I see that Boris, who was tough on immigration at the Tory conference, has said this in Japan:

"One of the questions that people in Britain might think about is obviously that [Japan has] very, very low immigration and very, very low, in fact negative, population growth, they have got a shrinking population.That has, of course, contributed to the long period of economic stagnation they are going through..."

I don't know why we bother to keep track of what Boris thinks, really. He seems utterly flexible according to who he's talking to - the ultimate personality politician with no particular views at all. That can be seen as positive - I'd admit that as a Labour supporter I think he's not been that bad a mayor, as he's tried to keep in with London voters. But electing him to anything serious would be a bit unnerving, since there seems literally no way of predicting what he might say or do.

Mr. 63, venison's delicious. And we have too many deer. These two facts present the obvious course of action of shooting and cooking lots of deer.

Venison may be my favourite meat. Using a George Foreman Grill, there's zero fat produced from cooking a venison burger, compared to a reasonable (though not enormous) quantity from a beef burger.

I wonder what Jeremy Corbyn will ask about today. Prisons in Saudi Arabia and Lord Ashcroft's domicile must be tempting.

watford30 said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

The SNP isn't working. I dare say there's a large emigration of job seekers from the Nat occupied territory that ameliorates those shocking Scottish unemployment figures.

The Indyref forced finance companies to admit they would move out of Scotland

If you dig down a bit further into the sectors, the statistics tell us that finance and insurance contracted more than 1% in the most recent quarter, continuing a decline since the start of last year, and 3.6% over the 12-month period.

Indyref2 is just making it worse

If the Nats are too feart to use their powers they could at least rule out indyref 2 until 2030 - would be a much needed boost for Scottish business.

Tweedledee and tweedledum regaling each other from their CCHQ scripts. Could either find Scotland on a map.

Dunno but I can by looking outside the window.

That is the M25 , look again

Try again - the M is correct - clue I can just about see a large 3D whisky brand in stainless steel.

It would probably be more helpful to The Malcoholic if you indicate where you are by naming local public houses.

I see your such a cretin you have to repeat your moronic supposed wit ad nauseum. What a loser.

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

The SNP isn't working. I dare say there's a large emigration of job seekers from the Nat occupied territory that ameliorates those shocking Scottish unemployment figures.

The Indyref forced finance companies to admit they would move out of Scotland

If you dig down a bit further into the sectors, the statistics tell us that finance and insurance contracted more than 1% in the most recent quarter, continuing a decline since the start of last year, and 3.6% over the 12-month period.

Indyref2 is just making it worse

If the Nats are too feart to use their powers they could at least rule out indyref 2 until 2030 - would be a much needed boost for Scottish business.

Tweedledee and tweedledum regaling each other from their CCHQ scripts. Could either find Scotland on a map.

Dunno but I can by looking outside the window.

That is the M25 , look again

Try again - the M is correct - clue I can just about see a large 3D whisky brand in stainless steel.

Are we playing "I Spy" now

Ach no fun malc - you probably never leave your central belt pile anyway.

I don't go to the central belt , I am a country boy.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, whilst Fry can be full of himself, I do agree with your assessment.

There are also rumours of Doctor Who either being axed or changed to a few long 'films' [think Sherlock].

You do wonder whether they're in self-harm mode as a protest against their funding.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, indeed. Anti-depressant rates are so high that there are trace amounts in the water.

They're given too readily, and then people, as your friend's example indicates, struggle to get off them.

I've recently been on Sertraline, which work well and are not particularly addictive. Zopiclone (a sleeping tablet) reduced my IQ to that of a Labrador, never been so befuddled in my life. No, I'm not on them now .

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, whilst Fry can be full of himself, I do agree with your assessment.

There are also rumours of Doctor Who either being axed or changed to a few long 'films' [think Sherlock].

Dr Who came back well but began to lose its way some time ago. It's not the choice of actors for me but the general rushing round gabble babble gabble emoting unthinking unfathomable blarney of it all.
Dr Who lands, Dr Who has adventure (that you can follow!), Dr Who leaves. What's wrong with that?

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, whilst Fry can be full of himself, I do agree with your assessment.

There are also rumours of Doctor Who either being axed or changed to a few long 'films' [think Sherlock].

The problem with QI is not merely the Quota for unfunny women, the core problem is Alan Davies who over the last 3 or 4 seasons has reduced much of the humour to puerile penis jokes which fall flat ...

Well, it's probably hard for a man of his age to keep it up for series after series.

Tory MPs burst out laughing as Corbyn takes to his feet to precisely no cheers from Labour benches #PMQs

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, surely you mean: "I wonder what Janet, a housewife from Sussex, will ask about today."?

I really hope one gets sneaked in as from a Mrs Trellis of North Wales

Mr. Flightpath, quite. And destroying the cybermen with emotions is utterly tedious.

However, I did happen to see the last episode (it was that or the English rugby team) and must say I really rather enjoyed it.

Mr. Herdson, it's a rather obvious approach, if an organisation chooses to adopt it. Just cut something much loved and high profile, then blame it on cuts whilst executive pay remains undiminished.

That said, I think Top Gear went because of Cohen et al's personal dislike of Clarkson. Punching a colleague is a serious business, but a former director general had, earlier in his career, bitten someone, and that didn't harm his prospects.

Edited extra bit: Mr. 63, *ask* a child?! What a notion.

Cook a meal, and offer the options of eating it or going without (and a chocolate dessert if you eat it). Watch the minors' resolve crumble beneath the invincible power of Behaviourism!

That said, I do seem to have a completely contrary approach (to other people) when it comes to food. Gluttony is the sin with which I have struggled the least.

chestnut said:

Welfare, then London rents.

Does the UK exist outside London for some of these MPs?

It does?

JEO said:

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, and perhaps more likely to be leftwing, given the divergence between polling and reality ahead of the last election?

That was only a few months ago. Seems bloody ages.

People who are more politically interested (Outside of professional interest) tend to be more leftwing I think. Politicalbetting.com is the exception that proves the rule.

How does that explain right-wing people being more likely to vote? When elections have low turnouts and are limited to the more politically interested, the right always does better.

I think it just seems like there are more politically interested left-wingers, because they have less self-awareness about sharing their views. Shy Tories and all that.

Bingo. Because their views are acceptable - right wing views are considered distasteful.

Rashid is about to top the table (By quite a way) for worst statistical debut by an England bowler.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flightpath, quite. And destroying the cybermen with emotions is utterly tedious.

However, I did happen to see the last episode (it was that or the English rugby team) and must say I really rather enjoyed it.

This seaason does seem quite excellent so far with some scares that I'm sure will be giving kids lots of nightmares (as they should). The Hand Mines in the season premier were excellently chilling.

They seem to be returning to more of an old school Who (without the crappy effects and acting) which is fun. Hopefully Moffat can keep it up all season.

Whisper it... I actually though Jeremy Corbyn was quite good then. David Cameron - admittedly good at thinking on his feet - looked a bit discomfited.

It can't be comfortable for a PM of any party to know that the public finances are in such a state that £1800 in annual tax credits needs to be taken from a lower-income worker, or that a £450k house in London falls within the "starter home" bracket.

Corbyn is certainly a better operator in parliament than he is among the media/wider political bloodsport.

Hahahaha.

Cameron claims the Afghan government is in control of Afghanistan.

MarqueeMark said:

So Corbyn didn't ask about Saudi Arabia. I wonder what he was scared of?

Why bother when they've already withdrawn the bid?

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

"Can I bring the prime minister back to reality," says the Labour leader.

HAHAHHAHAHhHAHAHaHHAhaaHAHAHA

Reality like not being able to afford to buy a house and like being £1000+ a year worse off due to tax credit cuts. Not a laughing matter IMO

Since when was £450k ever a starter home though ?

That's a second or third home for most people.

I doubt the Gov't has ever labelled a 450k home as 'starter'... the line of attack is a nonsense. There's nothing wrong with 450k homes being built, all increase to supply of homes is good in the round.

God, Cameron being held responsible for estate agents' marketing fluff. This is the robust opposition that we've been lacking for so long.

The commentariat seem split on whether Jeremy Corbyn's style works, and not along party lines.

Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian:

That was a creditable performance from Jeremy Corbyn - serious and abuse-free, in a manner that seemed to go down well last month (see 11.51am) - but, even though Corbyn was using follow-up questions today, he has not worked out how to “weaponise” them, and Cameron was hardly discomforted at all.

Patrick Wintour, also of the Guardian:

By recounting stories of real people in poverty or struggling with housing, Corbyn dignifies PMQs, and raises the tone. It's progress.

Tim Shipman:

Better outing from Corbyn. Tax credits a useful scab to pick at. Cameron sound on the big economics. But the Corbyn deprecation of Dave good

Jim Pickard of the FT:

Jim Pickard Retweeted Sam Macrory
I think Corbyn is playing this rather well


Paul Waugh:

Corbyn first follow up Q was ok, second fell flat. Cameron allowed to repeat child poverty stats and fiscal charter borrowing message

Fenster said:

Whisper it... I actually though Jeremy Corbyn was quite good then. David Cameron - admittedly good at thinking on his feet - looked a bit discomfited.

It can't be comfortable for a PM of any party to know that the public finances are in such a state that £1800 in annual tax credits needs to be taken from a lower-income worker, or that a £450k house in London falls within the "starter home" bracket.

Corbyn is certainly a better operator in parliament than he is among the media/wider political bloodsport.

Quite possibly, but i think it's also negated PMQs as much of anything at all.

He'll be 'ok', but it won't give Corbyn any big wins, and thats what he needs to get his party even moderately behind him.

antifrank said:

The commentariat seem split on whether Jeremy Corbyn's style works, and not along party lines.

Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian:

That was a creditable performance from Jeremy Corbyn - serious and abuse-free, in a manner that seemed to go down well last month (see 11.51am) - but, even though Corbyn was using follow-up questions today, he has not worked out how to “weaponise” them, and Cameron was hardly discomforted at all.

Patrick Wintour, also of the Guardian:

By recounting stories of real people in poverty or struggling with housing, Corbyn dignifies PMQs, and raises the tone. It's progress.

Tim Shipman:

Better outing from Corbyn. Tax credits a useful scab to pick at. Cameron sound on the big economics. But the Corbyn deprecation of Dave good

Jim Pickard of the FT:

Jim Pickard Retweeted Sam Macrory
I think Corbyn is playing this rather well


Paul Waugh:

Corbyn first follow up Q was ok, second fell flat. Cameron allowed to repeat child poverty stats and fiscal charter borrowing message

Listening to it (rather than watching), they both sound pretty evenly matched - Cameron on the data, Corbyn on the 'people bit'.

For once Robertson muffed it - asking a very partial question on Syrian refugees which was deservedly squashed.....

Slackbladder said:

Fenster said:

Whisper it... I actually though Jeremy Corbyn was quite good then. David Cameron - admittedly good at thinking on his feet - looked a bit discomfited.

It can't be comfortable for a PM of any party to know that the public finances are in such a state that £1800 in annual tax credits needs to be taken from a lower-income worker, or that a £450k house in London falls within the "starter home" bracket.

Corbyn is certainly a better operator in parliament than he is among the media/wider political bloodsport.

Quite possibly, but i think it's also negated PMQs as much of anything at all.

He'll be 'ok', but it won't give Corbyn any big wins, and thats what he needs to get his party even moderately behind him.

Yeah, I don't think he'll get headlines on the 10 o'clock news but he's a decent operator in parliament and he can use PMQs to serve two purposes: 1. Raise morale of the PLP and 2. Use genuine emails from genuinely suffering people to gain traction with the political writers.

But I guess it's all a moot point because the performance of the shadow cabinet outside of parliament so far has been woeful. I still think the Labour party will split under his leadership. His supporters and the PLP are so at odds it can't possibly work.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Looking at the tax credit case Corbyn quotes, the PM's folk should crunch the numbers afterwards and see how "worse off" that lady will be over the course of the 5 years.
With a circa £2.00 an hour NMW rise (just under 30%) on top of the rise in the basic starting point for income tax and any other elements such as housing rent decreases and nursery provision, it maybe that she has an overall increase outpacing predicted inflation by 2020.

I think the point is that, as always, the cutback elements of the tax credit changes are front loaded, while the living wage increases are heavily phased. Deficit comes down faster, but at the expense of a one or two year cash flow crisis for the poor.

Likewise with the reductions in benefits, the effect is front loaded with the new and especially quality jobs (as opposed to minimum wage, ZHC and poverty-line self-employment) to come later.

Or housing benefit cuts to drive rent reductions.

The destination sounds good, and the opposition should not just simply say 'Can't get there from here', but pointing out that the Conservatives have chosen to build this road along the cheapest but most damaging route has got to be legitimate.

MattW said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

"Can I bring the prime minister back to reality," says the Labour leader.

HAHAHHAHAHhHAHAHaHHAhaaHAHAHA

Reality like not being able to afford to buy a house and like being £1000+ a year worse off due to tax credit cuts. Not a laughing matter IMO

Since when was £450k ever a starter home though ?

That's a second or third home for most people.

I doubt the Gov't has ever labelled a 450k home as 'starter'... the line of attack is a nonsense. There's nothing wrong with 450k homes being built, all increase to supply of homes is good in the round.

Mr Cameron should have rammed home the messages about Help to Buy and shared equity on those, and compared achievable numbers with JC's borderline case.

Telegraph, couple of days ago:

"The price of these "starter homes", after the discount is applied, will be capped at £250,000 across the UK and £450,000 in London."

Spot on

Slackbladder said:

Seems the football equivalent of both sides 'parking the bus' and messing about in the middle of the pitch.

Cameron can't directly attack the questions as they come from 'members of the public', but Corbyn can't make any direct hits as the questions and follow up aren't directed enough, and easy to fob off with stats.

''The London housing market is bananas anyway though. ''

There is evidence it is coming off the boil, big time. The standard reported last night about huge discounts being given to get premium properties away.

Only a matter of time before it filters downwards.

SimonStClare said:

Pulpstar said:

The London housing market is bananas anyway though.

It always has been. When I lived there it was all rented bedsits for all but a lucky few.

The divergence with the rest of the country has increased over the last 20 years though, and is continuing to do so.

JEO said:

rottenborough said:

MattW said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

"Can I bring the prime minister back to reality," says the Labour leader.

HAHAHHAHAHhHAHAHaHHAhaaHAHAHA

Reality like not being able to afford to buy a house and like being £1000+ a year worse off due to tax credit cuts. Not a laughing matter IMO

Since when was £450k ever a starter home though ?

That's a second or third home for most people.

I doubt the Gov't has ever labelled a 450k home as 'starter'... the line of attack is a nonsense. There's nothing wrong with 450k homes being built, all increase to supply of homes is good in the round.

Mr Cameron should have rammed home the messages about Help to Buy and shared equity on those, and compared achievable numbers with JC's borderline case.

Telegraph, couple of days ago:

"The price of these "starter homes", after the discount is applied, will be capped at £250,000 across the UK and £450,000 in London."

I'm never keen on these sorts of policies. They seem like enormous giveaways to a handful of people, rather than addressing the underlying causes to the problem to make affordability better for all.

Can you not see all those poor people queuing up with their £450K

Luckyguy1983 said:

richardDodd said:

How can anyone who wants to release ferocious, wild, possibly man eating animals into the wild..be taken seriously. Just hire a specialist for the day..

Quite. More deer = more venison burgers. I don't see the downside.

Works for me.

John_M said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

"Can I bring the prime minister back to reality," says the Labour leader.

HAHAHHAHAHhHAHAHaHHAhaaHAHAHA

Reality like not being able to afford to buy a house and like being £1000+ a year worse off due to tax credit cuts. Not a laughing matter IMO

Have a look at the Daily Mail's article on 1970s Glasgow. We've collectively come a long way in 50 years.

That's not to denigrate people who (as always happens) suffer when circumstances change - be that the economy, government policy and so on. We just have to keep a sense of perspective.

Blinking 'eck. I just saw those Glasgow homes on the Mail website. Bonkers.

Plato_Says said:

Philip Cowley
15% of public claim to have watched last PMQs "in full" - yeah, right!

http://t.co/eQohDbcU6m

Indeed - I'm a political saddo and I think I've watched it in full once in a year, and that was because the great JC.

Blinking 'eck. I just saw those Glasgow homes on the Mail website. Bonkers.

Those pictures remind us all what the labour party was for.

Is it a victim of its own success?? is its mission over???

The concept of "starter homes" is not really an incentive to atually build more homes. It's mostly designed as a distributive effect, i.e. who buys the homes that there are.

From my perspective whatever I think of that it is a distraction compared to the systemic reasons too few homes are being built (materials, labour, sites, planning, competition).

I feel the same way about Labour efforts in the same vein, including rent controls.

JosiasJessop said:

Just catching up with PMQs, and I see Liz McInnes is calling for unions to be allowed to perform electronic balloting of members.

I hope she resigns as an MP if she's so pig-thick as to believe that is workable.

It's no more unworkable than postal voting.

New Thread New Thread

david_herdson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Just catching up with PMQs, and I see Liz McInnes is calling for unions to be allowed to perform electronic balloting of members.

I hope she resigns as an MP if she's so pig-thick as to believe that is workable.

It's no more unworkable than postal voting.

Yes, it is.

PV is flawed but useful in some circumstances. Electronic voting is utterly flawed and totally useless.

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

Why would they prejudice the Dutch Criminal investigation?

How much of the report have you read?

It sets out fairly clearly the area where the missile was likely fired from .....who did the firing is not in their remit.....

Shilling for Putin is not an easy ask at times like this.

Lucky is always willing to give it his best shot though

Putin's little poodle.

Amazingly pathetic field on the Dem side this election. Bernie, the ageing socialist; Biden, not actually running but at 20%; and the favourite, Hillary!

After all the scandals and personal nastiness it's incredible. There's a great piece on Harpy Rodham Clinton at: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/04/normal-0-21-false-false-false-pl-x-none.html