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.

Allegedly - but not proven, apparently. :-)

There's many think this lady would make a very good PM. Watch this space.

Houses of Parliament will have to be abandoned without £3bn renovation





Speaker John Bercow warns the building could become unusable in less than 20 years




Nigel Morris


Deputy Political Editor


Monday 02 March 2015


The Houses of Parliament will have to be abandoned unless huge sums are spent over the next decade to renovate the crumbling building, the Commons Speaker John Bercow has warned.



The cost to taxpayer of restoring the Palace of Westminster, which has not been refurbished since repairs to war damage in the 1940s, has been estimated at more than £3bn. The scale of the task is so vast that MPs and peers could have to move out for five years to allow the work to be completed.

Mr Bercow called for the authorities to face up to the issue, predicting that the Victorian building would become unusable in less than 20 years unless it underwent a massive and expensive overhaul.




More bollox here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/houses-of-parliament-will-have-to-be-abandoned-without-3bn-renovation-10081125.html

Downing Street's Letter To Broadcasters
David Cameron's communications director has sent a letter to broadcasters about the Prime Minister's involvement in a TV debate.
23:10, UK,
Wednesday 04 March 2015
From Sky News

The letter reads:

Dear Sue,

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the broadcasters' "Leaders' Debates" committee.

As you know, I have had serious concerns about the way in which this has been handled from the start.

Despite the Prime Minister having been clear about his concern around holding debates in the short campaign, you did not consult us before issuing a press release last October outlining your plans for three debates during that period.

Had you consulted us, we could have also told you that we also did not think it was appropriate to exclude the Green Party from the process.

Despite all of this, we then entered into negotiations in good faith, during which I made the case for a more representative debates structure, including the Greens. It is fair to say that the desire to exclude the Greens was clear from all other parties present.

Three months later - and again without consultation - you surprised us again by proposing a new seven-party structure, this time not only inviting the Greens, but Plaid Cymru and the SNP as well. Again, this was a flawed proposal - that has resulted in the DUP initiating what appears to be legitimate legal action.

Since this proposal has been suggested, there has been chaos. In recent weeks, you have avoided letting the parties sit in a room to hammer out proposals, making progress impossible.

In order to cut through this chaotic situation I am willing to make the following proposal:

There should be one 90 minute debate between seven party leaders before the short campaign. As well as the Prime Minister, the leaders of the Green Party, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SNP and UKIP should invited. The leader of the DUP should be allowed to make his case for why he should be involved. If the broadcasters cannot agree amongst themselves who hosts the debate, lots should be drawn, though the debate should be freely available to whoever wants to broadcast it. In order for it to be organised in time, the debate should take place during the week beginning the 23rd March. I will make myself available to negotiate the details. Having been the editor of numerous broadcast news and current affairs programmes, I know this is ample time to organise a programme.

This is our final offer, and to be clear, given the fact this has been a deeply unsatisfactory process and we are within a month of the short campaign, the Prime Minister will not be participating in more than one debate.

Yours sincerely,

Craig Oliver

Prime Minister's Director of Communications

How to recognise a coward when you see one!

He is an insult to the condom!




Perhaps, he should move over and use one of his mates!

Perhaps, what Cameron can't face up to:

UK living standards lag 2010 levels as election nears - think tank

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/uk-britain-pay-ifs-idUKKBN0M000T20150304?feedType=nl&feedName=uktopnewsearly

fred - i wouldn't disagree with the analysis above, though it could hardly be a surprise given the total mess then of both uk and world economies ...... i think even USA is only just back to 2010 levels

the following is interesting though .....

The quarterly rate of UK house price growth firmed up for a second consecutive month in February as a result of increases in real earnings and spending power, the results of Halifax's latest survey showed.

Over the three months to February they gained 2.6%, up from the 1.8% rise seen in the three months to January.

Data from Germany, the Eurozone's powerhouse economy, on Thursday showed industrial orders fell 3.9% month-on-month in January after a revised increase of 4.4% in December. The reading undershot economists' expectations for a 1% decline. Orders slid 0.1% from a year earlier.

Manuel,

You missed a bit out.

What it indicates I am not sure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31746095

5 March 2015

"UK house prices fell 0.3% in February, Halifax says"



I remain heavy perhaps too heavy in "housing".

lies, damned lies and statistics of course

house prices and sales are likely to stagnate until after the election for fairly obvious reasons

$62bn tax secret of Buffett’s success
Berkshire Hathaway group is savvy when it comes to deferring tax


so in the wonderful moralistic utopian world, is deferring any different from avoiding?

Only in as much as letting inflation rise (or benefitting from a rise in inflation) is a brilliant way of repaying the capital element of a loan at a much later date in the future.

Imagine you now had to repay the capital lent to you on the purchase of your first house. It would be easy peasy now, wouldn't it?

Similarly, deferring tax payments makes sense. You can do more better things with the retained capital.

So putting such stuff off until much later, even avoiding having to pay tax now, has to be the much better 'financial management' way.

of course it does, but am waiting for fred's view from the other side

I wonder what the taxman would say if I wanted to defer my tax bill?

you can if you set certain assets up correctly ..... it's often termed legitimate avoidance

Manuel,

SP will move on expectations!

But the realities of the economy will become more obvious a month or two after the election.

My guess is that "builders" will continue on the up.

Maybe, crossing my legs.

======

Buffet.

As long as postponed Tax Payments include "interest" above inflation and earnings from the "loan", then it "maybe" acceptable.

Tax avoidance, is questionable and as said before there needs to be a "simplification" of the system.

-=-==-=-

Max,

In the "old days" I often did, until I had a warning!

What a lying gutless PM appears to be.

A supposed leader, who is afraid of standing up for his own record in debate.

He must be rightly ashamed of his own party's record over the last 5 years

Reminds me of some third world countries who politics is derided by the present Con party leadership.

An empty chair is not what is needed, but a better solution would be an electric chair.

Amazing excuse that any debate before the manifesto is produced so the lies can't be argued in public view.

-----0--0-0-0-0-

I can understand why there maybe a further rush of defectors to Farage and his fellow Kippers.

At least he has the guts of some of his convictions.

Whilst I would agree with you about Cameroon, I can understand why he doesent want a debate.

There's nothing in it for him or the cons, and in all probability he would get his head handed to him.

It's a lose lose scenario.

max is correct ..... for cameron, it's a case of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't

I can understand his reasoning, but when as a leader of a country he can't stand up and defend himself and party in debate he is a moral coward.



He should wear the badge, but the voters will recognise him anyway.

I doubt that the image will be forgotten by the time of the election.

-=-=-=-=-==
Ps. my guess was he would come over better than Miliband, but Farage is different matter.

The election result is likely to cause the requirement for a coalition government.

Says who?

The Broadcasters? If so, which parties should be placed on the broadcasted debate?

Us? If so, which parties would we like to see on the broadcasted debate?

Practical Considerations:

1. The more parties there are debating, then the lesser the time the individual parties have to do their debating.
2. Each political party isn't worthy of having the same length of time for debate. Some parties are more improtant and deserve more air time than others. Primarily, there are two important parties: Conservative and Labour.
3. Smaller parties: Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, etc. should not be allowed the same length of time as the major political parties. Accordingly, let's hear what the broadcasters have to say about JUST THIS POINT. Until this particular point is agreed by EVERYONE CONCERNED, then the whole 'TV Debate Thing' is a fiasco!