Much running around by authorities in Brussels. Rumours of a plot to hit some kind of government or security location but they appear to be all over any open public or tourist location.
There are 4 Paris related suspects somewhere (if even in Belgium) plus I'd guess any others who fancy having a pop, so either the information is good or someone is yanking the Belgians chain.
Update: Notably the authorities have asked people including news outlets not to publicise police and army movements.
Alastair Meeks. A good summary on the state of the bulk of the Labour MPs. Their plan seems to be to make life so uncomfortable for Corbyn that he gives up. Problem is that the Corbynites have no intention of giving up control of the party and have several alternatives to Corbyn as hard left Leaders.
The problem with the plan is that Corbyn is famously obstinate in changing his views. I cannot see him going voluntarily.
If he were to go, the only acceptable leader pending a new contest would be Tom Watson as Deputy Leader. Any attempt to install Benn (or AN Other) would be very destructive.
How bad would things have to get for Corbyn to quit? Even if Labour got savaged in London, Wales, Scotland and councils next year, Corbyn would hang on. Being in a minoriyy of one has never troubled him. He knows that he is right.
His aim is not to become Prime Minister. His aim is to refound Labour as a party following his principles. He will not achieve that by quitting. The polls are an irrelevance for him.
To get rid of him and keep the party together, Labour MPs are going to have to take their message to the Labour party members and to persuade them. With the right message, they are persuadable. They're looking for the vision thing. What does the average Labour MP think that the Labour party is for in 2015? Frankly, I'm buggered if I can work that out.
Labour is an anachronism. The world has moved on but Labour hankers after the good old days when unions ruled the roost and any old leftie dross was welcome in the party
It's not. The country is crying out for a party not in hock to big business and hedge funds who have the interests of the common man first and foremost in their priorities. Unfortunately Corbyn's Labour is not it. Every day that he remains in charge damages democracy as it delays the delivery of a modern left of centre political party in Britain.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
99% of people who are not on PAYE bung through spurious expenses and so lower their tax liability? You obviously have a much lower opinion of the abilities of HMRC than I, or indeed, my accountant have. So low it would seem that I wonder if you have ever been self-employed.
Not that I ever tried it, I like to sleep at night, but for your information HMRC is actually very good at spotting dodgy claims, and once they get their hooks into you life becomes very difficult because they will go back years looking at every expense claimed. It happened to a chum of mine, who was actually as pure in his tax affairs as the driven snow, but for whatever reason (probably the business he was in) the Revenue decided he was worthy of investigation and his life was mad hell for months.
Maybe you could leave off your prejudices once in a while.
I have filed hundreds of accounts for self employed people. Not lately, I agree. To automatically, charge 50% of home telephone bills, 75% of motor expenses etc. [ Of course, the accountant's fees ] is routine whether correct or not. The HMRC does not have the time and resource to check every one.
The clever accountant does it reasonably. He/she gets away with it.
So are you saying that as an accountant you put through tax returns that were fraudulent?
Certainly the practices you mention (75% of motor expenses, 50% of home telephone bills) would be pounced on today, I doubt any decent accountant would let them pass without evidence let alone HMRC. I fear you are very out of date on this matter.
Probably, that's good. But let's put it this way. Accountants are not out of business. And there is a reason why they are used.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
The Tory party and labour party are two different entities that behave in different ways.
MALMESBURY..Yep we might as well get Donald Duck to read the Lords prayer for all the meaning it has..But if I pay to watch a movie I do bt want to have to suffer some ridiculous religious theory presented as some form of fact or undeniable truth...take it away..it is obviously nonsense..
Does anyone actually turn up in time for the adverts? I usually get there halfway through the trailers
99% of people who are not on PAYE bung through spurious expenses and so lower their tax liability? You obviously have a much lower opinion of the abilities of HMRC than I, or indeed, my accountant have. So low it would seem that I wonder if you have ever been self-employed.
Not that I ever tried it, I like to sleep at night, but for your information HMRC is actually very good at spotting dodgy claims, and once they get their hooks into you life becomes very difficult because they will go back years looking at every expense claimed. It happened to a chum of mine, who was actually as pure in his tax affairs as the driven snow, but for whatever reason (probably the business he was in) the Revenue decided he was worthy of investigation and his life was mad hell for months.
Maybe you could leave off your prejudices once in a while.
Mr L, I have a high opinion of your contributions here, but I suggest that your friend was at the lower end of the self-employed income scale. The further up the income scale you go, so I am informed, and the better connected the accountant one is able to hire, the more one is able to get away with.
Mr. Cole, my chum lives in a zonking big house with swimming pool etc. and buys a new top-end Beamer plus a new car for his missus every year from his old royalties. When HMRC decide to take an interest they are, as they expression has it, needs blind. They can be complete and utter bastards too, which is one of the reasons (aside from my natural desire to pay my fair share) that I never claimed all the things that I could legitimately have done (contrary to Mr Surbiton's assertion about the self-employed).
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
H Llama..I have two cars at home..one of them is used exclusively for work purposes..nothing else..and I claim full expenses on that...I have a mobile phone that is only used for incoming calls...absolutely no outgoing calls..full expenses are claimed on that...all other communications are on skype or e mail..The revenue seem quite happy with that arrangement.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
[Sunil puts on his best Vin Diesel voice]
"Got it all wrong, Holy Man. I absolutely believe in God... and I absolutely hate the f*****!"
MALMESBURY..Yep we might as well get Donald Duck to read the Lords prayer for all the meaning it has..But if I pay to watch a movie I do bt want to have to suffer some ridiculous religious theory presented as some form of fact or undeniable truth...take it away..it is obviously nonsense..
Does anyone actually turn up in time for the adverts? I usually get there halfway through the trailers
Even though my cinema is nearly always almost empty, for some reason I always show up 'on time' even though I won't have trouble getting a seat and could be 20 minutes later. Natural rule follower I guess.
Re Benn - as I indicated before, if the main markets move too fast, then backing Benn (current at 15-17) would be value if the wheels of a coup are in force against Corbyn. that hasn't happened yet obviously!
Benn does not have too many enemies !
Legions of Corbynistas are making Benn voodoo dollies as we speak....
Maybe he sees Benn as Labour's lifeboat? Should we ask him?
2017 might be the Year of the Hil(l)ary's
Just to make Plato sleep better [ or maybe worse ] I did not vote for Corbyn. I voted 1. Cooper and 2. Burnham. The other two spots were left blank.
I am a party loyalist so I would be loathed to support removing a properly elected leader. But we are in 1983 territory here. Foot was a giant compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is an intellectual dwarf. Despite his well attested civility in behaviour even to his opponents and this is true, he is still a schemer. Scheming from the far left went down considerably since the early 90's because their position was hopeless. This leadership election, particularly the £3 lot allowed the rebirth of the scheming left. Don't blame the Unions here. They tolerate Corbyn, that's about it.
However, much Miliband is derided his case was nowhere near as hopeless as many in PB pretend. The reason the Tories are in power is because they won 27 seats of the Liberal Democrats. There is very little Miliband could have done about that.
Absolutely Mr S.That 27, plus the SNP gains from Labour have put Cameron and Osborne into the positions in which they are.
I hope I live long enough to see their comeuppence!
Actually, the SNP gains simply contributed to Labour not winning. It did not change anything as the Tories were not the winners. Labour would instead have 272 seats , a gain of 14.
The Tories had 307 seats plus 27 from the LDs less lost only 2 to Labour.
The Crosby strategy of attacking the Liberals was correct. Imagine the naivety of the Lib Dems . They helped the Tories for 5 years and then was stabbed in the back.
MALMESBURY..Yep we might as well get Donald Duck to read the Lords prayer for all the meaning it has..But if I pay to watch a movie I do bt want to have to suffer some ridiculous religious theory presented as some form of fact or undeniable truth...take it away..it is obviously nonsense..
Does anyone actually turn up in time for the adverts? I usually get there halfway through the trailers
It is arguable that the C of E has achieved far more reach for its (not brilliant imo) advert than it would have had the advertising gone ahead, but that really isn't the point.
On topic, an excellent piece from Alastair and not much to add. Fact is, as he says, that unless Labour MPs have an alternative to the Corbyn / McDonnell model that they have a reasonable chance of delivering, there is no point initiating hostilities.
99% of people who are not on PAYE bung through spurious expenses and so lower their tax liability? You obviously have a much lower opinion of the abilities of HMRC than I, or indeed, my accountant have. So low it would seem that I wonder if you have ever been self-employed.
Not that I ever tried it, I like to sleep at night, but for your information HMRC is actually very good at spotting dodgy claims, and once they get their hooks into you life becomes very difficult because they will go back years looking at every expense claimed. It happened to a chum of mine, who was actually as pure in his tax affairs as the driven snow, but for whatever reason (probably the business he was in) the Revenue decided he was worthy of investigation and his life was mad hell for months.
Maybe you could leave off your prejudices once in a while.
Mr L, I have a high opinion of your contributions here, but I suggest that your friend was at the lower end of the self-employed income scale. The further up the income scale you go, so I am informed, and the better connected the accountant one is able to hire, the more one is able to get away with.
Mr. Cole, my chum lives in a zonking big house with swimming pool etc. and buys a new top-end Beamer plus a new car for his missus every year from his old royalties. When HMRC decide to take an interest they are, as they expression has it, needs blind. They can be complete and utter bastards too, which is one of the reasons (aside from my natural desire to pay my fair share) that I never claimed all the things that I could legitimately have done (contrary to Mr Surbiton's assertion about the self-employed).
Hmmm. I wonder about the message carried by the top of the range Beamer.
unless Labour MPs have an alternative to the Corbyn / McDonnell model that they have a reasonable chance of delivering, there is no point initiating hostilities.
I am not convinced that is true. The MOST important thing Labour need to do is get rid of Corbyn. Ed would be better than this. Tom watson would probably be better this. A long, drawn out, open, civil war would probably be better than this.
99% of people who are not on PAYE bung through spurious expenses and so lower their tax liability? You obviously have a much lower opinion of the abilities of HMRC than I, or indeed, my accountant have. So low it would seem that I wonder if you have ever been self-employed.
Not that I ever tried it, I like to sleep at night, but for your information HMRC is actually very good at spotting dodgy claims, and once they get their hooks into you life becomes very difficult because they will go back years looking at every expense claimed. It happened to a chum of mine, who was actually as pure in his tax affairs as the driven snow, but for whatever reason (probably the business he was in) the Revenue decided he was worthy of investigation and his life was mad hell for months.
Maybe you could leave off your prejudices once in a while.
I have filed hundreds of accounts for self employed people. Not lately, I agree. To automatically, charge 50% of home telephone bills, 75% of motor expenses etc. [ Of course, the accountant's fees ] is routine whether correct or not. The HMRC does not have the time and resource to check every one.
The clever accountant does it reasonably. He/she gets away with it.
So are you saying that as an accountant you put through tax returns that were fraudulent?
Certainly the practices you mention (75% of motor expenses, 50% of home telephone bills) would be pounced on today, I doubt any decent accountant would let them pass without evidence let alone HMRC. I fear you are very out of date on this matter.
Probably, that's good. But let's put it this way. Accountants are not out of business. And there is a reason why they are used.
Yup, and I have employed my accountant these last fifteen years because I like to sleep at night, not because I want to fiddle the Revenue.
As I recall from your previous posts on here , you have properties that you rent in London. So presumably you employ an accountant as well. I expect you are scrupulous to pay as all that you should to HMRC and do not put in any extra expenses.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
That's what I'd like to know. Why are these people (the leadership of The Humanist Society can be included in the category) on this mission against God, an entity that they claim not to believe in? Why do they care so much? It's creepy.
MALMESBURY..Yep we might as well get Donald Duck to read the Lords prayer for all the meaning it has..But if I pay to watch a movie I do bt want to have to suffer some ridiculous religious theory presented as some form of fact or undeniable truth...take it away..it is obviously nonsense..
Does anyone actually turn up in time for the adverts? I usually get there halfway through the trailers
Even though my cinema is nearly always almost empty, for some reason I always show up 'on time' even though I won't have trouble getting a seat and could be 20 minutes later. Natural rule follower I guess.
Me too. Court lawyers are generally slightly obsessive about times. It even affects my social life and holidays. My family regularly take the piss about it.
Saw all the adverts at Mockingjay II on Saturday. Good film. Not quite as good as Mockingjay I which was brilliant but still good.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
H Llama..I have two cars at home..one of them is used exclusively for work purposes..nothing else..and I claim full expenses on that...I have a mobile phone that is only used for incoming calls...absolutely no outgoing calls..full expenses are claimed on that...all other communications are on skype or e mail..The revenue seem quite happy with that arrangement.
Even as Mr Llama correctly points out that I have not been in this business for many years, I am sure one thing has not changed.
Those who claim the "rent" of one room of your own house for business purposes [ very legitimately ], should be aware that this bit could be charged to capital gains. With indexation allowance etc. the bill may not come to much but it should be borne in mind.
Principle private residence [ basically your own home ] normally does not attract capital gains. In places like London where capital gains could be huge, those "rents" could be self-defeating.
H Llama..I have two cars at home..one of them is used exclusively for work purposes..nothing else..and I claim full expenses on that...I have a mobile phone that is only used for incoming calls...absolutely no outgoing calls..full expenses are claimed on that...all other communications are on skype or e mail..The revenue seem quite happy with that arrangement.
I am sure they are, and I am not sure why you thought I should know. Surbiton said that 99% of self employed put through spurious expenses claims to reduce their tax bill, I suggested he was out of date and probably wrong. None of that has any bearing on people who claim legitimate expenses.
Alastair Meeks. A good summary on the state of the bulk of the Labour MPs. Their plan seems to be to make life so uncomfortable for Corbyn that he gives up. Problem is that the Corbynites have no intention of giving up control of the party and have several alternatives to Corbyn as hard left Leaders.
The problem with the plan is that Corbyn is famously obstinate in changing his views. I cannot see him going voluntarily.
If he were to go, the only acceptable leader pending a new contest would be Tom Watson as Deputy Leader. Any attempt to install Benn (or AN Other) would be very destructive.
How bad would things have to get for Corbyn to quit? Even if Labour got savaged in London, Wales, Scotland and councils next year, Corbyn would hang on. Being in a minoriyy of one has never troubled him. He knows that he is right.
His aim is not to become Prime Minister. His aim is to refound Labour as a party following his principles. He will not achieve that by quitting. The polls are an irrelevance for him.
To get rid of him and keep the party together, Labour MPs are going to have to take their message to the Labour party members and to persuade them. With the right message, they are persuadable. They're looking for the vision thing. What does the average Labour MP think that the Labour party is for in 2015? Frankly, I'm buggered if I can work that out.
Labour is an anachronism. The world has moved on but Labour hankers after the good old days when unions ruled the roost and any old leftie dross was welcome in the party
It's not. The country is crying out for a party not in hock to big business and hedge funds who have the interests of the common man first and foremost in their priorities. Unfortunately Corbyn's Labour is not it. Every day that he remains in charge damages democracy as it delays the delivery of a modern left of centre political party in Britain.
An apology is obviously due for not being aware of the nation's anguish - I'll ask Ken to let you have one
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Thank God the revolution was only going to happen in this life.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Various things there.
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
Alastair Meeks. A good summary on the state of the bulk of the Labour MPs. Their plan seems to be to make life so uncomfortable for Corbyn that he gives up. Problem is that the Corbynites have no intention of giving up control of the party and have several alternatives to Corbyn as hard left Leaders.
The problem with the plan is that Corbyn is famously obstinate in changing his views. I cannot see him going voluntarily.
If he were to go, the only acceptable leader pending a new contest would be Tom Watson as Deputy Leader. Any attempt to install Benn (or AN Other) would be very destructive.
How bad would things have to get for Corbyn to quit? Even if Labour got savaged in London, Wales, Scotland and councils next year, Corbyn would hang on. Being in a minoriyy of one has never troubled him. He knows that he is right.
His aim is not to become Prime Minister. His aim is to refound Labour as a party following his principles. He will not achieve that by quitting. The polls are an irrelevance for him.
To get rid of him and keep the party together, Labour MPs are going to have to take their message to the Labour party members and to persuade them. With the right message, they are persuadable. They're looking for the vision thing. What does the average Labour MP think that the Labour party is for in 2015? Frankly, I'm buggered if I can work that out.
Labour is an anachronism. The world has moved on but Labour hankers after the good old days when unions ruled the roost and any old leftie dross was welcome in the party
It's not. The country is crying out for a party not in hock to big business and hedge funds who have the interests of the common man first and foremost in their priorities. Unfortunately Corbyn's Labour is not it. Every day that he remains in charge damages democracy as it delays the delivery of a modern left of centre political party in Britain.
An apology is obviously due for not being aware of the nation's anguish - I'll ask Ken to let you have one
The country needs a sensible opposition. I expect even partisan Tories on here to see that. Corbyn is a parody of opposition.
99% of people who are not on PAYE bung through spurious expenses and so lower their tax liability? You obviously have a much lower opinion of the abilities of HMRC than I, or indeed, my accountant have. So low it would seem that I wonder if you have ever been self-employed.
Not that I ever tried it, I like to sleep at night, but for your information HMRC is actually very good at spotting dodgy claims, and once they get their hooks into you life becomes very difficult because they will go back years looking at every expense claimed. It happened to a chum of mine, who was actually as pure in his tax affairs as the driven snow, but for whatever reason (probably the business he was in) the Revenue decided he was worthy of investigation and his life was mad hell for months.
Maybe you could leave off your prejudices once in a while.
I have filed hundreds of accounts for self employed people. Not lately, I agree. To automatically, charge 50% of home telephone bills, 75% of motor expenses etc. [ Of course, the accountant's fees ] is routine whether correct or not. The HMRC does not have the time and resource to check every one.
The clever accountant does it reasonably. He/she gets away with it.
So are you saying that as an accountant you put through tax returns that were fraudulent?
Certainly the practices you mention (75% of motor expenses, 50% of home telephone bills) would be pounced on today, I doubt any decent accountant would let them pass without evidence let alone HMRC. I fear you are very out of date on this matter.
Probably, that's good. But let's put it this way. Accountants are not out of business. And there is a reason why they are used.
Yup, and I have employed my accountant these last fifteen years because I like to sleep at night, not because I want to fiddle the Revenue.
As I recall from your previous posts on here , you have properties that you rent in London. So presumably you employ an accountant as well. I expect you are scrupulous to pay as all that you should to HMRC and do not put in any extra expenses.
Rents are more difficult to evade. Of course, bloody Foxtons charged me 17% Management fees and effectively represented the tenants. I had to get rid of them.
In fact, it is the opposite. I have not charged small handyman expenses because keeping the paperwork is more hassle. I do use an Accountant, yes ! They also do my tax returns.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
That's what I'd like to know. Why are these people (the leadership of The Humanist Society can be included in the category) on this mission against God, an entity that they claim not to believe in? Why do they care so much? It's creepy.
You obviously hold these people in such little esteem that the reason for your bile puzzles me. Get a grip.
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
I find this bit puzzling. If they had suicide vests on, why were they retreating ? Presumably, their job was to kill as many as they could.
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
I find this bit puzzling. If they had suicide vests on, why were they retreating ? Presumably, their job was to kill as many as they could.
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
Not sure you can guarantee sane behaviour from untrained mass murderers. Under stress they may form a group, a natural reaction but inadvisable if you have several suicide bombers in the group. Rational actions will be out of the window. They aren't trained like the SAS.
Rents are more difficult to evade. Of course, bloody Foxtons charged me 17% Management fees and effectively represented the tenants. I had to get rid of them.
In fact, it is the opposite. I have not charged small handyman expenses because keeping the paperwork is more hassle. I do use an Accountant, yes ! They also do my tax returns.
And I am sure you are as careful as I am not to claim any spurious expenses. The question then, it seems to me, is are you and I especially unusual in our honesty? Could it be that actually lots of people feel as we do? Perhaps your earlier post that 99% of non-PAYE types are defrauding the Revenue, might have been an exaggeration?
P.S. Foxton's fees for a full-management service don't seem unusual.
Rents are more difficult to evade. Of course, bloody Foxtons charged me 17% Management fees and effectively represented the tenants. I had to get rid of them.
In fact, it is the opposite. I have not charged small handyman expenses because keeping the paperwork is more hassle. I do use an Accountant, yes ! They also do my tax returns.
And I am sure you are as careful as I am not to claim any spurious expenses. The question then, it seems to me, is are you and I especially unusual in our honesty? Could it be that actually lots of people feel as we do? Perhaps your earlier post that 99% of non-PAYE types are defrauding the Revenue, might have been an exaggeration?
P.S. Foxton's fees for a full-management service don't seem unusual.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Various things there.
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
1 IDS was elected on an anti EU ticket just as Corbyn was elected on an anti austerity ticket, there was little enthusiasm for them personally
2 In the past 35 years the Tories have only got rid of Thatcher and IDS, Labour effectively got rid of Blair no reason they could not also get rid of Corbyn
3 If Corbyn is replaced it will be by Hilary Benn unopposed just as IDS was replaced by Howard unopposed, it was coming third in the Brent East by election which did for IDS losing a by election to UKIP would be a similar trigger showing his supporters he was unelectable, Benn is on the soft left as Howard was on the soft right to appease the members
4 There was no recognition IDS absolutely had to go until Brent East and Tory donors like Stuart Wheeler turned on him, the unions could do the same for Corbyn
5 The Tories elected Hague and IDS and arguably Home and all on the basis of ideological purity over electability. Major, in 1990 and Thatcher were slso the more rightwing candidates in leadership elections both parties are capable of it
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
I find this bit puzzling. If they had suicide vests on, why were they retreating ? Presumably, their job was to kill as many as they could.
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
As Mike Tyson said: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Shooting unarmed concertgoers is easy until the police (and they'd not have known it was just one) start shooting back.
In the stadium, the plan appeared to have been for one man to go inside and blow himself up, which would cause a panicked exodus and the other two would detonate their bombs amidst the fleeing crowds. It went wrong when the security guard stopped the first bomber going in.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
That's what I'd like to know. Why are these people (the leadership of The Humanist Society can be included in the category) on this mission against God, an entity that they claim not to believe in? Why do they care so much? It's creepy.
Dawkins et al don't hate god. That's a frankly ridiculous assertion. What they do hate, and rightly so, is the regression away from secularism, the daft ideas of creationism seeking "equal time" with evolution and to be taught in science class.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Various things there.
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
Also, 60% of a 2 way contest isn't the same as 60% of a 4 way contest. And IDS was more or less given space to fail, whereas Labour MPs have been trying to make Corbyn fail from the beginning.
Not that Corbyn probably needed the help, but it gives people who want to see it that way the opportunity to say "we need new MPs, not a new leader".
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Didn't Tony Benn say the 28% Labour received in 1983 was a great result as the British people were presented with the first Socialist manifesto ? I am not sure what he made of the 1945 manifesto ?
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Really? £15 to vote for IDS. More money than sense I'd say. Don't deserve a refund.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
I think it's the concept of a deity that he questions although I think he's okay with Ronaldo.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
One final thought on topic: if a senior centrist/right Labour figure went on a tour to address members on his or her own suggested route forward, this could cause very difficult problems for Jeremy Corbyn. He couldn't attack a figure for doing this because he has said that the membership should have a greater say. And it would give that figure a basis for building up his or her profile with the membership in preparation for any future challenge.
Re Benn - as I indicated before, if the main markets move too fast, then backing Benn (current at 15-17) would be value if the wheels of a coup are in force against Corbyn. that hasn't happened yet obviously!
Benn does not have too many enemies !
Legions of Corbynistas are making Benn voodoo dollies as we speak....
Maybe he sees Benn as Labour's lifeboat? Should we ask him?
2017 might be the Year of the Hil(l)ary's
Just to make Plato sleep better [ or maybe worse ] I did not vote for Corbyn. I voted 1. Cooper and 2. Burnham. The other two spots were left blank.
I am a party loyalist so I would be loathed to support removing a properly elected leader. But we are in 1983 territory here. Foot was a giant compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is an intellectual dwarf. Despite his well attested civility in behaviour even to his opponents and this is true, he is still a schemer. Scheming from the far left went down considerably since the early 90's because their position was hopeless. This leadership election, particularly the £3 lot allowed the rebirth of the scheming left. Don't blame the Unions here. They tolerate Corbyn, that's about it.
However, much Miliband is derided his case was nowhere near as hopeless as many in PB pretend. The reason the Tories are in power is because they won 27 seats of the Liberal Democrats. There is very little Miliband could have done about that.
Absolutely Mr S.That 27, plus the SNP gains from Labour have put Cameron and Osborne into the positions in which they are.
I hope I live long enough to see their comeuppence!
......The Crosby strategy of attacking the Liberals was correct. Imagine the naivety of the Lib Dems . They helped the Tories for 5 years and then was stabbed in the back.
Correction. The Lib Dems spent 5 years attacking their coalition partners and then were surprised when the Conservatives mounted campaigns in their seats in retaliation. Indeed in the tv debate Clegg turned on Cameron and atatcked him. Cameron chose to do that. The Lib Dems reaped what they sowed.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
That's what I'd like to know. Why are these people (the leadership of The Humanist Society can be included in the category) on this mission against God, an entity that they claim not to believe in? Why do they care so much? It's creepy.
Dawkins et al don't hate god. That's a frankly ridiculous assertion. What they do hate, and rightly so, is the regression away from secularism, the daft ideas of creationism seeking "equal time" with evolution and to be taught in science class.
DB - much as I agree with your post, rationality is not LG's strong suit
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Various things there.
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
Also, 60% of a 2 way contest isn't the same as 60% of a 4 way contest. And IDS was more or less given space to fail, whereas Labour MPs have been trying to make Corbyn fail from the beginning.
Not that Corbyn probably needed the help, but it gives people who want to see it that way the opportunity to say "we need new MPs, not a new leader".
Corbyn got 59%, slighty less than IDS and almost all the supporters of Cooper and Kendall and the majority of Burnham voters would not have voted for Corbyn as their second preference. MPs like Francis Maude and Derek Conway and Crispin Blunt were undermining IDS from an early stage
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Didn't Tony Benn say the 28% Labour received in 1983 was a great result as the British people were presented with the first Socialist manifesto ? I am not sure what he made of the 1945 manifesto ?
Indeed though the 1983 manifesto was even more undiluted
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Are the labour party mad enough to jump from one daft band wagon to the next? Just where is the received wisdom coming from that Hilary Benn of all people is the saviour of labour??? Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Really? £15 to vote for IDS. More money than sense I'd say. Don't deserve a refund.
For AndyJS and other fans of scandi-noir - The Bridge is back on BBC4 (viewable on catchup). Thanks to Mike for tipping me off or I might have missed it. Saga Noren as good as ever.
Australia The Financial Review quotes the IMF (Sept 15) ''The Abbott government's budget repair is at risk of floundering because of over-inflated revenue and spending expectations, says a damning assessment by the International Monetary Fund that calls for a broader GST, ending the capital gains tax discount and curbs to high-end superannuation concessions. Delivering a warning that the Reserve Bank of Australia might need to deliver more interest rate cuts, a team of the Washington-based fund's officials visiting the country said Australians faced significantly weaker income growth than they have been used to over the past two decades. James Daniel, the IMF's mission chief to Australia, said economic growth was likely to remain at about a new normal of just 2.5 per cent over the longer term, falling well short of the forecasts outlined in the May budget for growth of about 3.5 per cent.''
The IMF have been known to be wrong of course... I happily admit I know nothing of these matters, but there it is as an official and presumably expertly informed opinion. I leave it to others to digest.
My experience is that experts are every bit as bad at economic forecasts as non-experts.
I do not think that either the IMF or the OECD has a particularly stellar forecasting record. And there are many who strongly criticize their economic prescriptions for countries - from all sides. Certainly nothing they declare should be taken as Gospel.
IMF often seem keen on upping/broadening VAT/GST - is there any particular reason for that? It must be anti-consumption....
I am not a tax expert, but my guess is that VAT is supposedly a non-market-distorting tax.
It is also, of course, a very regressive tax as the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on consumption.
As a Socialist whose background is in Accounting, I have over time changed my view on VAT.
What you say is indeed correct, if , and a big if, all the rich were indeed declaring their true income and / or not reducing their self employed [ or one person company ] income through spurious expenses to lower the tax bill. 99% do that. PAYE earners cannot do that.
Also, whilst the poor do indeed spend most of their income, a lot of that is on food. Staple foods are VAT at 0%.
VAT is very difficult to evade. The "value added" part means that the tax is collected at stage of the transaction until the final one. So all the component parties would have to cheat for the HMRC to lose the whole 20%.
The efficiency of collection is probably another reason the IMF likes VAT
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Not if they lost a by-election to UKIP they would not which is what would trigger the contest, Howard was not a coup leader either, just the coronation candidate brought about by a coup. Plenty on the left on this site, including Danny565 and Armageddon and others too have seen Benn Jr as plausible, he is the only candidate who could likely be elected unopposed as Howard was in the Tories
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
I find this bit puzzling. If they had suicide vests on, why were they retreating ? Presumably, their job was to kill as many as they could.
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
As Mike Tyson said: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Shooting unarmed concertgoers is easy until the police (and they'd not have known it was just one) start shooting back.
In the stadium, the plan appeared to have been for one man to go inside and blow himself up, which would cause a panicked exodus and the other two would detonate their bombs amidst the fleeing crowds. It went wrong when the security guard stopped the first bomber going in.
That probably was the most bizarre part of this situation.
All that planning, all that thought all that undercover movement to finally get a suicide Bomber to the gates of the ground only to find that they forgot to buy a ticket to get in. That's apparently why he was stopped in the first place.
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Really? £15 to vote for IDS. More money than sense I'd say. Don't deserve a refund.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Not if they lost a by-election to UKIP they would not which is what would trigger the contest, Howard was not a coup leader either, just the coronation candidate brought about by a coup. Plenty on the left on this site, including Danny565 and Armageddon and others too have seen Benn Jr as plausible, he is the only candidate who could likely be elected unopposed as Howard was in the Tories
Then again, Gordon Brown was elected unopposed as well!
The last couple of sentences are very, erm, Charlie Brooker.
As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. The commissioner charged inside, traded fire with a gunman, and took him out of action before retreating so that special-operations teams could assemble.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
I find this bit puzzling. If they had suicide vests on, why were they retreating ? Presumably, their job was to kill as many as they could.
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
As Mike Tyson said: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Shooting unarmed concertgoers is easy until the police (and they'd not have known it was just one) start shooting back.
In the stadium, the plan appeared to have been for one man to go inside and blow himself up, which would cause a panicked exodus and the other two would detonate their bombs amidst the fleeing crowds. It went wrong when the security guard stopped the first bomber going in.
That probably was the most bizarre part of this situation.
All that planning, all that thought all that undercover movement to finally get a suicide Bomber to the gates of the ground only to find that they forgot to buy a ticket to get in. That's apparently why he was stopped in the first place.
At this point my inner sociopath came up with a joke about trying to get into a football match without a ticket. But no.....
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
Because he doesn't want any changes.
Basically – Perhaps if the BBC are asking the public to decide on changes, Aunty should sack another few tiers of Management.
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
Itnis indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Not if they lost a by-election to UKIP they would not which is what would trigger the contest, Howard was not a coup leader either, just the coronation candidate brought about by a coup. Plenty on the left on this site, including Danny565 and Armageddon and others too have seen Benn Jr as plausible, he is the only candidate who could likely be elected unopposed as Howard was in the Tories
Then again, Gordon Brown was elected unopposed as well!
BBC DG set to say we should have public vote on changes to the BBC.
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
why such a high bar? what could possibly justify 2/3rds? no doubt the government will tell the BBC to ditch some of its non-core operations, and charging might come in for iPlayer. But it is hardly constitutional!
Because he doesn't want any changes.
Bbc boss seeks to protect the bbc shocker
BBC boss seeks special provisions for the BBC more like.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Are the labour party mad enough to jump from one daft band wagon to the next? Just where is the received wisdom coming from that Hilary Benn of all people is the saviour of labour??? Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
Michael Howard was not the 'saviour of the Tories' in electoral terms either but he did make modest progress in 2005
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Really? £15 to vote for IDS. More money than sense I'd say. Don't deserve a refund.
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
Itnis indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
Having defended Dawkins earlier re not hating God. I'd like to make it clear that I do hate the vile f*cker. I'd rather burn in the fires of hell than worship the c**t that created them.
Suspect the PLP would accept anyone apart from Diane Abbott and McDonnell as better than Corbyn at present, even Stephen Pound. The Momentum thing holds less fear if enough think they'll lose anyway. Leaders are always in trouble when their MPs think they'll lose their seats. Not sure where the Hilary Benn love is coming from though, in person he has that disturbing fanatical glint in his eye like Tony did. I'd say Watson's a decent bet if its the unions that wield the knife, although i doubt he'd be unopposed given how many people loath him.
Dan Jarvis seems like a young man in a hurry - raising his profile so if there's a contest in a year of two he'll be able to stand. Don't think the Tristram Hunt's/Chukkas have any chance. All the childish briefing and talk of French resistance or secret passwords just pisses ordinary members off, even those like me who don't like Corbyn.
Problem for Labour is that there is no guarantee that if they blow the conch the punters will come rushing back. see Scotland. Fortunately (at least at present) i don't think the Lib Dems, Greens or UKIP are any better.
The Bridge was good if only for my enjoyment of hearing spoken Danish - and the fact that the odd phrase is exactly the same as English. Was a bit like the first few chapters of a Dickens novel though where you're desperately trying to remember who all the characters are .
The Times have got excerpts from Matthew Goodwin's book on UKIP.
What an utter clusterfuck UKIP are.
Farage doesn't like Carswell and the feeling is mututal
But heart of stone moment
The authors claim that an unnamed Labour analyst contacted Ukip ahead of the election to share his views about several constituencies, allegedly expressing the desire that Ukip should win more seats from the Tories.
Re the BBC trying to protect itself..., How much is the BBC pension scheme costing taxpayers? How much are the fat cat salaries costing in terms of pension contributions and how much is the BBC paying to square its pension deficit..
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Are the labour party mad enough to jump from one daft band wagon to the next? Just where is the received wisdom coming from that Hilary Benn of all people is the saviour of labour??? Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
Michael Howard was not the 'saviour of the Tories' in electoral terms either but he did make modest progress in 2005
There seems to have been a roughly 3 election cycle from nadir back to Government the last two times (83 to 97, 97 to 10). Labour seem to be keen on pushing that nadir back another election. That's why Corbyn needs to go soon even if any replacement simply holds the fort. Given Labour's awfulness the Conservative ratings (both party and personal) are surprisingly unimpressive so it isn't an impossible task.
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Didn't Tony Benn say the 28% Labour received in 1983 was a great result as the British people were presented with the first Socialist manifesto ? I am not sure what he made of the 1945 manifesto ?
Indeed though the 1983 manifesto was even more undiluted
Tony Benn actually lost his seat in that election...
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
Itnis indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
Having defended Dawkins earlier re not hating God. I'd like to make it clear that I do hate the vile f*cker. I'd rather burn in the fires of hell than worship the c**t that created them.
Sorry: are you saying Dawkins is a vile fucker, or that God is?
Re deities (my other reply truncated due to thick thumbs)
It is indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
However when we look at our existence within our own universe we have to ask some pretty impossible to answer questions. It is for instance speculated with some justification that the very fabric of our own multidimensional spacetime is itself a physical manifestation of the physical characteristics of some higher level of 'universe'. Where does all this end, how does it all work? Where does physics end and God begin?
We exist (perhaps) but where and in what? Can we ever even begin to understand this vast deep impenetrable cosmos?
If he is ousted without the 59% of Labour members and supporters who voted him in as their first preference in September getting their chance to say their piece, there will be hell to pay.
But what could members and supporters do?
IDS won 60% of Tory members votes, they did not get any say when he was ousted and replaced by Howard and the Tory Party did not rip itself to shreds
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Are the labour party mad enough to jump from one daft band wagon to the next? Just where is the received wisdom coming from that Hilary Benn of all people is the saviour of labour??? Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
Michael Howard was not the 'saviour of the Tories' in electoral terms either but he did make modest progress in 2005
There seems to have been a roughly 3 election cycle from nadir back to Government the last two times (83 to 97, 97 to 10). Labour seem to be keen on pushing that nadir back another election. That's why Corbyn needs to go soon even if any replacement simply holds the fort. Given Labour's awfulness the Conservative ratings (both party and personal) are surprisingly unimpressive so it isn't an impossible task.
Indeed, it would be concerning for them if Corbyn led them into the next election
Church of England "bewildered" by refusal of cinemas to show Church of England advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. It is considered that it may cause offence to other religions and atheists.
CofE now considering legal action.
This will be interesting especially if it gets a legal hearing. Lots of cans of worms in this one.
That is really appalling. Which cinemas exactly? Vue ones, Odeon ones? All of them?
Appalling in which way? The ban, or the protest?
The ban, obviously.
At a time when religion is killing people I'm not so sure.
I don't know if you're a religious person or not. However I find people that have irrational beliefs generally unfit for polite conversation. It does rather scare me.
People are killing people. People who classify those who don't share their own beliefs as apostates and infidels. Wherever belief is the core of a violent conflict (as opposed to money and power masquerading as religion), it is not belief that's the problem, but intolerance of the beliefs of others. Something that your post is considerably closer to on the spectrum than someone who wishes to promote the Lord's Prayer.
I tend to find people with glib, intellectually sloppy, 'trendy' views of the impossibility of their being a spiritual realm rather scare me. Not because of their own rather weak-minded arguments, but because they're so easily manipulated by God-haters like that nutter Dawkins for their own ends.
How can Dawkins be a god hater if he doesn't believe in god?
Presumably by hating the concept of deities. 'god-hater' not 'God hater'
Itnis indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
Having defended Dawkins earlier re not hating God. I'd like to make it clear that I do hate the vile f*cker. I'd rather burn in the fires of hell than worship the c**t that created them.
Sorry: are you saying Dawkins is a vile fucker, or that God is?
Sorry rcs, let me clarify... I have no opinions regarding the fuckery of Dawkins. God on the other hand is a massive Bell-End.
Comments
There are 4 Paris related suspects somewhere (if even in Belgium) plus I'd guess any others who fancy having a pop, so either the information is good or someone is yanking the Belgians chain.
Update: Notably the authorities have asked people including news outlets not to publicise police and army movements.
Unfortunately Corbyn's Labour is not it.
Every day that he remains in charge damages democracy as it delays the delivery of a modern left of centre political party in Britain.
The Tory party and labour party are two different entities that behave in different ways.
Howard was elected unopposed which probably helped.
"Got it all wrong, Holy Man. I absolutely believe in God... and I absolutely hate the f*****!"
The Tories had 307 seats plus 27 from the LDs less lost only 2 to Labour.
The Crosby strategy of attacking the Liberals was correct. Imagine the naivety of the Lib Dems . They helped the Tories for 5 years and then was stabbed in the back.
If he sticks to his promises, should see a bit of reduced tension over the Falklands.
As I recall from your previous posts on here , you have properties that you rent in London. So presumably you employ an accountant as well. I expect you are scrupulous to pay as all that you should to HMRC and do not put in any extra expenses.
Saw all the adverts at Mockingjay II on Saturday. Good film. Not quite as good as Mockingjay I which was brilliant but still good.
No one had paid £3 for a ticket to a revolution and then been denied one.
Those who claim the "rent" of one room of your own house for business purposes [ very legitimately ], should be aware that this bit could be charged to capital gains. With indexation allowance etc. the bill may not come to much but it should be borne in mind.
Principle private residence [ basically your own home ] normally does not attract capital gains. In places like London where capital gains could be huge, those "rents" could be self-defeating.
It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage, and may have saved scores of lives.
It seems that once the commissioner shot one of their number, the attackers stopped shooting the audience and retreated with hostages.
Thank God the revolution was only going to happen in this life.
Various things there.
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
Corbyn is a parody of opposition.
In fact, it is the opposite. I have not charged small handyman expenses because keeping the paperwork is more hassle. I do use an Accountant, yes ! They also do my tax returns.
Tory members paid five times that for the privilege of electing IDS and got no refund
Also, the same with Stade de France suicide bombers. They seem to have killed only themselves except the ticket collector.
Its also human instinct t get the f**k out of the line of fire, whether armed or not. .
P.S. Foxton's fees for a full-management service don't seem unusual.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/07/foxtons-commission-charge-sparks-legal-action-from-landlords
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
1 IDS was elected on an anti EU ticket just as Corbyn was elected on an anti austerity ticket, there was little enthusiasm for them personally
2 In the past 35 years the Tories have only got rid of Thatcher and IDS, Labour effectively got rid of Blair no reason they could not also get rid of Corbyn
3 If Corbyn is replaced it will be by Hilary Benn unopposed just as IDS was replaced by Howard unopposed, it was coming third in the Brent East by election which did for IDS losing a by election to UKIP would be a similar trigger showing his supporters he was unelectable, Benn is on the soft left as Howard was on the soft right to appease the members
4 There was no recognition IDS absolutely had to go until Brent East and Tory donors like Stuart Wheeler turned on him, the unions could do the same for Corbyn
5 The Tories elected Hague and IDS and arguably Home and all on the basis of ideological purity over electability. Major, in 1990 and Thatcher were slso the more rightwing candidates in leadership elections both parties are capable of it
In the stadium, the plan appeared to have been for one man to go inside and blow himself up, which would cause a panicked exodus and the other two would detonate their bombs amidst the fleeing crowds. It went wrong when the security guard stopped the first bomber going in.
Benn would also likely be elected unopposed
1. IDS was elected mainly because he wasn't Clarke, who was the only other option put to the membership. Labour put four candidates and while the other three certainly had weaknesses, there can be little doubt that Corbyn was elected on a positive basis.
2. The Tory Party has a history, culture and usable mechanism for disposing of leaders. Labour has none.
3. Howard was elected because the Tory MPs, and particularly the potential leaders, had the discipline not to nominate an alternative. I find it impossible to believe that were Corbyn challenged and refused a place on the ballot (or, were he to stand back, an alternative candidate from the far left), there wouldn't be hell to pay with those who backed Corbyn this summer.
4. There was a general recognition within the Tory membership that IDS needed to go in 2003. Again, as Alastair says, there isn't that recognition within Labour yet.
5. The Tories have (nearly) always placed a higher emphasis on holding power vis a vis ideological purity than Labour. By 2003, after an unusual lurch into crusading territory, the party was ready to bid for office again with what was necessary; two years later, Cameron was seen as necessary. Labour is miles off electing another Blair.
Also, 60% of a 2 way contest isn't the same as 60% of a 4 way contest. And IDS was more or less given space to fail, whereas Labour MPs have been trying to make Corbyn fail from the beginning.
Not that Corbyn probably needed the help, but it gives people who want to see it that way the opportunity to say "we need new MPs, not a new leader".
Didn't Tony Benn say the 28% Labour received in 1983 was a great result as the British people were presented with the first Socialist manifesto ? I am not sure what he made of the 1945 manifesto ?
Really? £15 to vote for IDS. More money than sense I'd say. Don't deserve a refund.
https://t.co/uTQoW6KR5A
Look at the polls, desperate loyalists, discontented idiot spewing lies, Iraq war for some reason, etc etc.
Quite apart from Corbyn being eligible to stand again, there are enough PLP members who would resist such a stitch up and nominate someone else.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Mann ?
Sometimes the simplest plans are the best.
Not that Corbyn probably needed the help, but it gives people who want to see it that way the opportunity to say "we need new MPs, not a new leader".
Corbyn got 59%, slighty less than IDS and almost all the supporters of Cooper and Kendall and the majority of Burnham voters would not have voted for Corbyn as their second preference. MPs like Francis Maude and Derek Conway and Crispin Blunt were undermining IDS from an early stage
Indeed though the 1983 manifesto was even more undiluted
Will need two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament and an online vote to endorse the changes (a dual lock)
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Are the labour party mad enough to jump from one daft band wagon to the next? Just where is the received wisdom coming from that Hilary Benn of all people is the saviour of labour???
Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
About the members fee at the time
And then Benn may not want to be remembered as a coup leader and not stand. If he did stand then it is far from clear that he would get universal support.
The whole Benn coronation is an accumulator bet and much higher odds against coming off than would be value.
Face it, no-one else is bigging up Benn jr.
Not if they lost a by-election to UKIP they would not which is what would trigger the contest, Howard was not a coup leader either, just the coronation candidate brought about by a coup. Plenty on the left on this site, including Danny565 and Armageddon and others too have seen Benn Jr as plausible, he is the only candidate who could likely be elected unopposed as Howard was in the Tories
All that planning, all that thought all that undercover movement to finally get a suicide Bomber to the gates of the ground only to find that they forgot to buy a ticket to get in. That's apparently why he was stopped in the first place.
Was it a special deal then like Labour's?
Then again, Gordon Brown was elected unopposed as well!
Indeed, a precedent is there
Dump Corbyn and the whole can of rotten worms gets open again.
Michael Howard was not the 'saviour of the Tories' in electoral terms either but he did make modest progress in 2005
No, they paid the full membership rate
I'd rather burn in the fires of hell than worship the c**t that created them.
Dan Jarvis seems like a young man in a hurry - raising his profile so if there's a contest in a year of two he'll be able to stand. Don't think the Tristram Hunt's/Chukkas have any chance. All the childish briefing and talk of French resistance or secret passwords just pisses ordinary members off, even those like me who don't like Corbyn.
Problem for Labour is that there is no guarantee that if they blow the conch the punters will come rushing back. see Scotland. Fortunately (at least at present) i don't think the Lib Dems, Greens or UKIP are any better.
The Bridge was good if only for my enjoyment of hearing spoken Danish - and the fact that the odd phrase is exactly the same as English. Was a bit like the first few chapters of a Dickens novel though where you're desperately trying to remember who all the characters are .
What an utter clusterfuck UKIP are.
Farage doesn't like Carswell and the feeling is mututal
But heart of stone moment
The authors claim that an unnamed Labour analyst contacted Ukip ahead of the election to share his views about several constituencies, allegedly expressing the desire that Ukip should win more seats from the Tories.
A feck of a large no, I'll be bound.
There seems to have been a roughly 3 election cycle from nadir back to Government the last two times (83 to 97, 97 to 10). Labour seem to be keen on pushing that nadir back another election. That's why Corbyn needs to go soon even if any replacement simply holds the fort. Given Labour's awfulness the Conservative ratings (both party and personal) are surprisingly unimpressive so it isn't an impossible task.
So they have flooded cat pics instead...
Tony Benn actually lost his seat in that election...
It is indeed very difficult to believe in a supernatural deity, without some sort of blind faith.
However when we look at our existence within our own universe we have to ask some pretty impossible to answer questions.
It is for instance speculated with some justification that the very fabric of our own multidimensional spacetime is itself a physical manifestation of the physical characteristics of some higher level of 'universe'. Where does all this end, how does it all work? Where does physics end and God begin?
We exist (perhaps) but where and in what? Can we ever even begin to understand this vast deep impenetrable cosmos?
Indeed, it would be concerning for them if Corbyn led them into the next election
It just shows you how up themselves the BBC is. I'd cut them another 5% just for suggesting such nonsense.
I have no opinions regarding the fuckery of Dawkins.
God on the other hand is a massive Bell-End.
Carswell wanted UKIP to be less about Immigration, Immigration, Immigration. Farage disagreed
Sitting back, Farage paused. “He [Carswell] sounds like Cameron actually.”