Daily Mail

GloryHunter07 · 29th May 2008, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

When I started voting (1971) there was a clear division between left and right (Labour and Tory), and it produced major swings in policies as each party regained the initiative.

Now, all parties appear so centre to me, afraid to run with difficult or controversial issues, there's so little to choose between them. You then have to go with their manifesto promises and you still get shat on, like with this current lot.

All i have really known is both parties fighting it out for the centre ground, bit too young to know otherwise but my parents concur with you.

Dont get me started on labours manifesto promise of no top up fees.....

iguanamanc · 29th May 2008, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryHunter07

All i have really known is both parties fighting it out for the centre ground, bit too young to know otherwise but my parents concur with you.

Dont get me started on labours manifesto promise of no top up fees.....

Yes, that is how it goes

And it's the broken promises that have a direct impact on you or your family that often moulds the way you think about politicians and their manifestos.

And the divergence of opinion in this thread reflects how different individuals have been shafted by different political parties at different times. Some of us have been shafted by the tories, others by labour and some by both.

Sadly, the older you get, the more you get used to it. Or possibly more bitter and twisted.

p_ps_sock · 30th May 2008, 07:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Yes, that is how it goes

And it's the broken promises that have a direct impact on you or your family that often moulds the way you think about politicians and their manifestos.

And the divergence of opinion in this thread reflects how different individuals have been shafted by different political parties at different times. Some of us have been shafted by the tories, others by labour and some by both.

Sadly, the older you get, the more you get used to it. Or possibly more bitter and twisted.

thats probably the best post in the whole thread, sums it all up nicely. I'm still far more likely to trust labour than the conservatives but that doesn't mean I can't see the mistakes they've made.

tbh I've learned quite a bit from this so thanks iguanamanc.

GloryHunter07 · 30th May 2008, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Yes, that is how it goes

And it's the broken promises that have a direct impact on you or your family that often moulds the way you think about politicians and their manifestos.

And the divergence of opinion in this thread reflects how different individuals have been shafted by different political parties at different times. Some of us have been shafted by the tories, others by labour and some by both.

Sadly, the older you get, the more you get used to it. Or possibly more bitter and twisted.

To be honest my policy is not get too wound up by it, its not worth it in the end... Then again im still young so plenty of time to get bitter and twisted..

iguanamanc · 31st May 2008, 08:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

I'm not seeing my cost of living rise dramatically. In fact, it's falling - food's getting cheaper, because I'm changing what and where I eat. I live in London.

The average family’s weekly shopping bill has risen to £136, according to research

The leap of nearly six per cent since the start of the year has added an estimated £500 million to the nation’s monthly groceries bill, as the cost of living continues to stretch already strained household finances.

A basket of typical weekly shopping now costs £7.48 more than in January, up 5.8 per cent — nearly double the official rate of inflation.

Analysts offered little prospect of future price cuts, predicting bills would continue to rise for at least the rest of the year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne....html#continue

and wider afield.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...89059920080530

or perhaps you'll believe the World Bank.........

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/N...note_apr08.pdf

Younited.7 · 3rd June 2008, 12:41

What is wrong with New Labour?

Starting off with strong socialist connections and now ending up like every bastardising government that has ever existed, over-taxing has done nothing for the people of this country and seems to be the foundation of New Labours belief system. This is not Marxist, it is dilluted Thatcherism. I just cannot agree with excessively subsidising other areas of the government with money from inelastic markets such as petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc. All should pay their share, and more, but it should not be burdened on drivers, smokers and drinkers to prop up the unresourceful bastards of this government. The opposite of the original governments objectives; the poorer man loses out because his vices are deemed uneconomical, whereas just about everybody else can still afford to pay the duty, levy or tax and continues in the same vain as before, albeit slightly out of pocket. Instead of shortening the poverty gap, it is being widened and while the state school systems continue to be overburdened because of the free movement of labour and other immigration issues that we have. While these things persist; we cannot properly educate or even attempt to distribute the wealth of this nation evenly. More schools are needed, better resouces for familes etc. It will not be done overnight, free courses and EMA do not solve fuck all, short term solutions to long term problems is how Labour have sustained any credibilty, it is a complete falsehood. The Tories need to lay out and stick with long term objectives otherwise we will stay stuck in this vicious cycle.

What the Tories do have is ideas, whether they are as successful in practice as in theory we are yet to see. Competition is what has been lacking for a while now, thank God for the opposition parties, if only they had come sooner instead of rising out of the dust of Labours many failures.

spinoza · 4th June 2008, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Not strictly true. The Bank of England's monetary policy is linked to the Government inflation target, currently 2%. If this value deviates by more than 1%, the Governor of the BOE must write an open letter to the Chancellor explaining why. It is in the BOE's interest not to rock the boat too much. Concerns over inflation has been cited as the main reason why interest rates remain high compared with the US and others. The Government reserved the right to step in on interest rates in extreme circumstances. In other words, we'll let you be seen to be independent, but watch your step or else.

How in the world do you connect aiming for a target with not being independent? The target can be and has been changed, but only with respect to how it's calculated, not its level. In any case it's not desirable to have the central bank set its target from a democracy perspective, because central bankers are unelected (although it is extremely desirable from a game theory perspective).

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Many home owners receive a double whammy - mortgage rates stay higher than they need to be and their wage negotiations are usually centred on the Consumer Prices Index CPI, which deliberately excludes mortgage repayments. The CPI is rising because of recent increases in e.g. fuel and food import prices, so it is a vicious circle.

Wage agreements are still mostly set using RPI

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

The Labour Government changed the main inflation indicator from the Retail Price Index RPI to the CPI in 2003. Traditionally the RPI has always been significantly higher than the CPI and cynics at the time said that it was a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, and keep wage settlements artificially low.

Yes, but RPI is higher because it's calculated using average mean (-ish) while CPI is calculated using geometric mean. CPI therefore takes some account of product substitution within the goods bucket (although it's so far from being perfect it makes no difference practically), and therefore there's a reasonably good case for it to be more appropriate.

In any case you should check your facts. The previous Bank target was set using RPIX, RPI excluding mortgage payments...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

I gave up at this point. So your cost of living is falling and food's getting cheaper? Well we'd all better move to London then.

What's reality like on Planet Spinoza?

Pretty good, partly because I'm not over indebted and I've changed some things to reduce my cost of living. I strongly recommend everyone do the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickm

In his first term he was attacked for running big surpluses at a time when he was keeping his promise to keep govt spending to previous Tory levels. The people attacking him tended to be those on the left. But running surpluses in a growing economy is actually a good thing to do.

The situation now is that he opened the spending floodgates after that, but too much at the wrong time. The result is the economy has been in the red despite having economic growth, and as the economy slows/goes into recession, he'll have to either borrow a *lot* more, or make cuts. Bascially cutting in a recession is a bad thing to do, so it looks like we're going deeper into the red.

Those with long memories will recall this is traditionally how Labour governments end: ballooning debts ending with a run on the pound.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

OK, Let's try to run through the point Topper and I are trying to make.

1. Blair and Brown have been a double act since 1997. Arguably these have been the two most powerful men in the UK, certainly in England during that period, of those people put into Government by the general electorate.

2. During Brown's period of Chancellorship, the economy has generally been doing well in the overall sense. Brown has been telling us for those ten years or so that it is down to his stewardship. Prudent and cautious are words that he likes to be associated with. He has taken credit for this on every occasion possible, and this is exemplified in every one of his Budget speeches and the last two party manifestos.

3. Hopefully, these two positions in Government are not based on whether two individuals are lucky or unlucky at any moment in time. It is based on their competence and ability to deal with situations as they arise.

4. Just as Brown has taken the credit for 10 years of a stable economy, he suddenly can't turn around now and claim that he is unlucky that there will be a downturn - he has to shoulder a large part of the responsibility as previous Chancellor.

5. Browns current predicament is therefore nothing to do with being lucky or unlucky, he is ultimately responsible for the economy beforehand. This was the point I was trying to make in post 136.

6. Blair either saw this coming or decided enough was enough, I'll make some money to stash into my back pocket or more likely Cherie's clutchbag. In other words he'll prepare himself for the lecture circuit, autobiograpy, company directorship etc. "retirement package".

7. As a result of this timing, whether fortuitous or not, he has completely shafted Brown as PM, Brown has shafted Darling as Chancellor and the New Labour ranks are scrambling about trying to save their own backsides.

8. Unless there is an astonishing turn round, Brown will be out on his ear before or after the next General Election. And New Labour will be replaced by God knows what.

If you believed Brown when he took the credit for the economy, then you're entitled to rage at him now when he disavows responsibility. If you didn't believe him then, why should you believe him now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

The average family’s weekly shopping bill has risen to £136, according to research

The leap of nearly six per cent since the start of the year has added an estimated £500 million to the nation’s monthly groceries bill, as the cost of living continues to stretch already strained household finances.

A basket of typical weekly shopping now costs £7.48 more than in January, up 5.8 per cent — nearly double the official rate of inflation.

Analysts offered little prospect of future price cuts, predicting bills would continue to rise for at least the rest of the year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne....html#continue

and wider afield.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...89059920080530

or perhaps you'll believe the World Bank.........

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/N...note_apr08.pdf

Those calculations don't take into account substitution effects, which means they only tell half the story.

But I'm not saying that the average family's shopping bill hasn't risen - of course it has. Mine though, has actually fallen. You did ask.

MehdiMahdavikia · 5th June 2008, 17:41

The economy originally turned around under Kenneth Clarke not Brown so Brown although can take credit for his period of being Chancellor he can't take credit for the original turn around just like he can't be fully blamed for the downturn. I don't see how stuff like rising oil prices, world food shortages and Sub-prime mortgages can be held against him.

iguanamanc · 5th June 2008, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MehdiMahdavikia

The economy originally turned around under Kenneth Clarke not Brown so Brown although can take credit for his period of being Chancellor he can't take credit for the original turn around just like he can't be fully blamed for the downturn. I don't see how stuff like rising oil prices, world food shortages and Sub-prime mortgages can be held against him.

No problem then, vote labour again.

The OECD report has singled out the UK Government, and therefore Brown at its helm, for the economy being in the guano, see today's news e.g.;

"The OECD has warned that the UK is in big trouble. It reckons the Bank of England needs to cut interest rates to 4.25%, but says it must hold off until next year because of inflation risks. The Bank will be announcing its decision on interest rates later today, and is widely expected to keep them on hold at 5%.
Why the government should be spending more right now but can't

It also says that the Government probably shouldn’t be pulling in the reins in terms of public spending. The idea is that when times get hard, the Government spends a bit more to keep the economy ticking over until the private sector gets back on its feet.

But of course, this isn’t really possible, because the Government has bled the country dry during the good times. Gordon Brown has taken money that would once have gone into private sector pensions (which would have enabled more of our citizens to take care of themselves in the future, rather than relying on the state), borrowed a whole load more, and then sprayed it all over the public sector to almost no apparent effect at all (if you still have trouble believing this, read Squandered by David Craig - do remember to take your blood pressure pills first though).

As the OECD puts it, a little less bluntly: “The Government’s options have been limited by excessively loose fiscal policy in past years when economic growth was strong.”

It’s unusually tough talking from this type of body. Of course, the Treasury said the OECD was wrong. “The UK economy remains strong, and is well-placed to get through these global problems.” All I can say is, it’s little wonder that British consumer confidence is at a record-low ebb."

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/48262/...recession.html

spinoza · 5th June 2008, 18:43

It's all relative. To put it into perspective, the UK budget deficit is around 3.4% of GDP, the current account deficit is around 5.6% of GDP, national debt is 44% of GDP. That's pretty good for Europe. It raises a couple of alarm bells, but the corrective mechanisms are already beginning to work (sterling is being caned in the FX markets, for example). Everyone thinks it's going to be a "bad" recession, but "bad" is going to be relatively mild compared to the early 90s.

iguanamanc · 5th June 2008, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

It's all relative. To put it into perspective, the UK budget deficit is around 3.4% of GDP, the current account deficit is around 5.6% of GDP, national debt is 44% of GDP. That's pretty good for Europe. It raises a couple of alarm bells, but the corrective mechanisms are already beginning to work (sterling is being caned in the FX markets, for example). Everyone thinks it's going to be a "bad" recession, but "bad" is going to be relatively mild compared to the early 90s.

Were you in the UK then?

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Were you in the UK then?

Of course not. I hope you're not going to trot out that silly rubbish about how you need to experience something to know what it's like. I'm not talking about how people feel - why would I know or care anything about that? I'm talking about the relative severity of recession, something which is easily analysed by looking at some numbers.

nickm · 6th June 2008, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

It's all relative. To put it into perspective, the UK budget deficit is around 3.4% of GDP, the current account deficit is around 5.6% of GDP, national debt is 44% of GDP. That's pretty good for Europe. It raises a couple of alarm bells, but the corrective mechanisms are already beginning to work (sterling is being caned in the FX markets, for example). Everyone thinks it's going to be a "bad" recession, but "bad" is going to be relatively mild compared to the early 90s.

Depends on how you measure the numbers. There's so much 'off balance sheet accounting' with the likes of PFI that I am not sure anyone can be confident what the true figures are.

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickm

Depends on how you measure the numbers. There's so much 'off balance sheet accounting' with the likes of PFI that I am not sure anyone can be confident what the true figures are.

That's a pretty good challenge. You're right that no one can be confident what the true figures are.

I took a stab at it not too long ago though, and I reckon that adding back all the things that weren't truly shifted off the government balance sheet would raise national debt up to 55% of GDP at most (not including Northern Rock). I think that's accurate to the nearest 5% (allowing for some Northern Rock), which means that at worst the debt situation is poor but not dire. The debt service burden is still calculated off 44% of GDP, unless things go horribly wrong (which they might).

GloryHunter07 · 6th June 2008, 10:44

Just to backtrack slightly on the independence or otherwise of the Bank of England MPC, doesnt the Chancellor have the final say on who the members are?

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryHunter07

Just to backtrack slightly on the independence or otherwise of the Bank of England MPC, doesnt the Chancellor have the final say on who the members are?

4 members. The rest are appointed by "the Crown", which in practice means that they are selected by the government, quizzed by Parliament, and then voted on.

GloryHunter07 · 6th June 2008, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

4 members. The rest are appointed by "the Crown", which in practice means that they are selected by the government, quizzed by Parliament, and then voted on.

Ok cool, so realistically the government dont have that much influence on the voting month to month.

Also, if they are solely focused on managing inflation why were rates cut a few months back to ease liquidity in the markets? Special scenario?

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryHunter07

Ok cool, so realistically the government dont have that much influence on the voting month to month.

No they don't. The government doesn't have much influence even in the medium term. In general, I don't think MPC members are doing it for anything more than a sense of civic duty, a chance to see whether the theories work in practice, and the prestige that comes with it. I suspect the job doesn't pay that much compared to other opportunities available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryHunter07

Also, if they are solely focused on managing inflation why were rates cut a few months back to ease liquidity in the markets? Special scenario?

A few months back inflation was probably less of an issue. Oil was trading around $80-$90 and food inflation wasn't showing up in shopping yet. Wage settlements were pretty subdued. So there was an economic case to cut rates, but it was given added weight by the fact that money markets were gummed up.

It was a fine line in any case - the MPC's models showed inflation dropping back to around 2% in 2 years while rising to just below 3% in the short term. Then they cut rates and the oil price shot up. The revised predictions are likely to show the short term spike now goes above 3% and still falling back to a more acceptable level in 2 years. Don't forget that they set policy with a 18-24 month lag.

topper · 6th June 2008, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Were you in the UK then?

he know fuck all and he's a know all ffs and thats according to him so being in the UK or not doesn't matter

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

he know fuck all and he's a know all ffs and thats according to him so being in the UK or not doesn't matter

From 1990-1993 GDP growth was essentially 0%. In that time average earnings rose 4% plus per annum, a real increase of 2%. That is remembered as "bad". Household debt levels were reasonably low compared to today.

In the coming / current downturn, GDP growth may not dip below 0%, i.e. the economy will still grow. Currently, average earnings are rising around the same rate per annum, but inflation is now around 4% (using RPI) so the real increase is 0%. However the debt level is a lot higher, and inflation reduces the real impact of debt payments by more year on year, chipping away at the problem.

Working out the net impact is a bit tricky, but there's a good chance the consumer comes out slightly ahead in real terms. The good thing is that the more indebted consumers get their debt inflated away faster. Therefore the coming downturn (may not technically be a recession) may feel "bad", but is likely to be relatively quick and mild compared to 1990-1993.

Of course, there are 4-5 other major reasons, but that was the easiest to show using publicly available statistics.

EDIT: oh yeah, the missing piece is that the debt level is a lot higher but the debt service burdens are a lot lower, and can be inflated away relatively quickly.

topper · 6th June 2008, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

From 1990-1993 GDP growth was essentially 0%. In that time average earnings rose 4% plus per annum, a real increase of 2%. That is remembered as "bad". Household debt levels were reasonably low compared to today.

In the coming / current downturn, GDP growth may not dip below 0%, i.e. the economy will still grow. Currently, average earnings are rising around the same rate per annum, but inflation is now around 4% (using RPI) so the real increase is 0%. However the debt level is a lot higher, and inflation reduces the real impact of debt payments by more year on year, chipping away at the problem.

Working out the net impact is a bit tricky, but there's a good chance the consumer comes out slightly ahead in real terms. The good thing is that the more indebted consumers get their debt inflated away faster. Therefore the coming downturn (may not technically be a recession) may feel "bad", but is likely to be relatively quick and mild compared to 1990-1993.

Of course, there are 4-5 other major reasons, but that was the easiest to show using publicly available statistics.

EDIT: oh yeah, the missing piece is that the debt level is a lot higher but the debt service burdens are a lot lower, and can be inflated away relatively quickly.

exactly

as I said, amazingly, you do know fuck all

spinoza · 6th June 2008, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

exactly

as I said, amazingly, you do know fuck all

You provide some evidence then. All you have are newspaper reports and your own prejudices. Must be nice living in fuckwitsville.

topper · 6th June 2008, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

You provide some evidence then. All you have are newspaper reports and your own prejudices. Must be nice living in fuckwitsville.

as always I genuflect to your superior knowledge -

you do know fuck all because fuckwitsville is beautiful and sunny too

iguanamanc · 6th June 2008, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Of course not. I hope you're not going to trot out that silly rubbish about how you need to experience something to know what it's like. I'm not talking about how people feel - why would I know or care anything about that? I'm talking about the relative severity of recession, something which is easily analysed by looking at some numbers.

Absolutely spot on - that one sentence sums you up in a nutshell.

iguanamanc · 6th June 2008, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Those calculations don't take into account substitution effects, which means they only tell half the story.

But I'm not saying that the average family's shopping bill hasn't risen - of course it has. Mine though, has actually fallen. You did ask.

I was asking p_ps actually, but I welcome your input.

I've never thought that you represent the average family - or anything else average for that matter. Nonetheless, I'm intrigued how in the face of rising prices in basic foodstocks such as cereal, rice, potatoes, other vegetables, meat etc. you have achieved this. I take it we're not talking about down-grading from Beluga and Cristal for Savruga and Dom Pom?

Will you enlighten us, because - and to be serious - many of us would welcome sensible advice?

topper · 7th June 2008, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Absolutely spot on - that one sentence sums you up in a nutshell.

topper · 7th June 2008, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

I was asking p_ps actually, but I welcome your input.

I've never thought that you represent the average family - or anything else average for that matter. Nonetheless, I'm intrigued how in the face of rising prices in basic foodstocks such as cereal, rice, potatoes, other vegetables, meat etc. you have achieved this. I take it we're not talking about down-grading from Beluga and Cristal for Savruga and Dom Pom?

Will you enlighten us, because - and to be serious - many of us would welcome sensible advice?

I await with bated breath the response

iguanamanc · 7th June 2008, 11:08

Abu Hamza's Muslim lawyer earns £1m a year in legal aid from representing terror suspects

By Stephen Wright
Last updated at 12:38 AM on 07th June 2008

A lawyer who represents high-profile terror suspects was paid nearly £1million in legal aid in just 12 months.

Official figures show that taxpayers have handed Mudassar Arani's firm £3.5million to defend extremist suspects over recent years.

The Ugandan-born solicitor tells Muslims never to talk to police and warns that those who speak out against Islamic terrorists 'are playing into the hands of the Government'.

Her clients include hate cleric Abu Hamza, dirty bomb plotter Dhiren Barot and three of the 21/7 attackers.

Miss Arani, 44, is being investigated by Scotland Yard after she was accused in court of trying to bribe another defendant in the 21/7 trial to change his alibi.

According to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, her payments from the Legal Services Commission have almost quadrupled over the past seven years.

In 2001/2002, Arani and Co was paid £230,314 in legal aid, but in the past year it was paid £890,922.

Miss Arani, whose firm is based in Southall, West London, drives a Mercedes and lives in a smart semi-detached home.

The mother-of-two once boasted in a magazine that those accused of terrorism come to her first.

She also bragged in 2004: 'I have won every case and I hope it stays that way.'

Her firm has printed leaflets urging those contacted by anti-terror police to remain silent. It reads: 'Do not talk to them regarding any matter.'

In contrast, the Muslim Council of Britain calls for 'the fullest co-operation' with police.

In a recent lecture, Miss Arani said: 'The rule of thumb in a terrorist case is: Do not answer any questions put to you.

Full story....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-suspects.html

Wibble · 7th June 2008, 11:29

Rabble rousing with racial/religious/ethnic undertones. About par for The Mail.

It sounds like they regret the rule of law exists. For non-whiten middle class Tory voters at least.

Spoony Youngblood · 7th June 2008, 11:30

Muslims.

topper · 7th June 2008, 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

Rabble rousing with racial/religious/ethnic undertones. About par for The Mail.

It sounds like they regret the rule of law exists. For non-whiten middle class Tory voters at least.

you never say what crap er sorry journal you read Wibble ? let us in on your dark secret

Wibble · 7th June 2008, 11:52

When in the UK I tend to read the Guardian and the Times but find the bias of both a bit irritating. Here I read The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian which are both similarly biased.

In general I find newspapers worse and worse at reporting the news in an unbiased way.

iguanamanc · 7th June 2008, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

When in the UK I tend to read the Guardian and the Times but find the bias of both a bit irritating. Here I read The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian which are both similarly biased.

In general I find newspapers worse and worse at reporting the news in an unbiased way.

I know what you are saying, Wibble, but to report news in a cold, unemotional and neutral way is rather boring.........a bit like the BBC of the 60s and 70s.

I prefer the Telegraph and the Times, however I sometimes read the Daily Mail which I have to agree is a right-wing rag, but it seems to stir up some vitriolic debate with posters.

I find myself reading more news online. And ironically, the one left-wing paper - the Morning Star, which I used to read at University and which is affiliated to the Communist party - is the only e-newspaper that you cannot access directly. You can only read it by subscription.......

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...hp/ex/examples

Wonder if Comrade Spoonov has one?

iguanamanc · 7th June 2008, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoonov

Muslims.

Lawyers.

topper · 7th June 2008, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

When in the UK I tend to read the Guardian and the Times but find the bias of both a bit irritating. Here I read The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian which are both similarly biased.

In general I find newspapers worse and worse at reporting the news in an unbiased way.

but you keep buying them because their smaller bias tends to follow along with your littler bias

Fitzjames · 7th June 2008, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Yes, that is how it goes

And it's the broken promises that have a direct impact on you or your family that often moulds the way you think about politicians and their manifestos.

And the divergence of opinion in this thread reflects how different individuals have been shafted by different political parties at different times. Some of us have been shafted by the tories, others by labour and some by both.

Sadly, the older you get, the more you get used to it. Or possibly more bitter and twisted.

Yes I agree. But realistically a voter can only get shafted by his own side. Particuarly true when the middle ground and floating voters are the battleground.
All politics (all VOTING) is a mixture of Idealism and Self Interest.
For example you might want the best education system in the world but if you dont actually have any children you may not think it a priority.
You may believe in NHS but faced with enduring pain being on a waiting list for surgery, you might pay to jump the queue.

Although I live in "Northern Ireland" in an English context I would be mainstream Labour voter. I have seen the nonsense of the "loony left" AND the "betrayal" of New Labour.
But thats how I expect it. Labour expects the vote of Guardian reading social workers, nurses, hospital cleaners, desk jockeys in the Dept of Environment whatever. It does not have to fight for that vote......so periodically it can sell them out......and rally the core vote when an election looms.

Similary the Tories can rely on farmers, merchant bankers (thats cockney rhyming slang I think), small business owners, retired army officer types and Daily Telegraph readers. So occasionally they can afford to shaft them also.

For example New Labour can be tough on immigration and still look like it cares but the new Tories have to look compassionate.
In the fight for the middle ground both sides can lose its core vote.

Thus Labour in Iraq...loses a core vote. Traditionalists will feel shafted.
Thus Tories out there hugging hoodies and praising single mums on housing estates makes their Traditionalists feel shafted.

cockneyred · 7th June 2008, 13:56

which goverment sold our gold reserves for peanuts when then price of gold is now through the roof

topper · 7th June 2008, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

I know what you are saying, Wibble, but to report news in a cold, unemotional and neutral way is rather boring.........a bit like the BBC of the 60s and 70s.

I prefer the Telegraph and the Times, however I sometimes read the Daily Mail which I have to agree is a right-wing rag, but it seems to stir up some vitriolic debate with posters.

I find myself reading more news online. And ironically, the one left-wing paper - the Morning Star, which I used to read at University and which is affiliated to the Communist party - is the only e-newspaper that you cannot access directly. You can only read it by subscription.......

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...hp/ex/examples

Wonder if Comrade Spoonov has one?

haven't bought an English newspaper for years and here in Spain I buy the local weekly English rag.

I read the journals on line in this order

The Sun - the footie and gossip colums

The Mail - Sport and the news the left leaning papers don't like printing

The Times - For a broad and in depth albeit biased news and in depth sport
but unfortunatel since Murdoch took it on its became less The Thunderer more The Aussie Whine

The Inde - Ditto

The Telegraph - Ditto but more biased

Guardian - Just to see the other side of the Mail bias

Never read the FT - this is a read for the sharks or the Daily Worker as its past its sell buy date

occasionally buy The Economist but usually get on line freebies
and often buy Time and Newsweek

Morning Star different name same crap

iguanamanc · 7th June 2008, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyred

which goverment sold our gold reserves for peanuts when then price of gold is now through the roof

Step forward............

He sold 400 tonnes of gold bullion at a 20-year low price, without consulting the Bank of England. This was in 1999-2002. He lost about 2 billion pounds against the new price of gold (as of April 2007). Much of it was snapped up in the Far East, especially China.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1654931.ece

iguanamanc · 7th June 2008, 14:20

Furthermore, it looks like Blair lied again to Parliament by claiming that the reserves were sold on the technical advice of the BoE.

7th June 2008, 11:08	#188 (permalink)
iguanamanc Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: exiled in Worcester Posts: 2,718	From todays Daily Mail Abu Hamza's Muslim lawyer earns £1m a year in legal aid from representing terror suspects By Stephen Wright Last updated at 12:38 AM on 07th June 2008 A lawyer who represents high-profile terror suspects was paid nearly £1million in legal aid in just 12 months. Official figures show that taxpayers have handed Mudassar Arani's firm £3.5million to defend extremist suspects over recent years. The Ugandan-born solicitor tells Muslims never to talk to police and warns that those who speak out against Islamic terrorists 'are playing into the hands of the Government'. Her clients include hate cleric Abu Hamza, dirty bomb plotter Dhiren Barot and three of the 21/7 attackers. Miss Arani, 44, is being investigated by Scotland Yard after she was accused in court of trying to bribe another defendant in the 21/7 trial to change his alibi. According to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, her payments from the Legal Services Commission have almost quadrupled over the past seven years. In 2001/2002, Arani and Co was paid £230,314 in legal aid, but in the past year it was paid £890,922. Miss Arani, whose firm is based in Southall, West London, drives a Mercedes and lives in a smart semi-detached home. The mother-of-two once boasted in a magazine that those accused of terrorism come to her first. She also bragged in 2004: 'I have won every case and I hope it stays that way.' Her firm has printed leaflets urging those contacted by anti-terror police to remain silent. It reads: 'Do not talk to them regarding any matter.' In contrast, the Muslim Council of Britain calls for 'the fullest co-operation' with police. In a recent lecture, Miss Arani said: 'The rule of thumb in a terrorist case is: Do not answer any questions put to you. Full story....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-suspects.html

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Daily Mail

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

3rd June 2008, 12:41	#166 (permalink)
Younited.7 united.7 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "I am a man with simple tastes - I am always satisfied by the best" Posts: 3,369	What is wrong with New Labour? Starting off with strong socialist connections and now ending up like every bastardising government that has ever existed, over-taxing has done nothing for the people of this country and seems to be the foundation of New Labours belief system. This is not Marxist, it is dilluted Thatcherism. I just cannot agree with excessively subsidising other areas of the government with money from inelastic markets such as petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc. All should pay their share, and more, but it should not be burdened on drivers, smokers and drinkers to prop up the unresourceful bastards of this government. The opposite of the original governments objectives; the poorer man loses out because his vices are deemed uneconomical, whereas just about everybody else can still afford to pay the duty, levy or tax and continues in the same vain as before, albeit slightly out of pocket. Instead of shortening the poverty gap, it is being widened and while the state school systems continue to be overburdened because of the free movement of labour and other immigration issues that we have. While these things persist; we cannot properly educate or even attempt to distribute the wealth of this nation evenly. More schools are needed, better resouces for familes etc. It will not be done overnight, free courses and EMA do not solve fuck all, short term solutions to long term problems is how Labour have sustained any credibilty, it is a complete falsehood. The Tories need to lay out and stick with long term objectives otherwise we will stay stuck in this vicious cycle. What the Tories do have is ideas, whether they are as successful in practice as in theory we are yet to see. Competition is what has been lacking for a while now, thank God for the opposition parties, if only they had come sooner instead of rising out of the dust of Labours many failures.

5th June 2008, 17:41	#168 (permalink)
MehdiMahdavikia Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Sheffield Posts: 1,344	The economy originally turned around under Kenneth Clarke not Brown so Brown although can take credit for his period of being Chancellor he can't take credit for the original turn around just like he can't be fully blamed for the downturn. I don't see how stuff like rising oil prices, world food shortages and Sub-prime mortgages can be held against him.

5th June 2008, 18:43	#170 (permalink)
spinoza Paz's ion Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Walking in a whisky wonderland. Posts: 24,186	It's all relative. To put it into perspective, the UK budget deficit is around 3.4% of GDP, the current account deficit is around 5.6% of GDP, national debt is 44% of GDP. That's pretty good for Europe. It raises a couple of alarm bells, but the corrective mechanisms are already beginning to work (sterling is being caned in the FX markets, for example). Everyone thinks it's going to be a "bad" recession, but "bad" is going to be relatively mild compared to the early 90s.

6th June 2008, 10:44	#175 (permalink)
GloryHunter07 Reserve Team Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Uncle Tom's Cabin Posts: 3,209	Just to backtrack slightly on the independence or otherwise of the Bank of England MPC, doesnt the Chancellor have the final say on who the members are?

7th June 2008, 11:29	#189 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	Rabble rousing with racial/religious/ethnic undertones. About par for The Mail. It sounds like they regret the rule of law exists. For non-whiten middle class Tory voters at least.

7th June 2008, 11:30	#190 (permalink)
Spoony Youngblood Wants to be more like Top Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: RIP Sydney Youngblood, who died in a tragic go-karting accident in 2007. RIP my cat 2001-09. iRIP Steve Cunting Jobs Posts: 42,368	Muslims.

7th June 2008, 11:52	#192 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	When in the UK I tend to read the Guardian and the Times but find the bias of both a bit irritating. Here I read The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian which are both similarly biased. In general I find newspapers worse and worse at reporting the news in an unbiased way.

7th June 2008, 13:56	#197 (permalink)
cockneyred Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: sCUNThorpe Posts: 1,418	which goverment sold our gold reserves for peanuts when then price of gold is now through the roof

7th June 2008, 14:20	#200 (permalink)
iguanamanc Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: exiled in Worcester Posts: 2,718	Furthermore, it looks like Blair lied again to Parliament by claiming that the reserves were sold on the technical advice of the BoE.