Re: Friday 16th January 2015
Posted: Fri 16 Jan, 2015 2:15 pm
oh jesus christ it's snowing
it felt like summer just two minutes ago
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.citizenJA wrote:oh jesus christ it's snowing
it felt like summer just two minutes ago
But "they've paid in all these years" or something.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.
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.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think you're probably correct in questioning TE's logic, JA. But you and he are being too rational about Saudi.citizenJA wrote:I need the help of members of the SNP just like I need the help of every other decent human being on this planet.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'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.
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.
There is something which is just a bit odd and which makes me wonder whether this is a whitewash.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
So that's OK then...phew.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.
haven't seen the text of the statement yet so can't say whether this is just waffle and a "nothing to see here".
But Lord Hill was the DfE minister who was at the meeting in 2010 where warnings came from a Birmingham head teacher Tim Boyes.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.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... e17aba7073" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
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.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.
Yes but Wormald clearly doesn't want to look at it - two warnings where Lord Hill was involved would be pretty damning.Tubby Isaacs wrote:That's basically another warning ignored, isn't it?
Yeah, some things have slipped, I think.Willow904 wrote: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.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.
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/10 ... il-market/
In breach of some regulatory capital requirements.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.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ine-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
I honestly think this is relatively simple Geopolitics.citizenJA wrote:Yeah, some things have slipped, I think.Willow904 wrote: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.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.
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/10 ... il-market/
Nope.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Can I clarify? This letter to Lord Hill isn't being made public?
What are you asking?Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.
Not getting a single straight answer.
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.citizenJA wrote:What are you asking?Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.
Not getting a single straight answer.
citizenJA wrote:Ya'll know anything about Swiss currency?
From Wormald's report.Tubby Isaacs wrote:What's the problem with this letter from Lord Hunt to Hill?!
So there's two issues.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.
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.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.
Bet it won't at Con Home, bunch of steaming hypocrites.StephenDolan wrote:http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... ng-it.html
Policy Exchange ring any bells?
Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.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.
frightful_oik wrote:Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.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.
You're probably right yahyah; just repeating what i half listened to on the radio.yahyah wrote:frightful_oik wrote:Not cleared of all charges. Jury still deliberating next week so let's be careful what we say.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.
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.
Don't worry, there seem so many trials and Sun people in the courts, quite hard to keep up.frightful_oik wrote:You're probably right yahyah; just repeating what i half listened to on the radio.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.
Not to mention the New Schools Network - founded by an ex-Gove adviser and now headed up by Baroness Evans - a Tory peer!StephenDolan wrote:http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... ng-it.html
Policy Exchange ring any bells?
I think we all know what the 'new look' will be like, don't we?the guardian.com has a new look coming soon preview it now find out more
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.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;
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....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.
rebeccariots2 wrote:A horrible ominous new banner headline has appeared across the top of the G website:
I think we all know what the 'new look' will be like, don't we?the guardian.com has a new look coming soon preview it now find out more
I like Mary Fee.Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.citizenJA wrote:What are you asking?Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cybernatting at the moment.
Not getting a single straight answer.
The last was quite incredible. £450m of tax cuts/ council cuts.
Any old shit as long as it gets power to Holyrood.
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.Willow904 wrote: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....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.
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"
It's off-putting. It's not possible to have quality exchanges on the beta webpages because of the format.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.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yep, looks like Monday could well see the dreaded "total Beta" finally upon us
He looks frightened of the kitty. What's his problem?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 ?
Cheers.citizenJA wrote:I like Mary Fee.Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.citizenJA wrote: What are you asking?
The last was quite incredible. £450m of tax cuts/ council cuts.
Any old shit as long as it gets power to Holyrood.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parli ... LlKlTusX6o
Trident is a UK item, for the hundredth time.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?
Bet that hurt.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;