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.

Others see it differently:

Hazey,

Can you give the figures of the cons party signed up membership now, compared with 10 years ago?

I wonder if we will see the report!


The England has confirmed it is researching the financial risks of the UK leaving the EU after it "inadvertently" sent details of its work to a national newspaper.

A senior official sent an email about its confidential project on the issue to an editor at the Guardian newspaper.

A spokesman for the bank described the error as "unfortunate".
Prime Minister David Cameron has promised an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership by the end of 2017.

Labour's shadow chancellor Chris Leslie called for "a full and informed debate, not clandestine processes shrouded from public view".

The Guardian reports that the email indicates a small group of senior staff are to examine the economic effects of the UK leaving the EU under the authority of Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is the deputy director for financial stability.

The email also spells out that should anyone ask about the project - codenamed Project Bookend - the taskforce should say it concerns "a broad range of European economic issues", and not make any reference to the forthcoming referendum.

'Say no more'

The email, from Sir Jon Cunliffe's private secretary to four senior executives, was written on 21 May, the Guardian reported.

James Talbot, the head of the monetary assessment and strategy division, was also involved in Project Bookend, the paper said.

The email is quoted as saying: "Jon's proposal, which he has asked me to highlight to you, is that no email is sent to James's team or more broadly around the Bank about the project.

"James can tell his team that he is working on a short-term project on European economics in International [division] which will last a couple of months. This will be in-depth work on a broad range of European economic issues. Ideally he would then say no more."

The memo goes on to propose that questions from "other parties" about "whether this was a project to look at the referendum", should be given the answer, "that there is a lot going on in Europe in the next couple of months - pointing to some of the specific European economic issues (eg: Greece) that would be of concern to the Bank".

'Not sensible'

A statement from the bank said: "Today, information related to planned confidential Bank work on the potential implications of a renegotiation and national referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union made its way into the public domain, due to an internal email sent inadvertently to an external party.

"There are a range of economic and financial issues that arise in the context of the renegotiation and national referendum. It is one of the Bank's responsibilities to assess those that relate to its objectives.

"It is not sensible to talk about this work publicly, in advance. But as with work done prior to the Scottish referendum, we will disclose the details of such work at the appropriate time.

"While it is unfortunate that this information has entered the public domain in this way, the Bank will maintain this approach."

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

Interesting.

Where's that plane going?

Using an active map and a bit of 'zooming' (using the + button) then it's fairly easy to find out at:

http://planefinder.net/

Is that Dodgy Dave and Gormless George!

Haystack Send an email to Haystack View Haystack's profile - 22 May 2015 22:29 - 60359 of 60371

The above shows the folly of Labour wasting time on social media which appeals mainly to the 18-24 group.


Surely next election given the survey more of the 18-35's will vote and vote Labour and a lot of the oldies will have passed away ?

And if anyone is in doubt about how the rest of Europe feel about us then the Eurovision song contest voting should give you a clue.

Mind you our song was bleedin awful !

The future-less!

What else have I promised!

Good to see Cameron going to be hoisted by his own false promises.

Iain Duncan Smith in cabinet row over £12bn welfare cuts
Work and pensions secretary fighting rearguard action against any changes that would involve slashing at key benefit schemes

Daniel Boffey

Iain Duncan Smith is “pushing back” against attempts to “salami slice” through the welfare budget to deliver the prime minister’s pledge of £12bn in savings, allies of the work and pensions secretary have claimed.

Duncan Smith was surprised when the sheer scale of the cuts was announced in January last year, and is now fighting a rearguard action against changes that would involve slashing at key benefit schemes in his budget.

It is understood the cabinet minister has long been frustrated by a failure within the leadership of the party to get to grips with how the reduction in spending will be made. He fears that such lethargy could ultimately lead to rushed and deeply unpopular cuts.

One ally of Duncan Smith told the Observer that a major problem had been that key figures did not expect to have to implement such heavy hits on welfare spending, assuming the pledge could be watered down during coalition negotiations with the Liberal Democrats.

How Labour failed the John Lewis test
After Labour's Tristram Hunt said the party had failed the 'John Lewis test', The Telegraph asked shoppers at the department store what they thought of its election performance - and what would lead them to support it in future

By Patrick Sawer8:30AM BST 24 May 2015Comments35 Comments
Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP and historian who last week pulled out of the race to lead his party, described them as the “John Lewis community” voters whom Labour needs to attract if it is to stand any chance of winning back power.
The MP for Stoke-on-Trent said the party had to gain the support of more affluent and aspirational voters if it was ever to recover from this month’s general election defeat and Labour’s worst performance since 1983.
Mr Hunt said that Labour needed to show it was “also on the side of families who want to shop at John Lewis, go on holiday and get a new extension”.


Calling for Labour to reach out beyond its core working-class vote, he said: “The debate needs to be long and deep and painful for the Labour Party because we are in a real hole. The issue in England is this double bind of losing traditional Labour communities often under pressure from Ukip, and not speaking to an aspirational John Lewis couple who … we are on their side.”
The Telegraph carried out a straw poll of John Lewis ­shoppers at its flagship branch on London’s Oxford Street, to find out whether they can be persuaded to vote Labour in future.
Their comments show that the party has a long way to go, whoever it chooses as leader.

Malik Muhammad, 47, a self-empowerment specialist, from Paddington, who voted Green, said Labour had drifted too far to the Left: “Blair bought it back to the centre and that’s what put him in power last time, if it’s not broke don’t fix it. The Tories appear to have a 'pull up by your boot straps’ attitude. Labour are more status quo, focusing on welfare state and looking after everyone’s needs, rather than looking at aspiration.”

Emily Gray, 37, a PA in personal finance, from west London, described what Mr Hunt identified as the party’s “double bind”.
“Historically they are meant to represent the people who have it the worse, and no one aspires to that,” she said. “Even if you are better off under Labour, you want to be the sort of person who is better off under the Tories.”
Ms Gray said that although she had voted Labour it was more out of support for her local MP in Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, than the party’s national campaign and policies, which she described as “rubbish”, adding: “They have to not be afraid to say they will represent people who are poor. They need to be more Left-wing.”
Several of the John Lewis shoppers criticised Ed Miliband’s leadership and what they regarded as his hostile attitude to business and entrepreneurs.

Patricia Wiseman, 59, a compliance officer at HMRC, from Manchester, who voted Conservative, said: “Ed Miliband didn’t do them any favours. He didn’t come across as a strong leader or even as a believable person. People have mixed views about Labour’s real policies and beliefs. Some people think they come across as extremely Left-wing.
“I also think a lot of people like the way our economy has bounced back. Labour have seemed to be against private enterprise; that has turned a lot of people against them. Small businessmen don’t want to vote for them.”
Mrs Wiseman added: “They’ve espoused the welfare state far too much and that’s definitely not aspirational. They could promote small businesses and try to help people get out of the welfare trap.”

Anita Towlson 66, of Bromley, Kent, who used to work in private banking and is now retired and voted Conservative, said: “Ed Miliband’s policies were too radically Left. I get the impression that they want to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.”

Brett Gascoine, 38, a sales director from Oxford who voted ­Conservative, also accused Labour of failing to appeal to aspirational voters. He said: “The difference with Labour is they were going back to the pre-Blair and Brown era, trying to separate everyone into the top 10 per cent of earners and really go at them, and then get the vote of the people on a lower wage. But that has started driving people to Ukip. They are losing aspiration. We shouldn’t be driving people like Richard Branson from the UK.”

Gwynne Wilson-Brown, 71, a retired behaviour consultant from Lancashire, said she had lost faith with Labour and this time voted Liberal Democrat.
She said: “Ed just didn’t have appeal. It is sad that politics has come down to this but it has. ­People vote for leaders who they like. I’m from a Labour family in Lancaster, and my grandfather stood as a Labour candidate.”
Mrs Wilson-Brown had some intriguing advice for the party, stating: “Do some fun things. Tories seem to have all the fun. They are at parties and openings. Labour people seem dower and bad tempered. I find Labour negative.”
Others rejected Labour because they felt they could not trust them with the economy.

Sandra Robinson, 52, a medical secretary from Yorkshire, who voted Conservative, said: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The economy is improving. You don’t know if it will all go t--- up under Labour.” Margaret Hathway 71, retired from Bedfordshire, who voted Conservative, said: “Labour didn’t do very well in the last government, they left us in a lot of debt. We seem to be thriving under Cameron.”

Terry Scott, 54, managing director of The London Carpet & Flooring Company, from Beckenham, south-east London, voted Conservative. He said of Labour: “They need a stronger leader, who can be more forthright, more assertive, more definite policies ... they just skirted around the edge. The Tories had such a good record on the economy, that was the issue.”

Jim Henderson 54, head teacher at the City Heights academy school in south London, who voted Labour, said: “They needed to have a clearer message about their core values: that sense of society being more about what we can all ­contribute ... There are different factions of the party pulling in different directions in terms of the definition of aspiration.”


comments
Conservative voter "What's my view on aspiration?...I want to work hard...do the best for my family...to better myself and those around me".
Labour voter "Aspiration?...Yeah...we want extra benefits for breathing".

perhaps they should give the impression of being less two faced and only saying what they think will get them elected and their snouts in the trough:

before the election: no EU referendum, and until their polling advised otherwise: immigration was not a problem, there was no problem with the economy before the crash, etc.

after the election: they support a EU referendum, and after their polling advised of a disconnect: immigration is a problem, there was a problem with the economy before the crash, etc.

“Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The economy is
improving. You don’t know if it will all go t--- up under Labour.”

I'm sorry madam but you know it will go t--- up under Labour and has done every time they have been elected i.e. 1945 onwards. They are financially inept. They are the nasty party of division and strife, pitting one person against another. Their other main floor is they try to bolster their vote by mass immigration, then terrify these immigrants that they will be thrown out by the Conservatives. Apart from a few in the Labour party with a moral compass, Frank Field being a prime example, they are politicians whose only wish is to be elected, look for scapegoats, bribe what they consider their captive market for re-election and attack any free thinking, self supporting society that still exists. They appeal to the sick, elderly, those on low wages, unemployed and feeble minded, those most at risk in society with promises they cannot and have no intention of keeping and any lie they can concoct to make them more fearful.

The NHS is flawed from top to bottom. It is a great institution which either party will maintain. The main problem is Labour regard it as a power base and will not set about the root and branch changes which will take it from the 1940's union organised monolith employing in excess of 1.3 million people, to the center of excellence it should become. Why not? They would loose the votes from those who work in it.

The Labour party is a totally tyrannical, immoral and corrupt party who did better at the general election than they deserved.

How Labour failed the John Lewis test
After Labour's Tristram Hunt said the party had failed the 'John Lewis test', The Telegraph asked shoppers at the department store what they thought of its election performance - and what would lead them to support it in future

By Patrick Sawer8:30AM BST 24 May 2015Comments35 Comments
Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP and historian who last week pulled out of the race to lead his party, described them as the “John Lewis community” voters whom Labour needs to attract if it is to stand any chance of winning back power.
The MP for Stoke-on-Trent said the party had to gain the support of more affluent and aspirational voters if it was ever to recover from this month’s general election defeat and Labour’s worst performance since 1983.
Mr Hunt said that Labour needed to show it was “also on the side of families who want to shop at John Lewis, go on holiday and get a new extension”.

Calling for Labour to reach out beyond its core working-class vote, he said: “The debate needs to be long and deep and painful for the Labour Party because we are in a real hole. The issue in England is this double bind of losing traditional Labour communities often under pressure from Ukip, and not speaking to an aspirational John Lewis couple who … we are on their side.”
The Telegraph carried out a straw poll of John Lewis ­shoppers at its flagship branch on London’s Oxford Street, to find out whether they can be persuaded to vote Labour in future.
Their comments show that the party has a long way to go, whoever it chooses as leader.

Malik Muhammad, 47, a self-empowerment specialist, from Paddington, who voted Green, said Labour had drifted too far to the Left: “Blair bought it back to the centre and that’s what put him in power last time, if it’s not broke don’t fix it. The Tories appear to have a 'pull up by your boot straps’ attitude. Labour are more status quo, focusing on welfare state and looking after everyone’s needs, rather than looking at aspiration.”

Emily Gray, 37, a PA in personal finance, from west London, described what Mr Hunt identified as the party’s “double bind”.
“Historically they are meant to represent the people who have it the worse, and no one aspires to that,” she said. “Even if you are better off under Labour, you want to be the sort of person who is better off under the Tories.”
Ms Gray said that although she had voted Labour it was more out of support for her local MP in Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, than the party’s national campaign and policies, which she described as “rubbish”, adding: “They have to not be afraid to say they will represent people who are poor. They need to be more Left-wing.”
Several of the John Lewis shoppers criticised Ed Miliband’s leadership and what they regarded as his hostile attitude to business and entrepreneurs.

Patricia Wiseman, 59, a compliance officer at HMRC, from Manchester, who voted Conservative, said: “Ed Miliband didn’t do them any favours. He didn’t come across as a strong leader or even as a believable person. People have mixed views about Labour’s real policies and beliefs. Some people think they come across as extremely Left-wing.
“I also think a lot of people like the way our economy has bounced back. Labour have seemed to be against private enterprise; that has turned a lot of people against them. Small businessmen don’t want to vote for them.”
Mrs Wiseman added: “They’ve espoused the welfare state far too much and that’s definitely not aspirational. They could promote small businesses and try to help people get out of the welfare trap.”

Anita Towlson 66, of Bromley, Kent, who used to work in private banking and is now retired and voted Conservative, said: “Ed Miliband’s policies were too radically Left. I get the impression that they want to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.”

Brett Gascoine, 38, a sales director from Oxford who voted ­Conservative, also accused Labour of failing to appeal to aspirational voters. He said: “The difference with Labour is they were going back to the pre-Blair and Brown era, trying to separate everyone into the top 10 per cent of earners and really go at them, and then get the vote of the people on a lower wage. But that has started driving people to Ukip. They are losing aspiration. We shouldn’t be driving people like Richard Branson from the UK.”

Gwynne Wilson-Brown, 71, a retired behaviour consultant from Lancashire, said she had lost faith with Labour and this time voted Liberal Democrat.
She said: “Ed just didn’t have appeal. It is sad that politics has come down to this but it has. ­People vote for leaders who they like. I’m from a Labour family in Lancaster, and my grandfather stood as a Labour candidate.”
Mrs Wilson-Brown had some intriguing advice for the party, stating: “Do some fun things. Tories seem to have all the fun. They are at parties and openings. Labour people seem dower and bad tempered. I find Labour negative.”
Others rejected Labour because they felt they could not trust them with the economy.

Sandra Robinson, 52, a medical secretary from Yorkshire, who voted Conservative, said: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The economy is improving. You don’t know if it will all go t--- up under Labour.” Margaret Hathway 71, retired from Bedfordshire, who voted Conservative, said: “Labour didn’t do very well in the last government, they left us in a lot of debt. We seem to be thriving under Cameron.”

Terry Scott, 54, managing director of The London Carpet & Flooring Company, from Beckenham, south-east London, voted Conservative. He said of Labour: “They need a stronger leader, who can be more forthright, more assertive, more definite policies ... they just skirted around the edge. The Tories had such a good record on the economy, that was the issue.”

Jim Henderson 54, head teacher at the City Heights academy school in south London, who voted Labour, said: “They needed to have a clearer message about their core values: that sense of society being more about what we can all ­contribute ... There are different factions of the party pulling in different directions in terms of the definition of aspiration.”

Conservative voter "What's my view on aspiration?...I want to work hard...do the best for my family...to better myself and those around me".
Labour voter "Aspiration?...Yeah...we want extra benefits for breathing".

perhaps they should give the impression of being less two faced and only saying what they think will get them elected and their snouts in the trough:

before the election: no EU referendum, and until their polling advised otherwise: immigration was not a problem, there was no problem with the economy before the crash, etc.

after the election: they support a EU referendum, and after their polling advised of a disconnect: immigration is a problem, there was a problem with the economy before the crash, etc.

“Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The economy is
improving. You don’t know if it will all go t--- up under Labour.”

I'm sorry madam but you know it will go t--- up under Labour and has done every time they have been elected i.e. 1945 onwards. They are financially inept. They are the nasty party of division and strife, pitting one person against another. Their other main floor is they try to bolster their vote by mass immigration, then terrify these immigrants that they will be thrown out by the Conservatives. Apart from a few in the Labour party with a moral compass, Frank Field being a prime example, they are politicians whose only wish is to be elected, look for scapegoats, bribe what they consider their captive market for re-election and attack any free thinking, self supporting society that still exists. They appeal to the sick, elderly, those on low wages, unemployed and feeble minded, those most at risk in society with promises they cannot and have no intention of keeping and any lie they can concoct to make them more fearful.

The NHS is flawed from top to bottom. It is a great institution which either party will maintain. The main problem is Labour regard it as a power base and will not set about the root and branch changes which will take it from the 1940's union organised monolith employing in excess of 1.3 million people, to the center of excellence it should become. Why not? They would loose the votes from those who work in it.

The Labour party is a totally tyrannical, immoral and corrupt party who did better at the general election than they deserved.
4 • Reply•Share ›

Labour have confirmed their position as the hypochrit party by making a massive U turn and now supporting a referendum on the EU. They will support the government in introducing a bill to enable the referendum as they believe the public deserve a vote on the matter.

.

Labour spokesperson on Murnaghan this morning that the Mansion Tax was only symbolic and would have been unworkable at the local level

.

re; €uropa and the nu lab about face.


All points to the fix is in.

SNP have said that they will be campaigning heavily for the UK to stay in the EU. There was never much chance of us leaving the EU. Now the chances are even less. The public will vote to stay in out of fear of leaving as did the Scots with their referendum. That will settle the position for at least a generation.