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.

Yep thats what I was meaning Cyners a small % to pay for hospital treatment, eg, white van man on say 60£ grand per annum surgery costs £6,000 he pays £600 or circa.

Obviously a lot more detail needed but that my idea , no taxes or extra NI and no foreigners shipped in and shipped out.

Something people can afford.

Try the French model for the NHS, works very well, superb treatment, but not free to all comers.

Why what is it Max please?

ah, you mean generic raised pies that could be game or chicken and ham or whatever ...... no, not a tradition i've ever come across except in edwardian households .... of course h'firth is a long way from modern civilisation ....
mind you, i'ld have thought that pukka pakoras and samosas would have taken over in your area by now :-)

No chance. What million pound houses.

They have down the road in Meltham but not here.

Nope its just a tradition suprised you didnt know about it, Lanchashire and others are the same.

Hey we were cut off from civilisation here last night until 10am this morning.......Great. No tourists.

Not sure about Freds neck of the woods??????

Hmmm FTSE looking ok for tomorrow so far as is dow.

Japs will spoil it.

Just half day tomorrow......... drat.

Back to the Misery.


Roll on monday.

my mother was a yorkshire lass and she certainly didn't bring that tradition with her when she married my dad
i don't recollect my grandmother (yorkshire) ever mentioning it either

dow very curious .....
cnn after hours shows dow futures down a further 41 points at 17941
however, IG is quoting cash dow as +19.5 at 17998


btw, cash ftse is quoted as +4.1 at 6553.4

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

anyway old chap, i'm off to bed to read, but shall no doubt converse tomorrow before golf at midday .... that'll be a joke after another hard frost, but it'll be good to get out

have to be organised though, as shall be cooking the beef when i get back, so def must remember to collect it in the morning!

Hmmm?

This stuff can only happen in America:

"A young woman was accidentally shot and killed by a 2-year-old boy she was shopping with today in an Idaho Walmart," police said. "It is unclear how the two are related."

Lt. Stu Miller of the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office said during a media briefing, "...that the boy pulled the handgun from the woman's purse and pulled the trigger."

So apparently, the young lady has a loaded handgun in her handbag, which is open and she goes into the Walmart store (Yes! It can only happen in a Walmart store, folks!) with a 2 yr old boy.

The safety catch of the gun is in the 'Off' position - which means you merely have to pull the trigger to immediately fire the gun. The 2 yr old boy reaches into the open bag, pulls out the gun and squeezes the trigger, shooting the young lady dead.

The store then closes for the day.

And it's onto the next.....

Hmmm? I wonder if the 2 yr old boy was fully (or only partly) trained in the use of handguns? Sounds like only partly to me. That's disgusting!

Yep IG showing that.

Id think IG was right and CNN still in holiday mode.

Anyway Cyners thats me done for now.


Got to put the horses to bed and get the dogs out.

See ya tomorrow Jimmy.

America - the land of guns, hamburgers, crap wine and watery Budweiser. The gun laws in America will never change as long as the NRA has so much influence.

By Peter Dominiczak, Political Editor
9:57PM GMT 30 Dec 2014
The former Labour prime minister criticises Ed Miliband's leadership of the party and warns that he has alienated British businesses

Ed Miliband will not win the general election because he has veered too far to the Left and has alienated British businesses, Tony Blair has said.

In a withering assessment of the Labour leader’s chances of becoming the next prime minister, Mr Blair suggested that Mr Miliband risks taking Labour back to the dark days of the 1980s and early 1990s, when the party suffered a series of heavy defeats to the Conservatives.

His comments will come as a major blow to Mr Miliband and come just five months before voters go to the polls in what is predicted to be the tightest general election in decades.

The former prime minister, the most electorally successful politician in Labour history, said that May’s general election risks becomes one in which a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.

Asked by the Economist magazine if he meant that the Conservatives would win the general election in those circumstances, Mr Blair replied: “Yes, that is what happens.”

Mr Miliband has repeatedly attempted to distance himself from Mr Blair and the New Labour movement, but has faced criticism for left-wing economic policies which some have argued are anti-business.

In a thinly-veiled condemnation of Mr Miliband’s leadership of the party, Mr Blair said that Labour “succeeds best when it is in the centre ground”.

“I am still very much New Labour and Ed would not describe himself in that way, so there is obviously a difference there,” Mr Blair said. “I am convinced the Labour Party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground”.

When asked what lessons he derives from his experience of election-winning, Mr Blair replied: “Not alienating large parts of business, for one thing.”

The Telegraph in October disclosed that Mr Blair had told long-standing political allies that Mr Miliband cannot beat Mr Cameron in the election.

Mr Blair’s intervention comes just one month after Mr Miliband faced a leadership crisis after a number of MP’s from his own party questioned his ability to win the election.

At least four backbenchers called on Mr Miliband to step down amid growing concerns he is leading Labour to a heavy defeat.

A number of MPs have accused Mr Miliband of being out of touch with ordinary Labour voters, particularly in the north of England.

Although Labour has a narrow lead over the Conservatives in most opinion polls, some Labour politicians are worried that lead will not survive ever more intensive Conservative attacks on Mr Miliband’s credibility in run-up to the election.

Allies of Mr Blair also fear that Mr Miliband is not doing enough to appeal to the centre-ground voters who gave the party three general election victories between 1997 and 2005.

Since leaving Downing Street in 2007, Mr Blair has made few direct interventions in British politics, spending much of his time abroad.

However, he has repeatedly hinted at his unhappiness with Mr Miliband’s stewardship of the Labour Party.

In July, he warned Mr Miliband about retreating into a left-wing “comfort zone” and said the party has not yet developed a “narrative that is about the future of the country.”

And he in November said that Labour must show a “strong political lead” if it wants to form a majority in 2015.

A Labour Party source said: “[Tony Blair has] made it abundantly clear on several occasions he wants and expects Labour to win under Ed Miliband.”

Tories to be exposed in new year.

Tory peado members to be exposed early 2015.

Why wait, why not now?

gf.

A brief overview of the French healthcare system:

http://about-france.com/health-care.htm


It doesent include all the bells and whistles or the drawbacks, but it will give you some idea of how it works.

But the real difference is that it is not open to abuse like the nhs.

Tony Blair: Ed Miliband will not win the general election because of lurch to the left
The former Labour prime minister criticises Ed Miliband's leadership of the party and warns that he has alienated British businesses



By Peter Dominiczak, Political Editor9:57PM GMT 30 Dec 2014 Comments685 Comments
Ed Miliband will not win the general election because he has veered too far to the Left and has alienated British businesses, Tony Blair has said.
In a withering assessment of the Labour leader’s chances of becoming the next prime minister, Mr Blair suggested that Mr Miliband risks taking Labour back to the dark days of the 1980s and early 1990s, when the party suffered a series of heavy defeats to the Conservatives.
His comments will come as a major blow to Mr Miliband and come just five months before voters go to the polls in what is predicted to be the tightest general election in decades.
The former prime minister, the most electorally successful politician in Labour history, said that May’s general election risks becomes one in which a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.
Asked by the Economist magazine if he meant that the Conservatives would win the general election in those circumstances, Mr Blair replied: “Yes, that is what happens.”


Mr Miliband has repeatedly attempted to distance himself from Mr Blair and the New Labour movement, but has faced criticism for left-wing economic policies which some have argued are anti-business.
In a thinly-veiled condemnation of Mr Miliband’s leadership of the party, Mr Blair said that Labour “succeeds best when it is in the centre ground”.
“I am still very much New Labour and Ed would not describe himself in that way, so there is obviously a difference there,” Mr Blair said. “I am convinced the Labour Party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground”.
When asked what lessons he derives from his experience of election-winning, Mr Blair replied: “Not alienating large parts of business, for one thing.”



The Telegraph in October disclosed that Mr Blair had told long-standing political allies that Mr Miliband cannot beat Mr Cameron in the election.
Mr Blair’s intervention comes just one month after Mr Miliband faced a leadership crisis after a number of MP’s from his own party questioned his ability to win the election.
At least four backbenchers called on Mr Miliband to step down amid growing concerns he is leading Labour to a heavy defeat.


A number of MPs have accused Mr Miliband of being out of touch with ordinary Labour voters, particularly in the north of England.
Although Labour has a narrow lead over the Conservatives in most opinion polls, some Labour politicians are worried that lead will not survive ever more intensive Conservative attacks on Mr Miliband’s credibility in run-up to the election.
Allies of Mr Blair also fear that Mr Miliband is not doing enough to appeal to the centre-ground voters who gave the party three general election victories between 1997 and 2005.
Since leaving Downing Street in 2007, Mr Blair has made few direct interventions in British politics, spending much of his time abroad.
However, he has repeatedly hinted at his unhappiness with Mr Miliband’s stewardship of the Labour Party.
In July, he warned Mr Miliband about retreating into a left-wing “comfort zone” and said the party has not yet developed a “narrative that is about the future of the country.”
And he in November said that Labour must show a “strong political lead” if it wants to form a majority in 2015.
A Labour Party source said: “[Tony Blair has] made it abundantly clear on several occasions he wants and expects Labour to win under Ed Miliband.”



Milibore will not win the 2015 GE?

That is the only thing Blair has got right in 2 decades

Admitting Ed Miliband is heading for defeat shows Tony Blair at his best and worst
Mr Blair's toxic legacy of distrust stops people listening to him even when he tells the truth



By James Kirkup8:31AM GMT 31 Dec 2014 CommentsComment
OK, I have an axe to grind here.
In October I reported that Tony Blair had privately said Ed Miliband was heading for defeat at the general election.
I was, and am, perfectly confident that my source reported the former PM's views accurately. Mr Blair's office demurred, eventually issuing this tweet:
"TB says: The Telegraph story does not represent my view. Ed Miliband and the Labour Party can and will win the next election."
So imagine my surprise to see Mr Blair telling the Economist, on the record this time, that Mr Miliband is likely to lose the election.


This is Mr Blair at his best and worst.
The best is the clarity of thinking, the analysis, the willingness to say things that his own side won't like. It's that laser-beam focus on political victory that made him his party's most electorally successful leader, something that many Labour people will never forgive him for.
The worst is the weaseling, the cavilling, the cleverly-formulated wordplay that can allow him to proclaim one position (loyalty to Mr Miliband) while clearly holding another (belief that Mr Miliband is on the wrong track).
That weasel streak is Blair's tragedy, the character flaw that mars his record and poisons his legacy. The country may have liked him enough to elect him thrice – once after the invasion of Iraq, remember – but it will never trust him.
Of course that's about Iraq. The way he made – and makes – the case for intervention has crippled the cause of interventionist foreign policy. He was right to intervene in Sierra Leone. He was right to intervene in Kosovo. He was right to intervene in Afghanistan. And yes, he was right to intervene in Iraq, under the circumstances at the time.


But the way he did it counts too. He and his partisans can and do find clever ways of making the WMD case, but most people still feel misled. The effects of that feeling are ruinous.
Civilians are dying daily in Syria and the West does almost nothing, a situation Mr Blair has rightly decried. But Britain didn't intervene largely because politicians, Labour and Tory alike, fear the anger of voters who believe Mr Blair lied to them over Iraq. He's right about Syria, but no one wants to listen.
Which brings us to Mr Miliband. Mr Blair is very likely correct that the surest path to a substantial Labour victory still runs through the centre ground, especially when Ukip is dragging the Conservatives to the right. But once again, Mr Blair's toxic legacy of distrust will very likely prevent people listening to him even when he tells the truth.

Whatever the outcome next May, Parliament needs a new Speaker
'Vindictive and openly biased’ against the Tories, John Bercow is clearly not up to the job



By Peter Oborne8:32PM GMT 30 Dec 2014 Comments265 Comments
The year ahead threatens to be one of the most dramatic in modern parliamentary history. Less than three months remain till the expiry of the first coalition government since the Second World War. It is breaking up amid acrimony and bitterness. We are entering unknown territory. There is every chance that the Liberal Democrats will turn on their Conservative partners on a point of principle, or perhaps even gang up with the Labour opposition in a vote of confidence.
Then there is the question of what will happen when a new Parliament forms in May. Many experts predict another coalition, or perhaps a Lib-Lab pact. Conservative central office is reportedly preparing for two elections in 2015. The permutations are endless as Britain embarks on potentially the most unstable political year since 1974, the last year of two elections. Amid such uncertainty it is essential that the House of Commons should have a respected figure in charge.
Unfortunately John Bercow has been a partial and self-promoting Speaker, said by his critics to be openly biased against the Conservatives, vindictive to those he dislikes and notoriously prone to favouritism. Mr Bercow may well face one or more knife-edge decisions, for example over a point of procedure in a confidence motion, which shape the circumstances in which a government can stand or fall.



Yet he is not, to put it mildly, a figure in whom both main parties feel equal trust. Having Mr Bercow in charge is rather like putting a partisan referee on duty for a vital football match. More troubling still, Parliament enters the new year without a Commons clerk. The occupant of this post is never a public figure, yet the House of Commons cannot work without him. The post (full title: “The Under Clerk of the Parliaments, to wait upon the Commons”) dates back to the Middle Ages, and the occupant always possesses a profound knowledge of precedent, procedure and how Parliament operates. Such knowledge is beyond price in uncertain times such as the year that lies ahead. Lack of a Commons clerk in such circumstances is unthinkable – to continue the footballing analogy, it is like a Premier League team embarking on a new season without a manager


The vacancy is entirely the fault of Speaker Bercow. He created the problem in the first place by making life unbearable for the former Commons clerk, the hugely respected Sir Robert Rogers. Sir Robert, exhausted by Speaker Bercow’s petulance and foul language, reluctantly concluded that he had no choice but to retire.



Having driven Sir Robert out of his job, Speaker Bercow sought to bring in his own creature. In an attempted constitutional coup d’etat, he stuffed the selection panel with cronies, snubbed David Natzler (the highly experienced deputy clerk) and chose Carol Mills from the Australian parliament.
Ms Mills, who has since become notorious, was unsuitable for a number of reasons. She was mired in scandal, and has since been accused of misleading the Australian parliament. But most striking of all, Carol Mills had no knowledge at all of British parliamentary procedure. Nevertheless Mr Bercow’s committee chose Ms Mills. She would now be in place had not a parliamentary revolt, led by the constitutionally minded Conservative MP Jesse Norman, prevented her appointment.


Speaker Bercow’s standing and reputation have been very seriously damaged as a consequence. However, the Speaker is nothing if not a fighter. He and his allies have mounted a rearguard action over the Christmas period. They have come out with an account of events that is so misleading and shamelessly self-serving that it needs to be challenged.
On Boxing Day Mr Bercow, invited on the Today programme as guest editor, insouciantly informed the presenter Mishal Hussein that he was the blameless victim of the Mills fiasco. Without naming him, he disreputably insinuated that the responsibility lay with Sir Robert Rogers, the former clerk, for resisting reform. The real problem, said Bercow, was that the selection panel had been given an “undeliverable brief”.


Speaker Bercow was misleading Radio 4 listeners. The brief was the same as the brief under which Sir Robert was recruited three years ago, so it cannot have been impossible. Furthermore, the former clerk was widely regarded as having been a great success, as borne out by the handsome tributes during the Commons debate that marked his retirement.
Even more troubling than Speaker Bercow’s misleading testimony were remarks made by Margaret Hodge when I interviewed her before Christmas on Radio 4’s Week in Westminster. Mrs Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), is one of the Bercow cronies brought on to the Carol Mills selection panel. She was unrepentant, insisting that Ms Mills was an “excellent” candidate.
Like Mr Bercow, Mrs Hodge claimed that the brief was at the heart of the problem because the selection panel was asked to choose an expert in Commons procedure who was also a top administrator. She said that they “weren’t given any choice” about the job description. This claim is wrong. Angela Eagle, shadow leader of the Commons (and a fellow member of the selection committee), told Parliament on September 10 that the job description had been agreed by the committee.
Mrs Hodge also told me that the selection procedure was “really rigorous”. Yet during his contribution to that September 10 Commons debate, Andrew Lansley, another member of the selection committee, made plain that the process had been distressingly lax or (as Lansley put it) “ill-founded”. In any case, no rigorous procedure could ever have chosen Carol Mills, or got near to choosing her. To be brutal, Speaker Bercow and his ally Margaret Hodge have come up with a tissue of obfuscation to justify their decision to appoint Ms Mills.



The situation could be worse than it is. David Natzler is an accomplished acting clerk. However he lacks the customary authority of letters patent from the monarch, and knows that he does not have the support of the Speaker. So it is important to learn the right lessons from the Mills fiasco. The first point is that Margaret Hodge should not be allowed anywhere near the next selection panel. Leaving aside her comments on Radio 4, she has a confusion of interests – as chairman of the PAC, the next Commons clerk may have to account to her.
Secondly, the new clerk (Mr Natzler, overlooked the first time, is the outstanding candidate and obvious choice) must surely be in place by the time Parliament reassembles in May. Third, protections are needed to stop Mr Bercow manipulating the next selection process.
The first thing Parliament does when it reconvenes after a general election is to elect a Speaker. Since this vote is by open ballot, MPs will be fearful to oppose John Bercow. They fear that they will not be called to speak if they vote against him. Nevertheless, Speaker Bercow (a very young Speaker when he was appointed after Speaker Martin resigned in disgrace five years ago) reportedly promised to stand down in 2018 when he reaches the age of 55. Some way must be found of ensuring that he keeps that promise.

Cheers Max Ive printed it off.