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.

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

If there's nothing special about DC, does that mean any old Tom, Dick or Harry is capable of getting a PPE 1st at Oxford then?

Ive got a freind with that qualification and he couldnt run a piss up in a brewery, his words not mine. I also have a PHD but I know I couldnt rule the country.

Cameron is nothing special, .....well he is a good liar.

GF - that is a load of total rubbish and you clearly know absolutely zilch about Eton and other top public schools ..... though these schools give many comprehensive scholarships, there's no escaping the fact that the cost is impossible for an ever-growing majority of the population .... nevertheless, it is FACT that Eton offers a very fine and wide-ranging education, and the days of getting in "because daddy went there" are long gone .... entry is competitive and tough, either acadaemically or because you bring some other asset with you, whether it be musical or artistic or just look to have interesting potential ..... the same ethos will be true of most if not all of the top-rated public schools

so try learning FACTS instead of trotting out the usual perceived tripe .... and no, i did not go to Eton

errr cynic........ list the qualifications of William and Harry, both public school boys, and then come back and tell me that Im not using facts.

Im waiting.

The entry to public schools is very competitive. All pupils take common entrance exam. The top public schools also have their own even tougher test. These tests are taken at age 13. The standard in parts of the exam is as high as GCSE. The public schools now, almost without exception, take IGCSE exams which are much harder than GCSE. Most of my son's friends got 11 A* at IGCSE. You definitely get what you pay for.

By the way Ed Balls went to public school and so did many of the Labour Party.

William got 12 GCSEs and 3 A levels. He went to university and got an MA grade 2:1

Harry got 11 GCSEs and 2 A levels and went to Sandhurst

Hilary,

He has been crammed.

He has been taught by rote and shows the rigidity sometimes developed by that system.

He can reproduce what was stuck in front of him and the usual mantras.

Listening to many of the tory party faithful, so have they.


Not against learning by rote.

Memorising and reproducing "fact" can be and is useful and basis for functioning, but you can be a "thick" as two pennies and get a degree and an honours degree.

I would not abolish the "private" school education, but would prefer to lift the standard education in general and the facilities for all, so making the private schools unnecessary, or unwanted, other than by those who wish to leave the "upbringing" of their offspring to others.

One of the main problems with education in this country has been the constant B. about with it, since the 1980s with the constant changes and upheavals.

Evolution is always necessary in an organisation, but in education it seems to have suffered from rampant ideological revolutions, or changes. That applies to both Labour, Tory party and the L.D. through Shirley Williams.

But what is evident about this government is that they are bonded together like members of the Bullingdon Club or Burlington Berties going down together.

At least they are being to do some U-turns on the economy. (Later than they should have done.)

But I bet that they will duck the changes to the Financial Services and Taxation which are needed.




.