I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
It is hard to imagine any way the Tories could be WORSE as a governing party: constant infighting, ministers resigning weekly, endless Brexitshambles, TMay caught fellating the Pope's favourite tapir (actually that's next week), on and on they go, like some car that keeps losing vital parts - doors, windows, engine - yet stays on the road.
And Labour has "its best conference in years" and Corbyn gives his "most prime ministerial speech ever". and they actually LOSE points.
The people (thank fuck) can see what full on bien pensant Britain-hating Jew-baiting socialism looks like, and it looks like Jeremy Corbyn, and they don't want it.
Tories must pray every day that Corbyn stays healthy, and in post, and likewise his lunatic cadres.
It is hard to imagine any way the Tories could be WORSE as a governing party: constant infighting, ministers resigning weekly, endless Brexitshambles, TMay caught fellating the Pope's favourite tapir (actually that's next week), on and on they go, like some car that keeps losing vital parts - doors, windows, engine - yet stays on the road.
And Labour has "its best conference in years" and Corbyn gives his "most prime ministerial speech ever". and they actually LOSE points.
The people (thank fuck) can see what full on bien pensant Britain-hating Jew-baiting socialism looks like, and it looks like Jeremy Corbyn, and they don't want it.
Tories must pray every day that Corbyn stays healthy, and in post, and likewise his lunatic cadres.
Comres has Labour 1% ahead.
Whichever way labour look at the polls there is little evidence labour received a bounce. Indeed there seems to be an upward tick for the conservatives
To be honest labour boasting a 1% lead is beyond parody
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
It is hard to imagine any way the Tories could be WORSE as a governing party: constant infighting, ministers resigning weekly, endless Brexitshambles, TMay caught fellating the Pope's favourite tapir (actually that's next week), on and on they go, like some car that keeps losing vital parts - doors, windows, engine - yet stays on the road.
And Labour has "its best conference in years" and Corbyn gives his "most prime ministerial speech ever". and they actually LOSE points.
The people (thank fuck) can see what full on bien pensant Britain-hating Jew-baiting socialism looks like, and it looks like Jeremy Corbyn, and they don't want it.
Tories must pray every day that Corbyn stays healthy, and in post, and likewise his lunatic cadres.
Comres has Labour 1% ahead.
Whichever way labour look at the polls there is little evidence labour received a bounce. Indeed there seems to be an upward tick for the conservatives
To be honest labour boasting a 1% lead is beyond parody
It is hardly a boast - just highlighting the lack of consistency in the polling data.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Corbyn said this week he would have let it go bust
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Corbyn said this week he would have let it go bust
Indeed he did - and there is a view on the left that RBS should have been nationalised with shareholders losing all equity.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
It is hard to imagine any way the Tories could be WORSE as a governing party: constant infighting, ministers resigning weekly, endless Brexitshambles, TMay caught fellating the Pope's favourite tapir (actually that's next week), on and on they go, like some car that keeps losing vital parts - doors, windows, engine - yet stays on the road.
And Labour has "its best conference in years" and Corbyn gives his "most prime ministerial speech ever". and they actually LOSE points.
The people (thank fuck) can see what full on bien pensant Britain-hating Jew-baiting socialism looks like, and it looks like Jeremy Corbyn, and they don't want it.
Tories must pray every day that Corbyn stays healthy, and in post, and likewise his lunatic cadres.
Comres has Labour 1% ahead.
Whichever way labour look at the polls there is little evidence labour received a bounce. Indeed there seems to be an upward tick for the conservatives
To be honest labour boasting a 1% lead is beyond parody
It is hardly a boast - just highlighting the lack of consistency in the polling data.
The recent trend has been quite good for the conservatives.
However, not much point in getting excited about them at this stage, we need to see the end of the conference season and how Brexit evolves through October
It is hard to imagine any way the Tories could be WORSE as a governing party: constant infighting, ministers resigning weekly, endless Brexitshambles, TMay caught fellating the Pope's favourite tapir (actually that's next week), on and on they go, like some car that keeps losing vital parts - doors, windows, engine - yet stays on the road.
And Labour has "its best conference in years" and Corbyn gives his "most prime ministerial speech ever". and they actually LOSE points.
The people (thank fuck) can see what full on bien pensant Britain-hating Jew-baiting socialism looks like, and it looks like Jeremy Corbyn, and they don't want it.
Tories must pray every day that Corbyn stays healthy, and in post, and likewise his lunatic cadres.
Comres has Labour 1% ahead.
Whichever way labour look at the polls there is little evidence labour received a bounce. Indeed there seems to be an upward tick for the conservatives
To be honest labour boasting a 1% lead is beyond parody
Surprising that people attribute so much weight to slight polling movements bearing in mind what happened in the 2017 election campaign.
18 months ago the idea that Corbyn's Labour could hold a position within a few points of May's Tories would have been laughed at.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Kavanaugh is 1/4 (implying 80 per cent likely) to be nominated and 12/5 not to be. The FBI won't be reading that book but the media might.
The US media and politicos have read it - and jumped to the conclusion that it is reportage rather than fiction. Trying to 'convict' someone on the basis of a novel is utterly ludicrous.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Corbyn said this week he would have let it go bust
Indeed he did - and there is a view on the left that RBS should have been nationalised with shareholders losing all equity.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Kavanaugh is 1/4 (implying 80 per cent likely) to be nominated and 12/5 not to be. The FBI won't be reading that book but the media might.
The US media and politicos have read it - and jumped to the conclusion that it is reportage rather than fiction. Trying to 'convict' someone on the basis of a novel is utterly ludicrous.
Well, a Dem senator asked Kavanaugh if he was one of the characters to which Kavanaugh said they needed to ask Mark Judge.
The instant rejoinder was that the senator would have loved to but the Republicans refused to subpoena Judge for the hearing.
This could have all been cleared up in regular order if the Republicans hadn't obstructed and misdirected. Almost like they didn't want it properly looked into.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Northern rock happened before the American crisis. Labour created the FSA who were responsible for the conduct of financial markets and institutions in the UK. The FSA failed. Labour were asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the crash. Ultimately Labour had the control over the Government economic tools and left the UK open to problems in the event of a crisis. I remember in 2006 thinking that a recession was due and we were not really prepared for it as a country. Gordon Brown of course did not see a crisis coming as he said "there would be no more boom and bust and he had abolished the economic cycle"
Whereas Labour were in control of the economy 12 years ago and were responsible for the FSA and financial institution bad governance. The Tories on the other hand will be responsible for any NO Deal economic meltdown after early next year. Labour catastrophically failed the country, the Tories may well have caused us to revisit the crisis of ten years ago. Politics does not serve the UK population well at the moment!
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pretend otherwise. Labour screwed up the economy and made a dire Government financial position worse, on purpose so they could oppose cuts the Tories had to make to manage the finances more effectively.
!
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Northern rock happened before the American crisis. Labour created the FSA who were responsible for the conduct of financial markets and institutions in the UK. The FSA failed. Labour were asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the crash. Ultimately Labour had the control over the Government economic tools and left the UK open to problems in the event of a crisis. I remember in 2006 thinking that a recession was due and we were not really prepared for it as a country. Gordon Brown of course did not see a crisis coming as he said "there would be no more boom and bust and he had abolished the economic cycle"
Whereas Labour were in control of the economy 12 years ago and were responsible for the FSA and financial institution bad governance. The Tories on the other hand will be responsible for any NO Deal economic meltdown after early next year. Labour catastrophically failed the country, the Tories may well have caused us to revisit the crisis of ten years ago. Politics does not serve the UK population well at the moment!
Brown was always stupid to have talked in terms of 'abolishing boom and bust' - but it is difficult to believe that a Tory Government would have imposed a tougher regulatory regime. McDonnell would have done so!
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Kavanaugh is 1/4 (implying 80 per cent likely) to be nominated and 12/5 not to be. The FBI won't be reading that book but the media might.
The US media and politicos have read it - and jumped to the conclusion that it is reportage rather than fiction. Trying to 'convict' someone on the basis of a novel is utterly ludicrous.
Well, a Dem senator asked Kavanaugh if he was one of the characters to which Kavanaugh said they needed to ask Mark Judge.
The instant rejoinder was that the senator would have loved to but the Republicans refused to subpoena Judge for the hearing.
This could have all been cleared up in regular order if the Republicans hadn't obstructed and misdirected. Almost like they didn't want it properly looked into.
It is still a work of fiction. Even if the character was based on Kavanaugh - it cannot be viewed as evidence of anything. Writers use names and incidents from all over the place, they invent and exaggerate. That is what fiction writing involves.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
His testimony indicated be did not have a drink problem but if it is established he did it could be a problem for him
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Osborne's policies were certainly self-defeating for Osborne - they led directly to Brexit and the end of his political career.
Though he did have the foresight to oppose Cameron's calamitous plan for a referendum, but even that could not save him.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I disagree there. The balance between Monetary and Fiscal policy was wrong and has led to continuing imbalances within the real economy and financial markets.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
His testimony indicated be did not have a drink problem but if it is established he did it could be a problem for him
Drink problems are subjective, people can have a real lack of self awareness when it comes to alcohol. They kid themselves that they don't have a problem when they do!
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I disagree there. The balance between Monetary and Fiscal policy was wrong and has led to continuing imbalances within the real economy and financial markets.
I am talking about the stimulating affects of monetary policy. If you cut interest rates from 6% to 3% (by 50%) for instance you provide a huge boost to a mortgage holders disposable income or it makes people with savings more incentive to spend rather than save. Fiscal policy on the other hand has to be financed from somewhere either more tax, which cuts disposable income or more borrowing, fiscal policy as an economic stimulus is less effective.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
Every statement he made during the hearing, and previous hearings he took part in, were made under oath. If he lied during any of them then that disqualifies him.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Kavanaugh is 1/4 (implying 80 per cent likely) to be nominated and 12/5 not to be. The FBI won't be reading that book but the media might.
The US media and politicos have read it - and jumped to the conclusion that it is reportage rather than fiction. Trying to 'convict' someone on the basis of a novel is utterly ludicrous.
Well, a Dem senator asked Kavanaugh if he was one of the characters to which Kavanaugh said they needed to ask Mark Judge.
The instant rejoinder was that the senator would have loved to but the Republicans refused to subpoena Judge for the hearing.
This could have all been cleared up in regular order if the Republicans hadn't obstructed and misdirected. Almost like they didn't want it properly looked into.
It is still a work of fiction. Even if the character was based on Kavanaugh - it cannot be viewed as evidence of anything. Writers use names and incidents from all over the place, they invent and exaggerate. That is what fiction writing involves.
I know, let's ask Judge! Clears up any confusion or ambiguity.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I disagree there. The balance between Monetary and Fiscal policy was wrong and has led to continuing imbalances within the real economy and financial markets.
Correct. Fiscal policy was too tight and monetary policy too loose. As a result levels of debt have continued to increase, growth has been held back, asset prices (especially house prices) have increased, and companies have been forced to divert cash away from productive activity into pension scheme deficits (which have been greatly increased by the low level of interest rates).
If you’re interested in finding out the truth, I don’t see why you’d limit the FBI investigation to a week, or limit the allegations that can be investigated. Glad that I don’t find myself living in America, I don’t see how I’d coexist with those Republicans.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
He never denied drinking.
You clearly don't believe him - which is your right.
However you are painting things in a very black and white way. It is possible to be a good person who occasionally had a night on the drink. It is possible to be a bad person who never drank at all. Life is lived in shades of grey.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
If you’re interested in finding out the truth, I don’t see why you’d limit the FBI investigation to a week, or limit the allegations that can be investigated. Glad that I don’t find myself living in America, I don’t see how I’d coexist with those Republicans.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I disagree there. The balance between Monetary and Fiscal policy was wrong and has led to continuing imbalances within the real economy and financial markets.
Correct. Fiscal policy was too tight and monetary policy too loose. As a result levels of debt have continued to increase, growth has been held back, asset prices (especially house prices) have increased, and companies have been forced to divert cash away from productive activity into pension scheme deficits (which have been greatly increased by the low level of interest rates).
How can fiscal policy have been too tight when the government was borrowing so much i.e. 10% of GDP in 2010!
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
You do realise that is a measure of just how fucked the economy was that we inherited from Labour? Epically fucked. And yet Corbyn wants to go bigger.....far bigger.
I agree with you that the Tories inherited a mess. It is disingenuous by Labour supporters to pr
SNIP
Labour inherited a mess from the Tories in October 1964 and March 1974. Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
Northern rock happened before the American crisis. Labour created the FSA who were responsible for the conduct of financial markets and institutions in the UK. The FSA failed. Labour were asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the crash. Ultimately Labour had the control over the Government economic tools and left the UK open to problems in the event of a crisis. I remember in 2006 thinking that a recession was due and we were not really prepared for it as a country. Gordon Brown of course did not see a crisis coming as he said "there would be no more boom and bust and he had abolished the economic cycle"
Whereas Labour were in control of the economy 12 years ago and were responsible for the FSA and financial institution bad governance. The Tories on the other hand will be responsible for any NO Deal economic meltdown after early next year. Labour catastrophically failed the country, the Tories may well have caused us to revisit the crisis of ten years ago. Politics does not serve the UK population well at the moment!
If only Labour had been warned that they were creating huge problems and dangers for our financial health.
Oh wait, they were and chose to ignore those warnings.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
Well, that target flies in the face of what the white House was saying yesterday. It's an investigation designed not to find anything.
If the FBI say that they have found evidence warranting further work by the end of the week - do you really think that would be ignored?
Looking at the details of the main allegation:
1 - The time of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 2 - The date of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 3 - The location of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 4 - The number of people said to have been present in the room during the incident has varied in various accounts presented by Dr Ford. It has settled on 3 but has included other individuals at other points.
Looking at the Ramirez allegation
1 - She has said that she is not certain that it was Kavanaugh who did what was described
I appreciate the memories - particularly surrounding traumatic moments - can be varied in terms of what elements stick. But when there is so much basic uncertainty, it is very difficult to even start looking at things with any confidence.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Until? The economy has continued growing the entire time the Tories have been in Downing Street. What level of growth do you think would have been needed to eliminate Labour's deficit without austerity and so not borrow anything?
It is not obvious that the Deficit had to be eliminated at all - few economists have advocated that. It could not continue at circa 10% of GDP , but the question is whether less austerity might have reduced it to a much more manageable level more quickly. Keynesians argue that Osborne's policies were counterproductive or self defeating.
Monetary policy more than counter acts a tight fiscal policy. I think the Coalition did the right thing with regard to the economy. I don't think going on a spending binge would have helped the economy, just think of Denis Healey and the IMF in the late 1970s.
I disagree there. The balance between Monetary and Fiscal policy was wrong and has led to continuing imbalances within the real economy and financial markets.
Correct. Fiscal policy was too tight and monetary policy too loose. As a result levels of debt have continued to increase, growth has been held back, asset prices (especially house prices) have increased, and companies have been forced to divert cash away from productive activity into pension scheme deficits (which have been greatly increased by the low level of interest rates).
How can fiscal policy have been too tight when the government was borrowing so much i.e. 10% of GDP in 2010!
Yes but the deficit was falling. Because the economy was growing. Osborne then imposed rapid fiscal contraction and growth slowed. He then wisely allowed the deficit to rise again. after which growth picked up and the deficit resumed its downward path.
The only poll tonight where all fieldwork was done post Corbyn speech has Labour take a lead??
Tonights Opinium 3% conservative lead was post Corbyn speech and the one you refer to shows labour dropping one point and the conservatives two going to UKIP
And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?
It is just nonsense. Tunnels would be better but it is just fantasy like most of Boris's ideas. What happened to the airport in the estuary of the Thames
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. QE was forcing GDP up and then the whole of the EU went and exploded. Even then there was no double dip, triple dip or slowdown. Just more Labour bullshit.
Party conference season actually feels a bit boring this year. I can’t even remember anything from the LD conference.
Well there was that talk about electing leaders who were not MPs and opening it up to pretty much anybody, but apparently the convoluted processes are such it was never something that could be approved this time around in any case. I think.
With amazing anecdotes about the hard drinking Bart O'Kavanaugh.
There is a difference between a novel and a biography...
Ah well, his contention that he was an angelic choir boy who never did anything untoward must be true then despite every classmate of him who's been interviewed recalling him as a frequent and belligerent drunk.
His drinking habits are not the subject of the investigation.
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
But if he presented himself as an angelic choir boy and he wasn't then he just lied under penalty of perjury.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
Well, that target flies in the face of what the white House was saying yesterday. It's an investigation designed not to find anything.
If the FBI say that they have found evidence warranting further work by the end of the week - do you really think that would be ignored?
Looking at the details of the main allegation:
1 - The time of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 2 - The date of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 3 - The location of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford 4 - The number of people said to have been present in the room during the incident has varied in various accounts presented by Dr Ford. It has settled on 3 but has included other individuals at other points.
Looking at the Ramirez allegation
1 - She has said that she is not certain that it was Kavanaugh who did what was described
I appreciate the memories - particularly surrounding traumatic moments - can be varied in terms of what elements stick. But when there is so much basic uncertainty, it is very difficult to even start looking at things with any confidence.
It’s even more difficult whe you’re not allowed to do so.
But we were talking about his drinking... From the NBC link: Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.
If you’re interested in finding out the truth, I don’t see why you’d limit the FBI investigation to a week, or limit the allegations that can be investigated. Glad that I don’t find myself living in America, I don’t see how I’d coexist with those Republicans.
I assume the defence would be that if the investigation cannot turn up even the beginnings of some wrongdoing in a week, then it is not worthwhile to delay matters further, but I'd have presumed from the start the purpose was to demonstrate some time had been spent on it at least without jeopardising the outcome.
It's probably just my cynicism, but I cannot see comments from standing up to oppressors from politicians without thinking of Jim Hacker talking about standing up for the weak against the strong...but not the too strong.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. QE was forcing GDP up and then the whole of the EU went and exploded. Even then there was no double dip, triple dip or slowdown. Just more Labour bullshit.
I keep reading about Labour and profligate spending and debt.
Yet its the Tories who have borrowed Eight Hundred Billion Pounds in 8 years AND had to slash front line services...
So what would you have done, cut more or borrowed more?
Cut more, borrowed more or expanded the economy? Funny how growth gets forgotten.
Growth has happened though. Eliminating Labour's deficit on day one was never an option.
The economy was recovering from the global financial crisis in 2010 until Osborne became Chancellor (insert Ballsian flatlining hand gesture here).
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. QE was forcing GDP up and then the whole of the EU went and exploded. Even then there was no double dip, triple dip or slowdown. Just more Labour bullshit.
And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?
Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.
What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?
I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.
If you’re interested in finding out the truth, I don’t see why you’d limit the FBI investigation to a week, or limit the allegations that can be investigated. Glad that I don’t find myself living in America, I don’t see how I’d coexist with those Republicans.
I assume the defence would be that if the investigation cannot turn up even the beginnings of some wrongdoing in a week, then it is not worthwhile to delay matters further, but I'd have presumed from the start the purpose was to demonstrate some time had been spent on it at least without jeopardising the outcome.
The Dems needed to blunt the attack that they were delaying in order to keep things going until after the mid terms
Flake gave the Republicans cover to the attack that they were blocking an investigation
The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days. 7 days for a limited scope investigation (given the resources available to the FBI) can make a decent start to establish some basics.
If they find something, they will report it and Kavanaugh is finished.
If they don't, the press won't stop digging. But if they haven't found anything concrete by now and the FBI can't find anything, perhaps, just perhaps, there was nothing to find in the first place.
Which is not to say that Dr Ford was lying - but just that it might have been a case of mistaken identity (which would not be the first time in legal history that this has happened)
I don't know what happened. None of us do. But I have to put my faith in the presumption of innocence. I can see no other just way of proceeding.
SeanT, you might like to know Michael Wignall has acquired the Angel Inn at Hetton, in the North Yorks Dales. I gather he is running it as is until the New Year, then closing for maybe a couple of months to fit it out. I shall be making a trip up there for sure.
Well they are looking into it now. And the FBI could have started that work - maintaining anonymity - if it had not been sat on by Dems....
Your saying Feinstein should have ignored Dr Ford’s request not to release her story ?
A hard decision to make. But if it was the only thing that would prevent such a person from taking up such an extremely powerful office which will have influence for many decades, perhaps there is a case that the answer is yes, despite the personal cost?
Well they are looking into it now. And the FBI could have started that work - maintaining anonymity - if it had not been sat on by Dems....
Your saying Feinstein should have ignored Dr Ford’s request not to release her story ?
A hard decision to make. But if it was the only thing that would prevent such a person from taking up such an extremely powerful office which will have influence for many decades, perhaps there is a case that the answer is yes, despite the personal cost?
And an extremely easy decision to extend the confirmation process.
And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?
Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.
What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?
I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.
Which cost around £2.5bn. Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.
Why is international infrastructure a folly? It's hardly an unnecessary bridge across the Thames in central London.
People lose all perspective just because it has Boris's name attached. Boris Island would have been an inspired airport. And you could have built a new city on the site of Heathrow, a la Canary Wharf.
If you’re interested in finding out the truth, I don’t see why you’d limit the FBI investigation to a week, or limit the allegations that can be investigated. Glad that I don’t find myself living in America, I don’t see how I’d coexist with those Republicans.
I assume the defence would be that if the investigation cannot turn up even the beginnings of some wrongdoing in a week, then it is not worthwhile to delay matters further, but I'd have presumed from the start the purpose was to demonstrate some time had been spent on it at least without jeopardising the outcome.
The Dems needed to blunt the attack that they were delaying in order to keep things going until after the mid terms
Flake gave the Republicans cover to the attack that they were blocking an investigation
The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days. 7 days for a limited scope investigation (given the resources available to the FBI) can make a decent start to establish some basics.
If you’re looking at the Clarence Thomas confirmation as a model process then I think we have little to talk about.
And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?
It is just nonsense. Tunnels would be better but it is just fantasy like most of Boris's ideas. What happened to the airport in the estuary of the Thames
The airport in the estuary wasn't Boris's to authorise but would have been a damn good idea.
We're still messing around with the third runway when we could be proceeding to build a four-runway airport. The Canary Wharf-style potential of the land where Heathrow is, would be truly immense too.
Which cost around £2.5bn. Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.
Why is international infrastructure a folly? It's hardly an unnecessary bridge across the Thames in central London...
It isn’t; a bridge across the Channel (for instance) is. Infrastructure spending is a matter of choices, and Johnson has hardly displayed any great ability to make them.
If you’ve got a few tens of billions to throw around, then build the Dogger Wind Farm along with the North Sea interconnects. Those might actually show an economic return.
Well they are looking into it now. And the FBI could have started that work - maintaining anonymity - if it had not been sat on by Dems....
Your saying Feinstein should have ignored Dr Ford’s request not to release her story ?
A hard decision to make. But if it was the only thing that would prevent such a person from taking up such an extremely powerful office which will have influence for many decades, perhaps there is a case that the answer is yes, despite the personal cost?
And an extremely easy decision to extend the confirmation process.
The haste is hard to defend, even if there are also potential political upsides for some in delay. It's not like the process needs to be quick, it would seem.
Comments
However, if Brexit is NO DEAL we will be back to square one, an utter economic mess. Plus you will probably get a Corbyn government. Maybe there is some poetic justice in watching your wealth consumed by the state, rather like the decent jobs destroyed in the UK from Brexit. In your mentality it does not matter if it happens to someone else but as soon as Corbyn threatens people like you, we all know about!
To be honest labour boasting a 1% lead is beyond parody
Most academic economists appear to take the view that the 2007/2008 crash was essentially a crisis in the financial/banking markets - originally in the US - which only later became an economic crisis. It was the collapse in Tax Revenues from the financial sector which caused the Budget Deficit to spiral - rather than the level of public spending per se.Cameron & Osborne had also committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans.Bailing out RBS cost £45 billion alone - some Tories would have let it go bust.
However, not much point in getting excited about them at this stage, we need to see the end of the conference season and how Brexit evolves through October
18 months ago the idea that Corbyn's Labour could hold a position within a few points of May's Tories would have been laughed at.
The instant rejoinder was that the senator would have loved to but the Republicans refused to subpoena Judge for the hearing.
This could have all been cleared up in regular order if the Republicans hadn't obstructed and misdirected. Almost like they didn't want it properly looked into.
Whereas Labour were in control of the economy 12 years ago and were responsible for the FSA and financial institution bad governance. The Tories on the other hand will be responsible for any NO Deal economic meltdown after early next year. Labour catastrophically failed the country, the Tories may well have caused us to revisit the crisis of ten years ago. Politics does not serve the UK population well at the moment!
He may well have been a typical teenager finding their way with alcohol and getting it wrong (possibly frequently)
But that does not mean that he sexually assaulted anyone.
Though he did have the foresight to oppose Cameron's calamitous plan for a referendum, but even that could not save him.
He'd been a criminal liar.
Rather disqualifying him from the whole SCOTUS thing. And his current for life appointment.
Every statement he made during the hearing, and previous hearings he took part in, were made under oath. If he lied during any of them then that disqualifies him.
You clearly don't believe him - which is your right.
However you are painting things in a very black and white way. It is possible to be a good person who occasionally had a night on the drink. It is possible to be a bad person who never drank at all. Life is lived in shades of grey.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
Huge.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061
But, whatever.
Boris is crackers
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/the-impunity-of-brett-kavanaughs-binge-drinking/571435/
Shagger vs Supernan.
Looking at the details of the main allegation:
1 - The time of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford
2 - The date of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford
3 - The location of the incident cannot be confirmed by Dr Ford
4 - The number of people said to have been present in the room during the incident has varied in various accounts presented by Dr Ford. It has settled on 3 but has included other individuals at other points.
Looking at the Ramirez allegation
1 - She has said that she is not certain that it was Kavanaugh who did what was described
I appreciate the memories - particularly surrounding traumatic moments - can be varied in terms of what elements stick. But when there is so much basic uncertainty, it is very difficult to even start looking at things with any confidence.
Wasn’t he supposed to resign? Yeah I can’t remember that happening....
Have a restful evening everyone
Good night
But it has been pretty dull so far.
From the NBC link:
Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.
It's probably just my cynicism, but I cannot see comments from standing up to oppressors from politicians without thinking of Jim Hacker talking about standing up for the weak against the strong...but not the too strong.
Neither side has acted with integrity over this.
Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/kavanaugh-ford-hearings-everyone-lost-andrew-sullivan.html
I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.
Flake gave the Republicans cover to the attack that they were blocking an investigation
The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days. 7 days for a limited scope investigation (given the resources available to the FBI) can make a decent start to establish some basics.
If they find something, they will report it and Kavanaugh is finished.
If they don't, the press won't stop digging. But if they haven't found anything concrete by now and the FBI can't find anything, perhaps, just perhaps, there was nothing to find in the first place.
Which is not to say that Dr Ford was lying - but just that it might have been a case of mistaken identity (which would not be the first time in legal history that this has happened)
I don't know what happened. None of us do. But I have to put my faith in the presumption of innocence. I can see no other just way of proceeding.
Someone also has to answer for how the story did get released. It was only known to Dems and Dr Ford's lawyers.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/29/elon-musk-tesla-40m-sec-case-tweets
Perhaps it will also link to fantasy island
People lose all perspective just because it has Boris's name attached. Boris Island would have been an inspired airport. And you could have built a new city on the site of Heathrow, a la Canary Wharf.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
2h2 hours ago
Germany, Emnid poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 17% (+1)
SPD-S&D: 16% (-1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 15% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11%
FDP-ALDE: 10% (+1)"
We're still messing around with the third runway when we could be proceeding to build a four-runway airport. The Canary Wharf-style potential of the land where Heathrow is, would be truly immense too.
The woman identified him immediately from photographs as Anatoliy Chepiga, a decorated "Hero of Russia".
Her assertion supports research by the Bellingcat online investigations team, which also identified Col Chepiga as one of the Salisbury suspects.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45694123
Infrastructure spending is a matter of choices, and Johnson has hardly displayed any great ability to make them.
If you’ve got a few tens of billions to throw around, then build the Dogger Wind Farm along with the North Sea interconnects. Those might actually show an economic return.