, mainly as result of chronically incompetent box ticking regulation. Our own problems were worse than any other large western country because our government had been staggeringly incompetent and had aggravated almost every aspect of the problems more than anyone else.

Brown is lucky he is allowed to walk the streets.

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.

Sure, the crisis itself wasn't Brown's fault (although the regulatory failure to a large extent was).

You still have to explain why we had the biggest collapse in GDP of any major Western economy and why we ended up with the worst deficit in Europe other than Greece.

A bigger financial services sector?

Pulpstar said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709126/Woman-car-towed-away-Foreign-Secretary-s-minders-three-point-turn-embarrassing-SEVEN-point-turn-hit-BMW.html

Interesting - I sincerely hope the car wasn't towed away just because she happened to perform a slightly poor road manoeuvre near the Foreign Sec's residence.

Case as stated; was confiscating the keys and impounding the car legal? I know the police think they've got draconian powers, but....

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

MrJones said:

rcs1000 said:

MrJones said:

Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

Weird coincidence huh.

Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.

Yes, it must be a CONSPIRACY.

The banks thought they'd discovered a method of dramatically reducing the risk of borrowing and so dramatically increased their leverage.

The Con cheek of the political class won't admit it and people smell a rat.

There are numerous contributory causes of the credit explosion of the 2000 period. In no particular order:

1. Basle II rules, which placed a very low capital weighting on mortgages, and therefore enabled banks to expand their balance sheets more than they would normally
2. The rise of China as an exporter: to avoid dollars washing around the internal Chinese economy, trade surpluses were reinvested in buying up debt in the West, which both drove down interest rates, and made various different bonds correlate more than they should
3. The very lax monetary policies pursued by the Fed and others following the bursting of the dot com bubble and 9/11.
4. The very long period of constantly rising house prices in most markets (and particularly the US), which encouraged consumers to think that owning property (and leveraging up to buy it) was a one way bet.
5. Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough
6. Compensation policies at certain bank (Northern Rock, being the most obvious example) that encouraged growing the balance sheet at almost any cost
7. Demutualisation of building societies encouraged profit chasing over stability
8. The rise of a secondary mortgage market in the UK (and the growing importance of one in the US), which meant that banks were increasing selling on loans (and therefore were less concerned than they should have been about their ultimate credit worthiness)
9. The ratings agencies who gave AAA rating to synthetic products such as CDOs, therefore encouraging excessive amounts of capital to flow into mortgage financing.

This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I don't quite know what line you are trying to spin here, TSE, apart from the fact it's anti-LD and seems little more than an attempt to create a story out of nothing.

It seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make - donations are inherently unpredictable. The Party recognises that, as a Member paying into that Party I'm well aware of that. Compared with where the fledgling Party was in 1989 my understanding is we're in fair shape despite the fall-off in membership.

Are other parties accounts normally qualified to that degree ?

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

Well, with only three effective fast(er) bowlers, it's to be expected Something seriously wrong with Jordan's run-up.

Of course, Cook could always bring himself on. Got a wicket last time IIRC!

I think he is still top of the bowling averages on that basis. I doubt he would want to risk that.

Jordan is having a mare and Ali looks seriously unthreatening, just hoping for a mistake. The weight on Broad and Jimmy is just too great on such a flat pitch.

rcs1000 said:

BTW. Very cool story I knew nothing off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

I remember that story from the time. Gosh you know how to make a chap feel old on a fine summer's afternoon.

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I don't quite know what line you are trying to spin here, TSE, apart from the fact it's anti-LD and seems little more than an attempt to create a story out of nothing.

It seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make - donations are inherently unpredictable. The Party recognises that, as a Member paying into that Party I'm well aware of that. Compared with where the fledgling Party was in 1989 my understanding is we're in fair shape despite the fall-off in membership.

Calm down dear.

I'm not spinning any line, as I understand it, this is the first the time the Lib Dems (or any other major party in the UK) have had to put such a note in their accounts.

On the plus side

Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes · 21m

Apols, Lib Dem membership figures elsewhere in accounts. They are on 43.451 (2012 42,501)

hucks67 said:

This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.

Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?

taffys said:

''Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough''

This is the key one. Some people still see credit as some sort of democratic right, like voting or free healthcare or trial by jury.

It isn't. Banks are meant to be private businesses, not social services. They are meant to lend to people who stand a chance of being able to pay back.

Nope I'm afraid, convenient a hook to hang a causes-for-the-crash hat on as it at first seems.

Studies have shown that default rates on Community Reinvestment Act loans were no higher and often lower than other mortgages of the time.

Which was a pretty crazy time, that said.

Neil said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

BenM said:

MarqueeMark said:

Labour break economies. Tories fix them.

When has that ever happened?

Not in 1979.

Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997.

Bravo! A wonderful piece of political chutzpah, rewriting history in a way so brazen that one can only stand back in admiration!

Neil said:

DavidL said:

Neil said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

No, they expect to be able to operate as a going concern. If they only hoped that this would be the case then clearly the accounts couldnt have been prepared on a going concern basis. Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

Materially qualified going concern. THe auditors do know their stuff, that's why the huge rider has been put in there.

I ask the question again though as I have not seen so many political parties "notes to the accounts" is this a normal qualification to put in in say the Labour, Green, Conservative, UKIP accounts or previous Lib Dem ones ?

Neil said:

DavidL said:

Neil said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

No, they expect to be able to operate as a going concern. If they only hoped that this would be the case then clearly the accounts couldnt have been prepared on a going concern basis. Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

On the contrary I think they have been audited by professionals who are seriously concerned and wanted that concern (as they are statutorily required to do) to be reflected in a very unusual statement that made it clear that the judgment on going concern was that of the trustees based on their knowledge rather than the auditors.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Glad Labour are still getting the blame, given it's largely their fault.

FPT

MikeK said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?

The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).

I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.

Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?

The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!

Very funny TSE.
For your interest only Sunil.

1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.

2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.

3. Milhemet Levanon (Lebanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.

Interesting. So why are are you a member of UKIP instead of, say, Likud?

@Sean_F
To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as it was before the crash, and as usual, those lower down were blamed and made to pay, while those who saw the real profits from the shambles quietly got on with getting richer.
Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as it was before the crash, and as usual, those lower down were blamed and made to pay, while those who saw the real profits from the shambles quietly got on with getting richer.
Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

It's the rich wot make the trouble;
It's the poor wot get the blame!
It's the same the 'ole world over!
Ain't all a bleeding' shame!

Never was truer word spoken!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

MikeK said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?

The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).

I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.

Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?

The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!

Very funny TSE.
For your interest only Sunil.

1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.

2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.

3. Milhemet Levanon (Lebanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.

Interesting. So why are are you a member of UKIP instead of, say, Likud?

Sunil, wouldn't you think Likud a bit too far left for our friend?

@MrSteerpike: How is Ed Miliband's 'New Politics' coming along? http://t.co/sevU4Fx2pX

FPT:

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection (Changes Since 15st July)

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 37% (NC) .. No 63% (NC)

Turnout Projection 81.5% (+1%)

......................................................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

YAWN

Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...

Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.

You mean the 11% of Scots who would cheer an English loss?

HurstLlama said:

I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol

Find me the criminal statutes broken by Fred Godwin and the like.

Unless what they did at the time was illegal, then there can be no criminal prosecution.

Smarmeron said:

Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

Given that Labour had been in charge for an entire decade, with a huge majority, and with tax revenues pouring in faster than ever known before, yes, it was Labour's fault that the economy was so unbalanced. Who on earth else could possibly be to blame? It was even more Labour's fault that Brown built up spending commitments, many of them extremely wasteful, on the back of those revenues. Most especially - and this is absolutely unforgivable - when the crisis hit, he forbade any planning on how to reduce spending, and cynically cancelled the spending review, thus wasting two entire years. Unbelievably, after the crisis hit he even managed to increase spending commitments.

Neil said:

DavidL said:

Neil said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Coates of the Times


The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

.... Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

No, I expect them to have been audited by accountants who know the City's standards.

Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.

Small economics update.

One of the most interesting indicators (to me at least) is the point at which government debt-to-GDP starts to fall.

German government debt-to-GDP has been falling since 2011.
By the end of 2014, Ireland and the US will see debt-to-GDP numbers peak. (We may see Irish debt-to-GDP decline from 3Q, but it will be 4Q at the latest.)
At some point next year, the UK will see see debt-to-GDP starting to decline. Italy should follow by the end of the year.
If Spain's economic growth momentum continues then it should start to see its debt levels peak in early 2016 (and I may be pessimistic).

Although French debt-to-GDP increased just 1.2% last year, the ongoing and persistent recession, combined with the almost total absence of structural reforms, means that I'm not comfortable forecasting any reduction in debt-to-GDP in the foreseeable future.

@Richard_Nabavi
Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here.
Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.
Governments and the markets basically "create money" at convenience, whim, or greed, and call it a "free market" economy. An economy that has no substance behind it other than blind faith.

He was cheered as he said it.

OK but what is your point? some Jewish people are bloodthirsty islamophobes?

@OldKingCole
The tune varied considerably according to how much drink had been consumed (and also the words) ;-)

Smarmeron said:

@Richard_Nabavi
Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here.
Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Thatcherism, which rescued us from being the 'sick man of Europe'. Maggie stood down 18 years before the financial crisis: it was Labour, and Labour alone, who were in control of the country for an entire decade leading up to the crisis, in the most favourable circumstances for reforming things. The responsibility is theirs.

As for what this government has done, yes, a lot of the structural problems remain. It's a bit rich of a supporter of a party which completely failed to fix the problems as they arose, and when it would have been much easier, and when money was plentiful, for the fact that they landed the coalition with a God-awful mess and no money. Of course it's taking time to fix that mess - I always said it would take three parliamentary terms.

OldKingCole said:

Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.

That wasn't the Red Flag, Mr Llama. IIRC correctly I quoted the chorus to "She was poor but she was honest". Which I recall from student days! The words, but not the tune!

You are absolutely right, Mr. Cole and I apologise unreservedly for any offence my stupid mistake may have given. I should have known better, indeed I do. My only plea in mitigation was that at the time I was trying to remember who write "Anything Goes". My first memory was that it was Arthur Anderson.

I do find it grimly amusing that, according to their own website, one of the advisors to Res Publica, the body which has come up with the idea of getting bankers to swear oaths, is one Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne and, er, recently jailed for lying on oath.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

DavidL said:

This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

Keep Karma and carry on

I suspect those backing the Draw may not be feeling so comfortable since tea.

@Richard_Nabavi
"Thatcherism" and "Reaganism" were the brainchild of a certain economist, whose had a theory that appeared to be true, and certainly seemed to be having results....
Up until you stood back from it and saw the entire wood, and not just your personal investment tree.
I have little hope that you and your ilk will ever be able to avert your gaze away from your favourite plant in order to start stepping backwards enough to see, and as such, this is becoming a waste of time.
Enjoy your day