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.

Well, I must be a bit thick because if 'red is hot', why are the streets and gardens redder (or at least 'oranger') than the blue houses?

PS. By heck! It looks a bit hot at No.32 don'tchafink? I bet it's probably a couple having sex!

Hey I live there------------------and I'm at work.
2517

your wife's working too :-)

Napoleon.

How has the NHS faired so far this winter, after the recent Lansley re-organisations?

-------

I wonder why the tories want to depoliticised the NHS as a topic for debate before the Election!

my comment about not politicising NHS was nothing to do with what you say is tory party line ..... it was my own straight comment

you've already seen what i have written on NHS, and it would just be very tiresome to re-post it

Just rethink it!

54391--------I wondered how she could afford to buy me a new roller for Christmas, ha!ha!
2517

for your hair or the lawn?

LOL

What does Google know about me?

How to check what data Google holds on you - and what you can do about it.

By Denise Roland
1:15PM GMT 06 Jan 2015
The US investment bank dismisses the rise of Ukip, predicting that supporters will revert to one of the major parties for the general election

Goldman Sachs is predicting that the Conservative Party will win the UK general election in May, but said that the outcome is "more uncertain than any in a hundred years".

It said that while the likelihood of any party gaining an overall majority "appears low", the Tories are "marginally more likely than Labour to win the most seats and lead the next government".

In a research note issued by the investment bank on Tuesday, analyst Kevin Daly said: "The outcome is unusually uncertain because party support is more fragmented than ever previously in the modern era."

Goldman said that despite the high level of uncertainty, it expected a strong economic recovery in the months leading up to the May 7 election to lend weight to the incumbent Tories.

It also dismissed the threat of Ukip, noting that the anti-EU party only has two sitting MPs and that supporters may be more inclined to vote for one of the major parties when the general election comes around.

"Given the demographic profile and past voting record of the majority of Ukip voters, these votes appear more likely to shift towards the Conservatives than to Labour," said Goldman.

The bank is bullish on the UK economy, expecting a sustained recovery despite the slowdown in Europe. It has also predicted that wage growth will pick up in 2015 now that employment rates are close to record highs.

It also expects the sharp drop in the price of oil, which has nearly halved since June, to feed through to petrol prices and act as an economic stimulus.

Mr Daly also said the "unusually wide gap between the Conservatives and Labour in terms of perceived economic competence" echoed the situation in 1992, when the Tories defied the polls to claim victory.

"This gap [in perceived economic competence] has played an important role in past UK general elections – most notably in 1992 – skewing the final outcome relative to opinion polling prior to the official vote," he said.

Goldman said there were some factors working in Labour's favour, including a constituency bias that it estimated would boost its vote by 2-3 percentage points.

It also suggested that should Ed Miliband perform well during the pre-election television debates, he could alter the perception that he is less "prime ministerial" than David Cameron. Goldman added that the decline in support for the Liberal Democrats was likely to have shifted voters to Labour, especially in marginal seats.

http://order-order.com/2015/01/06/red-on-red-audio-of-murphy-v-abbott-mansion-tax-bunfight/

Jim Murphy’s mansion tax raid on London to fund nurses in Scotland has descended into an almighty slanging match with Diane Abbott. The Hackney MP couldn’t even remember the Scottish Labour leader’s name on Wato today:

“I am very surprised John Murphy is making these boasts… Jim Murphy can’t surely mean he is going to expropriate money from London to Scotland… he is jumping the gun in an unscrupulous way.”

Murphy hit back:

“It’s hard to take this argument seriously when she can’t even remember my name… I am leader of the Scottish Labour party, not Diane. I don’t have to consult Diane Abbott… I don’t have to clear things with Ed Miliband.”

By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent
3:56PM GMT 06 Jan 2015
Lord Dykes asked: 'Is my noble friend aware that more and more people think it is some kind of attempt to prolong the agony of Mr Blair facing possible war crimes charges?'

Tony Blair could face war crimes charges as a result of the Iraq war inquiry report, the House of Lords has been told.

Lord Dykes of Harrow Weald, a Liberal Democrat peer, claimed that the publication of the inquiry by Sir John Chilcot was being delayed “to prolong the agony” of the former Labour Prime Minister.

Lord Hurd – who as Douglas Hurd was Conservative foreign secretary from 1989 to 1995 – said the delay was now "becoming a scandal".

Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a Government minister, disclosed for the first time that talks over the publication of the gist of conversations between Mr Blair and George W Bush, the former US president, were now completed.

These talks have held up the publication of the report. But he said that if the report is not published by the end of February, it will be delayed until after the general election

Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Dykes – who as Hugh Dykes was a Tory MP from 1979 to 1997 - asked: “Is not this continuing delay an utter and total disgrace and so much time has elapsed.

“Is my noble friend aware that more and more people think it is some kind of attempt to prolong the agony of Mr Blair facing possible war crimes charges?”

Lord Hurd added: “This has dragged on beyond the questions of mere negligence and forgiveable delay – it is becoming a scandal.

“This is not something which is of trivial importance, it is something which a large number of people in this country look anxiously for truth.”

Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a Government minister, replied that the Chilcot inquiry was not delayed compared to other recent comparable reports.

He said that the £24million Al Sweady report into alleged maltreatment of Iraqis by British troops took five years report “on two battles in one afternoon”.

The £13.5million Baha Mousa “inquiry looking into the death in UK custody of one Iraqi civilian in September 2003 took three years”.

He added: “This [Chilcot] inquiry has been looking at nine years of british policy and operations within Iraq, it has not entirely unexpected that it has turned out to take a long time.”

Lord Wallace said the timing of the report's publication was in the hands of the Government but he hoped "we are very close to the finishing line".

He added: "It would be inappropriate for it to be published if it is submitted within the next few weeks after the end of February unitl after the election because part of the previous government's commitment was there woul dbe time allowed for substantial consultation and debate of this enormous report when it is published."

Lord Wallace added that the one million word report will contain details of discussions of more than 200 Cabinet meetings.

The delay so far was caused in part because the inquiry did not have enough staff to leaf through the huge pile of documents required.

could but guaranteed won't!

What I cannot understand is this fanatical following of these political muppets that govern us on this thread.....to me most of them should be thrown in the bins !.....we are dominated by these untouchables (almost) that wreck the country with corruption, filth, and their felonious deeds all the time and on here we get this crap shoved down our throats....a little most imagination would be nice..

Jim Murphy wants ‘economic storm’ protection fund




by ANDREW WHITAKER







Published on the
06 January
2015
15:35











Tweet






Print this




24 comments
Have your say!



JIM Murphy has called on the Scottish government to launch a resilience fund to protect people against “economic storms” such as the crisis facing the oil and gas industry, in a flagship policy announcement by Labour’s new leader in Scotland.


Mr Murphy said the Scottish government already had £100 million in funding from the UK Treasury for the next year to cover the cost of a fund aimed at protecting jobs and the economy in crisis hit parts of the country.

CONNECT WITH THE SCOTSMAN




The Scottish Labour leader said a “pot of cash set aside for economic shocks” could be used to help retrain workers and pay for business aid in areas where a major employer has pulled out.

Mr Murphy hailed the plan as an “entirely new approach” as he unveiled the scheme on Tuesday during a visit to Aberdeen where he held talks with energy industry bosses and unions following a dramatic decline in oil prices in recent months.

The East Renfrewshire MP set out his latest pledge a day after promising funding for 1,000 extra nurses if he is elected as First Minister at the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections.

Mr Murphy also said that Scottish Labour would double the number of specialist nurses dedicated to treating motor neurone disease from seven to 14 following a campaign by one of the party’s former spin doctors Gordon Aikman, who is suffering from the illness.

Local councils such as Aberdeen would be able to bid for a share of the resilience fund if the area was hit with major oil industry job losses under the plan, which Mr Murphy said he was asking the Scottish government to back in an “immediate” demand made by Labour.

However, Mr Murphy said the cash would be potentially available to all areas ravaged by unemployment and could have been used when Scotland’s steel industry suffered heavy losses with the closure of the Ravenscraig steelworks in Lanarkshire in 1992.

He said that if the Scottish government failed to back the plan, he would launch an immediate consultation on the resilience fund, which he said would be implemented if he is elected as First Minister in 2016.

Mr Murphy said the fund would operate on a similar basis to the Belwin scheme, which is designed to recompense authorities for the costs of emergency damage caused by flood and storms.

He said: “The Scottish government should do things differently. I want to set up a resilience fund and I’ll approach the Scottish government to take forward this idea that a specific pot of Scottish government cash should be set aside for economic shocks.

“It’s based on the Belwin scheme for floods and storms. This would be about dealing with economic storms that may affect areas.”

Mr Murphy, speaking at a press conference in Aberdeen, said the Scottish government could use some of the £100 million he claimed it had in Barnett consequential - funding Scotland received every year in a block grant from Westminster.

He said the Scottish government had been handed £231 million by Westminster in consequential funding, with £127m already committed to the National Health Service north of the border.

However, Mr Murphy suggested the rest of the cash was uncommitted and that part of it could be used to pay for a resilience fund.

The Labour leader also said the UK government should accelerate funding pledged in the Chancellor’s autumn statement to Holyrood to allow it to have a resilience fund and provide a “specific designated sum of money to protect communities.

Mr Murphy sad: “The idea is that we set aside a pot of cash and local authorities apply.

“Local authorities would make applications. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t happen, as £100 million is as yet unspent in Barnett consequentials.

“I want to see the proposals in the autumn statement taken forward and implemented in a quicker time.

“I want the Scottish government to set this up, but If they don’t I will launch a consultation on implementing this if I’m elected as First Minister.”.

Mr Murphy went onto state that the scheme could be used by local councils awarded a share of the fund to offer business rates aid to encourage new investment, as well as provide training opportunities for unemployed people.

He said: “It’s to protect people from the harmful consequences of local economic shocks such as in Aberdeen if the crisis continues to develop.

“If it had been around at the time it could have been used to help steel workers who lost their jobs in areas like Lanarkshire.”

Mr Murphy also claimed that the SNP’s economic credibility was in “tatters” as he accused the party of over estimating the value of potential oil receipts in an independent Scotland during last year’s referendum.




comments



6:45 PM on 06/01/2015





Should our government and politicians use taxpayer money to protect jobs in the private sector? I don't think so. Jim Murphy will have to watch that he is not going to end up making promises that will scare voters away.



Mr Murphy, the Scots already have an emergency fund .

It's called England.



Better still under Murphy's Westminster voting behaviour to-date it can help pay for the really important Scottish priorities like:
Renewal of Trident
Another War (Iraq, Afganistan, Lybia, Syria, Ukraine or whats next??)
MPs expenses (£1 million+)
R#yal Family upgrades (4million for Wills houses + £1 billion for HRH)
R#yal Family legal defence and PR fund



Has Jim got the OK for this idea?

WHAT A CROCK! Jim Smurphy

No one is telling me what to do! I am the independent leader of an independent Scottish Labour Party.

Scottish Labour will provide 1,000 more nurses funded by the London mansion tax!

Eh! hold on no we won't - I forgot to get PERMISSION for that idea from my London Labour colleagues - David Lammy Dianne Abbot and Tessa Jowel - crivvens help ma boab I am a right wullie!

I believed my London colleagues when they told me we in Scotland were EQUAL partners in a UNTIED KINGDOM!



Why wait till now?

Why did Jim Murphy not moot the idea of a resilence fund when Labour was last in office - am sure the people of Motherwell -Wishaw - Ravenscraig would like to know.

The reality is - these days - Trident Mad Murphy has no real authority - Scottish Labour is in meltdown - the people dont believe in the Labour party anymore - the people believe in them selfs.

The new found self belief in now channeled through the SNP - Scotlands champion.




I am not too sure where this £100m comes from but if it comes from the Barnett formula I doubt very much it just sits there and does nothing i.e. it gets spent on something - so Mr Murphy can you please explain what should be cut to pay for this?

Also this is not a new policy, its an old SNP one - its called an oil fund but unfortunately all the oil money has gone down to London and the oil fund sits at hee haw donkey.



"JIM Murphy has called on the Scottish government to launch a resilience fund to protect people against "economic storms" such as the crisis facing the oil and gas industry, in a flagship policy announcement by Labour's new leader in Scotland."

Here's an idea Sunny Jim, let's call it an 'Oil Fund' and use the oil revenue to build it up in case there are fluctuations in the oil price. just like Norway.

But wait, all the oil revenue went to London didn't it. And what is the present value of this oil fund... Nil, zero, zilch...

Doesn't this supposedly intelligent politician not understand 'devolution' and which government is responsible for what area.

Nugget...


But the SNP have already pledged this if we had gained our independence. That we didn't must be partly laid at Murphy's door (or his IrnBru crate). Is he now reduced to stealing the SNP's clothes?



Never heard a word from Murphy asking for either the Scottish or UK governments to do as he now requests, when his red Tory party was in power in Scotland, or at UK levels. The biggest threat to the oil industry in the Scottish waters is the level of tax imposed on it by the UK government. The industry has had to shoulder the highest tax burden of any industry in the UK. Just imagine if every other industry or business had to shoulder the same level of tax. How many would survive if any.



But the SNP have already pledged this if we had gained our independence. That we didn't must be partly laid at Murphy's door (or his IrnBru crate). Is he now reduced to stealing the SNP's clothes?


How about a fund to protect us from Labour and SNP stupidity and economic incompetence? I forgot we already have one, it's called the UK taxpayer!

RF

How about you starting another thread for the like minded!

RF - don't be bullied off the site .... just do as i do and skate past 95/99% of it .... just occasionally you'll find something you want to comment upon

of course, if these tub-thumpers learnt the art of brevity and precis, their garbage (sorry, posts) wouldn't take up quite so many pages

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

meanwhile dow thunders south
if no late(r) recovery, then ftse will be in for another torrid day

For someone who claims to "skate past 95/99% of it" you are always putting your six quid's worth in.

it's the inflation that does it :-)
in fact, you won't often find me responding to the usual garbage though i may add to it