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.

When Ed Balls announced the child benefit cap at the Labour party conference today, he was greeted by loud cries of "SHAME". He seems to have misjudged his audience.

Can't help but feel a little sorry for Alex Salmond (who's looking a bit like a redundant shaved Father Christmas at the moment) as he wanted the best for Scotland even though he was probably wrong and remaining in the United Kingdom is by far the best decision by the Scots,.....

RF,

Not so sure about that.

By the time these present a s are out of office, god only knows how much more of the silver they will have purloined or sold off.

I have a feeling Slick Cameron has let a cat out of the bag he may not be able to control.

Sheer stupidity what is happening.

Fred : Cameron and buddies were desperate to win.....now what ? seems to be the question !......it's best Scotland remains part of the UK....but at what cost ?...

I admire your certainty!

Personally, the fragmentation of the UK, in the name of representation of "individual rights", doesn't seem to be in the long-term interest of "all" within the UK. (Including Scots, Welsh, English),

It seems to me, to stem from the same "motivation" as those who want out of the EU have.

I can see some sense in the N.I. joining with the South, but also see the problems, which would need to be overcome. (It was one of the reasons that I was hopeful when the South entered the EU that it might help to resolve the Irish problem. Not sure how much influence joining did influence the solution, but certainly the economy was helped until the stupidities from 2004 - 2008.)

Why do the smaller fish (that help make up the UK) think they will get a better deal from the €urobods if they are on their own?


The Uk as it stands is 84% English, the remaining 16% is divided up between three other countries.


From a personal viewpoint, I think the leap of belief that the kindly €urogods will somehow solve all the tiddlers problems and shower them with endless money is a figment of a drink/drug fuelled imagination.

It cant be anything else.

Max,

Perhaps, you may consider what some of the 46% of Scots were wishing to reject.

Enlighten me please Fred.

Hey gf, did you watch the trading programme tonight?

CR (across the road) "Good to see my kipper - troll on there - 7 years, started with £10k, now down to £4k :-)

Surely not referring to you is he? Would it be fair to say you two are not bessy mates?

Max.

Start with the arrogance of some of the English "elite" (who often congregate in "London" and South East, (due to the centralising of UK "administration" ) and their attitudes and expectation by some of the English to expect deference.

Also, remember when you mention "smaller fish" you are being derogatory.

Also, remember when you use the analogy consider that viruses and bacteria will probably be around to mop up the left behind of the human race.

Many large groups fail when smaller groups succeed.

Look at the past history of the Empire.

Thats right Chris hes had a final warning from Twitter and was bollocked by Clem Chambers after I told him he had been using my twitter account not just on his own thread but on various threads inciting aggression and abusive posts. 3 got through and my son and wife were insulted. Hes had to take them all down and advfn have issued him also with a warning.

Hes always been jealous because he knows Im a far higher net wealth individual than he is and I dont have to have an army of yes men following me to push up share prices.

Bitter and twisted little man.

CHECK THE (LOG thread out on advfn) their you will find all his bitter twisted posts he has made against me. epic LOG.

And then tell me he isnt infested with jealousy.

Hmm sad eh.

Very sad.

US airstrikes have just started in Syria using fighters, bombers and Tomohawk cruise missiles. Several partner nations involved, but no news of who they are. A couple of dozen targets have been hit.

By Peter Dominiczak, and Ben Farmer

10:34PM BST 22 Sep 2014

Follow





Britain is prepared to begin air strikes against jihadist extremists in Iraq following talks between David Cameron and Barack Obama, defence sources have disclosed.


The Prime Minister is expected to use a meeting of the UN General Assembly tomorrow to announce that the UK will join air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).


In a bid to show his commitment to forming a coalition of nations willing to take on Isil, the Prime Minsiter is also holding talks with Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran. They will be the first face-to-face talks between a prime minister and an Iranian president since the Iranian revolution in 1979, which saw the Shah overthrown and replaced by an Islamic republic.


Senior Conservative sources have said that they expect Mr Cameron to recall Parliament this week to approve military action. Defence sources have told The Telegraph that fighter jets could begin raids on Iraqi Isil targets within hours of an order from Mr Cameron.


British Tornado jets in the region have “been ready to go for weeks”, one source said.


Related Articles
Islamic State: 'You are not even safe in your bedrooms'
22 Sep 2014
How Britain could attack Isil
22 Sep 2014
Turkey faces refugee crisis as 135,000 Kurds flee Isil
22 Sep 2014


However, it is understood that Mr Cameron will stop short of announcing any military involvement in Syria, where a growing humanitarian crisis is unfolding.

Pressure on him and Mr Obama to intervene in Syria is growing after it emerged that about 100,000 refugees are trying to flee to Turkey as Isil advances.

The Prime Minister is acutely aware of opposition in all three political parties to a Syrian intervention and does not want a repeat of last year, when Labour and dozens of Tory MPs opposed British air strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The British decision to join military action in Iraq comes three years after the last troops left following the 2003 war. Mr Cameron has insisted that if air strikes go ahead, there will be no mission in Iraq or Syria involving ground forces.

The Government is also increasingly confident that Ed Miliband will back plans for air strikes in Iraq.

Mr Cameron and Mr Obama have both pledged to “destroy” the Isil extremists responsible for murdering two American hostages and David Haines, a British aid worker.

Alan Henning, who was also providing aid to Syrian refugees, is one of two British hostages currently being held by Isil. The other, John Cantlie, is a journalist.

Mr Cameron is expected to use his speech to set out British and American plans to combat Isil, including targeted military air strikes.

RAF Tornado GR4 jets would be ready to bomb Isil targets as soon as the Prime Minister gave the order, sources said. Six Tornados supported by a Voyager refuelling tanker have been flying reconnaissance missions over northern Iraq since moving to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus in mid-August.

Senior government sources made clear that a “final decision” on military action will be taken after Mr Cameron’s talks with Mr Obama. But they said that military strikes are “under consideration”. Any bombing campaign will be part of a “broad strategy” to ensure that Iraqi and Kurdish forces can lead the fight on the ground against Isil, the sources added.

The Telegraph also understands that Labour is preparing to back air strikes in Iraq. Mr Miliband was last year heavily criticised after refusing to back planned air strikes on al-Assad’s regime in Syria. One Labour frontbencher said: “The party will fall into line [over air strikes in Iraq] because there is not the same moral objection as there was last year.”

In the Syria vote, there was also a rebellion by 30 Tory MPs. Tory whips have spent recent weeks canvassing support for military action among backbenchers. Downing Street believes the “mood has shifted” in the Tory party towards joining America in any military intervention in northern Iraq.

Sources said the British Tornados already in the region could quickly be fitted with Paveway IV guided bombs or Brimstone missiles to carry out strikes on Isil vehicles and convoys.

An RAF source said: “The current aircraft in Akrotiri are sufficient to carry out significant drops on a small force like Isil. If the Prime Minister says start bombing tonight, we will begin bombing that night.”

An RAF Rivet Joint surveillance plane is also flying missions from Al Udeid air base in Qatar to eavesdrop on the militants’ communications.

The talks with Mr Rouhani are being seen as a significant intervention by Mr Cameron and a sign of his commitment to win international support for the bid to take on Isil. Downing Street last night made clear that Mr Cameron will also discuss his concerns over Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, and call on Mr Rouhani to stop supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

He will also hold talks with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the Egyptian president.

However, Sir William Patey, a former British ambassador to Iraq, said air strikes alone would be of “limited effect”. “The most effective ones so far have been in support of Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces, he said. “If you use them indiscriminately, they have the potential to provoke support for Isil.”















Share



0









Facebook



0









Twitter



0







Email










LinkedIn



0














Iraq


News »


UK News »


Ben Farmer »


Peter Dominiczak »






In Iraq






Mosul's downfall in pictures



Islamist rebels from ISIS in Aleppo district, Syria
Islamic group may be richest in history



A still from a video moments before purportedly showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley by Islamic State militants.
James Foley's murder, and the psychology of our fascination with the gruesome



Militants from the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) taking aim at captured Iraqi soldiers
The science behind savagery




Reyaad Khan has bragged about the execution of prisoners
Iraq crisis: what is driving British men to join IS


















Share



0








Facebook



0








Twitter

Saudi, Jordan and UAE have joined the US in air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

By Jeremy Warner

8:59PM BST 22 Sep 2014

Follow

CommentsComments





Difficult decisions were promised on Monday by Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, to balance the books and help restore the public finances.


Given that the polls continue to suggest the strong probability of a Labour government after the next election in eight months’ time – Labour’s own not inconsiderable role in our current state of ruin notwithstanding – it’s worth listening a little more carefully than usual to what he has to say.


If by difficult, he means capping child benefit for a bit longer, cutting ministerial pay, means testing the winter fuel allowance, and that old chestnut, more efficient government – the only four commitments he made for further trimming public spending – then there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of Labour achieving its separate pledge of falling national debt by the end of the next parliament. The sums saved through such measures are trivial compared with the scale of the problem.


We must therefore assume the tough decisions he was referring are chiefly the ones he glossed over – raising taxes. Indeed, by promising to restore the 10p tax band, a minor reduction in tax for lower earners, he sort of went the other way. There were also a number of other relatively insignificant tax-cutting promises. At the same time, he restated his intention to restore the 50p tax band and to impose a mansions tax. Neither will raise much, if any, extra money, and by putting a dampener on economic activity, may even end up revenue negative.


Already, the top 1pc of taxpayers contribute 30pc of all income tax, and the top 10pc of taxpayers 30pc of all taxes. The idea that these groups can be taxed even more without hitting the law of diminishing returns is for the birds. It’s been tried in France, and self evidently doesn’t work.


Related Articles
In two charts: Mario Draghi's plan to save the eurozone isn't working
22 Sep 2014
House prices: London's most luxurious flats in pictures
22 Sep 2014
Three reasons why Britain's housing market is broken
22 Sep 2014
Small businesses must be 'at heart of policy-making'
22 Sep 2014
Four myths about the cost of living crisis
22 Sep 2014
Labour's minimum wage plan 'puts jobs at risk', warns British business
21 Sep 2014
The future of business: lower salaries and more robots Brother



It is truly depressing that such a vacuous and potentially counterproductive, juggling around with the mix of tax and spend can count as serious economic debate. What Mr Balls proposes is merely the politics of small differences. It doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. And it surely doesn’t add up to a credible strategy for getting on top of the nation’s debts.

As it is, Mr Balls’ plans are quite a bit looser than the Coalition’s, for all he’s aiming for is to balance the budget on current spending, leaving aside anything that might be spent on investment. This is straight out of the Gordon Brown school of fiscal mumbo jumbo – that borrowing to invest doesn’t count when it comes to fiscal constraint. And the amount of fiscal flexibility it gives is a big number – 1.4pc of GDP a year, according to a study last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). It’s much like telling the bank manager that after years of neglect, you’ll be turning over a new leaf and balancing your expenditure with income, except when it comes to spending on that mansion in the country, or yacht on the French Riviera. If such fiscal flexibility were fully utilised, it would amount to a huge loosening compared with where we are at the moment.

Yet even to meet its stated targets, Labour is going to have to tax a whole lot more than it lets on, or alternatively cut spending a whole lot more. No prizes for guessing which it will be.

Most academic research confirms that in attempting to balance the books, tax rises are rather more damaging to economic growth than cuts to current spending. This long accepted truism was proved again in the early stages of the British consolidation, when a big hike in VAT helped kill the recovery stone dead .

But before detailing the scale of the challenge, let’s briefly revisit why we are where we are. Labour swept to victory back in 1997 partly on the back of a promise that it would stick broadly to the previous government’s fiscal consolidation plan, at least initially.

This time around, Mr Balls doesn’t even promise to do that. The present Government is scheduled to achieve falling debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17, whereas Mr Balls promises it only by the end of the parliament, three years later.

The starting point for these pledges is also completely different. In 1997, Labour was promising to complete the clean-up of a mess the Tories had created. Today we are still living with the consequences of Labour’s own mess. Mr Balls can no longer claim the moral high ground.

And what a mess it is. Mr Balls likes to blame the bankers for what happened, but the fault was at least as much his own. Tax revenues first started falling short of spending from around 2002 onwards, five years before the crisis. These were mostly boom years economically, yet tax revenues repeatedly came in lower than the Government’s optimistic, and apparently largely made up, forecasts for them. Alarm bells had been ringing for years, but they were ignored. The fiscal rules were meanwhile repeatedly bent and manipulated in order to maintain the pretence of responsibility.

For the five years from 2002-03 onwards, Labour ran a budget deficit of between 2.5pc and 3.5pc of GDP. As a result, overall government debt rose at a time when most industrialised countries were paying theirs down, leaving the UK peculiarly ill prepared, and with very little room for manoeuvre, when the crisis hit. So please, no more talk about how everything would have been fine but for the recklessness of bankers. It is abundantly clear they would not.

Today, Labour proposes more of the same – continued high levels of deficit spending even though experience tells us that the next downturn cannot be any more than two to three years away. By rights, Britain should already be running surpluses, but even on the present Government’s plans, these are still years away. Mr Balls does not appear to have learnt anything from his own boom and bust.

In its analysis of the fiscal outlook, the IFS tells us that “for all the main UK parties, based on the latest official forecasts for the economy and public finances, achieving their fiscal targets will require further tax increases, or cuts to welfare spending or public services in the next parliament. None of the parties have yet provided the electorate with full details of these tough choices.” Mr Balls’ conference speech may have been littered with rhetorical references to tough decisions, but it largely ducked them.

Britain still has a mountain to climb in getting back to fiscal sustainability. Nothing I heard on Monday suggested anything remotely resembling recognition of the scale of the problem.

And as I say, judging by the polling, what we were seeing was the next British government in waiting. Frightening.

multinational taxation
the amis seem able to bring in new taxation on this matter relatively easily, so why can't uk?

Osbourne.

starbucks
amazon
mc donalds
aldi
liddle
google
and many more pay very little tax to the uk
kick them out and only allow companies that pay their taxes
tell the public not to use these corrupt companies who are costing the uk population billions of lost tax that is why the nhs is struggling