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.

Utter madness this compensation culture we have inherited from the USA.

I think there is a bit of needle there Fred, it aint the money...although I notice he didn't offer to make up for the lost fee's like any reasonable peep would do.

http://guerillainvesting.co.uk/2015/01/19/tom-winnifrith-v-london-south-east-its-bbmorons/

DB3 1/2,

You belong to a party which like yourself shoots its mouth off at every opportunity, that is why many prefer the alternative of Labour/Libdem/SNP coalition than have the Nasty Part of past timers.

Hopefully, and probably, having lookig at this period of period of tory mismanagement, of u-turns, skid reversals and falsehoods, they will be prepared to think about decisions rather than rush the PR statement out only to retreat a few days later.

I think Umunna is extremely able, thoughtful and modest and was wise not to make spontaneous replies without due considerations.

Far more preferable for me than the rent a mouth spokesmen that the torid party often puts up as spokesmen for them.

You are backing a loser once again.

I thought you said these televised debates were a good idea because politicians had to make spontaneous replies without due considerations? Did you say that Fred, or have you changed your mind? Umunna showed his true colours, when put under a little bit of pressure he lost his cool.

Labour's energy freeze is dead and Ed has nothing else to offer
After endless U-turns, the party is now going into the election without a flagship policy


By Boris Johnson6:10AM GMT 19 Jan 2015

I remember the time when it was absolutely clear how Labour was going to fight the election. They had a flagship policy, an idea that resonated across the country. Somehow or other, and in defiance of all known laws of economics, they were going to freeze the price of energy. Ed Miliband announced the idea in the autumn of 2013 – and immediately the party surged in the polls.



Yay, said the public: free money! Some of us pointed out that it is very difficult for politicians to intervene effectively in the price of commodities. The emperor Diocletian tried it – and gave up in humiliation after a few years. Not many have followed his example, and none successfully. Still, the punters believed it, and Labour remorselessly pushed that sole policy until it became their most famous proposal, their rallying cry, one of the few solid ideas in the general porridge of their anti-business agenda.



And then something unexpected happened: the oil price started to fall. Fracking was massively boosting production in America. The Saudis were turning on the taps – and keeping them on. Perhaps the Arabs were trying to undercut the frackers; perhaps they were trying to make life difficult for the Iranians. It didn’t matter. The cost of energy started to come down, and down – until suddenly there was the prospect of an actual cut for you and me.



The energy companies are now preparing a long-overdue reduction in their bills – and there is only one theoretical objection. What are they supposed to do if Labour gets in, and implement their “freeze”? What if the price “freeze” were to prevent the rapacious power companies from passing on further cuts to the consumer? In the last few weeks, it has seemed that Miliband was impaled on a ludicrous policy of insisting that energy prices should remain higher than the market demands. Now the Labour Party say that they didn’t mean to talk about a “freeze” at all; the idea was to have a “cap”.



Well, their propaganda has so far been exclusively about a freeze, and if there is to be a cap – then at what level? We don’t know; they can’t tell us. All we know is that the “freeze” policy has been junked; the flagship has been holed beneath the waterline. It was always a short-term policy, designed to drive a news agenda for a week or so. It was never part of a principled and rational agenda for government – and now it is dead.



No wonder that so many naturally bossy and Left-wing people are thinking of going for the Greens, rather than Labour. At least they have a world-view; at least they know what they think. For the last few years I have had the joy of engaging with the Greens in London, and I believe I understand their mindset pretty well. They don’t like capitalism, they don’t much like economic growth and they hate, hate, hate anything to do with the motor car. They especially hate and fear the advent of low-carbon vehicles, because they consider these to be an unfortunate diversion from their main purpose: to drive everyone out of private cars – with their horrid connotations of individual liberty and autonomy – and on to public transport.



On some points I agree with the Greens; on some I disagree strongly. But when I think of my friend Jenny Jones, now Baroness Jones, I see a doughty and often successful campaigner for a set of environmental or pseudo-environmental objectives. She was at all the mayoral debates in the run-up to the London election in 2012 and enlivened them. David Cameron is absolutely right in taking his stand on her behalf. Of course the Greens should be in the TV showdowns. They may be occasionally batty, but at least their case is gaining ground with the public, and at least it has some bravery and rigour about it. That is not the case with the hopeless hodge‑podge of Milibandery.



Just in the period since Christmas, the Labour Party seems to have executed no fewer than 21 U-turns – many of them junking their previous green policies. They were going to bring back a pro-bike quango called Cycling England; now they are not. They were going to ban food waste going to landfill; now they have given up. If the Greens are watermelons – Lefties disguised as environmentalists – then Miliband is a ripening tomato, moving conspicuously from green to red.
In fact, I am not sure how green Ed ever really was. His backers in the media claim that he was responsible for some kind of midnight breakthrough communiqué at the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.



Well, I was at Copenhagen, and I don’t remember any breakthrough at all – the whole thing was a fiasco – and I certainly don’t remember any intervention by Ed. And the reason I was there was because we in London were trying to promote a serious and sensible agenda for installing insulation, retrofitting homes, and so cutting fuel bills.



When we went to see the secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (E Miliband) I was amazed by how little he seemed either to know or to care. He was much more interested in gossip than in a long-term programme for the country – and I fear the same is true today.
Yesterday’s paper contained a wonderful account of how he nearly died in a fire in Doncaster, during a long stay with the former mayor of that town. He took it into his head to move a convection heater off a pair of bricks and plonk it on the carpet. Both the carpet and the under-carpet ignited, and gave off such noxious vapours that Ed was sitting zonked in an armchair, in danger of being asphyxiated – until he was saved by his quick-thinking neighbour, who tipped him into the garden.
Miliband later made amends by buying a carpet to cover the burns, though the effect was slightly spoiled when his hosts realised that it was a Muslim prayer mat.
What’s that burning smell? It’s another giant hole appearing in Ed Miliband’s policies – and there isn’t a mat big enough to cover them.

DB3 1/2

P55325

I can't recollect posting :

"I thought you said these televised debates were a good idea because politicians had to make spontaneous replies without due considerations? "

I believe I posted that Cameron was trying to chicken out of the debate with Nigel as a protagonist and also thought he was frit of Wee Alex.

Not sure of the actual words I used, but you can C+P and correct me if I am mistaken,


Head lines at the time Cameron would rather look ‘frit’ than face a bashing from Farage




I don't think I made reference to the value of the debates, but think I might enjoy them.


But, I do fancy the idea of Farage, or Farage and Alex ravaging the pompous spiv, who is said to be leader of the Tories, but is more often than not, trailing behind UKIP and the Right wing Neo-cons within that party.

====-=-=-=-

As far as I can see with Uma, it was an attempt at a set up which backfired on the presenter.

Similar to Cameron's outburst in defence of the Fastest Milkman in the West over an inappropriately constructed letter.

Apparently... a kid has been sent an invoice for £16 for a party no-show......sounds like America...but it's not !........ok...wait for it.....: ...I have a business idea !...

"Stan - 19 Jan 2015 17:41 - 55320 of 55328"

This is true RF, and whats up with that? -):

The lesser spotted millibandus is a complete and utter fool, how did the robber barons pick him over his bruvver....I know they want to control, but whats the point if the bloke is a duffer? They'll never control anything.

Fred..........stop taking the piss out of doodlebug 4...........................NOT


fantastic entertainment.

Deirdre snuffs it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30891246

Max,

Are you sad that you have been passed over.

Even a duffer like you may find a party which would accept you at a price.
















Unfortunately, the price may be too high for you.

If you get Sky Arts 1 channel, there is a Frank Zappa concert on.

Murdochvision... Oh please.

Watching it on Virgin. Unfortunately Sky has control of a lot of sports as well. The service is good value though.

Love you too Fred!

What exactly will Labour be talking about during the general election campaign? A private strategy document recently seen by the Telegraph revealed that its MPs had been advised against campaigning on immigration. Yesterday, one of its activists stood up at a Fabian conference and asked Ed Miliband if it was true – as he claimed to have been told by his regional party – that Labour would not be talking about the economy either, “as it’s not our strong point”. Mr Miliband denied that this was the case.


But Labour would have good cause to remain as quiet as possible about both issues. On immigration, voters have not forgotten the last government’s absurd underestimate of the likely number of Eastern Europeans who would take advantage of our open borders, or Gordon Brown’s dismissal of a legitimately concerned voter as a “bigoted woman”. And on economics, polls show that voters are justly concerned about Labour’s whole approach. It appears to consist of spending more, taxing more and borrowing more, while its policy on energy prices has melted away from a price freeze to a price cap.


Mr Miliband seems confused. Last year, Labour was copying Ukip’s language about immigration. Yesterday, in his speech to the Fabians, Mr Miliband declared: “Immigration makes us stronger, richer and more powerful as a nation.” A little while ago, he insisted that “Europe needs reform”. But speaking before this prominent Left-wing group, he praised Britain’s EU membership without qualification. Which is the real Mr Miliband? Most probably he is at his happiest talking to old‑guard socialists who think the state knows best and that economic facts are a mere inconvenience.


But facts are important to the voters and will no doubt damage Labour’s performance in May. And if anyone in the Labour high command does think that they can smooth over any policy inadequacies by not talking about them, then the list of the subjects they might have to ignore is long. Defence, education, health… If the television debates do go ahead, Ed Miliband might just have to stand there and smile.

Telegraph

Coronation Street's Anne Kirkbride - who played Deidre Barlow for 43 years - dies aged 60 just months after taking break from show
Kirkbride was in soap for 44 years and appeared in 1,439 episodes
Died in hospital in Manchester and is survived by husband David
William Roache pays tribute to 'such a loving and vibrant person'





R.I.P Anne

Surprise surprise ....



The wealth that failed to trickle down: The rich do get richer while poor stay poor, report suggests




The free-market right promised cutting taxes for the wealthy would make us all better off. But new research suggests that when the rich get richer, the poor stay poor


Ben Chu

Monday 19 January 2015



It started out as a joke: “Money was appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy,” quipped the American humorist, and one-time circus cowboy, Will Rogers, during the Great Depression. But in the 1980s, in the age of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, politicians began to take trickle-down seriously. Or at least they seemed to do so.



Trickle-down can be (very loosely) characterised as the idea that reducing the tax burden on the well-off is, in the end, good for everyone. A wealthy person’s taxes are reduced and his disposable income increases. The wealthy person spends the extra income on a new mansion, or luxury goods, or lavish holidays. The estate agent, the luxury manufacturer and the tourist resort’s profits increase. Those firms then invest the profits, expanding their capacity, creating new jobs in the process. That additional investment boosts income and employment.

The economy grows, bringing in more tax revenues (more, indeed, than were forgone through the initial tax cut). The size of the state is reduced, the freedom of the population grows and general prosperity is enlarged.

Can it be true? Not according to Larry Summers and Ed Balls. The former American Treasury Secretary and Labour’s shadow Chancellor, in a new report produced yesterday by the Centre for American Progress, attempt to explode a bomb under this theory of a virtuous economic circle. “Left to their own devices, unfettered markets and trickle-down economics will lead to increasing levels of inequality, stagnating wages, and a hollowing out of decent, middle-income jobs,” the report argues.

To Summers and Balls, tax cuts for the rich do not inexorably result in more economic activity, but create a growing income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. The rich tend to save more of their disposable income and growth slows down. Ha-Joon Chang, the popular economics writer from Cambridge University, is another veteran critic of the idea. “The trickle-down argument crucially depends on the assumption that, when given a bigger slice of national output, the rich will use it to increase investments”, he has written. He describes this as “an assumption that has not been borne out by reality”, and goes on: “Once you realise that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are: a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer.”






More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-wealth-that-failed-to-trickle-down-report-suggests-rich-do-get-richer-while-poor-stay-poor-9989183.html