Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

It is about people not wasting money on booze and drugs. Looks like a good idea. They might spend the money on feeding their hords of kids.

TORY CHEATS.....

@UKStatsAuth The original letter from @RachelReevesMP to Andrew Dilnot on misleading Tory claims can be seen here: http://www.labour.org.uk/conservative-party-political-broadcast-misleading-claims-on-debt%2c2013-01-24 …

http://www.labour.org.uk/conservative-party-political-broadcast-misleading-claims-on-debt%2c2013-01-24

Just posted on twitter.......

Rachel Reeves ‏@RachelReevesMP
Hugely embarrassing for Cameron that he has had to have difference between borrowing and debt explained to him

And this just posted.....

http://www.labour.org.uk/difference-between-borrowing-and-debt,2013-02-01

I suspect that Cameron understands the difference as he got a 'first' in PPE at Oxford. The same subject as Andrew Dilnot studied also at Oxford,

Was that PPE or PE.?

He must have been crammed, as he has certainly been programmed.

Of course the link is to the Labour Party web site. In fact they are wrong. The letter is not pointing out the difference between borrowing and debt. It is attempting to define the terms. Try reading the original letter.

Danny Blanchflower ‏@D_Blanchflower
Letter to Rachel Reeves from Dilnot @ ONS agreeing Cameron lied about the debt declining in party political broadcast http://www.scribd.com/doc/123331382/Letter-to-Rachel-Reeves …

Telling porkies to the electorate. Cameron should be forced to go on TV and issue a sincere apology, like you get in newspapers these days.

The letter is exactly the same word for word. It just seeks to define the terms used. More nonsense!

Gold finger
You are just posting rubbish.

GF,

Cameron couldn't issue a sincere apology.

He doesn't know what sincerity is.

He is another poser and and light weight.

I like the way he is floating around in the Middle East to avoid the stalking horse burgers at home.

He appears to be going down a bomb.

Haystack YOU ARE rubbish, scum in fact after your post 20868. Sums up the nasty piece of work you are. Get a life. FILTERED

Gold finger
You are not applying any critical faculties to the information that you post. You are taking Labour Party propaganda at face value. You posted links to two supposed attacks on Cameron when in fact the links both pointed to the same letter which just sought to define terms to be used in communications. Did you even read the letter? I suspect not. You certainly did not appear to notice that both articles were about the same letter. Even someone with a few brain cells would have to agree that the letter did not have anything to do with any criticism of Cameron and certainly not that he lied.
You do not seem to be stupid. I can only assume you are just naive as most left leaning people are.

In the interests of clarity I am posting the actual letter here. I didn't expect your apology for claiming that the letter indicates any claim that Cameron was lying.


Dear Ms Reeves

PUBLIC SECTOR NET DEBT AND NET BORROWING

1 February 2013

Thank you for your letter dated 24 January 2013 regarding the Party Political Broadcast by the Conservative Party, broadcast on the evening of 23 January.

It is clearly important for all parties to public debate in this area to understand the relevant statistical definitions and to distinguish changes in the level of debt outstanding from changes in borrowing per period, and to reflect these in their communication of the statistical trends involved. These are definitions which accord with concepts set out in European and international statistical accounting frameworks.

Public sector net debt is a measure of how much the UK public sector owes at a given time. Public sector net borrowing is the difference between total accrued receipts and total accrued (current and capital) expenditure over a specified period; this measure is frequently used by commentators to summarise the extent of any public sector ‘deficit’.

The latest National Statistics on Public Sector Finances, published on the morning of 22 January 2013, show that public sector net debt (excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions) at the end of the second quarter of 2010 (June) was estimated to be £811.3 billion, representing 55.3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, rising to £1,111.4 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2012 (December) (70.7 per cent of GDP).

Public sector net borrowing (also excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions) for the 2009/10 financial year was £159.0 billion and £121.6 billion for 2011/12.

The Office for National Statistics has provided a table and charts in the accompanying Annex to show data for other relevant time periods.

I am copying this to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street .

Yours sincerely

Andrew Dilnot CBE

as i guess i lean to the right - certainly dress that way - then that must make me intelligent, which will come as a great surprise to many, including myself :-)

Not intelligent, just not naive.

you're so cruel!

pst, as Ive now got haystack filtered someone remind him to look at the party political broadcast again, and then deny Reeves letter is not in the public interest and the reply recieved not a bolloking for Cameron like he got over telling porkies about real term spending on the NHS.

Its above somewhere.

And whilst I support people's rights to send their children to private schools, (I believe that's their prerogative) the problem is, in this class-ridden society we live in, it will mean rather unexceptional people continuing to have exceptional education - - and by that token, the country will continue to be managed by unexceptional people, with unexceptional ideas, all masked by the name of the school they attended.

There is nothing exceptional about David Cameron