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.

The Ed Miller Band to sue Labour Party for financial loss

16 piece brass band, 'The Ed Miller Band' has commenced court proceedings against the Labour Party to recoup financial losses which they attribute to an association with Labour leader and Wallace and Grommit stunt double Ed Miliband.

The Ed Miller Band are claiming the public's awareness of Ed Miliband and the similarity of their names has has a devastating affect to their bookings and album sales.

Fans of the unorthodox brass medley are leaving the fan club at an astonishing rate and several have even unfriended the band members on Facebook. One ex-fan Sharonda D'Courcey Di Mattheo Smith, whose hobbies include button counting and rock touching, told us; "I used to love the Ed Miller Band, until I realised their name sounded quite similar to Ed Miliband off the telly, and I just think he's a cheese eating arse clown. Total moron."

The Ed Miller Band have had all their upcoming bookings at Labour Clubs across the country cancelled. Tony Sideboob, entertainment secretary for the Labour Club in Knightsbridge, told us; "We really didn't really have any choice but to cancel the Ed Miller Band once we realised the name sounded like that Ed Miliband. What kind of organisation would want to be associated with that clart? He looks like my aunt Joyce, and nobody likes her either."

David Cameron was quizzed on the case during Prime Minister's questions by MP Eric Pickles. Cameron replied "who the hell is Ed Miliband?".

Worth a read.......... Osbornes dicing with his political career.......

http://paulburgin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/george-osborne-and-welfare-argument.html

Of course, golfinger being a suitable representative of the looney left is making political capital out of Osborne's comment. He was asked a question and gave this reply (this is the whole quote and not a fragment).

"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.

"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."

Now, what Osborne said is ferfectly reasonable. The lefties are desperately trying to 'get something' on Osborne, but the remark is one that any politician might well say, whether from the right or the left.

Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it reserves

Albert Einstein

i'm afraid it still reads rather like guilt by association, and it was certainly not an intelligent link to have made ...... being under the spotlight 100% of the time will inevitably lead to certain gaffes and similar which the press will latch onto with glee, especially if the owner/editor/reporter is of "another persausion"

Osborne was not the one who linked Philpott to the benefits system. The question put to him while on a visit to the City was whether Mick Philpott was a "vile product" of the benefit system. Considering the question, his answer was pretty considered and mild.

Hays,

You are measuring Osborne’s reply against your own standards.

Blaming the person who asked the question for one’s own response is naivety. His answer reflected his views and position. He was foolish to have given that reply.

He is supposed to be one of the leading lights of the tory party and was until recently chalked in by the many of the tory party “elite” to be the replacement for Cameron.


His answer was crass and the response he made due to grasping any opportunity to advance his own right winged fascist position.

Philpotts, “developed” into a psychopath, whose “conscious” decisions appeared to allow him to abuse the “Welfare System” and other elements of society.


(One of the characteristics of psychopathology is short term opportunism.) (A bit like Osborne’s reaction.)

It would seem reasonable to try to reduce the possibilities of the Philpotts’ “type” actions, but the naive right winged attempt of slashing of “welfare support” for the “weakest and probably most incompetent” in society, are likely to produce greater problems than they cure.

The right winged ideologues are using cynically using the “case” as an opportunity to further their slash and burn policies.

Although such actions may be seen as giving you and others immediate gratification, these actions with other incompetent actions of the present government many based upon of the ill thought-out ideology, with little thought to the consequences of those actions, are probably creating more long term problems than they are resolving.

(I suggest you relate back to the McMillan period of government and its more pragmatic form of “Conservatism” with its economic practices and ongoing thought-out long term policies, but recognition of social responsibilities.)

He was just replying to a posed link to the Philpott case. The only part he mentioned in relation to the suggested link was that society should look at funding similar lifestyles. All a fuss about nothing.

" All a fuss about nothing."

Or "it is silly".
Are these expressions handed down from head office to be repeated as often as possible, at any time when you can't construct a reasonable reply?

Like the repeated whine from of, "it is all down to the previous government", from the tory ridden coalition government, when trying to excuse themselves from their ongoing U-turns and failing of its economic policies.

Notice, other than for some party zealots, the public is beginning to groan more and more when the remarks are made.

------------------------------

Osborne should pay attention to tax evasion and avoidance, the latter being taken to new heights, and many liken these forms of tax evasion to the practices of old fashioned thiefdoms and banana republics.

Large and small companies and individuals avoiding due taxes due on “income and wealth” earned and accumulated at the expense of the UK population to far off islands and other tax havens,.

Many of the above remaining politically active and involved in control of direction of political parties and the general democracy of the UK. (Financing of political advertisement in the last and previous elections can be seen as this influence, but at least it appears one or more participants seem to be giving up on the “tory “party after evaluating its “success” since the last election.
=====================

Considering the cost to the country by the abuse of the “Welfare Services” by a
relatively small number of scroungers, it would appear to be little in comparison with the cost of Tax evasions and avoidance schemes.

The latter should be addressed, as well as reforms to the Welfare System.
 

The same tax avoidance methods are used by Conservative supporters as are used by Labour ones. How much did Labour do to stop tax avoidance in all their years in officer - answer, nothing.

There is little that can be done unilaterally to stop tax avoidance of companies. The process has been going on for as long as companies have had a multinational nature. Differential pricing and licensing across borders is almost impossible to prevent.

fred
Public opinion is not on your side. Six out of ten people think benefits are too generous.

What really bugs me about this welfare debate is how the Torries are trying to lay the blame at Labours feet historicaly.

The fact is this....... THATCHER created a services economy with 7.5 million people unemployed and used the tax receipts from North Sea Oil (which should have been used to modernise the economy) to beat the Unions and pay for unemployment benefit.

She then saw the error of her ways tried to fiddle the unemployment figures by making changes (31 in all) but then ended up creating Incapacity Benefit to cut the 7.5 million in half.

Yes she then presented unemployment as a total of just over 3 million to con the eloctorate BUT the biggest evil of all was taking place very quietly in the back ground ie, that of the creation of 2 working adults per house (man and wife) and the creation of the the monster the 'LATCH DOOR KEY KID' the fore runner and spawner of todays feral youth.

She in effect created a society where kids were a add on a toy in effect.

Little attention was paid to them discipline at school got out of control nannys were brought in creches at places of work created, and educational standards suffered.

Basicaly the 2 working adults per house was greed,they had to have the very best and beat the neighbours next door even if this meant taking on more and more debt.

The debt spirraled out of control and wasnt helped by banks offering packages that should have never been offered in the first place eg, 120% mortgages etc etc.

This was the fault of banks and successive governments as credit was eased and more and more packages dripped down to the lower poorer classes who of course took the freebies as they saw people above them getting all these glittering newbie deals.

So in conclusion on looking back... Margaret Hilda Thatcher kicked off all the problems of today.

Hypocritical or What.

The Government are screaming for the heads of 3 bankers responsible for their part in the banking crisis.
Financial regulators should consider banning three top HBOS bankers from senior roles in the financial sector, an influential committee has said.

Sir James Crosby, Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson were guilty of a "colossal failure" of management.

Their excuse is, they were unaware.

BUT

David Cameron and many MP's are heaping praise on the NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson who has admitted personal failings over Britain’s biggest hospital scandal where 1,200 patients were died unnecessarily.

His excuse is, he was unaware

Mind you Crosby, Hornby and Stevenson cost the country a lot of money, whereas Nicholson only cost the lives of 1,200 people.

Me thinks priorities are wrong!

I would ban all 4 from ever holding a responsible post again.

sticky - you're argument is tenuous at best ..... MT left power in 1990 ..... my basic arithmetic tells me that was 22/23 years ago -effectively a whole generation back

labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, so they had oodles of time to change anything they didn't like - and felt was in the best interests of the country ..... it pretty much follows, that if they change or reverse something, they figured it wasn't so bad after all ..... not quite fair i will accept

i will also accept that no gov't of any hue every gets things completely right .... it's a total impossibility, not least because far-reaching, often international events occur over which no gov't in isolation has any control

I don't know where goldfinger gets his figures from, but they have no basis in fact. I have just look at the figures from the ONS and even the Guardian and they look nothing like goldfingers.

Cynic, Thatcher created the husband and wife 80 hour week.

This was massive at the time and now.

Like I said the spawn of the 80s/ 90s generation are the Phillpots of now.


AND THATCHER was the most disliked PM ever (even more than Brown) BEFORE the Falklands.

goldfinger seems like spawn of Fred.

I see that scum Haystacks keeps posting after me. he he he he .

Idiot still hasnt caught on Ive filtered him. (6th months back)

sticky - i've just noticed a long article on the internet courtesy of harriet harman ..... i won't c+p it as it's quite a long read, but clearly your labour buddies have finally woken up to the fact that their welfare state policies just do not stack up and are now all set to change them .... i'll read it all again, but these "new policies" would seem to reflect what the current chaps are proposing, albeit that labour will have its own tweaks - as is to be expected, and would be the case with any opposition party

===========

i may c+p the above and endeavour to edit it it to make it more reader-friendly

Britain's Labour says welfare should be linked to contributions
Britain's opposition Labour Party is set to overhaul its welfare policies to link state help to individual contributions.
Harriet Harman said people in work should go to the top of social housing waiting lists and the unemployed should take up job offers or lose benefits after two years.
Labour's proposals mark a break from the principle that certain social benefits are universal
Labour's welfare policies would ...... provid(e) stronger incentives to seek employment
"Work should pay. Secondly, there should be an obligation to take work," HH said. "There should be support through a contributory principle, for people putting in to the system as well as taking out."

David Cameron said the welfare system had "lost its way" and had become a "lifestyle choice for some".

============

here you are ..... DC's comment at the end is certainly what many people feel and believe, though no doubt some clever statistician would/could prove otherwise - lies, damned lies and statistics!

anyway, reading the above, it's hard to determine any difference in principle to what is already on the table ..... no real surprise there, in all honesty - though when talking politics and politicians, that is something of an oxymoron