Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th June 2015

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 9:39 am

Good morning, all

First time I have ever started a thread on here, I believe

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 9:50 am

Good morning. Congratulations on your maiden thread start Anatoloy.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 9:55 am

Congratulations on your maiden-thread, @Anatoly

And good morftereve, all.

Here's a rather good picture wot Cartoonist Rowson made, last evening:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-cartoon

Post by **refitman** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 9:59 am

Oh, FFS:

Picking fights with business doomed Labour to defeat
Mary Creagh
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-miliband" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much has been said over the past few weeks about why Labour lost the election and our problem with business: the anti-business rhetoric and tone of the party’s message; the fact that business people would be invited to write reports as public relations exercises, their recommendations left to gather dust on Westminster bookshelves; the fact that not a single CEO of a large company would come out to back Labour’s stance on not having an EU referendum during the election.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:11 am

Kerry McCarthy retweeted
SouthWest4Andy ‏@SouthWest4Andy 33m33 minutes ago
You can tell Andy what you think should be the top priority for Labour here http://www.andy4labour.co.uk/priorities ... r_id=89261" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Andy Burnham is asking what Labour's top priority should be. How are they going to use these priorities - or is his team's priority to collect emails? That's me being over cynical. It's nice to be asked. But would be good if they gave some idea of what, if anything, they are going to do with the information.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:24 am

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 31m31 minutes ago
Govt giving Knighthoods 2 legal loan sharks 4 services 2 business? Like rewarding Sepp blatter 4 accountancy skills! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 17231.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Quite.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:34 am

David Maddox ‏@DavidPBMaddox 10h10 hours ago
Most political parties would be flat on their backs after a week like this but the SNP appear to be immune http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3801144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

and following that link:

SNP plans ‘will force income tax to double’
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... 144FINANCE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; secretary John Swinney would have to “more than double” income tax north of the Border to fill the financial black hole created by the introduction of the SNP’s plans for full fiscal autonomy, the UK government has warned.

The claim was dismissed as “ludicrous” by SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie but was based on a £10 billion annual funding gap identified by the UK’s leading independent economic think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). The Scotland Office made its calculation as HMRC released its report into identifying the number of Scottish income tax payers for new powers set to be introduced next year, which will see the beginning of an official Scottish rate of income tax.

The row broke out as the SNP’s 56 MPs have been publicly dared to back an amendment by Tory grandee Sir Edward Leigh to the current Scotland Bill on further devolution which would deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. Sir Edward’s amendment was compared by critics to one put down by the SNP which was described as “a fudge designed to ensure that Scotland would never get full fiscal autonomy”...

But questions are being asked why the SNP amendment for full fiscal autonomy appears to delay its introduction. Instead, the amendment by Sir Edward, MP for Gainsborough, would deliver full fiscal autonomy quickly. Sir Edward told The Scotsman that he had tabled in his amendment because he believed it was the settlement Scotland wanted based on the referendum result and the general election, where the SNP won 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats, with full fiscal autonomy a central pledge for which Nicola Sturgeon stated her party would push in the first year...

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:00 am

Perhaps not many royalists here. However, our Welsh Contingent might be interested to know that it is the Welsh Guards who are Trooping their Colour – in honour of their Centenary Year. Live now with Huw Edwards and interspersed with snippets of film on BBC One, the 'no commentary no film inserts' version is on BBC Red Button – 301 or 601 on Freeview.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:31 am

refitman wrote:Oh, FFS:
Picking fights with business doomed Labour to defeat
Mary Creagh
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-miliband" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much has been said over the past few weeks about why Labour lost the election and our problem with business: the anti-business rhetoric and tone of the party’s message; the fact that business people would be invited to write reports as public relations exercises, their recommendations left to gather dust on Westminster bookshelves; the fact that not a single CEO of a large company would come out to back Labour’s stance on not having an EU referendum during the election.

She started her leadership campaign with much fanfare in the Mail, and ended it with barely a whimper in the Graun. Further comment is superfluous, really.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:33 am

8 big questions Nicola Sturgeon's struggling to answer on SNP's plans for Full Fiscal Autonomy
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... vHLMr1jW5N" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found this a useful very straightforward read - setting out most of the information about FFA - the pros, cons and unknowns - stances of various groups etc - and the political games currently being played out.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:37 am

about 99 % of businesses in the UK are SMEs - so being anti-"massive-multinational-corporation-that-doesn't-pay-tax-where-it-earns-money" is probably more pro- than anti- business in terms of numbers that matter to most of us.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:42 am

Cllr Richard Johnson ‏@CllrRJohnson 1h1 hour ago
Very pleased to be a signatory to this letter of Labour councillors backing @stellacreasy as Deputy Leader http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... bour-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Found myself checking the list of signatories to see if the councillor from the ward in Waltham Forest where I used to live was backing her ... nope, he's not there.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 11:48 am

David Maddox retweeted
Eddie Barnes ‏@EddieBarnes23 3h3 hours ago
A majestic savaging of full fiscal autonomy by @ProfTomkins - or full fiscal stupidity as he prefers to call it #FFS https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress ... detriment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Ruth Davidson MSP ‏@RuthDavidsonMSP 2h2 hours ago
*grabs popcorn* "@ProfTomkins:Looking forward to debating Full Fiscal Autonomy with Stewart Hosie MP on Sunday Politics, BBC Scotland, tmrw"

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 12:13 pm

CitizenJA linked to this Friday,
and (i think)LadyCentauria, Thursday night.

Ageing UK population will increase strain on public spending, OBR warns

The financial cost of Britain’s ageing population will require a fresh £20bn wave of spending cuts or tax increases from 2020 to bring the national debt back to pre-recession levels in 50 years time, the government’s public finances watchdog has said.

Long-term projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the second round of austerity due to be detailed by George Osborne in next month’s budget will not be sufficient to reduce debt to 40% of national income – its level before the economy entered its deepest postwar slump.

The OBR said that by 2065, 26% of the population of England and Wales would be more than 65 years old, up from 18% today, increasing the cost of pensions, health and social care.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -obr-warns

I'm not sure sure what long term projection is based on,
It probably presumes that revenues from Gas/Oil are greatly reduced, and that nothing replaces them,
which may be realistic, but did see something on the OBRs website, saying that prices are volatile & so long term projection may be innaccurate, which may suggest things aren't as bad as they're being painted.

But generally got disheartened by it.

Then found something last night a bit more positive:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/george-os ... des-2015-6

..
But Osborne's speech doesn't admit one crucial thing that most people don't seem to know: There's no need to run a budget surplus at all to reduce the national debt in the only way that actually matters.

All you need is for the size of the economy (GDP) to rise more quickly than the debt.

Imagine a man who earns £100 for each shift he does, and whose income increases by 5% each day. He’s also got £50 of debt, and he racks up more, equivalent to 2% of his income each evening.

In the beginning his debt is worth half of his wages. By the end of the first week, his debt has risen to £64.28, but it's now worth just 47.97% of his income, which is £134. By the end of the first month, the debt is worth £164.81, but it’s equivalent to only 44.14% of what he’s earning (now £373.35).

Do you see where this is going?

On a national level, this just means that if your economy grows faster than your deficit, your debt burden will decline. It’s happened for years at a time in recent British history.

For example, in the entire period between 1971 and 1987, the British government was a net borrower every single year. That’s 16 straight years in which the UK couldn’t balance the books, and spent more than it reaped in revenues.

Intuitively, it seems like the UK’s total debt must have gone up — and in nominal terms (counted in pounds), of course it did. But as a proportion of the economy debt was cut by about a third. Public debt as a proportion of GDP fell from 58.2% in 1971 to 38.6% in 1987.
....

....So it’s clear that running a surplus is not necessary for debt to fall as a share of the economy. And it’s the size of the economy that matters to service that debt, and to what extend it is a risk. In the same way a £300,000 mortgage might be too much for someone with an annual income of £20,000, nobody’s going to fret about the same debt held by someone earning a six-figure salary.

It's an interesting website, never seen it before & a great article (by Mike Bird)
Point I got from it was, we should be looking at national debt as being like an interest only mortgage,
As long as the country is earning enough to pay the interest payments, it's ok.
Osbornes big lie, (or particular big lie in this instance) is comparing it to a normal house mortgage,
where you have to repay it by a certain date.

There's also a link in article to an IMF paper, from May
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sd ... dn1510.pdf
Which suggests that some countries, (including Britain) could feasibly live with high debts indefinitely.

Article finishes by suggesting the only reason Osborne wants to do this,
is for political reasons.

(Ha, first time i've looked at forum on laptop instead of mobile, didn't realise the smilies were animated)

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 12:37 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
David Maddox retweeted
Eddie Barnes ‏@EddieBarnes23 3h3 hours ago
A majestic savaging of full fiscal autonomy by @ProfTomkins - or full fiscal stupidity as he prefers to call it #FFS https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress ... detriment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Ruth Davidson MSP ‏@RuthDavidsonMSP 2h2 hours ago
*grabs popcorn* "@ProfTomkins:Looking forward to debating Full Fiscal Autonomy with Stewart Hosie MP on Sunday Politics, BBC Scotland, tmrw"

I don't fancy Hosie's chances of holding his own against Tomkins in a debate. The Prof published some very well-reasoned articles before the referendum. He was also the Tory member of the Smith Commission, so will know the background to the current debate on the Scotland Bill.
Despite being a Tory, he seems to limit his public opinions to his professional (ie legal) knowledge rather than any political dogma. He certainly won't be limited to sound-bites!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 1:09 pm

Oh I do enjoy my annual fly-past as the Red Arrows flew toward and over my flat, in perfect formation! Might be daft to lean out of the window and wave like mad with both arms (hence failing to take a photo!) but, gosh, what a buzz they give me – and makes a great change from the daily helicopters. Sad that the Dakota, the Spitfires, and other more modern fighters had to be withdrawn from the flight, due to the weather conditions, but, hey ho, better safe than sorry...

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 1:39 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
David Maddox retweeted
Eddie Barnes ‏@EddieBarnes23 3h3 hours ago
A majestic savaging of full fiscal autonomy by @ProfTomkins - or full fiscal stupidity as he prefers to call it #FFS https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress ... detriment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Ruth Davidson MSP ‏@RuthDavidsonMSP 2h2 hours ago
*grabs popcorn* "@ProfTomkins:Looking forward to debating Full Fiscal Autonomy with Stewart Hosie MP on Sunday Politics, BBC Scotland, tmrw"
I don't fancy Hosie's chances of holding his own against Tomkins in a debate. The Prof published some very well-reasoned articles before the referendum. He was also the Tory member of the Smith Commission, so will know the background to the current debate on the Scotland Bill.
Despite being a Tory, he seems to limit his public opinions to his professional (ie legal) knowledge rather than any political dogma. He certainly won't be limited to sound-bites!

Hosie didn't appear to know that Scotland's deficit was extra to its share of the UK deficit.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:03 pm

Afternoon! I found this to be an interesting read.

The aim of this paper has been to argue for new forms of public ownership to address the growing private appropriation of resources, ownership and control in the economy. After over three decades of market deregulation and privatisation and its divisive consequences, we urgently need an alternative and more democratic agenda, which subjects economic policy to greater democratic participation and public debate. As the limitations of market models at delivering social justice and environmental sustainability become daily more evident, the case needs to be made for an economy run by, and for, people, rather than in the interests of a capitalist financial and political elite.

Andrew Cumbers - Renewing Public Ownership
http://classonline.org.uk/docs/Renewing ... _FINAL.pdf

(I found Class On Line - LW Think Tank - via blog on Osborne's latest screwball Plan. See next post).

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:04 pm

Budget surplus target plays politics with economic growth
Geoff Tily 11/6/15

http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/bud ... mic-growth

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:05 pm

Matthew Hancock being made to look an even bigger fool by Andrew Neil. Hancock still ranting gibberish lies about Labour.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06 ... 51750.html

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:07 pm

I saved this link from one of the recent articles about Osborne's budget surplus joke.

I've never really understood Quantitative Easing before reading this. I may have to read it again, too!

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... faqs.aspx#

Edited Quantitative - courtesy of RR2!

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:07 pm

Have just replied to Burnham's mail also. Neither he nor Cooper will be particularly cheered, should they ever get to hear my thoughts.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:17 pm

tinybgoat wrote:CitizenJA linked to this Friday,
and (i think)LadyCentauria, Thursday night.

Ageing UK population will increase strain on public spending, OBR warns

The financial cost of Britain’s ageing population will require a fresh £20bn wave of spending cuts or tax increases from 2020 to bring the national debt back to pre-recession levels in 50 years time, the government’s public finances watchdog has said.

Long-term projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the second round of austerity due to be detailed by George Osborne in next month’s budget will not be sufficient to reduce debt to 40% of national income – its level before the economy entered its deepest postwar slump.

The OBR said that by 2065, 26% of the population of England and Wales would be more than 65 years old, up from 18% today, increasing the cost of pensions, health and social care.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -obr-warns

I'm not sure sure what long term projection is based on,
It probably presumes that revenues from Gas/Oil are greatly reduced, and that nothing replaces them,
which may be realistic, but did see something on the OBRs website, saying that prices are volatile & so long term projection may be innaccurate, which may suggest things aren't as bad as they're being painted.

But generally got disheartened by it.

Then found something last night a bit more positive:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/george-os ... des-2015-6

..
But Osborne's speech doesn't admit one crucial thing that most people don't seem to know: There's no need to run a budget surplus at all to reduce the national debt in the only way that actually matters.

All you need is for the size of the economy (GDP) to rise more quickly than the debt.

Imagine a man who earns £100 for each shift he does, and whose income increases by 5% each day. He’s also got £50 of debt, and he racks up more, equivalent to 2% of his income each evening.

In the beginning his debt is worth half of his wages. By the end of the first week, his debt has risen to £64.28, but it's now worth just 47.97% of his income, which is £134. By the end of the first month, the debt is worth £164.81, but it’s equivalent to only 44.14% of what he’s earning (now £373.35).

Do you see where this is going?

On a national level, this just means that if your economy grows faster than your deficit, your debt burden will decline. It’s happened for years at a time in recent British history.

For example, in the entire period between 1971 and 1987, the British government was a net borrower every single year. That’s 16 straight years in which the UK couldn’t balance the books, and spent more than it reaped in revenues.

Intuitively, it seems like the UK’s total debt must have gone up — and in nominal terms (counted in pounds), of course it did. But as a proportion of the economy debt was cut by about a third. Public debt as a proportion of GDP fell from 58.2% in 1971 to 38.6% in 1987.
....

....So it’s clear that running a surplus is not necessary for debt to fall as a share of the economy. And it’s the size of the economy that matters to service that debt, and to what extend it is a risk. In the same way a £300,000 mortgage might be too much for someone with an annual income of £20,000, nobody’s going to fret about the same debt held by someone earning a six-figure salary.
It's an interesting website, never seen it before & a great article (by Mike Bird)
Point I got from it was, we should be looking at national debt as being like an interest only mortgage,
As long as the country is earning enough to pay the interest payments, it's ok.
Osbornes big lie, (or particular big lie in this instance) is comparing it to a normal house mortgage,
where you have to repay it by a certain date.

There's also a link in article to an IMF paper, from May
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sd ... dn1510.pdf
Which suggests that some countries, (including Britain) could feasibly live with high debts indefinitely.

Article finishes by suggesting the only reason Osborne wants to do this,
is for political reasons.

(Ha, first time i've looked at forum on laptop instead of mobile, didn't realise the smilies were animated)

Exactly!
I'd posted the OBR report because it's Osborne's creation - though independent of the Treasury. I quoted from them to indicate just how outrageous Osborne's budget planning is - Chancellor Jeff is a dangerous person in his position. His suggesting policies are lunacy. I didn't post the OBR article above for any other reason than to highlight the Chancellor is justly criticised by everyone who knows anything about the UK economy.

Please know I'm aware Tory government are actively encouraging dangerous demographic warfare. Only a small fraction of people are born with asset portfolios sufficient to live an independently wealthy life. Even those people won't benefit in a society warring amongst themselves over crumbs or an economic system structurally unsound & liable to crash. It's foolish not making sure everyone has access to what they need to live & thrive. It's foolish of government to liken household economics as a model for the UK economy as a whole.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:18 pm

I know @citizen "does" the NAO but I've got HM Treasury next accounts due in my notepad so was looking at the 2014 set - extract below - when I thought, "Yes, let's look at what was said about taxpayer payback for the banks bail out as well, since it's quite topical with the headlines mainly being about Osborne's fire sales".

: 2015-06-13_114703.jpg (182.98 KiB) Viewed 17562 times

http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpay ... anks-faqs/

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... counts.pdf

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:21 pm

giselle97 wrote:I saved this link from one of the recent articles about Osborne's budget surplus joke.

I've never really understood Quntitative Easing before reading this. I may have to read it again, too!

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... faqs.aspx#

Nice to see you here.

Re Osborne, he seems to see no limit on monetary stimulus, but fiscal stimulus is apparently terrible.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:22 pm

And talking of bailouts. Feast your sore eyes and use your scroll finger on this from over the water!

Bailout Recipients
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:23 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Good morning, all

First time I have ever started a thread on here, I believe

Thank you, AnatolyKasparov, for starting the thread.
Good-afternoon, everyone, apologies for not saying so earlier.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:27 pm

Edited out as IMF report I opened from link above!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:30 pm

Thanks for the link to that blog, Eric.

Hadn't realised Sturgeon had said that Scotland would be in the EU "automatically".

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:36 pm

Fiscal surpluses, they really cushion you against crashes!

Er, Iceland, Ireland, Spain?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:38 pm

At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.

I have no doubt you'd be bloody brilliant....What does Mr Riots think?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:44 pm

giselle97 wrote:I saved this link from one of the recent articles about Osborne's budget surplus joke.

I've never really understood Quntitative Easing before reading this. I may have to read it again, too!

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... faqs.aspx#

Hello giselle - 'Quntitative Easing'. It sounds ghastly. Is this a typo or someone's creative and deliberate spelling mistake?

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:44 pm

refitman wrote:Oh, FFS:
Picking fights with business doomed Labour to defeat
Mary Creagh
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-miliband" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much has been said over the past few weeks about why Labour lost the election and our problem with business: the anti-business rhetoric and tone of the party’s message; the fact that business people would be invited to write reports as public relations exercises, their recommendations left to gather dust on Westminster bookshelves; the fact that not a single CEO of a large company would come out to back Labour’s stance on not having an EU referendum during the election.

Thanks for that link Refitman. Once I've made a comment on the G, I never go back to it. I was compelled to though, and saw all the insults against me. Really made me feel good.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Thanks for the link to that blog, Eric.

Hadn't realised Sturgeon had said that Scotland would be in the EU "automatically".

Credit where it's due - the link was originally in David Maddox' tweet, quoted by RR2.

Prof Tomkins' 'North Britain' blog is, imo, excellent - a specialist in international law, who can explain it in words that even I understand. I can even forgive him for his political allegiance.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:49 pm

Jim Murphy ‏@JimForScotland 20m20 minutes ago
After 4 hours of discussion at today's Labour Scottish Executive on modernisation plans I'm getting ready for a 3pm Glasgow press conference

His last day as leader of Scottish Labour. Wonder how his way forward report was received?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:58 pm

giselle97 wrote:And talking of bailouts. Feast your sore eyes and use your scroll finger on this from over the water!

Bailout Recipients
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Great website, thank you. I've only begun perusing it.
I don't know the project & want to study it a bit more in order to know where they got their data.

Interesting bit here
General Motors & Chrysler top the bailed out list costing the US government (taxpayers) $11,401,677,128 & $1,315,061,737 each, respectively.
Those amounts won't be paid back.
That amount could've gone into a lot of public transportation provision & employment.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/losses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 2:58 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.
I have no doubt you'd be bloody brilliant....What does Mr Riots think?

He's not really said anything much about it - yet. If I know him he's probably building up a rosy vision of him and the dogs getting a full run of the house and tv rights because he imagines I'll be out of the way much of the time ... he won't have clocked that the phone will probably be ringing an awful lot more too - and he'll be answering it. Seriously - we haven't taken the time to discuss it properly yet. One of the gentle persuasion tactics has been to send me details of the Fabian Women In Politics Mentoring Scheme with a suggestion I might want to apply ... so I'll mull that over first. There are very few details in the blurb they sent though.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:03 pm

The main and only source of water for thousands of Salvadorans is in peril. Residents from a Salvadoran municipality have seen a gradual depletion and contamination of their main and only water source since multinational corporations like Coca-Cola started operations there, activists have denounced.

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/C ... 0074.html.

If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. http://www.teleSURtv.net/english

Sigh. Will it never end?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:07 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Thanks for the link to that blog, Eric.

Hadn't realised Sturgeon had said that Scotland would be in the EU "automatically".
Credit where it's due - the link was originally in David Maddox' tweet, quoted by RR2.

Prof Tomkins' 'North Britain' blog is, imo, excellent - a specialist in international law, who can explain it in words that even I understand. I can even forgive him for his political allegiance.

I noticed the other day that David Mundell welcomed the SNP's FFA-type stuff. I thought that the Tories and the SNP had a neat "you propose, we'll knock back, and you'll mostly get re-elected, and we can wind England and Wales up again" understanding.

They couldn't be considering letting Scotland impoverish itself, could they?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:09 pm

giselle97 wrote:I know @citizen "does" the NAO but I've got HM Treasury next accounts due in my notepad so was looking at the 2014 set - extract below - when I thought, "Yes, let's look at what was said about taxpayer payback for the banks bail out as well, since it's quite topical with the headlines mainly being about Osborne's fire sales".
2015-06-13_114703.jpg
http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpay ... anks-faqs/

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... counts.pdf

[my edit]

The NAO's one sentence below describing UK taxpayer bail-out costs astounds me every time I read it.

"Once the opportunity cost and risks are factored in, the schemes have represented a transfer from taxpayers to the financial sector."
http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpay ... anks-faqs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Financial sector bastards.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:11 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.
I have no doubt you'd be bloody brilliant....What does Mr Riots think?
He's not really said anything much about it - yet. If I know him he's probably building up a rosy vision of him and the dogs getting a full run of the house and tv rights because he imagines I'll be out of the way much of the time ... he won't have clocked that the phone will probably be ringing an awful lot more too - and he'll be answering it. Seriously - we haven't taken the time to discuss it properly yet. One of the gentle persuasion tactics has been to send me details of the Fabian Women In Politics Mentoring Scheme with a suggestion I might want to apply ... so I'll mull that over first. There are very few details in the blurb they sent though.

A lot to mull over indeed! But it's citizens of your decency, intelligence, commitment and foresight which should be politicians. I would vote for you both! (Hint - both?). No pressure then.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:12 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.
I have no doubt you'd be bloody brilliant....What does Mr Riots think?
He's not really said anything much about it - yet. If I know him he's probably building up a rosy vision of him and the dogs getting a full run of the house and tv rights because he imagines I'll be out of the way much of the time ... he won't have clocked that the phone will probably be ringing an awful lot more too - and he'll be answering it. Seriously - we haven't taken the time to discuss it properly yet. One of the gentle persuasion tactics has been to send me details of the Fabian Women In Politics Mentoring Scheme with a suggestion I might want to apply ... so I'll mull that over first. There are very few details in the blurb they sent though.

A lot of mulling over to be done!
I've not always been happy that I've had to put home life [as in anticipating problems via Mr Ohso] before personal ambition or a really tempting offer, but co-operation and total support from a partner is a must when you're offered something like that.
There's a lot to be said for a peaceful home life.

Or does that date me?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:14 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Thanks for the link to that blog, Eric.

Hadn't realised Sturgeon had said that Scotland would be in the EU "automatically".
Credit where it's due - the link was originally in David Maddox' tweet, quoted by RR2.

Prof Tomkins' 'North Britain' blog is, imo, excellent - a specialist in international law, who can explain it in words that even I understand. I can even forgive him for his political allegiance.
I noticed the other day that David Mundell welcomed the SNP's FFA-type stuff. I thought that the Tories and the SNP had a neat "you propose, we'll knock back, and you'll mostly get re-elected, and we can wind England and Wales up again" understanding.

They couldn't be considering letting Scotland impoverish itself, could they?

A loud sniff from me...In other words yes, and serves them right.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:24 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:At our election campaign review meeting last night (where to start? - so I won't really try) I was informed that the ward where I was the lead campaigner went - according to watchful eyes at the count - roughly 50% Labour 50% Tory. We don't have the final figures / marked up registers yet - but if that proves to be the case - it's a damn good result - a big improvement on previous shares. A small light of hope in an otherwise gloomy overall. Of course Tory boundary changes could make it less than useful in 2020. That's an additional challenge to motivating myself and other wonderful locals to get out there again very soon. But we will because we are going to do some post election listening to people - and pre Assembly election soundings.

The other challenge that small light of hope gives me personally is that I am now coming under a bit of persuasive pressure to stand as a county councillor in 2017. To say I have the jitters about doing that is an understatement.
I have no doubt you'd be bloody brilliant....What does Mr Riots think?

I second Ohso's comment – you would be bloody brilliant!

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:24 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I noticed the other day that David Mundell welcomed the SNP's FFA-type stuff. I thought that the Tories and the SNP had a neat "you propose, we'll knock back, and you'll mostly get re-elected, and we can wind England and Wales up again" understanding.

They couldn't be considering letting Scotland impoverish itself, could they?

I get the impression that the Tories are just playing with the SNP, as a cat plays with a mouse. Maybe getting their own back for the SNP "we'll keep the Tories out" election campaign?

I don't see how FFA could possibly work in practice - the two economies are too interdependent. As to the Tories letting Scotland impoverish itself - possible, but I doubt it. There would be too much of a knock-on effect in the rest of the UK.

I think this sums up the situation at present:

The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-ga ... -1-3801109

Edited to add: There were 400,000 Tory voters in Scotland - maybe they're aiming for a comeback

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:29 pm

The SNP are probably just hanging on and hoping for a Brexit.

Probably right about the Tories toying with the "real opposition" SNP. But they'd be silly to do it too much, because having the same bozos back is perfect for them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:37 pm

OBR's Fiscal sustainability report June 2015
(the report mentioning demographic realities & government budgets, among other things)
http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.indepen ... ssible.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Final paragraph in conclusion
"Our findings should not be taken to imply that the Government needs to achieve a bigger
tightening over the next five years than already planned. Rather, policy makers and would be
policy makers will need to think carefully about the long-term consequences of any
policies they introduce in the short term. And they should give thought too to the policy
choices that will confront them once the current consolidation is complete."

Chancellor, you're a loose cannon. Stop it. Now.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:40 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The SNP are probably just hanging on and hoping for a Brexit.

Probably right about the Tories toying with the "real opposition" SNP. But they'd be silly to do it too much, because having the same bozos back is perfect for them.

Not sure that Scotland is any more pro- or anti-Europe than the rest of the UK. (But it would be amusing if Scotland voted 'out' while the rest of the UK voted 'in').

A Brexit would (if Scotland voted differently) no doubt trigger a demand for another referendum - which may or may not be granted by Westminster. The result, as far as the EU is concerned, would be irrelevant. Scotland would be out, either as part of the UK or as an independent country.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 13 Jun, 2015 3:50 pm

It's very unlikely Scotland would vote to leave, I think. Its nationalism defines itself against English nationalism.

Brexit would be another grievance that would keep the SNP going for a while.

They can also hope that oil comes good. It will, some time.