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.

I'll need to stockpile full stop if your lot get in Fred!

Max, what are UKIP's policies on the NHS, education, HS2, possible welfare reforms, environment - etc.?

Same as the other party's db, "make it up as you go along."

So why vote UKIP then if you think they are no different? I thought you wanted a change from the usual lot?

And why vote for UKIP when they won't be able to do anything. You may as well vote for the Monster Raving Loony party.

db, what is the point of voting the same way as before if you want change?

btw, I did not say they were the same, read it again.


We already have the eq of the monster party in power Haystack;

More people "in work" than ever is the headline...but a higher benefits bill is the result.


Economic lunacy!

See what I mean Haystack?

Max, I can't see how voting UKIP is going to change our political system. At best UKIP will win approx 3 or 4 seats at the GE. What difference is that going to make? If you feel like making a personal political statement by voting UKIP of course that is your choice, just the same as anyone who votes for a minority party - it is not going to change the political landscape of this country in the foreseeable future.

That balance will change as the economy improves. As employment increases, there will be competition for staff. That will result in higher pay. The use of zero hours contacts will decrease. It is the result of the supply side policies of the last few years. It is classic economics. As the demand and supply for staff balances out, there will be some inflation due to increased spending of higher pay causing prices to rise. As that happens, interest rates will increase slowly back to normal levels.

Back to normal? i.e. A low wage rip off Britain built on debt... don't make us laugh.

Norman Tebbit says David Cameron will lose support if he ducks TV debates

Voters will think prime minister is ‘frit’ – running scared – warns former Tory chairman, if he dodges confrontation




Toby Helm and Andrew Rawnsley


The Observer, Saturday 10 January 2015 20.39 GMT

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/10/norman-tebbit-david-cameron-warning-tv-debates




David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown during the BBC's last live leaders' debate before the 2010 general election. Photograph: Jeff Overs / BBC/PA


Voters will conclude that David Cameron is “frit” if he refuses to take part in live television debates with the other party leaders before the general election, Norman Tebbit, the Tory party’s former chairman, has told the Observer.

The veteran peer, who steered the Tories to their third consecutive election victory in 1987, said he understood Cameron’s concern that Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage might gain more than him from the occasions. But he said voters would not be impressed by a prime minister who denied them a chance to scrutinise them all on television before the election on 7 May.

“I don’t think it is going to improve his image. I think the public will take the view that he is frit. And anyway, the public enjoy these confrontations. It is obviously going to be the most awful election campaign that anyone can remember, so to rob it even of this little bit of show, I think, would not be particularly pleasing to the public.”

The word “frit” was used by Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons in 1983, when she accused Labour’s then deputy leader, Denis Healey, of being “frit” – frightened – of a general election. It can also be revealed that key talks between the broadcasters and political parties about a possible series of TV debates – due to have been held on 8 January – were cancelled at the last minute after the Tories pulled out. No new date has been set.

The decision to cancel came on the same day as Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, issued a draft ruling saying that the Green party did not have sufficient support to be regarded as a major player in the election campaign, whereas Ukip had a stronger case. The ruling, which makes it more difficult for the Greens to be included in TV debates, was seized on by Cameron, who said he did not think it would be fair to hold debates which included Ukip but not the Greens. “You can’t have one minor party without having another minor party and I think that’s only fair.”

The Greens were furious, while the Liberal Democrats and Labour accused Cameron of using the ruling as an excuse not to take part.

While Cameron has not ruled out holding one or more television debates, Whitehall sources say that in private he makes clear his determination to avoid them – even if he is then accused of running scared and being “chicken”.

Cameron came under criticism on Friday when it emerged that he had refused to take part in an online question and answer session aimed at young first-time voters, although the leaders of the other four main parties had already taken part. Downing Street told the organisation running the debates, Bite the Ballot, that the prime minister had not got time to do so before polling day.

Cameron’s strategists – including the head of the party’s election campaign, Lynton Crosby – are known to be advising him against debating with Miliband, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Farage. They believe that Miliband, whose public standing is lower than Cameron’s, can only gain from appearing, and that being on stage alongside the prime minister would give Farage greater gravitas.

Former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, who is a major party donor, is also understood to be strongly opposed to Cameron taking part in televised debates. Ashcroft was furious with Cameron agreeing to such debates in 2010 – a decision that he believed allowed Clegg to boost his vote and thus deprived the Tories of an overall majority.

Labour and the Lib Dems are suggesting the broadcasters should, if necessary, hold the events without Cameron.

Tebbit conceded that Cameron was in a difficult position, but said he would take a lot of flak if he resisted. “It would certainly provide the opportunity for the other parties to say, ‘What is wrong with him? Why doesn’t he want to do it?’ And for the more sophisticated audience, they will whisper quietly that the reason is that he bungled it in 2010.”

Does anyone else has Agrokultura AB (originally landkom shares).
A company has over 95% of shares and is going to delist (stop trading) in end February.

Can they do this? What about our shares?

Any idea please.

One thing these attacks will do is to increase and exasperate the separation and divide that exists and alienates muslims in Europe from the rest of the native populations, and religious communities.

Conservatives and Labour tied

Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 9th January -

Con 32%, Lab 32%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 6%;

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/10/british-public-reprint-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Public: Show us the Charlie Hebdo cartoons

Most people want newspapers to republish the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which some argue would be too offensive or dangerous

Following the deadly shooting at the offices of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, many pointed to the magazine’s history of printing controversial cartoons mocking Islam and depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as the likely inspiration for the attack. Those reporting on the story were presented with a dilemma – publish the cartoons and risk reprisals while offending innocent Muslim readers; refrain, and potentially keep newsworthy material from readers while appearing to bend to terrorist demands.

In YouGov’s latest poll for the Sunday Times, the views of the public on the matter are clear: news organizations should reprint the cartoons.

Asked to choose between newsworthiness and “stand[ing] up to the terrorists” against offending innocent Muslims and putting news staff at risk, 63% opt for the former, while just 22% say the cartoons should not be published.

Student debt to cost Britain billions within decades




As jobless and low-paid graduates leave loans unpaid, critics say the Government's fees policy will swallow up future education spending



Richard Garner

EDUCATION EDITOR


Sunday 11 January 2015



The cost to the country of paying for student debt will rocket to billions of pounds a year over the next three decades, almost equalling the entire higher education budget, new statistics show.



The figures, obtained by Labour's former universities minister John Denham, show that writing off students' debts plus net lending – the amount loaned to students less the amount they repay – will add up to more than £8bn by the 2040s, or 0.6 per cent of UK GDP.

In addition, interest payments on outstanding loans will amount to a further 0.3 per cent of GDP – bringing the annual cost close to one per cent of GDP (or £14bn in today's terms), according to figures obtained from the Office for Budget Responsibility by Mr Denham.

They come as the minister for Universities and Science, Greg Clark, indicated that he would like to see a Commons select committee review of the fees and loans system undertaken after the election – although he added he believed the current system it was "good for students because it has allowed more of them than ever before to fulfil their dream of a place at university".

According to finance experts, the current fees system means the Government is operating a costly "loan now, pay later" funding model for higher education, equivalent to the financial crisis facing schools and local authorities over public finance initiatives (PFIs).

An independent Higher Education Commission late last year warned that the current fees-and-funding system was "unsustainable", and left three-quarters of students unable to pay off their loans.

Mr Denham said: "The simple conclusion is... that the policies of the current government are now pre-empting a massive share of future national wealth to pay for their high-fee, high-debt policies. This money will not be available to fund future higher education. This is doing the opposite of the claims Ministers made: it is loading debt onto future generations in a way that is unfair and unsustainable."



More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-debt-to-cost-britain-billions-within-decades-9970340.html

It is better and cheaper than handing the university fees for free. That would cost even more. Too many people go to university to do stupid courses that will never get them a job. Universities were places of higher learning. Now they are places where kids go to study media studies which won't ever get them a job. Their degree is useless and all they acquire is a debt, which they will never repay.

I agree, but what is a usefull degree?

By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
8:55AM GMT 11 Jan 2015
Analysis of business accounts shows just how expensive former PM's life as an international fixer has become

He criss-crosses the globe in private jets, rents offices in a townhouse in one of London’s most exclusive squares and stays in some of the world’s finest hotels.

But Tony Blair’s life as an international fixer has become a costly business.

Just how expensive can now be disclosed – for an analysis of Mr Blair’s business accounts shows the former prime minister and his advisers and consultants have run up expenses and salaries totalling around £57 million in just four years – equivalent to £350,000 a year for each of his staff.

Running Blair Inc does not come cheap.

The Telegraph examined accounts for Mr Blair’s complex network of companies set up following his departure from Downing Street in 2007, and which channel money for Tony Blair Associates, the umbrella organisation for Mr Blair’s various commercial interests.

Last week, Mr Blair filed accounts for six companies and partnerships registered with Companies House. What they show is a consultancy business spending a fortune on travel, hotels, rent and salaries.

Mr Blair insists he is worth only £10 million, but the accounts suggest he runs a thriving business worth far more than that.

Investigations show that Mr Blair has divided his commercial activities into two broad groupings: one a consultancy which advises governments around the world, funded through a group of companies called Windrush Ventures; and another which advises companies and sovereign wealth funds through the trading arm Firerush Ventures.

According to the latest accounts, Windrush Ventures employs 37 staff at its headquarters in Grosvenor Square, London, and in such far-flung countries as Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Peru, Colombia, Brazil and Kuwait. It requires constant travel between London and its satellite offices.

Windrush Ventures Ltd, a company set up to run the business, spent almost £13  million in the 12 months to March 31 last year, paying wages, air fares and subsistence for staff, including Mr Blair. It also spends £550,000 a year renting the London headquarters. Windrush paid just less than £300,000 in corporation tax, on gross profits reduced by the large expenses bill. Its post-tax profits were just over £800,000.

In the previous three years, it spent £35 million on ''administrative expenses’’, although details of this cost were not disclosed.

The money Mr Blair earns from Windrush cannot be determined because he hides its income in another entity he set up on leaving Downing Street called Windrush Ventures Limited Partnership. As a limited partnership, it is under no obligation to file accounts with Companies House. What it does do is pay a fee to Windrush Ventures Ltd for its services in running Mr Blair’s business.

Mr Blair employs the same structure with Firerush Ventures, the part of Blair Inc that offers advice to companies and investment funds such as Mubadala, the sovereign wealth fund owned by Abu Dhabi’s ruling family.

Firerush, for example, was at one stage being paid about $65,000 (£40,000) a month for strategic advice for a Saudi Arabian oil company linked to the Saudi ruling family. The fee included introducing the company to investors in China, where Mr Blair has also been a frequent visitor.

Clients of Firerush pay their fees into Firerush Ventures Limited Partnership, which ultimately pays a management fee to Firerush Ventures Limited.

Last year, Firerush Ventures Ltd was paid £2.4 million to manage that arm of Mr Blair’s business. But the scale of the fees paid into the Limited Partnership also remains hidden from public view. The total £57 million figure consists of around £48 million of “administrative expenses” to Windrush and an estimated £8.5 million in “management services” to Firerush.

A senior accountant who studied Mr Blair’s accounts last week said: “He is rather artfully putting his income into a partnership that has no requirement to file public accounts. You can never get to the bottom of what his income is because it always goes into an entity that has to file nowhere other than with HM Revenue & Customs.”

The accountant went on: “The expenditure is enormous. If he has 37 staff and a wage bill of £2.7 million then that leaves £10 million on other expenses.

“That is an awful lot of travel. It is a huge sum of money. The expenses are incredible.”

Mr Blair has taken to travelling the world in a private jet, preferring to use a £30 million Bombardier Global Express, which he leases on a regular basis and which has been dubbed Blair Force One.

The jet can comfortably accommodate his sizeable entourage, including personal assistants and Metropolitan Police close protection officers paid for by the British taxpayer. Mr Blair will often stay in the world’s smartest hotels, including the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi, where suites typically cost £5,000 a night.

But Mr Blair’s staff also need their travel and accommodation paid for. Dr Andreas Baumgartner, for example, an Austrian lawyer and a partner in Tony Blair Associates, is based in Abu Dhabi.

In April, he turned up in Kyzylorda, an obscure city in the Kazakh desert, where he met Krymbek Kusherbayev, the regional governor. Kyzylorda is rich in oil fields, and China especially has invested heavily in the region.

Last week, Mr Blair’s office issued a statement insisting that “the financial results released today present the operating costs of the businesses, and additional sums that may be held back in corporate reserves for investment in future years.

“Mr Blair is a UK taxpayer and pays full personal tax on all his earnings worldwide.”

A spokesman disputed the £57 million figure.

It is easier to determine what is not a useful degree. Teaching students a subject for which there is little demand is pointless. Media studies is a good example. The lower grade universities offer it because it is easy to teach and is in big demand due to its low entry requirements. The trouble is that there are very few jobs in the media industry and the employers don't give the jobs to graduates from low grade colleges. There are large numbers of universities in name only. Once they would have been technical colleges and offer shorter courses or take students in at 16 instead of the sixth form. Technical colleges used to teach vocational studies such as metalwork, woodwork etc. The students that used to attend tech colleges now expect to go to university, but they don't know why. There are universities that will take anyone. There is a university in Luton that will accept you with grade D or even no A levels. There is a supposed university in Canterbury that is almost as bad and it turns out teachers. It is the pattern across the country.

Freedom of speech laws in this country surely need to be reviewed:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905075/Hate-preacher-backs-massacres-says-Britain-enemy-Islam.html