Friday 16th January 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:15 pm

oh jesus christ it's snowing
it felt like summer just two minutes ago

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:18 pm

citizenJA wrote:oh jesus christ it's snowing
it felt like summer just two minutes ago

It is a bit of a mind twister at the mo ... we've had just about every variation of weather possible within an hour for several days in a row.

I'm steeling myself to go out and start lifting some plants which have got to be found a new home - we are going up in the world and having a porch put on the house. Yay ... somewhere to put muddy boots ... and no more cat flap swinging in the wind and letting in an icy blast all night.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:19 pm

Jolyon Maugham ‏@JolyonMaugham 19h19 hours ago
Osborne says all buyers of pensioner bonds have subscribed maximum (for a couple, £40k). State subsidy, targeted at those who need it least.

But "they've paid in all these years" or something.

I wouldn't put it too crudely in "generation war" terms though, as some do. Plenty of pensioners are not at all well off and have had much harder lives than me. It's such a shame so many of the poorer ones vote Tory or UKIP.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:25 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Saudi primarily for one of two reasons:

1. To attack the emerging US shale oil industry so as to drive it out of business permanently, this restoring Saudi dominance in oil; and also to screw Iran its largest rival and by extension Syria and Russia.

Or

2. To make everybody realise what a bunch of complete morons the SNP are, and underline how they nearly inflicted Götterdämmerung on Scotland.

Rational people select 1, Cybernats 2.
I need the help of members of the SNP just like I need the help of every other decent human being on this planet.

I'm unconvinced Saudi Arabia has sufficient motive. Shale extraction & the whole hydraulic fracturing mess is too costly in every way. It's unnecessary to tank oil prices to end its profitability.
I think you're probably correct in questioning TE's logic, JA. But you and he are being too rational about Saudi.

As I was until bloke on another board explained it to me. It's a very secretive,dictatorial monarchy with a succession dispute. We don't have to assume they're evil geniuses in the Rupert Murdoch mode.

All I mean to say is there's more going on than what we're seeing, is all, maybe. I don't like tangled conspiracies, it's not that making me wonder...just come now, students of history, human nature, life - what's all the story, I think there's more to it, I genuinely don't need to be right, I'd like to know the truth.

Snow coming down in big white fluffy flakes.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:29 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:And in the nick of time...Nicky Morgan comes up with the report as to whether the DfE had had warnings about possible extremism in Birmingham schools.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... am-schools

The review has found no instances where specific warnings were ignored by the department and no cases where departmental officials or ministers acted inappropriately. It has, however, found that the department has in the past lacked inquisitiveness on this issue, and that procedures could have been tighter than they were.
So that's OK then...phew.

haven't seen the text of the statement yet so can't say whether this is just waffle and a "nothing to see here".

There is something which is just a bit odd and which makes me wonder whether this is a whitewash.

2013 – During the course of the review, I have also received a copy of a letter which Lord Hunt of Kings Heath wrote on 23 March 2013 to Lord Hill, then Leader of the House of Lords, and which, according to Lord Hunt, they subsequently discussed. This letter referred to similar issues to those raised in the Peter Clarke report. As this was not a letter sent to the DfE, it is not formally within scope of this review. The Leader of the House subsequently arranged for Lord Hunt to see DfE officials, following the receipt of the Trojan Horse letter.

But Lord Hill was the DfE minister who was at the meeting in 2010 where warnings came from a Birmingham head teacher Tim Boyes.

Isn't that a bit odd that you'd ignore a letter given to an ex-DfE minister purely on the grounds that he wasn't now at the DfE?

And why didn't Hill pass that letter on to the DfE in the first place?

Can't help thinking that the Trojan Horse letter was written by Tim Boyes since he was being ignored by the DfE and thought this was the only way of getting it out into the open. After all, if you were plotting something you really wouldn't write a letter like that unless you were really dim...or you wanted it in the public domain.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:33 pm

That's basically another warning ignored, isn't it?

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:33 pm

When Iain Duncan Smith paid a visit to a small business in Nottingham this morning a small protest of five people was waiting for him.

So he was sneaked out of the back door.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:36 pm

Eurobank is...at risk with exposure [to Swiss franc-denominated loans, mostly mortgages]of about 11% [of their gross loans] or €5.7bn, according to Euroxx Securities.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... e17aba7073" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:36 pm

citizenJA wrote:
What does Saudi Arabia want? Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a friend to renewable energy production then either? Even in a world intentionally abandoning fossil fuel based economies, we'd still need oil. CH4 extraction is god awful business - it's insane. It doesn't break my heart it's stopped. Ironic it'd be stopped by the need for Saudi oil market dominance. Market dominance. What's that good for? Creating dominated. Dumb. Childish. It's not sensible. It's not grown up, competent or wise.

What Saudi Arabia wants is, indeed, open to question. To cripple US shale markets is one theory. Another is that low oil prices hurts Russia and Iran more than it hurts Saudi Arabia. There may be something in that. The suggestion I'm most interested in, however, is the idea that Saudi Arabia has actually lost control of oil - that it no longer commands the power through OPEC to cut back sufficiently to raise prices. The Arab Spring still lurks in the background, there is still huge pressures on the ruling families in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Their grip on power and therefore middle eastern oil supply may not be as strong as it was.

http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/10 ... il-market/

Nb. I started this comment 10 mins ago but got interrupted by a call from Populus asking if I would take part in a survey. As well as the election they were asking a lot of questions about tv and the license fee. I wonder who they're researching that for?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:37 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:That's basically another warning ignored, isn't it?

Yes but Wormald clearly doesn't want to look at it - two warnings where Lord Hill was involved would be pretty damning.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:42 pm

Can we get Warwick or Laura McI interested in this?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:43 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
What does Saudi Arabia want? Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a friend to renewable energy production then either? Even in a world intentionally abandoning fossil fuel based economies, we'd still need oil. CH4 extraction is god awful business - it's insane. It doesn't break my heart it's stopped. Ironic it'd be stopped by the need for Saudi oil market dominance. Market dominance. What's that good for? Creating dominated. Dumb. Childish. It's not sensible. It's not grown up, competent or wise.
What Saudi Arabia wants is, indeed, open to question. To cripple US shale markets is one theory. Another is that low oil prices hurts Russia and Iran more than it hurts Saudi Arabia. There may be something in that. The suggestion I'm most interested in, however, is the idea that Saudi Arabia has actually lost control of oil - that it no longer commands the power through OPEC to cut back sufficiently to raise prices. The Arab Spring still lurks in the background, there is still huge pressures on the ruling families in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Their grip on power and therefore middle eastern oil supply may not be as strong as it was.

http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/10 ... il-market/

Yeah, some things have slipped, I think.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:50 pm

Trading in US forex broker FXCM, which is battling for survival, has been delayed. Its stock tumbled nearly 90% in pre-market trading, as investors reacted to client losses suffered after the sharp appreciation of the Swiss franc yesterday.

The broker has admitted that it may be in breach of some regulatory capital requirements.

Credit Suisse said in a note:

Absent an overnight capital raise FXCM will not be able to conduct business.

In breach of some regulatory capital requirements.

People lives' at stake. Nothing has changed. Nothing is fixed.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... 81351a4875" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:57 pm

Can I clarify? This letter to Lord Hill isn't being made public?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:58 pm

A new column from Harry Leslie Smith! Outstanding.

A recent poll suggested voters are more optimistic about their futures than non-voters. Considering that only 65% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2010 election, pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy that guarantees non-voters a future dictated by others.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ine-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 3:00 pm

@RR2

The context was a teacher digging me in the ribs,a slight to family honour and being the Morning after corrupt officialdom cheating Leeds United of the 1975 European Cup.A "lethal"scenario ,impossible to be repeated.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 3:12 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
What does Saudi Arabia want? Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a friend to renewable energy production then either? Even in a world intentionally abandoning fossil fuel based economies, we'd still need oil. CH4 extraction is god awful business - it's insane. It doesn't break my heart it's stopped. Ironic it'd be stopped by the need for Saudi oil market dominance. Market dominance. What's that good for? Creating dominated. Dumb. Childish. It's not sensible. It's not grown up, competent or wise.
What Saudi Arabia wants is, indeed, open to question. To cripple US shale markets is one theory. Another is that low oil prices hurts Russia and Iran more than it hurts Saudi Arabia. There may be something in that. The suggestion I'm most interested in, however, is the idea that Saudi Arabia has actually lost control of oil - that it no longer commands the power through OPEC to cut back sufficiently to raise prices. The Arab Spring still lurks in the background, there is still huge pressures on the ruling families in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Their grip on power and therefore middle eastern oil supply may not be as strong as it was.

http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/10 ... il-market/
Yeah, some things have slipped, I think.

I honestly think this is relatively simple Geopolitics.

The advent of shale oil has removed Saudi's ability to control the oil supply when oil prices are high.

Saudi does have the cheapest oil to extract, they can make money at $20 per barrel.

The market for oil is depressed, in part because of China.

If Saudi can drive the oil price to the floor and keep it there it will kill off shale, thus ensuring that it retains its key position even at high oil prices. In effect this will return a measure of control to Saudi almost regardless of oil price.

This works because by showing it can bankrupt shale at will, it holds this threat forever over the heads of bankers. Even at $200 a barrel an investor knows Saudi could repeat this trick and they would lose all their money.

I think at times of high demand Saudi has more limited control as prices are high, but at these lower prices other countries start to lose money and capacity. This relies on Saudi being able to keep the taps open, because if it can't oil prices will normalise.

It is a clever well timed strategic play.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 3:12 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Can I clarify? This letter to Lord Hill isn't being made public?

Nope.

I could try contacting Warwick and see whether he wants to follow it up. Or someone could tweet Laura McI and point out that Hill was at the DfE and should have passed it on.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:12 pm

What's the problem with this letter from Lord Hunt to Hill?!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:13 pm

Cybernatting at the moment.

Not getting a single straight answer.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:16 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.

Not getting a single straight answer.

What are you asking?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:27 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.

Not getting a single straight answer.
What are you asking?

Stuff about the vote this week. The welfare cap. What Reeves actually said in her "tougher" speech (it was about people who turned down jobs". The SNP's council cuts, as set out in Local Income Tax which was blocked by Labour and Tories.

The last was quite incredible. £450m of tax cuts/ council cuts.

Any old shit as long as it gets power to Holyrood.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:30 pm

citizenJA wrote:Ya'll know anything about Swiss currency?

As someone living there it is a preoccupation clearly

This is a problem made in Frankfurt. The CHF is pegged to a chaotic currency and with the QE possibly being announced on the 22nd I think the SNB decided enough was enough and it would be futile to attempt to hold 1,2 as an exchange rate

I think, speaking to some people more knowledgeable than me, that they wanted to see where the market went and then put in another cap (possibly unofficial) to prevent too much damage. The thing is though that the ECB is wanting to devalue and the CHF is too strong for that to happen and it would just be forced off the peg anyway

The main worry is the increase against the dollar but I have a feeling this will be short-lived and it is possible in the medium term that the CHF significantly weakens (negative interest rates, slowing growth, reached its peak etc).

This encapsulates the world's problem - deflationary pressure - non-existent inflation, low interest rates and so anything that is showing any sign of appreciation is targeted

On a personal level, I am now 15% more expensive than the day before yesterday and so, of course, I worry about my future job security. I cannot worry too much though as I, and my company, have no effect on currency movements. The Swiss unemployment benefit is good though and I will probably get 9 months pay if something happens on the negative side

Whether it was the right move at the right time only time will tell - it was inevitable it was going to happen and we just have to hope the gamble pays off

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:30 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:What's the problem with this letter from Lord Hunt to Hill?!

From Wormald's report.

2013 – During the course of the review, I have also received a copy of a letter which Lord Hunt of Kings Heath wrote on 23 March 2013 to Lord Hill, then Leader of the House of Lords, and which, according to Lord Hunt, they subsequently discussed. This letter referred to similar issues to those raised in the Peter Clarke report. As this was not a letter sent to the DfE, it is not formally within scope of this review. The Leader of the House subsequently arranged for Lord Hunt to see DfE officials, following the receipt of the Trojan Horse letter.

So there's two issues.

1. Why did Hill not follow it up with the DfE at the time when he must have been able to recall his meeting in 2010?
2. Why did Wormald not think it important enough given Hill's prior involvement to include it?

That last sentence makes it seem as though Hill realised he should have followed it up before.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:31 pm

Anyone think the media would let Caroline Lucas get away with saying something so wrong about the Tories?

Crosby and pals are directing this "Labour- just the same" stuff.

So sad to see leftists charging straight into the trap.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:52 pm

http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... ng-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Policy Exchange ring any bells?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 4:56 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Anyone think the media would let Caroline Lucas get away with saying something so wrong about the Tories?

Crosby and pals are directing this "Labour- just the same" stuff.

So sad to see leftists charging straight into the trap.

Just heard a very good explanation of the various figures / positions of the different parties on R4 (the prog that tries to unpick and accurately reconstruct the sums behind various statements, proposals, theories etc ... such as carbon capture costs or party budget declarations). They had a women from the IFS stating very clearly that there is a big difference between the Conservatives plans - cuts of up to 41% from unprotected departments and the intention to have a surplus by 2019, which will necessitate very tight spending cuts ... and both the Labour and Lib Dem plans which allow for more borrowing to achieve removal of the deficit and require far less dramatic levels of cuts. No excuses for any politician, media person, or voter to trot out or accept the line that Lib Lab & Con are all the same re austerity. They are very very clearly not.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:00 pm

StephenDolan wrote:http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... ng-it.html

Policy Exchange ring any bells?

Bet it won't at Con Home, bunch of steaming hypocrites.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:02 pm

''Two Sun journalists acquitted of corruption charges''

Bogger, I was hoping a certain flame haired ex-editor might be back in court soon.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:10 pm

yahyah wrote:''Two Sun journalists acquitted of corruption charges''

Bogger, I was hoping a certain flame haired ex-editor might be back in court soon.

Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:15 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
yahyah wrote:''Two Sun journalists acquitted of corruption charges''

Bogger, I was hoping a certain flame haired ex-editor might be back in court soon.
Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.

Troup and Edwards, referred to in the headline aren;t awaiting other verdicts unless I have misread things.
It is several others who are awaiting verdicts next week.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:18 pm

James Doleman @jamesdoleman · 1h 1 hour ago
Reporters John Troup and John Edwards cleared by jury. Deliberations on others continue.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:18 pm

yahyah wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:
yahyah wrote:''Two Sun journalists acquitted of corruption charges''

Bogger, I was hoping a certain flame haired ex-editor might be back in court soon.
Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.

Troup and Edwards, referred to in the headline aren;t awaiting other verdicts unless I have misread things.
It is several others who are awaiting verdicts next week.

You're probably right yahyah; just repeating what i half listened to on the radio.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:23 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
yahyah wrote:
frightful_oik wrote: Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.

Troup and Edwards, referred to in the headline aren;t awaiting other verdicts unless I have misread things.
It is several others who are awaiting verdicts next week.
You're probably right yahyah; just repeating what i half listened to on the radio.

Don't worry, there seem so many trials and Sun people in the courts, quite hard to keep up.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:23 pm

I know I'm preaching to the converted etc, but this is one of the best summaries of why we need to ensure we get rid of Cameron & his sorry crew I've read of late.

https://grumblerblog.wordpress.com/2015 ... ervatives/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, and Nat Tapley has an interesting piece about what Al Murray has taken on.

http://usvsth3m.com/post/how-to-get-ele ... -who-wasnt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:24 pm

StephenDolan wrote:http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... ng-it.html

Policy Exchange ring any bells?

Not to mention the New Schools Network - founded by an ex-Gove adviser and now headed up by Baroness Evans - a Tory peer!

Oh, and where Theodore Agnew was a trustee before finding himself in the DfE on the Board - he was also a Policy Exchange trustee as was Charlotte Leslie.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:25 pm

A horrible ominous new banner headline has appeared across the top of the G website:

the guardian.com has a new look coming soon preview it now find out more

I think we all know what the 'new look' will be like, don't we?

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:25 pm

StephenDolan wrote:A long read, but worth it.
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/the_my ... al_deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're right - it's an excellent article that highlights the difficulty of economics: there's a lot of disagreement over the basics, which leads to the demonisation of all economists in general, and allows some utter frauds to ply their trade and call themselves economists.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:30 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Anyone think the media would let Caroline Lucas get away with saying something so wrong about the Tories?

Crosby and pals are directing this "Labour- just the same" stuff.

So sad to see leftists charging straight into the trap.

I used to quite like the Greens. I liked the way they didn't have a leader, just speakers (I have a vague memory of a guy in an anorak speaking to someone from the BBC and thinking how refreshingly un-politicianlike he was, really genuine and enthusiastic!). Caroline Lucas is pretty cool too, a very effective environmentalist, a real asset to the Green movement generally. Since Natalie Bennett took over as leader, however, I've gone right off them. Suddenly they're just like all the other parties, all spin and lies and political positioning. Some may say it's worked, they've grown in membership and in the polls...but at what cost? At the moment they seem intent on stealing votes off Labour, even if it means lying about them, rather than championing left-wing politics against the hegemony of the right. If it was more a case of, we oppose the right, agree with Labour where they are on the left, but would go much further ourselves, then I would applaud them, but instead they appear to be peddling the "there're all the same" rubbish dreamed up by the right that is specifically designed to ensure anyone with even slightly left-leaning views is conned into voting for anyone but Labour, as the only party that can actually gain the majority necessary to implement any kind of left-wing agenda. But maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression. Perhaps if Natalie invested in a nice anorak she might win me over again....

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:30 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:A horrible ominous new banner headline has appeared across the top of the G website:

the guardian.com has a new look coming soon preview it now find out more
I think we all know what the 'new look' will be like, don't we?

Just wish they'd waited until after the election to ruin the site.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:31 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.

Not getting a single straight answer.
What are you asking?
Stuff about the vote this week. The welfare cap. What Reeves actually said in her "tougher" speech (it was about people who turned down jobs". The SNP's council cuts, as set out in Local Income Tax which was blocked by Labour and Tories.

The last was quite incredible. £450m of tax cuts/ council cuts.

Any old shit as long as it gets power to Holyrood.

I like Mary Fee.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parli ... LlKlTusX6o

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:32 pm

Yep, looks like Monday could well see the dreaded "total Beta" finally upon us

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:34 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Anyone think the media would let Caroline Lucas get away with saying something so wrong about the Tories?

Crosby and pals are directing this "Labour- just the same" stuff.

So sad to see leftists charging straight into the trap.
I used to quite like the Greens. I liked the way they didn't have a leader, just speakers (I have a vague memory of a guy in an anorak speaking to someone from the BBC and thinking how refreshingly un-politicianlike he was, really genuine and enthusiastic!). Caroline Lucas is pretty cool too, a very effective environmentalist, a real asset to the Green movement generally. Since Natalie Bennett took over as leader, however, I've gone right off them. Suddenly they're just like all the other parties, all spin and lies and political positioning. Some may say it's worked, they've grown in membership and in the polls...but at what cost? At the moment they seem intent on stealing votes off Labour, even if it means lying about them, rather than championing left-wing politics against the hegemony of the right. If it was more a case of, we oppose the right, agree with Labour where they are on the left, but would go much further ourselves, then I would applaud them, but instead they appear to be peddling the "there're all the same" rubbish dreamed up by the right that is specifically designed to ensure anyone with even slightly left-leaning views is conned into voting for anyone but Labour, as the only party that can actually gain the majority necessary to implement any kind of left-wing agenda. But maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression. Perhaps if Natalie invested in a nice anorak she might win me over again....

I have the same impression. I wonder to what extent we're masters of our own impressions? Tories don't spend three times the amount Labour do just to support the advertising industry.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:36 pm

Matthew Price @BBCMatthewPrice · 9h 9 hours ago
My 4 year old daughter said, during the 8am @BBCr4today news, without any prior discussion: "it's all men telling us things"

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:36 pm

I know there's an old joke about even a pig with a blue rosette getting Tory votes...surely Ed Vaisey isn't that desperate for a Tory win ?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:37 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yep, looks like Monday could well see the dreaded "total Beta" finally upon us

It's off-putting. It's not possible to have quality exchanges on the beta webpages because of the format.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:39 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yep, looks like Monday could well see the dreaded "total Beta" finally upon us

They may as well back this their new mast top.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:41 pm

yahyah

I know there's an old joke about even a pig with a blue rosette getting Tory votes...surely Ed Vaisey isn't that desperate for a Tory win ?

He looks frightened of the kitty. What's his problem?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:47 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote: What are you asking?
Stuff about the vote this week. The welfare cap. What Reeves actually said in her "tougher" speech (it was about people who turned down jobs". The SNP's council cuts, as set out in Local Income Tax which was blocked by Labour and Tories.

The last was quite incredible. £450m of tax cuts/ council cuts.

Any old shit as long as it gets power to Holyrood.
I like Mary Fee.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parli ... LlKlTusX6o

Cheers.

Look at these SNP chancers.

Stewart Stevenson: Share | Copy Link
Of course, Mary Fee knows perfectly well that we are not doing that. More fundamentally, her party’s amendment deletes from the Government’s motion the reference to expenditure on Trident. Does that mean that she is in favour of investing huge sums of money in Trident instead of investing for the benefit of the people of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK?

Trident is a UK item, for the hundredth time.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Jan, 2015 5:47 pm

Tom Newton Dunn
‏@tnewtondunn
EXCL: Miracles do happen - Alex Salmond pays up after losing $50 oil price bet to @trevor_kavanagh http://sunpl.us/6010xPDM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bet that hurt.